Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 4397808" data-attributes="member: 71699">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'.  PHB267 reads that free actions can be done on other combatant's turns.  I'm going to have to agree with your conclusion, but not the reasoning. Free actions can't be taken during an opponent's action. So there's no chance they could communicate until whatever action was being performed stealthily was over. seusemon I believe the edit I'm about to make will cover one of your points too.  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. The reading I'd have to proffer is that attacking or shouting can end stealth earlier than the end of your action. For instance if you set up Riposte Strike, and then move stealthily and are OA'd by a perceptive Orc. The rest of your move isn't hidden. -vk</blockquote>

Verification