Stealth - Streamlined PEACH

[Mistwell]

I find your interpretation to be drastically different the stated rules and intent of those rules in a couple of respects. I think there is no question (none) that you can be hidden from some foes while not hidden from others. And your entire premise is based on having to be hidden from all foes. I also think you can rehide once foes are alerted to you (though how that is done is open to fair debate).

We also know, for sure, that many customer service answers say your allies can provide you the needed cover to hide. We might disagree with that ruling, but to claim you've read everything and present RAI and not a house rule is nonsense. Many of us have read all the info on stealth and come to opposite conclusions than you on a host of these issues. At this point, it's ALL house rules until we get one solid clarification, and your claim to have obtained superior knowledge and insight than the rest of us is simply silly. This is your take on the skill, not RAI. We simply don't know RAI right now.

 

[Paul Strack]

One other note for yu gnomi don't forget about whether enemies are alert.

Since you are looking for feedback, you probably want to add a bit to rule #7 to clarify what you mean by "alert". This is what I think you mean:

7. Enemies who aren't alert to your presence can't attack or try to spot you. At the beginning of combat, most enemies will not be alert unless they knew in advance that you are present. Once you have attacked, your enemies are alert to your presence.

 

[clearstream]

I find your interpretation to be drastically different the stated rules and intent of those rules in a couple of respects. I think there is no question (none) that you can be hidden from some foes while not hidden from others. And your entire premise is based on having to be hidden from all foes.

You are spot on about my premise WotC_Mearls made a remark that is linked in my forensic thread on Stealth (Stealth - the low-down UPDATED) that enemies can share information. He didn't say what information exactly they could share, but he did say that he was considering writing adventures where a single high Perception enemy had to be taken out before any hiding would be possible.

Taken together, those remarks are suggestive that enemies share exact position, busting hiding. Given that, nearly everything else I RAI arises out of mechanical inevitability.

I also think you can rehide once foes are alerted to you (though how that is done is open to fair debate).

You can, and my RAI accomodates exactly that.

We also know, for sure, that many customer service answers say your allies can provide you the needed cover to hide.

That CSR is posted on the WotC forums in the Strikers sub-forum. Taken literally it supports my exact reading. Allies grant you cover, but that cover isn't present in your turn, when you try to hide.

We might disagree with that ruling, but to claim you've read everything and present RAI and not a house rule is nonsense.

Hehe! See if you can spot my house rule! As for the rest, yes, I have read exhaustively on the subject following a detailed forensic process, and I am presenting RAI.



-vk

 

[yu gnomi]

This is your take on the skill, not RAI. We simply don't know RAI right now.

Please forgive the stab in the back, but I have to agree with Mistwell on this. I don't regard this as RAI either. However, this system seems very functional, and that is good enough for me.

 

[toxicspirit]

I am letting my group's rogue make ranged attacks from cover and make a Stealth check to gain CA. The basic idea is that the rogue combines the Stealth roll with the draw weapon minor action immediately before the attack and loses the hidden status immediately after. To keep everyone in the group from doing this, I ruled that this "stealthy attack" is Trained Only.

As far as I am concerned, that is the way the rules are written, or at least intended. Except, of course for the 'trained only' part', which is a damn good idea.

In my opinion, there are two facets of stealth. The first is where a character is actively trying to hide, and the second is where a character is trying to make a 'stealthy' attack by gaining combat advantage. I have read a lot of posts that seem to be trying to combine the two into one, where I think they are almost always mutually-exclusive. You can hide, or you can attack stealthily, but only in rare circumstances can you do both. This whole thing baffles me, because I have had no problems with this in my games.

 

[Mistwell]

You are spot on about my premise WotC_Mearls made a remark that is linked in my forensic thread on Stealth (Stealth - the low-down UPDATED) that enemies can share information. He didn't say what information exactly they could share, but he did say that he was considering writing adventures where a single high Perception enemy had to be taken out before any hiding would be possible.

Taken together, those remarks are suggestive that enemies share exact position, busting hiding. Given that, nearly everything else I RAI arises out of mechanical inevitability.

You've made a HUGE leap in logic in this part. You took an off hand minor comment from Mearls that doesn't actually say quite what you want it to say, which even you admit is suggestive at best, and you've blown it up into a pillar to support a whole series of conclusions that are not otherwise well supported.

Sorry, that's not RAI. That's your own personal interpretation. The rules as written clearly say "If there are multiple observers, your Stealth check is opposed by each observer’s Perception check." That does not in any way match your conclusions. All of the wording in the skill is directed to being able to target individuals, and allowing for a failed check against some and success against others, and a stealth effect against those who you succeed against. And until we get an official clarification, we just don't know what RAI is right now (your guesswork based on suggestive off hand comments notwithstanding).

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

You've made a HUGE leap in logic in this part. You took an off hand minor comment from Mearls that doesn't actually say quite what you want it to say, which even you admit is suggestive at best, and you've blown it up into a pillar to support a whole series of conclusions that are not otherwise well supported.

