|
| 15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
In all seriousness.
Will the devs please to God almighty fix the rules for Stealth? The rules really need to be worded better with regards to Sneak Attack, denying Dex etc..
I would love to hear the devs current take on Stealth and why it's in such a horrid state.
Please please please please!!!!!
They already said they won't be redoing the stealth rules sadly enough.
FAQ's might be possible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is their take on it? Do they acknowledge they are a bit dodgy?They already said they won't be redoing the stealth rules sadly enough.
FAQ's might be possible.
After the two stealth blogs when they were thinking about rewriting stealth people kept asking for final results, and they said a GM can feel free to use the stealth blog, but there would be no official rewriting of stealth.
I will try to find the post. If I do I will post a link to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Link to James speaking in an official capacity for Paizo.
This is the extent of it for now. We have no plans at this point to put it into the PRD or do much else with it at this point—feel free to use the variant rules of this playtest in your games as you wish... but it's not going to be something we officially adopt into the game, since that type of change goes from errata to re-design.
And the time for re-design is not now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason it's in "horrid state" is that 3ed of the game was written by three people and each of them did write a different part of the ruleset. There was no "design by committee" there, Monte wrote classes, feats, combat and spells, Jonathan wrote the skill system and Skip got most of the DM/monster stuff. As far as I recall various threads and blogs, there was very little syncing of their work done.
While most of the ruleset did work out pretty much fine, there's some funky disconnect in some areas, and one of them is how skills work in combat. Well, they work awkwardly, because both parts of the ruleset were written without keeping the other in mind. So it's a bit Frankenstein's Monster there with how stealth, senses and Feint work during a fight.
Likely, in order to "fix" stealth, one would have to re-write a large chunk of the game, because making stealth suddenly work in combat while not getting Perception and all the others skills integrated would be a job half done. So we're pretty much left to wait for any eventual new edition or revision of rules as a whole.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really.
I won't even go into how fiddly figuring out the Feint mid-combat is (sooo...the opponent is ... trained in Sense Motive or ... lemme check, 5 minutes break). The moment somebody goes "hey do I have -8 to feint against humanoid creatures that aren't of the Humanoid type? What about animal companions that got an Int boost? Badgers with +Int headbands?" we can just call it a day and go home.
Intimidate: I'm intimidating the lich / no you can't, it's undead, mind-affecting effects don't apply / yes I can nowhere in rules it says intimidate is mind-affecting / dude, some common sense / no, you common sense dude / imagine I'm feinting Xyxon, it's logical that should work / dude, did you ever tried pulling a wedgie over a lich's head? / no, did you?
Acrobatics: If those fiddly rules do tell me what are the penalties for fighting on a 4 inch wide ledge, why the hell aren't they giving me mechanics for jumping up, grabbing a chandelier and swinging around Errol Flynn style? D&D PLEASE.
Perception/Invisibility: "Stealth bonus from invisibility against hearing-based Perception checks - applies or not?", a PhD thesis.
|
That was a year ago, though.
Variant rules are great, but in PFS, this problem is huge if you're a rogue or ninja.
I play PFS at least once a week, and haven't met a GM yet who doesn't allow stealth to work the way most people think it should, how often do you find GMs who say you can't sneak from stealth?
|
I play PFS at least once a week, and haven't met a GM yet who doesn't allow stealth to work the way most people think it should, how often do you find GMs who say you can't sneak from stealth?That was a year ago, though.
Variant rules are great, but in PFS, this problem is huge if you're a rogue or ninja.
You can't change rules in PFS just because people don't like the way the rule works. There's a very solid chance they don't understand them, since they don't work to accomplish stealthy tasks you need to do.
That's why we need the rules fixed (or an errata, or similar).
|
|
I play PFS at least once a week, and haven't met a GM yet who doesn't allow stealth to work the way most people think it should, how often do you find GMs who say you can't sneak from stealth?That was a year ago, though.
Variant rules are great, but in PFS, this problem is huge if you're a rogue or ninja.
You can't change rules in PFS just because people don't like the way the rule works. There's a very solid chance they don't understand them, since they don't work to accomplish stealthy tasks you need to do.
That's why we need the rules fixed (or an errata, or similar).
Actually, I've seen plenty of people "change the rules in PFS" because 99% of the player/GM base thinks stealth should allow sneak attack. Three of those I've seen run that way are venture captains. For the record, I'm well aware that you can't "change the rules in PFS" - I'm also aware that page 5 of the Guide for Pathfinder Society Organized Play starts out with the sentence, "The leadership of this campaign assumes that you will use common sense in your interpretation of the rules." and the vast, vast majority of players, GMs and even some Paizo staff have said sneak should be allowed from stealth.
