Stealth without bluff check in concealment even if observed?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 96 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I know concealment makes stealth checks possible but my understanding was that if you begin your turn observed you need to create a diversion to take advantage of the concealment. Have I been interpreting this wrong?

The Exchange

.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My understanding is that in the context of stealth observed really means "no cover or concealment". If you have 20% concealment then you are "not observed" even if they can see you.

However, like all stealth rules they are written so badly that it is anyone's guess what they really mean.


Interesting. Thanks Gauss. Never considered that.


Gauss wrote:
My understanding is that in the context of stealth observed really means "no cover or concealment". If you have 20% concealment then you are "not observed" even if they can see you.

...No. There is no way to get this out of the rules. At all.

Observed and concealed are two completely separate clauses for a reason. This is combining them.

There is no justification, at all, to say that you aren't observing someone because they're blurry or because of a little smoke.


That's my position as well BNW.


BNW, yes there is a way to get this out of the rules and can you show me where "Observed" is a separate clause at all?

Here are the totality of the rules regarding being observed:

CRB p106 wrote:

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. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.

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. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make an attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).

What is the summary here?

1) If people are observing you using any sense you cannot use stealth.
2) If you have cover or concealment you can use stealth.
3) If observers are distracted then you can attempt to use stealth to get to an un-observed place of some kind.

Thus, based on that, cover or concealment does not qualify as being observed since you are already in a place you can use stealth.
Simple deductive reasoning.


Here's how I parse that:

Concealment makes it possible to make a stealth check, but what does a stealth check represent?

Stealth is for avoiding detection. You make a stealth check when you have not been detected, and you wish to remain undetected. Concealment makes this possible. If you have already been detected, concealment does not change that fact.

PRD quotes:

PRD wrote:


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. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.

Bolding mine.

PRD wrote:


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.

If you are not being observed, you can go from concealment to concealment, using stealth, to remain unobserved. Concealment in itself does not make it possible to suddenly become unobserved.

PRD wrote:


Creating a Diversion to Hide

You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.

It sounds to me like if people are aware of you, and you want to use concealment to make a stealth check, it's time for a bluff check.

This all seems fair and makes sense to me.

A dumpster is a good place to hide from a bully, but if the bully watches you climb in the dumpster, then a dumpster is a terrible place to hide.

Remember playing "hide and go seek"? The seeker always closed his eyes while you hid. The game would have been short if he hadn't.

Note: The rules fail to define the action cost of "creating a diversion to hide". I've been told that it's comparable to a feint and therefore is a standard action. I rule that it is a free action performed as part of the move. Don't try to pass this off as legal in PFS, but it is how I run stealth ;)


Dotting. I personally prefer "no", but I could see this getting ruled both ways. Perhaps we need a FAQ.


It would be nice and simple the other way. Simple is good.


I prefer no, and unless there is a clarification to the contrary I will contend that this is the case.


U need to make a bluff check to get to a place that has concealment with a minus 10 to stealth check. Basically u lie and say whats that over there and try to quietly and quickly get behind that tree before they turn around.
U succeed with the penalty they didnt hear or notice u gone until they turned around.
u fail they either heard or noticed u trying to take off.
u succeed with penalty but there is no tree then they notice where u are now away from where u was.

Its just a way for someone whos observed to get into a concealed area at end of their turn to become and remain stealth.


Ok, there appears to be some confusion as to my stance. My understanding of the original question was (paraphrased for simplicity) "If you begin your turn observed but in cover or concealment can you use stealth?".

To answer that I present three scenarios:

1) You have Cover (not total cover) and they can see you. Can you use stealth?
My interpretation of the rules (based on my previous post) is yes because you have cover and thus falls under the clause that states you can use stealth because you have cover.

2) You have Concealment (not total concealment) and they can see you. Can you use stealth?
My interprestation of the rules (based on my previous post) is yes because you have concealment and thus falls under the clause that states you can use stealth because you have concealment.

