Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ryryguy" data-source="post: 4350730" data-attributes="member: 64945">I pretty much like this interpretation. I agree 95% with the second paragraph (the active Perception check is a minor action not a standard action). &nbsp;Regarding the first paragraph, I differ slightly: the stealthed attacker doesn't roll a new Stealth check vs. target's passive Perception; instead the target gets an active Perception check against the original Stealth check.&nbsp;(edit) Ninja'd by Mearls (via redbeard)!&nbsp; He seems to have close to the same interpretation, though he also has the attacker roll Stealth against passive Perception rather than what I was saying.&nbsp; Mathematically I'm not sure it makes much difference (I'm not thinking too hard about it).&nbsp; Maybe it's better aesthetically to have the stealthed attacker roll because he's the acting character.&nbsp;This part of his quote still seems slightly ambiguous:&nbsp;&nbsp;This could support the &quot;Stealth check when moving to hide, then another Stealth check when attacking from hiding&quot;, which I like.&nbsp; But I think it could be read to mean &quot;Stealth check when moving to hide, then if you win you're stealthed until your attack resolves.&quot;&nbsp; Well, I like the first one so that's how I'll choose to read it.&nbsp; &lt;shrug&gt;&nbsp;I'm not going to argue that this is RAW or RAI; I think the rules are just not entirely clear on this point, with that unfortunate business about &quot;targets who are not aware of you&quot; being open to multiple interpretations. I think my interpretation feels fair, does not obviously or grossly conflict with RAW, and is workable at the table - in most cases, the stealther makes one check, and his eventual target makes one check, so just two die rolls.&nbsp;(Thanks for posting that, redbeard.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ryryguy, post: 4350730, member: 64945"] I pretty much like this interpretation. I agree 95% with the second paragraph (the active Perception check is a minor action not a standard action). Regarding the first paragraph, I differ slightly: the stealthed attacker doesn't roll a new Stealth check vs. target's passive Perception; instead the target gets an active Perception check against the original Stealth check. (edit) Ninja'd by Mearls (via redbeard)! He seems to have close to the same interpretation, though he also has the attacker roll Stealth against passive Perception rather than what I was saying. Mathematically I'm not sure it makes much difference (I'm not thinking too hard about it). Maybe it's better aesthetically to have the stealthed attacker roll because he's the acting character. This part of his quote still seems slightly ambiguous: This could support the "Stealth check when moving to hide, then another Stealth check when attacking from hiding", which I like. But I think it could be read to mean "Stealth check when moving to hide, then if you win you're stealthed until your attack resolves." Well, I like the first one so that's how I'll choose to read it. <shrug> I'm not going to argue that this is RAW or RAI; I think the rules are just not entirely clear on this point, with that unfortunate business about "targets who are not aware of you" being open to multiple interpretations. I think my interpretation feels fair, does not obviously or grossly conflict with RAW, and is workable at the table - in most cases, the stealther makes one check, and his eventual target makes one check, so just two die rolls. (Thanks for posting that, redbeard.) [/QUOTE]

Verification