| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, understanding Stealth is difficult. I’ve been reading different forums, and thinking about it a lot to get it all straight in my head, because my players are about to start using Stealth a lot.
In pondering all the different aspects of Stealth, and how it interacts with light levels and different vision types, I’ve come across 6 different questions that I can’t answer by myself. Here I pose the questions, and use the RAW to come to *a* conclusion, but I want to make it clear that I am not always arguing that that’s the way I think it should be.
So if you have a different opinion, please explain why, using RAW to justify it as much as possible. Also please refer to the question number that you're addressing.
Question #1 : if you’re walking Stealthily down a hall and someone unexpectedly comes around a corner, do they automatically see you, or do they get a Stealth/Perception check (“S/P check”)?
RAW (Stealth) : “If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.”
So, if you’re alone in a hallway, you can “use Stealth” and walk down it. What if someone unexpectedly comes around the corner?
RAW (Stealth) : “Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you.”
So, they get a S/P check, even tho you’re standing out in the open. Or does using Stealth in this scenario mean you're sticking to the shadows, etc.?
Anyone disagree?
Question #2 : shouldn’t EVERYONE within line of sight of you get a S/P check as you Stealth up to a victim to get your Sneak Attack damage?
RAW (Stealth) : “Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you.”
So in the middle of a battle, a Rogue has left cover/concealment (C/C) and is using Stealth to sneak up on a creature.
Obviously that creature gets a S/P check to catch you “out of the corner of his eye” before you attack.
But, the rules do say that anyone who might notice you also gets an S/P check, so if the victim has any comrades in the room, any of them with line-of-sight to you get a S/P check and a chance to shout out “look behind you!”.
Anyone disagree?
Question #3 : is it really *totally impossible* to use Stealth in Bright or Normal light, except when using invisibility or cover?
RAW (Vision&Light) : “A creature can't use Stealth in an area of Bright light unless it is invisible or has cover.”
RAW (Vision&Light) : “Normal light functions just like Bright light…”
RAW (Vision&Light) : “Creatures within [Dim light] have Concealment.” (To creatures with normal vision.)
RAW (Vision&Light) : “Creatures within [Darkness] have Total Concealment.” (Except to creatures with Darkvison.)
I think what the first 2 quotes are saying is just that Bright and Normal light do not provide Concealment, in and of themselves. Hence you can’t use Stealth by concealment in those conditions.
This would mean that any magical forms of Concealment (as opposed to spells that merely grant a 20% or 50% miss chance) still do allow you to use Stealth in Bright or Normal light. Not just invisibility.
Anyone disagree?
Question #4 : what is the procedure for attacking a creature currently using Stealth?
RAW (Stealth) : “When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave C/C and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in C/C.”
(I assume “succeed at a Stealth check” really means succeed at a S/P check.)
If you’re using Stealth in a melee, when it’s the other creatures’ turn to attack, you should be in C/C, so those rules apply (20% or 50% miss chance). Otherwise you’re not “Stealthed”, and they can see you clearly.
So you are only “exposed” during your turn, while moving from C/C to C/C. But what if someone has readied an action against you, to attack you when you move?
RAW (Stealth) : “Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you.”
RAW (Stealth) : “Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had Concealment.”
The problem is that phrase “are not aware of you” – I believe this does NOT mean they can’t see you at all (which would be Total Concealment), but is only the standard phrase used to indicate they are flat-footed.
So if they have line-of-sight to you, they make a S/P check.
If they succeed, they can see you clearly, and attack as normal.
If you succeed, you have concealment, so they have a 20% miss chance on all attacks excluding area and targeted spells.
Anyone disagree?
Question #5 : what’s the big deal with Hide in Plain Sight (HIPS)?
Let’s look at the worst-case version, the Shadowdancer’s HIPS, which is better than the Rogue’s HIPS because she does not even need C/C! Ignores observers AND no need for C/C, all at 5th level! WOW!
RAW (Shadowdancer) : “…can use the Stealth skill even while being observed [same as the Rogue’s HIPS]. As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of Dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind.”
RAW (Stealth) : “When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave C/C and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check…[but] your Stealth immediately ends after you make an attack roll…”
So the shadowdancer will alternate between being “Stealthed” one round, then not “Stealthed” the next :
Not “Stealthed” : take a normal attack, then provoke an Attack of Opportunity (AoO) to Move and use HIPS to enter Stealth (IF near Dim light) to hide in until her next turn.
--> Low attack damage, but opponents have to make a S/P check AND a miss check to hit her
Next round, is “Stealthed” : move and make a S/P check to sneak up on her victim, then attack (vs. FF AC, w/Sneak Attack damage), but lose Stealth.
--> High attack damage, but she’s left exposed for the rest of the round until her next turn
Rinse and repeat.
Anyone disagree?
So the shadowdancer is having to take or avoid AoO’s every other round, is completely visible every other round, AND is doing normal damage every other round, while using HIPS.
That doesn’t seem too bad, but everyone complains about how powerful HIPS is. I don’t see it…
Question #6 : does anyone else see a problem with Camouflage?
RAW (Stealth) : “If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.”
So either you must either be alone, OR be under C/C, to use Stealth.
RAW (Ranger) : “A ranger of 12th level or higher can use the Stealth skill to hide in any of his favored terrains, even if the terrain doesn't grant cover or concealment.”
I get that since this description does not say anything about being observed, it does not allow you to use Stealth while being observed.
BUT, if you can only use Camouflage while not being observed, you have met one of the conditions to use Stealth, so there’s no need for C/C!!!
Can someone give me a scenario where the Ranger could use Camouflage to use Stealth in a situation where normally they could NOT use Stealth?
Gonna answer these one at a time, so it might take a while, but I'm doing things in between answers.
Question 1: Danny is stealthing down a hallway. His GM knows that someone is about to round the corner down the hallway. Perception must be rolled. Danny has +8 perception, and is considered to be taking 10 by default. The GM rules that the guards about to round the corner are not sneaking, merely patrolling, so the DC to hear them is 10 (hearing a creature walking) + 2 for unfavorable circumstances, since the GM rules the sound of the approaching patrol does not carry well around the corner. The base DC to notice the approaching guards is 12, but the perception check DC is raised by 1 for every 10 ft of distance between the guards and Danny. Danny defaults to 18 perception, meaning he would notice the sound of the approaching guards (barring other circumstance modifiers) out to 60 ft, in this hallway.
The GM looks to Danny's player and informs him that he hears guards approaching. Danny immediately asks the GM if there are any areas of dim light, or spots where he can take cover?
Situation A) The GM rules that there are areas of dim light, but no cover.
Danny stealths in the dim light and waits for the guards to pass. The guards then make a Perception check, opposed by Danny's stealth check. Normally the guards would default to taking 10, but the GM can rule otherwise. If the guards fail to notice Danny, they walk past, and Danny may proceed. If they notice him, Danny is in trouble.
Situation A.a) The GM rules that there are areas of dim light, but no cover.
Danny stealths in the dim light and waits for the guards to pass. However, there is a problem. One of the guards is carrying a torch. As the guard approaches, the light illuminates the dim light Danny is stealhing in, cancelling out his stealth check. Danny is in trouble. Unless the guards are heavily vision impaired and distracted, he's as good as spotted.
Situation B) The GM rules that there are no areas of dim light, but there is cover.
Danny stealths behind cover and waits for the guards to approach. His GM has a choice to make. By RAW there is no facing, meaning that once the guards pass the point where the cover technically no longer grants cover with respects to the patrolling guards, the stealth check is cancelled, and the guards almost automatically spot Danny. However, the GM could rule that if Danny is squeezing into a corner next to a pillar, that the guards, even though they pass his cover, simply don't turn their heads, thereby granting Danny the chance to make for new cover, with respects to the guards. Despite Danny being in cover, the guards still recieve their perception check to notice him though, meaning that even if the GM is allowing Danny to do this, he could still be noticed.
Situation B.a) The GM rules that there are no areas of dim light, but there is cover.
Danny stealths behind cover and waits for the guards to approach. Danny has taken cover behind a pillar in the middle of the hallway. If both guards pass by one side of the pillar, Danny could ready an action to basically move around the pillar, so as to remain out of sight of his enemies, by acting simultaneously with their moving down the hallway. Perception applies in example B. However if the guards move around opposite sides of the pillar, Danny is in trouble
Situation C) The GM rules that there are both areas of dim light and cover. At this point, circumstances from both A/A.a/B/B.a may apply.
Situation D) The GM rules that there are neither dim light, nor cover in the hallway. Danny needs to react quickly if he's not to be spotted by the patrol approaching the corner. He asks his GM if he notices -anything- that could save him from this fine pickle. If yes, different rules may apply. If no, Danny needs to get out of there, quickly. But remember that Danny's movement can be picked up by the guards, despite them being around the corner of the hallway. If Danny starts running back down the hallway, the guards may hear the sound of him running, and themselves run to investigate. If Danny stealths back down the hallway as quickly as possible though, the chances of him being heard by the guards back down the hall and around the corner, is much lower.
Hope it helps
-Nearyn
Follow up on question 1:
Now let us say that Danny has a lower perception check, and somehow fails to notice the approaching patrol. Danny is, at this point, just comfortably sneaking down the hallway, not using dim light or cover, simply stealthing to mask the sound of his footsteps.
Danny fails to notice the patrol, meaning they round the corner, and have vision of the hallway, with Danny walking down the center of it. At this point, unless there are circumstances that hinder the guards' vision, Danny is most likely instantly spotted (DC 0 to spot him + circumstance modifiers + 1 per 10ft of distance). Not because he technically could not try to dive for cover or dim light, but because he failed his perception check to notice the coming patrol, before it was too late.
-Nearyn
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Question 2: Yes. Everyone who might see you, is allowed a perception check to attempt to beat your stealth check. Some might be positioned in such a way that your cover does not grant you concealment against them, and they almost automatically see you. You may think you're hiding in the dim light, at the edge of a torch, but there could be an elf with the enemy, who sees you just fine.
