Stealth Playtest

It's commendable that you are attacking the Stealth problems, though I believe you have made things very difficult for yourselves, by rolling Hide and Move Silently into the Stealth skill, and on the other side of the coin, rolling together Spot and Listen into a catch-all Perception skill.

I understand the temptation to reduce the number of skills, to help those classes with fewer skill points, but I believe those classes already benefitted from the other changes;
Namely, the 1:1 skill cost, lifting the cap on cross-class skills, and changing the class skill bonus to a flat +3. All of those things served to reduce the potential disparity between the haves and the have-nots, without creating bizarre situations, where a silence spell effectively also makes you invisible, and invisibility also makes you silent.
Does buying a telescope grant the user super-hearing?
Does a dog's Scent ability auto-fail in the dark?

I have a PC who wears magical eyelenses; when I ask for a Perception check, I get back 'I got 25, unless it's a sight-based check, in which case I got 35...'.
PCs who are in melee have penalties to hearing what's going on behind them, since they create so much noise. If there's a potential backstabber in the room, do I base the DC on their hampered hearing, or on their sight?
One of the party has low-light vision; approaching enemies may be seen earlier, as they step into the limits of his sight. His hearing is no better than anyone else's. Do I base the surprise DC on sight? Or sound?
A PC gets blinded; does this also deafen him? If not, what's the point? Am I or am I not actually within my rights to disallow that he can simply navigate around like a bat, rolling Perception checks at full bonus? There's more than a few on these boards, who would take the view that this would be 'screwing with the player'.

In practice, there are so many situations in which the surroundings, equipment, nearby activity, etc. affect one sense differently from another, that I am effectively forced to calculate PC and NPC Perception and Stealth as (at least) four separate and different values.
I don't believe I have gained any streamlining of play, via the consolidation of skills; in fact, quite the opposite, since what used to be resolved by calling for a Spot check, or a Hide roll, gets derailed if I ask for Perception or Stealth checks, as the players stop to query which kind of check it is, and we have to dissect the various modifiers (That modifier doesn't apply; that one does...).

I'm not a big fan. These rules make it too easy for stealthy characters to remain essentially permanently invisible.

If you're going to go ahead with something like this please include a section on 'countering stealth' and specifically what a character that has successfully used stealth has going for them. Are their victims completely unaware where the attack came from? Do the victims have any recourse for finding the stealthy character beyond beating their stealth check with a perception check? I've seen what happens when stealth is too easy to use (it's called 4e) and when that happens things get really silly really fast.

You need to re-read:

It's usually impossible to use Stealth while making an immediate action, standard action, or a full-round action, unless you are subject to greater invisibility or a similar effect, you are sniping (see below), or you are using a standard action to ready an action.

So if you attack, cast a spell, or any other standard action, you don't get to make a stealth check. You get benefits of stealth (read: sneak attack) for your first attack out of a successful stealthing, but then immediately lose your stealth. The only way to "perpetually" stealth is if all you do is creep around slowly and watch people/wait for something. As soon as you try to actually accomplish anything, you lose stealth.

Please, only critique what you've read.

Reposting since I'm certain my post from earlier was missed (certainly not ignored, I hope).

We used the invisible condition because it gets the job done, and it was a condition already in the game.

Been waiting on that one. :D

Question: Is stealth opposed or not? Opposed checks have to be beaten (not met), but...

Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you.

Other Perception Checks:If a creature makes a Perception check as a move action to notice an invisible creature, the DC of the Perception check is the invisible creature's last Stealth check. This is also the case if a creature makes a Perception check to notice an invisible creature because the perceiving creature is entering an area where it could possibly notice an invisible creature.

DCs are, by my understanding "meet-or-beat." This seems contradictory, though I may just not be understanding some subtle difference in the situational conditions... I think I prefer opposition to setting DCs at any rate.

To further clarify:

If the result of your skill check is equal to or greater than the difficulty class (or DC) of the task you are attempting to accomplish, you succeed. If it is less than the DC, you fail. Some tasks have varying levels of success and failure depending on how much your check is above or below the required DC. Some skill checks are opposed by the target's skill check. When making an opposed skill check, the attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result of the target.

I don't have time to check that now (only did a quick reading) but i have to say THANK YOU.
I will check it more when i have more time.

*Casts summon aMiB*

Already lit the signal beacons.

... Usually a Stealth check is made at the start of a free, move, or swift action when you start that action with either some kind of cover (except for soft cover) or concealment. You can always spend a swift action to stay immobile and make a Stealth check...

Does this mean that you can hide in plain sight (i.e. without cover) by standing still and making a Swift action Stealth check? Say, for example, you begin in cover (behind a pillar), make a Stealth check and move across a courtyard, but don't have enough movement to get all the way across. Next round you stand still, use a Swift action Stealth check, and are still invisible, despite not having cover?

The blog has been updated to fix some formatting and a couple instances of wording issues. Enjoy!

It's commendable that you are attacking the Stealth problems, though I believe you have made things very difficult for yourselves, by rolling Hide and Move Silently into the Stealth skill, and on the other side of the coin, rolling together Spot and Listen into a catch-all Perception skill.

I hear what you are saying, but that ship has sailed.

@Foghammer - Do keep in mind that in the DC-setting situation, we're talking about someone searching for you (using their action, while you're the passive one) instead of happening to notice you as you sneak around (using your action, while they're the passive ones). With it not being your turn/you're not doing anything, I think it's reasonable for you to use your previous stealth result instead of rolling all over again. With that in mind, it doesn't seem too weird (to me) to let an existing number (the previous stealth check) be treated as a DC.

