|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules don't say you can't Stealth when an enemy is aware of you, they say you can't make a Stealth check when an enemy is observing you (generally by sight). You can hide from someone who is aware of your presence but can't observe you.
As I read it, if you don't have concealment or cover at the beginning of your turn in addition to the end of your turn, you must make a distraction in order to use Stealth. So on this turn the player does not get a free stealth as part of his move action.
However, on his next turn, he has cover and is unobserved from the beginning of his movement and can make a Stealth check as part of a move action to move around the pillars, possibly getting the drop on enemies. The enemies could counter this by moving to keep him in sight on their turns, or readying an action to attack him when he leaves cover, but if the rest of the party is putting on pressure they may not do so.
Basically, if you pop behind cover enemies know where you are, but if they give you a few seconds to maneuver they're not sure when or where you'll come out, and that can let you catch them off guard.
|
You can make a stealth check as soon as you have cover or concealment. The tactical problem with this is the enemy saw you move toward the pillar and will assume you are behind the pillar. The bluff check is so that you immediately fall out of sight and they don't see where you hid. They know you're gone, but they aren't sure if you are behind the pillar, in a box, out the door, etc.
In other words, no where does the rules say the moment you are out of sight of an enemy in battle, that they are no longer aware of you and you can then make a free Stealth check so that they lose their Dex bonus to AC. This implies that anytime a PC gains total cover/concealment of any sort they make an auto-Stealth check and every enemy has to make their Perception. That is a ton of rolling if you ask me. Especially in forest environments for example.
Which way is the right way?
Let me start by saying that i'm normally against most ways that players try to "interpret" the rules to avoid the need for a bluff check, or to just start hiding like they were fading out of existance but...
The word observed an the clarification "usually by sight" means that once you're in total concealment you're no longer being observed (asasuming a being with normal senses. The bat wonders why you suddenly start walking funny). At this point stealth is NOT automatic but if you're moving you have the option of trying to make a stealth check, probably at -5 because you're not moving very quickly and possibly at +20 because total concealment is pretty much like being invisible.
Once you're stealth they errata'd clarified the stealth rules a while back specifically to give rogues the option of sneak attacking folks by.. well.. acting like rogues. If you're reading your old dog eared printed version you won't see this.
Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment
Total concealment is one of the things that prevents dex to AC and thus allows sneak attack.
|
As BNW said, you can try a stealth check if you are unobserved.
It is not a "free" stealth check, as normal for the stealth checks it is part of another action, in this case moving behind the pillars.
I wouldn't apply a bonus for the total concealment as there isn't any such modifier listed.
There are a modifier to the perception check, depending on the size of the columns I could apply them:
Through a closed door +5
Through a wall +10/foot of thickness
What is the character problem? That the enemies know exactly where he disappeared, so they can move in a way that allow them "remove" the concealment and spot him easily.
Note
I think that you are citing an older version of the CRB. Current stealth text:
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
...
Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.
If you read the above citation, there are 2 separate statements:
1) Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.and that allow the rogue to enter stealth if he get cover or concealment.
2) If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth.
and this is further clarified by
Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.
That allow the rogue to use bluff to enter stealth even if he is observed. If he is unable to find cover or concealment before the end of his round he leave stealth, but that allow him to enter it even in the middle of a open field.
As BNW said, you can try a stealth check if you are unobserved.
It is not a "free" stealth check, as normal for the stealth checks it is part of another action, in this case moving behind the pillars.
I wouldn't apply a bonus for the total concealment as there isn't any such modifier listed.
There are a modifier to the perception check, depending on the size of the columns I could apply them:
Through a closed door +5
Through a wall +10/foot of thicknessWhat is the character problem? That the enemies know exactly where he disappeared, so they can move in a way that allow them "remove" the concealment and spot him easily.
So if he moves behind (or ends behind the pillar) he still gets his chance to enter stealth, granted his movement has to be half speed, and he can continue to act from there.
I don't see the need for bonuses or penalties at all, if you have total cover or concealment, you can't be seen by any visual means with a roll of 1 or a roll of 10000.