However, if you have a target, and remain stealthed with respects to that target, you're golden. Lets say you're hidden in the dim light shed at the edge of a torch, and the enemy elven ranger says to his human companions "Be careful! That guy looks like he's gonna attempt to sneak up on you!", his allies do not necessarily see you. They may get a +2 bonus on perception checks to beat your stealth check, if the elf tries to direct their attention, but otherwise you remain stealthed to them, until they beat your stealth score, or changes the conditions so your stealth no longer applies (Like moving the torch closer to you, making it so you're now trying to stealth in normal light, rather than dim)
Here's where things get hairy. This has been discussed, over and over again, time in and time out, because at present, the stealth rules do not exactly work as intended. I don't hold any hopes of adequately describing the circus that is a typical stealth-discussion, so I'll try to be simple about what rulings people seem to think are solid.
Danny is hiding from 2 enemy fighters, in the dim light surrounding their normal torchlight. The enemy ranger sees him, but him assisting his team does not raise their perception high enough to see Danny. Danny moves up to one fighter and attacks:
Group A says): Once Danny enters the normal light, his stealth is instantly broken and the fighter is not denied his dex bonus against the attack, meaning the attack is not a sneak attack.
Group B says): The rules are unclear on whether stealth allows you to deny dex against an attack, meaning there is no basis for arguing a sneak attack in the first place. Danny attacks, but against full AC.
Group C says): Danny charging out of the shadows and attacking the man, denies his dex to AC, because he cannot manage to raise his guard against the attack in time, effectively granting Danny precision damage, if the attack hits.
Group D says): The devs clearly didn't consider this
Group E says): I like skittles
And then everyone starts calling eachother names, and the thread is derailed. Support staff enter the thread to keep everyone civil once or twice, but then abandons the thread, along with everyone sane.
In short, you're unlikely to find RAW satisfying, or even find someone else who completely agrees with you on what the RAW are.
-Nearyn
Question 3: Unfortunately yes, I disgree. By RAW it is completely impossible to Stealth in bright light, unless you have cover or are invisible. This is likely not the intent, but rather the effects of artefacts in the language.
IMO this is the result of the lighting rules being copy-pasted from Dungeons and Dragons 3.5. Back in the 3.5 days, there were two Stealth-skills. Hide and Move Silently. When in bright light, without cover or invisibility, you could not hide, but you could move silently. But with the text being copied over, hide and move silently were just replaced with Stealth, meaning that by RAW, if someone has lit a hallway with daylight spell, and there's a sleeping guard in it, you cannot use stealth to try to move silently past him. You being in bright light just auto-denies your stealth unless you have cover or invisibility, meaning he'll likely wake up because the brightly lit room shuts down your ability to do anything but stomp down the hallway like a one-man-marching-band.
I recommend you just flat out ignore that part of the rules, and instead house-rule that you can use stealth for the purpose of not making sound when moving, even when in bright light. And that if you have ways of getting concealment(not necessarily cover), then you may attempt to stealth, even in bright light.
-Nearyn
|
For #6,
Correct, camouflage can't be used when already observed, (otherwise that is Hide in Plain Sight).
However, note the following: you can hide even when there is nowhere to hide. THAT is what is useful, otherwise characters must have either cover or concealment to use stealth at all.
But the 12th level Ranger does not need either, all he needs is to hide before you see him, or use bluff, etc, and then he's gone. Normal stealth would require the character to try to find cover or concealment once he's out of sight. From the Stealth skill: "you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind." the ranger doesn't have to get to an unobserved place, just use bluff so you look away for a second.
I think of it as a ghillie suit that allows the character to hide while you walk right by him, even though the grass or underbrush is not tall at all.
Question #1 : if you’re walking Stealthily down a hall and someone unexpectedly comes around a corner, do they automatically see you, or do they get a Stealth/Perception check (“S/P check”)?
RAW (Stealth) : “If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.”
So, if you’re alone in a hallway, you can “use Stealth” and walk down it. What if someone unexpectedly comes around the corner?
RAW (Stealth) : “Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you.”
So, they get a S/P check, even tho you’re standing out in the open. Or does using Stealth in this scenario mean you're sticking to the shadows, etc.?
Anyone disagree?
This is highly situational. I think Nearyn's post covered the range of possibilities pretty well.
Question #2 : shouldn’t EVERYONE within line of sight of you get a S/P check as you Stealth up to a victim to get your Sneak Attack damage?
RAW (Stealth) : “Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you.”
So in the middle of a battle, a Rogue has left cover/concealment (C/C) and is using Stealth to sneak up on a creature.
Obviously that creature gets a S/P check to catch you “out of the corner of his eye” before you attack.
But, the rules do say that anyone who might notice you also gets an S/P check, so if the victim has any comrades in the room, any of them with line-of-sight to you get a S/P check and a chance to shout out “look behind you!”.
Anyone disagree?
I disagree. You are right that everyone gets to roll for Perception. However, in your scenario the only result that maters is that of the victim of the attack. Even if his allys see the threat, warning him (speaking) is a free action and thus must be done during their turn. By the time they are able to shout, it will already be too late.
Question #3 : is it really *totally impossible* to use Stealth in Bright or Normal light, except when using invisibility or cover?
RAW (Vision&Light) : “A creature can't use Stealth in an area of Bright light unless it is invisible or has cover.”
RAW (Vision&Light) : “Normal light functions just like Bright light…”
RAW (Vision&Light) : “Creatures within [Dim light] have Concealment.” (To creatures with normal vision.)
RAW (Vision&Light) : “Creatures within [Darkness] have Total Concealment.” (Except to creatures with Darkvison.)
I think what the first 2 quotes are saying is just that Bright and Normal light do not provide Concealment, in and of themselves. Hence you can’t use Stealth by concealment in those conditions.
This would mean that any magical forms of Concealment (as opposed to spells that merely grant a 20% or 50% miss chance) still do allow you to use Stealth in Bright or Normal light. Not just invisibility.
Anyone disagree?
Partially disagree. You are correct that the lighting rules are ONLY talking about the concealment, or lack of concealment, granted by light level. That is just saying, unlike darkness, daylight provides no natural concealment for you to hide within.
There are plenty of solid things in the environment that provide concealment regardless of light level. Underbrush in a forest and crowds of people are two examples.
That said, a blur or displacement spell in broad daylight should not allow Stealth. These spells don't allow you to be stealty, they don't make it any harder to visually detect your pressence. All they do is give you a blury outline or displace your true location.
Question #4 : what is the procedure for attacking a creature currently using Stealth?
RAW (Stealth) : “When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave C/C and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in C/C.”
(I assume “succeed at a Stealth check” really means succeed at a S/P check.)
If you’re using Stealth in a melee, when it’s the other creatures’ turn to attack, you should be in C/C, so those rules apply (20% or 50% miss chance). Otherwise you’re not “Stealthed”, and they can see you clearly.
So you are only “exposed” during your turn, while moving from C/C to C/C. But what if someone has readied an action against you, to attack you when you move?
RAW (Stealth) : “Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you.”
RAW (Stealth) : “Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had Concealment.”
The problem is that phrase “are not aware of you” – I believe this does NOT mean they can’t see you at all (which would be Total Concealment), but is only the standard phrase used to indicate they are flat-footed.
So if they have line-of-sight to you, they make a S/P check.
If they succeed, they can see you clearly, and attack as normal.
If you succeed, you have concealment, so they have a 20% miss chance on all attacks excluding area and targeted spells.
Anyone disagree?
Disagree. If a creature fails it's Perception check to see you then it doesn't see you at all. If something can't see you but, for some reason guesses correctly and attacks into your current square, it has a 50% miss chance.
Question #5 : what’s the big deal with Hide in Plain Sight (HIPS)?
Let’s look at the worst-case version, the Shadowdancer’s HIPS, which is better than the Rogue’s HIPS because she does not even need C/C! Ignores observers AND no need for C/C, all at 5th level! WOW!
RAW (Shadowdancer) : “…can use the Stealth skill even while being observed [same as the Rogue’s HIPS]. As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of Dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind.”
RAW (Stealth) : “When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave C/C and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check…[but] your Stealth immediately ends after you make an attack roll…”
So the shadowdancer will alternate between being “Stealthed” one round, then not “Stealthed” the next :
Not “Stealthed” : take a normal attack, then provoke an Attack of Opportunity (AoO) to Move and use HIPS to enter Stealth (IF near Dim light) to hide in until her next turn.
--> Low attack damage, but opponents have to make a S/P check AND a miss check to hit her
Next round, is “Stealthed” : move and make a S/P check to sneak up on her victim, then attack (vs. FF AC, w/Sneak Attack damage), but lose Stealth.
--> High attack damage, but she’s left exposed for the rest of the round until her next turn
Rinse and repeat.
Anyone disagree?
So the shadowdancer is having to take or avoid AoO’s every other round, is completely visible every other round, AND is doing normal damage every other round, while using HIPS.
That doesn’t seem too bad, but everyone complains about how powerful HIPS is. I don’t see it…
HiPS is powerful if used in certain ways. With many builds it can be simply a nice tool to have. With other builds it can be pretty devistating. HiPS combined with ranged attack focus is pretty nasty. HiPS combined with the Spring Attack feat chain is pretty effective as well, especially if the Shadowdancer uses a longsword or other two handed weapon on a Strength build. Spring Attack allows for one big Sneak Attack every round and then retreating a safe distance from your opponent (and reentering Stealth on your retreat, depending on GM interpretation). Also note that a 5' step is enough movement to use Stealth and therefore a Shadowdancer could make a full attack, only the first strike gets Sneak Attack, and then 5' step right back into Stealth.
Question #6 : does anyone else see a problem with Camouflage?
RAW (Stealth) : “If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.”
So either you must either be alone, OR be under C/C, to use Stealth.
RAW (Ranger) : “A ranger of 12th level or higher can use the Stealth skill to hide in any of his favored terrains, even if the terrain doesn't grant cover or concealment.”
I get that since this description does not say anything about being observed, it does not allow you to use Stealth while being observed.
BUT, if you can only use Camouflage while not being observed, you have met one of the conditions to use Stealth, so there’s no need for C/C!!!
Can someone give me a scenario where the Ranger could use Camouflage to use Stealth in a situation where normally they could NOT use Stealth?
How about in your scenario for question 1. If the guy sneaking around is a Ranger with Camouflage and has the Urban favored terrain he can use Stealth to hide while the guards walk by, even if there is no cover or concealment in that narrow hallway to hide him.