I would change the check paragraph to use the following order (including paragraph breaks):

Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. When you make your Stealth check, those creatures that didn't succeed at the opposed roll treat you as invisible until the start of your next action or until the end of your turn if you do not end your turn with cover or concealment. When you use Stealth, creatures that are observing you (creatures that you didn't have cover or concealment from) or that succeed at the opposed check do not treat you as invisible.

Usually a Stealth check is made at the start of a free, move, or swift action when you start that action with either some kind of cover (except for soft cover) or concealment. You can always spend a swift action to stay immobile and make a Stealth check. You cannot spend a free action to initiate a Stealth check, but if you spend a free action while under the effects of Stealth, you must make a new Stealth check in order to continue the effects of Stealth. It's usually impossible to use Stealth while taking an immediate action, standard action, or a full-round action, unless you are subject to greater invisibility or a similar effect, you are sniping (see below), or you are using a standard action to ready an action.

You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half and up to your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty.

A creature larger or smaller than Medium takes a size bonus or penalty on Stealth checks depending on its size category: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Large –4, Huge –8, Gargantuan –12, Colossal –16.

Creating a Diversion to Hide: If you do not have cover or concealment, as a standard action, you can attempt a Bluff check opposed by the Perception of opponents that can see you. On a success, you become invisible to those creatures and can move up to half your speed. When you do this, you take a –10 penalty on the Bluff check.

This needs to be split out from Sniping.

Also, a few wording issues...

Change
"a Bluff check opposed by the Perception of opponents that can see you"
To
"a Bluff check opposed by the Perception of opponents that can observe you"

Distractions can be verbal or motion-based, such as urgently pointing at a non-existent thing, or making a comment about the (non-existent) giant coming down the hall. Any kind of bluff that distracts the attention of others in combat would count in this. Using "sight" and "seeing" and "invisibility" neglects things like hearing and smell and blindsense.

Next up, is the idea of a distraction providing invisibility. It's very ... non-intuitive, lacking and/or misleading.
Instead, a successful Distract action should make all the affected combatants "unable to observe you, and also treat you as if fully concealed against any form of perception"
Distraction momentarily misdirects attention, not just sight.

Da Blog wrote:

... Usually a Stealth check is made at the start of a free, move, or swift action when you start that action with either some kind of cover (except for soft cover) or concealment. You can always spend a swift action to stay immobile and make a Stealth check...

Does this mean that you can hide in plain sight (i.e. without cover) by standing still and making a Swift action Stealth check? Say, for example, you begin in cover (behind a pillar), make a Stealth check and move across a courtyard, but don't have enough movement to get all the way across. Next round you stand still, use a Swift action Stealth check, and are still invisible, despite not having cover?

No. When you spend a swift action in this way, you still need cover or concealment...unless you are using the hide in plain sight class feature, which is another matter entirely. Unless you have a class feature or some other ability that says otherwise, you always either need cover or concealment to hide, no matter the action you are taking.

First, congratulations on taking the bold approach.

Some quick critiques:
Obviously, this is temporary wording to hash out your ideas. It has the feeling of specifically dealing with questions, rather than being authoritative rules text. `Usually` isn`t something normally seen in rules descriptions for one. I would just remove some of the extraneous mentions of Invisiblity, Greater Invisibility, etc, from the main rules text, it`s just confusing and doesn`t seem par for the style... You cover the normal function, and other abilities changing that detail how they work. If you want sub-heading for those specific aspects, that`s fine, but as-is, the main text is very clogged up.

I thought it was un-necessary to doubly state that those who fail the Perception check treat you as Invisible, and a separate sentence says those you observe you/succeed at Perception check do not treat you as Invisible. The second part runs into problems when you actually are Invisible, i.e. apparently passing the Perception check negates ALL effects of the Invisibility spell (rather than just pin-pointing). It seems like there needs to be some discrimination here between actual Invisibility, e.g. See Invisible or Purge Invisibility. I`m not sure how Blindsense/Blindsight would work here... Not working vs. Stealth is what keeps Stealth useful at high levels.

Also, you run into a `recursive` issue if Stealth == Invisibility, when you are `continuing` Stealth, you would seemingly get the Invisiblity bonus to Stealth... Or at least that isn`t 100% clear to me, since `treating you as Invisible` COULD plausibly apply to their opposed Perception check vs. your Stealth score (which is boosted by Invisibility). Besides separate sub-headings for (real) Invisiblity, it seems reasonable to put rules pertinent to that under those spells/conditions. If not, those spells/conditions hardly have anything worthwhile communicating if it`s all under the Stealth skill. For one, I can see the Invisiblity condition stating how you are ALWAYS making a Stealth check irrespective of actions/concealment. I strongly suspect those page-number-reference limitations are what is guiding your hand here, and though I completely don`t understand why that is important (PLEASE, put out a radically edit, easier-to-read-and-play-with ruleset and I will happily buy it, with the understanding that older products` page number reference are no longer valid), I would point out that there are tons of rules areas that could be re-written MORE clearly using LESS space, and finding those sections in the preceding and subsequent pages to areas you are considering Editing may open up new editing freedom re: word-count.

It's usually impossible to use Stealth while making an immediate action, standard action, or a full-round action, unless you are subject to greater invisibility or a similar effect, you are sniping (see below), or you are using a standard action to ready an action.