3) You do not have Cover or Concealment. Can you use Stealth?
No, not without providing a distraction (such as bluff) to give you the chance to get to cover or concealment.

If #1 and #2 are "No" then it basically restricts stealth to total concealment and total cover unless you distract them. I have never seen stealth run this way and I do not believe the rules support this stance (as stated in my previous post).


On the broad since, I agree with Claxon. There are a couple specific examples where the case is yes, such as Hide in Plain Sight class ability or the Heretic Judgement class ability.


Gauss if you have time can you check out my post above in detail? (The one with the PRD quotes spoilered?) I remember you from other rules topics, you seem to have a good mind for these things. I'd like to know if you can see the thought process that leads to my interpretation.


Grimmy,

There are two ways to look at this:

Method 1 (what you appear to be advocating):
1) If you are observed you cannot use stealth.
2) If you are currently in Cover or Concealment you can stealth but must still obey #1.
3) If you provide a distraction you can stealth using or moving to #2 in violation of #1.

Method 2 (what I am advocating):
1) If you are observed you cannot use Stealth.
2) If you are currently in Cover or Concealment you can stealth. This is a separate statement from #1 and overrides it by providing a different clause under which you can use stealth.
3) If you provide a distraction you can stealth moving to #2 in violation of #1.

We are reading the exact same rules but coming up with two completely different interpretations based on those rules. This is pretty much par for the course when it comes to stealth. It's why they tried to clean up the Stealth rules with the stealth playtest.


Maybe it will help:
Paizo blog on stealth

About "observing creatures":

Quote:
When you make your Stealth check, those creatures that didn't succeed at the opposed roll treat you as hidden until the start of your next action or until the end of your turn if you do not end your turn with cover or concealment. You are not hidden from creatures that are observing you (creatures that you didn't have cover or concealment from) or that succeed at the opposed check.

I'll add something:

Any creature need a perception check to notice someone who is visible. The original check is DC 0, but you add then +1 for every 10ft, then if the creature is distracted, add another +5.

At lower level, if someone is discussing with a guard, and you're lucky, you maybe can sneak up without a check. Still risky.


HectorVivis, thank you for posting the RAI (it is not RAW since the playtest did not become RAW). That is pretty clear that observed means creatures that you do not have cover or concealment from.


For what it's worth, I agree with Gauss.

It seems like Bluff is being used to be like "What's that over there!?" *dives behind barrel*

Meanwhile Stealth specifically says that you can use it when you have A) cover, B) concealment, and it says this in a way as to make them an exception to the observation thing.


Gauss wrote:

What is the summary here?

1) If people are observing you using any sense you cannot use stealth.
2) If you have cover or concealment you can use stealth.
3) If observers are distracted then you can attempt to use stealth to get to an un-observed place of some kind.

Your own logic says the exact opposite of your conclusion. If you could stealth in cover or concealment then why would the distraction be necessary at all?


Uh oh, my Sifu Ashiel who practically taught me the game disagrees with me!!


I guess it comes down to what is observing?

For me, if someone is talking to me, looking at me, swinging a sword at me with only a 20% chance of missing due to my concealment, they are most certainly observing me.

Sure they might be more likely to lose track of me looking away for a second if I have concealment, but that is exactly what I use the bluff check to represent.


Ashiel wrote:

For what it's worth, I agree with Gauss.

It seems like Bluff is being used to be like "What's that over there!?" *dives behind barrel*

Meanwhile Stealth specifically says that you can use it when you have A) cover, B) concealment, and it says this in a way as to make them an exception to the observation thing.

A cover

B concealment
C observed

You need (A or B) AND Not C. In your own example, why not simply go behind the barrel and then stealth? Or heck, why snipe at all when you can just claim cover and stealth from where you are?


That is certainly how it reads to me. (A or B) and not C.

I think stealth is for remaining unobserved, not becoming unobserved.

So yes, you can use it when you have concealment, but not to go *poof*. That is never what it was for in the first place.


