That statement "you can't roll stealth if ANYONE is watching you" is silly and facetious. How does any party of 2 or more people EVER roll stealth? They both close there eyes and give each other full cover? Or do both people, while they can see each other, roll stealth (you just said they can't)?
if people opt out of trying to see you, then you can stealth, AKA, if someone doesn't care whether you roll stealth or not and isn't trying to track you, you probably could.
if your not actually trying to perceive him with your senses, do you still count as perceiving him. (note this is on a subconscious level, not like internal: IGNORE THE ROGUE)
anyway it's assumed that in any encounter there are just two sides, and your allies do not have to roll for perception. frankly if they did, it would be pedantic.
enemies are always considered trying to sense their opponents, so they always roll for opposed perception as they try to perceive them. you can purposefully fail any opposed test, but i'm questionable if that really counts as not observing them by trying to not oppose the action.
BASICALLY, stealth as a skill is worded weird and is based on weird mechanics. it's mixed with GM fluff and actual mechanics to give us rules that don't quite mesh everywhere. by RAW, if ANYONE can sense you, you can't stealth, but obviously if someone isn't opposing an action, it shouldn't apply. sort of like how you technically can stop allies from moving through your square, by just saying they're not your allies anymore, but in reverse.
I've actually looked at blur, it actually effects people ability to sense you. This is normal concealment like being in low light vision, so it's valid salad.
Also, is there a FAQ on blur's concealment somewhere that specifically outlines what everyone is claiming regarding it's use?Yeh, I searched for an actual FAQ on this... nothing. So if it grants concealment... and there is no specific statement regarding it... then report to page 196, 197... where it says TWICE:
"Cover and Stealth Checks: You can use cover to make a Stealth check. Without cover, you usually need concealment (see below) to make a Stealth check."
"Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check."
Seems like they meant it so much they put it in twice... three times if you include Stealth on page 106. "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can’t use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding (gaining) cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth (meaning; they lose the ability to observe you). 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. (meaning they momentarily lose the ability to observe you because you bluffed them)"
I'm saying blur is completely valid for stealth checks, but since invisibility is right next to it on the list, why would you?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the only possible comment is one made by SKR:
"You're not stupid. Stop acting like you don't understand that the rules are written assuming the reader isn't stupid. Stop acting like you don't understand that the rules don't have the room to spell out every possible allowed combination and spell out every disallowed combination."
(It is not about you, Bandw2)
@Bandw2:
The reason you can do silly shenanigans with a tower shield if it allows stealth checks is because of how it interacts with the following rule:
"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 and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below)."
So, as long as you start your initial dash from some other form of stealth giving cover and then always end your turn with the shield facing your opponent, you remain not only in concealment but also completely unobserved! Metal gear solid box jokes abound. Obviously I don't believe you can actually do this, but it pinpoints how far you can take things if you stretch the rules too thin, especially regarding stealth which is ALREADY a very poorly worded section.
@Maouse:
I think you're better off arguing that the tower shield and wind stance
are totally separate cases. It only hurts your stance when you try to argue metal gear shield creeping is not only allowed in the rules but also plausible realistically.
|
|
Logically, you should be able to use stealth against a person who can't observe you even if other persons can. The problem is that the published rules simply don't handle that case. There's technically nothing at all stating what benefits or penalties are applied to a person against whom you successfully use stealth, except that they "are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment". The former piece is nebulous mechanically, the latter is usually redundant since concealment is the minimum condition to use stealth in the first place. The stealth playtest a few years back was supposed to resolve this sort of thing, but it got unceremoniously dumped due to issues with "errata vs re-design" and thus is only available as a variant ruleset with GM approval.I've already argued the corner case.
I've also said the following:
even if you do get to roll stealth against the ranged attack(everyone in vision must make an opposed perception), if anyone else is observing you and not effected by the concealment, they're watching you with one of his senses and therefore you cannot stealth.
The rules about darkvision make very clear that you can have concealment against a person and not against another and that you can use stealth against the first person but not against the one with darkvision.
Torepeat again, wind stance give you concealment against ranged attacks and that is the only thing against which you can use stealth.
HIPS doesn't end in 1 round...I think no. But i also think the feat is kinda poorly written and that it should have been miss chance.
And finally i think it should have been against both melee and ranged. That would have given the fast, mobile combatant somthing nice.
