It's easy to stack the deck with scenarios. But those really aren't anywhere close to the one I posited that started this discussion. But some similar scenarios to mine reformulated:
1. You see a guy dive behind a crate 15' away from you. You can hear him moving around. Are you observing him? Undoubtedly yes. Why do you need to see something to be observing it? Why do you necessarily even need a special sense ability to be able pinpoint a creature's location with a sense other than vision?
2. Do you think it's preposterous to use your sense of smell to note the location of the Ghast lurking by the wall next to the open doorway you're standing next to?
1) Do you think the guy behind the crate could make a Stealth roll to move quietly away?
So you think that would be easier than just trying sneak away in dim light, without anything else to hide behind?2) Yes. We're lousy at this. You could probably "follow your nose" to him, but locate him without moving over there? Not a chance. You certainly know there is something really stinky around. Process of elimination might tell you it's on the other side of the doorway, but not more than that.
1. If we're being uniform with our application of the definition of "being observed", no. That guy behind the crate cannot make a Stealth check as he's "being observed".
2. Disagree, though I think it depends on the circumstances surrounding the situation. Did you just smell something bad walking down some random hallway? Or did you just smell something bad, right after having finished a battle with a different pack of Ghasts in an abandoned crypt that was recently overrun by undead?
But ultimately, let's go back to the rules. We're debating what it means to "be observed" but that's actually covered in the Stealth entry.
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.
If your position is that you cannot use concealment alone to make a Stealth check (you need concealment and not being seen), then your position must be that the guy behind the crate also cannot use stealth because cover alone is insufficient if you're being observed by any of your foe's senses. And note that it does not necessitate heightened sense abilities like scent. Just because humans are typically primarily reliant on sight does not mean they are uniformly solely reliant upon it.
The rules clearly dictate that observation is not limited to sight. And that certainly doesn't mean having to pinpoint the location of a creature via sight in order to constitute "observing".
I was speaking in less RAW and more "does it make sense" terms, in hopes that would lead us towards RAI, since the RAW is impenetrable.
I think both the guy behind the crate and the girl standing in the dim lighting should be able to do the same thing in similar circumstances. Since I'm going to let the girl in dim lighting make the Stealth check, I'm certainly going to let the guy hiding behind the crate do it. On the other hand, if you're not going to let the girl make the check, you shouldn't let the guy make the check, either.
The reason I press the issue is because people who wouldn't let the girl in concealment make a Stealth check typically would let the guy in cover make the Stealth check by applying the "being observed" restriction in one case, but not the other.
So I can understand the objections to allowing someone who has been spotted in or was seen going into concealment to make a Stealth check (it's certainly not an unreasonable position to hold). I'm just saying that if you're going to rely on the being observed language, it ought to be applied uniformly.
|
Stealth is always a hotly debated topic. My two cents on the matter:
It is highly situational, the rules would have to be stupifyingly complex to cover every possible situation. So it's left to the GM to adjudicate. In most cases, you can look at the situation and use common sense. The problem comes in when magic gets involved
In the instance of the blur spell, here's how I run it. Lets say you peak around a corner and see an orc, he doesn't see you. You cast blur and sneak past him. Since he never saw you, the blur gives you a chance to attempt a stealth check across otherwise open ground. If you instead started in the open, you and the orc both see each other. You cast blur, but you can't hide, the orc is still looking right at you. You would need something else to duck behind to be able to start sneaking.
And remember, there's always circumstance modifiers. If an observer sees you hide behind a tree, he's unlikely to miss you coming out one side or the other. It's reasonable to give such an observer a circumstance bonus to their perception. It is possible for them to miss you though, so there's still a roll off.
The same thing can happen when trying to identify something which is in poor lighting by sight.
*shrug*
"Observed" doesn't mean "seen". It also encompasses being heard and smelled. So why does jumpimg behind a crate provide for a new stealth check? You're already being observed, in that I could hear you.
It counts because the rules say that it does. It works because it says under the Stealth section that cover and/or concealment allows one to enter Stealth.
You want to pull realism into it and wonder how 'hearing' counts as 'observing' someone? Go talk to the people who made Pathfinder. That's what they get for rolling Spot and Listen and everything else into 'Perception'. While it makes no sense to you, it works by the rules.It doesn't matter if Perception encompasses super hearing or ESP or perceiving foes through subtle variations in the ether. If they have Cover or Concealment, they can attempt the Stealth check to oppose the Perception check, except for the given examples as to when this doesn't work.
If it helps you 'grok' it better, yeah, the guy ducking behind the crate to hide? He's probably going to stop making noise, on account of the fact that once he thinks he's hidden he'll stop moving, since motion attracts vision (in the real world, anyway).
Yes, that's true but the specific rule is in the Stealth description and says you can't use Stealth if you are being observed.
And the specific rule mentioned AFTER that, as the sequence is going from generic to specific, says that you can, assuming you have cover or concealment. It then later specifies how to do it without either of those conditions using Bluff.
The reason people refer to using Total Concealment or Cover to break observation is because those two things break line of sight. Once line of sight is broken you can freely use Stealth and move around in lower levels of Concealment without being noticed. This is where the Bluff mechanic comes in as well, to break observation.
And all this makes sense in a homebrew game where this is how the DM says the rules behave. I can appreciate that. I still have Perception as Spot and Listen in my games, and there is no skill for scent or taste or any of that.
However, going with the Pathfinder rules, what you are saying is not necessary. Nowhere does it mention you having to 'block line of sight' to achieve Stealth. Nowhere does it say you need to get a 'higher level of concealment to go back to a lower one'. You merely have to make it to cover or concealment.If my above interpretation is NOT correct, then why do the bluff rules to break observation exist?
So that the last space they 'perceive' you in is the one you did the Bluff. As I mentioned earlier, this is superior to actually moving (while observed) to the cover or concealment and THEN stealthing. Gives the enemy less options for figuring out your hiding place.
So, if normal concealment is enough to break observation, why is there a supernatural prestige class ability that is specifically designed to be able to use Stealth even while being observed?
Uhhhh... because you can do it 10 feet away from the concealment rather than 0 feet away from the concealment? And if you're in a place with all sorts of shadows around (back alleys, forests), you've practically got Stealth-able squares over the entire map?
The answer is, normally you can't use Stealth while being observed, you have to break line of sight first, even if you have concealment.
No, the answer is you have inferred things from the rules that are not there.
The SINGLE purpose of that lvl 17 ability is to be able to enter Stealth while being observed. So clearly, under normal circumstances you are not meant to enter Stealth while observed.
Yes. Without ANY need for cover or concealment. He could have Hide In Plain Sight with Desert Favored Terrain at high noon on a sunny cloudless day upon a perfectly flat sandscape and still use Stealth, even though it would be absolutely impossible for anyone else to attempt it.
Which is just more sloppy language. What are the other effects of even dim light blocking line of sight?
Language you disagree with is not necessarily sloppy. If the dim light provides concealment, they can stealth. As for line of sight, it's kinda called out right there.
Interesting that the specific examples give total concealment. Dim light isn't mentioned.