The implications of Readying an Action aren`t really spelled out... Is this meant for Readying a MOVE Action? in that case, you ARE taking a move action, so I don`t see the need for exception. Also note that while the above says it`s usually impossible to Stealth during Immediate, Standard, Full-Round except when under Greater Invisibilty, that`s EXTREMELY indirect wording... If there are special rules for greater Invisibility, those can be spelled out POSITIVELY in an appropriate location. Also, I`m not sure why Invisibility should be different than Greater Invisiblity in terms of Stealth-compatable actions.

Attacking from Invisibility: Usually making an attack...

Please just label this `Attacking from Stealth`, which would go along with `entering Stealth` (ala entering Rage), just using Invisibility per se is going to be even more confusing for many players. Much better to call Stealth Stealth, and explain how that is similar (and different) from Invisibility.... You don`t notice it`s location/presence, no LoS/E, full concealment, attack bonus when attacking from invisible, etc. Scent could be cleared up a bit, esp. in terms of what is `automatic` and what isn`t. Even if you want to heavily leverage Invisibility, this ssection shouldn`t be called `attacking from Invisibility` because people will read it and think it should apply to all invisiblity (even supernatural permanent invisibility), you can call it `attacking from stealth` and depend on other sections to explain how stealth is equivalent to invisibility.

The `make check at start of action` bit seems wierd in some cases... So you can`t start out in un-concealed area, spend move action to move into and thru concealed area, and at the point you enter that area you make the stealth check? Or, you must un-necessarily end your 1st move action and start a 2nd move action at that point in order to stealth? It seems that is pretty easy to fix by saying `you can Stealth at any point during these actions, when Stealth requirements are met`. I would ditch the `move action` part as just say `during movement` since movement can be done via move action, withdraw, not to mention others. If you want to specifically bar Charge, or Spring Attack, or 5` step, that can be done via specific exclusions. (Withdraw and Spring Attack do`nt actually work in the current text, since Full-Actions are barred... unless using Greater Invisiblity, but not normal Invisiblity)

That also frees you up to say the specific conditions that DONT require movement. FYI, I think you will also want to deal with people hiding from Enemies ahead of time, i.e. setting up a hiding spot in a room/area `outside of Initiative`. While you`re at it (writing new rules), why not throw in some Survival synergy for natural-setting ambushes? Since I believe Stealth is also used for hiding objects, that may need specific treatment as well, unless objects are to become Invisible, etc.

The Swift Action bit (which requires you to be immobile, so can`t be used in above situation) seems questionable in this context, given there is no rule allowing you to make a swift action in place of a standard (i.e. you only have 1 spell left, a swift action spell). I would just allow it as a Free Action if you are immobile (and that is specified to be for your entire action, i.e. you can`t move and THEN Free Action stealth). Actually, the `immobility` wording isn`t clear if you CAN Move and then Swift ACtion Stealth and then Standard Action whatever you want (except moving apparently). Overall, the immobility thing isn`t very clear in how previous actions affect it, and how it affects subsequent actions.

You cannot spend a free action to initiate a Stealth check, but if you spend a free action while under the effects of Stealth, you must make a new Stealth check in order to continue the effects of Stealth.

This wording is just unwieldy and confusing. `Initiate a Stealth check` isn`t really defined as such for it to work this way, nor is `while under the effects of Stealth... continue(ing) the effects of Stealth`. What you really want need is for the equivalent of entering Rage, with `entering Rage` and `maintaining Rage` (both of which needs Stealth checks`... but you don`t want `initiating a Stealth CHECK` which is just confusing. Along with this, it should be clear that `Stealth` is a Condition (similar to Invisibility) that lasts a given duration, probably 1 round or until certain conditions occur (breaking concealment, attacking, etc), and that you can `continue` it at the very start of your next turn if you so wish, without dropping it (which goes against the RAW definition of 1 round durations, and I believe is also a technical problem with Rage, i.e. Rage has a minimum 2 rounds spent per RAW).

ProfPotts wrote:

Da Blog wrote:

... It's usually impossible to use Stealth while making an immediate action, standard action, or a full-round action, unless you are subject to greater invisibility or a similar effect, you are sniping (see below), or you are using a standard action to ready an action...

You realise this wording means it's impossible to sneak up behind someone and attack them without using magic? Unless I'm missing something.

...So you check your stealth when you start your move action and you keep it until you make your attack.

Apparently, it would have ramifications for Full Attacking out of Stealth though.

Other things you can't do while sneaking:

Drink a potion
Activate a magic item
Concentrate to maintain a spell
Dismiss a spell
Draw a hidden weapon
Lower spell resistance
Use an extraordinary ability
Use any skill which takes 1 action (including picking locks or pockets via Disable Device or Sleight of Hand)

I think you`re mis-reading it, although I can see why you might see that from the current RAW... As I understand it, you can do those things WHILE stealthed, you just can`t initiate (or continue) Stealth WITH those actions, you must take another Move action (or Swift if immobile) or Free (if extending) to make the Stealth check, but you still have your remaining actions to take. I`m pretty sure none of those actions ends stealth, like attacking or leaving concealment does.

OMG Thank you! Now to participate.

Da Blog wrote:

... Usually a Stealth check is made at the start of a free, move, or swift action when you start that action with either some kind of cover (except for soft cover) or concealment. You can always spend a swift action to stay immobile and make a Stealth check...