But i dont think the feat gives HIPS.
i am confused about what you think the stealth options on this is then. I did follow the first thread but i May have missed this part.
Edit: i think i will house rule somthing along these Lines when i next GM because i like the sneaky moving figthing style and atm the game dosent do a lot for that.
|
The issue is that, while Wind Stance can grant concealment, it does not always grant concealment. The feat has a trigger condition (If you move more than 5 feet this turn), an effect (you gain 20% concealment), a duration (for 1 round), and a conditional (against ranged attacks). If the conditional is not met - that is, if you are not being targeted...
No. You gain concealment. It clearly says "you gain concealment" and then says for what conditions it applies. You gain (find) concealment. The IF is placed BEFORE the gaining of the condition, not after it. IF you move more than 5 feet, you gain concealment. How long, and against what are not part of the IF statement.
It does not say "If you move more than 5 feet and are being attacked by range, you gain concealment for 1 round." The only IF qualifier is "if you move more than 5 feet." The effective against is "ranged attacks" - this is not part of the "if" statement. You gained the concealment against something, you can roll stealth. The GM will apply that against all ranged attacks (whether they happen or not is immaterial).
Also: I would note that with Blur, you only get to roll stealth when it is cast. Why? Because technically you are not gaining concealment every round. You have it already. So when you first cast it, you gain concealment. Fine. Roll Stealth. But if someone sees you after that (because, say, you attack them), you can't re-roll stealth every round just because you have concealment. It wouldn't work in dim light either, right? If you attacked, even with continued dim light, stealth would end. Without finding concealment (again) or cover (anew), you couldn't re-roll stealth. Making a move action to a different area of dim light would grant a roll, though, in mechanical theory.
|
|
The issue is that, while Wind Stance can grant concealment, it does not always grant concealment. The feat has a trigger condition (If you move more than 5 feet this turn), an effect (you gain 20% concealment), a duration (for 1 round), and a conditional (against ranged attacks). If the conditional is not met - that is, if you are not being targeted...No. You gain concealment. It clearly says "you gain concealment" and then says for what conditions it applies. You gain (find) concealment. The IF is placed BEFORE the gaining of the condition, not after it. IF you move more than 5 feet, you gain concealment. How long, and against what are not part of the IF statement.
It does not say "If you move more than 5 feet and are being attacked by range, you gain concealment for 1 round." The only IF qualifier is "if you move more than 5 feet."
Also: I would note that with Blur, you only get to roll stealth when it is cast. Why? Because technically you are not gaining concealment every round. You have it already. So when you first cast it, you gain concealment. Fine. Roll Stealth. But if someone sees you after that (because, say, you attack them), you can't re-roll stealth every round just because you have concealment. It wouldn't work in dim light either, right? If you attacked, even with continued dim light, stealth would end. Without finding concealment (again) or cover (anew), you couldn't re-roll stealth. Making a move action to a different area of dim light would grant a roll, though, in mechanical theory.
Using some incomplete source, maouse?
Benefit: If you move more than 5 feet this turn, you gain 20% concealment for 1 round against ranged attacks.
It say very clearly against what you get concealment. Only ranged attack. Not against any form of observation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using some incomplete source, maouse?
Benefit: If you move more than 5 feet this turn, you gain 20% concealment for 1 round against ranged attacks.It say very clearly against what you get concealment. Only ranged attack. Not against any form of observation.
Why is reading the sentence, written in plain English, using an incomplete source.
"If you move more than 5 feet this turn" = qualifier.
"you" = target
"gain concealment" = benefit.
"for 1 round" = duration.
"against ranged attacks" = effective against.
The qualifier is not that "there have to exist people who it is effective against or you can't move five feet." In fact, you gain this benefit against all people it is effective against that might exist, no matter if you see them, if they exist, if they are 320 feet from you, if they cast a ranged attack through a gate.... whatever.
This is not like a spell that REQUIRES a target. It is like a spell that provides a defense. You don't lose the +4 AC bonus simply because someone doesn't attack you when you cast Shield, for instance. And you don't have +4 AC only if you are attacked. No. It grants a benefit (+4 AC) to the target (you) which is effective against (unless otherwise stated) all attacks. Simply because there might be an attack to which it might not apply (area affect spells, splash effects... etc...) does not mean you don't get the +4 AC bonus (benefit... ie. in the former's case = gain concealment, which per RAW allows a stealth roll). IF you move more than 5 feet, you gain concealment. The fact is that no spell or ability protects against everything. Warping it backwards and saying that if you aren't attacked by what it is effective against you can't use it is a poor reading of a simple sentence. IMHO. You could then make an argument that if someone casts anti-magic field and there is no magic around the spell fails because there is no magic to work against. No, the spell is up and running and waiting for any magic. Just like the concealment granted here is up and running and waiting for any ranged attacks.
