Hello, Guest! | Sign In | My Account | Shopping Cart | Help/FAQ Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games
 About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Paizo
Community
Store

# Patient rogue in NORMAL LIGHT moving from COVER to COVER

Scenario 1
Patient Rogue is successfully stealthed behind a cover, 30ft from the shopkeeper and is observing the shopkeeper
Patient Rogue readies a stealth move on the criteria of the shopkeeper being distracted (by outside stimulus)
Moves toward his next cover as a standard readied action (move done from cover to cover, with no concealment in between)
rolls a 10+7(stealth)+5(creature making the perception check is distracted) {22} vs rolls a 10+1(perception)-3(distance) {8} = Shopkeer's reactive perception fails by 14

Note: The Patient rogue is not creating a diversion (bluff) to go from being observed to being unobserved and thus (in my opinion) would not
take the -10 penalty for needing to move quickly in this circumstance (but I humbly could be wrong here).
He is also not moving his full speed of 30ft to go to his next cover (15ft away) and does not take the -5 penalty for that either.

But he is moving though an area with no concealment or cover, where he could potentially be observed by the distracted shopkeeper.

Would he need to take the -10 anyway, because he crosses an area of normal light with no concealment, even though he
was initially unobserved? (the spirit of this -10 applies if "your observers" are momentarily distracted, which I believe is not the case here because the patient rogue is initially not observed, unless we consider that at the point between the 2 covers, the rogue IS observed)

Note:
I could see the -10 apply if the rogue were observed in front of the shopkeeper, and wanted to flee to the shadows after a successful diversion.
This -10 seems harsh when initially unobserved (behind cover) and my understanding is that it does not apply if the shopkeeper is distracted and the rogue is unobserved.

In the case where he needs to take the -10 on that, here is the result:

Scenario 2
Patient Rogue is successfully stealthed behind a cover, 30ft from the shopkeeper and is observing the shopkeeper
Patient Rogue readies a stealth move on the criteria of the shopkeeper being distracted (by outside stimulus)
Moves toward his next cover as a standard readied action (move done from cover to cover, with no concealment in between)
rolls a 10+7(stealth)+5(creature making the perception check is distracted)-10(observer momentarily distracted, moving quickly) {12} vs rolls a 10+1(perception)-3(distance) {8} = Shopkeeper's reactive perception fails by 4

What scenario here do you think I need to use?
Thanks

I personally would allow scenario 1 as a DM, but it's not necessarily rules as written. Lots of disagreements on how stealth works/should work on these boards.

As written you can't use Stealth without cover or concealment, barring certain special abilities. The rules seem assume all characters have 360 degree vision at all times.

IMG, Stealth incorporates not only how quietly the character can move and how well they can hide, but also an understanding of how to avoid observation based on timing. Perception includes not only how good your vision and hearing are, but also your situational awareness and attention.

So, depending on circumstances, I have no issues with rogues going from cover to cover or even sneaking up on someone from behind without any intervening cover, provided the target isn't aware of their presence beforehand.

Other DMs rule differently.

As I read the rules if the rogue is moving from cover to cover, and whilst he's in the process of moving the shopkeeper is distracted, there is no -10. The -10 is provided as per the rules in this way: "If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast."

The emphasis there is mine. Point being, the -10 is there if the rogue is in plain sight and then using a distraction to quickly duck behind cover. If you're moving from cover to cover, and the observer is distracted in between, I'm pretty sure that -10 does not apply.

That's my 2cp anyway.

That is how I saw it as well.
The -10 would be in the event where the rogue is observed in front of the shopkeeper for example.
He creates a diversion and moves afterward to the shadows.

The -10 applies because the rogue had to disapaear (after a successful diversion) from being observed in front of the shopkeer basically in the bink of an eye.

When initially not observed, versus the perception of a creature which is already distracted (lets say the shopkeeper dropped his pen) I would say the -10 would not apply because you are not creating the diversion and have to hide just the second after you made it.

I understand this is subject to debate, so I wanted to poll the community for feedback.

Guys, I encourage you to continue providing your thoughts on this.
If by some luck we could come to some form of consensus, that would be great.

I also think that the Fast Stealth Rogue Talent should reduce the -10 maybe to a -5.

Yes, the -10 applies when the rogue tries to pull a Batman and disappear when the target looks away for a second.

Fast stealth would allow the Patient rogue to move 30ft instead of 15ft with no -5 penalty, and you may or may not rule that it allows you do reduce the penalty of moving quickly after a diversion, or from between cover to cover against a distracted shopkeeper.
(it makes sense to me by the way)

Although, I would appreciate your opinions on whether we should go with scenario 1 or 2, for a rogue without fast stealth.
Thank you.