Those bonuses you listed are for hearing/smelling beyond obstacles providing total cover/concealment. If he is standing still, he is really only breathing to create sound which is a really high DC by any logic (no listed one unfortunately, although I imagine it would scale with relative size among target and stealther) and scent is stated to cancel stealth.
I would seriously recommend that player/gm try to look through the eyes of those who would be observers to determine stealth. It's not raw but the wording of stealth heavily implies that you shouldn't always look at it RAW. My advice is to look through the observers "eyes" and ask yourself "Can I tell exactly where they are?" and if the answer is no, then stealth is allowed.
If I am running down a hall in a dungeon, the monsters on the other side of the door know something is there, but the sound is too echo-y for them to tell where it is coming from: stealth is allowed should they suddenly have line of sight.
Two bandits are talking over stew about the latest haul near a door I need to get past. I throw a rock and they both look where it landed (where the thud came from) and one goes to investigate while the other watches his back; I slip past: Stealth is allowed.
I need to infiltrate a bunch of kobolds' lair, kobolds are dumb so I put a blanket over my body and slowly walk through the hoard with total cover/concealment: stealth is allowed (until I meet a kobold with INT 2+.
I am a sniper and I have a magic crossbow with light always on the crossbow. I am here to kill the treacherous king with an arrow in the back from the balcony during his daughter's wedding: stealth is not allowed, while I've been lining up my shot from a concealed position, the Beacons of Gondor have been lit and soldiers are on their way to arrest my luminous behind.
My party an I have gotten lost in the ruins of an ancient town. I spot some orcs talking about ambushing the cleric and sorceress (and doing some unspeakable things to the sorceress). I get behind some rubble and start shooting them with arrows. I keep moving after every shot and quickly popping out to shoot: stealth is allowed, I have cover, and am using stealth as a part of sniping, and crushing these lame newbs who though rogues were useless.
My paladin friends sword befriended this ogre who said he was to take the fallen paladin's place. While ridding the local town of the local scum of the streets, the ogre has been instructed not to move around to much. I hide behind the ogre and use him as soft cover: stealth is allowed because he is functioning as a mobile cover point for me to potshot from.
|
|
^Negatory on that last one.
Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.
Although I think there is a Halfling feat that allows it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So then what is the point of Hide in Plain Sight if all you need to do is dive into cover/concealment (normal and total) if all you need to do is just move into it even while being observed?
You need TOTAL concealment or total cover if people are looking at you. You can't guarantee that in a fight.
Otherwise you need to make the (non action specificed so i assume standard action) bluff check to make them not look and THEN get to concealment.
Works: Hiding behind the tapestry with your feet sticking out as people walk into the room. You jump out and gank them.
Works: Bluff check for "look a monkey!" Run behind the tapestry with your feet sticking out
Does not work: just run behind the tapestry with your feet sticking out. They saw you go there and followed your feet the entire time, they know exactly where you are.
Hide in plain sight (despite the name) by raw only negates the looking at you part. Camouflage negates the concealment/cover requirements.
Hellcat stealth is the real fix, despite the -10 penalty.
^Negatory on that last one.
Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.Although I think there is a Halfling feat that allows it.
Knew it existed, forgot the Halfling part, thanks for the heads up though.
Edit: Just did a quick check back through the Stealth listing:
Hide behind other Creatures
Source: Giant Hunter's Handbook
Large bodies that break your opponent's line of sight can sometimes be just as useful as darkness for hiding your position.
Special: Normally the soft cover provided by other creatures is not sufficient to allow you to attempt a Stealth check. Soft cover provided by creatures at least one size category larger than you does allow you to attempt Stealth checks against other creatures not already aware of your presence at a –10 penalty. If the creature providing the cover knows which square you occupy and is trying to avoid concealing you, this penalty increases to –20.
You can also hide from a creature by staying under its own body if it is at least two size categories larger than you and you are in its space. Such attempts also take a –10 penalty, which increases to a –20 penalty if the creature is aware you are in the area. If the creature moves away from you, you are automatically revealed, unless you have readied an action to move with it.
