Have the Developers finished rewriting the stealth skill?
I have an adventure coming up soon were I will be using ninjas. For part of this, I wanted the ninjas to sneak around in a house that has a lot of rooms and staircases. In there I wanted sneak attack (by hiding and then ambush the character) and then go away and hide (going around corners, etc, so they were no longer in line of site - observed)and try to ambush them again.
I would like to get a good handle on stealth. Actually, I really don't know if I can deny a characters Dex bonus by attacking from a hidden position.
I did see a link for the rewrite of the Stealth skill, but then I couldn't find it in the FAQs, but I don't think it was clear on if you could deny a Dex bonus by attacking from a hidden position.
They are not rewriting stealth, no.
Also, yes, a person who isn't aware of their attacker (i.e. their attacker is using Stealth) loses their Dex bonus against the hidden attacker.
They are not rewriting stealth, no.
Also, yes, a person who isn't aware of their attacker (i.e. their attacker is using Stealth) loses their Dex bonus against the hidden attacker.
To expand on that idea, the ninja (assuming they have time to get into position - sounds like they would) would roll a stealth check (possibly with any DM-offered bonuses for how and where they are hiding).
Assuming that the ninja did not move from that position, the victim would then roll a perception check once they were in line-of-sight of the ninja's position, with a DC equivalent to the ninja's total roll.
This assumes that the victim is actively looking while moving. If they weren't, I might roll secretly for them (with a penalty) and only advise them if they beat the attacker's roll then.
Have the Developers finished rewriting the stealth skill?
As much as they're going to.
From that thread:
This is the extent of it for now. We have no plans at this point to put it into the PRD or do much else with it at this point—feel free to use the variant rules of this playtest in your games as you wish... but it's not going to be something we officially adopt into the game, since that type of change goes from errata to re-design.
And the time for re-design is not now.
and from elsewhere:
The idea to tinker with possible adjustments to the rules in the format of a mini playtest on the blog was an experiment. A failed one, in my opinion.
Furthered by the fact that I've NEVER had a problem with the stealth rules in my games or in games I play in. Perhaps because with the application of a little common sense, they work fine as they are.
Something I do is if a victim wouldn't actively be searching for someone, I just have them take 10. Something similar to 4ed's Passive Perception.
To expand on that idea, the ninja (assuming they have time to get into position - sounds like they would) would roll a stealth check (possibly with any DM-offered bonuses for how and where they are hiding).
Assuming that the ninja did not move from that position, the victim would then roll a perception check once they were in line-of-sight of the ninja's position, with a DC equivalent to the ninja's total roll.
This assumes that the victim is actively looking while moving. If they weren't, I might roll secretly for them (with a penalty) and only advise them if they beat the attacker's roll then.
That's a good idea! Thanks a lot.
Something I do is if a victim wouldn't actively be searching for someone, I just have them take 10. Something similar to 4ed's Passive Perception.
I haven't played 4ed - but that sounds interesting.
I tell you though, I never saw it written in the rule book that a hidden attacker could use sneak attack (I assumed it, because it makes sense). I just don't remember seeing it - I'm probably just blind.
Sorry, I have a want-to-be "Rules Lawyer" at my table and I don't want to slow the game down. Thanks for your patience.
Something I do is if a victim wouldn't actively be searching for someone, I just have them take 10. Something similar to 4ed's Passive Perception.
But if they ARE looking for you, then rolling a d20 for Perception might result in a worse result. Moreover, there are consequences for failing a Perception check, so you can't really take your time with it, since taking 10 assumes you are doing multiple attempts and some of them fail.
And to expand on Akerlof's quote about taking 10, note that taking 10 is not an automatic success. It's the equivalent of rolling a 10 on a die. If you go to try to jump a pit, you can "take 10" on the jump check (per SKR), but if the DC required to clear the pit is a 12, you still miss and fall.
They are not rewriting stealth, no.
Also, yes, a person who isn't aware of their attacker (i.e. their attacker is using Stealth) loses their Dex bonus against the hidden attacker.
No, that is not correct. That is what they were TRYING to do by re-writing Stealth (see the two Stealth playtest, and adding the "Hidden" condition) but in order to do so they had to go beyond a simple FAQ. Thus, by RAW, being Stealthy, even with HiPS does not make your opponent lose his DEX.
Now, it is true this occurs by RAI, so it certainly could be houseruled.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe we will see those alternate Stealth rules in the upcoming Ultimate Campaign book.
You'll NEVER see the stealth rules coming...they'll SNEAK up on you! Get it??? SNEAK???
...
I don't get out much...
|
...but it's not going to be something we officially adopt into the game, since that type of change goes from errata to re-design.
And the time for re-design is not now.
