You can find the netbooks at [url]http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/3.5e_Sourcebooks[/url]
Thanks for the link. Looks interesting I will have to give it a good look.
.Anyone else out there want to share their opinion on the whole: "You can use Stealth without cover/concealment when someone isn't observing you," or, "You can sneak up behind someone if they haven't yet spotted you," idea set?
I have seen only a few people talk about this. But I haven't seen anyone argue very loudly for or against it. Maybe I just haven't found the right thread yet.
Anyone else out there want to share their opinion on the whole: "You can use Stealth without cover/concealment when someone isn't observing you,"
If a tree falls in the woods and there are no druids to hear it, does it make any noise?
Really, if nobody is observing you, you can run naked through the streets singing ribald ditties and setting off fireworks and you won't be observed doing it because, well, nobody is observing you.
Of course, they might start observing you, assuming they are within visual or auditory range. In fact, such tomfoolery would likely draw a crowd of curious, if not beligerent, observers/onlookers.
If nobody is capable of observing you, then you're free to do what you want. If you're the only person (etc.) on a desert island, you won't even need ranks in stealth to remain unobserved. If you're the only person locked in a deep dungeon below the king's castle, far away in the dark dank pits, and even your jailor has gone home to his family for the evening, then you won't need any ranks in stealth to remain unobserved. If you're the only person at the north pole, and there aren't even any polar bears or penguins around for miles (hey, don't start shouting at me, maybe Golarion has penguins at the north pole), then you won't need ranks in stealth to remain unobserved.
But that proves nothing.
So we're assuming you're in a situation where there is someone or something nearby, probably with ears, eyes, or other organs of perception, and you are trying to achieve some goal without being observed, right?
But we'll assume that this potential observer is not actually observing you right at this moment. But he, she, or it might observe you at any instant if you're not careful.
So now you need ranks in stealth to succeed (or at least a good DEX and a very hot d20).
Your attempt at stealth is not to determine whether or not you are being observed. Nope, it's to determine whether or not the potential observer will begin to observe you.
That can be an important distinction because if they are already observing you, then you cannot use Stealth without distracting them first.
Now, given that they are not observing you at this moment, you decide to take an action of some kind, and you want roll Stealth to try to remain unobserved.
But!
Some things you might do will definitely fail (in other words, doing thses things means you cannot even try a Stealth roll - you will be automatically observed in these cases). Some of the obivous ones include banging pots and pans together, shining a flashlight (hooded lantern) at the observer, throwing a water baloon at the observer, etc.
Less obvious things will still fail, like simply walking through the observer's field of vision, or speaking aloud, even in a normal tone of voice.
(this all assumes the observer has the right perceptive organs to make the necessary observation - let's not drag the blind or the deaf into this discussion).
What is the observer's field of hearing? It's all around, 360 degrees, above and below too, so don't forget the 3rd dimension.
What is the observer's field of vision? It's all around, 360 degrees, above and below too, so don't forget the 3rd dimension. Remember there is no facing in Pathfinder, so you cannot simply expect to sneak behind the observer (in good light with no cover or concealment) without being seen.
All that being said, it boils down to this:
1. If there is an observer present
2. If that observer is capable of perceiving you (physically able to perceive you in this lighting)
3. If you do things that this observer can normally perceive
4. If you have no cover or concealment
Then you will be perceived. Automatically. No Stealth roll.
In order to use Stealth, you must change at least one of those conditions:
1. Have no observer present (well, you won't really need stealth in this case)
2. Make sure the observer is incapable of perceiving you (use invisibility or darkness, for example)
3. Do things that this observer cannot perceive (tough one - this includes odd things like standing still in front of the T-rex)
4. Use cover or concealment
In which case, you can use Stealth to try to remain unobserved.
or, "You can sneak up behind someone if they haven't yet spotted you," idea set?
There is no facing in Pathfinder, so there is no "behind".
That encapsulates it in a nutshell.
Oh, I suppose is someone is paralyzed and cannot turn their head to see behind them, in such a case I would rule that facing matters. But even that is a DM's non-RAW decision to break the no-facing rule.
All other times, the guy you're sneaking up "behind" can turn his head in an instant and spot you. Maybe they will, maybe they won't.
Either way, you still have to worry about being heard, so you still must use stealth.
What if the guy is deaf, or he is Silenced, or you are Silenced?