Grimmy wrote:
Uh oh, my Sifu Ashiel who practically taught me the game disagrees with me!!

Sorry Grimmy. ^.^"

If it makes you feel any better, Bruce Lee didn't always see eye to eye with his Wing Chun teacher either. :P

Though that's the way I've always ran it / seen it ran in the games I've been a part of. I mean, if you didn't work that way, turning invisible would mean nothing because you'd need a bluff check to attempt to hide.

And if you were in a pitch black room, and someone said something in the darkness, even if you couldn't see them, once you had observed their presence they couldn't hide in the darkness anymore.

And if you have someone using a cloaking device like the predator (or a magical equivalent) then you couldn't hide from anyone who caught a glimpse of you unless you were a great liar.

It also strikes me as odd because the only reference to the Bluff check being used is in relation to distract your opponents long enough to get to cover or concealment. >_>

But at the end of the day, I'd probably recommend doing whatever makes your group happiest. I would be very dissuaded from bothering with a Stealth-based character with the alternative though.


No BigNorseWolf, my logic does not state the exact opposite of my conclusion. You do not need to use a distraction if you have cover or concealment.

You do need to use a distraction to move unobserved to a place where you can continue to be unobserved such as with cover or concealment.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

For what it's worth, I agree with Gauss.

It seems like Bluff is being used to be like "What's that over there!?" *dives behind barrel*

Meanwhile Stealth specifically says that you can use it when you have A) cover, B) concealment, and it says this in a way as to make them an exception to the observation thing.

A cover

B concealment
C observed

You need (A or B) AND Not C. In your own example, why not simply go behind the barrel and then stealth? Or heck, why snipe at all when you can just claim cover and stealth from where you are?

Well mostly because they now know which barrel you went behind, so they can just walk around that barrel and voila, no more cover/concealment = no more stealth.

Whereas if you're standing in a forest, bluff, then hide behind a tree, God knows where you went...


Gauss wrote:

No BigNorseWolf, my logic does not state the exact opposite of my conclusion. You do not need to use a distraction if you have cover or concealment.

You do need to use a distraction to move unobserved to a place where you can continue to be unobserved such as with cover or concealment.

Ah yes, the dreaded open hallway issue. Where you have a hallway shaped like a "T" and you're trying to cross the intersection and there's a guy in the | part of the hallway. You can't Stealth from one side of the horizontal line to the other because the intersection has no cover/concealment. So you gotta make a distraction so you can slip by unnoticed.

*tosses a copper piece down the hallway, skitters past*


But yeah, the alternative would mean that if your party's rogue activates their ring of invisibility during combat, everyone automatically knows where he is unless he makes a bluff check, even if he activated it and then with perfect silence walked away from where he was standing.

Why? Because he can't Stealth. He has total concealment (invisibility) and a +20 to Stealth, and for all we know he's got another +33 to Stealth for having a +10 Dex and 20 ranks in Stealth, but everyone knows exactly where he is as he moves around until he makes a successful Bluff check.


BTW, for those people who are arguing that a bit of fog is not enough to prevent you from being observed, I would like to point out that you can stand 5' away from a person that is hidden by nothing but a bit of fog (20% concealment).

Reality really has no bearing on this. The rules (whether for good or ill) state all you need is concealment to use stealth.

The problem is, the stealth rules are anemic compared to the sheer number or permutations and exceptions not to mention people's varying ideas of how the stealth rules should work. The playtest tried to address it but it had it's own issues.


Incidentally, I do take advantage of some vagary in the rules to interpret the "create a diversion to hide" use of bluff as a free action. (I guess most people call it a standard using Feint as a precedent.)

So when a PC is being observed but has concealment wants to use stealth, I call for a bluff check but I don't charge any action cost for it.

(My players like to fluff this as simply waiting for a moment in battle when all eyes are turned.)

I dunno, this is my way of making sense of some confusing rules without feeling like I'm too far out in house-rule territory.

