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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 4363928" data-attributes="member: 71699">I'm trying to exit the Stealth debate <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> but allowed myself a few minutes this morning to brush out some cobwebs, and you've identified the most important one. Jump down to the conclusion then come back and read the background. BackgroundThe moment you place a stealthing character under the Targeting What You Can't See rules, they gain an effective +10 to their Stealth, heavily suggestive that the entities being considered are enjoying some mode of invisibility better than Stealth. To be clear, when you put your stealthing player under those rules, any roll less than their Stealth+10 does not bust their Stealth! A CSR explicilty clarifies that Stealth does not upgrade Concealment to Total Concealment. Total Concealment does connect with Targeting What You Can't See by using the same words. Stealth does not. You need to look at Stealth in combat a different way; guile and gambit, not invisibility. WotC_Mearls suggests Rogues should often get CA from Stealth. He says 'With that in mind, when you are DMing it's OK to be liberal with letting people use the skill.' When he says 'The game's math assumes that the rogue gets sneak attack with just about every attack he makes' it would be sublimely insouciant of him to leave out 'and a defence against ranged and melee attacks of -5 to be hit, missing automatically if the wrong square is picked, with an effective -10 on Perception checks to pick the right square' that may also protect you from Close or Area attacks if they fail to include your square. Look at Warrior of the Wild or if you like Skill Training, and consider that Stealth has no cost for use, and can be used untrained. Ask yourself whether you want an At Will power in your game that does not itself cost an action (it rides on other actions), that gives an effect that good? ConclusionYour question yields a surprising answer, and one I've been trialling in play. It works fine, but you need to look at Stealth in combat as guile not invisibility. If a player is hidden by Stealth in cover or concealment, an enemy can attack them with a -2. The sneaky nature of the player will mean that if they attack back they'll have CA. The player is unnoticed, so the DM should take that into account when choosing targets for monster attacks. However, if a monster does pick the player, they are allowed to attack suffering only the penalty for cover or concealment. Stealth does not upgrade that. As for active checksTonester is right that RAW allows minor action checks only in that one rules block. WotC_Mearls explicitly generalised that to include checks in combat. As he and others indicated, monsters that aren't alert wouldn't make them. After that first Sneak Attack, they might be alert though <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> And here as on the WotC boards, I believe I am finally done with Stealth! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> -vk</blockquote>

Verification