Interesting you try to stretch the meanings of other words, but don't realize that darkness does not have to be TOTAL darkness, or that fog can grant concealment, not just darkness.
Ranged weapons would be completely useless in dim light, if it blocked line of sight.
Possibly. That rule is dumb though, because indirect fire is sort of a thing that's been employed by archers throughout history. However, if those targets are in Stealth in that dim light, good luck using the ranged weapons on them anyway. ;)
If any concealment breaks line of sight, then any concealment is total concealment.
You found a rules contradiction! Neato! Too bad it has nothing to do with Stealth, as Stealth doesn't require total concealment to begin with. Good catch, though.
Ooh, some fun examples!
Let's start with BLUR...
Has anyone around here seen one of the Predator films?
Seems like that 'cloaking device' is pretty good at letting you Stealth, despite turning you into a blur instead of making you fully invisible.
---
Ghasts? The stench radius is 10 feet. Shouldn't be too hard, right?
Ever been in an elevator with 3 other people and someone lets rip with a "Silent And Deadly"? Which one was it? "Observing" the smell doesn't clue you in as to where it came from.
---
The same thing can happen when trying to identify something which is in poor lighting by sight.
Oh, you mean whether that somewhat-man-shaped shadow is a tree, a shadow, a pile of limbs, or a Rogue with a pair of daggers waiting to shank your kidneys? Almost like concealment can let you Stealth not just because it meets a rules condition but it makes you question whether you can identify the correct hostile shape in under 6 seconds?
It's easy to stack the deck with scenarios.
While these are dificult scenarios for your interpretation to deal with they aren't really "stacking the deck," scenario 1 and 2 are pretty common occurances in game. Roll Perception: You hear something from down a hall around the corner or you hear something on the other side of a door or wall. What about that is stacking? I am just demonstrating that noticing a sound or smell doesn't mean you are "observing" it (in terms of the Stealth skill defined term: observe). The source of that sound could potentially still roll Stealth against you, because you havn't yet truely located the source of the sound.
But those really aren't anywhere close to the one I posited that started this discussion. But some similar scenarios to mine reformulated:
Fair enough. I'll answer your questions and maybe you'll take a stab at mine.
1. You see a guy dive behind a crate 15' away from you. You can hear him moving around. Are you observing him? Undoubtedly yes. Why do you need to see something to be observing it? Why do you necessarily even need a special sense ability to be able pinpoint a creature's location with a sense other than vision?
I'd say that guy is probably screwed. If you saw him dive behind the crate, even if he rolls Stealth and beats Perception, you STILL KNOW WHERE HE HID! You can simply walk to a spot where the crate no longer provides cover.
That said I will break this scenario down according to my interpretation:
1. You have seen the guy, so he is clearly "observed."
2. He dives behind a crate and breaks your (vision based creature) "observation."
3. He rolls for Stealth.
4. You can still hear him moving around so when he rolled Stealth, in my mind that means, you must have beaten his Stealth roll with your Perception roll. Therefore you still know exactly where he is.
4a. Alternate Ending: Now, if you could NOT hear him moving around behind the crate, then perhaps that means his Stealth check was higher than your Perception check. If that is the case you have lost track of his pinpoint location. There is still a major problem with his hiding place at this point... you still know exactly where he hid. So, you can maneuver around and deny his benifit of cover, he will be found.
4b. Alternate Ending 2: Now, if you could NOT hear him moving around behind the crate, then perhaps that means his Stealth check was higher than your Perception check. If that is the case you have lost track of his pinpoint location. There is still a major problem with his hiding place at this point... you still know exactly where he hid. However, if he can maintain his Stealth and maneuver to a different hiding place before you come around the crate, he can disappear.
That is my understanding of how Stealth/Perception would run in that scenario. That is basically how I would run it in my game. Where in that process you decide something is observed/not observed is up to you.
Why do you need to see something to be observing it? Why do you necessarily even need a special sense ability to be able pinpoint a creature's location with a sense other than vision?
Ultimately it depends on what you think "observed" means in game terms. Bottom line is, most things are vision based. "Observed," however you choose to define that game term, means that the object of observation is denied the chance to make a Stealth check, can't even try. Ok, so if I, me, as a vision based creature, am looking at something (even at night or in a dim room) it will be fairly easy for me to keep that thing in my sights even if it darts off and tries to hide in the shadows. On the other hand, if I heard something in the other room, but can't see it, that thing could pretty easily move quietly and sneak around without me being capable of continuing to "observe" it with my hearing. That doesn't mean I couldn't determine the exact area of that room that I heard the noise in... If I am familiar enough with the area I probably could determine that. It means I may not be able to continue actively "observing" the source of the sound if it proceeds to move quietly.
For instance:
1. Cat enters a dim room being quiet. You see it come in. It see's you watching it and decides to dart off to a spot it thinks it can hide. As quiet as it may be it's not hard to visually track that cat. IMO that = "observed."
2. Cat falls off the bookshelf in another room and knocks some books to the floor. It's a loud noise and I am familiar with my house, I know exactly where that noise happened. I listen intently for any other noise to follow. The cat is absolutely capable of moving silently and quickly away from the scene of the crime without me being able to hear it from another room. It is even possible that it moves to a hiding place in that room and I never see it when I go into the same room to pick up the books. IMO =/= "observed."
2. Do you think it's preposterous to use your sense of smell to note the location of the Ghast lurking by the wall next to the open doorway you're standing next to?
1. Note the pressense of a terrible smell, possibly undead in the area? Not perposterous at all.
2. Not the "location" of said undead? Yes, that is absolutely perposterous. I say that because even a creature with the actual Scent ability can't do that.
This extraordinary ability lets a creature detect approaching enemies, sniff out hidden foes, and track by sense of smell.
A creature with the scent ability can detect opponents by sense of smell, generally within 30 feet. If the opponent is upwind, the range is 60 feet. If it is downwind, the range is 15 feet. Strong scents, such as smoke or rotting garbage, can be detected at twice the ranges noted above. Overpowering scents, such as skunk musk or troglodyte stench, can be detected at three times these ranges.
The creature detects another creature's PRESENCE but NOT its SPECIFIC LOCATION. Noting the direction of the scent is a move action. If the creature moves within 5 feet (1 square) of the scent's source, the creature can pinpoint the area that the source occupies, even if it cannot be seen.
A creature with the Survival skill and the scent ability can follow tracks by smell, making a Survival check to find or follow a track. A creature with the scent ability can attempt to follow tracks using Survival untrained. The typical DC for a fresh trail is 10. The DC increases or decreases depending on how strong the quarry's odor is, the number of creatures, and the age of the trail. For each hour that the trail is cold, the DC increases by 2. The ability otherwise follows the rules for the Survival skill in regards to tracking. Creatures tracking by scent ignore the effects of surface conditions and poor visibility.
Creatures with the scent ability can identify familiar odors just as humans do familiar sights.
Water, particularly running water, ruins a trail for air-breathing creatures. Water-breathing creatures that have the scent ability, however, can use it in the water easily.
