Stealth - back to RAW. PEACH

[clearstream]

Having re-examined wording under the Success caption of the Stealth rules block at MarkB's prompting, I judge that the word later found there contemplates 'later, after this action' and is not limited to 'later, during this action'.

Added to the simple question, 'why can't I just sit quiet and stay hidden until my next turn' I feel compelled to return to my earlier position in the 'lasting hidden condition' camp.

In consequence I'm abandoning the above, but leave it as a helpful look at an interesting line of reasoning from the RAW that can inform further thought on Stealth.

-vk

 

[Paul Strack]

Okay, quick sanity check. If a player at your table wants to roll their Insight against a Thug who is Bluffing them, are you going to let them roll their opposing roll, or are you telling them they're taking 10?

That's easy. I let the "active" character roll and the "passive" character takes 10. If the Thug was Bluffing and the PC didn't know it, the PC takes 10. If the player say "there is something fishy about this guy; I want to make an Insight check to see if he is scamming us", then the player rolls.

In cases where it is ambiguous, I err in favor of letting the player roll and the NPC taking 10. In suitably dramatic circumstances, I'd let both parties roll.

 

[Paul Strack]

I'm glad you spotted that. I found it a rather nice outcome. Incidentally, compare the wording under the Superior Cover or Total Concealment caption of the Stealth rules block with the TWYCS rules. They're very similar. It's just a feeling, but I find the inclusion of that wording separately under Stealth suggestive that RAW never intended to hook up Stealth to TWYCS. That and the absence of wording instructing us to connect them, which is kind of an incredible omission, if accidental (FAQ notwithstanding).

I think this is the kernel of what you are trying to get to: nerfing TWYCS with regards to Stealth in the RAW, something that I agree is necessary for Stealth to be balanced and playable.

If so, I think there is more straightforward path to get to what you want. If you look at the Stealth Success block, the only benefit that is clearly granted by being hidden is a Combat Advantage. Normal stealth checks don't give you any other advantage, so Stealth checks that are not followed by an attack are pointless because they have no effect. The DM is within his rights to prohibit pointless rolls.

I think the Superior Cover or Total Concealment block indicates that TWYCS only applies if you both hidden and have SC/TC against your attacker. That's the only circumstance in which a lasting hidden status is meaningful. Unfortunately, the FAQ muddied the waters here, but I think that is a pretty accurate interpretation of the RAW that gives you what you seem to want.

In practice, SC/TC is a fairly rare battlefield condition, making TWYCS-stealth unusual. I think blocking terrain (no LOS) is more common than SC/TC, but in that case you can't be targeted all because ... no LOS.

So, if you agree that you need SC/TC for TWYCS-stealth, it should hardly ever come up. That's the way I am interpretting things.

 

[clearstream]

But how about page 179, under Passive Checks?

"When you're not actively using a skill, you're assumed to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that skill."
​

Again, Perception vs. Stealth is the specific example used. That, plus the text under Perception on page 186, would seem to trump the text on page 178 in classic "specific overrides general" form.

After considering this, I feel we need to question it on three grounds.

The first and more significant flaw is that if true, it means that all opposed checks by targets of skill use are passive. That makes the wording under the Opposed Check caption on PHB178 redundant, since it only deals with skill checks. It is stretching credibility to adduce that 'both characters roll' always means 'the active character rolls'.

The second is that I'm not sure that wording under Passive Checks is more specific with regard to opposed checks than wording under Opposed Checks. They're both specific to the case they bat for: passive checks for passive checks, opposed checks for opposed checks.

The third is to recollect that the term 'roll' is not synonymous with 'active', and rolling doesn't always cost an action. You can roll for something without being 'active', and you can take 10 on something without being 'passive'. Taking an opposed roll doesn't perforce mean taking a passive check: it doesn't mean taking 10. The word 'passive' doesn't appear in the stealth rules block on PHB188.

Until arguments quashing these three points are raised, the stealth opposed roll works under RAW as a... roll.

-vk

 

[MarkB]

After considering this, I feel we need to question it on three grounds.

The first and more significant flaw is that if true, it means that all opposed checks by targets of skill use are passive. That makes the wording under the Opposed Check caption on PHB178 redundant, since it only deals with skill checks. It is stretching credibility to adduce that 'both characters roll' always means 'the active character rolls'.

Both characters roll if both are actively using their skills. An obvious example would be Bluff vs. Insight when the people being bluffed are on the lookout for deception. Since an Insight check to detect a bluff requires no action, you can be actively using Insight at the same time as whatever other actions you're engaged in.

The second is that I'm not sure that wording under Passive Checks is more specific with regard to opposed checks than wording under Opposed Checks. They're both specific to the case they bat for: passive checks for passive checks, opposed checks for opposed checks.

Hardly. Passive checks are a specific form of opposed check, as denoted by the multiple mentions of opposed checks under the Passive Checks heading.

The third is to recollect that the terms 'active' and 'passive' are not synonymous with 'roll' and 'take 10'. You can roll for something without being 'active', and you can take 10 on something without being 'passive'.

But you can't make a Passive check without taking 10. Passive checks are a specific variant on Taking 10.