Does this mean that you can hide in plain sight (i.e. without cover) by standing still and making a Swift action Stealth check? Say, for example, you begin in cover (behind a pillar), make a Stealth check and move across a courtyard, but don't have enough movement to get all the way across. Next round you stand still, use a Swift action Stealth check, and are still invisible, despite not having cover?

It does say the swift action is for when you "stay" immobile - I would think that if you end your turn with movement, then when your next turn arrives you're not "staying" immobile.

I think the intent (though it could stand to be cleared up in the wording) is that if you're already safely behind a pillar, a swift action is your means of "just stealthing" without having to do something else in order to grant yourself a stealth check (since a stealth check is described as normally being part of another action). Make sense?

Please, only critique what you've read.

I did.

Attack (while stealthed)
Move + Stealth

Next turn, repeat as needed.

I still don’t like using the word invisible when you are successfully stealthing. Even if you are making it where the mechanics are basically the same, they are still different as invisibility is not the same as hiding/being quiet.

I also think that there needs to be a third means of allowing a stealth check; cover, concealment or diversion. Diversion should be a GM-extrapolated state that includes things like the use of the bluff skill, but also intentional diversions created by allies, insect swarms, conveniently timed avalanches, the setting sun blinding people, etc.

It is the absence of a diversion clause that keeps Jack B. Nimble from stealing that chicken.

EDIT: removed a soft cover comment

@Foghammer - Do keep in mind that in the DC-setting situation, we're talking about someone searching for you (using their action, while you're the passive one) instead of happening to notice you as you sneak around (using your action, while they're the passive ones). With it not being your turn/you're not doing anything, I think it's reasonable for you to use your previous stealth result instead of rolling all over again. With that in mind, it doesn't seem too weird (to me) to let an existing number (the previous stealth check) be treated as a DC.

I don't see the difference, though. Regardless of whose action it is, your Stealth is opposing their Perception, or vice versa. If it were to go by DCs, then it should say something like "The DC to spot a creature using the Stealth skill is 1d20 plus the stealthing creature's stealth modifier." and Stealth should say something similar, like "Your Stealth check (made by the DM) sets the DC to spot you."

I'm not staunchly opposed to meet-or-beat in general, nor am I a huge fan of stealthing, I just prefer that the mechanics be consistent throughout their usage. This distinction puzzles me because, however slightly, it leans in favor of the onlooker, and as it is, stealth is horribly useless without invisibility.

As far as the skills no longer being separated, I deal with that by calling for two separate rolls at my table, with appropriate conditional modifiers, if there is a chance something can be noticed visually or through sound. (Sound is harder, because light travels faster.) I have not had a problem with it so far. Invisibility doesn't impact audible cues, though sound doesn't always help a lot when you literally can't see something. Silence would not affect the perception roll that dealt with visual cues.

My problem with stealth is that, as written, it's useless (unless you have HiPS). But WITH HiPS, it's near broken.

...It's usually impossible to use Stealth while taking an immediate action, standard action, or a full-round action, unless you are subject to greater invisibility or a similar effect, you are sniping (see below), or you are using a standard action to ready an action...

So you can't make a check whilst making a Standard action (including stuff like Sleight of Hand).

... When you make your Stealth check, those creatures that didn't succeed at the opposed roll treat you as invisible until the start of your next action or until the end of your turn if you do not end your turn with cover or concealment...

So, as soon as you start another action (such as a Standard Action for Sleight of Hand) you drop out of Stealth / invisibility.

At the very least, it's impossible to sneak up behind a guard, pick his pocket to get the keys, and sneak away. One way or another (either at the start of your Sleight of Hand action, or the end of your turn - being out of cover and all) you're automatically spotted.

Feral: the skill states that if you make an attack, or if you end your turn without cover or concealment, then the invisibility ends. This negates any kind of "invisibility loop".

To clarify: if I understand this correctly, this offers the following improvements to the existing stealth rules as written.
1) Breaking cover old rules: A rogue stealths from one pillar to another pillar. He breaks cover by doing so, thus automatically stops stealthing and gets noticed by the guards.
New rules: A rogue is hiding behind a pillar. He moves 15feet to get to another pillar. He makes a stealth check as a part of his move action, gaining the invisible condition against anyone who he both has cover against and has failed a perception check DC=his stealth check. Then, he ends his turn behind a different pillar. Against enemies that he still has cover against, his invisible condition lasts until the start of his next turn. Against enemies that he no longer has cover against (say he moved into line of sight of a monster), his invisible condition only lasts until the end of his round. Against creatures who he did not have cover against at the beginning of his round (for example, his trusty cleric friend beside him), he does not have the invisible condition in any way shape or form.

2) Attacking from stealth old rules: The rogue pops out from behind the pillar to menace a goblin 15feet away. The second he breaks stealth, the goblin notices him and he does not get his sneak attack (unless the goblin is otherwise denied his dex bonus to AC).
New rules: The rogue starts his turn with cover against the goblin. He makes a stealth check as a part of his 15ft move towards the goblin, gaining the invisible condition if he is not perceived by the goblin. He moves into the open, therefore has no cover, but since "during his last action (the 15ft move) he was considered invisible, he is now considered invisible for his first attack". The rogue attacks with the benefit of sneak attack at the end of his attack, since he has made an attack and no longer has cover, he loses the invisible condition (either of which would have ended the condition). Even if for some reason he had another attack (say he was a high level two weapon archetype fighter in addition to being a rogue), he would not have the benefit of invisibility for the second attack, since the first attack ended the condition.