The fact that any time you gain any kind of concealment you can roll stealth, is really what needs to be addressed by a FAQ. Because if it didn't say that in three different places (RAW) we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it does say it in three different places. If you gain/find concealment, you can roll stealth. Clearly RAW. In three places. If you gain concealment, though, it doesn't mean everyone loses sight of you? That is the question from the "nu-uh" side. But the entire sentence in Stealth that says if you are observed you can't use stealth is in "obvious error", since the basic function of stealth is to not be seen when being in a place that is observed. But it is there in RAW too. But the RAI for that is that you can't re-use stealth after you have been seen/broken stealth. Also, that one sentence would prevent anyone working in a group to ever use stealth, as their partners would be observing them unless they did the whole "cover your eyes and count to ten" thing... which is silly.
The ways to re-roll stealth are listed after that nefarious sentence. Find cover. Find concealment. Bluff to move to someplace unobserved (with or without cover or concealment) - note, this implies that gaining cover and concealment MAY BE OBSERVED when you find them. There are no other qualifiers on the "find cover or concealment" - no "in an unobserved spot", no "full cover or full concealment." In two more spots, we find that using any cover or concealment allows a stealth roll. Again, no qualifiers of "full", and obviously partial allows one to be observed... and even full concealment allows one to be observed (pinpointed) in a square and attacked (though full cover blocks attacks that are not area attacks). Unfortunately, these two spots are a little nefarious as well, as they say USING cover and concealment allows a stealth roll. Not gaining, having or finding it. Using might imply "having", "gaining", "finding", "throwing it at someone"... who knows. But generally, combining it with the Stealth description we have to say RAW says you can USE it if you FIND it. Is "gaining" it the same as "finding" it? Is "having" it the same as "finding" it? That would be the semantic discussion that is left. If found, can use, is RAW. 100%.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using some incomplete source, maouse?
Benefit: If you move more than 5 feet this turn, you gain 20% concealment for 1 round against ranged attacks.It say very clearly against what you get concealment. Only ranged attack. Not against any form of observation.Why is reading the sentence, written in plain English, using an incomplete source.
"If you move more than 5 feet this turn" = qualifier.
"you" = target
"gain concealment" = benefit.
"for 1 round" = duration.
"against ranged attacks" = effective against.The qualifier is not that "there have to exist people who it is effective against or you can't move five feet." In fact, you gain this benefit against all people it is effective against that might exist, no matter if you see them, if they exist, if they are 320 feet from you, if they cast a ranged attack through a gate.... whatever.
This is not like a spell that REQUIRES a target. It is like a spell that provides a defense. You don't lose the +4 AC bonus simply because someone doesn't attack you when you cast Shield, for instance. And you don't have +4 AC only if you are attacked. No. It grants a benefit (+4 AC) to the target (you) which is effective against (unless otherwise stated) all attacks. Simply because there might be an attack to which it might not apply (area affect spells, splash effects... etc...) does not mean you don't get the +4 AC bonus (benefit... ie. in the former's case = gain concealment, which per RAW allows a stealth roll). IF you move more than 5 feet, you gain concealment. The fact is that no spell or ability protects against everything. Warping it backwards and saying that if you aren't attacked by what it is effective against you can't use it is a poor reading of a simple sentence. IMHO. You could then make an argument that if someone casts anti-magic field and there is no magic around the spell fails because there is no magic to work against. No, the spell is up and running and waiting for any magic....
Having concealment is not a binary condition. You can have concealment against one person while not having concealment against another (depending on, for example, where you and other characters are standing in a cloud of obscuring mist). Wind Stance does not grant you concealment as an absolute against all characters. It grants concealment for one condition only, against ranged attacks. If someone is not making a ranged attack against you, you do not have concealment against them.
To use your example, Shield grants a +4 shield bonus to AC. A shield bonus is ignored by touch attacks. If someone attacks you with a touch attack, you cannot claim to have a +4 bonus to AC against that attack, because the bonus Shield grants is of a specific type which does not affect touch attacks.
