Stealth - back to RAW. PEACH

[the_redbeard]

The reading I am making flows from taking the first line of the Stealth block on PHB188 as the most important reference wording for the intent of stealth use. As the_redbeard points out, I'm not then allowing other pieces of RAW to intrude on that intent unless they contain instructive wording connecting them to the process, e.g. do this, this means, then go to, etc. Language contained in the Stealth block itself I read as instructive; and the same for jargon definitions that must unavoidably be referred to.

I'm doing this because I believe Stealth needs to either apply just to the action it is part of, or to create a condition under which actions occur, but not both. Trying to do both is a major source of contention and confusion, as well as creating contradictory readings of RAW.



You can say that, and with some justice, but take a look how an opposed check is defined in RAW (PHB25). 'Occasionally you make a check that is compared against someone else's check result. Doing this is called making an opposed check.' The context sets that in contrast to checks against static defences. My error with this ruling is to suggest it uses free actions. RAW doesn't tell you it should cost your enemies any action.

the_redbeard can you look at this too please; check PHB25? You've outlined some suggestive wording, but nothing at all that unambiguously reads 'this opposed check uses passive Perception'.

Specific overrules general.

While generally in an opposed check both sides get a roll, in the case of a stealther attempting to hide/escape notice from a perceiver, the specific rules for the perception skill apply: you need an action (either standard or minor depending on situation, page 186 and 281) to make an active check. Page 186 is clear to me that you use the passive check.

"Perception: No action required—either you notice
something or you don’t. Your DM usually uses your
passive Perception check result. If you want to use the
skill actively, you need to take a standard action"

Seems clear to me that: an active check requires a standard action.
However in the specific case of seeking a stealther, the rules on 281 are more specific to the situation and apply: minor action.

The first line of the Stealth rules block reads 'part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily'. I cannot find wording less ambiguous than that telling you that your hidden condition extends past that action.

The second line of the Success block does introduce confusion and I'm not saying it doesn't admit of another reading.

If stealth only lasted for your action, it would never have an effect on an opponent's attack. But we know from the FAQ otherwise: stealth success for a hide (ie, hidden) means you can't be seen (which should just be plain English) and requires attacks to use the Targeting What You Can't See rules.

Stealth must be able to create a condition (can't be seen) that lasts beyond your turn.

 

[clearstream]

If that's your interpretation, then that cover doesn't simply apply only on opponents' turns - it applies only in the moment the enemy is taking their shot. Unless you have an Immediate Interrupt power that lets you make a stealth check in response to their attack, I don't see how cover under this interpretation can be applied to stealth checks at all.

Yes, you hit it exactly. A riposte strike for example, could have it's attack made with CA from stealth from behind an ally.

-vk

 

[clearstream]

Specific overrules general.

PHB186 gives the general ruling for Perception, but the Stealth block gives the specific ruling that applies to performing an action stealthily.

If stealth only lasted for your action, it would never have an effect on an opponent's attack. But we know from the FAQ otherwise: stealth success for a hide (ie, hidden) means you can't be seen (which should just be plain English)

You avoid notice, unheard and hidden from view, with whatever action stealth was part of. The plain English works.

A meal is made of the FAQ, but one notices that the TWYCS langague is right there in the Stealth block itself for superior cover or total concealment, save for the picking a square. You can use that when targeting something you're alert to that moved stealthily to superior cover or total concealment.

-vk

 

[MarkB]

Yes, you hit it exactly. A riposte strike for example, could have it's attack made with CA from stealth from behind an ally.

-vk

Ooh, sneaky.

Difficult to pull off, of course. The attacker must be using a ranged attack (in order to invoke the ally-cover rules) and must nevertheless be adjacent to you (unless you have a Reach weapon - which would mean you're just gaining Combat Advantage, not Sneak Attack). So your opponent is provoking OAs from you and/or your ally in any case.

I guess Opportunity Attacks would also be another way this could trigger, but again, only in some fairly unusual circumstances.

 

[clearstream]

Ooh, sneaky.

Difficult to pull off, of course. The attacker must be using a ranged attack (in order to invoke the ally-cover rules) and must nevertheless be adjacent to you (unless you have a Reach weapon - which would mean you're just gaining Combat Advantage, not Sneak Attack). So your opponent is provoking OAs from you and/or your ally in any case.

I guess Opportunity Attacks would also be another way this could trigger, but again, only in some fairly unusual circumstances.

Check out Redirected Death, and to be creative Hit the Dirt might also be done stealthily. It's not a big stretch to conjure fluff describing those.

-vk

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

What's this peach business? I see no fruit here.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

...you can use stealth provided your DM decides the given situation is appropriate.
-vk

This isn't an arbitrary decision by the DM as to whether a situation is appropriate.

"The DM tells you if a skill chaek is appropriate in a given situation or directs you to make a check if circumstances call for one." PHB

The guidance as to what situations are appropriate and what circumstances call for a check are included in the rules applicable to the skill.

 

[clearstream]

What's this peach business? I see no fruit here.

If you have knowledge about stealth use that supersedes what I've posted here, I'd honestly like to hear it.

Edit: Please Enhance And Critique Helpfully. PEACH on a thread isn't used with any relation to fruit, just in case that's your misunderstanding.

The guidance as to what situations are appropriate and what circumstances call for a check are included in the rules applicable to the skill.

Hi. Unfortunately RAW and RAI fail to fully define that, as evidenced by the quantity of debate on the forums. I've posted above rulings that RAW supports in an effort to make it easier for DMs to consistently tell what is appropriate, and to make more kinds of actions safely come under the 'yes' list.

-vk

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

Hi. Unfortunately RAW and RAI fail to fully define that, as evidenced by the quantity of debate on the forums. I've posted above rulings that RAW supports in an effort to make it easier for DMs to consistently tell what is appropriate, and to make more kinds of actions safely come under the 'yes' list.

-vk

RAW is quite clear: "If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins."

 

[clearstream]

RAW is quite clear: "If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins."

I do agree with the point you make, but we may have to agree to disagree about the conclusion that implies.

That one place where the DM's part in skill resolution is specifically defined, PHB178 overrules the generality of the DMs administration of all game rules. It places an additional burden on the DM relating to skill checks.

That's why it's there. Were it not a specific case, there would be no reason to add to the general ruling under the Core Mechanic heading on PHB11.

That's how I read it.

-vk