Stealth behind a creature larger than you is allowed.
|
|
So then what is the point of Hide in Plain Sight if all you need to do is dive into cover/concealment (normal and total) if all you need to do is just move into it even while being observed?You need TOTAL concealment or total cover if people are looking at you. You can't guarantee that in a fight.
Where do the rules differentiate between needing total cover concealment or partial cover/concealment to stealth?
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.
By my reading, finding any cover or concealment allows you to use stealth. If I'm being observed, I cannot stealth but if I find cover or concealment I am allowed to stealth.
By my reading, finding any cover or concealment allows you to use stealth. If I'm being observed, I cannot stealth but if I find cover or concealment I am allowed to stealth.
You stopped mid paragraph.
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
The entire paragraph makes it plain how this works: you need to be unobserved in order for concealment to work. Cover or concealment alone are not enough to do that, otherwise why would you ever need to make the bluff check AND move to cover/concealment rather than just go directly to concealment and not take that -10 penalty? Why would you be "unobserved" at 20% concealment? And why would hide in plain sight even be an ability.? Cover/concealment and "not observed" are two seperate conditions you need to make to stealth by default.
|
|
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
if you are being observed, you cannot stealth.
Luckily, the same section lists some explicit ways to use stealth anyway:
1) Finding cover or concealment allows it.
2) Making a successful bluff check allows it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are all forgetting the "such as" part. They just need to be distracted, being bluffed is just an example of one of the many things that can distract somebody. If your allied engage them in combat, I would consider that a distracting. It's an ambiguous term that is left up to GM discretion.
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.if you are being observed, you cannot stealth.
Luckily, the same section lists some explicit ways to use stealth anyway:
1) Finding cover or concealment allows it.
2) Making a successful bluff check allows it.
Your assertation is that cover or concealment blocks observation. This is patently false. You can see creatures that have cover. You can target creatures that have cover with spells. You do not suffer a 50% miss chance against creatures with cover.
2) Making a successful bluff check does NOT allow it on its own. Making a successful bluff check AND getting to cover/concealment allows it. This part would be totally nonsensical if you could just hit concealment and make the stealth check.
Read the paragraph, not the sentences. The paragraph makes sense, the sentences make no sense otherwise.
|
|
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.if you are being observed, you cannot stealth.
Luckily, the same section lists some explicit ways to use stealth anyway:
1) Finding cover or concealment allows it.
2) Making a successful bluff check allows it.Your assertation is that cover or concealment blocks observation. This is patently false. You can see creatures that have cover. You can target creatures that have cover with spells. You do not suffer a 50% miss chance against creatures with cover.
2) Making a successful bluff check does NOT allow it on its own. Making a successful bluff check AND getting to cover/concealment allows it. This part would be totally nonsensical if you could just hit concealment and make the stealth check.
Read the paragraph, not the sentences. The paragraph makes sense, the sentences make no sense otherwise.
I wasn't aware that "Observed" was a game term of such an exclusive nature that it overrides the "finding cover or concealment" clause allowing me to use stealth.
What was the page number for that?
Your opinion of what "Observed" should mean has no more bearing on the rules than my opinion. The rules say I can't when unobserved, I can when I find cover/concealment, I can with bluff when able to reach cover/concealment. Therefore, when I find cover/concealment I am absolutely allowed to make a stealth check.
I wasn't aware that "Observed" was a game term of such an exclusive nature that it overrides the "finding cover or concealment" clause allowing me to use stealth.
Nothing needs to be overridden. You're taking sentences completely out of context disregarding how little sense that makes either in comparison with reality or more importantly in comparison with the other rules.
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
This either parses to
A) Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.
Or
B) If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth if your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check). If you successfully distract them, you can attempt to use Stealth by attempting a Stealth check after you can get to an unobserved place of some kind at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
You are assuming that because there is AN argument for A then A must be the answer. You are assuming that the rules are perfect not only in aggregate but also derived from the very context upon which they depend. They are not. Rules decisions need to be weighed against each other on the basis of their merits. A loses this fight badly for several reasons.
B is a mess to read. IF they meant B its pretty clear why they would break up the marathon run on sentences into something easier to read.