Hope that clarified the whole "rolling invisibility" thing. also keep in mind that the invisible condition does NOT mean the rogue blinks out of sight magically. The condition means that enemies are unaware of his location and presence (and lose their dex bonus to AC etc)

Now a suggestion: while soft cover does not provide cover for the purposes of stealth (completely logically, you should not be able to hide behind a party member) might I suggest adding rules for stealthing in a crowd. For example, a pickpocket is tailing a mark through a busy marketplace. While he does not have hard cover, he should still be able to be unnoticed by his mark, gaining the invisible condition against the mark (but not against people he is jostling against). How and if third parties like guards on the perimeter treat the pickpocket also bears some thought. Thank you very much for clarifying and improving this skill. As Alorha said, this is basically how we are running the stealth rules anyway in home games, but it really needed to be spelled out

Prof Potts wrote:

Other things you can't do while sneaking:
Drink a potion
Activate a magic item
Concentrate to maintain a spell
Dismiss a spell
Draw a hidden weapon
Lower spell resistance
Use an extraordinary ability
Use any skill which takes 1 action (including picking locks or pockets via Disable Device or Sleight of Hand)

I think you`re mis-reading it, although I can see why you might see that from the current RAW... As I understand it, you can do those things WHILE stealthed, you just can`t initiate (or continue) Stealth WITH those actions, you must take another Move action (or Swift if immobile) or Free (if extending) to make the Stealth check, but you still have your remaining actions to take. I`m pretty sure none of those actions ends stealth, like attacking or leaving concealment does.

No, he's got it right. Look:

It's usually impossible to use Stealth while taking an immediate action, standard action, or a full-round action, unless you are subject to greater invisibility or a similar effect, you are sniping (see below), or you are using a standard action to ready an action. When you make your Stealth check, those creatures that didn't succeed at the opposed roll treat you as invisible until the start of your next action or until the end of your turn if you do not end your turn with cover or concealment.

First, it says you can't use stealth when you make a standard (or some others) action. Thus if you take such an action, you're not using stealth. It also says that the result of successful stealthing only lasts until your next action. That means that if you move (with a successful stealth check), your "invisibility" only lasts until you do something else - so by the time you start a standard action, your stealth has ended. And since you can't use stealth with said standard action, your stealth stays ended until you get the chance to start it up again.

Jiggy wrote:

Please, only critique what you've read.

I did.

Attack (while stealthed)
Move + Stealth

Next turn, repeat as needed.

In your example, your attack costs you your stealth (you'd still get sneak attack if applicable, but you still lose your stealth). To then move and re-initialize stealth, you'd need cover/concealment (see my above quote in response to Quandary) from where you start said move in order to do so. That's some pretty specific circumstances to be able to do that repeatedly.

I think the major flaw in this rewrite as it is now is the use of invisible to describe stealth.

So I find some cover and stealth. I succeed on my stealth check and am now invisible. I step out from behind cover and guess what....they hear me walking. Invisibility is written to specifically not cover sound. By making stealth = invisible you are also not covering the sound aspect. Now anyone with a DC 10 perception check can hear you.

Also. If I cast the spell invisibility, how does this play out with stealth. Invisibility already makes me invisible plus gives me a huge bonus to my stealth check...but what do I then need a stealth check for. Stealth is just going to make me invisible....which I already am.

Dotted for later review.

No, he's got it right. Look:

Blog Post wrote:

It's usually impossible to use Stealth while taking an immediate action, standard action, or a full-round action, unless you are subject to greater invisibility or a similar effect, you are sniping (see below), or you are using a standard action to ready an action. When you make your Stealth check, those creatures that didn't succeed at the opposed roll treat you as invisible until the start of your next action or until the end of your turn if you do not end your turn with cover or concealment.

First, it says you can't use stealth when you make a standard (or some others) action. Thus if you take such an action, you're not using stealth. It also says that the result of successful stealthing only lasts until your next action. That means that if you move (with a successful stealth check), your "invisibility" only lasts until you do something else - so by the time you start a standard action, your stealth has ended. And since you can't use stealth with said standard action, your stealth stays ended until you get the chance to start it up again.

But that seems to be a case where the sniping paragraph could be renamed or made part of a series of actions called "stealthy preparations" that must occur at least 10 ft from an opponent that could include his list of sneaky git type actions.

Feral: the skill states that if you make an attack, or if you end your turn without cover or concealment, then the invisibility ends. This negates any kind of "invisibility loop".

Attacking from Invisibility: Usually making an attack against a creature ends the invisible condition. If during your last action were invisible to a creature, you are still considered invisible when you make the first attack of that new action.

You are standing behind cover/concealed - a low wall, a corner, the Blur spell.

You attack. You stealth to hide. Next turn repeat.

Easy infinite invisibility loop.

Huh. chickens of the world may have something to fear now.

Technical point: See invisibility would now see stealth based on a literalistic reading of When you make your Stealth check, those creatures that didn't succeed at the opposed roll treat you as invisible

I'm a little confused as to whether you can;t drink a potion while stealthing or you'd have to make another stealth roll not to slurp as you drank

Quandary wrote:

Prof Potts wrote:

Other things you can't do while sneaking:
Drink a potion
Activate a magic item
Concentrate to maintain a spell
Dismiss a spell (etc)

I think you`re mis-reading it, although I can see why you might see that from the current RAW... As I understand it, you can do those things WHILE stealthed, you just can`t initiate (or continue) Stealth WITH those actions, you must take another Move action (or Swift if immobile) or Free (if extending) to make the Stealth check, but you still have your remaining actions to take. I`m pretty sure none of those actions ends stealth, like attacking or leaving concealment does.