False, powerful odors can easily mask other scents. The presence of such an odor completely spoils the ability to properly detect or identify creatures, and the base Survival DC to track becomes 20 rather than 10.
IMO, there is no chance of Joe adventurer (a vision based creature) knowing the location of something with a smell based Perception check, when a creature with the actual Scent ability can't even do that.
If you're going to strictly construe the phrase "being observed", you ought to do it the same way for all senses.
Absolutely not. Because not all sense are equal. I cannot instantly know exactly where something is by smell alone. I can absolutely know instantly exactly where something is by sight alone. Hearing is case by case based on the sound and my familiarity with my surroundings.
But nobody does that.
Because it's not true to real life. And the Stealth description even specifies usually sight. Why? Well because most things in PF are primarily sight based creatures.
They only do it for sight. Of course, nobody does that because it'd probably make Stealth nigh unworkable.
And it's kinda unrealistic in my experience. Is "pinpoint" the best term for "observe?" Probably not, but I DO think you have to be able to consistently track something's dynamic location, relatively accurately, with whatever sense to qualify as "observing" something and making it incapable of a Stealth check. You can do that with vision. It is dificult to shake someone after they have fully seen you. It is not dificult to evade someone's sense of smell (at range). Hearing too, if you make a loud noise in one area, and someone hears you, you can fairly easily move silently to another possition without being detected. In that case I don't think you can fairly rule that hearing the initial noise constitutes "observation."
Beyond that, since when did being "aware" of something and "having knowledge" of something imply a great deal of familiarity (which is what you're claiming)?
I posted the definitions I was working from in my post above. To be "aware" is synonymous with having knowledge; conscious; cognizant; informed; alert; knowledgeable; sophisticated, among other things.
My line of thought is, if you heard a book fall in another room, you CANNOT fairly say you "observe" the thing that made that book fall. It could be a cat, thief, child, drunk, or any number of other things. The point I was trying to demonstrate is, hearing a noise or smelling something is absolutely enough to tell you something is around, but that alone should not be enough to consider the source "observed" such that it is now incapable of attempting Stealth.
I mean, we can get into the semantics all day, but a vast majority of the words you bolded don't actually necessitate the conclusion you're saying that they do. Discern, pay attention to, informed, aware? These are the words you think mean A LOT (to use your emphasis) more than having some vague idea that something is around (which, again, wasn't something I've ever actually argued)? I can discern different ingredients in food by taste.
Sure, but I am trying to demonstrate the level of awareness that I believe fairly constitutes being "observed" in the Stealth description, defined term, sense of the word. I hope what I wrote above is a little clearer than what I posted last night when I was dead tired.
I can become aware that my cat has walked into a dark room and know precisely where she is because I can hear her walking on the carpet.
Well this is where you lose me, I have had cats. You can't tell me, would never convince me, that a cat cannot evade your hearing when it wants to. You may hear it in another room if it isn't trying to be quiet, but the second it rolls for Stealth, it's gone. =/= "observed" in the Stealth description.
If you are "observing" something, according to the Stealth description use of the word, you are tracking it well enough that it cannot attempt to slip away from you with Stealth. You will never convince me that you are able to "observe" (Stealth description use of the word) a cat from another room using only your hearing. You cannot hear so keenly that a cat couln't "use Stealth" and evade your notice. Or if you can you are probably blind and hearing has taken over as your primary sense.
If you can hear a cat who's trying to be quiet walking on carpet in another room, you either have freakishly good hearing (speaking as someone who has very sharp hearing), have an indoor only cat (or a kitten) who doesn't care about constantly being loud, or you are making things up. I have had many outdoor cats and when they want to go unnoticed they can, easily. Especially if you're not watching them, you could hear them in another room then they are right behind you on the couch. I currently have an addopted outdoor stray; she is more than capable of moving through the apartment (carpet and hard floor) without making a sound; and she is a pretty heavy girl being fed regularly now.
But I've also just demonstrated, pretty clearly, that it's unnecessary to do any of these things by sight in order to actually be cognizant of, aware of, perceptive of, or observant of something.
Sure. However, you have not clearly demonstrated that you can hear something (from around a corner, on the other side of a door, or in another room) so keenly that it could not even attempt "Stealth" to slip away unnoticed. Remember, "observed" in the Stealth description means you are aware of something to a level that it CANNOT escape your awareness/notice/attention.
2. Disagree, though I think it depends on the circumstances surrounding the situation. Did you just smell something bad walking down some random hallway? Or did you just smell something bad, right after having finished a battle with a different pack of Ghasts in an abandoned crypt that was recently overrun by undead?
In case 1. the random hallway, you will definitely know something terribly stinky is around.
In case 2. the crypt, you might still be smelling the undead you have already killed, the corpses don't just disappear. But if you do smell something getting stronger ahead, YES, you can assume it is more of the same up ahead of you.
In either case you could be smelling that smell from 15 - 120 feet away in any dirrection and not be immediately SURE where it's coming from. But if you take away your vision, it probably won't be until you get closer to the 10' mark and get within the Stench ability range that you could probably locate it through smell alone.
1. If we're being uniform with our application of the definition of "being observed", no. That guy behind the crate cannot make a Stealth check as he's "being observed".
Hold that though I am going to address this in a post reply to Arturius Fischer.
But ultimately, let's go back to the rules. We're debating what it means to "be observed" but that's actually covered in the Stealth entry.
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.
Fixed your bolding. I think there is a significant reason that is noted. Again hold that though.
If your position is that you cannot use concealment alone to make a Stealth check (you need concealment and not being seen), then your position must be that the guy behind the crate also cannot use stealth because cover alone is insufficient if you're being observed by any of your foe's senses.
...
The reason I press the issue is because people who wouldn't let the girl in concealment make a Stealth check typically would let the guy in cover make the Stealth check by applying the "being observed" restriction in one case, but not the other.
Again... Hold that thought.
Stealth is always a hotly debated topic. My two cents on the matter:
It is highly situational, the rules would have to be stupifyingly complex to cover every possible situation. So it's left to the GM to adjudicate. In most cases, you can look at the situation and use common sense. The problem comes in when magic gets involved
In the instance of the blur spell, here's how I run it. Lets say you peak around a corner and see an orc, he doesn't see you. You cast blur and sneak past him. Since he never saw you, the blur gives you a chance to attempt a stealth check across otherwise open ground. If you instead started in the open, you and the orc both see each other. You cast blur, but you can't hide, the orc is still looking right at you. You would need something else to duck behind to be able to start sneaking.
And remember, there's always circumstance modifiers. If an observer sees you hide behind a tree, he's unlikely to miss you coming out one side or the other. It's reasonable to give such an observer a circumstance bonus to their perception. It is possible for them to miss you though, so there's still a roll off.
I can agree with these sentiments, on the fly, in mid game. However, this is a question posed in the Rules Forum which is why we all get so heated over what the rules are actually meant to say.
The problem I have with using Blur for Stealth is that it creates a paradox. The last line of the Blur spell states:
Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell's effect
If you use Stealth you are not seen, if you are not seen your opponent may ignore the effects of Blur, if it ignores the effects of Blur you lose Concealment.