If they meant A... there's NO need for any of it. That entire paragraph doesn't need to be there. The mechanism for a bluff check doesn't need to be there. The need for the specific -10 penalty doesn't need to be there because you are NEVER going to bluff someone and get to cover/concealment and then try to get to cover/concealment with a -10. Why would there be not only that paragraph, but that paragraphs very specific mechanics if they were completely unnecessary?
I wasn't aware that "Observed" was a game term of such an exclusive nature that it overrides the "finding cover or concealment" clause allowing me to use stealth.
Nothing needs to be overridden. You're taking sentences completely out of context disregarding how little sense that makes either in comparison with reality or more importantly in comparison with the other rules.
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
This either parses to
A) Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.
Or
B) If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth if your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check). If you successfully distract them, you can attempt to use Stealth by attempting a Stealth check after you can get to an unobserved place of some kind at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
You are assuming that because there is AN argument for A then A must be the answer. You are assuming that the rules are perfect not only in aggregate but also derived from the very context upon which they depend. They are not. Rules decisions need to be weighed against each other on the basis of their merits. A loses this fight badly for several reasons.
B is a mess to read. IF they meant B its pretty clear why they would break up the marathon run on sentences into something easier to read.
If they meant A... there's NO need for any of...
The issue seems to be more what "observed" means. I would hold that observed means able to pinpoint the square (when vision is not an option or the main sense used in the scenario). For example, a dog might know something is nearby because scent has a range, but until you get next to it, it can't pinpoint your square and you can stealth anywhere else (should it not be able to see or hear you).
The issue seems to be more what "observed" means. I would hold that observed means able to pinpoint the square (when vision is not an option or the main sense used in the scenario). For example, a dog might know something is nearby because scent has a range, but until you get next to it, it can't pinpoint your square and you can stealth anywhere else (should it not be able to see or hear you).
since there's no game terms for it it probably means the same thing as it does in english
: to watch and sometimes also listen to (someone or something) carefully
: to see and notice (someone or something)
: to make a comment about something you notice
You can very easily do all of that to someone in fog , standing behind another person, or standing behind a waist high wall.
That and the rules read i na paragraph make perfect sense together. Parse them apart and you get contradictions
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
Here is how I understand this paragraph, sentence for sentence:
Statement of rule. Exception to rule. Additional exception to rule. Clarification of the additional exception. Additional clarification of the additional exception.
The first sentence tells us that observation blocks stealth. In addition to sighted opponents, enemies may use other sense to observe you such as tremor sense.
The second sentence provides an explicit exception to the rule. Finding cover or concealment allows stealth checks. That simple. Note the usage of "most creatures" as this is likely referring to creatures that have additional senses that can observe such as tremor sense.
The third, fourth, and fifth sentences provide an additional exception to the rule. Instead of finding cover/concealment, you may first bluff and then find cover/concealment. This may be useful in the case that you do not want your opponent to see which area of cover/concealment you entered.
BNW, we have two different interpretations of the same sentences. The rules do not define observation, nor do they say total cover instead of just cover nor total concealment instead of just concealment. To define observation or what is necessary to break it is outside the scope of current rules text and is therefore your opinion.
The issue seems to be more what "observed" means. I would hold that observed means able to pinpoint the square (when vision is not an option or the main sense used in the scenario). For example, a dog might know something is nearby because scent has a range, but until you get next to it, it can't pinpoint your square and you can stealth anywhere else (should it not be able to see or hear you).
since there's no game terms for it it probably means the same thing as it does in english
: to watch and sometimes also listen to (someone or something) carefully
: to see and notice (someone or something)
: to make a comment about something you notice
You can very easily do all of that to someone in fog , standing behind another person, or standing behind a waist high wall.
That and the rules read i na paragraph make perfect sense together. Parse them apart and you get contradictions
So until official fixes are made, you fix the contradictions. Use you brain and think should the target be unaware of specific actions/specific location to determine is stealth can be applied. Dogs 5ft away vs 30ft away; Knowing someone is in the tree vs not actually being able to see when the guy in the tree pings and arrow.
