Sneaking. Because of the curving passage and steps, the characters can’t see the bandits, and the bandits can’t see them. If any characters want to move closer to hear, they must take the Hide action and succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity (Stealth) check. Those who succeed get to the bottom of the stairs and can hear what the bandits are discussing without being heard. If a character fails the check, the bandits hear them approach.
TarodNet Thanks Pal it's definitely an exemple of a Dexterity (Stealth) check to move quietly using the Hide action.
Except for the part where it's DC 10.
Looking at the stats, it's probably just a "move silently" check to beat Passive Perception 10 (which the bandits have). The strictest reading suggests it's in addition to the Hide action.
It's more-or-less straightforward. Ronnom hid when in total cover (i.e. no enemies in the hallway). He intends to either just stay there or reveal himself, depending on what other people do (so, no ambush). If they Search successfully, he'll be found. If he makes noise or moves (which makes noise), he'll be found.
Veen is Invisible (via magic) and not moving, so starts out unseen and unheard. No need for the Hide action. Does intend to ambush if necessary. Not findable by Search.
Looking at the stats, it's probably just a "move silently" check to beat Passive Perception 10 (which the bandits have). The strictest reading suggests it's in addition to the Hide action.
The hide action is not involved at all; if it were, there would be a DC 15 check.
If he makes noise or moves (which makes noise), he'll be found.
Stealth includes moving quietly, moving does not inherently cause you to no longer be hidden. The most likely interpretation of moving causing him to be revealed is that he's no longer in the shadow he's hiding in.
Looking at the stats, it's probably just a "move silently" check to beat Passive Perception 10 (which the bandits have). The strictest reading suggests it's in addition to the Hide action.
The hide action is not involved at all; if it were, there would be a DC 15 check.
"they must take the Hide action and succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity (Stealth) check" Hide includes a DC 15 check; the extra Stealth check is DC 10. To move quietly (like below), but they didn't spell that out.
If he makes noise or moves (which makes noise), he'll be found.
Stealth includes moving quietly, moving does not inherently cause you to no longer be hidden. The most likely interpretation of moving causing him to be revealed is that he's no longer in the shadow he's hiding in.
Stealth can be rolled to move silently. "Escape notice by moving quietly..." Movement makes noise unless you do that. You even get Disadvantage in heavy armor.
"they must take the Hide action and succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity (Stealth) check" Hide includes a DC 15 check; the extra Stealth check is DC 10. To move quietly (like below), but they didn't spell that out.
You don't make multiple stealth checks for a single action. If the only check that's called out is a DC 10 check, that must be the DC.
Stealth can be rolled to move silently. "Escape notice by moving quietly..." Movement makes noise unless you do that. You even get Disadvantage in heavy armor.
Again, you don't make new stealth checks every time you do something while hidden, you use the existing stealth check. We already know his stealth check was 20, because that's the DC to find him.
TarodNet Thanks Pal it's definitely an exemple of a Dexterity (Stealth) check to move quietly using the Hide action.
Except for the part where it's DC 10.
I don't think its made to become Invisible as the action normally do, hence the different DC; it's made to move quietly to the bottom of the stairs without being heard.
You don't make multiple stealth checks for a single action. If the only check that's called out is a DC 10 check, that must be the DC.
It's two actions. Hide, then "move closer to hear."
I've said repeatedly (elsewhere) that I'd give someone one free Move of quiet movement using the Hide Action's stealth roll, but that's my houserule and not what this adventure book is calling for. Or what the other (below) adventure book is calling for.
Again, you don't make new stealth checks every time you do something while hidden, you use the existing stealth check. We already know his stealth check was 20, because that's the DC to find him.
OK, whatever you say goes at your table.
It totally does say "Until the human man moves or speaks..." and "...Ronnom emerges from the shadows to parley..." so I think he is found if he moves. Yeah, there's the implication that he could roll Stealth to move quietly, but the description gives his intentions, and they don't include that.