You still need to use Stealth because that guy has no facing and he can spot you no matter where you are, 360 degrees around and above/below as well, and he gets his Perception check to oppose your Stealth automatically.
(that's assuming you can even use Stealth to sneak up to him - you still need some kind of cover or concealment).
I have seen only a few people talk about this. But I haven't seen anyone argue very loudly for or against it.
I can be loud.
I've been known to shatter windows for miles around with one enthusiastic roar from my armored lungs.
I can understand your trouble with certain things, for instance: I think Perception checks should get bonuses based on how close you are to a creature using Stealth, not just penalties for how far away you are. But that isn't RAW and so if I were to come up with some kind of rule for that I would have to admit that it is a house-rule. In the extreme, ridiculous, situations you have presented, you could add some kind of ad-hoc bonuses to Perception checks against the Ranger, but again, house-rule, unless you can find printed rules as to what Bonuses/Penalties there would be.
Just for the sake of debate though, we have people in our military whose job it is, and indeed their lives depend on, going unseen through a barren desert. Oddly enough, many of them are quite successful. Now, does that mean they could seemingly disappear right in front of you in the middle of a salt flat? Ok, probably not, but I'd bet they could in a jungle or a wheat field. The thing is, there is a certain point where you just have to accept that it is a GAME, and you can play by RAW or you can house-rule it and move on.
You could be dressed in tie-dye and rainbow-colored fright wig and hide in a jungle or a wheat field. It's just a matter of stepping behind total cover.
But there is an exemption in the RAW for the scenarios I came up with: Page 197, with rules about Ignoring Concealment and Varying Degrees of Concealment.
Specifically "even though opponents can't see you, they might be able to figure out where you are from other visual and auditory clues."
I believe shadows are a visual clue. And while it is also true that rangers do not have to leave a trail in their favored terrain unless they want to, this may be reasonably interpreted to mean that they step lightly enough to not disturb anything in any lasting fashion, but if a ranger were standing on a lawn, for example, there will be blades of grass bent down in an outline around their perfectly camouflaged feet.
.
You could be dressed in tie-dye and rainbow-colored fright wig and hide in a jungle or a wheat field. It's just a matter of stepping behind total cover.
The point of that entire paragraph was very clear. You could try actually addressing it rather than picking out one sentence and throwing a flimsy argument at it.
But there is an exemption in the RAW for the scenarios I came up with: Page 197, with rules about Ignoring Concealment and Varying Degrees of Concealment.
Specifically "even though opponents can't see you, they might be able to figure out where you are from other visual and auditory clues."
I assume you are referring to this section:
Ignoring Concealment: Concealment isn't always effective. An area of dim lighting or darkness doesn't provide any concealment against an opponent with darkvision. Characters with low-light vision can see clearly for a greater distance than other characters with the same light source. Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible character. An invisible character gains a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if moving, or a +40 bonus on Stealth checks when not moving (even though opponents can't see you, they might be able to figure out where you are from other visual or auditory clues).
Varying Degrees of Concealment: Certain situations may provide more or less than typical concealment, and modify the miss chance accordingly.
I believe this is another case of reading half of the text and making up the rest. I like how you chose one sentences out of this entire entry and base your house-rule on that, calling it RAW, rather than applying it according to context. Instead you fixate on that one sentence and you are taking that completely out of context; it is very clearly not saying what you claim it to be saying. Just like HiPS and Camouflage very clearly do exactly what you claim they can't do.
The specific section you are referencing is explicitly talking about the justification of rolling a Perception check to spot an invisible character. Even though a character is invisible you can still roll PERCEPTION against them to pick up other visual clues. NOTICE: You still have to roll perception. You don’t just automatically spot the guys shadow or the foot shaped depressions in the puddle and know he is there. You roll perception against his stealth and if you beat it you see his shadow or the foot shaped depressions in the puddle and realize there is a guy there. Nowhere in there does it say you can automatically spot his shadow and therefore need not roll Perception but automatically know where he is.
I believe shadows are a visual clue.
You would be absolutely correct and as stated before, when/if you win your Perception check you are free to spot those visual clues and find the Ranger.
And while it is also true that rangers do not have to leave a trail in their favored terrain unless they want to, this may be reasonably interpreted to mean that they step lightly enough to not disturb anything in any lasting fashion, but if a ranger were standing on a lawn, for example, there will be blades of grass bent down in an outline around their perfectly camouflaged feet.
