Hi guys i wanted to ask how you handle some situations.

Do you think that camaleonic cloak should give the +20 bonus when only moving silent and not hiding?

With that in mind i wantd to add an example:

In battle someone spotted the acolyte wjo has hidding, the acolyte decided to change is position because of that and (has part o a movement action) he make a stealth test after running behind a cover.

In this case, do you think he should be considerer hidden?, should he recieve the bonus of camaleonic cloak?, if he attack an enemy, should this enemy recieve the -30 penalty because he couldnt see where the attack was comming from?

From your example I would do this.

In battle and already exposed: Penalty for all stealth tests; enemies are now aware of the cloak and are wary of it.

Chances are, the person who spotted the stealthing acolyte probably kept his or her eyes on the player when they dove or ran behind cover. They probably thus have their eyes fixed on movement and looking for the player to crawl or attempt something else, reduce or eliminate the cameolaon cloak bonus.

If the player successfully evaded detection and circumstance supported it, I'd give them back their hidden statis and thus the penalty to the enemy.

The best way to work things like this is circumstance. When in doubt remember rule zero. Then if still concerned role reverse, run the scenario in your head and have your player be the enmies and vice versa, if you feel like you'd be cheating or cheesing your players by mimicking their actions, you'll have a better idea of how to go about it.

I was thinking about adding some rules for stealth in combat.

- To become "hide" (meaning that your enemies wont be abble to especifically know where are you) you will need total cover and a full action with a stealth test.

- Camaleonic cloak wont add a +20 to stealth test if you make a movement action in your turn.

- After becoming hide, if you keep having total cover from your enemies, you will be able to remain hiden by moving to another total cover by passing a stealth test but only if you are not clearly in open terrain.

What do you think? I was thinking now in reduce the option of the camaleonic cloak to run action.

I'd differentiate between cover and concealment.

As bit pointed out, only certain special occasions can anyone attempt a stealth test when visible at all. The only thing that comes to mind for me is LIctors, but I am sure there are others. If it were me, I'd pretty much say no to any stealth tests once combat has started. Unless circumstances gave good reason or opportunity.

As bit pointed out, only certain special occasions can anyone attempt a stealth test when visible at all. The only thing that comes to mind for me is LIctors, but I am sure there are others. If it were me, I'd pretty much say no to any stealth tests once combat has started. Unless circumstances gave good reason or opportunity.

i think some full cover should be able to let you hide, for example a battle in a street, where could be cars and houses, the player could enter a house, be out of sight and use for example thermal googles so he just climb the house using stealth so no enemy can say where the player is. For me at least, that is very reasonable

how would you differentiate total cover from concealment?

Cover protects; it provides cover AP. Concealment does not.

I need more man xddd