The Rogue's Hide in Plain Sight doesn't need cover or concealment either. We have pretty much deduced that all the Hide in Plain Sights don't require cover or concealment. Some do have other qualifiers.
Hellcat Stealth: Bright Light
Ranger HiPS: This is the one that confuses everyone. Camouflage is essentially a weaker version of HiPS. When he gains it, he really has no more need of Camouflage. Can only be used in a favored terrain.
Shadowdancer: Must be within 10 feet of dim light.
Assassin: Must be within 10 feet of a shadow.
Rogue: Must be in a favored terrain.
I believe these are all the current methods of Hide in Plain Sight. All of them trump cover/concealment.
Thank you all for your thoughtful answers! Especially Nearyn, I know all that typing took some time, but the examples really helped. If you are still checking this thread, and have the time, I would really appreciate your thoughts on question #4 in particular.
One important new understanding I've taken away from this already : Stealth is BOTH moving quietly and not-being-seen.
I have seen a forum statement by one of the PF developers that clearly says Stealth is meant to give you an attack against flat-footed AC. Group B is wrong, end of discussion. Unfortunately I didn't bookmark it or anything. I think *maybe* it was on a Paizo thread discussing the latest Stealth errata change.
Shadowlord, thank you for the point that physical things in Bright or Normal lighting can provide C/C. And the Displacement spell specifically says that it does not provide Concealment, just a 50% miss chance. However, Blur says "This distortion grants the subject Concealment" (RAW), which to me means that it could be used in Bright or Normal lighting to use Stealth.
All : an addendum to Question #3 (Normal and Bright light) : "using Stealth" is generally taken to mean "entering Stealth mode" - so once IN Stealth (starting from C/C), can you not *pass thru* a region of Normal or Bright lighting and still be Stealthed, as long as you end your Move in C/C? I know from Nearyn's examples that's probably open to interpretation, but it seems to me that Stealth would be heavily nerfed if all you could ever *move thru* was Dim or Dark lighting.
Regarding #6 (Camouflage) : so someone could hear some guards coming, and even if there's no C/C anywhere in his part of the hall, use Camouflage to enter Stealth, so that once the guards turn the corner, they need a S/P check to see him - does everyone agree with that? If so, I think I understand that now, thanks!
About #2 (being warned by friends about a Sneak Attack) : Shadowlord, speaking is a Free action, but one "you can perform even when it isn't your turn" (RAW). All : is there a RAW somewhere that warning someone about an imminent attack doesn't let them automatically spot the attacker, only gives them a +2 to Perception?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you all for your thoughtful answers! Especially Nearyn, I know all that typing took some time, but the examples really helped. If you are still checking this thread, and have the time, I would really appreciate your thoughts on question #4 in particular.
I'll get into more detail about this in a seperate post.
One important new understanding I've taken away from this already : Stealth is BOTH moving quietly and not-being-seen.
Correct, it might be helpful to know that Stealth was created by combining both the Hide and Move Silently skills of D&D 3.5 for skill consolidation.
I have seen a forum statement by one of the PF developers that clearly says Stealth is meant to give you an attack against flat-footed AC. Group B is wrong, end of discussion. Unfortunately I didn't bookmark it or anything. I think *maybe* it was on a Paizo thread discussing the latest Stealth errata change.
That ruling had been made way back in D&D 3.5 FAQ and should have carried over into PF but some people don't like that answer. Luckily, the design team reworded Stealth a bit to better reflect their intent and JB got on the forums and cleared up a few additional things. I think THIS is the link you are looking for. He says that RAW is intended to allow Stealth to deny Dex to AC.
Shadowlord, thank you for the point that physical things in Bright or Normal lighting can provide C/C. And the Displacement spell specifically says that it does not provide Concealment, just a 50% miss chance. However, Blur says "This distortion grants the subject Concealment" (RAW), which to me means that it could be used in Bright or Normal lighting to use Stealth.
Very true. However, Blur also says this:
Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell's effect
So, using Blur to gain Stealth creates a bit of a paradox. If Stealth is successful then your opponents cannot see you. If your opponents cannot see you they ignore the spell's effect. The spell's effect is the only thing giving you the concealment you need to perform Stealth in the first place. Now, that was probably written with blindness in mind but it's still RAW and still applies.
In addition, at least one designer agrees.
All : an addendum to Question #3 (Normal and Bright light) : "using Stealth" is generally taken to mean "entering Stealth mode" - so once IN Stealth (starting from C/C), can you not *pass thru* a region of Normal or Bright lighting and still be Stealthed, as long as you end your Move in C/C? I know from Nearyn's examples that's probably open to interpretation, but it seems to me that Stealth would be heavily nerfed if all you could ever *move thru* was Dim or Dark lighting.
You can move through areas without cover/concealment and maintain your Stealth per the new errata.
Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment.
There are no further details restricting that capability. An area of bright or normal light without c/c with no other source of c/c would be covered by that part of the rules. All you have to do is begin and end your movement with cover/concealment. Moving through areas of dim light or darkness provides continuous concealment and so, is obviously NOT what this portion of the rules is talking about.
Regarding #6 (Camouflage) : so someone could hear some guards coming, and even if there's no C/C anywhere in his part of the hall, use Camouflage to enter Stealth, so that once the guards turn the corner, they need a S/P check to see him - does everyone agree with that? If so, I think I understand that now, thanks!
Sounds correct.
About #2 (being warned by friends about a Sneak Attack) : Shadowlord, speaking is a Free action, but one "you can perform even when it isn't your turn" (RAW). All : is there a RAW somewhere that warning someone about an imminent attack doesn't let them automatically spot the attacker, only gives them a +2 to Perception?
True, it can be done outside your turn, but what is being conveyed? If you're ally tells you "hey look out" that doesn't really mean anything and doesn't let you see an attacker you hadn't previously seen. If he takes the time to precicely describe what is happening and what square the threat is in... well, then it probably can't be done out of turn because:
Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.
Furthermore, you are asking if there is any RAW that warning someone doesn't let them automatically spot an attacker when you should be asking if there is any RAW that says a warning WOULD allow someone to automatically spot them. There is not, and by RAW the only way to detect someone using Stealth is by beating them with Perception. I would agree with Nearyn that IF they get anything at all, it would only be a +2 from the aid another rules. He might know something is about to attack him, but he still has to roll Perception to see it. If he doesn't see it he still can't react.
Additionally, I still don't think a warning would help at all. Here's why:
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
When you roll Stealth, everyone who could notice you gets a reactive Perception check to see you. It happens right then. If one guy sees you and warns another guy who didn't see you, now the oblivious guy is going from a reactive Perception check into the realm of an active Perception check. He has to actively search for the stimulous he was warned about. That kind of check is a Move Action and can only be done during his next turn. At that point he might get +2 from his friend's warning. But by that time the attack has probably attacked and revealed himself so it doesn't really mater.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question #4 : what is the procedure for attacking a creature currently using Stealth?
First you have to SEE it. If it is using Stealth then you have to beat its Stealth check with Perception. If you do that, then you see it clearly and can attack it. If you don't do that then you don't see it and cannot effectively attack.
If you try to attack something you can't see there are two dilemmas. Firstly how do you know you're attacking into the right square? Secondly, if you are attacking into the right square, you still get a 50% miss chance because you can't see what your attacking.
RAW (Stealth) : “When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave C/C and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in C/C.”
(I assume “succeed at a Stealth check” really means succeed at a S/P check.)
Remember that term: unobserved.
If you’re using Stealth in a melee, when it’s the other creatures’ turn to attack, you should be in C/C, so those rules apply (20% or 50% miss chance). Otherwise you’re not “Stealthed”, and they can see you clearly.
Cover/Concealment my only grant 20% miss chance in some instances, but Stealth means you are unobserved/unseen/unheard. If something can't detect you then it can't KNOW for sure where you are. If it does try to attack you it would be like attacking an invisible creature, it is just guessing at what square you are in. If it happens to guess right it gets a 50% miss chance regardless because it can't see you. It's the same effect as a blind person trying to attack a guy he can't see.
So you are only “exposed” during your turn, while moving from C/C to C/C. But what if someone has readied an action against you, to attack you when you move?
RAW (Stealth) : “Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you.”
RAW (Stealth) : “Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had Concealment.”
The problem is that phrase “are not aware of you” – I believe this does NOT mean they can’t see you at all (which would be Total Concealment), but is only the standard phrase used to indicate they are flat-footed.
Not aware means, not aware. If you think not aware somehow means, yes they are actually aware of you but they can't fully see you in detail, you are reading a lot of things that are NOT in the rules.
Also, flat-footed doesn't mean what you think it means. Apparently neither does Concealment. Concealment doesn't make you opponent flat-footed.
When I look at this sentence I see two things:
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment.
In bold I see the original language of Stealth. This part is saying that if someone doesn't beat your Stealth with their Perception they don't see you, don't know where you are, can't target you.
In Italics I see a portion of text that was added with the new Stealth errata. I believe this portion of the sentence is setting the stage for the addition of "Breaking Stealth." Before RAW included this it was commonly argued that you MUST always have c/c to use Stealth. The moment you leave, or otherwise lose, c/c you become plainly visible. The Perception check to notice a plainly visible creature is 0, so you are automatically detected. This new portion is just saying you don't become plainly visible. If your Stealth beats the observer's Perception then you are treated as having concealment even if you don't actually have it. Which, is exactly what allows you to "Break Stealth."
Breaking Stealth allows you to pass through areas where you don't have cover/concealment and still remain unobserved with Stealth. I believe the part above in Italics is the reason for this. If someone doesn't beat your Stealth with Perception then you are treated as having concealment which allows you to maintain your Stealth score rather than become plainly visible and go straight to Perception DC 0.
Under no circumstance do I think that sentence was meant to indicate that you can still attack someone you have not detected with a 20% miss chance. The language used is pretty clear; if your Stealth is successful you are unobserved. That means observers don't know you are there or don't know where you are. For further evidence you can read the Perception skill description:
Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.
It's pretty clear, if you succeed at your check you can react normally because you clearly see your opponent. If you fail the check, they can sneak past you or sneak up on you and attack. How would that be remotely possible if you could still somehow see them well enough to target them and attack?
So if they have line-of-sight to you, they make a S/P check.
If they succeed, they can see you clearly, and attack as normal.
Yes.
If you succeed, you have concealment, so they have a 20% miss chance on all attacks excluding area and targeted spells.