The -10 is due to the fact that the rogue is moving at full speed when normally he could only move at half speed while using Stealth. This is the same penalty that's applied if you try to tumble at full speed (without Fast Tumble):

Acrobatics wrote:
In addition, you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics. When moving in this way, you move at half speed. You can move at full speed by increasing the DC of the check by 10.

RAW the rogue gets spotted as soon as he leaves cover. The new stealth rules were supposed to fix that.

I think the consensus is scenario 1.

BigNorseWolf, are you sure that the rogue would be spotted even by a DISTRACTED shopkeeper, by RAW?

Because the point of the bluff diversion to hide is to momentarily DISTRACT the shopkeeper.

So, the RAW would say that that if the rogue DISTRACTS the shopkeeper withn a bluff he can move with stealth(at -10), but if he waits for the shopkeeper to be distracted by another stimulus, then he is automaticlaly spotted?

I understand RAW can be tricky, but that is too much.

EDIT: Hey, sorry if it looks like I pick on you. I am not at all. It just looks like you have a good understanding of the RAW and I value your input.

Of course, anyone else input would be also greatly valued, on whether you would go with scenario 1, scenario 2, or.. if this is impossible with the rules as they are.

Thanks!

This is pretty much all up to your DM. Cover to Cover is hotly debated to beging with, but beyond that. Then you have the quality and length of the diversion and the NPC's reaction to it to take into acount. Plus weather or not a fast stealth is required to cover the distance in the time is a judgement call many would require you to make before you leave said cover as well as deciding if your target is properly distracted enough for you to make your move.

Long story short this is why there is a DM and we dont just look up rules and play with all PC's..its his or her encounter they should tell you what rules are in effect and what arent.

If I were the DM I would allow it in concept. If you were just waiting for a random distraction, I would ask you to be specific and then all modification to preception would be based a great deal upon that. For example glancing out a window is a lot different than turning your back completely to a crowded and noisey shop while fetching something from a low cupboard.

Elzedar wrote:

BigNorseWolf, are you sure that the rogue would be spotted even by a DISTRACTED shopkeeper, by RAW?

Because the point of the bluff diversion to hide is to momentarily DISTRACT the shopkeeper.

So, the RAW would say that that if the rogue DISTRACTS the shopkeeper withn a bluff he can move with stealth(at -10), but if he waits for the shopkeeper to be distracted by another stimulus, then he is automaticlaly spotted?

I understand RAW can be tricky, but that is too much.

EDIT: Hey, sorry if it looks like I pick on you. I am not at all. It just looks like you have a good understanding of the RAW and I value your input.

AFAIK, the only case that works RAW is when the rogue distracts the shopkeeper with a bluff check. There are no rules for spontaneous distractions.

You could probably make a pretty good argument for someone else making the bluff check to distract.

That said, I'd allow it, but I'm not much of a stickler for RAW.

On distraction rules:

There is the "Creature making the check is distracted" +5 to the perception DC, that we can see in the perception skill modifiers.

Although I would assume you are saying that the conditions for being distracted are pretty much left to the GM.
(which the GM could flavour with a favourable or unfavourable +2 / -2 perception modifer)

Are there upcoming changes to stealth?

They tested some changes, but they are considered rules variants at this point. (to my understanding)
So they are not legal on Pathfinder Society games for example, but you could use them on home games.
I haven't tried them yet.

EASY SOLUTION: have your staelthy person buy a lesser cloak of displacement for 24,000g. carry your concealment with you.

Humm. this thread should not be under the "advice" category, but under "Rule questions".
Not sure how to change that or how this happened...

So, do you think scenario 1 makes more than scenario 2, or this is impossible with the rules as they are written?

Basically, should we have the -10, or not, or this can't be done.

(thanks a lot to those that already voiced their opinion on the matter)

Thanks

Elzedar wrote:

Humm. this thread should not be under the "advice" category, but under "Rule questions".

Not sure how to change that or how this happened...

Mods did it, more than likely because they think you are looking for advice about which scenario people agree with, not how to interpret a rule. It's not a big deal, people that understand your question will answer it regardless of where it is.

I believe scenario 1 makes sense, but rules as written if you do not have cover or concealment you cannot make a stealth check, and you must always have cover or concealment to maintain stealth.

What I believe would solve a lot of issues is if they would have put in the description of stealth "As long as you are only doing a move action, if you had cover/concealment at the beginning of your move and had successfully made a stealth check, you could maintain your stealth as long as you ended your move action with cover/concealment."

I think that, or something very similar, would work.