Similarly, Wind Stance grants 20% concealment against ranged attacks. Concealment against ranged attacks is not the same thing as de-facto concealment. If someone makes a melee attack against you, or attempts to observe you while you are moving around, you cannot claim concealment against them from Wind Stance, because the type of concealment Wind Stance grants is of a specific type that only applies against ranged attacks.
|
|
I think that the only possible comment is one made by SKR:
"You're not stupid. Stop acting like you don't understand that the rules are written assuming the reader isn't stupid. Stop acting like you don't understand that the rules don't have the room to spell out every possible allowed combination and spell out every disallowed combination."
(It is not about you, Bandw2)
+100
The rules about darkvision make very clear that you can have concealment against a person and not against another and that you can use stealth against the first person but not against the one with darkvision.
Torepeat again, wind stance give you concealment against ranged attacks and that is the only thing against which you can use stealth.
I can't find anything on this. all I know is that under stealth it says "if people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth."
later in the same paragraph it says "Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth."(this is also badly worded)
I don't think the second part over writes the first. If someone still can see you normally you can't use stealth.
is there some example text where the dark vision thing comes up?(that would explain why I can't find it probably)
also, with the "don't be stupid stuff", we could equally just use the Rule of fun. :P (and yes i know who wrote the quote)
Maouse pretty much has shown that this is not all that exploitable, the only time this is advantageous is to sneak attack someone in melee in normal lighting, or advance past guards.
that's why I'd like this to be more clear.(on stealth in general) Let me put it this way, stealth relies WAY too heavily on people using common sense in place of actual rules. thank god for the following line "Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment." because it's the only line in the entire thing that says what people do when you succeed at stealth. the problem is, is if I shoot an arrow and hit a guy and he lives, but I win at my stealth? apparently he is not aware of me, when logically he just wouldn't be aware of my position. do you see my point?
|
|
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.
...
Characters with darkvision (dwarves and half-orcs) can see lit areas normally as well as dark areas within 60 feet. A creature can't hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover.
BTW, it we play the "take a sentence out of context and apply it" game, the phrase: "A creature can't hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover." say that you can't use concealment to gain stealth against a creature with darkvision, regardless of your source of concealment. But if we take the phrase in teh context of that section of the rules, it is clear that it speak only about concealment for dim light or darknes, not from forg or other effects.
|
|
Having concealment is not a binary condition. You can have concealment against one person while not having concealment against another (depending on, for example, where you and other characters are standing in a cloud of obscuring mist). Wind Stance does not grant you concealment as an absolute against all characters. It grants concealment for one condition only, against ranged attacks. If someone is not making a ranged attack against you, you do not have concealment against them.
To use your example, Shield grants a +4 shield bonus to AC. A shield bonus is ignored by touch attacks. If someone attacks you with a touch attack, you cannot claim to have a +4 bonus to AC against that attack, because the bonus Shield grants is of a specific type which does not affect touch attacks.
Similarly, Wind Stance grants 20% concealment against ranged attacks. Concealment against ranged attacks is not the same thing as de-facto concealment.
As I was trying to illustrate - nothing in the game is a binary condition. Everything has exceptions. You cast anti-magic shield and guess what, the person without any magic doesn't care. You cast shield, and guess what, the person using splash, area effect, or touch attacks doesn't care. You have concealment conditional on ranged attacks, and guess what, melee attacks don't care. But that doesn't mean you don't have an anti-magic field, or a shield, or concealment. Concealment against xyz is still concealment... there are no "defacto" types of concealment in the section on page 196 that say "only concealment versus melee allows a stealth roll." There is no wording that says "concealment against ranged attacks is not real concealment." Nowhere is this RAW. Concealment (of any kind) allows a stealth role, per page 195, 196 and 106. You don't need total concealment (invisible). ANY concealment is what you have to accept when it says "concealment" without a conditional modifier on page 196. 20%, 50%, against melee, against ranged, against pooh bears, against magic, against touch attacks, against splash attacks... doesn't matter. It counts. Roll Stealth.
