Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="the_redbeard" data-source="post: 4394420" data-attributes="member: 22644">No.  If you END in a stealthable condition, to me it is reasonable to stealth (assuming the action isn't a stealth breaking condition.)  So moving to a stealthable condition seem to me to be fine.You're making things more complicated than they have to be.  You say "Stealth must pend its hide determination to the end of the move action" and I agree.  The end of that move action is when the stealth roll is made.  It makes sense.  You use the move to hide behind cover.Why complicate it more than that?I don't know which words you are referring.You make the attack.  You move to return to a stealthable condition.  What matters is the end result of your move: the end location and the distance moved.  If you moved more than 2 squares, you have a -5 to your roll.  At the end of your move, you make your stealth roll.What is complicated?Agreed.The attack broke stealth, so it can't be used to stealth.  Another action is then required to stealth.  Minor or move is equivalent if you are staying in the same place.  BUT if you want to move to another square that is in cover/concealment, you are forcing an extra complication with the minor move. Yes it does make a difference.  You are robbing the character of an action with your complication.In c/c not hidden, want to move through c/c hidden, move, make stealth roll with or without the -5 penalty at the end of your move.I think if you moved more than 2 squares (thus getting a -5), the DM may be within her rights to call for an additional check (unless the character had the power/feat to eliminate the penalty for moving more than 2 squares.)The stealth rules as written require stealth checks for any action performed stealthily, but I agree that requiring one every round when conditions don't change is excessive.  However, I think a changing condition would merit a new check.  (This would be where I agree with your pro-forma DM permission/requirement for a skill check.)I would agree that would be my interpretation as picking and choosing the "whatever action you trying to perform stealthily" from 188.That's an inefficient tactic for a stealther, only getting combat advantage and none of the defensive bonuses of stealth.Again, I think the move action, if ending in cover/concealment, meets the requisites for stealth.You move into hiding.  Your target loses sight of you if you are successful.  You attack.  Your turn ends with you in cover/concealment, but not stealthed.Page 188 says:"Distracted Creature: If a creature is distracted, youcan attempt to hide from that creature even whenyou don’t have cover or concealment."I think the distraction is a round by round substitute for cover/concealment from that wording.  The distraction (which could be another character's action) is not the stealth check.  The move action - to move quietly - is the stealth check, and is at -5  if the move is over 2 squares.Imagine:  character Face is talking with guards, keeping their attention on him.  Character Face makes bluff check versus the guard's passive insight.If successful, Character Face has their attention while Character Sneaky moves behind the guards.(Interesting is that stealth says distractions can only be used outside combat, while the bluff skill says diversions are 1/combat encounter.  Sigh.  Who didn't check these things for consistency?  Note: yes, I think diversion = distraction.)And so on with me as well.  The move action to new cover/concealment can be done stealthily.  Where can you find wording that it isn't?"Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily."Please quote that RAW.  I see "Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily."  No RAW for an additional action - it is PART of an action.  Intuitively, people move to hide behind themselves behind cover.  Stealth can be PART of a move action.No.It depends on the situation and requires - like what most of the game assumes - that the players trust the DM and that the DM doesn't abuse this trust.Is the attacker intelligent?Is there only one square with cover/concealment?Is there a square that the stealthed target might be moving toward (like an exit, better cover, a fallen comrade, etc)? Where was the stealther last seen?  Where were they moving to? (A crafty stealther will switch directions after hiding, a crafty attacker might target where they think the stealther's objective really is)Those are the questions that I as a DM would consider.  I would provide the players with an explanation of the attackers actions.  If they object, it depends on if it is a reasonable objection or just a whine.  Either way, we don't let it slow down the game (that's the worst outcome.)The whole game is based on the players trusting the DM.  Everything from basic encounter planning, treasure placement, the direction of the campaign itself.  They trust us to not move traps to locations where they don't look or fail their perception rolls.  We don't abuse that trust or they get someone else to DM.If Displacement is required in your table, I'm sorry that it comes to that but glad if it works.  I'd prefer to reason it out, and I'd expect that from an RPGA DM.</blockquote>

Verification