Maybe we will see those alternate Stealth rules in the upcoming Ultimate Campaign book.
...and what part of JJ's comment leads you to believe that?
Something I do is if a victim wouldn't actively be searching for someone, I just have them take 10. Something similar to 4ed's Passive Perception.But if they ARE looking for you, then rolling a d20 for Perception might result in a worse result. Moreover, there are consequences for failing a Perception check, so you can't really take your time with it, since taking 10 assumes you are doing multiple attempts and some of them fail.
No. The rules state clearly that you can take 20 on perception . Mind you, it takes a couple of minutes, thus it won't work unless you target is there for that period.
|
...but it's not going to be something we officially adopt into the game, since that type of change goes from errata to re-design.
And the time for re-design is not now.
Maybe we will see those alternate Stealth rules in the upcoming Ultimate Campaign book....and what part of JJ's comment leads you to believe that?
It does not mean it will not be listed as optional rules, like Piecemeal Armor.
If you are playing with a conservative RAW GM, then nothing about stealth is obvious. If you are playing with a common sense GM, then everything about stealth flows naturally.
I'm the GM for this one. Sometimes some of the players get a little tightly wrapped up with the rules. I just want the game to run smoothly and not have slow downs due to rule debates. Plus the truth is I haven't GM'd for over a year so I gotta brush off the cobwebs a little.
I was a first edition DM so sometimes, for me, the rules kind of limit my creativity. That's why I want to be really prepared for this adventure. We have a couple of newer players and I want to create a really memorable adventure. I want to create some dramatic/cinematic sequences for them.
|
For instance, you will have some GMs apply the unwritten no facing rule (a rule intended for fighting) to perception in general. This would mean that if your ninja was hidden, but had to walk 10 feet out of hiding to attack, the moment he walked out he would be seen. Not only would you not get sneak attack (which would have to be houseruled anyway), but the target would not be denied their Dex as well.
For the players who want to be super rules-lawyery, you would count such a situation as a surprise round in combat.
The Surprise Round: If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round. If no one or everyone is surprised, no surprise round occurs.
Unaware Combatants: Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don't get to act in the surprise round. Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.
Therefore anyone who did not notice the ninja before he stepped out to attack (thus initiating combat) would be flat-footed and would not get to act in that surprise round. It would be difficult to pull off the ninja slipping into the shadows without the party getting to attack, especially if you want them to knife the party. You can make it a charge, though it puts the ninja out in the open in a compromised position.
If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn.
But if they're using, say, throwing knives or shuriken...
Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.
It's definitely not a guaruntee of success, even if the ninja's using a ki point to boost their stealth (assuming you're using the ninja class). But then, unless they're running up against ninjas that they have no chance to beat, it really shouldn't.
Yeah Dazz, I definitely will be sniping at first. These guys have Acrobat Master and High Jumper, so, I plan on having them jumping up to low rooftops and hay lofts to retry their stealth checks once the ground level characters loose site of them. Kind of a guerrilla warfare styled encounter.
When I spoke with SRM (Stephen-Radney MacFarland) at GenCon last August, he indicated the Stealth rules are not abandoned, just taking longer than anticipated. They were finding the current changes (on the Stealth blog) were not working as well as they liked, conflicting with other class abilities.
For example, he said the changes did not work well with the Ranger’s HiPS. However, he stressed it is something they are still working on, but there is no ETA at the moment.
Now that was 8 months ago, so who knows how that has changed. They could have possibly abandoned it by now.
|
If you are playing with a conservative RAW GM, then nothing about stealth is obvious. If you are playing with a common sense GM, then everything about stealth flows naturally.I'm the GM for this one. Sometimes some of the players get a little tightly wrapped up with the rules. I just want the game to run smoothly and not have slow downs due to rule debates. Plus the truth is I haven't GM'd for over a year so I gotta brush off the cobwebs a little.
I was a first edition DM so sometimes, for me, the rules kind of limit my creativity. That's why I want to be really prepared for this adventure. We have a couple of newer players and I want to create a really memorable adventure. I want to create some dramatic/cinematic sequences for them.
In this situation I suggest you lay out ahead of time the rules you will be using for stealth. When we encountered rules snafu's our group will often discuss how we feel they should work, vote on it, and the it's house ruled.
This taking 10 on passive stealth checks I like and will incorporate if my players want it.
You could do something similar in your game - if your players want to burn an action to make active perception checks you could "house rule" that the active check could not be less than the taking 10 check if they felt that aspect of it was unfair.
We playtested the variant Stealth rules in my campaign for a few months, and then went back to the official RAW. We found that the variant rules added a whole lot more complexity for little-to-no gain in actual gameplay.
I'm with JJ on this: the rules as written work just fine, and were never a problem to begin with.