Maybe I am reading the encounter differently but I don't think the assassin moves or speaks unless certain NPCs are in the room in which case he moves/speaks in an attempt to parlay. So I am reading it as you need to make a search check unless the conditions are met where he comes out of hiding to parlay. Not that movement in itself breaks hide, but that when he moves he intends to break hide as he is choosing to parlay. I guess if there are enough foes he could also move via fleeing, but i interpret fleeing as not sneaking off but hauling butt.
Maybe I am reading the encounter differently but I don't think the assassin moves or speaks unless certain NPCs are in the room in which case he moves/speaks in an attempt to parlay. So I am reading it as you need to make a search check unless the conditions are met where he comes out of hiding to parlay. Not that movement in itself breaks hide, but that when he moves he intends to break hide as he is choosing to parlay. I guess if there are enough foes he could also move via fleeing, but i interpret fleeing as not sneaking off but hauling butt.
That is definitely why the encounter is written that way. He intends to "stay hidden" and not do any ambushes or sneaking. They don't repeat or replace rules definitions in encounter texts.
It just so happens that that particular encounter and the other one from the other book can indeed be interpretted in a way that is consistent with each other and consistent with the PHB. It's just more hair-splitting.
Maybe I am reading the encounter differently but I don't think the assassin moves or speaks unless certain NPCs are in the room.
It's clearly that the assassin is expected to remain hidden unless certain conditions are met (in which case he comes out to parlay), but if the intent was that he was only revealed by coming out to parlay, they could easily have worded it in that way.
Well, let's see if I can get a concrete answer to a question:
You're a spellcaster who is hiding and you have a familiar. You cast a touch spell without a verbal component (I don't know that one exists, but there's always Sorceror with Subtle Spell and Ritual Caster) and have your familiar deliver the touch attack. Is the spellcaster's invisibility from hide broken? (ie, does the familiar count as the one attacking?)
If the spellcaster's invisibility is broken (ie, it's still their attack roll), what if the familiar was also hiding. Does it remain hidden since it didn't make the attack roll?
Well, let's see if I can get a concrete answer to a question:
You're a spellcaster who is hiding and you have a familiar. You cast a touch spell without a verbal component (I don't know that one exists, but there's always Sorceror with Subtle Spell and Ritual Caster) and have your familiar deliver the touch attack. Is the spellcaster's invisibility from hide broken? (ie, does the familiar count as the one attacking?)
This is probably debatable, but my understanding is that it's the spellcaster, not the familiar, who casts the touch spell, makes the attack roll (if required by the touch spell), or deals damage with it (if applicable).
If the spellcaster's invisibility is broken (ie, it's still their attack roll), what if the familiar was also hiding. Does it remain hidden since it didn't make the attack roll?
Finally, when you cast a spell with a range of touch, your familiar can deliver the touch. Your familiar must be within 100 feet of you, and it must take a Reaction to deliver the touch when you cast the spell.
You're a spellcaster who is hiding and you have a familiar. You cast a touch spell without a verbal component (I don't know that one exists, but there's always Sorceror with Subtle Spell and Ritual Caster) and have your familiar deliver the touch attack. Is the spellcaster's invisibility from hide broken? (ie, does the familiar count as the one attacking?) If the spellcaster's invisibility is broken (ie, it's still their attack roll), what if the familiar was also hiding. Does it remain hidden since it didn't make the attack roll?
(Definitely in the realm of "making a ruling" here.)
If the spell is targetting an enemy, then they are touching an enemy, which would definitely mean the familiar is found. If they are just touching an ally, they would stay hidden.
I think, technically, since the spell involves the caster making an attack roll, it would also reveal the caster.