Well yeah, I assume gravity still affects him and therefore he cannot simply walk on the tips of the grass. He is going to have depressions where he is standing. They just disappear after he moves. He isn't invisible though so you can't see through his feet and notice depressions. But if you could, guess what it would be: A Perception check. In much the same way as the section you are referring to talks about noticing the visual clues of an invisible individual with a Perception check.
What is the observer's field of hearing? It's all around, 360 degrees, above and below too, so don't forget the 3rd dimension.
What is the observer's field of vision? It's all around, 360 degrees, above and below too, so don't forget the 3rd dimension. Remember there is no facing in Pathfinder, so you cannot simply expect to sneak behind the observer (in good light with no cover or concealment) without being seen.
As much as it may or may not be spelled out in the rules, I believe there is no facing in Pathfinder (or 3.x) when it comes to combat. In situations where you're trying to use stealth however, there has to be some common sense applied.
Picture this scenario. A Rogue is sneaking through a well-to-do house. He has managed to gain entry via a window. He's currently in a room in the middle of the south side of a 60' long, 5' wide hallway, and he wants to get into the room on the north side. The doors are directly opposite one another, and are both open. The trick is that the hallway is brightly lit and is being patrolled by a guard marching back and forth in the hallway. The guard never leaves the hall, simply goes to one end and the other.
By your interpretation, it is patently impossible (without HiPS) for the Rogue to cross the gap. Common sense maintains however that it should be possible for the Rogue to wait until the Guard passes, give him maybe 15-20', and then quickly and quietly dart from one door to the other. A Stealth check is still required, and the Guard gets an opposed Perception check to cover the possibity that the Rogue was noisy, or he happened to catch a glimpse out of the corner of his eye. But it should be possible.
By your interpretation, it is patently impossible (without HiPS) for the Rogue to cross the gap. Common sense maintains however that it should be possible for the Rogue to wait until the Guard passes, give him maybe 15-20', and then quickly and quietly dart from one door to the other. A Stealth check is still required, and the Guard gets an opposed Perception check to cover the possibity that the Rogue was noisy, or he happened to catch a glimpse out of the corner of his eye. But it should be possible.And my argument is that any rules which can be reasonably interpreted to disallow this reasonable action have some issues.
You and I also disagree, because I don't think it's "reasonable". :)
Edited to add, so that I don't sound so disagreeable:
It's not a reasonable interpretation because at no point have you already been observed by the Guard. Once you've been spotted out in the open, yeah, you're screwed without HiPS. If you have successfully hidden however, and your hiding spot is not being actively observed, such in my example, you are free to cross unobserved open terrain between hiding places. A Stealth check is required, vs a Perception check with all appropriate modifiers, but it is possible.
You and I also disagree, because I don't think it's "reasonable". :)You don't think the interpretation that doesn't allow the rogue to sneak across is reasonable because you don't like the end results. I'm suggesting we should have rules that clearly and unambiguously let the rogue sneak across. Rules where your interpretation is the only viable interpretation of the RAW.
Apologies, my edit on my last post didn't quite get in on time.
Regardless, it has nothing to do with my not liking the results. The wording as it stands right now is NOT ambiguous. It's right there, 1st sentence, 3rd paragraph. "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth." Ergo, if people are NOT observing you using any of their senses, you can.
You and I also disagree, because I don't think it's "reasonable". :)You don't think the interpretation that doesn't allow the rogue to sneak across is reasonable because you don't like the end results. I'm suggesting we should have rules that clearly and unambiguously let the rogue sneak across. Rules where your interpretation is the only viable interpretation of the RAW.Apologies, my edit on my last post didn't quite get in on time.
Regardless, it has nothing to do with my not liking the results. The wording as it stands right now is NOT ambiguous. It's right there, 1st sentence, 3rd paragraph. "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth." Ergo, if people are NOT observing you using any of their senses, you can.
You and I agree on this point. My point about field of hearing was not to say that you are observed, just that you could be.
If you're out of the guard's observation (all of his senses) at the start of your turn, you can use stealth to sneak across that hallway. Make the roll, and he doesn't notice you.
