Stealthy movement

[clearstream]

Two cases express the common permutations

First) open-c/c-open

and

Second) c/c-open-c/c

Let's say we work directly from RAW. You must have c/c to make a check, and you must maintain c/c to remain unnoticed.

In the first case, you can't make your check in your start square. It must wait until your first c/c square. Whatever the result, you will be automatically perceived in your end square.

In the second case, you make your check in your start square. Once you reach open you will be automatically perceived, but what happens when you get back to c/c?

Unlike attacking or shouting, by RAW you're not 'no longer hidden'. Rather, you haven't remained unnoticed and your enemies with some LOS to the open square automatically see you without making a Perception check. So are you still, in a way, moving stealthily despite being automatically seen and not remaining unnoticed?

Now consider a third case

open-open-c/c

Our Rogue wants to dart into c/c and hide. Sound okay? How about if they throw in an immediate interrupt attack during that move against an Orc who OAs them in the second open square? Still okay?

We can reach a tentative conclusion. You make your check when you first hit c/c, making your movement hidden. If after that you move into open, you are not 'no longer hidden', rather you are automatically perceived with no check required. If you then continue into c/c your check hasn't been discarded so you recompare your standing check with observers based on your new position.

However, if you made an attack while moving, instead of being automatically perceived and not remaining unnoticed, you are no longer hidden. Your check is discarded. Even if you continue on to c/c, you'll need a new action to try again with.

Now, the penalty for moving. The Shadow Stride Bugged post originates from an earlier post I made on the WotC boards. It illustrates that checks must be made as early as possible during movement (the alternative is you rule that the movement isn't hidden, just the final position). In order to facilitate that, you must base the penalty on the movement your Rogue intends to implement, ignoring the possibility that they don't manage to implement that. But won't that unfairly tempt Rogues to change their movement when they make a bad roll? What if the consequence of failing and making the planned move is certain death? Your Rogue must point out their route, not just announce their movement count, up front before rolling.

As for the possiblity of intervening lightly obscured squares between a Rogue and perceivers during movement, you'll hit one more snag. An observer might be subject to the -5 relative to the square the check is made in, but might not be subject to the -5 relative to a square somewhere along the path of movement. How to rule it? By RAW, an opposed check only happens at the moment an active check prompts it, and in the case of moving into open squares RAW makes it clear that no check is required: a new comparison doesn't happen. Therefore by RAW, you only look at the current square when a Rogue makes an active check.

-vk

 

[firesnakearies]

Two cases express the common permutations

First) open-c/c-open

and

Second) c/c-open-c/c

Let's say we work directly from RAW. You must have c/c to make a check, and you must maintain c/c to remain unnoticed.

In the first case, you can't make your check in your start square. It must wait until your first c/c square. Whatever the result, you will be automatically perceived in your end square.

In the second case, you make your check in your start square. Once you reach open you will be automatically perceived, but what happens when you get back to c/c?

Unlike attacking or shouting, by RAW you're not 'no longer hidden'. Rather, you haven't remained unnoticed and your enemies with some LOS to the open square automatically see you without making a Perception check. So are you still, in a way, moving stealthily despite being automatically seen and not remaining unnoticed?

Now consider a third case

open-open-c/c

Our Rogue wants to dart into c/c and hide. Sound okay? How about if they throw in an immediate interrupt attack during that move against an Orc who OAs them in the second open square? Still okay?

We can reach a tentative conclusion. You make your check when you first hit c/c, making your movement hidden. If you move into open, you are not 'no longer hidden', rather you are automatically perceived with no check required. If you then continue into c/c your check hasn't been discarded so you recompare your standing check with observers based on your new position.

However, if you made an attack while moving, instead of being automatically perceived and not remaining unnoticed, you are no longer hidden. Your check is discarded. Even if you continue on to c/c, you'll need a new action to try again with.

Ugh, two cases for something nearly similar: why not simplify it and just demand a new check both times? Sound good?

