Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Stealth - back to RAW. PEACH
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 4398552" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>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?</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>My own reading of the example on PHB179 is that it describes a 'ready' state of watchfulness. It reads <em>'you aren't actually looking for danger'</em>. Were you in an 'alert' state of watchfulness, you would make active checks.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>The RAW doesn't say this for Stealth, it only appears under TWYCS <em>'when a creature is invisible, you're blinded, or fighting in darkness you can't see through'</em>. The Stealth rules block unambiguously instructs you to make an opposed check, and those are active.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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 <em>unheard.</em></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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).</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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 <strong>lasting condition</strong> 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.</p><p> </p><p>My firm belief is that letting actions be performed stealthily <em>and</em> 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.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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=":)" /></p><p> </p><p>-vk</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 4398552, 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 [I]'you aren't actually looking for danger'[/I]. 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 [I]'when a creature is invisible, you're blinded, or fighting in darkness you can't see through'[/I]. 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 [I]unheard.[/I] 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 [B]lasting condition[/B] 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 [I]and[/I] 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. :) -vk [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Stealth - back to RAW. PEACH
Top