Note: p172. In bright light you need cover (again, any cover) or invisibility to roll stealth. Not full cover. Any cover. Cover from ranged attacks, cover from melee attacks, cover from splash attacks... any cover. (noted exception, soft cover specifically says it doesn't allow a stealth roll as well I believe). A full wall (full cover) or a small stack of debris (1/2 wall or even a box to hide behind - partial cover). Either lets you roll stealth. Non-qualified = both/all. Exceptions to the general rule (soft cover) are specifically spelled out. Now, do the same experiment with Blur, Tower Shields, and Wind Stance... do they specifically say you can't roll stealth with the concealment they offer? Nope. So you can.
|
My 2 cp is this:
The feat gives concealment against ranged attacks. So you can stealth to avoid ranged attacks. And then can use sneak attack[and any similar abilities] against said ranged attack. Unfortunately, the ranged attacker can still see you, so you he can still target you, as he is not a ranged attack, and his ranged attack is the only thing that gets the concealment. And even more unfortunately, IIRC, objects are immune to precision damage. So yes, you can use stealth v. ranged attacks, however it doesn't really help you to do so.
|
|
My 2 cp is this:
The feat gives concealment against ranged attacks. So you can stealth to avoid ranged attacks. And then can use sneak attack[and any similar abilities] against said ranged attack. Unfortunately, the ranged attacker can still see you, so you he can still target you, as he is not a ranged attack, and his ranged attack is the only thing that gets the concealment. And even more unfortunately, IIRC, objects are immune to precision damage. So yes, you can use stealth v. ranged attacks, however it doesn't really help you to do so.
Except, as previously discussed, concealment NEVER applies against a person (p 195-196) and is only discussed RAW as applied versus a ranged or melee attack. So this line of "defending a non-RAW position" falls flat when you take that into account.
If you get a stealth roll, you apply the results of the stealth roll to whom it applies, not to whom you got the concealment from. This is the entire "problem" we are discussing. If you get a stealth roll from concealment (which all RAW supports) - in this instance, to whom does it apply to? The camp that says "look at the feat and apply the skill to the same people" has a valid argument for discussion. It isn't at all supported by RAW, though.
But yes, I grant it is valid observation of other mechanics to be inclined to say such a thing. A feat grants an AoO, and you can only apply the AoO on the person who drew it. But then there are feats that allow a skill use that applies to everyone the skill applies too as well. Such as Acrobatic where all your acrobatics/fly rolls get a bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My 2 cp is this:
The feat gives concealment against ranged attacks. So you can stealth to avoid ranged attacks. And then can use sneak attack[and any similar abilities] against said ranged attack. Unfortunately, the ranged attacker can still see you, so you he can still target you, as he is not a ranged attack, and his ranged attack is the only thing that gets the concealment. And even more unfortunately, IIRC, objects are immune to precision damage. So yes, you can use stealth v. ranged attacks, however it doesn't really help you to do so.
Except, as previously discussed, concealment NEVER applies against a person (p 195-196) and is only discussed RAW as applied versus a ranged or melee attack. So this line of "defending a non-RAW position" falls flat when you take that into account.
If you get a stealth roll, you apply the results of the stealth roll to whom it applies, not to whom you got the concealment from. This is the entire "problem" we are discussing. If you get a stealth roll from concealment (which all RAW supports) - in this instance, to whom does it apply to? The camp that says "look at the feat and apply the skill to the same people" has a valid argument for discussion. It isn't at all supported by RAW, though.
But yes, I grant it is valid observation of other mechanics to be inclined to say such a thing. A feat grants an AoO, and you can only apply the AoO on the person who drew it. But then there are feats that allow a skill use that applies to everyone the skill applies too as well. Such as Acrobatic where all your acrobatics/fly rolls get a bonus.
Okay, it's certainly clear to both sides that Wind Stance grants concealment, conditional on whether an attack being made against you is a ranged attack. That's fine, yes? The question is whether that conditional concealment permits you to make a Stealth check. So how do Stealth checks work?
Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you.
Stealth checks are directly opposed by the Perception roll of the person or persons you are trying to hide from. Ergo, Stealth is a check whose results apply on an individual basis to each other person. You can use Stealth against two guards and successfully hide from one while being noticed by the other.
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 use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.
Now, one of the conditions that allows Stealth is concealment. If you don't have concealment or cover against a person, Stealth simply doesn't function; they notice you automatically with no check involved. If you have concealment from one guard and lack concealment from another, you can attempt a Stealth check against the former, but the latter will see you regardless of the result. So concealment, for the purposes of Stealth, must be determined on an individual basis.
If you move more than 5 feet this turn, you gain 20% concealment for 1 round against ranged attacks.
