PDA

View Full Version : [4e] A bit of Stealth Rules oddity



Gralamin
2010-04-08, 07:59 PM
So, this is an incredibly special case I just noticed: It is possible for an opponent to be able to see you, but be forced to guess which square you are in. I am using the PHB2 Stealth rules.

For this, you need two things:
1) You must be a cunning sneak Rogue, with Shadow Walk, and a way of turning invisible.
2) Your opponent must have Truesight, or some other way of seeing through invisibility.

Setup: You walk past your opponent, while invisible, with Shadow Walk and make a stealth check. (Note: Becoming hidden makes you silent and invisible, so its likely you do not have to be invisible in the first place).

Assuming the opponent doesn't spot you, the following are now in play:
1) You have the hidden state (You have cover, and are silent and invisible)
2) You have the invisible state (Most creatures cannot see you, You get CA against things that cannot see you, and you get total cover against things that cannot see you).
3) The opponent can see invisible things, so you lose the benefits listed in the invisibility rules, but you do not lose the invisible state.
4) You are hidden, and you are invisible. Because both of these are true, we go to the Invisible creatures and Stealth section of the "Targeting what you cannot see" sidebar.
5) The rules state it has to guess what space it occupies.
Therefore, you can be seen, but they have to guess which space you occupy.

Only RAW argument against this that I have found: The title of the sidebar saids "Targeting what you cannot see", so you would have to be unable to see the invisible things for this to apply. I'd argue that a title of a sidebar cannot be used as rules text in this fashion.

Resolving this:
I have yet to dig through for the RAW consequence. It could be that you are a block of black running around, making it obvious which square you are in. It could be that the opponent knows you are there, but not why you are there.

Obviously, by RAI, truesight should eliminate this, but by RAW it does not.

Yakk
2010-04-08, 09:45 PM
If you are hidden, the opponent should not know what square you are in. That is basically what "hidden" means.

In this case, I'd interpret Shadow Walk as being "your eyes slide off the Rogue". Another good one would be "mist flows in the approximate area where the warlock is, and conceals the warlock from your sight". Which I'd use would depend on the situation.

They have to either beat your stealth check with an active perception check, or guess where you are, in order to find you. Once they have found you (ie, they have truesight) they can attack you without penalty.

Gralamin
2010-04-08, 10:00 PM
If you are hidden, the opponent should not know what square you are in. That is basically what "hidden" means.

In this case, I'd interpret Shadow Walk as being "your eyes slide off the Rogue". Another good one would be "mist flows in the approximate area where the warlock is, and conceals the warlock from your sight". Which I'd use would depend on the situation.

They have to either beat your stealth check with an active perception check, or guess where you are, in order to find you. Once they have found you (ie, they have truesight) they can attack you without penalty.

The thing is, RAW doesn't state that. It only states that being hidden means you are invisible and silent, and they only don't know which square you are in if you are invisible and hidden.

tbarrie
2010-04-08, 10:50 PM
Only RAW argument against this that I have found: The title of the sidebar saids "Targeting what you cannot see", so you would have to be unable to see the invisible things for this to apply. I'd argue that a title of a sidebar cannot be used as rules text in this fashion.

See, now, if I'm DMing, I would in fact rule that the "Targeting what you cannot see" rules only come into play when targeting what you cannot see. Bit of a stretch, I realize, but I'm just crazy that way.

tcrudisi
2010-04-08, 11:00 PM
Cunning Sneak: If you move at least 3 squares and have cover or concealment, you can make a stealth check. (This supersedes the normal rule of requiring total cover or total concealment).

Shadow Walk: If you move at least 3 squares, you gain concealment.

Stealth: Roll your stealth versus the highest passive perception of all enemies. On a success, you are hidden.

Hidden: When a creature is hidden from an enemy, the creature is silent and invisible to that enemy.

Invisible: You can’t be seen by normal forms of vision. If an invisible creature is hidden from you (See "Stealth"), you can neither hear nor see it, and you have to guess what space it occupies.

Truesight: A creature that has truesight can see invisible creatures and objects within a specified range as long as they are also within line of sight.

The verdict? You stealth and become invisible to the monster who has truesight... but he doesn't care, because he can see invisible. Now, if you have total cover, he can't see you and your stealth also makes you silent, so he does not know where you are (unless he has tremorsense too).

