Stealth - the low down UPDATED!

[ki11erDM]

Now that we have that all cleared up.

Well it does for me. I am sorry it is to complicated for others. *shrug*

 

[bardolph]

PHB123 Hide in Plain Sight

It changes your hidden status to invisible. You can't leave your current square without ending that. Being hidden, you had Cover or Concealment.

You can manufacture skill or power chains that can lead to you hidden in the middle of a room without Cover or Concealment, but to be brutally frank the text of many powers, and the body of published material, makes me believe WotC's designers hadn't joined up the dots on Stealth.

Sample scenarios:

• You are hidden in a low-light room, and someone lights a torch.
• You take cover behind an ally, hide, and the ally moves.
• You cause a distraction, then hide.

Hide in Plain Sight also allows you to attack without breaking invisibility.

Additionally, "Invisible" grants an additional +10 to the DC of Perception checks made to spot the hider.

 

[komi]

4. You are hidden from every enemy whose passive Perception you beat. If they are Alert, they can use the Targeting What You Can't See rules to make active Perception checks using minor actions to find you. If they beat your Stealth with an active Perception check they know what direction you are in. They must roll a 20 to know your exact location. If they are not Alert, they can't try to find you until you take an action affecting your Stealth or something makes them Alert.

If they beat your stealth with an active perception, you are no longer hidden from them. I understand the rules on p. 281 say you must beat the score by 10, but that is for a case when something other than stealth is hiding you. This brings stealth more into balance (though all ranged characters should be rolling this almost every round) and follows the rules more closely.

Where did you get the rule for rolling a natural 20 beats stealth? I must have missed that.

 

[MarkB]

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_LICH
And further quoting from the infamous "targeting what you cant see" sidebar:.

Go away for a couple of days, and what happens...

With the FAQ out, that decides RAW. the_Lich nearly correctly points out that in play (as HiFructose already deduced) that means there are two distinct kinds of Perception. Three, in fact, but only two deal with Stealth.

The first kind of Perception is passive against an initial Stealth check or a check forced by an action taken by the hider. If the hider beats this number the quality of their Stealth changes as if they had put on Harry Potter's handy cloak.

The second kind of Perception is then an active check using a minor action. You only use this if the hider beat your passive number. Success means knowing the direction of the creature or its square depending on the roll. Since you know the passive failed, and since you know the active can't be higher than the passive +10, you know that only a 20 could possibly produce an exact location at this point.

I still think the FAQ is open to interpretation, and doesn't necessarily instruct you to use all the rules on page 281 when a target is hidden.

A Stealth check that is opposed successfully by a higher Perception check (whether passive or active) is a failed Stealth check, so the moment someone's active Perception check beats their opponent's Stealth check, he ceases to be Hidden from them.

If they fail to beat his Stealth check via any of the Perception checks they've employed, yet still want to attack him, then you refer to page 281 - specifically, the last two sections, detailing that you can either pick a square to make a ranged attack against, taking a -5 penalty to the roll even if you choose correctly, or else make a Close or Area attack encompassing the area you believe he is in, in which case you take no penalty to your attack roll if he is present.

 

[Kitsune]

Okay, whoa. Hold horses. Stealthy people don't get a sudden +10 stealth for being stealthy. The 'beat by 10' is for passive Perception and attempts to detect a person's precise and targetable location with minor actions.

If you are actively seeking out a stealthy person, it is not a minor action, it is a standard action. Per p186: If you want to use the skill actively, you need to take a standard action or spend 1 minute listening or searching, depending on the task. There is also no 'beat by 10' provision; if you beat them at all, you've spotted them.

The minor action on p281 exists for people to be able to at least attempt to hit a hidden opponent or get enough of a clue about their location to search better, without blowing a standard action on a search attempt. And if you roll super-awesome with it, you can figure out where they are to a precise enough degree to toss arrows at them without fear of shooting at the wrong place.

The minor action for getting a faint inkling of of something's general location, it's not to spot it. If you use the standard action and beat its stealth score, you see it. It's not a hunch, or a guess, you're looking right at it and know its precise location. Using the minor action is "Hey, something's in those bushes." The standard action is "Hey, there's a guy under that table." See the difference?

 

[komi]

The minor action for getting a faint inkling of of something's general location, it's not to spot it. If you use the standard action and beat its stealth score, you see it. It's not a hunch, or a guess, you're looking right at it and know its precise location. Using the minor action is "Hey, something's in those bushes." The standard action is "Hey, there's a guy under that table." See the difference?

So when the target is invisible, can you use a standard action perception to beat DC stealth, not stealth+10? That would be consistent with your interpretation, but I think if that was the intent, it would say that. Also it nerfs real invisibility.