Now we come to Wind Stance. Wind Stance grants you concealment against ranged attacks. The crux of our argument seems to be how to interpret this phrasing.
Side A: Wind Stance concealment only applies to attacks if a ranged attack is made.
Side B: Wind Stance concealment only applies at all if a ranged attack is made.
Under Side A, Wind Stance grants concealment universally against all possible targets. The only attacks that suffer a miss chance are ranged attacks, but for purposes other than attacks, concealment is an absolute that applies equally to everyone.
Under Side B, Wind Stance grants concealment only in response to the condition stated: a ranged attack. Against anyone not presently making a ranged attack, concealment is not ineffective, rather, it doesn't exist at all.
In order to determine whether Stealth can function, concealment has to be meted out on an individual basis; for each character, you either have concealment from them or you do not. As you said yourself, concealment is only applied versus a melee or ranged attack. Wind Stance asks, as part of its function, whether the attack made is ranged or melee. If no attack is being made, this is a nonsense question, as there is no attack for the ranged or melee property to be assigned to. Stealth does not care about the type of the attack, but Wind Stance does, and if an attack is not being made which can be declared a ranged attack, Wind Stance will never grant you concealment against any individual.
I have a simple solution to the idea of using a tower shield as stealth: A fireball aimed to detonate where its explosion would be behind the shield. And the shield would provide some protection for the mage casting the spell.
i'll save maouse the trouble since i know what he'll say.
the book never refers to people having concealment from people, therefore saying concealment to ranged attacks applies to anyone out melee range.
and/or
it never says anywhere that you automatically fail the stealth roll if being observed, or that they automatically beat your check.
as I've said, it appears that line simply says stealth does not function at all if you are observed, meaning no stealth roll can be made at all.
"Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you." this says you make a single stealth check, you do not apply it on a person per person basis, they simply roll individually against your stealth check. bringing back up "it never says anywhere that you automatically fail the stealth roll if being observed, or that they automatically beat your check."
i'll save maouse the trouble since i know what he'll say.
the book never refers to people having concealment from people, therefore saying concealment to ranged attacks applies to anyone out melee range.
An attack cannot be made without an entity to make it. No offense to anyone, but claiming that the restriction on concealment that Wind Stance includes can somehow apply to attacks but not the entities making the attacks is ridiculous.
it never says anywhere that you automatically fail the stealth roll if being observed, or that they automatically beat your check.
as I've said, it appears that line simply says stealth does not function at all if you are observed, meaning no stealth roll can be made at all.
"Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you." this says you make a single stealth check, you do not apply it on a person per person basis, they simply roll individually against your stealth check. bringing back up "it never says anywhere that you automatically fail the stealth roll if being observed, or that they automatically beat your check."
Stealth rolls are made in general, yes, but the effects of stealth are individual to each person opposing your stealth check. Being observed by one person only disallows stealth with regards to that person. I admit that the rules currently don't make this very clear, but that's a consequence of Paizo's not implementing updated stealth rules. Whether you lack cover and concealment from a person, or whether you have cover or concealment and they defeat your stealth with a perception check, the result is the same: they see you, and you gain no benefits from the stealth attempt.
Wow just wow. I really feel sorry for paizo employees.
The feat gives u a safety in that a range attack can miss you and u cant be sneaked attacked by range attacks.
Thats it. If it stated u gained concealment and nothing else, but its concealment against range attacks. Thats it.
|
|
In order to determine whether Stealth can function, concealment has to be meted out on an individual basis; for each character, you either have concealment from them or you do not. As you said yourself, concealment is only applied versus a melee or ranged attack. Wind Stance asks, as part of its function, whether the attack made is ranged or melee. If no attack is being made, this is a nonsense question, as there is no attack for the ranged or melee property to be assigned to. Stealth does not care about the type of the attack, but Wind Stance does, and if an attack is not being made which can be declared a ranged attack, Wind Stance will never grant you concealment against any individual.
This is the complete HOOEY I am trying to correct. It is taking the "effective against" and saying that because there is nobody to effect, it doesn't work. Wrong. AS pointed out with Shield and Anti-Magic spells... the ability works regardless of an "effective against" component. Concealment granted against anyone = stealth roll. You agree that concealment is granted. Then I get a stealth roll.
Stealth roll works against whom? Anyone who might notice you. That is RAW. Not "ranged attackers only."