I'd love to know if there's any general consensus out there though. PFS people, how do you see this being handled in society play?


In any case, best of luck guys. I hope you all get this worked out. I'd love to stay and chit-chat, but I'm making a vampire (extremely toned down and wonderfully nerfed version that barely resembles the Pathfinder version save for that it drinks blood and stuff) PC for a friend's game, and I'm trying to work out my starting equipment budget and discuss her motivations & stuff with my GM. ^_^


HectorVivis wrote:
Any creature need a perception check to notice someone who is visible. The original check is DC 0, but you add then +1 for every 10ft, then if the creature is distracted, add another +5.

Unless that someone is a fine detail then perception is not needed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

You can either read that as a direct contradiction, that concealment/cover blocks observation, or that you need both to not be observed to hide AND you need something to hide behind.

Saying that cover blocks observation gets silly quickly. You would not be able to see an opponent around a corner (who has cover), even though you can swing at him with a mere -4. Are you also going to throw a 50% miss chance on him? This is on top of the patently absurd assault on the english language required to say that you can't observe a 6 foot tall orc standing behind a 3 foot tall wall.

Why would there be a stealth penalty to snipe at all by your ruling? I could simply shoot, they see me, i move behind a tree to stealth, and then i keep stealthing to another location so they don't know what tree i'm behind.


Someone pointed this out to me. Might have some bearing.

pfsrd wrote:


In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. Some creatures, such as those with light sensitivity and light blindness, take penalties while in areas of bright light. A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover. Areas of bright light include outside in direct sunshine and inside the area of a daylight spell.
Normal light functions just like bright light, but characters with light sensitivity and light blindness do not take penalties. Areas of normal light include underneath a forest canopy during the day, within 20 feet of a torch, and inside the area of a light spell.
In an area of dim light, a character can see somewhat. Creatures within this area have concealment (20% miss chance in combat) from those without darkvision or the ability to see in darkness. A creature within an area of dim light can make a Stealth check to conceal itself. Areas of dim light include outside at night with a moon in the sky, bright starlight, and the area between 20 and 40 feet from a torch.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really think it depends on how the scenario is taking place. The rules should not be so black and white if a player can give a convincing argument.

Let's say two men are talking and one is standing behind a wall and it comes up to his shoulders. The man behind the wall is partially concealed and observed by the other man.

Now let's say the man behind the wall ducks below the wall while having a conversation. In that instant he becomes totally concealed. Now if he does not speak, he could attempt to use stealth without a bluff check.

During that time the man who just ducked can try to sneak along the base of the wall and move to a new location. Until the other man actually looks over the wall, he won't know where the hidden man is. He will just assume he is crouching in the same spot.

Maybe the other man is confused by the man who ducked behind the wall. He waits a few moments and calls the other man's name. When there is no response he decides to peek over the wall. If the hidden man made successful stealth attempts and there were other places for him to hide, when the other man looks over the wall he may not be able to find him.

I think logic is the key factor in what should be allowed. If the wall was ankle high then the 5% concealment would not be enough and a bluff check needs to be made.


Well BigNorseWolf, regarding absurdity, with so many absurdities (firing muzzleloaders faster than once every 20 seconds, guys fully weighed down by equipment still able to swim non-magically, a guy with a longspear able to "put it away", the absurdities continue) already present in Pathfinder what is one more?

Either the rule is interpreted as an "AND NOT" statement as you suggest or it is an "OR" statement as I suggest. As HectorVivas so kindly pointed out, the Stealth Playtest indicates it is an "OR" so that may provide some guidance.

In any case, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. Like I said earlier, the stealth rules are anemic and in need or being re-written. I wish Paizo has continued to pursue the Stealth re-write but they did not.


Gauss wrote:
Well BigNorseWolf, regarding absurdity, with so many absurdities (firing muzzleloaders faster than once every 20 seconds, guys fully weighed down by equipment still able to swim non-magically, a guy with a longspear able to "put it away", the absurdities continue) already present in Pathfinder what is one more?

