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: 4398552" data-attributes="member: 71699">See also 178 under the heading Opposed Checks. I feel that is unambiguous. Stealth is even used as the example. Both parties roll. Well, it says characters, but surely no one would be churlish enough to make a meal of that, would they?  My own reading of the example on PHB179 is that it describes a 'ready' state of watchfulness. It reads 'you aren't actually looking for danger'. Were you in an 'alert' state of watchfulness, you would make active checks. Related to that, I've been scouring RAW for somewhere that tells you opposing checks take an action. So far as I can find, there is no such wording; have you found any? I can find examples of the opposite, e.g. Bluff is opposed by Insight, and it sure seems like the Insight user gets their opposing check with no action.  The RAW doesn't say this for Stealth, it only appears under TWYCS 'when a creature is invisible, you're blinded, or fighting in darkness you can't see through'. The Stealth rules block unambiguously instructs you to make an opposed check, and those are active.  It sure does. Even if you don't spam them, a free check in each opponent's turn to get (re)hidden feels problematical. Stealthy free actions though, well you can ignore those. They're like a tree falling in an empty forest.  If a Rogue uses Riposte Strike and then attempts to move stealthily, the situation can arise where an an attack reveals them during their stealthy move. Other immediate interrupts can have the same effect. Also it is important to know that an attack performed stealthily doesn't need a Perception check to notice. Same goes for shouting. Without that wording, you might try to shout unheard.  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).  Absolutely. At the point you did that you no longer have guidance from RAW as to which actions should be permitted and which shouldn't. My earlier position, feet squarely in the lasting condition camp, was to call for a separate (minor) action to get hidden with (or use a power or skill other than stealth that explicitly gives you a check). That is a solid ruling, if you want stealth as a lasting condition. My firm belief is that letting actions be performed stealthily and at the same time letting stealth be a lasting condition is a source of problems, confusion, dystopic balancing issues, and makes the mechanics extremely tough to resolve. Pick one way, make that way work. I'm writing an open letter to WotC on this subject on their forums.  Thank you! It makes an encouraging difference to hear something positive. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> -vk</blockquote>

Verification