No. If you succeed they don't see you and don't know where you are and so they cannot attack you. They are oblivious to your location. You are treated as having concealment so you can still move from one point of c/c to another without being spotted. EVEN if the points in between have no c/c for you to use Stealth in.
Personally I think there are some really dumb things with stealth in regards to certain things like weapons and spells. How for the life of me do you explain a AT stealthing with a charge of shocking grasp in his hand? Or a person sneakinga round with a scythe in his hand???
Shadowlord, thank you for your detailed explanations. There were a couple of incorrect assumptions about what I was thinking that aren't worth explaining/correcting, but otherwise your explanations are very logical, and I can see the reasoning for interpreting the rules as you do. Thanks for clearing up a bunch of things about Stealth for me!
Shadowlord, thank you for your detailed explanations. There were a couple of incorrect assumptions about what I was thinking that aren't worth explaining/correcting, but otherwise your explanations are very logical, and I can see the reasoning for interpreting the rules as you do. Thanks for clearing up a bunch of things about Stealth for me!
There was one topic where I wasn't exactly sure what you meant or how to effectively address it, but I'm glad what I wrote was helpful.
Personally I think there are some really dumb things with stealth in regards to certain things like weapons and spells.
There are some pretty rough edges but, in my experience, usually the dumb things come from people's interpretations, not the rules.
How for the life of me do you explain a AT stealthing with a charge of shocking grasp in his hand?
It depends entirely on how magic works in your game world and the visual/audio effects accopanying it. Or, if magic works differently for different casters, then it could depend on how magic works for that particular caster. It's definitly something you should understand about your game, ask your GM. I see no specific visual/audio description of the spell so it could go a couple ways.
1. If it were explained as an electrical charge held within your body, with no visual or audio stimuli, which is expelled through a small bold of lightning when you touch someone then I could see being Stealthy. Like having a taser in your hand and sneaking up on someone, then turning it on as you touch them with it. The only visual/audio effects would happen as you touch your target.
2. If, on the other hand, the magic in your game is more overt and flashy, for instance strands of blue/white flickering electricity accompanied by the sounds of crackling and pops, I wouldn't allow the AT to use Stealth while charged. If your GM let this happen it's a problem with the GM not the Stealth rules. People who are emenating flickering lights and crackling sounds should not be slipping through the shadows without anyone noticing. The only ways I can think of to justify this would be if the person in question had some way to conceal both the visual stimulus and the audio stimulus coming from his spell; Invisiblity and Silence come to mind. There are a few weaker possibilities but most involve staying far enough away from observers that they can't hear your spell.
Or a person sneakinga round with a scythe in his hand???
I actually don't see a huge problem with this. Military snipers creap around with .50 cal rifles everywhere they go and avoid detection. Carying a large weapon might make Stealth more dificult but shouldn't make it impossible. Stealth is the art of avoiding detection. If I can keep myself out of sight why shouldn't I be able to keep a staff with a blade out of sight? The guy trying to be stealthy shouldn't be crouching behind a 3 foot wall with his Scythe standing straight up, but if he has it lowered how is that a problem? If a shadow is dark enough to hide a person why shouldn't it be dark enough to hide his weapon? The only problem might be light reflecting off the blade but that could just as easily happen with a dagger.
The modifiers to adjust for cases where it might be easier to notice someone are in the Perception description, not the Stealth description. If your GM wanted to they could rule that carying a Scythe created favorable conditions for observers and adjust the DC by -2. However, the DC to spot something also increases by +1 for every 10 feet between you. Most people overlook these things in game and just handle everything with a simple Stealth vs. Perception to make things flow faster.
Thank you all for your thoughtful answers! Especially Nearyn, I know all that typing took some time, but the examples really helped. If you are still checking this thread, and have the time, I would really appreciate your thoughts on question #4 in particular.
You are very welcome mate.
I'll give you my thoughts on #4 sometime this week :)
Question #4 : what is the procedure for attacking a creature currently using Stealth?
RAW (Stealth) : “When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave C/C and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in C/C.”
(I assume “succeed at a Stealth check” really means succeed at a S/P check.)
Correct.
If you’re using Stealth in a melee, when it’s the other creatures’ turn to attack, you should be in C/C, so those rules apply (20% or 50% miss chance). Otherwise you’re not “Stealthed”, and they can see you clearly.
Correct for when it's your enemy's turn, assuming you make your NEW S/P check (you began with Stealth, moved around, and ended your turn in some new C/C, so you make a new S/P this turn to remain "unobserved").
So you are only “exposed” during your turn, while moving from C/C to C/C. But what if someone has readied an action against you, to attack you when you move?
Maybe or maybe not awkward. How can they ready an action if they don't know you're there?
So clearly we're assuming the enemy is aware of you, even though your successful S/P means he cannot observe/perceive you right now.
Given that he knows you're somewhere in the vicinity and has readied an action to attack you when you appear, you now begin with Stealth, dash out into plain sight and run to a new spot of C/C and during this process, you must make a new S/P to "remain unobserved". But your opponent does get to attempt to perceive you while you do this.
Where and when does he make the check? At the moment during your action that it is most favorable to the observer. Jason Bulmahn clarified that in this post.
OK, so let's say you start 40' away from the guy and end 20' away from the guy. He has a bow. You dash and run to your new C/C spot. During your run, he attempts to make his Perception check against your Stealth check, with -2 for distance, not -4, because that is where it is most favorable to him.
If he makes it, he takes his shot. You are not concealed or covered so there is no Miss Chance.
After he finishes his readied action, if you're still alive and able to continue moving, you arrive at your C/C spot but because you failed your S/P check, you are not "unobserved" now. If you have any actions left, you can remain in your C/C spot and try to use Stealth again, but if not, you must end your turn without being "unobserved".
RAW (Stealth) : “Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you.”
RAW (Stealth) : “Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had Concealment.”
The problem is that phrase “are not aware of you” – I believe this does NOT mean they can’t see you at all (which would be Total Concealment), but is only the standard phrase used to indicate they are flat-footed.
Incorrect; Flat-Footed does not mean what you think it means. There is only one way, ever, to be Flat-Footed: you start Flat-Footed at the beginning of combat and remain Flat-Footed until your first action. Being unable to see an enemy does not make you Flat-Footed.
So if they have line-of-sight to you, they make a S/P check.
If they succeed, they can see you clearly, and attack as normal.
If you succeed, you have concealment, so they have a 20% miss chance on all attacks excluding area and targeted spells.
Anyone disagree?
I would agree from a purely RAW standpoint because that's what the new Stealth errata says, "Concealment". But I feel it should say "Total Concealment" (Initially it did, but they fixed it saying the original errata was a misprint). Here's why I think so:
If you check other situations, like darkness, Obscuring Mist, blindness, etc., you very quickly find that throughout the whole book (all the books), "Total Concealment" means you CANNOT see the target at all, while "Concealment" means you CAN see the target, just not very well.
Stealth is the only place where this seems to be different.
If you succeed at the S/P, you remain "unobserved" - that implies that the opponent cannot see you. In fact, you are SO "unobserved" that your opponent cannot react to your attack (per Jason Bulmahn's clarification I linked). This is essentially the same as being Invisible, but is not the same as simply having "Concealment" (having "Concealment" lets you try to use Stealth, but if you don't use Stealth, the "Concealment" does not let you automatically deny your opponent's DEX if you attack him the way Invisibility automatically does).
So, succeeding at a Stealth S/P roll allows you to behave like you have Invisibility (except you don't get the +2 to hit) and it allows you to remain "unobserved" like you have Total Concealment, but the text merely says you have "Concealment".
To me this is extremely inconsistent.
But RAW says you only have "Concealment" when you succeed, so back to your question:
You begin with Stealth, dash out into plain sight and end your turn in C/C and, somewhere along the way, you must make a new S/P check to remain "unobserved" at whatever spot is most favorable to your opponent. Your opponent with a readied action tries to shoot you while you're in plain sight. This requires a S/P check.
If he succeeds, he can shoot you with no penalty because he perceives you perfectly. Also, because he beat your Stealth check, you are no longer "unobserved".
If you succeed, you have "Concealment" and now he can still shoot at you with the usual 20% miss chance. Also, because you won the opposed S/P check, you remain "unobserved" once you reach your C/C spot.
That would be RAW.
Why is it important to know whether you are "unobserved" at the end of your turn?
This can affect what happens to you when the guy, or his allies, comes looking for you on his turn. Also, there are options within the Stealth rules that say "When you start your turn using Stealth..." but clearly, if you failed your S/P check this turn and end your turn without Stealth, you will not "begin" your next turn "using Stealth" so therefore those options will be unavailable to you that turn.
I see that sentence quite differently as I posted up thread:
When I look at this sentence I see two things, what's in bold and what's in italics.
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment.
In bold: I see the original language of Stealth. This part is saying that if someone doesn't beat your Stealth with their Perception they don't see you, don't know where you are, can't target you.
In Italics: I see a portion of text that was added with the new Stealth errata. I believe this portion of the sentence is setting the stage for the addition of "Breaking Stealth." Before RAW included this it was commonly argued that you MUST always have c/c to use Stealth. The moment you leave, or otherwise lose, c/c you become plainly visible. The Perception check to notice a plainly visible creature is 0, so you are automatically detected. This new portion is just saying you don't become plainly visible. If your Stealth beats the observer's Perception then you are treated as having concealment even if you don't actually have it. Which, is exactly what allows you to "Break Stealth."
Breaking Stealth allows you to pass through areas where you don't have cover/concealment and still remain unobserved with Stealth. I believe the part above in Italics is the reason for this. If someone doesn't beat your Stealth with Perception then you are treated as having concealment which allows you to maintain your Stealth score rather than become plainly visible and go straight to Perception DC 0.
Under no circumstance do I think that sentence was meant to indicate that you can still see and attack someone you can't detect.
DM_Blake, I agree with you that the wording of that sentence is inconsistent and has caused no end of debate, but the fact that the developers specifically REMOVED the word "Total" from concealment seems to argue in favor of Shadowlord's interpretation, IMO.