Now, for curiosity's sake alone, how often do you run into PFS GMs that don't allow sneak attack from stealth?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason it's in "horrid state" is that 3ed of the game was written by three people and each of them did write a different part of the ruleset. There was no "design by committee" there, Monte wrote classes, feats, combat and spells, Jonathan wrote the skill system and Skip got most of the DM/monster stuff. As far as I recall various threads and blogs, there was very little syncing of their work done.
While most of the ruleset did work out pretty much fine, there's some funky disconnect in some areas, and one of them is how skills work in combat. Well, they work awkwardly, because both parts of the ruleset were written without keeping the other in mind. So it's a bit Frankenstein's Monster there with how stealth, senses and Feint work during a fight.
Likely, in order to "fix" stealth, one would have to re-write a large chunk of the game, because making stealth suddenly work in combat while not getting Perception and all the others skills integrated would be a job half done. So we're pretty much left to wait for any eventual new edition or revision of rules as a whole.
Hide/Move Silently worked fine in 3E. Stop trying to blame 3E for pathfinder's problems.
I play PFS at least once a week, and haven't met a GM yet who doesn't allow stealth to work the way most people think it should, how often do you find GMs who say you can't sneak from stealth?That was a year ago, though.
Variant rules are great, but in PFS, this problem is huge if you're a rogue or ninja.
Failing a perception check does allow for sneak attacks, but stealth does not allow you to sneak in a wide open area with no cover or concealment.
Stealth FAQ/errat/rewrite will not happen any time soon. One of the things that came out of the blog posts was that fixing stealth required rewriting quite a lot of other things. All those little places in the books that people quote to show that you can sneak attack while stealthed are those such things. Perception, invisibility, blind, concealment, cover, stealth and others would require rewrites. Way to big of a job for the current mechanisms. We will see a fix for stealth in Pathfinder RPG 2.0.
|
|
Stealth FAQ/errat/rewrite will not happen any time soon. One of the things that came out of the blog posts was that fixing stealth required rewriting quite a lot of other things. All those little places in the books that people quote to show that you can sneak attack while stealthed are those such things. Perception, invisibility, blind, concealment, cover, stealth and others would require rewrites. Way to big of a job for the current mechanisms. We will see a fix for stealth in Pathfinder RPG 2.0.
I pray the Paizo folks are smarter than the WotC folks and don't try to "WoW-itize" Pathfinder.
I am just hoping for a rewrite of the current ruleset. That might mean no backward compatibility with PF 1.0, but I am fine with that, as long as its close enough that I feel like it is still PF.
Of course I dont have the same amount of money invested in rulebooks as many others.
|
|
I play PFS at least once a week, and haven't met a GM yet who doesn't allow stealth to work the way most people think it should, how often do you find GMs who say you can't sneak from stealth?That was a year ago, though.
Variant rules are great, but in PFS, this problem is huge if you're a rogue or ninja.
You can't change rules in PFS just because people don't like the way the rule works. There's a very solid chance they don't understand them, since they don't work to accomplish stealthy tasks you need to do.
That's why we need the rules fixed (or an errata, or similar).
Actually, I've seen plenty of people "change the rules in PFS" because 99% of the player/GM base thinks stealth should allow sneak attack. Three of those I've seen run that way are venture captains. For the record, I'm well aware that you can't "change the rules in PFS" - I'm also aware that page 5 of the Guide for Pathfinder Society Organized Play starts out with the sentence, "The leadership of this campaign assumes that you will use common sense in your interpretation of the rules." and the vast, vast majority of players, GMs and even some Paizo staff have said sneak should be allowed from stealth.
Now, for curiosity's sake alone, how often do you run into PFS GMs that don't allow sneak attack from stealth?
Often enough. Worse, I've seen new players who think rogue is a cool class being subjected to it - and the GM can't be held to blame for it.
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources.
Stealth is covered in the core rulebook, so this applies.
|
|
Stealth FAQ/errat/rewrite will not happen any time soon. One of the things that came out of the blog posts was that fixing stealth required rewriting quite a lot of other things. All those little places in the books that people quote to show that you can sneak attack while stealthed are those such things. Perception, invisibility, blind, concealment, cover, stealth and others would require rewrites. Way to big of a job for the current mechanisms. We will see a fix for stealth in Pathfinder RPG 2.0.I pray the Paizo folks are smarter than the WotC folks and don't try to "WoW-itize" Pathfinder.
You're about 13 years too late to be worrying about that.
We've never had any issues with stealth. In a nutshell, what about the current rules do some people feel is wrong?
Many people are not using it by the book. They just don't know it.
Some groups are using effectively using facing rules.
Some allow you to sneak across open areas without a distraction.
The list goes on.
|
|
I play PFS at least once a week, and haven't met a GM yet who doesn't allow stealth to work the way most people think it should, how often do you find GMs who say you can't sneak from stealth?That was a year ago, though.