While "to notice" might be the dictionary definition, I have never used the word observed for anything less than "clearly able to tell what is going on." If I am stealthing behind a wall and you hear a pebble I accidentally kick, you don't know if it's me or Dave the drunk watchman: you might go to investigate but that doesn't immediately brake stealth since I am on the opposite side of a wall.
BNW, we have two different interpretations of the same sentences. The rules do not define observation, nor do they say total cover instead of just cover nor total concealment instead of just concealment. To define observation or what is necessary to break it is outside the scope of current rules text and is therefore your opinion.
Observed means something. If its not some funky contradictory game term it means the same thing in game that it does in english. The english meaning works seemlessly with B. In order for A to have ANY possibility at all you're starting by ignoring the sentence completely. While its possible that you have an argument good enough to warrant doing that, throwing the word away as "opinion" or "not a game term"
There is more to making sense of things that absolute binary either or. Observed probably kills your interpretation outright. Even if it didn't it at the very least puts the onus on your interpretation to justify tossing the word out. I don't think you can do that.
The third, fourth, and fifth sentences provide an additional exception to the rule. Instead of finding cover/concealment, you may first bluff and then find cover/concealment. This may be useful in the case that you do not want your opponent to see which area of cover/concealment you entered.
Why would you ever waste an action with a bluff check instead of stealthing away at a mere -5 and then stealthing again at no penalty for the same action economy?
Another problem with this is it makes sniping completely useless. Why would you ever snipe at -20 when you can just Snipe and immediately stealth 30 feet thataway for a mere -5 ? Or full attack, begin stealthing, and 5 foot step as long as you have any shadow.
So in order to accept your version:
The words meaning needs to be dismissed.
Reality gets tossed out the window, making skilled adventurers absent minded todlers with no concept of object permanence,
hefty penalties built into the game to be able to do things can be worked around rather easily
Hide in plain sight needs to be a non ability. The ability to ignore the observed clause is ALL that most forms of hide in plain sight grant you. What you're doing is saying that everyone already has that ability, its a prone shooter option. Again, entirely POSSIBLE but its puts a lot of the burden of evidence on you to come up with a reason why it HAS to be read that way.
You can argue any of them as possible. Even if you argue that they;re all possible... why?
What makes this version more raw, more playable, more parsimonious, more fair, or more LIKELY than the paragraph as a whole that I'm reading? On what paradigm of rules interpretation is it the better explanation? I'm not buying an explanation that makes it possible but even if you can argue to possible you need some reason to believe its right.
So until official fixes are made, you fix the contradictions.
You're assuming I'm wrong and you're right to even make that you're right POSSIBLE.
Read it the way I am and there are no contradictions. Why on earth would I use a problematic, contradictory, unrealistic reading of the rules dissecting it sentence by sentence when the simple act of reading it in context as a paragraph produces a realistic, seamless, and parsimonious answer? There is no paradigm of rules interpretation that makes A better.
While "to notice" might be the dictionary definition, I have never used the word observed for anything less than "clearly able to tell what is going on." If I am stealthing behind a wall and you hear a pebble I accidentally kick, you don't know if it's me or Dave the drunk watchman: you might go to investigate but that doesn't immediately brake stealth since I am on the opposite side of a wall.
Thats not what this paragraph is for. This is if you popped over the wall, punched me in the face and then want to duck back down behind the wall so I can't see you... while i'm looking at you If i see your upper body from the belly button to your had and hear a pebble being kicked its not that hard to figure out what happened.
|
|
Otherwise you need to make the (non action specificed so i assume standard action) bluff check to make them not look and THEN get to concealment.
For the bluff check, as there aren't specifications I think it a normal bluff check, so normally it is a standard action but there are abilities that make it faster.
Your assertation is that cover or concealment blocks observation. This is patently false. You can see creatures that have cover. You can target creatures that have cover with spells. You do not suffer a 50% miss chance against creatures with cover.2) Making a successful bluff check does NOT allow it on its own. Making a successful bluff check AND getting to cover/concealment allows it. This part would be totally nonsensical if you could just hit concealment and make the stealth check.
