| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So here are some updates from the discussion so far (note that the updates in the spoilers are just the changed parts; I didn't include the unchanged parts for the sake of easily finding the changes here):
1. I updated the discussion on "Definition of 'Observed'" to include the use of Perception, when warranted, to see someone standing in plain sight. I also updated the rule clarification. I think there is a general consensus here that this is sometimes needed but with only one exception that I recall, nobody has said that Perception is always needed to see someone standing right in front of you. It's always going to be a DM's call, I'm afraid, as adjudicating every possibility would take up way too many pages of the rulebook.
"Observed" usually means that an enemy can and does see you, but it can also apply to hearing, scent, Tremorsense, Blindsight, Blindsense, or any other means of locating you - usually the observer must have a special ability to use some sense other than vision to observe an opponent.
By "can and does see you" this means that your enemy is capable of perceiving you and, when situations warrant, has made a Perception check to see you. Much of the time this Perception check is not necessary. But, sometimes, maybe with distraction (see "Distraction and Diversion" and also "Distraction and Perception" below) or other unfavorable conditions, it might make sense that an observer could fail to see you, in which case a Perception check is warranted. There is no hard and fast RAW for this, so it's usually going to be up to a DM to decide when an observer automatically sees you and when he needs to roll Perception.
You are "observed" when you are in a location where at least one opponent can and does perceive you. Generally this perception requires vision, but some opponents may have other senses, including Blindsense, that they can use to locate you. Sometimes your opponents might need to make a Perception check (usually against DC 0 + adjustments) to see you in an "observed" location. Conversely, you are "unobserved" when you are in a position where your enemies cannot perceive you using any sense, which almost always means you have Cover or Concealment, or it might mean you are in an "observed" location but your enemies have failed a Perception check. It is possible to be observed by some enemies while being unobserved by other enemies, but those who do observe you can instantly alert those who cannot by speaking as a free action, even if it is not their turn.
2. I updated Sniping. Oviously, the majority of people on this thread are arguing for sniping to allow the "Shoot from Cover/Concealment without giving away your location" interpretation, and I agree, that's a wonderful interpretation, so add me to the list of people that interprets it that way.
But I also believe my original interpretaion is still valid. No rules in the RAW allow for a person behind Total Cover (blocked LOS & LOE) or who has Total Concealment (blocked LOS) to take a quick shot and return to cover. Yet, we've all seen it in a thousand movies and we've all done it playing paintball, laser tag, or just shooting each other in the office with nerf pistols or rubber bands. Such a simple thing that cannot be completed by RAW - unless we take this interpretation of Sniping to also be valid; if not, then how else can we do this (it can't even be done with Haste).
Let's answer why we need it first. There are lots of cases where we have Cover or Concealment with a clear line of fire to our target. In those cases, we don't need Sniping. We can simply fire a shot and then use our Cover or Concealment to enter Stealth as our Move action without having to actually move anywhere. Of course, our enemies might figure out where we are because of the sound or directionality of our attack, or they might use Perception to see our attack. There is a way around that; see below.
Sniping is often applied to cases when we do not have line of sight to our target. I should be more specific here. Cover and Concealment usually do not block line of sight/line of effect. Total Cover and Total Concealment do block line of sight/line of effect. So if you just have Cover or Concealment, you can often fire a shot without needing to move and without needing to use Sniping, so the Sniping rule is just for those cases when you have Total Cover or Total Concealment that prevents you from seeing or having line of effect to your target.
There is another valid use for sniping. If you have Cover or Concealment, but not Total Cover or Total Concealment, and you have Line of Sight and Line of Effect to your target, you can fire a shot without ever moving or leaving your Cover or Concealment. If you make the "return to stealth" roll at -20 (opposed by your opponents' Perception), your opponents cannot tell where your attack came from. This is still a Full-round action since it requires an attack and a move action to use Stealth.
Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can, as a Full-Round action, pop out of Stealth and still make one ranged attack that denies your target his DEX bonus to his AC, and then immediately return to your position and use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to return to your previous unobserved location. Alternatively, if you have Line of Sight and Line of Effect to your target, you can attempt to remain hidden when you attack. This is also a Full-Round action but you don't move; simply take your shot and roll to return to Stealth right where you are, with the -20 to the roll to represent the difficulty of keeping your hidden location a secret while attacking.
Keep up all the great feedback!
As a DM I would not let a flat-footed character speak.
I forbid talking under such circumstances as well.
A person can speak even when it is not his turn. Unlike reactions, however, a person can't speak in order to interrupt someone else's action.
I can see I am still not explaining myself very well.
Sniping or not, you still need LOS to make an attack, or at least LOE.
Agreed.
From your example, the sniper would have to shoot through the cover to hit the target.
Agreed again.
That is not possible by RAW or in real life in your diagram.
Now we stop agreeing.
Haven't you ever played soldier with your friends, even when you were a kid? Or been a real soldier? If not, haven't you ever seen cops, gangsters, solderis, cowboys, etc., in movies?
In real life, and in movies, we constantly see combatants in firefights (the most common form of cinematic or modern ranged combat) who are completely behind a wall or rock or whatever, with no LOS or LOE to their target. Suddenly they pup up/out, take a quick shot, and duck back behind cover before their enemy can shoot back. Happens all the time in cinema. I've done this myself countless times in paintball, laser tag, and office hijinx.
Pathfinder combat absolutely does not allow this to happen. You MUST stick yourself out into the line of fire, take your shot, then stand there until all your enemies shoot back at you. Extremely un-lifelike, unrealistic, and uncinematic. Not to mention, un-fun. Having to eat a dozen arrows so that you can fire one, all because there is no way, even if you're Hasted, to make a shot like that, is plain silly. Shame on you RAW, for being so silly!