But now I'm confused by your distinction between "in C/C and not observed" and "in C/C and observed" - there's no mention of that in the RAW that I can find. What you say makes sense, but I would like to offer a different interpretation (I'm making this up as I type, so it might be a little rough) :
The RAW says "you make a Stealth check as part of movement", so it's usually assumed that you ONLY make the S/P check as you're traveling between C/C or sneaking up on a victim to attack. But, while RAW says that you can't Stealth while being observed, it also says you can "use Stealth" if you have C/C. So even if you're observed during your movement this round, if you end up in C/C, you are able to "start your next turn using Stealth".
Regarding the time you spend in C/C while everyone else is taking their actions...well, you have either Cover or Concealment, and those rules should apply for everyone attacking you.
Or can you be "Stealthed" while in C/C (I'm pretty sure the answer to that is yes), in which case if you were observed during your movement you would have to spend a Move (equivalent) action once in C/C to become Stealthed, as DM_Blake says? But note that RAW says you make Stealth checks as part of movement, not a Move action.
Ok, now I've just confused myself. :) Other opinions?
Nearyn and Shadowlord, I would really be interested in hearing your 2 CP on this, if you have the time.
Everyone : I habitually use the term "flat-footed" to merely mean "denied your DEX bonus to AC" - apologies for the confusion, you can please stop pointing that out now! :)
And everybody, please realize we are now in the realm of RAI, so everyone's entitled to express their own opinions. I doubt there can be a consensus, but I'd like to hear as many sides as possible to have as much info as possible to make my own decisions.
I disagree. You are right that everyone gets to roll for Perception. However, in your scenario the only result that maters is that of the victim of the attack. Even if his allys see the threat, warning him (speaking) is a free action and thus must be done during their turn. By the time they are able to shout, it will already be too late.
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn.
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn.
Coriat, this was already braught up and I addressed it up thread.
About #2 (being warned by friends about a Sneak Attack) : Shadowlord, speaking is a Free action, but one "you can perform even when it isn't your turn" (RAW). All : is there a RAW somewhere that warning someone about an imminent attack doesn't let them automatically spot the attacker, only gives them a +2 to Perception?
True, it can be done outside your turn, but what is being conveyed? If you're ally tells you "hey look out" that doesn't really mean anything and doesn't let you see an attacker you hadn't previously seen. If he takes the time to precicely describe what is happening and what square the threat is in... well, then it probably can't be done out of turn because:
Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.
Furthermore, you are asking if there is any RAW that warning someone doesn't let them automatically spot an attacker when you should be asking if there is any RAW that says a warning WOULD allow someone to automatically spot them. There is not, and by RAW the only way to detect someone using Stealth is by beating them with Perception. I would agree with Nearyn that IF they get anything at all, it would only be a +2 from the aid another rules. He might know something is about to attack him, but he still has to roll Perception to see it. If he doesn't see it he still can't react.
Additionally, I still don't think a warning would help at all. Here's why:
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
When you roll Stealth, everyone who could notice you gets a reactive Perception check to see you. It happens right then. If one guy sees you and warns another guy who didn't see you, now the oblivious guy is going from a reactive Perception check into the realm of an active Perception check. He has to actively search for the stimulous he was warned about. That kind of check is a Move Action and can only be done during his next turn. At that point he might get +2 from his friend's warning. But by that time the attack has probably attacked and revealed himself so it doesn't really mater.
TheJeff : I'm pretty sure you need C/C OR to be unobserved to use Stealth, not both.
RAW : "Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth."
It's the C/C that makes you "unobserved" so that you can use Stealth.
DM_Blake, I agree with you that the wording of that sentence is inconsistent and has caused no end of debate, but the fact that the developers specifically REMOVED the word "Total" from concealment seems to argue in favor of Shadowlord's interpretation, IMO.
Actually, you're making MY point here. They started with "Total Concealment" which would mean the enemy cannot see you and cannot target you. I still think this is consistent with "unobserved".
Then they changed that to just "Concealment" which means the enemy can see you and can target you.
That's a huge, huge difference. It's clear from the combat section that Total Concealment means the enemy cannot see you and equally clear that the enemy can see you with just Concealment.
And since Concealment is a game term with rules and game mechanics, and since "unobserved" is not any such game term, when you make your successful Stealth check you are "unobserved" (meaningless) and you have "Concealment" (meaningful game term with a full set of rules we can follow).
Again, we can fall back on English and say "Well, I know what 'unobserved' means so I will say the enemy cannot see you" but then you have the conflict - "Concealment" says he CAN see you and your English interpretation of "unobserved" says he CANNOT see you. And both of these conditions are in THE EXACT SAME SENTENCE.
So how do you resolve the conflict YOU just created? Do you ignore the English assumption that you just added, made up, houseruled on the spot, or do you ignore the explicit game mechanics that are directly included in that same sentence?
Tough call, actually.
Me, I prefer to ignore the game mechanic in my home games, and I advise every GM to do the same thing. But at least, when I do so, I admit that I am houseruling to ignore that mechanic.
So, for my home games, that sentence reads "Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had TOTAL concealment."
It's a house rule to be sure, but it solves all this nonsense.
But now I'm confused by your distinction between "in C/C and not observed" and "in C/C and observed" - there's no mention of that in the RAW that I can find. What you say makes sense, but I would like to offer a different interpretation (I'm making this up as I type, so it might be a little rough) :
The RAW says "you make a Stealth check as part of movement", so it's usually assumed that you ONLY make the S/P check as you're traveling between C/C or sneaking up on a victim to attack. But, while RAW says that you can't Stealth while being observed, it also says you can "use Stealth" if you have C/C. So even if you're observed during your movement this round, if you end up in C/C, you are able to "start your next turn using Stealth".
Regarding the time you spend in C/C while everyone else is taking their actions...well, you have either Cover or Concealment, and those rules should apply for everyone attacking you.
Or can you be "Stealthed" while in C/C (I'm pretty sure the answer to that is yes), in which case if you were observed during your movement you would have to spend a Move (equivalent) action once in C/C to become Stealthed, as DM_Blake says? But note that RAW says you make Stealth checks as part of movement, not a Move action.
Let's look at what Stealth says:
"Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. "
Note the singular: "succeed at a Stealth check"
That means, some time during your movement, you must make a S/P check. If you succeed, you remain "unobserved" (whatever that means). If you fail, then you are not "unobserved". (I will ignore the discussion about the nebulous "unobserved" in this post - it's enough to know that you're good if you succeed the S/P and bad if you fail).
Jason Bulmahn said the S/P check is made when it's most favorable to the observer. So, at whatever point in your movement you are closest to that observer, with the fewest obstacles, distractions, etc., you make ONE S/P check. If you make it, you're good, if not, you're not.
Either way, you end your movement in C/C because that's what you said you're doing. You might be good, you might not be, depending on that S/P check.
If you blew the S/P check, you don't get to make another one, not as part of that move you just made, because the rule says you make "a Stealth check", not "you make as many Stealth checks as you want until you succeed". Hyperbole, I know, but hopefully illustrative.
So now you reached C/C and you might have made the S/P check or not, but you have to live with that one result.
IF you have any remaining actions, you might use them to try another S/P check (if you failed the one you already tried while moving), since you have C/C so you're eligible to try - IF you have actions left. If not, well, your turn is over and you are not "unobserved".
Assume nothing else happens the whole round and now it's the beginning of your next turn. That one S/P check you made last turn will decide whether you "start your turn using Stealth" or not. If you do not, then you can't even try to do this "Breaking Stealth" trick this round because the wording says "When you start your turn using Stealth...".
But now I'm confused by your distinction between "in C/C and not observed" and "in C/C and observed" - there's no mention of that in the RAW that I can find...
Nearyn and Shadowlord, I would really be interested in hearing your 2 CP on this, if you have the time.
There are two pieces of RAW to consider here:
1. If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.
2. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.
So how do you justify both of these working together? You look at other rules having to do with Stealth and put together a larger picture. So, yes, concealment gives you the ability to make a Stealth check. However, you can't use Stealth while being actively observed. I understand those to mean: Yes you can use Stealth whithin cover/concealment, but it won't work against people already observing you unless you first break observation in some way.
The distraction portion of Stealth supports that line of thinking: If you could be in partial cover/concealment and just Stealth from someone looking at you why would it say you need a distraction to break observation? If you didn't normally need a distraction to break observation before using Stealth then why would things like "Hide in Plain Sight" be available?
It actually makes perfect sense if you've ever played a game of hide and seek or man hunt at night. If you haven't spotted a person they could be right next to you hiding in a shadow or pressed up against a tree trunk. You could walk right by them, litterally close enough that they could reach out and slap you, and never know it. But once someone has spotted you they can easily follow you through the shadows and underbrush unless you actually, completely, break visual contact. How do you do that in game terms? There are three ways:
1. Use a distraction and quickly move to c/c as stated in Stealth.
2. Full cover, not partial because you are still partially visible.
3. Total Concealment, not partial because you can still be seen.
These are all situational however and can work in verying degrees. Number 1 is the best option by far but all of them have problems. The problem is that whatever has seen you KNOWS you are still there somewhere. They might have lost track of you, and you might be good enough in the cat and mouse game to avoid them, but they still know you are around and will be looking for you. Number 1 is the best option because it leaves your observers in the greatest state of confusion as to where you disappeared to.
Take this example for number 1: You are in a fight outside a crowded tavern at night. The other guy is getting the better of you and you need an escape. There are four options within 30' for you to choose; 1. A dark alley, 2. two crowded squares in a 10' x 5' cluster, 3. inside the tavern, 4. behind a wagon on the far side of the street. You use bluff to momentarily break observation and run to your hiding spot. Your attacker turns back around and you have vanished. There are multiple places for him to look and he will have no idea which way you went. Even if he guesses right he can't be sure of that fact so you could still manage to escape his sight and either get away or sneak up on him and gain the advantage.
Numbers 2 and 3 have some situational problems. I will post two examples to demonstrate what I mean.
Example 1: A human and elf are fighting in the dimly lit road in front of a tavern at night. The elf decides to escape. The area of dim light only extends about 10' around their area, after that it's total darkness in this moonles, starless night. The elf can see dim light for an additional 10' past the human due to his sensitive eyes. On his turn the elf makes a withdrawl action and double moves past where the human can see. The elf has Total Concealment at this time and is essentially invisible to the human (dictionary term not game mechanic). This break in observation allows him to attempt a Stealth check, IMO. The human knows which way he went and roughly where he is, but will have to grab a light source to have any hope of finding him.