But because he has 360-degree hearing, even with his back turned he gets a roll to detect you. In fact, even if he's stone deaf, or you're using a silence spell, he still gets a roll to spot you visually. Maybe he has great peripherial vision and had turned his head a little. Maybe the little hairs on the back of his neck stood up and he glanced over his shoulder at the right time. Whatever.
Now, when it comes to this situation, I would argue that the combined rules for this guard's perception roll are lacking. The RAW needs a bit of additional modifiers.
For example, the perception check right as it stands is exactly the same regardless of whether the guard is facing toward or away the rogue sneaking across that hallway. In both cases, the DC is zero, because all he has to do is notice a visible creature, which you will be during the 5' you are in the hallway. Since he has no facing, you're visible to him during that 5' of your move, so that's the DC.
Me, thinking about real life, I would say he should automatically see you if you simply rely on ordinary stealth to walk across the hall in front of the direction he is facing. DC zero seems too hard for an alert guard with ordinary vision in normal lighting to see someone in plain sight only a few yards away.
Further thinking in real life, I would say having his back turned means he automatically cannot see you and must use DC 10 for hearing a creature walking - this way you're rewarded for waiting for the guard to turn his back, and I'm sure we both agree that in real life, we would certainly wait until the guard's back is turned.
But, I see nothing in the RAW to support this, and I think there should be.
DM Blake
(pardon, still dunno how to quote things..)
Clearly, if the PC could tell the DM that they wait for the perfect moment to roll a skill check, they would.
"wait until his back is turned"
or "wait until.. ' whatever.
To me, that sounds like part of the check.
What I mean by that is:
the 1st level rogue is a noob. His timing isn't right, his boots squeak, his sword sheath rattles a lil when he walks. He tries to stealth past the door..
but, he fails. Maybe because of the timing or a rattle or a squeak.. who knows.
The 5th level rogue.. is a little brighter. His boots don't squeak (as much).. his sheath is tightened better, etc. IAW: he has a higher skill check.
His timing is better.
So the overall point is: Maybe the stealth roll is taking into account the "facing" and such, just by virtue of the higher skilled person being better able to account for where the guard is.
(noting: this is just an idea.. its not RAW or anything..)
-S
Incidentally, this is what I mean in a wide disparity of what you're allowed to do with Stealth.
We have a character who not only has a high Stealth modifier and even explicitly has an ability that lets him hide in plain sight, and we still have people arguing that he shouldn't be able to hide. And this time, it's an argument in earnest.
This is why I feel there should be rigorous, well-defined rules, not a vague and sometimes illogical patchwork. Hiding is as important to rogues as swinging swords is to fighters, and as such the hiding rules should be as rigorous as the rules for swinging swords.
I can understand that point of view. And I agree it would be nice in some ways to have a few extra rule sets to go along with what we already have for Stealth. Just to explicitly illustrate how to deal with a few "case in point" type scenarios.
However, this little back and forth between me and KAM is not the best example to illustrate your point. Ten people reading something and coming up with ten different answers, due to the rules not explicitly telling you what to do in a given scenario, is one thing. Someone reading something that explicitly states how an ability functions and saying it does something else entirely is a whole other problem. I actually thing this debate better illustrates this other problem: That no matter how explicit the text regarding a certain ability is there will always be someone who reads that same text and says "Nope that's not what it does." So, while I see your point that it would be nice to have a few more rules spelling out what to do with certain situations, I don't necessarily think it would help with this particular issue. There is still going to be that guy who reads it and says ". . . but I think it really does this . . ."
The situation that ZappoHisBane has brought up is, I think, one of the biggest legitimate problems with Stealth. That is one place I would like to see a little more explicit language dealing with what to do in that scenario.
I think it is easily addressed with the rules in CA. But if you don't want to include WotC books in your game, and you don't agree with Z's point of view that Stealth can be used if certain other conditions are met, then the Rogue is screwed here and needs to find another way around.
If you're out of the guard's observation (all of his senses) at the start of your turn, you can use stealth to sneak across that hallway. Make the roll, and he doesn't notice you.
This is most likely the way I would rule it in a game of mine too. Now is that explicit in the RAW, I'm not sure but this is exactly the spot I would like to see some additional Stealth rules because I think it should be EXPLICITLY supported by RAW.
DM_Blake, I don't entirely follow what you are saying here:
Further thinking in real life, I would say having his back turned means he automatically cannot see you and must use DC 10 for hearing a creature walking - this way you're rewarded for waiting for the guard to turn his back, and I'm sure we both agree that in real life, we would certainly wait until the guard's back is turned.