But wait! There's hope. Sniping. This is exactly what sniping allows you to do. Thanks to Sniping, the RAW are not so silly and unrealistic.
With sniping, we can execute that lovely cinematic, and real-life, maneuver of sticking our head (and weapon) out from behind cover, taking a shot, and getting back to cover without being shot back by every enemy on the battlefield.
Move the target one square to the right and now you can attack it.
But what if the target doesn't want to move? What if the target has chosen that very spot because he knows you cannot shoot him without completely abandoning your cover and exposing you to his return fire?
I know, I know, you're telling me to adjust my example by relocating the target to satisfy your desire to attack while staying in cover. But I'm saying that sometimes, the target is not conviniently in a location that makes things easy for you. Which is again why Sniping comes in useful.
You can either just attack normally, which means the target knows where you are but you get cover, or you can try sniping; if you fail the target knows you are behind the corner, if you suceed the target still has no idea where you are. In either case you still need to have LOE.
I have already agreed to this. And I have updated my proposed sniping rule (clarification) to include everyone's interpretation. As for me, I like both interpretations.
I recommend for your interpertation, with the "pop out" rule, you at least specify the sniper is within a 5-ft adjust of a square with LoS to the target. Otherwise you could get weird situations (e.g., 1) an archer in the middle of one side of a stone wall 100 ft wide and 100 ft high "popping out" and sniping a target on the direct opposite side of the wall, or 2) a sniper popping out into an entangled square, sniping, and popping back in.
Noted.
I thought that was implicit, but that's bad form on my part since I'm trying to clarify all these rules that are unclear, leaving unclear stuff in my clarificatins is just bad form.
I'll update that. Thanks for the tip!
Interestingly, you can do this by RAW for low walls. Lying prone, move action to stand up, standard action to attack, and free action to drop prone. I use this one all the time. The attacker will still have cover even when standing, and full cover when prone. It forces people to use ready actions to attack the "sniper", wasting their action if the attacker happens not to stand up that turn.
Yep, that works great. Seems to me, it should be equally easy to do the same thing horizontally, ilke if your wall is taller than you, but you're standing at the end of it.
I think I would rather have something like that expanded to cover the scenario of attacking around wall corners you've outlined than using the stealth rules. I think that would be more consistent.
I completely agree. Sniping should have been in the combat section all along. Maybe right there nein the Special Attacks section, between Mounted Combat and Throw Splash Weapon.
|
Pathfinder combat absolutely does not allow this to happen. You MUST stick yourself out into the line of fire, take your shot, then stand there until all your enemies shoot back at you. Extremely un-lifelike, unrealistic, and uncinematic. Not to mention, un-fun. Having to eat a dozen arrows so that you can fire one, all because there is no way, even if you're Hasted, to make a shot like that, is plain silly. Shame on you RAW, for being so silly!
My suspicion is that the bonus to AC you get under the 'low obstacles and cover' section are meant to deal with this. Rather than dealing with the whole situation of popping and and ducking behind they just assume you will use the cover to the largest extent possible and give a flat +4 bonus to your AC.
Also, shot on the run which allows you to do exactly that, move-shoot-move. Firing from cover and returning to cover.
Sniping is slightly different because it is designed to allow mixing stealth into the picture.
It would be nice if there were a rule to allow you to use a corner for cover while shooting in combat. Probably the easiest solution would be to extend this to allow characters adjacent to a corner partial cover.
Hiding behind things is part and parcel of combat but so is getting shot when you stick your head up. Making a mechanic where it's impossible to hit someone who has cover is no fun.
|
|
Interestingly, you can do this by RAW for low walls. Lying prone, move action to stand up, standard action to attack, and free action to drop prone. I use this one all the time. The attacker will still have cover even when standing, and full cover when prone. It forces people to use ready actions to attack the "sniper", wasting their action if the attacker happens not to stand up that turn.
I like this a lot. Only downside is you are pretty screwed if someone gets into melee with you.
I agree with pretty much everything you've said except the bit about sniping as a pop out/back in thing. Every group I have played it in has played it that sniping is taking a shot from a location unknown to your victim and the -20 represents them being potentially able to follow that arrow/spell/projectile back to your location.
Popping up and down from behind a car for whatever is just an application of normal cover AC bonus rules - if they shot you while your head was up, it was because they rolled high enough to beat the cover bonus to AC, if they didn't, you ducked back down again too fast.
Other than that, IMO this is pretty much how stealth works RAW as well as how it should work.
It appears a lot of us have different interpretations on how Perception works when used with Stealth and Sniping. And even though the discussion is somewhat interesting, I find it very confusing with all the different interpretations. Also, when there is a situation like this, where there are so many interpretations, I feel it is a failing of the RAW description (not to be too critical towards Paizo) and I am surprised Sean, or someone else from Paizo, has not stepped in with a clarification, which is what this really needs.
DM_Blake, maybe you should have posted this in the “Rules Questions” forum?
DM_Blake, maybe you should have posted this in the “Rules Questions” forum?
It was actually moved out of the rules forum (:
DM_Blake, maybe you should have posted this in the “Rules Questions” forum?It was actually moved out of the rules forum (:
What the heck….?
Maybe because the way the subject line was worded? Either way, it would be nice to get a rules clarification from Paizo.
DM_Blake, maybe you should have posted this in the “Rules Questions” forum?It was actually moved out of the rules forum (:What the heck….?
Maybe because the way the subject line was worded? Either way, it would be nice to get a rules clarification from Paizo.
We expect that they are unwilling to do so.
We expect that they are unwilling to do so.DM_Blake, maybe you should have posted this in the “Rules Questions” forum?It was actually moved out of the rules forum (:What the heck….?
Maybe because the way the subject line was worded? Either way, it would be nice to get a rules clarification from Paizo.