You're a spellcaster who is hiding and you have a familiar. You cast a touch spell without a verbal component (I don't know that one exists, but there's always Sorceror with Subtle Spell and Ritual Caster) and have your familiar deliver the touch attack. Is the spellcaster's invisibility from hide broken? (ie, does the familiar count as the one attacking?) If the spellcaster's invisibility is broken (ie, it's still their attack roll), what if the familiar was also hiding. Does it remain hidden since it didn't make the attack roll?
(Definitely in the realm of "making a ruling" here.)
If the spell is targetting an enemy, then they are touching an enemy, which would definitely mean the familiar is found. If they are just touching an ally, they would stay hidden.
I think, technically, since the spell involves the caster making an attack roll, it would also reveal the caster.
Would your interpretation allow a caster using Subtle Spell to cast Fireball to remain hidden since no attack is involved? I think it's also funny that it is better for a caster to Hide than use Invisibility since any spell breaks Invisibility but only verbal spells break Hide....
Well, let's see if I can get a concrete answer to a question:
You're a spellcaster who is hiding and you have a familiar. You cast a touch spell without a verbal component (I don't know that one exists, but there's always Sorceror with Subtle Spell and Ritual Caster) and have your familiar deliver the touch attack. Is the spellcaster's invisibility from hide broken? (ie, does the familiar count as the one attacking?)
If the spellcaster's invisibility is broken (ie, it's still their attack roll), what if the familiar was also hiding. Does it remain hidden since it didn't make the attack roll?
You stop being hidden immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, YOU MAKE AN ATTACK ROLL, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.
So, you would break the invisibility hide.
About the familiar, would fall in two points: 1- "you make a sound louder than a whisper", 2- "an enemy finds you"
Then you go to DM rulling:
1- The familiar going to the target would made a sound lounder then a whisper.
2- The familiar touch the target could mean "an enemy finds you".
You're a spellcaster who is hiding and you have a familiar. You cast a touch spell without a verbal component (I don't know that one exists, but there's always Sorceror with Subtle Spell and Ritual Caster) and have your familiar deliver the touch attack. Is the spellcaster's invisibility from hide broken? (ie, does the familiar count as the one attacking?) If the spellcaster's invisibility is broken (ie, it's still their attack roll), what if the familiar was also hiding. Does it remain hidden since it didn't make the attack roll?
(Definitely in the realm of "making a ruling" here.) If the spell is targetting an enemy, then they are touching an enemy, which would definitely mean the familiar is found. If they are just touching an ally, they would stay hidden. I think, technically, since the spell involves the caster making an attack roll, it would also reveal the caster.
Would your interpretation allow a caster using Subtle Spell to cast Fireball to remain hidden since no attack is involved? I think it's also funny that it is better for a caster to Hide than use Invisibility since any spell breaks Invisibility but only verbal spells break Hide....
Yeah, that's pretty clearly, explicitly RAW. The spell cares about any spellcasting (but otherwise is way more "durable" a condition).
Borderlands Quest: Goblin Trouble has an example, though it's probably not really relevant to the discussion :(
TarodNet Thanks Pal it's definitely an exemple of a Dexterity (Stealth) check to move quietly using the Hide action.
Except for the part where it's DC 10.
Looking at the stats, it's probably just a "move silently" check to beat Passive Perception 10 (which the bandits have). The strictest reading suggests it's in addition to the Hide action.
It's more-or-less straightforward. Ronnom hid when in total cover (i.e. no enemies in the hallway). He intends to either just stay there or reveal himself, depending on what other people do (so, no ambush). If they Search successfully, he'll be found. If he makes noise or moves (which makes noise), he'll be found.
Veen is Invisible (via magic) and not moving, so starts out unseen and unheard. No need for the Hide action. Does intend to ambush if necessary. Not findable by Search.
The hide action is not involved at all; if it were, there would be a DC 15 check.
Stealth includes moving quietly, moving does not inherently cause you to no longer be hidden. The most likely interpretation of moving causing him to be revealed is that he's no longer in the shadow he's hiding in.