Sorry, that's not RAI. That's your own personal interpretation. The rules as written clearly say "If there are multiple observers, your Stealth check is opposed by each observer’s Perception check." That does not in any way match your conclusions. All of the wording in the skill is directed to being able to target individuals, and allowing for a failed check against some and success against others, and a stealth effect against those who you succeed against. And until we get an official clarification, we just don't know what RAI is right now (your guesswork based on suggestive off hand comments notwithstanding).

To add to this, WOTC_Mearls said:

"4. Remember that intelligent foes will share information. If one of the four hobgoblins spots a hidden PC, that guy can tell his allies where the PC is hiding."

That means that foes must be intelligent and share the information, not that if one sees you, they all automatically know where you are.

Later in the same thread, WOTC_Mearls also posted:

"One thing to keep in mind is that one of the big picture changes in 4e was to move stealth and hiding from spells to skills. In other words, the rogue or ranger are the best PCs for hiding, not the wizard with an invisibility spell.

The spell is still useful, but it is now much more limited and harder to use over and over again.

With that in mind, when you are DMing it's OK to be liberal with letting people use the skill. If a rogue wants to run from a hiding point, across a room full of monsters, and then hide again in a different cover position, that's OK. I've run it such that on a successful check, the creatures don't notice the rogue's movement, and it has worked out fine (my ruling being that since the player wanted to move stealthily, he was unnoticed while moving).

The interesting thing to me is that it makes creatures with high passive Perception scores valuable in encounters. I've been playing around with monster designs the promote a sort of "order of operations" for adventurers - take out this guy first, then this guy next - and high perception guys are an area I'm messing around with as "first step targets" to clear out space for the stealthy characters.

(If you played Return to the Moathouse at Origins, you saw a fight that operated this way in encounter 2. I won't say more to avoid spoilers, but there was one critter that you really, really wanted to kill first. I had one party ignore it and almost suffer a TPK as a level 5 party going against a balanced level 6 encounter.)"

You're picking out pieces of WOTC_Mearls' comments out of context to support a definition of RAI that is far from the intention that WOTC_Mearls is expressing. It's like picking out the words "thou" "shalt" "commit" and "adultery" and claiming that God told you to cheat on your wife.

And the minor action penalty on the use of stealth has no backing in RAW. "Stealth: Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily" is pretty clear in its intent that it doesn't cost an additional action to do something stealthily.

I'm sorry, but what you've put together is a house rule based upon selective inclusion of information and questionable interpretation of the information you do include.

 

[clearstream]

To add to this, WOTC_Mearls said:

"4. Remember that intelligent foes will share information. If one of the four hobgoblins spots a hidden PC, that guy can tell his allies where the PC is hiding."

...

''The interesting thing to me is that it makes creatures with high passive Perception scores valuable in encounters. I've been playing around with monster designs the promote a sort of "order of operations" for adventurers - take out this guy first, then this guy next - and high perception guys are an area I'm messing around with as "first step targets" to clear out space for the stealthy characters.

(If you played Return to the Moathouse at Origins, you saw a fight that operated this way in encounter 2. I won't say more to avoid spoilers, but there was one critter that you really, really wanted to kill first. I had one party ignore it and almost suffer a TPK as a level 5 party going against a balanced level 6 encounter.)".

Hang on, you quote the part where he speaks about a single high Perception enemy shuts down the stealthers.

And you still think he doesn't mean enemies can share exact information?

Wha...?



Mistwell I went back and checked the thread my earlier analysis came from. That's where I found additional remarks from Mearls that guide my RAI. I didn't go back and fix my old thread, because I became more interested in this one. Please also note what I mean by mechanical inevitability. You do indeed roll vs every enemy, but since if any enemy busts you they all do, you elide the individual numbers and pick the best.

-vk

 

[Plane Sailing]

Forked from: Stealth - Streamlined PEACH to critique MarkB's RAI in some detail.

I've merged it back in.

Please only use the 'fork thread' if something completely tangential to the thread subject comes up and warrants discussion. Your fork was just continuing the same discussion (in detail) and so should remain in this thread.

Thanks

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

Hang on, you quote the part where he speaks about a single high Perception enemy shuts down the stealthers.

And you still think he doesn't mean enemies can share exact information?

Wha...?



-vk

Point to the place that I said enemies can't share exact information.

You haven't addressed my post in any way except to make a strawman and attempt to ridicule it.

My point still stands. Much like you've made something up from wholecloth from what I've posted, you've done the same thing with other posts and the rules themselves to make a set of House Rules for stealth, then claimed they weren't House Rules because they were RAI.

And, that is PEACH for this.

If you want to say you've made a set of house rules for stealth, that's fine. Hey, nice house rules. Hope you enjoy them, but I wouldn't want to play a rogue in a game that used them, and I wouldn't use them for a game I run.

But presenting them in the Rules section rather than the Fan Creations section and arguing that they aren't house rules because they're your interpretation of the RAI, including things that directly go against RAW and selectively twisting the meaning of developer posts is disingenuous at best.