Now, the penalty for moving. The Shadow Stride Bugged post originates from an earlier post I made on the WotC boards. It illustrates that checks must be made as early as possible during movement (the alternative is you rule that the movement isn't hidden, just the final position). In order to facilitate that, you must base the penalty on the movement your Rogue intends to implement, ignoring the possibility that they don't manage to implement that. But won't that unfairly tempt Rogues to change their movement when they make a bad roll? What if the consequence of failing and making the planned move is certain death? Your Rogue must point out their route, not just announce their movement count, up front before rolling.

As for the possiblity of intervening lightly obscured squares between a Rogue and perceivers during movement, you'll hit one more snag. An observer might be subject to the -5 relative to the square the check is made in, but might not be subject to the -5 relative to a square somewhere along the path of movement. How to rule it? By RAW, an opposed check only happens at the moment an active check prompts it, and in the case of moving into open squares RAW makes it clear that no check is required: a new comparison doesn't happen. Therefore by RAW, you only look at the current square when a Rogue makes an active check.

-vk

Hmm. You lost me.

 

[clearstream]

Ugh, I've just noticed I've made it possible to carry the advantages from a position of Superior Cover or Total Concealment with you through other, less well obscured, squares.

I'm trying to write the outcome of this reasoning into my Stealth - Streamlined rules. Frankly, it's getting nightmarish to square up all the branches and conditionals, and I'm not optimistic about it DMing well.

-vk

 

[Kordeth]

In the first case, you can't make your check in your start square. It must wait until your first c/c square. Whatever the result, you will be automatically perceived in your end square.

Correct.

In the second case, you make your check in your start square. Once you reach open you will be automatically perceived, but what happens when you get back to c/c?

Unlike attacking or shouting, by RAW you're not 'no longer hidden'. Rather, you haven't remained unnoticed and your enemies with some LOS to the open square automatically see you without making a Perception check. So are you still, in a way, moving stealthily despite being automatically seen and not remaining unnoticed?

I think you're trying to think too much like "hidden" is a condition. It's not. "the creature automatically sees you" and "you are no longer hidden" are the same thing. There's no clear RAW indication whether moving back into cover requires a new Stealth check, but I'm inclined to say it's one check and you're "stealthy" in squares where you have c/c.

Now consider a third case

open-open-c/c

Our Rogue wants to dart into c/c and hide. Sound okay? How about if they throw in an immediate interrupt attack during that move against an Orc who OAs them in the second open square? Still okay?

Still okay. Note the wording in the Stealth skill: "If you later attack or shout, you’re no longer hidden. Since he attacked before making his Stealth check, he's still hidden if he succeeds.

We can reach a tentative conclusion. You make your check when you first hit c/c, making your movement hidden. If after that you move into open, you are not 'no longer hidden', rather you are automatically perceived with no check required. If you then continue into c/c your check hasn't been discarded so you recompare your standing check with observers based on your new position.

Again, I agree with you, but I think you're trying to break things down into finer distinctions than you need to with this "automatically perceived" vs. "no longer hidden" stuff.

However, if you made an attack while moving, instead of being automatically perceived and not remaining unnoticed, you are no longer hidden. Your check is discarded. Even if you continue on to c/c, you'll need a new action to try again with.

Only if you attack after making the Stealth check.

Now, the penalty for moving. The Shadow Stride Bugged post originates from an earlier post I made on the WotC boards. It illustrates that checks must be made as early as possible during movement (the alternative is you rule that the movement isn't hidden, just the final position). In order to facilitate that, you must base the penalty on the movement your Rogue intends to implement, ignoring the possibility that they don't manage to implement that. But won't that unfairly tempt Rogues to change their movement when they make a bad roll? What if the consequence of failing and making the planned move is certain death? Your Rogue must point out their route, not just announce their movement count, up front before rolling.

Is it really that hard to give the rogue his 5 points back if he decides to move less than 2 squares at the last second?

