Observed and Cover / Concealment

[blackbloodtroll]

If a PC can use Stealth, even whilst observed, does he still need Cover/Concealment?

[Scavion]

No. The whole point of Cover/Concealment is to break that observation.

[blahpers]

However, cover/concealment isn't sufficient to use Stealth (HiPS and other exceptions aside); you must also be unobserved.

[blackbloodtroll]

This has been debated.

Let's hit the FAQ next to the OP to get this finally answered.

You might already know how you would run it in home games, but PFS and table variation make it worth a FAQ.

[Scavion]

Sure, lets see what the designers think.

It will either be a great boon for our stealthy characters everywhere...

Or they will never see the light of day again.

[blackbloodtroll]

Scavion wrote:

Sure, lets see what the designers think.

It will either be a great boon for our stealthy characters everywhere...

Or they will never see the light of day again.

Clever. ;)

[blahpers]

Scavion wrote:

Sure, lets see what the designers think.

It will either be a great boon for our stealthy characters everywhere...

Or they will never see the light of day again.

¬_¬

[Scavion]

Ominous isn't it?

Almost makes you want to find a good place to hide.

If things go well, you won't even need to.

[ErrantPursuit]

Based on this statement from Sean K. Reynolds regarding Hellcat Stealth and Shadowdancer's Hide in Plain Sight, I do not think we're going to get a definitive answer. I suspect it will be "Already answered" or "Does not require"

[blackbloodtroll]

Unfortunately, that comment might not fly at PFS, and some tables.

[ErrantPursuit]

Agreed. I'm just being pessimistic on getting a clear answer from the Forum Faeries.

[Seraphimpunk]

is there anything in the stealth rework discussions that would indicate which way they're leaning on that front?

having cover / concealment is one part of normal stealth. you need something to hide behind normally. but people can't see you doing it, or they know where you are. so typically you can't be observed, and you need something to hide behind.

I can see one portion of the argument that versions of hide in plain sight would let you hide behind something, while being observed.

I can see the other argument, that you can hide even while being observed, so you no longer need cover or concealment to hide behind/in. Some classes have both ( high level rangers in their terrain ), some classes get both by what they hide in ( shadowdancers ), some rogues only explicitly get one ( hide in plain sight ).

but the name of the ability itself indicates that you can do it in plain sight, ie. needing nothing to hide behind. I know how I'd rule, it'd be nice to have an FAQ to make it consistent one way or another between games.

[blackbloodtroll]

Indeed, as I said, some know how they would run it at home.

For everyone else, PFS included, let's just hit FAQ.

[Bizbag]

Flagged for FAQ! Some of these abilities offer fluff or rules that indicate you do and others do not. Very good question.

[blackbloodtroll]

It worded simplistic, to optimize chances of being answered.

[blackbloodtroll]

Any news?

[RedDogMT]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

If a PC can use Stealth, even whilst observed, does he still need Cover/Concealment?

It sounds like a poorly worded question. Please provide examples.

[Scavion]

RedDogMT wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

If a PC can use Stealth, even whilst observed, does he still need Cover/Concealment?

It sounds like a poorly worded question. Please provide examples.

Hide in Plain Sight and all of it's variations. Two have been specifically said to trump cover/concealment, the Ranger's supersedes it's camouflage ability so people seem to think the Rogue's doesn't trump cover/concealment since Rogues don't get camouflage despite the rogue's HiPS having the exact same wording as Hellcat Stealth which is one of the two which trump cover/concealment.

[blackbloodtroll]

So, this has been made explicit?

[Scavion]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, this has been made explicit?

Seems to be that way. If we're supposed to read the rules as the developers intended them to be read, Stealth grants Sneak Attack. Unless you're dealing with someone who reads the rules as written as literally as possible and ignores the rules that tell you to infer the obvious AND ignores the Lead Developer stating this was the way it was intended to be read and inferred, we should be good to go.

[GreenMandar]

Was there a new dev comment or FAQ relating to this?

[Scavion]

GreenMandar wrote:

Was there a new dev comment or FAQ relating to this?

Not yet, but the reason we haven't gotten a clear cut clarification is because they may think that the Designer's comment may have been enough despite being unofficial.

[blackbloodtroll]

Well, I will go with the comment for now.

It will come up though, and in things like PFS, they will likely not accept the comment.

[blackbloodtroll]

Sorry to necro, but I musk ask:

Has there been an explicit answer to this?

[Claxon]

I don't believe so, but I would like to see one.

[VRMH]

It warrants an answer, I'd say.

[blackbloodtroll]

As I said earlier, this could be handled in home games, without too much trouble.

It is things like PFS, that require an explicit answer.