Saying that an orc standing behing a 3 foot tall wall isn't observed is not an absurdity within the rules. Its rules layering shenanigans.

Its ab absurdity entirely of your own making, that you're pursuing without regards for evidence, sense, reasoning, and to the exclusion of a perfectly viable alternative that you can't articulate a problem with.

Quote:
Either the rule is interpreted as an "AND NOT" statement as you suggest or it is an "OR" statement as I suggest. As HectorVivas so kindly pointed out, the Stealth Playtest indicates it is an "OR" so that may provide some guidance.

No. it does not suggest "or" at all. Go look at the entire thread. The stealther in that example is starting unobserved. He ends unobserved and behind cover. In fact, half the reason for the revision is because my reading is correct. By yours it never would have been necessary, they could simply re enter stealth on the other side.


BigNorseWolf, you state I should read it but perhaps you should read the playtest.

Stealth Playtest round 2 wrote:
Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. If you do not have cover or concealment, as a swift action, you can attempt a Bluff check opposed by the Sense Motive of opponents that can see you. If you are successful, you are considered to have concealment from those creatures (but you do not gain the percent miss chance from concealment) until the end of your next action, you make an attack (as defined in the Attacking while Hidden section, above), or the end of your turn, whichever happens first.

The bolded section states if you do not have cover or concealment THEN you can attempt the bluff check to provide a distraction.

IOW, if you DO have cover or concealment you do not need to make a bluff check and thus do not need to provide a distraction.

The intent in the playtest is pretty clear, you do not need to create a diversion if you are already behind cover or you have concealment. Now, as I stated before, that is the playtest intent, not necessarily the CRB but it does provide an indication of the designers thoughts and direction.

Finally, please cease your insults. It is not necessary to insult people in order carry on a rules discussion. I have provided evidence, and sense, and reasoning, and just because it does not match your own does not give you license to insult.


Well that is something that could change my mind^^


Gauss wrote:
BigNorseWolf, you state I should read it but perhaps you should read the playtest.

Don't need to. I was there the first time. Which is why i remembered this

Question: So if I understand correctly, anyone can, while standing in plain sight, attempt to feint as a swift action and, if successful, follow it up with a stealth check to deny opponents their Dex bonus to AC (thereby allowing the feinting-hider to sneak attack if they have that class ability). And this can be done every round even if they remain right in front of everyone? Would it work with only a standard action attack or even a full-attack (for the first attack only of course)?

Answer: You would have to do this, or something like this, and you must have hide in plain sight or something similar that allows you to use Stealth in "full view" of creatures.

Now that I have, again, shown the holes in your interpretation can you demonstrate ANY problem what so ever with mine?

The way you read it

-completely invalidates sniping
-relies on epistemic nihlism with what being observed means
-would gran 50% concealment to people right behind a corner
-renders the bluff to hide completely irrelevant.


If you have either cover or concealment you are not in plain sight.


Gauss wrote:
If you have either cover or concealment you are not in plain sight.

Says what? A game definition? You? I mean seriously, is This guy not in plain sight?

Your definition invalidates other rules (sniping, bluff to hide) You don't just need a sensible interpretation you need an interpretation good enough to say that those sections are useless and or in complete error.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:

But yeah, the alternative would mean that if your party's rogue activates their ring of invisibility during combat, everyone automatically knows where he is unless he makes a bluff check, even if he activated it and then with perfect silence walked away from where he was standing.

The person that would be observing the rogue knows where the rogue was last seen at.

What happens next depends on circumstances.

If the rogue goes before his enemy in initiative. he can go invisible and then move. At that point we have opposed stealth vs perception checks.

If the enemy in question has readied action that goes off, it goes off depending on the trigger. If the trigger is before movement but after the ring, the rogue can be attacked with a 50 percent mis chance.