And as for 'roll' not being synonymous with 'active', do you have an example of an active check that isn't rolled?

Taking an opposed roll doesn't perforce mean taking a passive check: it doesn't mean taking 10. The word 'passive' doesn't appear in the stealth rules block on PHB188.

Neither does an opposed check necessarily mean that both participants roll, if there are specific cases in which they don't - which there are. The word 'passive' does feature quite prominently in the Perception rules block, and you can't define an opposed check without looking at the rules for both the checks involved.

By the rules set out under Perception and Passive Checks, the only way you could get an opposed active-Stealth vs. active-Perception check is if an observer were to Ready an action to make an active Perception check if an opponent attempted to hide. And then they'd still get their Passive check as well.

Until arguments quashing these three points are raised, the stealth opposed roll works under RAW as a... roll.

It is indeed a roll. But it is opposed by a passive Perception check.

 

[clearstream]

Hardly. Passive checks are a specific form of opposed check, as denoted by the multiple mentions of opposed checks under the Passive Checks heading.

I agree, but nothing tells us that the only opposed checks are passive ones. The converse is suggested by the absence of the word passive from the Opposed Checks block. You were right, I believe, in saying that a more specific case is exemplified, but wrong in supposing that the more specific case is the only case.

And as for 'roll' not being synonymous with 'active', do you have an example of an active check that isn't rolled?

Framing the question that way produces a tautology. What I'm actually required to do is show an example of a rolled check that isn't active. The Climbing skill contains the example. If you are hit while climbing, which will predominantely not occur in your turn, you must roll a climbing check.

Back over to you!

-vk

 

[MarkB]

I agree, but nothing tells us that the only opposed checks are passive ones. The converse is suggested by the absence of the word passive from the Opposed Checks block. You were right, I believe, in saying that a more specific case is exemplified, but wrong in supposing that the more specific case is the only case.

I'm not suggesting it's the only case. I'm suggesting that it's by far the most common case when it comes to the specific example of Stealth vs. Perception, because that's exactly what the Perception rules state.

The only way the Perception rules can't override the more general Opposed Checks rules is if there's no such thing as a passive opposed check, which is what you were trying to argue - and that quite clearly is not the case.

Framing the question that way produces a tautology. What I'm actually required to do is show an example of a rolled check that isn't active. The Climbing skill contains the example. If you are hit while climbing, which will predominantely not occur in your turn, you must roll a climbing check.

Back over to you!

-vk

And if ever we happen to be debating the climbing rules, I'll gladly agree that a passive check isn't appropriate in those circumstances - because being hit while climbing has a direct, physical effect upon the climber that requires an immediate active response to keep him safe. Since nothing in the Climb rules suggests that most Climb checks will be passive by default, there's no counter-case to answer.

Perception checks, on the other hand, have just such a clause.

 

[clearstream]

I'm not suggesting it's the only case. I'm suggesting that it's by far the most common case when it comes to the specific example of Stealth vs. Perception, because that's exactly what the Perception rules state.

What they specifically state is what happens when you aren't alert; that's why I differentiate that way in my rulings.

The only way the Perception rules can't override the more general Opposed Checks rules is if there's no such thing as a passive opposed check, which is what you were trying to argue - and that quite clearly is not the case.

I posted this to WotC CS

Hi. Could you help me with two questions please?
1. When opposed checks are made, do both parties always roll dice?
2. The wording under Opposed Checks on p178 only refers to characters: do monsters also make opposed checks?

Who respond

Greetings Klaude,
1. Yes, both parties roll.
2. Yes, monsters can make opposed checks.

And if ever we happen to be debating the climbing rules, I'll gladly agree that a passive check isn't appropriate in those...

All active checks are rolls! X is a roll. = X is an active check is unproven.

All rolls are active checks? X is a roll, but is not an active check. = It is proven that some X are not active checks.

I adduce that in support of my reading of the Opposed Checks wording, which neither mentions active nor passive checks, and note that in that wording the case in point is a roll against an attempt to hide. CSR also rules that way.

-vk

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

I think this is the kernel of what you are trying to get to: nerfing TWYCS with regards to Stealth in the RAW, something that I agree is necessary for Stealth to be balanced and playable.

If so, I think there is more straightforward path to get to what you want.
,,.

but I think that is a pretty accurate interpretation of the RAW that gives you what you seem to want.

Twisting things to get the answer you want isn't interpreting RAW. It's rules lawyering.

There is a mechanism for getting the answer you want instead of the one that is there - make a house rule and be up front and honest about it. If your players think you're being fair, they'll stick around. If they think your house rule is unfair and/or makes the game less fun, they'll shop around for a new game.

These threads aren't about getting an accurate interpretation of the rules. They're an attempt at rabble rousing to get a different rule. Spamming of (and in) multiple threads with information presented as RAW that isn't, misinterpretations and shadings of developer quotes, selective inclusion of CSR answers, exclusion of the FAQ, selective inclusion of material (including out-of-context material) from the rules themselves... It's deliberate misinformation to generate confusion.

 

[clearstream]

Just a note to draw attention to some interesting re-wordings of my OP.

This has edged back to RAI. I've revised my preamble to make that clear up front.

-vk