I started out agreeing that as a GM I would probably only apply the effects of the stealth vs. anyone at range. And I probably still would. But the RAW makes it clear that this is NOT RAW. RAW, the stealth roll, that we all agree one gets, applies against ANYONE who might observe you. That is RAW.
Concealment = never applies to a person. Concealment grants Stealth, which applies to persons who might observe you. By your rationale, concealment would never work, against anyone (per 195/196 it is NEVER applied to "people", only attacks). Ever. So by following your rationale, stealth would never work against anyone's attacks, ever, because concealment never blocks "people" - only their ranged or melee attacks (and melee are resolved the same way as ranged attacks). Which is 100% backwards and wrong.
Funny thing is, you explicitly CAN get concealment 'against people'. It's used in the line below when talking about total concealment. So maouse's only remaining central premise just... doesn't exist to begin with.
I'm beginning to think there's some concealment going on in this thread too... and the foliage isn't the only green part...
I was right, he used both. :D
I'm actually genuinely happy I guessed right.
The concealment and stealth rules are actually written very vaguely and rely on a lot of assumptions, basically that the GM would apply stealth and concealment in a way that made sense.
Concealment has it's effects described well, but not well on how it is applied to people. it goes over only how you determine if ranged or melee attacks are considered being effected by concealment or not, which a ton of feats and spells just disregard.
Funny thing is, you explicitly CAN get concealment 'against people'. It's used in the line below when talking about total concealment. So maouse's only remaining central premise just... doesn't exist to begin with.
I'm beginning to think there's some concealment going on in this thread too... and the foliage isn't the only green part...
ONLY total concealment, and ONLY in a specific instance, AKA, line of effect but no line of sight.
concealment's requirements aren't really explained other than usually, you have concealment when X, but it never says who or what is effected by this(the game assumes we know "unless otherwise stated it applies to everyone who would have LOS on the target"), except that things with like dark vision or blind sight can get around some concealment. Only, who is not, not who is.
I'm considering upgrading this to, "who does concealment effect unless otherwise stated? can you have temporary concealment(only during specific instances but not others, and does not count over a period of time)? Can concealment only apply to actions or non-sentient-objects(such as traps), if specified? and what forms of concealment grant the ability to stealth?"
|
|
Funny thing is, you explicitly CAN get concealment 'against people'. It's used in the line below when talking about total concealment. So maouse's only remaining central premise just... doesn't exist to begin with.
I'm beginning to think there's some concealment going on in this thread too... and the foliage isn't the only green part...
First, we can see two things by way of this "against you" portion of total concealment. #1 total concealment (50%) is an improved form of concealment (20%). So above, where it says "concealment" they are talking about (20%) concealment to roll stealth (unless in bright light).
Does the feat give concealment (20%)? Yep. So RAW, as seen here, definitively supports taking a stealth roll.
My point isn't invalidated by this portion, in fact it is supported. I never said that it CAN'T be applied to persons. I pointed out that regular concealment (20%) isn't applied to/against "persons." RAW. Total concealment IS, and also states what attacks it works against. Granted. But again, even total concealment is applied against attacks, after being applied to "you." Attacks have a 50% miss chance. Not people. The reason it is applied to people is because they get a 100% miss chance if they don't roll a perception (20) to find your square. Which means they have to make a roll opposed to... ding ding ding... stealth if moving and using stealth(basically), opposed with their perception. But a person who doesn't use stealth while having invisibility to grant total concealment still gets a base 20.
I think trying to say total concealment is against people but concealment is against attacks takes us back to diego's rather concise post earlier in the thread :-)
Also, where are you getting this pinpoint nonsense from? The invisibility rules? Which are only applicable if you're invisible?
|
|
I'm considering upgrading this to, "who does concealment effect unless otherwise stated? can you have temporary concealment(only during specific instances but not others, and does not count over a period of time)? Can concealment only apply to actions or non-sentient-objects(such as traps), if specified? and what forms of concealment grant the ability to stealth?"
Yep. With so many "types of concealment" and conditional qualifiers this all really needs to be addressed better. Also, is 20% concealment of any kind enough to roll a NORMAL stealth roll (against anyone who might be observing you). Are the examples of how to get a stealth roll after "you can't get stealth if observed" ways to become "unobserved"?
The answers to these questions from Paizo would be great.
|
|
I think trying to say total concealment is against people but concealment is against attacks takes us back to diego's rather concise post earlier in the thread :-)
Also, where are you getting this pinpoint nonsense from? The invisibility rules? Which are only applicable if you're invisible?