Variant rules are great, but in PFS, this problem is huge if you're a rogue or ninja.
You can't change rules in PFS just because people don't like the way the rule works. There's a very solid chance they don't understand them, since they don't work to accomplish stealthy tasks you need to do.
That's why we need the rules fixed (or an errata, or similar).
I play in PFS on a regular basis and we interpret the rules as to allowing Sneak Attack from Stealth. We have also had it fully approved by the VC.
|
|
We've never had any issues with stealth. In a nutshell, what about the current rules do some people feel is wrong?
The real issue is the way the wording is written. It leads to a good many people trying to interpret that you can't use Stealth while attacking which in turn doesn't allow you to use Sneak Attack. While most of us that play PFS know what the rule means, it still leads to disputes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have three PCs in the party I GM that have (and use) Stealth in combat. We have had exactly zero problem with the rules as written. I still do not understand the extensive complaints that so many people seem to have with the RAW.
For those of us who haven't been a part of the previous threads, what exactly are you hoping to have fixed?
If you don’t use common sense, and try to rules lawyer Stealth vs perception, you run into a lot of weird corner cases.
Find and read the last Stealth blog, and the hundreds of comments on it. They honestly thought they had fixed the issue, but people kept pointing out more worms that had escaped from the can.
Failing a perception check does allow for sneak attacks, but stealth does not allow you to sneak in a wide open area with no cover or concealment.
This is how it works.
How hard is this?
Isn't this how everyone plays?
Failing a perception check does allow for sneak attacks, but stealth does not allow you to sneak in a wide open area with no cover or concealment.
This is not correct, by RAW. By RAI, it appears to be.
Failing a perception check does allow for sneak attacks, but stealth does not allow you to sneak in a wide open area with no cover or concealment.This is how it works.
How hard is this?
Isn't this how everyone plays?
No. I have GM'd more than one group of players who wanted to walk across a wide open area and stab someone, and hope to not be seen.
Their argument then tried to involve facing rules, which most of us, but not all of us, know do not exist.
Failing a perception check does allow for sneak attacks, but stealth does not allow you to sneak in a wide open area with no cover or concealment.This is how it works.
How hard is this?
Isn't this how everyone plays?
But what does that mean?
If I can't sneak without cover or concealment can I cross any open space to sneak attack? Or can I only sneak attack if I'm in cover or concealment within reach of my enemy?
Am I detected the moment I break cover? At the end of my action? My turn? Can I move from cover to cover if I can do it in a single action?
As soon as your break cover you are seen. Ideally(to make stealth more useful) you should be able to get from your hiding place to the enemy. It is something I am considering for my next game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dr.Deth I am sure it is RAW and RAI, but we can keep that discussion in the other thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As soon as your break cover you are seen. Ideally(to make stealth more useful) you should be able to get from your hiding place to the enemy. It is something I am considering for my next game.Failing a perception check does allow for sneak attacks, but stealth does not allow you to sneak in a wide open area with no cover or concealment.This is how it works.
How hard is this?
Isn't this how everyone plays?
But what does that mean?
If I can't sneak without cover or concealment can I cross any open space to sneak attack? Or can I only sneak attack if I'm in cover or concealment within reach of my enemy?
Am I detected the moment I break cover? At the end of my action? My turn? Can I move from cover to cover if I can do it in a single action?
My interpretation has always been that you make a stealth check once during a movement, if you have cover/concealment and start moving, (making your stealth check in the process), that covers you regardless of whether you exit cover during that movement.
I've yet to notice anything in the rules which directly says that breaking concealment ends stealth, only that you usually need cover/concealment to use stealth. Which I interpret to mean the initial stealth roll made as part of movement, not at ongoing condition.
The Stealth Playtest Blog was nice, but if they don't want to FIX Stealth,
it would be nice to at least issue some FAQs/Blog Posts clarifying the current RAW/RAI functionality.
Cancelling the re-write has nothing to do with not issuing a FAQ, which can be issued for every other part of the rules,
including and especially other sections of the rules with confusing/problematic RAW language.
Some of the issues people bring up don't seem to be remotely suggested by RAW (seriously, anybody bringing up facing should be laughed out of the room of a discussion of RAW), but things like different sections of the rules giving different conditions for stealth (concealment period vs. dim lighting/darkness) would be a good FAQ item IMHO. That there is alot of variability in understanding, even if it's not all rigorously justified, is grounds for a FAQ.
it's much tougher in a mass combat/large number of guards situation, as you've got to beat everyone's Perception rolls. (Bob the Fighter may not notice the Kief the Thief break cover to stab him in the back, but his buddy Eric the Cleric might see it and shout him a warning.)