In essense what that line says to me is: "Blur only gives you concealment against creatures who see you." And if they see you, you are observed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RESPONSE TO: Arturius Fischer's posts.
These seem to be several of the same points that others have made. I definitely understand where that stance comes from. I simply do not agree. You also mention this:
I still have Perception as Spot and Listen in my games, and there is no skill for scent or taste or any of that.
That is quite interesting since the majority of my reasoning actually comes from playing 3.5 with Hide/Move Silent and the knowledge that the current Stealth rules were an attempt to combine them. Let me explain:
Move Silently (Dex; Armor Check Penalty)
Check
Your Move Silently check is opposed by the Listen check of anyone who might hear you. You can move up to one-half your normal speed at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than one-half but less than your full speed, you take a -5 penalty. It’s practically impossible (-20 penalty) to move silently while running or charging.Noisy surfaces, such as bogs or undergrowth, are tough to move silently across. When you try to sneak across such a surface, you take a penalty on your Move Silently check as indicated below.
Surface Check Modifier
Noisy (scree, shallow or deep bog, undergrowth, dense rubble) -2
Very noisy (dense undergrowth, deep snow) -5Action
None. A Move Silently check is included in your movement or other activity, so it is part of another action.Special
The master of a cat familiar gains a +3 bonus on Move Silently checks.A halfling has a +2 racial bonus on Move Silently checks.
If you have the Stealthy feat, you get a +2 bonus on Move Silently checks.
Listen (Wis)
Check
Your Listen check is either made against a DC that reflects how quiet the noise is that you might hear, or it is opposed by your target’s Move Silently check.In the case of people trying to be quiet, the DCs given on the table could be replaced by Move Silently checks, in which case the indicated DC would be their average check result.
See also: epic usages of Listen.
Action
Varies. Every time you have a chance to hear something in a reactive manner (such as when someone makes a noise or you move into a new area), you can make a Listen check without using an action. Trying to hear something you failed to hear previously is a move action.Try Again
Yes. You can try to hear something that you failed to hear previously with no penalty.Special
When several characters are listening to the same thing, a single 1d20 roll can be used for all the individuals’ Listen checks.A fascinated creature takes a -4 penalty on Listen checks made as reactions.
If you have the Alertness feat, you get a +2 bonus on Listen checks.
A ranger gains a bonus on Listen checks when using this skill against a favored enemy.
An elf, gnome, or halfling has a +2 racial bonus on Listen checks.
A half-elf has a +1 racial bonus on Listen checks.
A sleeping character may make Listen checks at a -10 penalty. A successful check awakens the sleeper.
Super easy; Listen opposes Move Silently, there are some modifiers, you can try to hear something you missed before. Easy stuff. You make your listen check you hear a noise and then can try to find it. Please note: No where in that description does it say, "If someone hears you you may not attempt a Move Silently check." Additionally, no where in there does it say that hearing something tells you exactly where it is, it just says you hear it. Hold that thought. Now let's move to Spot / Hide.
Spot (Wis)
Check
The Spot skill is used primarily to detect characters or creatures who are hiding. Typically, your Spot check is opposed by the Hide check of the creature trying not to be seen. Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it.A Spot check result higher than 20 generally lets you become aware of an invisible creature near you, though you can’t actually see it.
Spot is also used to detect someone in disguise, and to read lips when you can’t hear or understand what someone is saying.
Spot checks may be called for to determine the distance at which an encounter begins. A penalty applies on such checks, depending on the distance between the two individuals or groups, and an additional penalty may apply if the character making the Spot check is distracted (not concentrating on being observant).
Spot Check Penalties Condition Penalty
Per 10 feet of distance -1
Spotter distracted -5Read Lips
To understand what someone is saying by reading lips, you must be within 30 feet of the speaker, be able to see him or her speak, and understand the speaker’s language. (This use of the skill is language-dependent.) The base DC is 15, but it increases for complex speech or an inarticulate speaker. You must maintain a line of sight to the lips being read.If your Spot check succeeds, you can understand the general content of a minute’s worth of speaking, but you usually still miss certain details. If the check fails by 4 or less, you can’t read the speaker’s lips. If the check fails by 5 or more, you draw some incorrect conclusion about the speech. The check is rolled secretly in this case, so that you don’t know whether you succeeded or missed by 5.
See also: epic usages of Spot.
Action
Varies. Every time you have a chance to spot something in a reactive manner you can make a Spot check without using an action. Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action. To read lips, you must concentrate for a full minute before making a Spot check, and you can’t perform any other action (other than moving at up to half speed) during this minute.Try Again
Yes. You can try to spot something that you failed to see previously at no penalty. You can attempt to read lips once per minute.Special
A fascinated creature takes a -4 penalty on Spot checks made as reactions.If you have the Alertness feat, you get a +2 bonus on Spot checks.
A ranger gains a bonus on Spot checks when using this skill against a favored enemy.
An elf has a +2 racial bonus on Spot checks.
A half-elf has a +1 racial bonus on Spot checks.
The master of a hawk familiar gains a +3 bonus on Spot checks in daylight or other lighted areas.
The master of an owl familiar gains a +3 bonus on Spot checks in shadowy or other darkened areas.
Again, easy stuff. Moving on:
Hide (Dex; Armor Check Penalty)
Check
Your Hide check is opposed by the Spot check of anyone who might see you. You can move up to one-half your normal speed and hide at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than one-half but less than your normal speed, you take a -5 penalty. It’s practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging.A creature larger or smaller than Medium takes a size bonus or penalty on Hide checks depending on its size category: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Large -4, Huge -8, Gargantuan -12, Colossal -16.
You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check. Total cover or total concealment usually (but not always; see Special, below) obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway.
If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide. You can run around a corner or behind cover so that you’re out of sight and then hide, but the others then know at least where you went.
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check; see below), though, you can attempt to hide. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Hide check if you can get to a hiding place of some kind. (As a general guideline, the hiding place has to be within 1 foot per rank you have in Hide.) This check, however, is made at a -10 penalty because you have to move fast.
Sniping
If you’ve already successfully hidden at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack, then immediately hide again. You take a -20 penalty on your Hide check to conceal yourself after the shot.Creating a Diversion to Hide
You can use Bluff to help you hide. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Hide check while people are aware of you.See also: epic usages of Hide.
Action
Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. However, hiding immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.Special
If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Hide checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Hide checks if you’re moving.If you have the Stealthy feat, you get a +2 bonus on Hide checks.
A 13th-level ranger can attempt a Hide check in any sort of natural terrain, even if it doesn’t grant cover or concealment. A 17th-level ranger can do this even while being observed.
Here is where I get a lot of my stance from. Hide is very specific about saying you need cover/concealment to Hide. It also says Total Cover/Total Concealment usually obviates the need for a hide check because nothing can see you. The very next sentences say: "If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide. You can run around a corner or behind cover so that you’re out of sight and then hide, but the others then know at least where you went."
