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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tonester" data-source="post: 4368506" data-attributes="member: 71788">I would tend to agree.  The rules of cover, concealment, total cover, and total concealment don't appear to be altered either way. I agree that Stealth does not upgrade cover or concealment.  The issue is what happens to players that are already noticed who then succeed on a stealth check they are entitled to make?  A warlock attacks on their turn.  It then moves 4 squares at the end of their turn which grants them concealment until the end of their next turn.  During the same round, a creature attacks the warlock at -2 for concealment.  This is a given.  Next round, the warlock starts off its turn by moving 4 more squares with a stealth check.  It succeeds despite a possible penalty for moving more than 2 squares (for argument's sake).  This is where the rules don't do a good enough job of explaining.  If the warlock then attacks a creature, the warlock would do so with Combat Advantage.  This seems to be agreeable for everyone involved - including WoTC.  What if the Warlock does not attack, however?  They are still concealed (they moved again).  They are still "stealthed" because they passed their stealth check.  How does the creature perceive the warlock?  Still only as concealed?  The CSR claims the warlock goes unnoticed.  Stealth rules claim the warlock goes "unnoticed, unheard, and unseen."  Wtf does that mean?  Concealed does not equal unseen.In my opinion, this is where an "appropriateness call" has to be made by the DM or maybe some House Rules need to be implemented.  Mechanically, it doesn't make sense to me to grant stealtch checks for cover OR total cover.  But, I would like to run my games within the spirit of RAW - as much as possible anyway so I'm trying to "work with the system" on this one.  It all seems so easy and clear except for these little situations where someone gains cover or concealment AFTER already being noticed and DURING COMBAT.  And if they then succeed on a stealth check - what happens to the rules?Cliff notes: I agree it doesn't upgrade to total cover or concealment.  I'm not so sure what happens to situations where creatures would like to target something they can't notice, hear, or see after already noticing them, hearing them, or seeing them.  The only thing I can suggest is a Perception vs. Stealth check and if it beats it (meaning, they can tell the general direction and distance), then this means they CAN notice them since they aren't totally concealed or totally covered (in the case of the warlock above).  Its a matter of "I just saw them.... they must be close" and then they do a perception check and realize, "Aha! They teleported behind me!" and then they can go about their business of dealing with cover and concealment for defense bonuses. Agreed. Agreed on the CA part.The rest needs more clarification.  Minor actions, in my opinion, don't stealth you.  They may be required to remain stealthed, but they don't stealth you on their own.  If you minor action drink a potion... you aren't stealthed.  It merely means you quaffed a potion without anyone noticing the fact that you did.  On the other hand, if you are invisible and want to sneak by someone, you need to roll a stealth check for movement.  Then, if you want to drink a potion, you would need to stealth check a minor action to ensure you don't make noise doing so.  Similarly, if you are stealthed behind a wall already and don't move, you are still stealthed (assuming you still have cover, concealment, etc).  But, if you drink a potion from behind that wall, you need to stealth check to ensure you do so without drawing attention to yourself.You know - I think I just answered my own question about the cover/concealment issue during combat.  People are said to be fully aware in all directions during combat (unless distracted).  If a warlock who begins their turn already stealthed does a teleport with a stealth check to a location behind an enemy, they can.  But, they are still only concealed.  The enemies will be aware that the warlock is behind them, but it might take them a while to realize (depending on whether or not they pass their passive check.)  If they do, then the stealth fails and the warlock would not get combat advantage on their next attack against them.  If they failed, the warlock MAY get combat advantage on their next attack assuming the creature does not go first and use a minor action to actively perceive them.  This seems to be in line with the RAI and RAW. Agreed.  I thought this was redundant at first, but I do see 1 circumstance where this is appropriate.  If a person's passive check is good enough to determine the location of an invisibly stealthing player, they may take a minor action to try and improve on this.  If that active check ends up being lower than their passive, they wouldn't all of a sudden not know the direction or distance, right?  Agreed. It should be pointed out that this is completely a House Rule.  Nothing in the PHB or DMG describes this behavior.  This would fall under the "appropriateness" ruling of DMs.  The example I've used before is the guard dog who notice a stealthed player, but doesn't have the means to communicate an exact location.  They can alert their masters to a presence and possibly a direction, but they can't tell them where exactly. Agreed. This is a hous rule (as you've pointed out) and also kind of pointless given the understandings above.  The rules for stealth and combat seem clear.  The rules for stealth and defense also seem clear now. Agree, but I would be careful with the wording.  You don't need to be "hidden", you just need to be "stealthed" - whatever that is. Disagree with this.  There are specific feats which even allow you to move your normal speed.  I would just stick to the penalties for movement, as applicable. Doesn't seem unreasonable.  I probably wouldn't do it and would just make the call on a need by need basis for my players but it doesn't sound unreasonable.</blockquote>

Verification