Example 2: Now say two humans are fighting in broad daylight in front of a farm house. There are five very large, very old trees in the yard each only 20' from them. Each tree is also 20' from eachother. But there are no other sources of cover/concealment within 80' of those trees. One of the men makes a break for the tree, he gets behind it. Well now he has Full Cover and could probably use Stealth. But it would be stupid. The other guy knows exactly where he ran to and can just follow him over. Once he moves to a possition where the first man no longer has cover from him, he will become plainly visible (perception check DC 0).
Now, in example 2, if the guy trying to hide had used a distraction first (bluff) and then run to his hiding spot at least that would leave the observer unsure of which tree his foe went to.
Side note: Some people would argue that numbers 2 and 3 would still not allow a Stealth check without first using a distraction. I believe I have been on that side of the argument in the past, IIRC. However, the distraction mechanic highlights the fact that all you need is a momentary break in visual observation to perform Stealth (against vision based enemies). Both Total Concealment and Full Cover provide a complete break in visual observation as well so I think they qualify, they are just far more situational and not as reliable.
.....
This is also a good example scenario posted by Honorable Goblin:
Say an adventurer is fighting a brigand in an area of normal light. 10 feet behind the adventurer is a large pillar (large enough to grant total cover), and 10 feet to the right of the pillar is an area of darkness (say from a permanent Darkness spell). The adventurer wants to get away via stealth.
He could use bluff to distract the brigand, then (if successful at the bluff) use stealth and move to behind the pillar. If the brigand fails his perception check, he has no idea where the adventurer went.
Now let's say the adventurer is not confident in his ability to bluff the brigand. He could move to behind the pillar normally (let's ignore the widthdraw action, so he provokes an AoO but it misses), then use stealth from behind the pillar to sneak into the area of darkness. If the brigand fail his perception check, he thinks the adventure is still behind the pillar; if he succeeds, he sees the adventurer move into the darkness.
.....
In short, what DM Blake wrote is accurate.
.....
EDIT: My post was to demonstrate the differences between using cover/concealment while unobserved and using cover/concealment while being observed. I was not talking specifically about the breaking stealth portion of the rules. DM Blake's previous post covered that.
They treat you as if you have concealment and that lets you use stealth which means, if they don't make their Perception roll against your Stealth they don't observe you. I don't see the issue.
You must see that this is circular logic with no conclusion, right?
They treat you as if you have concealment. Concealment lets you use stealth. Stealth lets you have concealment. Concealment lets you use Stealth. Stealth lets you have concealment...
Round and round we go, where do we get off?
NOTHING in the concealment rules lets you be invisible. NOTHING in the concealment rules lets you deny DEX to your opponent.
NOTHING in the Stealth rules lets you be invisible. NOTHING in the Stealth rules lets you deny DEX to your opponent.
So no matter how many round-and-rounds we go, we still don't get to any meaningful conclusion.
If you did have partial concealment (say dim light against people with normal vision) and your Stealth roll beat their perception and you did nothing like attacking to break stealth, would you still say they saw you since you only had partial concealment?
That's EXACTLY what the RAW says.
In this example, you mention nothing about hiding behind a rock or in a cloud of smoke or whatever. Only dim light. So I assume you're just standing there.
If you are just standing there in dim light (not darkness, just dim light), then a normal human can automatically see you. Well, the Perception DC is 0, but other factors like distance and distractions and such things might make it a little harder, but otherwise, it's automatic.
That dim light lets you use Stealth. But if you don't, you're still just standing there and the DC to see you is still 0. You still have concealment so if they attack you, you still have a 20% miss chance.
All by RAW.
Hopefully, all of that is very easy to agree with, right?
Continuing by RAW:
If you use Stealth, you don't simply disappear like someone cast Invisibility on you. The only thing that happens is that you replace the DC 0 with your Stealth check.
The human looking at you STILL GETS TO MAKE A PERCEPTION CHECK because you didn't disappear. You only have concealment. If you make the opposed S/P check but you remain just standing there, then you are still observed and you still have concealment - in other words, your use of Stealth was a total waste of time. If you fail the opposed S/P check and remain just standing there, then you are still observed and you still have concealment - in other words, your use of Stealth was a total waste of time.
Why?
BECAUSE YOU ARE JUST STANDING THERE IN PLAIN SIGHT. The dim light gives you concealment already, you don't need Stealth for that.
Now lets try this in normal light. Same thing, you're just standing there. Oh, wait, now you cannot even use Stealth, so that's easy.
So let's change it around. You start out in the shadows under a tree in normal light. You have concealment here, in this small shadowy area, but the rest of the area is normal light, and you have already successfully used stealth.
You want to move to a shadowy area under a different tree.
Because you start your turn using stealth, you are allowed to move to that other tree, even though you must move through the human's plain sight, as long as you end your movement in the other shadowy area (concealment). The entire move between the two shadowy areas is normal light, in plain sight of the human.
So you make the move, but the human gets to try to see you. If you don't bother using Stealth, he will automatically see you (DC is still 0, right?0. So you use Stealth. This lets you replace that DC 0 with your Stealth check. The human rolls his Perception at whatever point in your movement is most favorable to him (and certainly the normal lighting areas are more favorable than the shadowy areas).
Agree so far?
If you fail on that opposed S/P check, the human will see you. If he had a readied action, he can shoot you at no penalties because you're in plain sight in normal lighting.
Still agree?
If you succeed on that opposed S/P check, you gain Concealment even though you are in plain sight in normal light. The human will still see you because all you have is Concealment, not Total Concealment. The combat rules let him target you and attack you (assuming he has a readied action for it since it's your turn, not his).
So, in this case, there is a good reason to use Stealth here and a very benefit to succeeding (20% miss chance).
So if you just stand there in the dim light, Stealth will do nothing for you - it might give you the concealment you already have, but it will not block the human's line of sight to you or prevent him from seeing you. Stealth is only useful if you're moving and actually, you know, hiding.
Or more shortly, Concealment doesn't say they can see you. It says they might be able to see you.
Wrong. Look at the combat section.
Total Concealment:
Opponent cannot attack you - he must attack your square
Opponent cannot target you
Opponent has no line of sight to you
Concealment:
Opponent can attack you - there is no requirement to only attack your square
Opponent can target you
Opponent has line of sight to you.
It's right there, in black and white in the Combat section. Total Concealment proves that he cannot see you while Concealment proves that he can.
@ DM Blake
Check THIS POST
PRD was inaccurate. The actual errata says observers treat you as if you had total concealment if your Stealth is successful.
....
As far as the circular nature of concealment granting stealth and stealth granding concealment; what do you think of my explaination of that sentence?
I really think that inclusion of concealment (or by errata total concealment) is for only two things: 1. To say Stealth grants Sneak Attack and 2. To set the stage for the "breaking Stealth" rule insertion. That counters the "if you step away from cover/concealment you lose Stealth and go to Perception DC 0 to be observed.
First, on the topic of question 4:
I don’t think you’re actually –really- exposed when you move from cover to cover. Don’t get me wrong, when I picture a rogue, moving through the ruins of an Egyptian-esque temple, darting from pillar to pillar, to remain stealthed, he is definitely exposed when clearing the space between them, but by the rules he technically remains unobserved and stealthed, as long as he ends his turn in cover or concealment, and nobody beats his stealth. I don’t think there’s a way to actually get around that, even with readied actions.
Let bring out Danny again, shall we? And while we’re at it, let’s use a hallway as well. We picture a 60 ft long hallway, 10 ft across, lined on both sides with pillars, placed with 15 ft intervals. Each pillar has a torch sconce, with a burning torch in it, so the room is well lit. At the end of this hallway, we place a guard. The guard has his longbow out, and has an action readied to send an arrow flying against the first intruder he sees. Danny, meanwhile, is stealthed behind the second pillar.
Now Danny wants to make a break for it, and run to the next pillar up the hallway, in an attempt to close in on the guard. He moves from cover to cover, permitting him a stealth check, opposed by the guard’s perception check. Despite Danny leaving cover and walking up the hallway, he’s still allowed to remain unobserved, as if constantly in conditions permitting him stealth, as long as he ends his turn in cover. Despite the guard having a readied action, he cannot effectively use it here, until he notices Danny. Until that time, Danny could keep darting from cover to cover, permitting him movement, even across space that would normally break his stealth, and still remain unobserved.
Now things may change for the worse. Let’s say Danny’s stealth check is beaten by the guard’s perception. The guard gets to instantly fire his arrow at Danny, and then initiative is rolled. Danny could move down the hall, without first peeking around the corner to try to spot traps, thereby missing the tripwire between the 3rd and 4th pillar. When Danny makes a break for cover again, he might stumble and fall, denying him the movement needed to get fully into cover, thereby instantly breaking his stealth where he stands(or lies), and permitting the guard to shoot at him.
Let me add that I disagree with your thoughts on being aware of someone. As I read it, if they fail to beat your stealth check, and as such remain unaware of you, it means they don’t observe you. You remain unobserved by whomever is not aware of you, until you they beat your stealth checks, or the situation changes to where you can no longer remain stealthed to them.
So as I see it, if you remain stealthed, you are effective untargetable by anything requiring an attack roll. However if you’re sneaking up on Mordrius the twitchy pyromancer of southern Taldor, and he suddenly spots a particularly threatening butterfly, he might accidentally toss a fireball your way, catching you in the explosion. However, even in this case, you do not necessarily break stealth, thought I’d argue the GM could call for a check on some relevant skill or save, to see if you maintain composure and silence, even while eating 10d6 firedamage.
-Nearyn
Ok, I'm going to address several things, one per post. Bold in the following quote was added by me.
Example 2: Now say two humans are fighting in broad daylight in front of a farm house. There are five very large, very old trees in the yard each only 20' from them. Each tree is also 20' from each other. But there are no other sources of cover/concealment within 80' of those trees. One of the men makes a break for the tree, he gets behind it. Well now he has Full Cover and could probably use Stealth. But it would be stupid. The other guy knows exactly where he ran to and can just follow him over. Once he moves to a position where the first man no longer has cover from him, he will become plainly visible (perception check DC 0).