As for the possiblity of intervening lightly obscured squares between a Rogue and perceivers during movement, you'll hit one more snag. An observer might be subject to the -5 relative to the square the check is made in, but might not be subject to the -5 relative to a square somewhere along the path of movement. How to rule it? By RAW, an opposed check only happens at the moment an active check prompts it, and in the case of moving into open squares RAW makes it clear that no check is required: a new comparison doesn't happen. Therefore by RAW, you only look at the current square when a Rogue makes an active check.

-vk

If it really matters what square the target sees the rogue in (for purposes of OA or similar attacks) just adjust the Perception total and compare it to the Stealth total on a per-square basis. If there's a row of lightly obscured squares adjacent to the fighter and the rogue moves through one of them, subtract 5 from the fighter's Perception roll and see if it still beats the rogue's Stealth. If it does, the fighter still sees him. If not, he momentarily loses track of the slippery little weasel and doesn't spot him again until the rogue leaves the obscured square. This is a serious edge case, though.

 

[clearstream]

Only if you attack after making the Stealth check.

That's an interesting distinction, and one I'm inclined to agree with. It meshes with some other considerations too.

Is it really that hard to give the rogue his 5 points back if he decides to move less than 2 squares at the last second?

Unfortunately, yes. By RAW if you made the check later, but wanted to count the hiding sooner, you end up potentially rewinding time, and more than once, to resolve some cases.

If it really matters what square the target sees the rogue in (for purposes of OA or similar attacks) just adjust the Perception total and compare it to the Stealth total on a per-square basis. If there's a row of lightly obscured squares adjacent to the fighter and the rogue moves through one of them, subtract 5 from the fighter's Perception roll and see if it still beats the rogue's Stealth.

What you say is of course correct by RAW, my fear is more the trouble that makes in game. I imagine some groups like a Rainbow 6 style of combat, with very precise moves. I've never DM'd like that: my groups like it fast and loose, and heroic feeling. This close attention to precise position doesn't work so well for me or my players; it's not demanded by RAW, so I wanted to see if it can be elided. Unfortunately doing so leads to other problems.

Thank you for this detailed input!

-vk

 

[Kordeth]

Unfortunately, yes. By RAW if you made the check later, but wanted to count the hiding sooner, you end up potentially rewinding time, and more than once, to resolve some cases.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not advocating making the check at the end of the movement, just adjusting the check result if the rogue decides to stop sooner. For example:

- Rogue wants to move six squares stealthily to attack a goblin. He rolls his Stealth check, and with all modifiers gets a 10.
- That's a pretty crappy roll, so the player decides "I'll only move 2 squares and try to get to the goblin njext round."
- DM says "OK, that means your Stealth check was actually a 15 and you're now two squares away."

What you say is of course correct by RAW, my fear is more the trouble that makes in game. I imagine some groups like a Rainbow 6 style of combat, with very precise moves. I've never DM'd like that: my groups like it fast and loose, and heroic feeling. This close attention to precise position doesn't work so well for me or my players; it's not demanded by RAW, so I wanted to see if it can be elided. Unfortunately doing so leads to other problems.

Again, though, it's an edge case that only comes up if:

- The difference in check result would actually affect anything (i.e. if the rogue beat the fighter, more obscured squares are irrelevant; if the fighter beat the rogue, less-obscured squares are irrelevant).
- It actually matters what square the rogue is detected in (e.g. for targeting an attack or the like).

In those rare circumstances where those things matter, it might be worth tracking Perception square by square. 99% of the time, though, you'll be fine just using the modifiers for the least-obscured square the rogue moves through.

 

[clearstream]

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not advocating making the check at the end of the movement, just adjusting the check result if the rogue decides to stop sooner. For example:

- Rogue wants to move six squares stealthily to attack a goblin. He rolls his Stealth check, and with all modifiers gets a 10.
- That's a pretty crappy roll, so the player decides "I'll only move 2 squares and try to get to the goblin njext round."
- DM says "OK, that means your Stealth check was actually a 15 and you're now two squares away."