For stealth enabled by distraction, the rogue must have a readied action to take advantage of stealth. At that point, an opposed stealth-perception check can be made at the time the rogue slips out of sight. If the rogue wins the check, he' now stealthed. If he loses, the enemy still has to reacquire him visually before the rogue slips out of sight.


- Invalidating Sniping: No, it does not invalidate Sniping. Sniping allows you to attack someone from a hidden position without revealing your position.
Additionally, that is a completely different situation from the one presented.
The current situation presented is: They know where you are, while you are concealed or have cover can you stealth without first distracting them?

Stealthing from a known position using the cover/concealment available in that position still tells them your current location or starting point.

- The definition of observed is a poorly defined game term. However, in the second Stealth Playtest it is more clearly indicated to be when you do not have cover or concealment.

Perhaps you would like to address my post a few posts ago where I pointed out that according to the second Stealth Playtest using bluff to distract someone only applies to you if you do not already have cover or concealment?

- Yes, people around the corner would have 50% concealment, until you removed the cover.
This is equivalent to squeezing yourself flat against the wall. Not equivalent to your picture.
In any case, you are bringing up a real life example (the picture) when this is not real life and has no basis in real life. This is the rules forum not the "real life forum".

- Bluff to Hide is completely relevant when you have no cover or concealment. You need it to stealth when you have no cover or concealment. You do not need it to stealth when you have cover or concealment.

Regarding your statement that my definition invalidates Sniping and Bluff to Hide, as I stated before, it does not. Both are still quite valid.
Sniping still allows you to shoot from a hidden position and never be revealed.
Bluff to Hide still allows you to stealth without being in any cover or concealment. You can then move to a position where you have cover or concealment without the observer knowing where you went.


Quote:
Invalidating Sniping: No, it does not invalidate Sniping. Sniping allows you to attack someone from a hidden position without revealing your position.

You could be anywhere in a 30 foot radius of where the shot came from. They'll have almost as much info as that by judging which way the arrow is sticking out of their butt.

Quote:
They know where you are, while you are concealed or have cover can you stealth without first distracting them?

And the answer is clearly no. Thats the entire point of saying that they need hide in plain sight: to eliminate the observed clause.

Hide in plain sight and camouflage are completely separate abilities.

Quote:
- The definition of observed is a poorly defined game term.

Or its not a game term at all and instead its plain english.

Are there any dramatic, game altering, or reality warping effects from reading it the way I am? Whats the downside?

Quote:
However, in the second Stealth Playtest it is more clearly indicated to be when you do not have cover or concealment.

Where is this clear definition made? Its not in your above argument.

Quote:
Perhaps you would like to address my post a few posts ago where I pointed out that according to the second Stealth Playtest using bluff to distract someone only applies to you if you do not already have cover or concealment?

That was already done.

Quote:
In any case, you are bringing up a real life example (the picture) when this is not real life and has no basis in real life. This is the rules forum not the "real life forum".

You're assuming it HAS to be nonsensical because if it makes sense then you're wrong. Your ENTIRE argument is based on the idea that it has to be nonsensical AND it has to be nonsensical in that specific manner.

You can't show any fault with my reading. You can't show any nonsense that follows from that reading. It makes sense from whats there, it matches up with reality, and it matches up with the various other game terms.

Adventurers are not toddlers. They understand the idea of permanence. They do not lose track of something the second half of it is hidden from view.

Why jack b nimble can't steal a chicken


The concealement= you can stealth does seems to negate the uselfulness hide in plain sight.


Alexandros Satorum,

Hide in Plain Sight is quite useful since you can be observed and thus do not need cover or concealment to use it. Concealment allowing stealth does not negate that in any way.

BigNorseWolf,

The part where you were insulting is when you were stating that I have no sense. This debate is not insulting, your statement was.

Regarding my point about the second playtest you did not appear to address it. Perhaps you can point out where you addressed my specific point where the playtest specifically stated you make a bluff check to distract while observed when you do not have cover or concealment?