No, he's got it right. Look:

Blog Post wrote:

It's usually impossible to use Stealth while taking an immediate action, standard action, or a full-round action, unless you are subject to greater invisibility or a similar effect, you are sniping (see below), or you are using a standard action to ready an action. When you make your Stealth check, those creatures that didn't succeed at the opposed roll treat you as invisible until the start of your next action or until the end of your turn if you do not end your turn with cover or concealment.

First, it says you can't use stealth when you make a standard (or some others) action. Thus if you take such an action, you're not using stealth. It also says that the result of successful stealthing only lasts until your next action. That means that if you move (with a successful stealth check), your "invisibility" only lasts until you do something else - so by the time you start a standard action, your stealth has ended. And since you can't use stealth with said standard action, your stealth stays ended until you get the chance to start it up again.

Did you see the part where I acknowledged how he could read that from the current RAW?

As in my big post above, I think it`s valid to point out these structural/grammar issues, but I think it`s going to be alot more useful to Stephen if people can look past those just a little bit to understand the system he is describing, rather than never doing so because he didn`t describe it as good as he could have. Bracketing your responses in terms of those two things, and describing the assumed function your functional critique is based off of, is completely resonable and helpful of course.

Thank you for working on a fix on the Stealth rules (and asking for our feedback, too ) !

Let the poor Jack B.Nimble finally steal that chicken :D !!!

A proposed piece of text to consider

Moving Beyond Stealth
A creature who is fully covered, concealed or not being observed (such as via a successful stealth check) can emerge out into the open and perform an action without first being noticed. In order to do so, they must successfully make a stealth check against all relevant observers. This opposed roll represents the stealthy creature's ability to use timing and subtlety to seize moments of opportunity, and perform actions such as attacking, moving across open spaces or stealing without being noticed in time.

This can, for example, allow a pickpocket to emerge from hiding and make their sleight of hand check before being noticed. It can also allow a sneaky rogue to move from hiding spot to hiding spot without being noticed.

Emerging from hiding qualifies as movement, leaving a standard and swift action available to the stealthy creature. If the requirements for stealth (cover, concealment, invisibility, etc.) are no longer met at the end of the action, the creature's stealth ends and initiative determines the subsequent course of events.

I'll agree with those saying that the invisible condition isn't (as written now) a good fit for Stealth... at least not alone.

Also, this...

Creating a Diversion to Hide: If you do not have cover or concealment, as a standard action, you can attempt a Bluff check opposed by the Perception of opponents that can see you. On a success, you become invisible to those creatures and can move up to half your speed. When you do this, you take a –10 penalty on the Bluff check.

... doesn't seem right. A Bluff check to allow a Stealth check, sure; but a Bluff check in place of a Stealth check is just weird. The world's most unstealthy used car salesman can vanish like Batman? The issue with this may also come from the lack of figuring sound into the thing - sure, he says, 'Look behind you!' and you turn away... but why do you not hear his size twelve boots clomping away as he runs behind a nearby pillar? He Bluffed you into deafness?

I think the major flaw in this rewrite as it is now is the use of invisible to describe stealth.

So I find some cover and stealth. I succeed on my stealth check and am now invisible. I step out from behind cover and guess what....they hear me walking. Invisibility is written to specifically not cover sound. By making stealth = invisible you are also not covering the sound aspect. Now anyone with a DC 10 perception check can hear you.

Also. If I cast the spell invisibility, how does this play out with stealth. Invisibility already makes me invisible plus gives me a huge bonus to my stealth check...but what do I then need a stealth check for. Stealth is just going to make me invisible....which I already am.

I agree with you, I don’t like using the descriptor invisible at all. Since when is Stealth a magical ability? Does that mean it doesn’t work in an anti-magic field? Can I cast See Invisibilty to negate their Stealth, even though they rolled 50? What about Invisibility Purge? True Seeing is only for seeing through magical illusions. Does Stealth count as this now as it is considered like invisibility?

Please use another term than invisibility for successfully stealthing, because they are different.

First, it says you can't use stealth when you make a standard (or some others) action. Thus if you take such an action, you're not using stealth. It also says that the result of successful stealthing only lasts until your next action. That means that if you move (with a successful stealth check), your "invisibility" only lasts until you do something else - so by the time you start a standard action, your stealth has ended. And since you can't use stealth with said standard action, your stealth stays ended until you get the chance to start it up again.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Sniping is for a (small) chance of not losing your stealth when you attack - any other attack guarantees being noticed. What point are you trying to make...?

You are standing behind cover/concealed - a low wall, a corner, the Blur spell.

You attack. You stealth to hide. Next turn repeat.

Easy infinite invisibility loop.

Except that the attack causes you to lose stealth, so even if you re-stealth afterwards, they still spotted you long enough to know where the attack came from. And as is stated elsewhere in the blog post, they can spend a move action to look for you (and potentially spot you and end your stealth). Or they could move to your side of the wall/corner, spotting you and making it impossible for you to resume stealth (without finding new cover).

In short: even if you attack (non-sniping) and immediately stealth again, there's still a moment where they spot you, and that will have consequences. You don't stay stealthed the whole time.

@Quandary - I don't think I'm going to bother responding to you anymore. You seem to have some verb confusion issues that making discussing rules details really difficult. No hard feelings, I just don't have time to deal with that language barrier (partly because I'm at work).