Ah, I see what you mean. It could be very nice, and I especially like that it doesn't let you reroll a bad check. I would advocate having the player declare their whole route, not just the number of squares, but other than that I'll include it in playtests I'm doing. My concern is slowing the game down while the DM and Rogue check each square.

My feeling is that powers are intended to be the focus of combat, even for Rogues. Which makes me want to find ways not to spend too much time on Stealth, which you then address with

Again, though, it's an edge case that only comes up if:

- The difference in check result would actually affect anything (i.e. if the rogue beat the fighter, more obscured squares are irrelevant; if the fighter beat the rogue, less-obscured squares are irrelevant).
- It actually matters what square the rogue is detected in (e.g. for targeting an attack or the like).

In those rare circumstances where those things matter, it might be worth tracking Perception square by square. 99% of the time, though, you'll be fine just using the modifiers for the least-obscured square the rogue moves through.

Exactly. Many D&D battles are essentially fought in featureless rooms, but I've been trying to work with a bit more terrain. Look at the second room in Kobold Hall. If your characters are some normal some low-light vision, and they throw a sunstick betwixt the tombs, that produces a lot of squares with cover or concealment. Now, those Kobolds have +10 on Stealth, so it's there to be used.

It's not a very complex scene, but it does quickly become tough to DM with many quite substantial modifiers resting on a Stealth call.

-vk

 

[Kordeth]

Ah, I see what you mean. It could be very nice, and I especially like that it doesn't let you reroll a bad check. I would advocate having the player declare their whole route, not just the number of squares, but other than that I'll include it in playtests I'm doing. My concern is slowing the game down while the DM and Rogue check each square.

You don't have to check each square, you just have to assess the movement-based penalties based on how many squares he moved.

Exactly. Many D&D battles are essentially fought in featureless rooms, but I've been trying to work with a bit more terrain. Look at the second room in Kobold Hall. If your characters are some normal some low-light vision, and they throw a sunstick betwixt the tombs, that produces a lot of squares with cover or concealment. Now, those Kobolds have +10 on Stealth, so it's there to be used.

It's not a very complex scene, but it does quickly become tough to DM with many quite substantial modifiers resting on a Stealth call.

-vk

OK, up till now I've been taking you at your word that obscured squares incurred a Perception penalty, but I've just double checked. They don't. The only difference is in the result of the Stealth check:

- If the Stealth check beats the Perception check, it doesn't matter--you're hidden.

- If the Perception check wins and the rogue has concealment or cover, he is seen.

- If the Perception check wins and the rogue has superior cover or total concealment, the spotter knows the rogue is there and the approximate direction and distance, but that's it.

So there's no tracking DCs square-by-square or adjusting results. It only matters at all if the Stealth-user fails the roll, and then it's easy to say "okay, he knows where you are as you move here, here, and here, but loses sight of here, he only knows you're inside that fog cloud."

 

[clearstream]

OK, up till now I've been taking you at your word that obscured squares incurred a Perception penalty, but I've just double checked. They don't. The only difference is in the result of the Stealth check:

DMG61. Lightly obscured squares between you and the stealther give you a -5 penalty.

Why would I make this stuff up?

-vk

 

[Kordeth]

DMG61. Lightly obscured squares between you and the stealther give you a -5 penalty.

Why would I make this stuff up?

-vk

I didn't think you were making it up, just confusing the attack penalties for a Perception penalty. I didn't think to check the DMG, just the PHB rules on Stealth and Perception. Weird that they don't even mention vision penalties under the Perception skill--I wonder if the rule in the DMG is meant to apply to trying to see out of obscured squares rather than seeing people moving through them. I actually don't think that these penalties should apply, since they're specifically vision penalties and noticing a stealthy character is more than just sight.

EDIT: Even still, it's only one flat -5 penalty, it's still a simple matter to say "okay, his check result is 21 for these three squares but only 16 for these, and he can't see you at all in these squares because they're heavily-obscured."