It's just like a blind creature: they have other ways of "seeing". As such, you do not get combat advantage every time you attack a blind creature, even though you would argue that you are invisible to him. You are not, because his other senses (such as tremorsense) make it to where he can see you.

Also, something you have wrong: invisibility does not give you total cover; it would grant total concealment. Concealment means you are hard to see, cover means you are behind something like a wall. If you are invisible (concealment) standing in a field and a fireball lands in front of you, damage will be dealt to you. If you are behind a wall (cover) and that same fireball hits, you will not be dealt any damage.

Gralamin
2010-04-08, 11:01 PM
See, now, if I'm DMing, I would in fact rule that the "Targeting what you cannot see" rules only come into play when targeting what you cannot see. Bit of a stretch, I realize, but I'm just crazy that way.

Note: The subheading the rules I am using are clearly marked as Invisibility and Stealth. There is no reason, beyond claiming that the rules in that sidebar only work if you can't see them, why those rules shouldn't be followed.

Also, what you would rule if DMing is irrelevant.

Reynard
2010-04-08, 11:17 PM
Except any DM would rule that way, simply because this is a very dubious attempt to break the system.

tbarrie
2010-04-08, 11:30 PM
There is no reason, beyond claiming that the rules in that sidebar only work if you can't see them, why those rules shouldn't be followed.

Rules that only work when you can't see them is an interesting idea, but I see practical difficulties.


Also, what you would rule if DMing is irrelevant.

True; all that really matters is what the DM of your current campaign would rule. But as you asked online rather than approaching him or her directly, I assumed you wanted other people's perspective.

NEO|Phyte
2010-04-08, 11:31 PM
True; all that really matters is what the DM of your current campaign would rule. But as you asked online rather than approaching him or her directly, I assumed you wanted other people's perspective.

He's actually the DM in this case, I'm the Truesight-bearing player.

tcrudisi
2010-04-08, 11:34 PM
...
2) Your opponent must have Truesight, or some other way of seeing through invisibility.

Assuming the opponent doesn't spot you, the following are now in play:
1) You have the hidden state (You have cover, and are silent and invisible)
2) You have the invisible state (Most creatures cannot see you, You get CA against things that cannot see you, and you get total cover concealment against things that cannot see you).
3) The opponent can see invisible things, so you lose the benefits listed in the invisibility rules, but you do not lose the invisible state.
4) You are hidden, and you are invisible. Because both of these are true, we go to the Invisible creatures and Stealth section of the "Targeting what you cannot see" sidebar.
5) The rules state it has to guess what space it occupies.
Therefore, you can be seen, but they have to guess which space you occupy.



Hidden: When a creature is hidden from an enemy, the creature is silent and invisible to that enemy.

Invisible: You can’t be seen by normal forms of vision. If an invisible creature is hidden from you (See "Stealth"), you can neither hear nor see it, and you have to guess what space it occupies.

Truesight: A creature that has truesight can see invisible creatures and objects within a specified range as long as they are also within line of sight.


I underlined your "hidden" because a creature is not both "hidden and invisible". Hidden merely grants invisibility. So the creature can only have invisibility.

So we go to Invisibility: You can't be seen by normal forms of vision. Truesight is not a normal form of vision. In fact, as I wrote above, a creature that has truesight can see invisible creatures within range as long as that creature is within line of sight (read as: not blocked by total cover).

As such, Truesight see's the stealthed rogue just fine, as long as the rogue does not have total cover.

*edit* All the information that I provided was from the compendium, which includes all errata. I doubt the PHB2 rules are any different, but I'm struggling to understand your perceived loophole.

Okay, after thinking about it for a few minutes, I think I understand what you are saying: You are invisible, but the monster can see you. However, you've made the stealth check, so you are hidden from the monster, so therefore he can't see you.

The problem is that hidden only grants invisibility, which can be perceived via truesight, unless you can break line of sight somehow (ie - total cover). Walking up directly in front of a monster with truesight will not work, since they can see invisibility, and even though you are "hidden", hidden only suffices to make you invisible. As such, truesight > stealth (in most cases: see total cover above)

Gralamin
2010-04-09, 12:51 AM
I underlined your "hidden" because a creature is not both "hidden and invisible". Hidden merely grants invisibility. So the creature can only have invisibility.

So we go to Invisibility: You can't be seen by normal forms of vision. Truesight is not a normal form of vision. In fact, as I wrote above, a creature that has truesight can see invisible creatures within range as long as that creature is within line of sight (read as: not blocked by total cover).