Read the paragraph, not the sentences. The paragraph makes sense, the sentences make no sense otherwise.
I am fairly sure that the bluff check alone is enough to enter stealth. You simply lose it at the end of your turn as you are benefiting from cover/concealment.
Essentially a rogue can, with the right abilities, Bluff as a move/swift action and enter stealth as part of that action and then sneak attack his target with a standard action. After the sneak attack the target is again aware of the exact position of the rogue.To take a silly example from some film:
Bandit menace the hero with his weapon.
Hero: "Your shoes are untied" (make awesome bluff check)
The bandit look his shoes instead of the hero and him sucker punch the bandit.
With the bluff check the enemy lose track of you for some fraction of second. Enough to enter stealth.
Another, less silly example:
Bandit menace the hero with his weapon.
Hero, looking behind the bandit: "Jack, kill this idiot." and make his bluff check.
The bandit turn his head to look behind him (is distracted by the successful bluff check)
The hero move and enter stealth. He don't need to have cover while entering stealth, he need it to maintain stealth at the end of the round. If the hero stealth check is successful the bandit don't know if he has moved toward the column at his right or the patch of shadow as his left.
If the hero is able to reach one or the other of the two spots giving concealment he can maintain stealth. If the hero for some reason is unable to reach them he is automatically spotted at the end of the turn (unless he has some form of hide in plain sight).
Why would you ever waste an action with a bluff check instead of stealthing away at a mere -5 and then stealthing again at no penalty for the same action economy?
because in that situation the enemy know the square in which you disappeared, the one where you fou nd cover or concealment.
I should point out that you are misreading what are specific game terms: cover and concealment
Total cover and total concealment are different from cover and concealment.
Another problem with this is it makes sniping completely useless. Why would you ever snipe at -20 when you can just Snipe and immediately stealth 30 feet thataway for a mere -5 ? Or full attack, begin stealthing, and 5 foot step as long as you have any shadow.
Joe the mighty archer is firing on the enemy troops while hiding in a bush.
Without sniping: he fire an arrow, his seen, move 15' to the next bush and hide there. He can roll stealth only when he find cover.Enemy commander: "The idiot is hiding in the rosebush on the right, pincushion him with arrow, and you wizard, cast some area spell on him."
With sniping: he fire an arrow and make his stealth check.
Enemy commander: "There is an archer on our right, find him."
One way you don't need to pinpoint his position, firing and moving he has already done that for you. The other you need to pinpoint his position, spending actions to do so (move action for a non reactive perception check).
|
|
I think you are all forgetting the "such as" part. They just need to be distracted, being bluffed is just an example of one of the many things that can distract somebody. If your allied engage them in combat, I would consider that a distracting. It's an ambiguous term that is left up to GM discretion.
Not in Pathfinder where you have a 360° field of vision as a normal human.
|
|
So until official fixes are made, you fix the contradictions.You're assuming I'm wrong and you're right to even make that you're right POSSIBLE.
Read it the way I am and there are no contradictions. Why on earth would I use a problematic, contradictory, unrealistic reading of the rules dissecting it sentence by sentence when the simple act of reading it in context as a paragraph produces a realistic, seamless, and parsimonious answer? There is no paradigm of rules interpretation that makes A better.
While "to notice" might be the dictionary definition, I have never used the word observed for anything less than "clearly able to tell what is going on." If I am stealthing behind a wall and you hear a pebble I accidentally kick, you don't know if it's me or Dave the drunk watchman: you might go to investigate but that doesn't immediately brake stealth since I am on the opposite side of a wall.Thats not what this paragraph is for. This is if you popped over the wall, punched me in the face and then want to duck back down behind the wall so I can't see you... while i'm looking at you If i see your upper body from the belly button to your had and hear a pebble being kicked its not that hard to figure out what happened.
Let's translate that in game terms:
I moved from hiding, used spring attack to attack you while your dexterity was denied, you become aware of me,you follow me until I reach the column at the other side of the room and then, if I roll high enough with my stealth check I disappear from your sight.You are assuming that making my stealth roll in concealment mean that I have stopped while half covered by the column. I assume that making my stealth check mean that I was able to break LOS at least for a moment, enough that you don't know my exact position in the square.