If anything, a pedantic reading of it would mean that if you have cover or concealment you cannot use bluff to distract and provide yourself concealment. A non-pedantic reading is that since you have cover or concealment you do not need to use bluff to distract and provide yourself concealment.

In any case, because Hide in Plain Sight eliminates the observed clause, it also eliminates the need for cover or concealment. Thus, Hide in Plain Sight still works.

Note: Camouflage is a weaker ability than Hide in Plain Sight.
Camouflage: It allows you to ignore the cover or concealment clause. If someone is still able to observe you (such as blindsight) then it is useless.

High in Plain Sight: Allows you to ignore the observed clause (and thus the cover and concealment clause as well). This works even against things like Blindsight because that is a form of observation.

As for "dramatic, game altering, or reality warping...." that is not the purpose of this forum. This forum is not to debate how they should work in relation to being dramatic, game altering, or reality warping. The purpose of this forum is to discuss the rules. If we want to discuss the reality of stealth we can go to a different forum.

Regarding Sniping, can you point out the rule that allows you to detect to within a 30' area where a sniping shot came from?


I am with Gauss on this one. You have to admit, no matter your position, that the Stealth rules are so bonked that by RAW you don't get sneak attack when attacking from stealth.

The fact that concealment and cover are what trigger the ability to make a stealth check against a person is less of a leap of logic than the ability to sneak attack (deny a target AC from dexterity) from stealth.

I think we all know that Stealth allows Sneak Attack.

I have been playing the way Gauss states since 3.5. I have looked at it many times and keep coming back to his way.

As to the barrel or wall, yeah, the character ducks behind it and they have the chance to stealth. It doesn't mean you have no clue where they are. It means that you don't know exactly where they are.

In a recent training exercise (M4s and Simunition rounds) I hid behind a tree while I was being shot at. Everyone knew where I was. But because I could pop out on either side and return fire, I got the jump on my enemy and took him out.

I believe THAT is the way in which stealth is being applied in this manner.

Hide in Plain sight is still EXTREMELY useful when stealth is played this way.

If you don't play this way, then no one could disappear in the woods, right?

And when exactly, are you not observing someone with hearing? That works through doors, over walls and around corners.


Observing is just a guy that made the perception check against your own stealth check to see you.

To go ninja, you either need cover or concealment. The guy can know (by deduction) you are there, but it's irrelevant. If he failed his check, he can't see you anymore. period.
And because you made that check, you can use this cover/concealment to change your position to avoid him coming for you anyway. he's not dumb and will try to find you.

Example:

Your round:
You cross an alley (no cover, bright light), you're spotted by a guard. You jump in a dark house, you hide behind a desk.
-> For now, you have total cover from him thank to the walls of the house (he don't have any line of sight).
-> You proceed to make a stealth check. Let's say a 18.

Guard's round:
Guard is not an idiot, he saw you, he proceed to find you in the house. He enters.
-> You don't have your total cover from him now. Only a concealment (darkness) and a cover (the desk, giving you cover from someone entering the house).
-> The guard make a perception check* to see you. he rolled a 15.

What can happen from now:
1. The guard can decide to make a better inspection, and move around the house.
-> he will probably go somewhere where your desk can't provide you cover. Still, you have concealment, so you just have to pray he don't roll better than you.

2. He can light a torch.
-> You don't have the concealment anymore. You still have your cover, see 1 for prayers.

3. He does 1 & 2.
-> Prepare to run.

That's all!

*I need to read a little, but it's early in the morning here, to see if you need to make that check as a move action, or if it's automatic.

Hide in plain sight is marvellous: You can make stealth check wherever you want. Concealment and cover ? Don't care! You can be in the middle of a desert, you could still snipe those bastards.
You still need to make checks and use the stealth rule (-5 to go at full speed, need a move action to keep sniping, etc...), except you just forget the biggest limitation to stealth: the situational cover/concealment.

1 to 50 of 96 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Stealth without bluff check in concealment even if observed? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.