NOTE: Concealment is never mentioned as something you are able to "run into so that you're out of sight.
That is where 90% of my interpretation comes from. Move Silently has exactly 0 restricting factors from an "observation" stand point. ALL of that comes from 3.5 Hide which is PURELY visual. It also says very plainly that Total Cover and Total Concealment obviate the need for a Hide check, so you ONLY have to worry about Moving Silently to avoid detection at this point... Move Silently has 0 restricting factors for being "observed."
After the line about not being able to Hide while being "observed" the rules go on to tell you how you can mitigate this: "You can run around a corner or behind cover so that you’re out of sight and then hide, but the others then know at least where you went. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check; see below), though, you can attempt to hide. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Hide check if you can get to a hiding place of some kind. (As a general guideline, the hiding place has to be within 1 foot per rank you have in Hide.) This check, however, is made at a -10 penalty because you have to move fast."
Notice that running behind a corner (Cover, maybe Total Cover) or ducking behind some other Cover allow you to Hide: Because you have escaped visual "observation." The Bluff is there only to throw people off before you duck into hiding.
ALSO NOTE: Bluff is only mentioned in regards to breaking that "observation" so you can get to a hiding spot. Any hiding spot will do, implying cover/concealment/total cover/total concealment. But only four things are mentioned as being able to disrupt "observation" and cover is not one of them.
So yes, Cover/Concealment are needed to roll for Hide. However, "observation" takes away your ability to Hide. There are only three four things in the Hide description that break "observation;"Cover, Total Cover, Total Concealment, or a Bluff check. Concealment is never mentioned as something that breaks "observation." Hide only gives examples of running behind objects of Cover after you have been "observed."
ALSO OF NOTE: "Observation" is only a restriction on Hide, it is purely visual. Moving Silently has no such restriction.
My last note on Hide is: We have established that Cover/Concealment are enough to use Hide, unless you are observed in which case you must use Cover, Total Cover, Total Concealment, or a Bluff check to break that "observation" and make a Hide check if it's still needed (since with Total Cover/Total Concealment you probably won't even need a Hide check since there is no line of sight). Now go to the "Special" section of the skill and note that a 13th lvl Ranger can use Hide even without Cover/Concealment. That eliminates the portion of the Hide rules that say Cover/Concealment are needed to attempt to Hide. It does NOT eliminate the statement of "If people are observing you, you can't hide." So, at 13th lvl the Ranger does not need Cover/Concealment, but if someone is observing them they still have the restriction of breaking observation to use Hide. It is not until 17th lvl they recieve the ability to do this "even while being observed."
Hence;
TWO requirements for using HIDE to avoid VISUAL detection:
1. Cover/Concealment
2. No observation (or breaking observation). Where "observation" is equal to SEEING something.
ZERO requirements for using MOVE SILENTLY to avoid AUDITORY detection:
You want to move quietly? Just start doing that, doesn't matter who has already heard you. Vision is the only way to "observe."
....................
....................
....................
Fast forward to Pathfinder's combination of Hide/Move Silently into Stealth and Spot/Listen into Perception.
Stealth
(Dex; Armor Check Penalty)
You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. THIS SKILL COVERS HIDING AND MOVING SILENTLY.Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment. You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
Creatures gain a bonus or penalty on Stealth checks based on their size: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Medium +0, Large -4, Huge -8, Gargantuan -12, Colossal -16.
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 and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).
Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.
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.
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.
Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving.
If you have the Stealthy feat, you get a bonus on Stealth checks (see Feats).
There are a few things I really want to point out here:
1. This skill covers Hiding and Moving Silently. Which shows the intent when converting from 3.5 Hide/Move Silently to PF Stealth.
2. I also want to note that while cover/concealment are enough to make a Stealth check, as long as you aren't noticed you are treated as having Total Concealment, meaning nothing can see you at all. This also implies that things can see you, and therefore "observe" you, if you only have normal concealment. Keeping in mind that "observation" all the way back from 3.5 was exclusivly based on visual detection and even in PF Stealth it specifies that observation is typically sight based. NOTE: PRD doesn't say Total Concealment, it says Concealment. That seems to be an error on PRD's part. The actual eratta PDF (last I checked) specifically says you are treated as having "Total Concealment."
3. Stealth pulls the majority of it's language from Hide. It still says that if you are "observed" you can't use Stealth. Here is where the change happens, introducing confusion, because PF tried to combine two seperate skills into one. They say: Observing you using any of their senses. That could mean any sense, I agree. They caveate that by adding (but typically sight). Why is that? I believe it's a throw back to the Hide/Move Silently skills. HIDE, a purely vision based skill, is the only part of modern Stealth, which required you to break "observation."
Hence my stance of: Are there things that can "observe" you using other senses? YES, they have special senses available to them. Typically you are only trying to avoid visual "observation." So, does someone who heard or smelled you "observe" you? Probably not, as "observation" is typically sight based.
Did everyone get all that? Because there'll be a test on Monday.
;)
I'm in agreement with Shadowlord 100% on this, it's exactly how I've been running it (both before and after PF).
Personally, I'm at a stage where I'm re-writing a lot of the skills (mostly to add function), Stealth vs Notice vs Actively Searching is something I'm intending to re-design to be much more locked down, wording-wise.
"Typically sight" now means that we ignore all the other senses for humanoids now, apparently. Got it. It doesn't mean "usually" or "most commonly". It means ignore everything else.
The rules specifically mention that all senses are relevant because what they mean is the only one that matters is sight.
That you're using 3.5 to interpret PF isn't a problem. But the rules have pretty significantly changed since then. Makes it difficult to say "It worked this way in 3.5, therefore it works that way in PF" when the rules aren't really the same.
"Observed" doesn't mean "seen". It also encompasses being heard and smelled. So why does jumpimg behind a crate provide for a new stealth check? You're already being observed, in that I could hear you.It counts because the rules say that it does. It works because it says under the Stealth section that cover and/or concealment allows one to enter Stealth.
You want to pull realism into it and wonder how 'hearing' counts as 'observing' someone? Go talk to the people who made Pathfinder. That's what they get for rolling Spot and Listen and everything else into 'Perception'. While it makes no sense to you, it works by the rules.
It doesn't matter if Perception encompasses super hearing or ESP or perceiving foes through subtle variations in the ether. If they have Cover or Concealment, they can attempt the Stealth check to oppose the Perception check, except for the given examples as to when this doesn't work.If it helps you 'grok' it better, yeah, the guy ducking behind the crate to hide? He's probably going to stop making noise, on account of the fact that once he thinks he's hidden he'll stop moving, since motion attracts vision (in the real world, anyway).
I don't need to grok it better. I'm letting the person in concealment or cover make the Stealth check. The entire line of questioning is demonstrating that people are treating like situations differently.
It's easy to stack the deck with scenarios.While these are dificult scenarios for your interpretation to deal with they aren't really "stacking the deck," scenario 1 and 2 are pretty common occurances in game. Roll Perception: You hear something from down a hall around the corner or you hear something on the other side of a door or wall. What about that is stacking? I am just demonstrating that noticing a sound or smell doesn't mean you are "observing" it (in terms of the Stealth skill defined term: observe). The source of that sound could potentially still roll Stealth against you, because you havn't yet truely located the source of the sound.