As such, Truesight see's the stealthed rogue just fine, as long as the rogue does not have total cover.

*edit* All the information that I provided was from the compendium, which includes all errata. I doubt the PHB2 rules are any different, but I'm struggling to understand your perceived loophole.

Okay, after thinking about it for a few minutes, I think I understand what you are saying: You are invisible, but the monster can see you. However, you've made the stealth check, so you are hidden from the monster, so therefore he can't see you.

The problem is that hidden only grants invisibility, which can be perceived via truesight, unless you can break line of sight somehow (ie - total cover). Walking up directly in front of a monster with truesight will not work, since they can see invisibility, and even though you are "hidden", hidden only suffices to make you invisible. As such, truesight > stealth (in most cases: see total cover above)

Your problem is that you are not checking the following rules:


Targeting What You Can't See

Invisible Creatures and Stealth: If an invisible creature is hidden from you ("Stealth", page 188), you can neither hear nor see it, and you have to guess what space it occupies. If an invisible creature is not hidden from you, you can hear it or sense some other sign of its presence and therefore know what space it occupies, although you still cannot see it.
This is the newest version of the rules, and appeared in the PHB2 as a reprinting.

Basically: The creature can be seen by you, but he is still invisible and hidden (IE: just because you can see him doesn't mean he isn't invisible). Thus you can see him, but by RAW, you have to guess which square he is in.

Edit: You also apparently disregard Cunning Sneak (Which makes you merely need cover, allowing you to use Shadow Walk to hide).


True; all that really matters is what the DM of your current campaign would rule. But as you asked online rather than approaching him or her directly, I assumed you wanted other people's perspective.

Such perspectives don't matter. The question here is whether the RAW is sound, since its the only real baseline we have.

That said, I'm torn between which ruling I'll use as a DM. Probably the one that results in the most interesting encounter.

Kurald Galain
2010-04-09, 02:45 AM
3) The opponent can see invisible things, so you lose the benefits listed in the invisibility rules, but you do not lose the invisible state.
4) You are hidden, and you are invisible. Because both of these are true, we go to the Invisible creatures and Stealth section of the "Targeting what you cannot see" sidebar.

I don't think it works that way. You can be (and frequently are) invisible to some creatures and not to others. If you are hidden to this opponent and not invisible to him (because he has Truesight) then the TWYCS sidebar doesn't apply to that opponent.

tcrudisi
2010-04-09, 05:34 AM
Your problem is that you are not checking the following rules:

This is the newest version of the rules, and appeared in the PHB2 as a reprinting.

Basically: The creature can be seen by you, but he is still invisible and hidden (IE: just because you can see him doesn't mean he isn't invisible). Thus you can see him, but by RAW, you have to guess which square he is in.

Edit: You also apparently disregard Cunning Sneak (Which makes you merely need cover, allowing you to use Shadow Walk to hide).

Ahh, okay, I see what you are saying. However, hidden merely grants invisibility (look up the hidden keyword). Truesight can see through invisibility.

No, I did not disregard Cunning Sneak. If you see my first post, you'll see that I typed out what it does. However, it only allows you to make a stealth check with basic cover or basic concealment. Shadow Walk does not grant cover, it grants concealment (which still functions for making a stealth check but is very, very different. You keep typing "cover" when you really need to type "concealment".)

What Cunning Sneak doesn't do is grant you some form of superior invisibility. Moving 3+ squares with Cunning Sneak and Shadow Walk allows you to make a Stealth check. Stealth causes you to become hidden. Hidden makes you become invisible and silent. Invisible can be seen with trueight. So truesight allows you to see creatures that are stealthed.

There are thus only two ways to not be seen by truesight: 1) be out of the truesight range (truesight 10 and you are 13 squares away), or 2) have line of sight blocked, which can be done with complete cover (there's a building in between the monster and stealthed creature. He cannot see you and you are quiet so he cannot hear you).

*edit* If you are wondering why you have to guess when attacking something that is both hidden and invisible, it's because hidden also befuddles another sense: auditory. If you were merely invisible but did not make a stealth check, the enemy still knows where you are by default of you being loud. As such, you must be both invisible and hidden to confuse enemies as to where you are.

Tiki Snakes
2010-04-09, 09:25 AM
Hmm. I'm thinking people are possibly, depending on how the RAW actually resolves, getting a little bit caught up on the keywords.