And if this is the case, that's a bit distressing. Considering that usually they are good about responding to questions on the board. One of the reasons what I’ve really liked about the forums is the staff is very responsive. Which is why this is a bit puzzling. If they only just said “We are looking into it” would be good enough for now.
Actually they are really not good at responding to questions on the boards, and have purposefully stated that they don't intend to be. JB, and JJ have both stated that they don't want a lot of "official " answers clogging up the game. A stated philosophy at paizo is that the rules should have enough flex in them to work how people want them to work at their tables.
It is intentional that so many questions like this are left unanswered by official sources so that they can be worked out both by the community at large, and by the community at small at the individual tables by individual dm's and players.
Actually they are really not good at responding to questions on the boards, and have purposefully stated that they don't intend to be. JB, and JJ have both stated that they don't want a lot of "official " answers clogging up the game. A stated philosophy at paizo is that the rules should have enough flex in them to work how people want them to work at their tables.
It is intentional that so many questions like this are left unanswered by official sources so that they can be worked out both by the community at large, and by the community at small at the individual tables by individual dm's and players.
Really? Hmm, I guess I have just been fortunate in seeing the threads that are responded to (well, at least until now).
And, don’t agree with that reasoning at all. It’s one thing having DM’s use their own house rules, but I feel there should be clear, RAW for most things (and this would be big enough to include RAW).
I mean if you go by that reasoning, they may as well just throw out all the DC charts, how AoO works, when you can and can’t cast spells, etc. as the DM’s can make that up themselves, right? Some of us do want the more detailed rules to go by and don’t want that flexibility. But even if they put the more detailed rules in, DM’s can still house rule something if they don’t like it.
Edit: But, this is off topic. My apologies to DM_Blake.
Clarification they don't mind so much, but generally they give it some time to be played over on the forums before jumping in themselves.
Think of it from their perspective and what we have seen with things like sage and the 3.5 faq in the past -- which would you rather have? Five or six clarification and Errata's that continuously bounce back and forth or no offical answer for a while until they are absolutely sure that this is an area they want to comment on.
It's a bit like any other artistic task -- the artist has to be careful to when he throws his weight into questions or thoughts on his works so as to now lessen the impact of what he has to say about it, and to give others time to find more insights than what he initially conceived in the piece. Consider also how tore up people get when "cannon" doesn't match what they wanted to happen on their favorite book/show/movie/battletech faction -- we are the same way here in RPG land and the people at paizo don't want to have to deal with a bunch of drama/angst/nerdrage if an "official" position isn't popular. Also they don't want a bunch of people coming to their tables and telling them "you aren't doing it right!" so they try to not do that to other people too.
Clarification they don't mind so much, but generally they give it some time to be played over on the forums before jumping in themselves.
Think of it from their perspective and what we have seen with things like sage and the 3.5 faq in the past -- which would you rather have? Five or six clarification and Errata's that continuously bounce back and forth or no offical answer for a while until they are absolutely sure that this is an area they want to comment on.
It's a bit like any other artistic task -- the artist has to be careful to when he throws his weight into questions or thoughts on his works so as to now lessen the impact of what he has to say about it, and to give others time to find more insights than what he initially conceived in the piece. Consider also how tore up people get when "cannon" doesn't match what they wanted to happen on their favorite book/show/movie/battletech faction -- we are the same way here in RPG land and the people at paizo don't want to have to deal with a bunch of drama/angst/nerdrage if an "official" position isn't popular. Also they don't want a bunch of people coming to their tables and telling them "you aren't doing it right!" so they try to not do that to other people too.
Ok, it’s one thing if Paizo is keeping quiet because they want to take the time to formulate ‘one’ official answer than holding back (permanently) and letting each DM/players work it out at their table, which is what it sounded like you were saying at first.
If Paizo made a mistake making the the original RAW for Stealth and Perception used with Sneak Attack too vague, I certainly understand that. Mistakes happen. But no offense, but you made it sound like they kept it vague on purpose, for DM’s and players to work out and make their own rules at the gaming table. Now that, I have a problem with. I want clear, concise rules on how things work in any situation they can think of. That’s what a rule book is for.
If they want to be intentionally vague, leave that when giving us flavor text or campaign story material. The DM’s can be creative and fill in the blanks for that, that is part of what being a DM is. But for hard rules for the system, no, I can’t agree.
But again, if it was a mistake, then I certainly understand and look forward to one “official” ruling eventually. I agree with you on that point, getting multiple rulings/clarifications is not a good thing at all and only makes things more confusing.
Now, I really went off topic with the thread, and again, apologize to Blake. I am always open to discussion on this Abraham, but if you want to continue, please feel free to email instead. :)
Great job DM_Blake, you've been putting together a really nice stealth guide. I'm going to have to bookmark this until Pazio actually clarifies their stealth rules.
You can use blur to get concealment so can you use that for stealth? How does that interact with the fact that you are being observed?Nice gray area there. That's a tough call. You are being observed, but the spell says you gain Concealment. This one maybe could go either way, and either way we call it will make it an exception to one interpretaion or another. So here's my call:
1. Blur says you gain "Concealment (20% miss chance)".
2. Concealment grants you the chance to make a Stealth check.
3. BUT Stealth requires you to be "Unobserved" or you can't use it.
4. Blur also says "Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell's effect (though fighting an unseen opponent carries penalties of its own)". This is they key point. If the blurry guy is "Unobserved" then clearly this sentence doesn't need to be there - ALL opponents cannot see an "unobserved" guy regardless of whether he is blurred or not. Since this sentence exists, it's clear that the intent is that, under a Blur spell, you are still observed, and therefore cannot attempt a Stealth check.Ergo, Blur grants you the 20% miss chance of Concealment, but not the necessary "unobserved" status required to attempt Stealth.