Right. And it's not relevant to the scenarios I'm positing. You're arguing against a point I'm not making. Noticing something flicker across your vision down a long dark hallway doesn't preclude a Stealth check, either. That's why I'm not bothering to respond to them; they're not relevant.
1. You see a guy dive behind a crate 15' away from you. You can hear him moving around. Are you observing him? Undoubtedly yes. Why do you need to see something to be observing it? Why do you necessarily even need a special sense ability to be able pinpoint a creature's location with a sense other than vision?I'd say that guy is probably screwed. If you saw him dive behind the crate, even if he rolls Stealth and beats Perception, you STILL KNOW WHERE HE HID! You can simply walk to a spot where the crate no longer provides cover.
That said I will break this scenario down according to my interpretation:
1. You have seen the guy, so he is clearly "observed."
2. He dives behind a crate and breaks your (vision based creature) "observation."
3. He rolls for Stealth.
4. You can still hear him moving around so when he rolled Stealth, in my mind that means, you must have beaten his Stealth roll with your Perception roll. Therefore you still know exactly where he is.
Well, "observation" isn't limited to vision. So no, the observation isn't broken. What you're saying is you'll allow a stealth check even while observed, just so long as the observation isn't visually based.
Your position is that when you're being observed, you cannot make a Stealth check. Yet here, you're allowing a Stealth check while observed. You have yet to demonstrate that "observed" means "seen". You attempted to address it, but you haven't established it.
Ultimately it depends on what you think "observed" means in game terms. Bottom line is, most things are vision based. "Observed," however you choose to define that game term, means that the object of observation is denied the chance to make a Stealth check, can't even try. Ok, so if I, me, as a vision based creature, am looking at something (even at night or in a dim room) it will be fairly easy for me to keep that thing in my sights even if it darts off and tries to hide in the shadows. On the other hand, if I heard something in the other room, but can't see it, that thing could pretty easily move quietly and sneak around without me being capable of continuing to "observe" it with my hearing.
Why do you insist on things happening in other rooms? I'm frankly not particularly concerned with that. The more relevant scenario is the guy hiding behind the boxes or moving around in the dark when the lights go out. He's like 20' away, not down the hall and around the corner through some rooms at the other end of the house.
And it's kinda unrealistic in my experience. Is "pinpoint" the best term for "observe?" Probably not, but I DO think you have to be able to consistently track something's dynamic location, relatively accurately, with whatever sense to qualify as "observing" something and making it incapable of a Stealth check. You can do that with vision. It is dificult to shake someone after they have fully seen you. It is not dificult to evade someone's sense of smell (at range). Hearing too, if you make a loud noise in one area, and someone hears you, you can fairly easily move silently to another possition without being detected. In that case I don't think you can fairly rule that hearing the initial noise constitutes "observation."
*shrug* I'm not talking about tracking someone three rooms away. I'm talking about the guy jumping behind a box in the same room. I'm talking about the ghast stepping out of your line of sight into a doorway and standing there.
Allowing Stealth in those situations seems silly to me if you're disallowing the person in concealment to do it.
My line of thought is, if you heard a book fall in another room, you CANNOT fairly say you "observe" the thing that made that book fall. It could be a cat, thief, child, drunk, or any number of other things. The point I was trying to demonstrate is, hearing a noise or smelling something is absolutely enough to tell you something is around, but that alone should not be enough to consider the source "observed" such that it is now incapable of attempting Stealth.
Good then. On that part we agree.
Well this is where you lose me, I have had cats. You can't tell me, would never convince me, that a cat cannot evade your hearing when it wants to. You may hear it in another room if it isn't trying to be quiet, but the second it rolls for Stealth, it's gone. =/= "observed" in the Stealth description.
That's not the point I was making. I was demonstrating why the definitions you used to support your pinpointing claim weren't making the point you were trying to make.
Me being able to hear my cat sometimes doesn't mean I think my cat can never move more silently than I can hear.
That you're using 3.5 to interpret PF isn't a problem. But the rules have pretty significantly changed since then. Makes it difficult to say "It worked this way in 3.5, therefore it works that way in PF" when the rules aren't really the same.
Except that they didn't explicitly state that this worked differently from 3.5e, and used the same words even, just placing the two sentences in different order.
Though, there is precedence for a significant change from minor, incomplete changes to text that virtually no one (not even most of the game writers themselves) caught... for years.
*cough* Flurry of Blows *cough*
I don't expect a developer to chime in on this, since they've already tried the whole ""
What is the purpose of having the "isn't being observed condition"? What change does it make?Basically, I was trying to emphasize that being in stealth is the same as not being observed. Two sides of the same coin you could say.
Especially if it means you can just try again on your next action.Well, I guess you're right on that point. Perhaps if I modify my previous statement like so:
Meaning, when you enter cover or concealment if not already observed, you are given the opportunity to try and stealth. That is, make a stealth check as opposed to the viewer's perception check in an attempt to attain or keep the property of stealth, and thus stay unobserved.This would change it such that if you're being observed already, such as being seen in bright or normal light, and you just entered dim-light (or anything that is concealment, but not total concealment), you can't attempt stealth with a check, because you're already observed as you enter it; it's not entirely difficult to make out when you just barely entered that light and move around while still in that light.
But what about ending in darkness for Total Concealment? So, maybe you pass through dim-light, but still have moves to enter darkness, so you do. Your opponent is now blinded to you (assuming normal vision), and no longer observes you. Next turn, you can attempt to stealth if you try to end up in at least dim-light or cover, as you aren't observed again yet (unless you fail your stealth check).
Does that sound better?
It sounds to me like you've got it. The only thing I would comment on is statement I bolded. If the creature's Perception beats your Stealth, it will know where you moved to, but it still wouldn't be "observing" you (from a game definition standpoint). You still have Total Concealment and my attempt another Stealth check. The creature in your scenario is blind, it may know which square you moved to, but it's like knowing what square an invisible creature moved to. That information is only good until the creature moves again with a successful Stealth check.
Except that they didn't explicitly state that this worked differently from 3.5e, and used the same words even, just placing the two sentences in different order.
Exactly. And in most cases where the designers have made statements about Stealth it turns out they are doing it the EXACT same way it was done in 3.5 just using 2 skills instead of 4 skills. I will provide examples of what I mean in my reply to fretgod99.
First let me provide one fantastic example of what I meant by PF still running Stealth just like 3.5 in every instance, that I have seen, of any designer being willing to comment on it. The debate on whether Stealth provides Sneak Attack has been ongoing for quite some time. It is even still ongoing after having been explicitly answered, but that is beside the point. Quite some time ago Nethys posted this FAQ answer from 3.5 about that exact question.
Question: If a rogue has successfully hidden behind some bushes and fires an arrow at a target less than 30 feet away from her, does she deal sneak attack damage?