I interpret the stuff on p. 281 to be written with the idea that something besides stealth is keeping you from seeing your target (e.g. invisibility, darkness, etc.). So they created two levels of success, DC Stealth and DC Stealth+10, to model finding something that's impossible to see.

The part about the minor action I think is just poor editing. The perception description should list this use, but it doesn't. I do think it's distinct from the standard action perception. Spending a minor action will help you locate an unseen foe, but won't find a trap.

In regards to hiding purely with stealth, I agree with MarkB; it's all covered in the stealth section. If perception beats stealth, no hidden status. If not, then mechanically you're dealing with an invisible foe, use the p.281 rules for targeting squares.

 

[komi]

Dupe.

 

[clearstream]

Where did you get the rule for rolling a natural 20 beats stealth? I must have missed that.

Easy Hider's_number beat your Perception+10, i.e. your passive score, and now you must beat hider's_number+10. Ergo you must roll 20. If your DM does not assume that a natural 20 is an automatic success, than you may have no chance at all.

Additionally, "Invisible" grants an additional +10 to the DC of Perception checks made to spot the hider.

That's an interesting angle. The FAQ puts Stealth users under the rules for Targeting What You Can't See. What in those rules differentiates between hidden and invisible?

I see several people feel that the FAQ means 'use some of the rules on 281, not all of them'. That begs a question: how do you distinguish which ones to use or not use?

-vk

 

[komi]

Easy Hider's_number beat your Perception+10, i.e. your passive score, and now you must beat hider's_number+10. Ergo you must roll 20. If your DM does not assume that a natural 20 is an automatic success, than you may have no chance at all.

Ah. As far as I know, attacks are the only thing that auto-succeed on a natural 20 (under the critical hit rules, p. 278). So if you use the stealth+10 thing, you'll never succeed.

That's an interesting angle. The FAQ puts Stealth users under the rules for Targeting What You Can't See. What in those rules differentiates between hidden and invisible?

Actually, hidden is better than invisible since you are both unseen and unheard.

I see several people feel that the FAQ means 'use some of the rules on 281, not all of them'. That begs a question: how do you distinguish which ones to use or not use?

I think the problem here is the conflation of trying to hide with the benefits of hidden itself. The stealth skill spells out resolving whether you are hidden or not: stealth vs. perception. The problem is that once you gain the hidden status versus someone, how does that someone attack you? You look on p. 281 for rules on targeting squares.

In my opinion, the stealth vs. perception rules under "Targeting what you can't see" are for modeling the hearing side of perception. All the examples in this section deal with cases where it's impossible to see the target regardless of stealth. Since perception combines hearing and seeing, clearly it's the proper skill to use but needs altered rules.

I definitely feel it could all be written much better, but I think that's the intent. And intent vs. RAW aside, this makes more sense from a balance perspective. Otherwise, once you gain the hidden status, you pretty much can't lose it by skill checks alone.

One final general note: Stealth vs. passive perception checks seem like a case of beating a DC, but it's not quite. When determining who wins on ties, you still use the person with the higher bonus. So if you are +5 on stealth and the opponent is +9 on perception, you effectively need to beat a DC 20 on stealth versus passive perception. I haven't seen this contradicted by anyone, but it's something I discovered by re-reading the rules.

 

[Machus]

That begs a question: how do you distinguish which ones to use or not use?

Why is the distinction important? Nowhere does the FAQ exclude already existing rules for stealth, perception, cover, and concealment

I think the targeting what you can't see rules are by in large not necessary, stealth already is defined by those rules.

If you cant' see a target, they have total concealment at that time, and give a ranged/melee attack a -5 penalty. That's listed in a few places. Locating someone with perception is already under perception. Using area attacks/close attacks are already covered under cover/concealment rules.

Really I see no value in suggesting that players use the targeting what you can't see rules, they are just a reiteration of the already existing rules, but with a special advantage to those who are invisible. That is, for an opponent that the normal ways of defeating hidden status, is not usable on.

Players still have access to the normal and more efficient ways to defeat stealth:

1. You may already be able to deduce their location from where you saw them "vanish" (i.e. no roll needed).
2. An opposed perception roll vs. their last stealth success
3. Moving to where they no longer have cover or concealment from you.
4. Removing or destroying their cover/concealment (lighting a torch in dim light, burning foliage via a fire spell, etc.)
5. Using an area/close attack

When woud you not be doing one of these? If you missed your standard action, targeting what you can't see let's you still use a minor action to get a general idea. That's about the only new information it gives.