I think this is the only thing that I disagree with you on so far.
Blur grants the same amount of Concealment as 'Low-Light', and the rules specifically say that characters can use stealth in low light conditions. Unless this is some sort of special rule for Low-Light itself, I would think Blur would allow the same thing. I would say that both effects simply make a character harder to 'observe' and allow him to more easily blend in with his surroundings (think of blur as poor man's active camo).
Here's another argument. The invisibility spell gives you 50% concealment and a +20 bonus to stealth (+40 if you aren't moving), and lets you make stealth checks even when you're being 'observed'. So, if 50% concealment gives a +20 stealth bonus and allows the use of stealth even under the worst conditions (such as being in mid battle) when you're not using cover, why can't a lower amount of concealment allow you to use stealth without the +20 stealth bonus?
Simply put, I would say Low-Light, Invisibility, and Blur all interfere with 'observation' of a character. Some people argue that you can't even use Low-Light to go into stealth while being observed (which would also prevent blur from being used that way), but I believe that the way shadowdancer hide-in-plain-sight is written suggests that anyone can use low-light to make stealth checks while being observed as long as you have 20%(low light level) concealment. Hide-in-plain-sight just allows you to also make stealth checks while observed when you're near low light (or shadows, depending on the version you use).
Hmmm, I didn't write that out as well as I could have. I think it is a good thing you beat me to making this topic XD
Great job DM_Blake, you've been putting together a really nice stealth guide. I'm going to have to bookmark this until Pazio actually clarifies their stealth rules.
Thanks!
I think this is the only thing that I disagree with you on so far.
You can use blur to get concealment so can you use that for stealth? How does that interact with the fact that you are being observed?Nice gray area there. That's a tough call. You are being observed, but the spell says you gain Concealment. This one maybe could go either way, and either way we call it will make it an exception to one interpretaion or another. So here's my call:
1. Blur says you gain "Concealment (20% miss chance)".
2. Concealment grants you the chance to make a Stealth check.
3. BUT Stealth requires you to be "Unobserved" or you can't use it.
4. Blur also says "Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell's effect (though fighting an unseen opponent carries penalties of its own)". This is they key point. If the blurry guy is "Unobserved" then clearly this sentence doesn't need to be there - ALL opponents cannot see an "unobserved" guy regardless of whether he is blurred or not. Since this sentence exists, it's clear that the intent is that, under a Blur spell, you are still observed, and therefore cannot attempt a Stealth check.Ergo, Blur grants you the 20% miss chance of Concealment, but not the necessary "unobserved" status required to attempt Stealth.
It's all good. As I said in that post, this is a gray area and a tough call. I can see it going either way, and your way just as valid as mine (or vice versa).
Blur grants the same amount of Concealment as 'Low-Light', and the rules specifically say that characters can use stealth in low light conditions. Unless this is some sort of special rule for Low-Light itself, I would think Blur would allow the same thing. I would say that both effects simply make a character harder to 'observe' and allow him to more easily blend in with his surroundings (think of blur as poor man's active camo).
No, I wasn't making any call about low lighting conditions at all. But I do see two distnctions:
In low lighting conditions, we're actually talking about darkness. Or dimness that is very close to darkness. It's very easy to have a person standing in near-darkness and you don't even know he is there. If such an "unseen" person were to move around, quietly and stealthfully, you might not know where he is or where he is going, because you might not even know he is there. If such an "unseen" person attacks you, you might not defend yourself well.
But a Blurred person is still visible. By the RAW, that means he is "observed". Also by the RAW, that means he cannot use Stealth. And because he is observed, he cannot Sneak Attack.
To put that another way, Low-Light grants a person a chance to be unseen, "unobserved", which lets him use Stealth. Blur does not grant any chance to be unseen, so no chance to use Stealth.
Ultimately, there is a big difference in how you defend yourself against a guy you can see but he's Blurred so it is hard to know exactly where he is, and a guy you cannot see at all and might not know he's there.
Here's another argument. The invisibility spell gives you 50% concealment and a +20 bonus to stealth (+40 if you aren't moving),
Actually, it gives you "Total Concealment", and because you have Total Concealment you get a 50% chance that attacks will miss you.
and lets you make stealth checks even when you're being 'observed'. So, if 50% concealment gives a +20 stealth bonus and allows the use of stealth even under the worst conditions (such as being in mid battle) when you're not using cover, why can't a lower amount of concealment allow you to use stealth without the +20 stealth bonus?
It can. Your interpretaion is valid.
To me though, the difference boils down to this:
I'm in my cellar at night and I have a candle that provides dim illumination. Some guy standing even just 5' away from me is in almost-complete darkness. I might not see him there at all. If he starts sneaking (makes a successful Stealth roll against my Perception adjusted for penalties due to the dim lighting), I won't see this guy.
I'm in my front yard at noon on a cloudless day and some guy standing 5' away from me casts a Blur spell. I can clearly see that there is a blurry guy there. If he starts sneaking, I will watch the blurry guy sneaking around my yard, and find it amusing that he's walking so funny. In order for him to succesfully sneak, he will have to move his blurry self to some Cover or some (other) Concealment, or he will have to create a Diversion - which is the same set of rules for people who are not Blurred.
I'm not trying to talk you into it. As I said, your interpretation works too. Just not for me.
It's all good. As I said in that post, this is a gray area and a tough call. I can see it going either way, and your way just as valid as mine (or vice versa).