Are you saying the base DC for the guards Perception check should be 10 and then you add the PC's Stealth roll to that? Or are you saying the DC would be 10 if the PC didn't roll Stealth at all? This seems to be contradicting what you wrote in the area where I quoted you above, but I think I am just misunderstanding your point.
I've avoided most of this conversation, simply because I don't have the energy to argue points that others have been making quite adequately already.
However, I did want to point to a certain misinterpreation of the rules.
The Perception DCs for things like "Notice a visible creature DC 0", and "Hear the sound of a creature walking DC 10", are meant to be used against a person that isn't using stealth. As soon as someone tries to use Stealth, they cease to be making the "average" actions and are making less noticeable actions, and this falls squarely under "Notice a creature using Stealth" which is an opposed check.
So it doesn't matter if the person is visible or not, or silenced or not, or if someone has their back turned, etc.
If someone is trying to be stealthy, you use an opposed check instead of a flat DC.
The only time you can't use an opposed check would be when using Stealth is impossible, which is still up to debate between MiB and it seems almost everyone else.
.
My personal opinion on the "observed" interpretation conundrum is that: if one intrepretation makes sense, and another intrepretation causes stupid situations, then the first interpretation is the correct one.
Basically, if the interpretation doesn't stand up to the rigors of testing amongst the rest of the rules, then why keep that interpretation?
I used to have players that were upset over Evasion and Reflex saves against Fireballs. They interpreted a fireball as a big explosion, like a bomb going off.
I explained that clearly it isn't the case, since it doesn't fling unattended objects around. So a correct interpretation of a Fireball is that it's simply an expanding wave of flame. If you can cover your face and other exposed bits and tap out any residual flames quickly enough, you take no damage. No need to dive out of the space or spring all spiderman like into the air to "dodge the explosion".
If something in the rules doesn't make sense, then change your point of view until it does.
.
Now go back to Bill Clintoning the meaning of the word "observed".
The Perception DCs for things like "Notice a visible creature DC 0", and "Hear the sound of a creature walking DC 10", are meant to be used against a person that isn't using stealth. As soon as someone tries to use Stealth, they cease to be making the "average" actions and are making less noticeable actions, and this falls squarely under "Notice a creature using Stealth" which is an opposed check.
According to what written rules?
The rules in the Perception skill description say that to hear a man walking is a DC 10, or to see a plainly visible creature is a DC 0, and it says to notice a creature using stealth the Perception check is opposed by the Stealth check.
And what about the written rule that you can only use stealth in cover or concealment?
The problem is there is no rule saying you can ONLY use Stealth with concealment/cover. The argument is that the rules saying that fall under a paragraph that is entirely about how to hide from someone observing you. However, you are correct that there is no explicit language to state you could ever use Stealth without cover/concealment either.
Where does it say creatures with scent get a +8 to Perception checks? I looked and couldn't find it.
Where does it say creatures with scent get a +8 to Perception checks? I looked and couldn't find it.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/perception
Why does a sleeping chicken get to take any actions at all?Perception is a non-action.
Doesn't taking 10 also imply that the chicken has to take ten minutes to detect the rogue? If the rogue gets there first, the chicken is done for. Chicken is flatfooted, one hit from a cluband its dead.Taking 10 is routine use of a skill. It does not take 10 times as long as a normal use.
Taking 10 can only be done if you're not in immediate danger or distracted. I'd say if you're sleeping, you count as distracted, and a rogue sneaking up on you to club and steal you is definitely immediate danger.
The chicken could NOT take 10. Also, since it is sleeping (and thus it's eyes are closed) I'd rule that that is concealment, which allows you to use stealth.
There are several fallacies here.
1. Chickens as rule do not sleep during the day.
2. Competent rogues do not steal chickens during the day.
3. Competent rogues do not try to sneak past guard dogs in broad daylight for a meal.
If said rogue tries to do this .. in broad daylight with visible guard dogs.. he's trying to get caught.
That being said... I think you are stretching the scenario to keep the chickens safe. I'm sensing much anti-rogue sentiment here. Its like you really don't want the rogue to succeed and are blaming the rules. This RPGworld.. there are NO rules.. merely guidelines.