Answer: Yes. The rules don’t come right out and say this, but a character who has successfully hidden from an opponent is considered invisible for the purpose of rendering that foe flatfooted, and thus deals sneak attack damage.
That has always pretty much been enough for me. That is how Sneak Attack ran in 3.5 and lets not forget:
Yet people cried out for a designer answer about whether Stealth granted Sneak Attack. One boards member who is also quite knowledgeable about Stealth PF rules even wrote THIS POST, about a PF RAW justification for Stealth granting Sneak Attack. As it turns out, he was absolutely correct, but let's forget we know that and fast forward to the masses on the boards still wailing about Stealth not granting Sneak Attack. Eventually, right around the time of the Stealth Playtest (I don't remember exact timeline) a pretty substantial bit of errata dropped for Stealth.
This new Stealth errata cleared up a few things. You are supposed to be treated as if you have Total Concealment if your Stealth is successful. That is, essentially invisible. Ok, not really new, that has been the case sine 3.5. You can now move between areas of cover/concealment without falling out of Stealth. Ok, also not new, that was established in 3.5 publications. And there were some other lines that look to be literally copy/pasted from the 3.5 Hide skill description. Cool. But people STILL cried out for someone to tell them it was okay to apply Sneak Attack on a strike from Stealth.
Then, at LONG LAST, Jason Bulmahn himself pipes up about Sneak Attack from Stealth.
2. 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. I think we probably should have spelled this out a wee bit clearer, but space in the Stealth description was extraordinarily tight and ever word was at a premium. That said, I think these changes clear up the situation immensely (compared to where they were.. which was nebulous at best).
Basically repeating what had been long established by 3.5 FAQ and was even pointed out per PF RAW by a rules savvy guy on the forums.
...
fretgod99,
Does that case relate to this one? Not directly, no, but it has implications that are relevant. Does that mean I am right about Observation being a mainly visual term pulled from 3.5 Hide? Not necessarily, but at least one designer has made a statement that falls in line with the case I have presented to you.
The bolding is mine. But the words sound suspiciously like what I and a few others have been trying to convince you of.
Right. And it's not relevant to the scenarios I'm positing. You're arguing against a point I'm not making. Noticing something flicker across your vision down a long dark hallway doesn't preclude a Stealth check, either. That's why I'm not bothering to respond to them; they're not relevant.
Ok then, moving on. I have responded to your scenario with how I would run it based on my interpretation of Stealth/Perception and the word "observed." I now have some questions for you that will be relevant to your scenario:
1. You see a guy dive behind a crate 15' away from you. You can hear him moving around. Are you observing him? Undoubtedly yes.
How do you KNOW you can hear him moving around behind the crate? This is a serous question. You can no longer see him and you can only hear him IF a listen based Perception check says you can. And if you have to roll Perception to "determine whether or not you can still hear him" how can you claim to be actively "observing" him in such a manner that he cannot at least attempt to use Stealth and move silently?
...
New Scenario 1:
Round 1: Rogue and Guard begin combat. Rogue wins Initiative, pulls out a scroll of Blindness/Deafness and uses it. Guard fails save and is Blinded. Rouge takes a 5' step into a square adjacent to the Guard and rolls for Stealth to mask his movement. In your opinion, is the Rogue allowed to do that? Why? Can't the Guard still hear the Rogue?
Round 2: Rogue unleashes a full attack on the Guard. Guard survives. Rogue 5' steps to another square adjacent to the Guard and rolls for Stealth to mask his movement. In your opinion, is the Rogue allowed to do that? Why? Can't the Guard still hear the Rogue?
...
New Scenario 2:
Surprise Round 1: Adventurer is fighting an Invisible Stalker. Invisible Stalker attacks the Adventurer in Surprise Round. Invisible Stalker 5' steps to another square adjacent to Adventurer and rolls for Stealth to mask his movement. In your opinion, is the Stalker allowed to do that? Why? Can't the Adventurer still hear the Stalker?
Round 1: Rinse/Repeat.
...
"Typically sight" now means that we ignore all the other senses for humanoids now, apparently. Got it. It doesn't mean "usually" or "most commonly". It means ignore everything else.
The rules specifically mention that all senses are relevant because what they mean is the only one that matters is sight.
Well, "observation" isn't limited to vision. So no, the observation isn't broken. What you're saying is you'll allow a stealth check even while observed, just so long as the observation isn't visually based.
Your position is that when you're being observed, you cannot make a Stealth check. Yet here, you're allowing a Stealth check while observed. You have yet to demonstrate that "observed" means "seen". You attempted to address it, but you haven't established it.
I have explained in painful detail exactly what my stance is and what my criteria for Stealth/Perception/Observation is. My criteria has not changed. I have not contradicted myself.
1. I have provided a painfully long description of my interpretation.
3. I have provided numerous examples of other rules concerning Stealth/Perception that my interpretation stands up to.
4. I have provided historical data in the evolution of 3.5 to PF and how I came to my interpretation.
5. I have provided historical data on PF running Stealth in the same manner that 3.5 ran Hide/Move Silently.
6. I have even provided a designer statement indicating my interpretation is correct.
Please provide any of that based on your interpretation. As far as I can tell your criteria for Stealth/Perception/Observation change on a case by case basis. There are several other rules that present contradictions with your interpretation. You are utterly wrong when paired with any historical data. And I have seen no designer statements that would support what you are trying to say. I am even confident that Stealth is run in PFS similarly to how I have described it; a poster in one of these Stealth threads is a PFS GM. While I disagree with some of what happens in PFS, they are at least pretty good at determining RAW. I don't even really know what your stance exactly is because on one hand you are saying the guy behind the crates can't use Stealth because you are observing him with your ears and on the other hand you are saying the guy in concealment should be able to use Stealth because he isn't observed even when you are looking right at him. Could you clear this up?
....
That's not the point I was making. I was demonstrating why the definitions you used to support your pinpointing claim weren't making the point you were trying to make.
Me being able to hear my cat sometimes doesn't mean I think my cat can never move more silently than I can hear.
Then you are not "observing" your cat with your ears. If you were "observing" it, it wouldn't be able to use Stealth to move silently. Because if it's "observed" it can't use Stealth until it breaks that "observation."
I found another little tid-bit in the Environment section of the CRB.
Concerning Darkness
A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents' Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature “over there somewhere.” It's almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature's square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature).
It also goes on to say that even after you pinpoint a creature. That information is only good until the creature moves and you no longer know where it is. Sounds like at any time that creature can still use Stealth, which means even after being pinpointed through hearing, it isn't considered "observed."
Similar language is found in the CRB Glossary section describing Invisibility.
"Observing" with non-visual senses requires things like Tremorsense (touch) or Blindsense (echolocation or super heightened smell). Even those don't prevent loss of Dex to AC (well, I'm not sure about tremorsense, doesn't really say).
Blindsight even lets you "see" your opponents movements such that you aren't losing Dex to AC against them.
Automatic Pinpointing is spelled out in these sense categories, and unless you have something that makes it "automatic", you are allowing a Stealth check. Since "obervation" means "not allowing a stealth check", you'll need Tremorsense, Blindsense, or Blindsight to be able to use non-visual methods of "observation".