Yea, I admit things are vauge enough right now that either interpretation works. I wish the rules had a chart saying how easy each level of concealment made it to hide instead of just saying 'if you have concealment, you can go into stealth'. Saying that any amount of concealment can allow you to go into stealth effectively would let a person who had 5% concealment make a steath check in the middle of an army of goblins in broad daylight, and I certainly wouldn't allow that to happen so simply XD
I have say though, if Paizo didn't want concealment from blur to give all the benefits that concealment gives, they should have just used the words 'miss chance' instead of concealment. Or they could have done what they did with displacement, and said 'it does not give these benefits of concealment *lists benefits*'. Considering all the other problems with the stealth rules however, it is very likely that this could have been an oversight.
|
|
Actually they are really not good at responding to questions on the boards, and have purposefully stated that they don't intend to be. JB, and JJ have both stated that they don't want a lot of "official " answers clogging up the game. A stated philosophy at paizo is that the rules should have enough flex in them to work how people want them to work at their tables.
It is intentional that so many questions like this are left unanswered by official sources so that they can be worked out both by the community at large, and by the community at small at the individual tables by individual dm's and players.
James has popped in on quite a few threads and said how he would rule on things but has been clear that if people want to run it some other way they can and should.
My impression is the Paizo people respect that people have their own way of reading the rules and don't want to step on people's toes by coming out with an official interpretation that might contradict the way people have played the game for years.
Is a person fighting another person in melee distracted enough that a stealth check can be made.
I wish the rules had a chart saying how easy each level of concealment made it to hide instead of just saying 'if you have concealment, you can go into stealth'.
The problem I think that you are having here is that you think people 'go into stealth'.
Stealth is not a way to become invisible.
Rather stealth is a way to *remain* unseen, after conditions changed enough that you otherwise would now be seen.
Case in point: PC A is behind a wall from PC B. PC A is unseen by PC B.
So far no problem.. PC B cannot see through walls so there is no LOS.
Now PC A starts moving into where PC B could see him.
Without anything special, PC B automatically sees PC A as soon as he has LOS to him. Doesn't matter if PC B is fighting, spellcasting or looking through a (not total) concealment granting fog... he sees PC A as soon as LOS is established.
Now rewind things a bit back to where PC A still has full cover from PC B and is unseen. PC A can use the stealth skill to attempt to remain unseen as he moves into LOS of PC B.
Now there are requirements to PC A's ability to use this skill. He must remain either somewhat concealed from PC B or have some degree of cover to PC B at all times.
So suppose once PC A clears the wall there is that light fog granting concealment through which the line of sight between PC A & PC B passes. Upon a successful stealth check PC A remains unseen by PC B.
Once PC A becomes seen by PC B, there is no 'going into stealth' to become invisible to PC B. There is 'go back behind the wall' for full cover and become unseen (as PC B still can't see through walls). At which point PC A can use stealth to attempt to remain unseen by PC B once LOS is re-established...
-James
I would agree with you, but the way shadowdancer hide-in-plain sight is designed to work makes me think otherwise. Notice that it allows people to use stealth, in plain sight, as long as they are near a shadow. Why is there no plain old 'Hide in a shadow while being observed' ability? You'd think it would exist since it would seem much easier than hiding in plain sight in a relatively well lit area while using a single shadow that's behind you for cover. That suggests to me that everyone can use low-light to try and hide, even while being observed, and that also suggests to me that anyone who has concealment can do the same thing.
Basically, concealment makes you harder to see, and if someone is harder to see it is easier to lose track of where he just moved even if he isn't using cover. Honestly, this does seem a little unbelievable to me in some cases, but the best explanation that I can give is that the 'low light' condition is actually a lot darker than people usually picture it as.
But yea....this is a perfect example of a situation that really needs to be clarified by Paizo. This affects stealthy characters enough that it needs to simply be spelled out and not up to GM interpretation (unless the GM wants to flat out houserule it to work differently of course).
Is a person fighting another person in melee distracted enough that a stealth check can be made.
Absolutely not.
Fighting is a distraction (-5 on Perception checks) but distractions don't grant automatic Stealth checks. What you're looking for is a Diversion, which does allow a Stealth check.
The rogue can attempt his own diversion "Hey, is that an orc sneaking up behind you? Look out!" (requires a Bluff check), or may set one up in advance (like starting a fire 3 minutes ago in the mayor's house, small enough that it took 3 minutes to burn enough that the guards outside could see it), or may have an ally do it (start a stampede of cattle through the camp of bandits that are holding the princess hostage).
Yes, I know, there isn't much distinction between dodging cows and combat. The real distinction is a mechanical one:
1. Rogues can sneak attack if they have Flanking.
2. If they have flanking, it's because they got behind someone who is fighting an ally
3. If just "fighting an ally" was good enough to create the diversion the rogue needs, then he would never need Flanking.
4. In fact, he wouldn't even need to get behind them - he could be adjacent to his ally and still sneak attack.
5. Which means that a rogue who has allies (like, say, a PC rogue in every adventuring party that exists) would make every attack as a sneak attack.
Which is why, mechanically, the game does make a distinction between distraction and Diversion, even though the RAW doesn't really explain this distinction well. In my OP, I have a section on Distraction and Diversion that goes into this even more if you'd like.
Is a person fighting another person in melee distracted enough that a stealth check can be made.Absolutely not.
Fighting is a distraction (-5 on Perception checks) but distractions don't grant automatic Stealth checks. What you're looking for is a Diversion, which does allow a Stealth check.
The rogue can attempt his own diversion "Hey, is that an orc sneaking up behind you? Look out!" (requires a Bluff check), or may set one up in advance (like starting a fire 3 minutes ago in the mayor's house, small enough that it took 3 minutes to burn enough that the guards outside could see it), or may have an ally do it (start a stampede of cattle through the camp of bandits that are holding the princess hostage).