I can give you a suggestion: play a bit of Fallout 3 or 4. You will see that there are situations in which, if you don't use VAT, wile you know the position of a enemy, you have some serious difficulty finding him.
it give a decent idea of how stealth work.
Being aware of the existence and general position of someone isn't the same thing as seeing him. You can benefit from stealth even if the enemy know that you exist.
I think you are all forgetting the "such as" part. They just need to be distracted, being bluffed is just an example of one of the many things that can distract somebody. If your allied engage them in combat, I would consider that a distracting. It's an ambiguous term that is left up to GM discretion.Not in Pathfinder where you have a 360° field of vision as a normal human.
Yup, so according to you combat is not distracting. According to me it is. Both are completely valid interpretations of RAW. What is distracting is left up to DM interpretstion.
Yup, so according to you combat is not distracting. According to me it is. Both are completely valid interpretations of RAW. What is distracting is left up to DM interpretstion.I think you are all forgetting the "such as" part. They just need to be distracted, being bluffed is just an example of one of the many things that can distract somebody. If your allied engage them in combat, I would consider that a distracting. It's an ambiguous term that is left up to GM discretion.Not in Pathfinder where you have a 360° field of vision as a normal human.
Wait, would a Concentration check allow combat to not be distracting?
Concentration checks are for maintaining spellcasting, not for the generic meaning of concentration.
It comes down to which interpretation you agree with:
"Do you need to be unobserved AND find cover/concealment?"
...or...
"Do you need to be unobserved OR find cover/concealment?"
Which way should you read it? What paradigm of rules interpretation would lead you to read it as or? In what way is or better?
Why is observed/unobserved a thing, at all? Why mention it all all in the stealth skill. Why would a high level ability like hide in plain sight exist to negate it?
Prerequisite: Advanced talents
Benefit: A rogue with this talent can select a single terrain from the ranger’s favored terrain list. She is a master at hiding in that terrain, and while within that terrain, she can use the Stealth skill to hide, even while being observed.
Thats not just a rogue talent thats an ADVANCED talent.
Hellcat stealth: Benefit: You may make Stealth checks in normal or bright light even when observed, but at a -10 penalty.
observed keeps cropping up in the rules as a thing.
There's no mention that being unobserved, on its own, lets you stealth. When the party comes around the corner and you're standing on the pitchers mound in wriggly field you start unobserved.. but you CAN"T hide there. There's no mechanism in the stealth rules for it.
It also doesn't make any realistic sense. What you're saying is that two human peasants fighting under a full moon on a dirt road. Peasant A can hit peasant B with a club walk around behind him, and has a 50% chance of successfully going "you can't see me!" Since peasant A started stealthing in his first square, peasant A couldbe anywhere within 15 feet. he could also stealth with a 5 foot step and gain a 50 % miss chance. Thats some batman level ninja ninja stuff to just be handing out to the peasantry.
|
|
It comes down to which interpretation you agree with:
"Do you need to be unobserved AND find cover/concealment?"
...or...
"Do you need to be unobserved OR find cover/concealment?"Which way should you read it? What paradigm of rules interpretation would lead you to read it as or? In what way is or better?
Why is observed/unobserved a thing, at all? Why mention it all all in the stealth skill. Why would a high level ability like hide in plain sight exist to negate it?
Prerequisite: Advanced talents
Benefit: A rogue with this talent can select a single terrain from the ranger’s favored terrain list. She is a master at hiding in that terrain, and while within that terrain, she can use the Stealth skill to hide, even while being observed.
Thats not just a rogue talent thats an ADVANCED talent.
Hellcat stealth: Benefit: You may make Stealth checks in normal or bright light even when observed, but at a -10 penalty.
observed keeps cropping up in the rules as a thing.
If we treat cover/concealment as exceptions to the can't-while-observed, these high level abilities would also be similar exceptions, negating the need to find cover or concealment because they bypass the can't-while-observed rule themselves.
However, this leaves the Ranger's Camouflage and HiPS as redundant abilities, as they do the same thing in this case.