Stealth - Streamlined PEACH

[clearstream]

Updated, finally succumbing to the_redbeard (who will not show mercy, nevertheless) and MarkB (who has remained kindly neutral). Thanks also to helpful comments from Paul Strack. That's not to imply any endorsement by those guys: I'm sure they still disagree with parts.

Introduced stealth as part of movement. Also differentiated between enemies who do share information and those who don't. Still not allowing stealth with free actions, and hope the RPGA doesn't either: it'll lead to a big list of exceptions. (Note for MarkB: you listed the examples, but I believe you'll agree that RAW doesn't limit free actions to only them.)

Retained Displacement to resolve otherwise burdensome situations in a consistently fair way.

-vk

 

[Paul Strack]

I still contend that you need Superior Cover or Total Concealment as well as a hidden status in order to be non-targetable (TWYCS or in your rules, the displacement option).

If not, powers that grant ordinary Concealment, such as a Warlock's Shadow Walk, become nearly as good as invisibility to Stealthy characters. I don't think that is RAI. Official comments like "stealth doesn't upgrade your concealment level" seems to support that.

Also, since you are allowing Stealth with movement, you need to clarify when concealment is required during your move. I think concealment should be required for the entire move. If you only needed concealment at the end of your move, Shadow Stride (Utility 10) would be no better than Fleeting Ghost (Utility 2).

Other than that, though, I think your rules are pretty workable.

 

[LowSpine]

I think the whole trouble with the stealth skill is it is treated like an attack versus a perception defence.

It would work better if a PC using stealth just turned it on. Then they would have a Stealth Defence score - not neccessarily rolled - like a Passive Stealth. This defence may be dropped on purpose or by accident due to actions, but in order to detect the stealther the stealthee should attack the stealther with his Perception.

It could work both ways, however, with Perception still being a defence versus a stelath attack. Perhaps it could be considered a Stealth Attack versus a Perception Defence, for example, when a rogue is making stealth attack.

Another way - a Passive Stealth, that can be turned on like a switch. This works against Passive Perception. If the Passive Stealth is better than Passive Perception it just works and the PC is hidden and silent without any bother. If the Perciever makes a conscious check they roll their Perception check and the Stealther rolls their Stealth check against it.

Of course certain actions may drop the stealth such as an attack or jumping up and down waving your hands about and shouting.

The Passive Stealth may be altered (or force an active roll) when doing such things as walking over gravel or opening a really creaky gate.

 

[clearstream]

I still contend that you need Superior Cover or Total Concealment as well as a hidden status in order to be non-targetable (TWYCS or in your rules, the displacement option).

If not, powers that grant ordinary Concealment, such as a Warlock's Shadow Walk, become nearly as good as invisibility to Stealthy characters. I don't think that is RAI. Official comments like "stealth doesn't upgrade your concealment level" seems to support that.

I agree with you, and am trying to find a way to fix it. The issue to look at is what happens when enemies alert to your presence, but nonetheless for now beaten by your stealth check, want to attack you?

It seems like they'd need to choose a square and attack (with at worst a -4 penalty). Expressing that in clean language without producing a wall of text is one problem. Another is that if DMs are making a fair determination there will be some statistical graph of verdicts. If that graph even approached 60/40 correct picks to misses, that would offer better defence than the level 16 wizard power. In addition, I see no way you could expect consistency over DMs or situations.

Displacement is a kludge. It yields a reasonable result quickly that is very likely to not offer better, nor much worse, defence than just letting DM's pick the square. It's fast and fair. The point has been made that RPGA DMs shouldn't use such methods to lighten their burden of arbitration. Well, if a characters death rode on the verdict, I would personally be very comfortable if they used a pre-agreed fair mechanic, rather than just deciding. Of course, I would also accept any decision they made; but that isn't an argument.

Given that context, can you suggest a good alternative? Or some wording I could insert instead?

-vk

 

[Paul Strack]

I agree with you, and am trying to find a way to fix it. The issue to look at is what happens when enemies alert to your presence, but nonetheless for now beaten by your stealth check, want to attack you?

My interpretation:

If you are hidden but only have normal cover/concealment, your enemy can attack you with just the usual c/c penalty but no further limitation, because being hidden only grants a combat advantage.

If you are hidden but have Super Cover/Total Concealment, your enemy is limited by TWYCS (or some approximation thereof, displacement is fine).

Given that context, can you suggest a good alternative? Or some wording I could insert instead?

Are you asking me to suggest an alternative to using displacement instead of TWYCS? I am actually OK with using displacement instead of TWYCS. My point above is that should only be applicable with sc/tc, not just c/c.

I was highlighting that point because your latest revision doesn't seem distinguish the case of hidden c/c vs. hidden sc/tc.

If you want a full breakdown of what I think, I put my Stealth house rules up here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=236990

 

[clearstream]

Are you asking me to suggest an alternative to using displacement instead of TWYCS? I am actually OK with using displacement instead of TWYCS. My point above is that should only be applicable with sc/tc, not just c/c.

I agree with that, but it's hard to find ruling that equates with intuition to cover 'you're hidden from them, yes, but they can attack you just fine...'

I'll take a look through your rules. Ever more I'm feeling that it works best as 'only your action', and that the change really needed is in the Success wording of the Stealth rules block. You could easily rule that hiding for periods of time only works outside of combat (or in SC/TC), e.g. for Skill Challenges or getting to (or evading) combat in the first place.

-vk