Yes, I know, there isn't much distinction between dodging cows and combat. The real distinction is a mechanical one:
1. Rogues can sneak attack if they have Flanking.
2. If they have flanking, it's because they got behind someone who is fighting an ally
3. If just "fighting an ally" was good enough to create the diversion the rogue needs, then he would never need Flanking.
4. In fact, he wouldn't even need to get behind them - he could be adjacent to his ally and still sneak attack.
5. Which means that a rogue who has allies (like, say, a PC rogue in every adventuring party that exists) would make every attack as a sneak attack.Which is why, mechanically, the game does make a distinction between distraction and Diversion, even though the RAW doesn't really explain this distinction well. In my OP, I have a section on Distraction and Diversion that goes into this even more if you'd like.
I would say that fighting does allow a rogue to make a stealth check at a -10 penalty, but he still has to find cover or concealment. At least, that's what it sounds like to me according to this quote from the stealth rules:
"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."
I admit it is a little bit of a grey area because it doesn't list any examples for ways to cause distractions other than via a bluff check, but I would think that combat would be distracting enough to allow a stealthy character to get away. Why make a bluff check if the guy you're trying to hide from is already having to deal with a fighter who is trying to kill him? Of course, this is no substitute for flanking, because a rogue using this distraction method would have to spend 2 rounds to get each sneak attack. He's have to move behind cover/concealment for an opponent to lose him, and then he's have to come back out and attack.
I would agree with you, but the way shadowdancer hide-in-plain sight is designed to work makes me think otherwise. Notice that it allows people to use stealth, in plain sight, as long as they are near a shadow.Yes a shadowdancer's hide in plain sight overrides normal use of the stealth skill. Likewise true for assassins and high level rangers (to varying degrees unless it's been changed).
I don't see where you are making the leap from this to you can normally make stealth checks to become invisible while being seen.
-James
Sorry, there was a better example I could have given: the Hellcat Stealth feat. It isn't a core pathfinder feat, but it is from Paizo. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/hellcat-stealth
"You may make Stealth checks in normal or bright light even when observed, but at a -10 penalty."
Now, if you take that literally, hellcat stealth *only* functions in normal or bright light. Wouldn't it be bizare if a person with this feat was being observed while he was in low light, and had to move into a brighter area in order to go into stealth? That would make sense to me only if Hellcat Stealth was some sort of supernatural ability that required a lot of light to use, and I don't think it is.
In my opinion, Hellcat Steath was created in order to give stealthy characters a way to hide without having to rely on low light conditions. Unless Paizo made a mistake (which I admit is possible), all characters must already have the ability to do stealth checks in low light. Otherwise, you will have silly situations where rogues with hellcat stealth have an easier time getting out of sight when they're in bright light than when they're in low light.
I suppose it is possible that Paizo meant for Hellcat Stealth to work this way, but if that is the case then I would be really interested in learning how it is supposed to work flavor-wise. I have a hard time picturing how walking into a bright area can suddenly make it easier for people to lose sight of you XD
|
|
Sorry, there was a better example I could have given: the Hellcat Stealth feat. It isn't a core pathfinder feat, but it is from Paizo. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/hellcat-stealth
"You may make Stealth checks in normal or bright light even when observed, but at a -10 penalty."
Now, if you take that literally, hellcat stealth *only* functions in normal or bright light. Wouldn't it be bizare if a person with this feat was being observed while he was in low light, and had to move into a brighter area in order to go into stealth? That would make sense to me only if Hellcat Stealth was some sort of supernatural ability that required a lot of light to use, and I don't think it is.
In my opinion, Hellcat Steath was created in order to give stealthy characters a way to hide without having to rely on low light conditions. Unless Paizo made a mistake (which I admit is possible), all characters must already have the ability to do stealth checks in low light. Otherwise, you will have silly situations where rogues with hellcat stealth have an easier time getting out of sight when they're in bright light than when they're in low light.
I suppose it is possible that Paizo meant for Hellcat Stealth to work this way, but if that is the case then I would be really interested in learning how it is supposed to work flavor-wise. I have a hard time picturing how walking into a bright area can suddenly make it...
In areas of dim light and darkness you already have concealment and can use stealth unless the enemy has darkvision (creatures who have darkvision would just use the rules for normal light all the time).
In areas of dim light and darkness you already have concealment and can use stealth unless the enemy has darkvision (creatures who have darkvision would just use the rules for normal light all the time).Sorry, there was a better example I could have given: the Hellcat Stealth feat. It isn't a core pathfinder feat, but it is from Paizo. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/hellcat-stealth
....
Yea, I'm trying to prove that because some people think that you can't use stealth in dim light if you're being 'observed'. The rules really need to be clarified by Paizo so that these discussions don't keep happening ><
Edit: Lol, I think this topic has now been moved from 'Rules Questions' to 'General Discussion' and back to 'Rules Questions'.
I would say that fighting does allow a rogue to make a stealth check at a -10 penalty, but he still has to find cover or concealment.
You are correct, though I think the penalty is -5.
While it's only an issue of semantics, I would word what you said differently: "Cover or Concealment allows rogues (or anyone else) to make a Stealth check, and if the observers are fighting they suffer a -5 (distraction) penalty to their Perception check."
Yep, that says the same thing you said, but it puts the critical part (Cover or Concealment) up front since this is what determines whether a Stealth check is possible, and puts the modifier to the roll after that rather than mentioning the modifier before the rule.
I admit it is a little bit of a grey area because it doesn't list any examples for ways to cause distractions other than via a bluff check,
Don't confuse "being distracted" (a -5 penalty to Perception checks) with "creating a diversion" (a Bluff check to divert observers so that you can attempt a Stealth check).
but I would think that combat would be distracting enough to allow a stealthy character to get away.
Except it isn't. And as you point out, you still need Cover or Concealment (which is all you need without combat, too; the combat just penalizes the opposed roll which makes it easier for you).