I would never let one of my players try something this silly without a good spanking via the guidlines unless some very very good excuses and reasons lay behind it.(and yes I have let people survive dice bite should it leave serious teeth marks behind, the game is supposed to be fun afterall)
The end being- good dice rolling will not save you from bad tactical decisions.
i handle it as follows: stealth vs perception. opposed rolls. with favorable conditions granting a bonus. Scent gains a +4 to perception checks, unless the the scent is overpowering, then a +10; if up wind, then the scent modifier is -2 (reason is a creature with scent is dependent on that ability and relies on it way too much/offten as opposed to more 'mundane' abilities.)
now of course situation dictates. broad daylight, no cover, etc, yeah he's trying to get caught.
ok first Taking 10 says that you can't be distracted and I don't know about anyone else but when I'm asleep I'm distracted by being asleep, no 10 for sleeping caracters, he can roll.
the following is from the patfinder core book.
pg 567, helpless condition: a helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, SLEEPING, unconscious, or OTHERWISE COMPLETELY AT AN OPPONENTS MERCY.
pg 102, perception skill: creature making the check is sleeping - DC modifier +10.
pg 106, stealth skill: if people (in this instance chickens)are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight) you can use stealth. (what senses is a sleeping chicken using that prevents jack from using stealth?)
if you observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a bluff check) you can attempt to use the stealth skill. (being asleep you are unaware of you surroundings, helpless, being the ultimate distraction)
pg 86, taking 10 and taking 20:
taking 10- when your character is not in immediate danger....(you are in immediate danger if sleeping (your helpless, i can coup de grace you). how are you not in any kind of danger if i can get close to you to do that?)
taking 20- when you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalty for failure... (plenty of time yes, the chicken is asleep its distracted and helpless, and what is the penalty if failed? attacked? it has to be opposed, not automatic. anyway the DC increases by 10.)
Yep, chickens are diurnal creatures and are awake as long as it's light out under normal circumstances.
|
I think the point that MiB made was... made. The rules as written don't allow a lot of leeway, and if you play with any sort of rules-lawyer at your table, you are in for a heck of a night.
I think most of us have at some point in time come up behind someone and said "boo" in broad daylight and had them jump in surprise. According to the RAW, that should never happen. It just feels wrong. I think that should be part of the litmus test that all rules should have to pass - if you can think of an example within a couple of minutes that would defeat what shouldn't be a magical rule, then maybe some further comment is needed. I would definitely like a little designer comment on this heated topic. And I definitely think stealth is something that warrants a larger section in the rules since it is a rather common item in most games. It'n not like it is overrun... which from what I could see had more words devoted to it than stealth...
On another note:
Is there a thread that has a proposed rewrite of the stealth rules? I would certainly like to read something like that. Or maybe even just a thread that has multiple house-rules for stealth so we can at least pick an interpretation that we find more to our sensibilities.
This thread has been resurrected! Just like my body...
TOZombie?
By the GODS!
*Gives Jack 5gp and sends him to KFC, from which Farmer John will make a minor profit and not have to shoot anyone.*
|
Well after taking the time to read this over...well the last few days of "wasting time" at work, I've come to this conclusion.
aMiB is completely correct in what he is saying, as that is the written rules.
I think clear cut written rules on when stealth can and cannot be used need to be created to settle this.
Currently, if you crossed the 5 ft hall, you're seen. Facing doesn't exist, you have no cover/concealment. You're seen. You can't even use stealth.
However, if it were applicable to use stealth while unobserved, and then "crossing from a hidden location to a hidden location" stealth would be usable.
Until that happens though, all you're going to get is house rules, it wont change the simple facts.
Jack cannot hide if he's trying to cross the hallway.
He steps into it, and the guard goes "WTF CHARLES" and sees him, game over man, game over.
Stealth doesn't enter into it, Jack isn't allowed to use stealth.
All I got from this thread (in addition to the "I stole Farmer John's Chicken!" T-shirt) was that folks are all kinds of worked up about nothing.
You can't walk in front of someone, and think they won't see you. Except for white-guy 1980's ninja movies, this isn't an issue.
I don't see anything in the rules that prevents a GM from using COMMON SENSE, and setting a stealth check DC based on sneaking behind someone as circumstance dictates. You don't need facing rules, you don't need to re-wright stealth, you just need to remember that this isn't a computer game, and that GM's are there to make the game work, not just referee the letter of the rules.
|
|
All I got from this thread (in addition to the "I stole Farmer John's Chicken!" T-shirt) was that folks are all kinds of worked up about nothing.