So, from my understanding, the rogue moves, gaining concealment, and because of the other feat, can attempt to hide with just basic concealment.

If he passes the stealth check, then he is hidden from the thing that he is hiding from. If he doesn't, then he isn't.

So, here's how it goes, as far as I follow.

There is an enemy with Truesight. The rogue turns invisible using his method of choice(A Cloak of Invisibility, Harry!), moves at least three squares, and makes a hide check.

He's moved three, so he gains concealment from the enemy with truesight. He didn't have any till the end of the move, because the enemy has truesight. Shadow Walk doesn't grant invisibility however and so truesight doesn't really affect it.

The rogue makes his hide check, and is hidden from the Truesighted creature, as per normal. As the Truesighter doesn't know exactly where he's got to, he may either make a perception check to find him, or, I suppose, guess where he is and attack anyway.

His two buddies, however, Blindsight and Tremorsense can happily gank the rogue, as the rogue does not have anything blocking line of effect (so Blindsight can see him) and is touching the ground (so that even if he did, Tremorsense would know where he's got to).

In all three cases, his Invisibility Cloak doesn't help him at all.

NEO|Phyte
2010-04-09, 09:33 AM
The rogue makes his hide check, and is hidden from the Truesighted creature, as per normal. As the Truesighter doesn't know exactly where he's got to, he may either make a perception check to find him, or, I suppose, guess where he is and attack anyway.

The thing is, as per normal, being Hidden means you are invisible. Which means the Truesighter can still see you.

Tiki Snakes
2010-04-09, 09:36 AM
The thing is, as per normal, being Hidden means you are invisible. Which means the Truesighter can still see you.

No. See, that's rules lawyering. Hidden is Hidden. This is treated as being 'invisible' to the thing you are hidden from, but you don't actually become invisible.

Outside of Dragon-Age, Stealth does not work that way.

NEO|Phyte
2010-04-09, 09:44 AM
No. See, that's rules lawyering. Hidden is Hidden. This is treated as being 'invisible' to the thing you are hidden from, but you don't actually become invisible.

Except as far as I can see, Hidden is not its own state, just a way of saying "is invisible and silent." Not treated as, IS.

Success: You are hidden, which means you are
silent and invisible to the enemy (see “Concealment”
and “Targeting What You Can’t See,” page
281).

Tiki Snakes
2010-04-09, 09:54 AM
Except as far as I can see, Hidden is not its own state, just a way of saying "is invisible and silent." Not treated as, IS.

to the enemy.

It's clear from context that they are using the Word Invisible, not the State, because you are Invisible AND Silent. There is no such state as Silent, therefor they probably just mean that when you can't be seen or heard, you can't be seen or heard.

Now, given that only monsters ever get things like truesight, and that the dm can give creatures whatever types of Eyeball he likes I really don't see a problem.

If you want the type of vision that allows them to see things that are hiding as long as they aren't physically behind something, what you are describing is blindsight.

As I listed, between truesight blindsight and tremorsense you have three different ways of sensing things that normal people couldn't, all giving distinctly different capabilities and providing different challenges to the players.

Or are you suggesting that, despite the fact that your stealth check must beat every foe's passive perception individually, that you somehow become actually invisible from making a mundane stealth-check?

NEO|Phyte
2010-04-09, 10:00 AM
Or are you suggesting that, despite the fact that your stealth check must beat every foe's passive perception individually, that you somehow become actually invisible from making a mundane stealth-check?
It wouldn't be the strangest thing to come out of RAW. It's also not like this selective invisibility is unique to Stealth, Eyebite can do it too, though it's admittedly an Arcane power.
:edit: Also, with 4e's love of keywords, it would be pretty dumb to use invisible when they don't mean Invisible.

Tiki Snakes
2010-04-09, 10:14 AM
It wouldn't be the strangest thing to come out of RAW. It's also not like this selective invisibility is unique to Stealth, Eyebite can do it too, though it's admittedly an Arcane power.

As a DM you are free to rule things however you like, of course.
If in your games, passing a stealth check and becoming hidden only works at all because it allows you to partially slip into the dream-world and become invisible to normal eyes, then your interpretation has more merit.

On the other hand, claiming that because Truesight allows you to see invisible things (and there may be one, maybe two daily item powers than can do the same, I think, in a near-epic ring?) does effectively mean that you are effectively turning Truesight into the exact same thing as Blindsight, (or even better, possibly), meaning that anything short of being entirely behind a wall will never provide a way to hide from them.