Why make a bluff check if the guy you're trying to hide from is already having to deal with a fighter who is trying to kill him?
Because he can still see you. If you go tip-toeing off to some other visible part of the battlefield, he will watch you tip-toe over there. Sure, out of the corner of his eye while he fights the foe who is still trying to kill him, but nonetheless, your observer still gets to observe you. If not, then we need a whole new slew of rules saying something like "In combat, pick one enemy. You can see this enemy but you cannot see any other enemy".
Clearly we have no such rule, so the converse is true (and the RAW supports this in numerous places) that your enemies always observe you while you're in plain sight, regardless of how "busy" they are with a fighter trying to kill them.
Of course, this is no substitute for flanking, because a rogue using this distraction method would have to spend 2 rounds to get each sneak attack. He's have to move behind cover/concealment for an opponent to lose him, and then he's have to come back out and attack.
You mean diversion, right?
And yes, flanking is much better.
I would say that fighting does allow a rogue to make a stealth check at a -10 penalty, but he still has to find cover or concealment.You are correct, though I think the penalty is -5.
While it's only an issue of semantics, I would word what you said differently: "Cover or Concealment allows rogues (or anyone else) to make a Stealth check, and if the observers are fighting they suffer a -5 (distraction) penalty to their Perception check."
Yep, that says the same thing you said, but it puts the critical part (Cover or Concealment) up front since this is what determines whether a Stealth check is possible, and puts the modifier to the roll after that rather than mentioning the modifier before the rule.
I admit it is a little bit of a grey area because it doesn't list any examples for ways to cause distractions other than via a bluff check,Don't confuse "being distracted" (a -5 penalty to Perception checks) with "creating a diversion" (a Bluff check to divert observers so that you can attempt a Stealth check).
but I would think that combat would be distracting enough to allow a stealthy character to get away.Except it isn't. And as you point out, you still need Cover or Concealment (which is all you need without combat, too; the combat just penalizes the opposed roll which makes it easier for you).
Why make a bluff check if the guy you're trying to hide from is already having to deal with a fighter who is trying to kill him?Because he can still see you. If you go tip-toeing off to some other visible part of the battlefield, he will watch you tip-toe over there. Sure, out of the corner of his eye while he fights the foe who is still trying to kill him, but nonetheless, your observer still gets to observe you. If not, then we need a whole new slew of rules saying something like "In combat, pick one enemy. You can see this enemy but you cannot see any other enemy"....
Just so you know, the entire time I was talking about rogues 'going into stealth' there, I ment via getting behind cover or concealment. So, I think we are pretty much in agreement.
To clarify the distraction/diversion stuff though, when I said distraction, I was refering to those quote from the stealth rules:
"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."
So, we know that a bluff check can cause a distraction which can allow you to get into stealth by getting behind cover. What else would allow it? I would think being in mid combat would distract a foe enough for a rogue to duck behind something and go into stealth without a bluff check. You're right that this isn't really described in the rules though, it assumes that people are aware of everything that is going on around them.
Yea, I'm trying to prove that because some people think that you can't use stealth in dim light if you're being 'observed'. The rules really need to be clarified by Paizo so that these discussions don't keep happening ><
I don't know why anyone is confused by this or why these discussions keep happening:
In an area of dim light, a character can see somewhat. Creatures within this area have concealment (20% miss chance in combat) from those without darkvision or the ability to see in darkness. A creature within an area of dim light can make a Stealth check to conceal itself. Areas of dim light include outside at night with a moon in the sky, bright starlight, and the area between 20 and 40 feet from a torch.
Observed or not observed doesn't matter - it's hard to see well in dim light, our eyes 'play tricks on us', and sneaky guys can try to use Stealth in these conditions. Per RAW.
Characters with darkvision (dwarves and half-orcs) can see lit areas normally as well as dark areas within 60 feet. A creature can't hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover.
So you might be in dim lighting (or darkness) and want to use Stealth, but if you are within 60' of an enemy with Darkvision it just plain won't work because that would be like tring to use Stealth in broad daylight within 60' of a human.
This is all quite well presented in the RAW; there doesn't seem to be any reason for any confusion about this.
I would think being in mid combat would distract a foe enough for a rogue to duck behind something and go into stealth without a bluff check.I disagree. Just as you cannot have an NPC move up, unseen, through clear terrain even if its 'coming from behind'.
The rogue needs to become unobserved by getting behind full cover/concealment, then can maintain being unobserved through use of stealth against those that the rogue maintains at least some degree of cover/concealment by use of the stealth skill.
-James
You are quite correct.
For further note, however, a rogue can simply decide to move behind some cover and try a Stealth check. The movement will provoke an AoO and the cover will allow a Stealth roll, and the enemy will know exactly where the rogue went "Hey, that rogue just hid behind that wall there!". But he can do it.
Of course, now the rogue is Stealthed, he might do stuff that his enemy can't know about, like move along the wall and come around it from the other end and maybe even sneak attack his enemy, all with Stealth. But that's what he might do in later rounds.
Now, on the other hand, if he wants to disappear without his enemy knowing what he did, that's where the Diversion comes into play. Make the Bluff check and then dash behind the cover, and if both skill rolls work, the enemy is left there scratching his head wondering where that sneaky rogue disappeared to.
LOL!!!!
Somehow, I only JUST NOW noticed this bit about "bright light" and stealth being impossible ... ROTFL! Man ... guess me and mine have had "bad, wrong fun" since the get because we've always done "stealth/hide/whatever" rolls and contests for anything that's been reasonably sneaky.
Before this thread, I seriously didn't even notice there was that much codified nonsense coming into the whole thing.