You can't walk in front of someone, and think they won't see you. Except for white-guy 1980's ninja movies, this isn't an issue.
I don't see anything in the rules that prevents a GM from using COMMON SENSE, and setting a stealth check DC based on sneaking behind someone as circumstance dictates. You don't need facing rules, you don't need to re-wright stealth, you just need to remember that this isn't a computer game, and that GM's are there to make the game work, not just referee the letter of the rules.
Correct, but again that leaves us with house rules, and that's fine for individual games, but seeing as we've come this far in the thread I think the actual intent is to point out where the RAW leaves us out to dry in regards to stealth.
Can Jack steal a chicken? Apparently not, no.
-Should- Jack be able to steal a chicken? Yes.
But until said time as they decide to revisit the entire stealth mechanic, house rules and half-maybes abound /shrug.
Can Jack steal a chicken? Apparently not, no.
Yes he can, easily. He just can't be an idiot about it.
Why couldn't jack wait until the farmer was feeding the dog or the farmer was working on his field. Why is the farmer spending all day standing there. Also where is the party have them walking by so the dog moves elsewhere.
So to cross the hallway, you'll need Cover/Concealment. Simple.
This is why in Looney Tunes, the cartoons always had themselves disguised as hedges. Instant Concealment. You carry your concealment with you. Tower Shields offer total cover I believe? Though...the shield will just give him a huge Stealth penalty. He's probably better off walking with a hollowed-out hedge to carry.
Sadly, RAW, it'd actually work.
I do agree on Stealth needing a serious overhaul in the way it's written and handled.
Just in case anyone cares I got bored at work and guess what? I've come up with a sweet t-shirt!
Just for fun...
Oooooooh man, that is really tempting :D
I just might have to get that ...
So to cross the hallway, you'll need Cover/Concealment. Simple.
This is why in Looney Tunes, the cartoons always had themselves disguised as hedges. Instant Concealment. You carry your concealment with you. Tower Shields offer total cover I believe? Though...the shield will just give him a huge Stealth penalty. He's probably better off walking with a hollowed-out hedge to carry.
Sadly, RAW, it'd actually work.
All my characters carry empty barrels.
Solid Snake would be very upset that no one likes cardboard boxes anymore.
Also note that the rogue would get a stealth check against the chicken, as the chicken is asleep and thus can not see the rogue, meaning he has total concealment vs the chicken. There's no chance of the chicken hearing the rogue.
Don't be so sure, I read a thread that went over 200 posts arguing if an unconscious person in negative hit points still gets a reflex save against a fireball and could benefit from evasion...
...just sayin'
Also note that the rogue would get a stealth check against the chicken, as the chicken is asleep and thus can not see the rogue, meaning he has total concealment vs the chicken. There's no chance of the chicken hearing the rogue.Don't be so sure, I read a thread that went over 200 posts arguing if an unconscious person in negative hit points still gets a reflex save against a fireball and could benefit from evasion...
...just sayin'
yeah...they do, but Zurai's point stands.
Asleep = total concealment = stealth.
|
|
I posted in this thread ages ago, but I see no problem with things by RAW.
Jack can use Stealth assuming the hedge gives him concealment (difference between a hedge and a hedgerow was discussed, the latter does give concealment). If the hedge doesn't give concealment Jack is an idiot.
Crossing the gap between hedges is possible as neither the farmer and dog are observing Jack (to be observing jack he must be have been visible before trying to cross the gap. The farmer and dog are also both distracted (they are not actively on guard and watching the gap between the hedges).
"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"
So while the farmer whittles or checks his crossbow or whatever the hell he was doing, and the dog gnaws on his bone, Jack can use Stealth to cross the gap as long as he can get to the other hedge and back into cover by the end of his turn.
Comments re PF not having Facing is only applicable in combat situations when using miniatures - this is not a combat situation.
Cheers!
Request thread title be changed to- "Stealth doesn't work when your trying to sneak in front of someone in broad daylight".
Yep, I agree, 'cause that's the main issue for me...
As I read it it means that someone sleeping in the open (a grass field for example) a bright summer afternoon cannot be approached stealthily...
The other things don't really bother me that much... ;)