Frankly, with RAI so obvious, I don't think there's any real room to argue the RAW. Especially in an edition which is very much free from the simulationist mantra of RAW > All.

As for the various powers like eye-bite (and the psion one, memory hole perhaps?) I'd probably rule them on a case by case basis, depending on how they actually do it. Given that they are, in turn, an enchantment and Telepathic mind-tinkering, I'd possibly be inclined to favour the player than the monster in those cases.

NEO|Phyte
2010-04-09, 10:25 AM
(and there may be one, maybe two daily item powers than can do the same, I think, in a near-epic ring?)
Gral gave me Truesight out to 3 squares (among other things) as a property in a divine boon-type thing. It's a slightly high-powered game.


As a DM you are free to rule things however you like, of course.
If in your games, passing a stealth check and becoming hidden only works at all because it allows you to partially slip into the dream-world and become invisible to normal eyes, then your interpretation has more merit.

Frankly, with RAI so obvious, I don't think there's any real room to argue the RAW. Especially in an edition which is very much free from the simulationist mantra of RAW > All.

As for the various powers like eye-bite (and the psion one, memory hole perhaps?) I'd probably rule them on a case by case basis, depending on how they actually do it. Given that they are, in turn, an enchantment and Telepathic mind-tinkering, I'd possibly be inclined to favour the player than the monster in those cases.
I won't argue that the RAI is pretty clear, but this thread was started to point out a RAW oddity.

KillianHawkeye
2010-04-09, 10:54 AM
It could be that the opponent knows you are there, but not why you are there.

Truly you are a great philospher. :smallwink::smallbiggrin:

Tiki Snakes
2010-04-09, 11:54 AM
Gral gave me Truesight out to 3 squares (among other things) as a property in a divine boon-type thing. It's a slightly high-powered game.


I won't argue that the RAI is pretty clear, but this thread was started to point out a RAW oddity.

Ah, I see. That's a pretty nice, boon.

I think, frankly, that there isn't really a problem by RAW unless you go for some pretty specific reading. It's very clear how it works to my mind and I think having received the ability to see through invisibility within 15' is already pretty good without it inviolating the ability for people to hide.

Really, there's no raw Issue here, because Truesight doesn't pierce the ability for things to be hidden, merely allows you to see the invisible. It takes some very specific chain of clearly unintended alternate possible meanings to produce the 'oddity'.

Lets try putting it this way, even if we assume that a successful stealth, and therefore becoming hidden, makes you Invisible, and the target can see things that are Invisible, it still doesn't mean he can see you. Because you are Hidden by something else. You aren't hidden because you are Invisible, therefor it makes no difference.

Basically, Truesight is pretty good, but it's not unbeatable. It prevents one way of gaining combat-advantage, and of hiding both people and things, but doesn't negate the ability for things to be hidden, provided they are hidden through methods other than invisibility.

That's how it's spelled out, that's how the RAW states as far as I can see.

However, to directly address the first post;

No, you don't need to be invisible to trigger the situation in question, and it doesn't matter if you do because truesight pierces the Invisibility. There is no 'invisible state', there is only 'hidden', so when the cunning shadow walking sneak makes his successfull stealth check against the passive perception of the truesighter, he becomes Hidden. The Truesighter can make a perception check as a minor action, and/or guess the square.

The Truesighter can't see the Sneak, and thus he is hidden. But he isn't unable to see him because of the Invisibility, nor does being hidden make you invisible, it only makes you in-visible to the enemy, thus there is no problem, conflict, or so on.

RAI is that truesight SHOULDN'T eliminate this, and RAW is that it DOESN'T. Blindsight would, and if on the same surface, so would Tremorsense.


NOTE; If the rogue had a way of becoming invisible, then the situation is slightly more complex, but not in reguard to the truesighter. The Rogues check would be higher against any other foes that didn't have Truesight, rather, because to them he is Invisible.

Also, Without Shadow-walk, the Sneak needs to rely on actual concealment or cover to make the stealth check at all, rather than providing his own. In this case, he couldn't hide at all without a bush or a table to drop behind, as he wouldn't gain the benefit of invisibility against the truesighter.

TL:DR - If you can't see something, you can't see something.
If you are hidden because you are invisible, but the target can see invisibility, then you are not hidden. If you are 'invisible' because you are hidden, then they can't see you, because you are hidden.