You are standing behind cover/concealed - a low wall, a corner, the Blur spell.

You attack. You stealth to hide. Next turn repeat.

Easy infinite invisibility loop.

If something is repeatedly striking me from the same space and hiding again, I am either going to move out into the open where they can no longer hide, or attack them with a readied action. If they're being particularly obnoxious about it (blur spell, which might get errata'd into not allowing stealth), I'll grapple them. Once they attack me they lose stealth, and I can bring down the hammer.

A very defeatable "infinite invisibility loop" that only works under very specific circumstances is not that powerful in a game where greater invisibility is a thing.

Personally, I really like the new rules - they allow you to play out a "Metal Gear" style stealth scenario on a battle mat, which was previously impossible. I can't wait to give them a try - I'm currently running a two-person evil game where the party leader is an assassin, so I'd love to run an adventure where the challenge comes from distracting guards and taking different routes rather than just asking for a bunch of stealth checks over and over.

(edited, tidied up)
Standard Idiot (very literal reading) test results:

Attacking from Invisibility: Usually making an attack against a creature ends the invisible condition. If during your last action were invisible to a creature, you are still considered invisible when you make the first attack of that new action.

Besides what I take to be a missing 'you' from in front of 'were invisible', as far as I can make out from 'that new action' one possible interpretation is this says that if you were invisible in your previous action, if you want to attack, you get an immediate new action to attack and stay effectively invisible. So that means someone who was invisible (or effectively invisible?) immediately beforehand gets infinite actions and stays invisible so long as they keep using those new actions to attack????

Sniping: If you already are invisible to a target and you are 10 feet from that target, as a standard action, you can make one ranged attack against that target and immediately make an opposed Stealth check to stay invisible. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check when attempting to snipe.

So a wizard casts Invisibility on a party member at the start of a dungeon crawl, and so long as that party member restricts him or herself solely to sniping attacks, for as long as he/she keeps making those stealth checks the Invisibility spell keeps running and running and running until the duration regularly expires?

Lab_Rat wrote:

I think the major flaw in this rewrite as it is now is the use of invisible to describe stealth.

So I find some cover and stealth. I succeed on my stealth check and am now invisible. I step out from behind cover and guess what....they hear me walking. Invisibility is written to specifically not cover sound. By making stealth = invisible you are also not covering the sound aspect. Now anyone with a DC 10 perception check can hear you.

Also. If I cast the spell invisibility, how does this play out with stealth. Invisibility already makes me invisible plus gives me a huge bonus to my stealth check...but what do I then need a stealth check for. Stealth is just going to make me invisible....which I already am.

I agree with you, I don’t like using the descriptor invisible at all. Since when is Stealth a magical ability? Does that mean it doesn’t work in an anti-magic field? Can I cast See Invisibilty to negate their Stealth, even though they rolled 50? What about Invisibility Purge? True Seeing is only for seeing through magical illusions. Does Stealth count as this now as it is considered like invisibility?

Please use another term than invisibility for successfully stealthing, because they are different.

I think you are confusing the spell invisibility with the condition invisible. Stealth makes you invisible (the condition). The spell invisibility makes you invisible (the condition). Stealth is a non-magical method while invisibility is magical. As written spells like see invisibility, invisibility purge, and true seeing would see stealthed players since they all counter the condition invisible and not the spell invisibility. Detect magic however would fail to detect the stealthed player but would detect the player using invisibility.

A proposed piece of text to consider

Moving Beyond Stealth
A creature who is fully covered, concealed or not being observed (such as via a successful stealth check) can emerge out into the open and perform an action without first being noticed. In order to do so, they must successfully make a stealth check against all relevant observers. This opposed roll represents the stealthy creature's ability to use timing and subtlety to seize moments of opportunity, and perform actions such as attacking, moving across open spaces or stealing without being noticed in time.

This can, for example, allow a pickpocket to emerge from hiding and make their sleight of hand check before being noticed. It can also allow a sneaky rogue to move from hiding spot to hiding spot without being noticed.

Emerging from hiding qualifies as movement, leaving a standard and swift action available to the stealthy creature. If the requirements for stealth (cover, concealment, invisibility, etc.) are no longer met at the end of the action, the creature's stealth ends and initiative determines the subsequent course of events.

A good deal of what you propose (such as moving from pillar to pillar) is already covered in the proposed rules. You make your stealth check as you initiate a valid action, checking for cover/concealment at the start of that action. So, for instance, the cover of the first pillar gives you the circumstance you need to make a stealth check to move across the gap - succeed your check, and you make it to the other side unnoticed. And since you now have cover again, you aren't forced out of stealth at the end of your turn.

Except that the attack causes you to lose stealth, so even if you re-stealth afterwards, they still spotted you long enough to know where the attack came from. And as is stated elsewhere in the blog post, they can spend a move action to look for you (and potentially spot you and end your stealth). Or they could move to your side of the wall/corner, spotting you and making it impossible for you to resume stealth (without finding new cover).

In short: even if you attack (non-sniping) and immediately stealth again, there's still a moment where they spot you, and that will have consequences. You don't stay stealthed the whole time.

Sure, if you're a ranged character and/or spellcaster and you ready you can counter the stealth invisibility loop.

What about a melee character? What's a melee character supposed to do against a enemy using the attack/stealth invisibility loop while moving back and forth across cover? What if that enemy is blurred and can stealth literally anywhere?

Feral wrote:

You are standing behind cover/concealed - a low wall, a corner, the Blur spell.