Although anybody can yell whatever they want, that doesn't over-ride the result of a Perception vs. Stealth check. So you don't have to beat everybody's Perception check, you just get the benefits of Stealth vs. those who you do beat. Anybody warned by allies can ON THEIR TURN spend an extra action for an extra Perception check if they want, or otherwise make assumptions based on the warning to guide their choice of actions, but the warning doesn't over-ride any mechanics per se, like line of sight, if they yell 'HE'S IN THE DOORWAY' that doesn't help you notice them even though you could decide to blindly target that square with normal miss chance for opponents you can't see.
As soon as your break cover you are seen. Ideally(to make stealth more useful) you should be able to get from your hiding place to the enemy. It is something I am considering for my next game.Failing a perception check does allow for sneak attacks, but stealth does not allow you to sneak in a wide open area with no cover or concealment.This is how it works.
How hard is this?
Isn't this how everyone plays?
But what does that mean?
If I can't sneak without cover or concealment can I cross any open space to sneak attack? Or can I only sneak attack if I'm in cover or concealment within reach of my enemy?
Am I detected the moment I break cover? At the end of my action? My turn? Can I move from cover to cover if I can do it in a single action?
My interpretation has always been that you make a stealth check once during a movement, if you have cover/concealment and start moving, (making your stealth check in the process), that covers you regardless of whether you exit cover during that movement.
I've yet to notice anything in the rules which directly says that breaking concealment ends stealth, only that you usually need cover/concealment to use stealth. Which I interpret to mean the initial stealth roll made as part of movement, not at ongoing condition.
Once you break cover you are in plain sight, and you can be observed. You can not use stealth while being observed. Perceptions checks are a non action, when dealing with observable stimuli. You are observable stimuli when you are out in the open.
It is a DC 0 perception check to notice someone within 5 feet. The DC increases by +1 for every 10 feet.
Even if you are 100 feet away the DC is only a 10. Before you get to with 5 feet you will be noticed barring a sleeping character.
No cover or concealment=no stealth.
Part of the stealth blog and what would have been a new rule.
Pygon wrote:
Does this mean I can Stealth behind a pillar, then on my next turn, make another Steath check, move at half my rate into the open, and jab someone invisibly, assuming they don't roll enough Perception to see me?
If so, is this true even in bright daylight?
Yes, that is what it means. This is to simulate the sneaky part of stealth, I was hidden, I come out sneak up on you, and then when I make the attack, you know that I am there. Remember Stealth isn't just about hiding, it is also about moving silent.
Now since the new rule allows you to move out in the open, and not be seen, that means the current rules do not.
PS:The reason invisibility is mentioned was that they were going to treat a hidden character as being invisible.
That would get rid of the problem of being out in the open and being almost auto-spotted.
edit:just to be clear the new rule is not official since they decided to not change the stealth rules. It was just a suggestion.
I have always understood 3.x/PRPG Stealth to require being in suitable conditions at all points when you are using it. Certainly, in some cases the opposed check wouldn't be made until you leave Cover/Concealment (where you first made a check) and the opposing side possibly can see you, and the opposed check is obviously using stealth, as is all the effects of stealth: You don't only count as Jumping only when you make the check, you don't only count as Flying only when you make the check, etc. That said, the RAW doesn't specify exactly when these checks are made, you could plausibly need to make them every single 5' square + every action - The Perception DC is changing every 10' of distance, and re-rolling everytime conditions change is as plausible as using a given roll to establish the 'theshold' distance/conditions under which they WILL notice you once you pass that threshhold (i.e. get close enough).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or the existing rules are unclear even to the Developers.
Again, I see nothing in the rules saying explicitly that breaking cover breaks stealth. Just that you usually need cover/concealment to use stealth in the first place and cannot use stealth while being observed.
If you break cover you're not automatically observed, they still have to beat a perception DC to see you, and I see no reason that the DC isn't the one that was set with a stealth check rather than a base of 0.
This is how I run it, and it's probably a generous interpretation of the rules, but I don't believe that it's an invalid one by RAW.
Even if every part of the rules are unclear to the developers, or there is differing opinions, that doesn't mean that they can't decide what is the official interpretation, and issue a FAQ on that. That seems the only productive option at this point. I'm not sure what people actually want, if not that. The change to Stealth rules was cancelled, so FAQ is the only thing left, until Pathfinder 2.0 rolls out.
I'd like them to issue a FAQ to clear up this and the invisibility discussion as well, I was just responding to the idea that something had been explicitly called out in the nuStealth playtest was proof that it wouldn't work under the existing rules either.
The usages of Stealth are also restricted by lighting conditions and it says you can't use stealth in bright/normal light. Moving from cover/concealment thru an area of normal light would result in possibly multiple Perception checks, or at least (depending how you play it) 'virtual' checks using the same roll with the DC/situatinanal modifiers changing (but still 'using' Stealth to increase the DC) - And 'using Stealth' is barred in those light conditions.