Critique my stealth move?

When you move silently through an area, roll +cool.  On a 10+, hold 3.  On a 7-9, hold 1.  You may spend this hold one-for-one to do any of the following:

• Quietly approach / follow / near someone or something.
• Quietly distance yourself from / withdraw from something or something.
• Inflict harm on someone.
• Conceal your presence, whereabouts, or trail.

This is a core move I'm considering.  In any sort of game I run (usually D&D or Savage Worlds), stealth plays a big role, even for characters who aren't "traditionally" stealthy.  My players love to sneak, so I need a sneak move that's more than acting under fire.

Note that you can spend hold to automatically inflict harm, no roll required.  That's your sneak attack.  Do you think it's too powerful?

I'll just point out that Acting Under Fire's 7-9 result always comes with a downside ("worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice"), and this move doesn't seem to have a downside at the 7-9 level, so I'd be worried about players abusing it.

Spending hold to deal harm-as-established doesn't seem too powerful in itself; players can deal harm without a roll whenever the fiction demands it.

My concern is that it is vastly more useful than go aggro if your aim is to kill someone because you have included a "inflict harm on someone" as an option available if you roll a 7-9 range.

If you are sneaking on someone to attack them with go aggro, a 7-9 roll doesn't automatically have the option of damage but your move does.

I would clarify "Inflict harm on someone" to "Inflict harm on someone who isn't aware of you or can't defend"; in this way, on a 7-9, you usually won't be able to just do harm, unless you're well-prepared or lucky. At best, you'll be able to get close unnoticed, before doing whatever you need to do to actually harm them.

Maybe?
- Alex

Good ideas, all, especially with the inflict harm bit.  Hadn't thought of that!

I'll just point out that Acting Under Fire's 7-9 result always comes with a downside ("worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice"), and this move doesn't seem to have a downside at the 7-9 level, so I'd be worried about players abusing it.

That's a good point, too.  I've been mulling this one over for a bit and not sure how to proceed.  On the one hand, I think it's not necessarily a big deal if the players can sneak around effectively.  On the other hand, there should probably be a bigger risk than what's presented.

Bear with me, I'm thinking aloud.

Sneaking is a means to an end, like violence.  Sneaking is about moving someplace to: 

• Bypass an obstacle (guard, sentry, watchdog, etc.).
• Gain an advantage (for when you want to follow up with another move).
• Discover something (scouting, shadowing someone, etc.).

Still mulling over how to make this work, exactly.

Three sneak attacks in a row is a bit much. Also, I don't think you need the detailed description of actions. I would make it: spend 1 hold to remain concealed when you take an action, spend all remaining hold to make a sneak attack.

I think I'd only use this move if I needed to condense a stealth scene. All those results seem like they could be done with act under fire, and I see more potential in multiple rolls. Though it would make sense if a lot needed to happen quickly, then say - allowing someone to spend hold to smoke an NPC then vanish without a trace - might make for some good dramatic action. I imagine letting a PC lovingly describe the badassery involved, with "Hey, why not, you spent your hold, right?" and still allow a tidy resolution (or not so tidy - "Gee, looks like that was your last hold. And wouldn't slashing Hubcap's throat leave a lot of blood, hmm?")