You attack. You stealth to hide. Next turn repeat.

Easy infinite invisibility loop.

Except that the attack causes you to lose stealth, so even if you re-stealth afterwards, they still spotted you long enough to know where the attack came from. And as is stated elsewhere in the blog post, they can spend a move action to look for you (and potentially spot you and end your stealth). Or they could move to your side of the wall/corner, spotting you and making it impossible for you to resume stealth (without finding new cover).

In short: even if you attack (non-sniping) and immediately stealth again, there's still a moment where they spot you, and that will have consequences. You don't stay stealthed the whole time.

You can do this now too. They changed nothing about the way this works. In addition, they can counter it by using readied actions to get counter attacks.

First off many of these changes are things my group and I do already and thinks its pretty damn amazing you stepped up to the plate to make a change to such an integral part of the game.

Now on that note. I agree with a few one thing from the masses on first read.

1. Using Invisible as your condition term is a bad idea. I think a term such as, stealthed, hidden or along these lines will allow people to differentiate between the 2 conditions.

I think confusion will set in. Problems with people thinking they are actually invisible even though dark vision may be able to see them and so on.

Again thanks for doing something most companies would hide from.

So a wizard casts Invisibility on a party member at the start of a dungeon crawl, and so long as that party member restricts him or herself solely to sniping attacks, for as long as he/she keeps making those stealth checks the Invisibility spell keeps running and running and running until the duration regularly expires?

The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature.

I think you are confusing the spell invisibility with the condition invisible. Stealth makes you invisible (the condition). The spell invisibility makes you invisible (the condition). Stealth is a non-magical method while invisibility is magical.

That’s my whole point, I agree with you, one is magical (invisibility) and one is non-magical (stealth), they should not have the same descriptor. It just causes more confusion.

As written spells like see invisibility, invisibility purge, and true seeing would see stealthed players since they all counter the condition invisible and not the spell invisibility. Detect magic however would fail to detect the stealthed player but would detect the player using invisibility.

Since when do those spells allow you to see a person who is successfully stealthing? Especially by going what we have established in stealth being non-magical, True Seeing is only useful towards magical illusions. Why should it allow you to see someone who is stealthing?

Malignor wrote:

Moving Beyond Stealth

A good deal of what you propose (such as moving from pillar to pillar) is already covered in the proposed rules. You make your stealth check as you initiate a valid action, checking for cover/concealment at the start of that action. So, for instance, the cover of the first pillar gives you the circumstance you need to make a stealth check to move across the gap - succeed your check, and you make it to the other side unnoticed. And since you now have cover again, you aren't forced out of stealth at the end of your turn.

Yes, but this wording doesn't involve sight, seeing, or invisibility. It's a generic piece that covers attacks, as well as other actions, while divorcing it from dependency on visual senses.

Jiggy wrote:

Please, only critique what you've read.

I did.

Attack (while stealthed)
Move + Stealth

Next turn, repeat as needed.

You missed the part where you eat an AoO for moving out of a threatened square, but that's not even the worst thing you missed.

You say "Move + Stealth" as the second action in the round. You can't do that.

"Usually a Stealth check is made at the start of a free, move, or swift action when you start that action with either some kind of cover (except for soft cover) or concealment. "

Once you've attacked, you move back toward cover/concealment (eating an AoO), but can't stealth during the move action because you didn't have cover or concealment when you started the move action (you lost it when you attacked). Best thing you could do would be to move behind cover/concealment and Stealth/Move at the start of your next turn.

If they're being particularly obnoxious about it (blur spell, which might get errata'd into not allowing stealth), I'll grapple them. Once they attack me they lose stealth, and I can bring down the hammer.

Except grapple still has to deal with concealment. Grappling Displaced targets is super obnoxious. I know, I've lived it.

A very defeatable "infinite invisibility loop" that only works under very specific circumstances is not that powerful in a game where greater invisibility is a thing.

Greater Invisibility doesn't render a character completely undetectable at level 1.

Part of this will depend on how they end up defining the results of a successful stealth check. If you can find the hidden character's square reasonably easily (like observing an invisible character) that's one thing. If a character that is invisible via stealth is completely undetectable we have a problem.

Interestingly enough, these modified rules are pretty much what my group has subconsciously done with Stealth since the beginning of our current campaign. I'm behind these changes fully.

Quote:

So a wizard casts Invisibility on a party member at the start of a dungeon crawl, and so long as that party member restricts him or herself solely to sniping attacks, for as long as he/she keeps making those stealth checks the Invisibility spell keeps running and running and running until the duration regularly expires?

Invisibility spell wrote:

The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature.

Yes, but the blog says, that if you're sniping 'you can make one ranged attack against that target and immediately make an opposed Stealth check to stay invisible.'

Love love love this, great attempt, designers! That said, I gotta echo that Invisibility is a really bad choice. I get you want a pre-existing condition so you have to change less/not go back and revise everything, but it just doesn't work.

+1 to a new Hidden condition

Edit: How do these new rules handle the original scenario presented in the "Stealth Doesn't Work or How Jack B. Nimble Doesn't Steal A Chicken" thread? I'm curious to see.

Really curious if the usual nay-sayers will turn up to contribute anything. A good litmus test of who is *actually* interested in rules changes.

Even if it's TOZ with his 4E hyperboles. ;-)

Anyway, as I said previously, and as other posters have also said, I have doubts over the wisdom of turning a named spell (or magic associated condition) into a term associated with the Stealth skill.