Side note: Some people would argue that numbers 2 and 3 would still not allow a Stealth check without first using a distraction. I believe I have been on that side of the argument in the past, IIRC. However, the distraction mechanic highlights the fact that all you need is a momentary break in visual observation to perform Stealth (against vision based enemies). Both Total Concealment and Full Cover provide a complete break in visual observation as well so I think they qualify, they are just far more situational and not as reliable.
This is also a good example scenario posted by Honorable Goblin:
Say an adventurer is fighting a brigand in an area of normal light. 10 feet behind the adventurer is a large pillar (large enough to grant total cover), and 10 feet to the right of the pillar is an area of darkness (say from a permanent Darkness spell). The adventurer wants to get away via stealth.
....
Now let's say the adventurer is not confident in his ability to bluff the brigand. He could move to behind the pillar normally (let's ignore the widthdraw action, so he provokes an AoO but it misses), then use stealth from behind the pillar to sneak into the area of darkness. If the brigand fail his perception check, he thinks the adventure is still behind the pillar; if he succeeds, he sees the adventurer move into the darkness.
So in your scenario, someone moves (NOT bluffs) behind Total Cover but you say trying to use Stealth would be pointless (and I see your argument). But in the Goblin's scenario which you endorse, someone moves (NOT bluffs) behind Total Cover and then uses Stealth.
Isn't there an inconsistency here? Can you please clarify?
With regards to being observed and using stealth:
Shadowlord covers it rather well.
We imagine a bonfire, shedding light in 20ft radius circle, shedding dim light a further 20 ft, and then nothing but inky, black night. Around this bonfire sits 4 humans. Danny is trying to sneak up on them. Despite being a human himself, and having no darkvision, Danny can see the light of the campfire perfectly well, so he moves closer. When he reaches a distance of around 200 ft, he starts stealthing, to be on the safe side. We assume Danny is taking 10 with a +10 to stealth and the people around the fire are taking 10, with a +4 perception, and a -5 penalty for being distracted, since they’re presently debating something relevant to their interests.
Danny sneaks into the dim light around the bonfire, and is now 25 ft away from the closest enemy. Still no problems, in regards to perception vs stealth. But then something annoying happens. An owl hoots, particularly close by, and one of humans around the bonfire stops taking 10, and rolls a regular perception to try to spot it. He does not count as distracted for this purpose. Not only is he now a threat to Danny’s stealth, but he actually rolls a 20. 24 beats Danny’s stealth check of 20, and the man jumps to his feat and shouts for his buddies to notice Danny, sneaking up on them. Danny freezes where he stands, ready to react, as the other people jump to their feet and, despite a +2 bonus on their perception checks, fail to notice him. Danny, despite being observed by one enemy, can still stealth with regards to the other people, who have yet to beat his stealth check. However, he cannot stealth with regards to the enemy observing him, even though he has concealment. He needs to find some way of making himself unobserved. Danny can do several things to make this happen.
He could quickly use a move action to stealth behind a tree. The stealth would not work against one of his foes, but the rest would remain oblivious to his movement, and once behind the tree, he breaks line of sight, to the one enemy observing him. He can now no longer clearly observe Danny, and Danny can use another movement to stealth further into the dim light, trying to get evade his enemies.
He could also attempt a bluff check to distract his enemy. While I’d usually equate this to, for example, pointing over the shoulder of someone and shouting “what is that, behind you?!”, nowhere does it say that you have make a vocal bluff. I could see this, being Danny crouching down, making himself smaller and harder to observe, then rolling sideways, whipping his cape around and tossing up a handful of leaves, effectively tricking the observing enemy’s eyes, permitting Danny to stealth back out into darkness while he’s distracted.
Or, of course, Danny could just remain observed and walk back another 20 feet, planting him solidly outside the dim light, back out in the darkness, where his human enemy can no longer observe anything. Once out here, Danny could begin stealthing again.
-Nearyn
NOTHING in the Stealth rules lets you deny DEX to your opponent.
This is a misconception that has been laid to rest by Jason Bulmahn, a Lead Designer.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pt9j&page=2?Stealth-Errata#64 :
"Creatures are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC 'if they cannot react to a blow' (CR pg 179 under AC). It was our intent that if you are unaware of a threat, you cannot react to a blow."
RAW (Stealth) : "Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you".
Put the two together, and you cannot deny the fact that if your target fails their S/P check against you, they are denied their DEX bonus against your attack.
DM_Blake, Shadowlord : I get it now about "unobserved AND C/C". I actually sort of had it before, but wasn't thinking straight when I wrote that. However, it generated lots of very helpful discussion, so thanks!
Shadowlord, I rather like using the RAW example of distraction as a guideline for the "unobserved and C/C", and your extension to it of Total C/C as providing the same.
So (for all), to summarize :
As you move from C/C to C/C, everyone within line-of-sight makes a S/P check. If they win, you’re "observed" at the end of your round.
So there's 4 possible situations you could find yourself in (PER observer unfortunately, which gets complicated) :
1. In partial C/C, observed --> standard C/C rules apply to being attacked; you cannot use Stealth next round
2. In partial C/C, un-observed --> no one knows you’re there so you can't be attacked; you can use Stealth next round
3. In total C/C, observed --> standard C/C rules apply to being attacked; you might or might not be able to use Stealth next round (this one is highly debatable)
4. In total C/C, un-observed --> no one knows you’re there so you can't be attacked; you can use Stealth next round
Is that the general consensus?
Any comments on whether you can or can't use Stealth in #3? This would be assuming you do NOT have another Move action to "re-Stealth" at the end of the round in which you were observed.
P.S. - I'm coming to the conclusion that the best way to describe the rules for Stealth is by example, and everyone's here have been great. I may collect them and post them here as a single post in a day or two.
Nearyn - thanks for your discussion of Question #4. I've already switched sides to the "you're un-targetable if you succeed in a S/P check" camp, but every example helps clarify something.
And you also seem to agree with the Honorable Goblin example posted by Shadowlord that once observed, if you break line-of-sight by any means (ducking behind a tree in your example), you can then "use Stealth" again. Altho I would just want to add that it's a Large tree, so he has Total Cover.
How would you respond to Shadowlord's suggestion that since the enemy in your example who originally spotted Danny sneaking up to the campfire KNOWS Danny is behind the tree (even if he can't see him), using Stealth would be pointless?
How would you respond to Shadowlord's suggestion that since the enemy in your example who originally spotted Danny sneaking up to the campfire KNOWS Danny is behind the tree (even if he can't see him), using Stealth would be pointless?
I'd argue that from a RAI perspective, Danny should be able to stealth again once his enemy can no longer clearly observe him. Danny could be anywhere, once behind the tree. He could be sneaking backwards, while keeping the tree between them. He could be prone, crawling along the dark forest floor, or sneaking in any number of directions. He could be stealthily climbing up the tree for all they know. The shadowy area(dim light) could cheat their senses before Danny was spotted, and I believe it continues to be able to do so, once the character can no longer clearly observe his target.
Perception must be rolled once more.
From a RAW perspective, I am uncertain, since I do not know if there is a clear definition of how a character comes to "observe" another character, and what ways exist that stops said character from "observing" his target. There are alot of ways it could be easily argued to work, but if they are clearly supported in the rules, I do not know. Actually I doubt that it has been spelled out, with any degree of precision.
So without knowing for certain whether there is actual rules text, spelling out how observation of someone else is obtained and lost, I'd argue that in this case, the GM is supposed to rule based on what seems to make sense. This is of course a dubious solution, especially in cases of organized play.
-Nearyn
Ok all, Question #7 : can a creature "use Stealth" while not moving?
Example : Danny hears the guard coming from around the corner, and moves over to behind a pillar that provides *partial* C/C.
By RAW, he is still visible. When the guard rounds the corner (assuming sufficient light, etc.), Danny is doomed.
But if he was Stealthed, then the guard must win a S/P check to see him.
The reason I ask is RAW says (Stealth) :
"Action : Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of moveMENT, so it doesn't take a separate action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a Move action."
So (by extension of the Sniping wording) would you allow Danny a Move action (if he had one) to "use Stealth" once he was behind the pillar? Why or why not?
If it takes him 2 Move actions to get there, is there nothing he can do?
Or, since he is unobserved (for the moment), can he "use Stealth" as part of his movement to the pillar, even tho "using Stealth" usually implies a S/P check?
Or not, since you need to be "unobserved AND (already) in C/C" to use Stealth? The requirement to already be in C/C seems to just be a set-up for "breaking stealth", so would you let him use Stealth as he moves to the pillar if he's unobserved?
I guess I'm not seeing any way according to the RAW to allow someone in *partial* C/C to just "hide better" without moving...
Nearyn -
I would agree with your initial RAI (that Danny should be able to Stealth again), and might even argue that it's RAW, because RAW says nothing about observers "knowing" where you are, only about...well, observing...where you are.
So even if they've spotted you, once they can't observe you (and you're in C/C), you're free to use Stealth again.
But still, you'd have to be in Total C/C to satisfy both conditions at once, yes?
Question #7 : can a creature "use Stealth" while not moving?
...followed by stuff
I'm thinking movement is closer to home than move-action in this case.
A person who is standing behind a chest-high wall, when someone comes along that he'd like hide from, rolls his stealth. Now I assume that in this case, the movement that is spoken of, would be him ducking down behind the chest-high wall, rather than him just standing there (technically in cover) and just stepping 5 ft to the right and then being stealthed.
This is of course, opinion.
But still, you'd have to be in Total C/C to satisfy both conditions at once, yes?
That'd be my ruling, yes. You'd need to be in cover, such that the enemy cannot trace a line from his square, to your square, without cutting through something. If your enemy can trace a line from his square to yours, then he can still observe a part of you (like your shoulder for instance) and you'd be unable to stealth, until you had fully broken LoS. So if you're trying to stealth from pursuers in a forest, you don't necessarily need to find a big tree, but a few smaller trees, sufficiently densely packed, could potentially make it so it was not possible to see you, and that would permit a stealth check.
-Nearyn
@ DM Blake
Check THIS POST
PRD was inaccurate. The actual errata says observers treat you as if you had total concealment if your Stealth is successful.
....
As far as the circular nature of concealment granting stealth and stealth granding concealment; what do you think of my explaination of that sentence?