"they must take the Hide action and succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity (Stealth) check"
Hide includes a DC 15 check; the extra Stealth check is DC 10. To move quietly (like below), but they didn't spell that out.
Stealth can be rolled to move silently. "Escape notice by moving quietly..." Movement makes noise unless you do that. You even get Disadvantage in heavy armor.
You don't make multiple stealth checks for a single action. If the only check that's called out is a DC 10 check, that must be the DC.
Again, you don't make new stealth checks every time you do something while hidden, you use the existing stealth check. We already know his stealth check was 20, because that's the DC to find him.
I don't think its made to become Invisible as the action normally do, hence the different DC; it's made to move quietly to the bottom of the stairs without being heard.
It's two actions. Hide, then "move closer to hear."
I've said repeatedly (elsewhere) that I'd give someone one free Move of quiet movement using the Hide Action's stealth roll, but that's my houserule and not what this adventure book is calling for. Or what the other (below) adventure book is calling for.
OK, whatever you say goes at your table.
It totally does say "Until the human man moves or speaks..." and "...Ronnom emerges from the shadows to parley..." so I think he is found if he moves. Yeah, there's the implication that he could roll Stealth to move quietly, but the description gives his intentions, and they don't include that.
Maybe I am reading the encounter differently but I don't think the assassin moves or speaks unless certain NPCs are in the room in which case he moves/speaks in an attempt to parlay. So I am reading it as you need to make a search check unless the conditions are met where he comes out of hiding to parlay. Not that movement in itself breaks hide, but that when he moves he intends to break hide as he is choosing to parlay. I guess if there are enough foes he could also move via fleeing, but i interpret fleeing as not sneaking off but hauling butt.
That is definitely why the encounter is written that way. He intends to "stay hidden" and not do any ambushes or sneaking. They don't repeat or replace rules definitions in encounter texts.
It just so happens that that particular encounter and the other one from the other book can indeed be interpretted in a way that is consistent with each other and consistent with the PHB. It's just more hair-splitting.
It's clearly that the assassin is expected to remain hidden unless certain conditions are met (in which case he comes out to parlay), but if the intent was that he was only revealed by coming out to parlay, they could easily have worded it in that way.
Well, let's see if I can get a concrete answer to a question:
You're a spellcaster who is hiding and you have a familiar. You cast a touch spell without a verbal component (I don't know that one exists, but there's always Sorceror with Subtle Spell and Ritual Caster) and have your familiar deliver the touch attack. Is the spellcaster's invisibility from hide broken? (ie, does the familiar count as the one attacking?)
If the spellcaster's invisibility is broken (ie, it's still their attack roll), what if the familiar was also hiding. Does it remain hidden since it didn't make the attack roll?
This is probably debatable, but my understanding is that it's the spellcaster, not the familiar, who casts the touch spell, makes the attack roll (if required by the touch spell), or deals damage with it (if applicable).
Using my ruling, yes.
---
For reference (Find Familiar):
(Definitely in the realm of "making a ruling" here.)
If the spell is targetting an enemy, then they are touching an enemy, which would definitely mean the familiar is found. If they are just touching an ally, they would stay hidden.
I think, technically, since the spell involves the caster making an attack roll, it would also reveal the caster.
Would your interpretation allow a caster using Subtle Spell to cast Fireball to remain hidden since no attack is involved? I think it's also funny that it is better for a caster to Hide than use Invisibility since any spell breaks Invisibility but only verbal spells break Hide....
You stop being hidden immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, YOU MAKE AN ATTACK ROLL, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.
So, you would break the invisibility hide.
About the familiar, would fall in two points: 1- "you make a sound louder than a whisper", 2- "an enemy finds you"
Then you go to DM rulling:
1- The familiar going to the target would made a sound lounder then a whisper.
2- The familiar touch the target could mean "an enemy finds you".
Yeah, that's pretty clearly, explicitly RAW. The spell cares about any spellcasting (but otherwise is way more "durable" a condition).
yes