Wow ... I commend the efforts (certainly brought things to my notice), but I can't help but laugh and assume I'll stick with my style of ignoring 97% of that stuff (as it's done me and my groups no harm at all for these many years of play).
*applauds*
|
|
Third (to Ogre), you cannot use Stealth (successfully) in low light against those that currently observe you. There's no *poof* you're invisible. Rather if you are out of their sight for a second (hence unobserved) you can use Stealth to -remain- unobserved when you come back into their sight.
In my time in the GMs seat this is how stealth is used the vast majority of the time, you start using stealth out of sight and move into position. In the corner cases where it's otherwise my players will most likely ask if they can use stealth and I make a judgment call.
From what I see about 99% of this discussion is based on beating those corner issues back and forth. As Caineach suggested on the previous page those issues generally only come up when a player builds a character around those gray areas of the rules. If/ when I have issues I'll start worrying about it. Usually players talk to me before doing that so I'm not too worried.
It's amazing how often this stuff comes up.
I'm the OP on the closed thread (the one about the sneaky bugbear).
I picked up three things from these threads:
1. The RAW crowd really knows their stuff; the rules are quite clear, if very restrictive, when it comes to Stealth. Many people that I respect contributed here.
2. My GM style fell more with GM-adjudicated Stealth and distractions rather than pure RAW. I was glad to see that others do play this way, even if they aren't playing "by the rules".
3. My group had some expectations, and those may have differed from mine, and so they should get a say in the matter. Not only in the use of Stealth, but even in "secret" checks behind the GM screen.
-----
Tonight, thanks to what I learned from the threads, I explained the Stealth by RAW rules to my players at the table, and showed examples on the map. I told them that they could vote, and I would run Stealth as they wanted, either by "Stealth by RAW" or by "GM-adjudicated Stealth".
They voted unanimously for "Stealth by RAW".
I must admit I was a little shocked. I thought the Rogue and the Ranger would go in for "loose" Stealth. In fact, quite the opposite was the case, the Rogue and Ranger were most adamant that "Stealth by RAW" be used; the Wizard, Cleric, and Barbarian decided to go along with them, since those two were the primary Stealth users.
I do want the game to be fun, so if "Stealth by RAW" is the consensus of the group, I'm happy to roll with it. On the downside, I lose a little story flexibility. On the upside, "No, you can't sneak up on the guard, he's holding a torch. No Stealth allowed per Page 172." is much easier to justify than "I think he could have snuck past you while you were fighting."
I also pointed out that I had been rolling Perception checks behind the screen, and that not all groups did it that way. I offered to let them roll their own "information" rolls (Perception, Sense Motive, etc.) if they'd rather do it that way.
They voted unanimously to let the GM (me) keep rolling it behind the screen.
The consensus was that it would ruin the table experience, like being told the surprise ending to a movie. Honestly, I do like it better this way, as players accusing one another of meta-gaming is my pet peeve as a GM. It's harder to abuse knowledge the GM hasn't given you. So I was happy about this outcome.
-----
Thank you to everybody to helped make the Stealth rules clear. I am in your debt.
Bumping, because I just saw this thread mentioned elsewhere, and despite not aggreeing with DM_Blake on his interpretation of HiPS, I find his stealth/perception insights WAY up there. I think this is a very important thread for a very contentious subset of the rules.
Greg
|
|
I'll ditto Greg. I do disagree with a few things in here. The lack of facing rules is a pain, but at the same time, it is necessary when all the Perception skills are combined under the Perception heading. Hearing is all around, even if sight is not. One point in favor of the sight being directional, though, is this monster ability:
All-Around Vision (Ex) A BLANK’s (EXTRA SENSE ORGAN) grant a +4 racial bonus on Perception and immunity to flanking.
There are multiple monsters with this ability, such as the Medusa and the Shoggoth. And to clarify a point that was made halfway back in the thread: the scenario in which the Rogue was sneaking from tree to tree and was almost observed by the Troll. The DC 15 Perception was made by the Rogue to see that the Troll's head turned, not by the Troll to see the Rogue.
Still, this is a useful thread. Most of it makes sense. I might rule a little bit more heavily in favor of Distractions/Diversions than some, but I think I wouldn't be alone on that. It is entirely possible to sneak up on somebody in broad daylight without them noticing through any sensory organ. I've done it, and it sounds like others who have posted have as well. This is probably a result of the distraction/diversion ruling (if you translate it to in-game), but it still should be taken into account.
Also, low-light. Low-/dim-light is equivalent to a clear, moon-lit night. You can Stealth in that, although Darkvision ignores your Stealth roll. RAW, Ch7, p172.
Again, thanks for the information. This thread has given me a great deal to think about.
For further note, however, a rogue can simply decide to move behind some cover and try a Stealth check. The movement will provoke an AoO and the cover will allow a Stealth roll, and the enemy will know exactly where the rogue went "Hey, that rogue just hid behind that wall there!". But he can do it.
So in the heat of battle trading blows with an orc a fighter could know exactly where I am? You were busy watching the rogue "in your periferil vision" while you were busy using your eye sight to react to blows and twisting and turning to swing your sword?
There is countles literature, movies, ect that depict rogues getting away DURING The heat of battle where the main hero that was busy fighting has NO IDEA where he went.
I want you to logically state how a person (or monster) could determine my exact location at all times merely because he percieved me once and how that is possible... in the heat of combat.
that hardly seems any kind of realistic to me. And before you say that is RAW, this whole thread seems to be RAI.
|
I'm not sure I get the point of the -20 penalty to the stealth roll to remain hidden when sniping. Why should only epic rogues have a chance of doing it, and then only against those with poor perception?
If we assume the sniper is going to fire within his first range increment, its effectively only a -10. When you take range penalties into account on the spotters side sniping makes a lot more sense.