I really think that inclusion of concealment (or by errata total concealment) is for only two things: 1. To say Stealth grants Sneak Attack and 2. To set the stage for the "breaking Stealth" rule insertion. That counters the "if you step away from cover/concealment you lose Stealth and go to Perception DC 0 to be observed.
Huzzah!
Ok, I'm going to address several things, one per post. Bold in the following quote was added by me.
Example 2: Now say two humans are fighting in broad daylight in front of a farm house. There are five very large, very old trees in the yard each only 20' from them. Each tree is also 20' from each other. But there are no other sources of cover/concealment within 80' of those trees. One of the men makes a break for the tree, he gets behind it. Well now he has Full Cover and could probably use Stealth. But it would be stupid. The other guy knows exactly where he ran to and can just follow him over. Once he moves to a position where the first man no longer has cover from him, he will become plainly visible (perception check DC 0).
Side note: Some people would argue that numbers 2 and 3 would still not allow a Stealth check without first using a distraction. I believe I have been on that side of the argument in the past, IIRC. However, the distraction mechanic highlights the fact that all you need is a momentary break in visual observation to perform Stealth (against vision based enemies). Both Total Concealment and Full Cover provide a complete break in visual observation as well so I think they qualify, they are just far more situational and not as reliable.
This is also a good example scenario posted by Honorable Goblin:
Say an adventurer is fighting a brigand in an area of normal light. 10 feet behind the adventurer is a large pillar (large enough to grant total cover), and 10 feet to the right of the pillar is an area of darkness (say from a permanent Darkness spell). The adventurer wants to get away via stealth.
....
Now let's say the adventurer is not confident in his ability to bluff the brigand. He could move to behind the pillar normally (let's ignore the widthdraw action, so he provokes an AoO but it misses), then use stealth from behind the pillar to sneak into the area of darkness. If the brigand fail his perception check, he thinks the adventure is still behind the pillar; if he succeeds, he sees the adventurer move into the darkness.So in your scenario, someone moves (NOT bluffs) behind Total Cover but you say trying to use Stealth would be pointless (and I see your argument). But in the Goblin's scenario which you endorse, someone moves (NOT bluffs) behind Total Cover and then uses Stealth.
Isn't there an inconsistency here? Can you please clarify?
They are actually not inconsistent, it's just rather hard to explain and create examples for, and highly situational.
1. In my example of a guy simply running behind one of 5 trees without a bluff check it is completely pointless. The other guy simply follows the first guy around the tree and his cover is lost, leaving him no other means of cover/concealment meaning he becomes plainly visible with a perception DC 0.
2. In Honorable Goblins example there are two possibilities for cover/concealment and two scenarios. A)The adventurer bluffs for distraction then hides behind the pillar, leaving his enemy unsure if he went behind the pillar or into the darkness. B) The adventurer doesn't bluff for distraction. He runs off behind the pillar and hopes that break in observation will be enough to slip his enemy's gaze. He uses Stealth behind the pillar and then runs from there into the darkness. If successful his enemy will believe he is simply standing behind the pillar. If he fails his enemy knows he went into the darkness. The darkness does grant Total Concealment so the adventurer might go unseen even still, unless his enemy has darkvision.
.....
They are just different examples and situations of the same idea. The idea being, if I break observation I can use Stealth. The problem is, once you have Stealth where do you go from there. If you don't distract your observer first they will see right where you ran to for Stealth. If they see where you went they can follow you. And if you are still there when they get there you will likely lose cover/concealment making you plainly visible.
Its like you and your brother squabbling and he runs behind a couch to hide. Can you see him, NO. Do you know exactly where he is, YES. Can you move behind the couch to regain visual contact, EASILY. But perhaps he's a little ninja and you didn't realize it, perhaps when you move behind the couch he is no longer there and has in fact made it to another hiding place without being spotted.
On the other hand, if he had pelted you in the face with a stuffed animal first (distraction) you might not even know he went behind the couch in the first place. Then you have to decide where to look: couch, table, closet, or even another room.
I hope that makes some sense.
Nearyn - thanks for your discussion of Question #4. I've already switched sides to the "you're un-targetable if you succeed in a S/P check" camp, but every example helps clarify something.
And you also seem to agree with the Honorable Goblin example posted by Shadowlord that once observed, if you break line-of-sight by any means (ducking behind a tree in your example), you can then "use Stealth" again. Altho I would just want to add that it's a Large tree, so he has Total Cover.
How would you respond to Shadowlord's suggestion that since the enemy in your example who originally spotted Danny sneaking up to the campfire KNOWS Danny is behind the tree (even if he can't see him), using Stealth would be pointless?
Nearyn's example was excellent. However, his example is quite different from mine. In my example when the second guy follows the first guy behind the tree there is NO other c/c to hide in. He becomes plainly visible once the cover granted by the tree is taken away. In Nearyn's example once his rogue breaks visual contact with his observer there is an endless area of dim light and darkness to provide concealment. Even if his rogue stayed right behind the tree, if the observer followed him around it eliminates the cover but not the concealment form dim light/darkness. The rogue still has concealment so he keeps his Stealth score and the pursuer still has to roll Perception to spot him. Alternately, the rogue may very well have broken observation with the darkness or the tree and then kept moving, made a few random turns so as not to flee in a straight line. In either case the pursuer can't possibly know which way the rogue went after breaking visual contact.
Question 7: As far as action economy for Stealth, there are two ways you could read the relevant text.
Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.
The first way is the way most people tend to see it:
1) Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action.
2) However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.
The second way is how I prefer to view it:
1) Usually none.
2) Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action.
3) However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.
Note that either way you look at it the 5 foot step is classified as a movement and thus qualifies for triggering Stealth use.
You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement.
Both by the common sense dictionary definition or by interpreting the rules of 5-foot steps you can safely call the 5-foot step a movement. So, yes the 5-foot step is sufficient for making a Stealth check.
...
Separately, under the second interpretation that I subscribe to it is perfectly acceptable to take no action at all (Usually none) and I back this up with several situational examples and at least one bit of RAW that seems to support it.
Example 1: Suppose someone is already standing in the shadowy corner of a dimly lit room. Do you think he has to take any particular action to stand perfectly still in Stealth while the human occupant of the house walks by?
Example 2: Suppose someone is crouching down behind a desk looking for a secret compartment. Do you think he should have to perform any particular action to stay crouched in Stealth if someone opens the door to the study and looks in?
Those are just two very simple scenarios that IMO highlight the fact that Stealth can indeed be used with no action. Then there is this bit of the invisibility description that points at the fact that you can be perfectly still taking no movement and still use Stealth.
If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving.
Before someone says, "Of course you can choose to sacrifice your move action to remain perfectly still," remember that there is one, and only one, situation where Stealth sucks up your entire Move Action, that is while Sniping. Sniping is a very unique circumstance and if done right you are never seen at all throughout the attack, so obviously it should take a great deal of additional effort to perform Stealth under that circumstance.
Ok all, Question #7 : can a creature "use Stealth" while not moving?
Example : Danny hears the guard coming from around the corner, and moves over to behind a pillar that provides *partial* C/C.
By RAW, he is still visible. When the guard rounds the corner (assuming sufficient light, etc.), Danny is doomed.
But if he was Stealthed, then the guard must win a S/P check to see him.
Any cover/concealment (partial or total) is sufficient for using Stealth. The only problem with that is if you are already being actively "observed." In this case Danny is using the partial cover to roll for Stealth before he becomes observed by the guard. This forces a S/P check. Thus granting Danny the ability to avoid detection as the guard walks by, as long as he wins the S/P battle.
The reason I ask is RAW says (Stealth) :
"Action : Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of moveMENT, so it doesn't take a separate action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a Move action."
I address Stealth action economy in my previous post.
So (by extension of the Sniping wording) would you allow Danny a Move action (if he had one) to "use Stealth" once he was behind the pillar? Why or why not?
Sniping is a VERY specific maneuver and probably shouldn't be compared to any other Stealth situation. During a Sniping maneuver you never actually move. You remain perfectly still and fire a shot. After that shot your entire Move Action is eaten up by a Stealth check to maintain your unobserved location. Sniping isn't about moving and "re-entering" Stealth after an attack, it's about staying perfectly still and, with a great deal of effort/expertise, "maintaining" stealth through the entire maneuver.
If it takes him 2 Move actions to get there, is there nothing he can do?
He can double move in one turn. Use up both his Move Action and Standard Action to move double his base speed. You just can't run.
Hampered Movement: Difficult terrain, obstacles, or poor visibility can hamper movement.
Movement in Combat: Generally, you can move your speed in a round and still do something (take a move action and a standard action).
If you do nothing but move (that is, if you use both of your actions in a round to move your speed), you can move double your speed.
Or, since he is unobserved (for the moment), can he "use Stealth" as part of his movement to the pillar, even tho "using Stealth" usually implies a S/P check?
Or not, since you need to be "unobserved AND (already) in C/C" to use Stealth? The requirement to already be in C/C seems to just be a set-up for "breaking stealth", so would you let him use Stealth as he moves to the pillar if he's unobserved?
He can use Stealth to move to the pillar. It would represent him moving silently to the pillar. And he DOES have full cover until the guard comes around the corner. His full cover is provided by the fact that the guard can't see him through a wall. C/C isn't always about standing directly in concealment or standing pressed up against something that grants cover. It's also about whether there is any form of C/C between you and the observer that will interrupt direct line of sight.
I guess I'm not seeing any way according to the RAW to allow someone in *partial* C/C to just "hide better" without moving...
Hopefully what I wrote will clear some things up. Let me know if you have any questions.
Shadowlord - your explanation for the "inconsistency" question was what I was suspecting, different examples demonstrating different situations.
(However, now I can't get this Monty Python skit out of my head - the guy Bluffs you, you turn back and in a sunny, open field there's only 3 bushes. Altho according to RAW you have "no idea" where he is and he can now use Stealth, all you need to do is walk over to the other side of the bushes...or Fireball each one...)
Between your last two posts, you did clear things up as to whether or not you think someone can use Stealth without moving. The 2 examples ("standing in Dim light", and "under a desk") make perfect sense.
ALL - while I would definitely appreciate any further comments on my last two questions (especially whether you agree or disagree with the 4 "states" you end your move-with-Stealth round in [because I'm assuming a lack of comments on that means no one disagrees], and whether you can Stealth without moving), I don't have any other questions at this time.