Perhaps better explained:
Total concealment is applied on page 196 to people, to see if they can even attack you. THEN it is applied to attacks to see if the attacks miss you 50% of the time. No place on that page is concealment (20%) applied to people. Concealment (20%) is only applied to attacks on that page.Warning: only for those who understand what just happened to Blakmane's argument -
I was willing to admit, and have, that as GM I wouldn't apply the stealth from "against ranged attacks" to anyone who was not at range, but you made it perfectly clear I should, since all concealment and stealth is applied the same, according to your argument. Now, if instead, we all agree there are different kinds of concealment, which are applied differently, then we can move on. Ok?
Next question - does concealment require nobody watching to roll stealth? Raw - Nope. You can roll stealth if you find concealment (20%). No qualifier on the observed nature of that concealment (20%).
Next question - can I roll stealth with any kind of concealment? Per RAW - yes. Though, again, I would apply it only to ranged people in this instance, and that would be RAI, I think.
Even if only against ranged attacks? Per RAW - yes. Concealment (20%) is enough to roll stealth and it doesn't designate any qualifiers.
Does this stealth apply against everyone in the area who might observe you? RAW, it does. RAI, obviously not. Logic test would be helpful here.
To simply say "nope, you can't roll stealth" or "nope, stealth doesn't apply to anyone if you do get to roll" is to basically say "don't bother taking that feat that does absolutely nothing." (20% concealment against an attack which never comes is nothing, right? whereas 20% concealment against a kind of attack, use the concealment as you can use concealment you tricky wind stance person = something) I think RAI was to give you concealment, not just a 20% ranged miss chance. The feat needs to be changed if so, though. While they are at it, they can clarify the "1 round" - does this end before my next attack? yes or no? ie. If I did my standard action first, then used this, does it last until after my next standard action? Just to be clear.
The "pinpoint" was an earlier discussion of the Wind Stance's description (not its effect).
pinpoint is related to the very fluff and GM centric "can't stealth if someone is sensing you", AKA, does wind style actually make you hard to see or not? who knows, but it has some fluff like invisibility has. so let's use that to guide the fluff area of "sensing".
The two arguments aren't even faintly comparable, maouse. I'm not sure I even need to huff to blow over that strawman. Your argument is like saying, if you had a theoretical ability that gave cover against giants, and because total cover uses similar language to cover, that the original cover can be used to hide from goblins. There's no logical flow there at all.
The 'pinpoint' is in a whole 'nother realm of silliness. A fluff description doesn't suddenly let you pull a whole section of rules text from a completely unrelated area of the book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is dumb.. can we jsut lock this stupid argument before this stupid, poorly thought out idea of Metal Gear Shield sneaking starts popping up at PFS... Please...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An attack cannot be made without an entity to make it. No offense to anyone, but claiming that the restriction on concealment that Wind Stance includes can somehow apply to attacks but not the entities making the attacks is ridiculous.
More ridiculous then being able to move Ten feet and disappear from everybody's sight because you have concealment against ranged attacks only?
On the Tower Shield point - sure you can stealth behind the shield, doesn't hide the shield itself though. i imagine a guard might get mighty curious about that moving shield...
On the wind stance point...Really!
ok if i must, lets break it down: who are you stealth-ing against? the guy with the bow who's aware enough of you to shoot at you? his mate with the sword standing right beside you? and if they aren't observing you, you can stealth anyway.
If you rule that you gain concealment against the guy with the bow, and can therefore stealth then what about nodwick standing beside him just carrying the loot?
i could go on but the argument that you can stealth off of wind stance might as well be crocheted it's so full of holes!
to me it really is quite simple, wind stance protects you from ranged attacks, not from being observed.
The only reason they said you gain Concealment is actually to NERF the rogue. The concealment gained from Wind Stance vs ranged attacks protects from Rogue Snipers around.
The only reason they said you gain Concealment is actually to NERF the rogue. The concealment gained from Wind Stance vs ranged attacks protects from Rogue Snipers around.
Unless they have improved precise shot. Of course, since it requires BAB +11 and the rogue doesn't pick that up until level 15....yeah. Of course, the Ranger and Slayer don't care. Dip ranger for a bit or just go straight slayer.
I think slayer may be everything people have ever wanted a rogue to be. You know...decently good.
^^^Pretty much...