I found another little tid-bit in the Environment section of the CRB.
Concerning Darkness
A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents' Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature “over there somewhere.” It's almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature's square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature).It also goes on to say that even after you pinpoint a creature. That information is only good until the creature moves and you no longer know where it is. Sounds like at any time that creature can still use Stealth, which means even after being pinpointed through hearing, it isn't considered "observed."
Similar language is found in the CRB Glossary section describing Invisibility.
Indeed. And I'll note, the "beat the DC by 20" and "Invisibility gives you +20 to your Stealth" are the same thing, just stated from the different perspectives (someone trying to find a person, and the person trying to hide). Though the spell adds an additional +20 (total +40) when standing still. I'm not sure if that was intended to be a feature of the spell or of invisibility itself.
The only thing I would comment on is statement I bolded. If the creature's Perception beats your Stealth, it will know where you moved to, but it still wouldn't be "observing" you (from a game definition standpoint). You still have Total Concealment and my attempt another Stealth check. The creature in your scenario is blind, it may know which square you moved to, but it's like knowing what square an invisible creature moved to. That information is only good until the creature moves again with a successful Stealth check.You say a character still has total concealment from someone when their perception check beats his stealth check?
Usually they would not but remember your scenario:
But what about ending in darkness for Total Concealment? So, maybe you pass through dim-light, but still have moves to enter darkness, so you do. Your opponent is now blinded to you (assuming normal vision), and no longer observes you. Next turn, you can attempt to stealth if you try to end up in at least dim-light or cover, as you aren't observed again yet (unless you fail your stealth check).
Normally, if you fail Stealth you are seen. In your scenario you would only keep Total Concealment if you stay in the darkness. In that case your Total Concealment is coming from the darkness, not Stealth. So even though the thing trying to hear you wins Perception, they still wouldn't be able to "see" you. They would just hear you and know roughly where you are.
A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents' Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature “over there somewhere.” It's almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature's square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature).
I don't understand that when the stealth skill states:
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.To me this would indicate that if the opposite were to happen (if a creature succeeds) they are aware of you and do not treat you as if you have total concealment. Am I missing something?
In most cases you are right. However, your scenario incorporates darkness. If your Total Concealment is only coming from Stealth, then if you lose Stealth you lose Total Concealment. In your scenario, however, the Total Concealment was coming from the fact that your observer was blinded by darkness. He will remain blinded by darkness even if he beats your Stealth check with Perception. He will only be able to hear where you are, not see you.
If any of you get time I have done a small rewrite on the stealth section.
To avoid TLDR I did not recopy the entire stealth or invisibility section. I would like for you to read it and let me know if there are any questions not answered. I know my rules are not official, but it is what I intend to use for my own games.
Just to be clear:
Allowing Stealth in those situations seems silly to me if you're disallowing the person in concealment to do it.
I absolutely would allow the observed person in concealment to roll Stealth. Right after their successful Bluff check.
1. You see a guy dive behind a crate 15' away from you. You can hear him moving around. Are you observing him? Undoubtedly yes.How do you KNOW you can hear him moving around behind the crate? This is a serous question. You can no longer see him and you can only hear him IF a listen based Perception check says you can. And if you have to roll Perception to "determine whether or not you can still hear him" how can you claim to be actively "observing" him in such a manner that he cannot at least attempt to use Stealth and move silently?
The same way you KNOW it's the person you're looking at even though he's standing in really dim lighting 30' while you're in the middle of a pitched battle.
And I didn't ever say you have to roll perception to determine if you still hear him. The same way you don't have to roll perception to determine if you still see him.
New Scenario 1:
Round 1: Rogue and Guard begin combat. Rogue wins Initiative, pulls out a scroll of Blindness/Deafness and uses it. Guard fails save and is Blinded. Rouge takes a 5' step into a square adjacent to the Guard and rolls for Stealth to mask his movement. In your opinion, is the Rogue allowed to do that? Why? Can't the Guard still hear the Rogue?
Yes, he can. But I think you're forgetting that I don't think the "being observed" language is as strict (in regard to any sense) as you do (in regard to vision). I'm pressing the hearing issue because I think people aren't being uniform in their application of the rules, not because I'm actually advocating for that interpretation.
Round 2: Rogue unleashes a full attack on the Guard. Guard survives. Rogue 5' steps to another square adjacent to the Guard and rolls for Stealth to mask his movement. In your opinion, is the Rogue allowed to do that? Why? Can't the Guard still hear the Rogue?
The underlying principle is the same, yes. The question is whether you think a Stealth roll should be allowed in conjunction with a 5' step. It sort of depends on if you think "as a part of movement" means "as a part of movement through use of a move action" or just as a part of covering any particular distance.
New Scenario 2:
Surprise Round 1: Adventurer is fighting an Invisible Stalker. Invisible Stalker attacks the Adventurer in Surprise Round. Invisible Stalker 5' steps to another square adjacent to Adventurer and rolls for Stealth to mask his movement. In your opinion, is the Stalker allowed to do that? Why? Can't the Adventurer still hear the Stalker?
Round 1: Rinse/Repeat.
Aside from the 5' step question, yeah. Same situation as above.
I have explained in painful detail exactly what my stance is and what my criteria for Stealth/Perception/Observation is. My criteria has not changed. I have not contradicted myself.
1. I have provided a painfully long description of my interpretation.
3. I have provided numerous examples of other rules concerning Stealth/Perception that my interpretation stands up to.
4. I have provided historical data in the evolution of 3.5 to PF and how I came to my interpretation.
5. I have provided historical data on PF running Stealth in the same manner that 3.5 ran Hide/Move Silently.
6. I have even provided a designer statement indicating my interpretation is correct.Please provide any of that based on your interpretation. As far as I can tell your criteria for Stealth/Perception/Observation change on a case by case basis. There are several other rules that present contradictions with your interpretation. You are utterly wrong when paired with any historical data. And I have seen no designer statements that would support what you are trying to say. I am even confident that Stealth is run in PFS similarly to how I have described it; a poster in one of these Stealth threads is a PFS GM. While I disagree with some of what happens in PFS, they are at least pretty good at determining RAW. I don't even really know what your stance exactly is because on one hand you are saying the guy behind the crates can't use Stealth because you are observing him with your ears and on the other hand you are saying the guy in concealment should be able to use Stealth because he isn't observed even when you are looking right at him. Could you clear this up?
1. You've provided a painfully long description about why you think "observe" means "see". But that doesn't hold up, even in regard to the definitions you provided. Words like "aware", "conscious", "cognizant", etc. do not mean "must have specific, immediate, identifiable knowledge". But that's basically the conclusion you draw. Observe doesn't mean pinpoint. Observe doesn't mean see.
2. You've provided situations that also work under your interpretation. That's fine. It's a valid interpretation. It works under others as well, hence the repeatedly occurring discussion about how the rules work.3. Historical data is certainly fine. I like looking to 3.5 when interpreting rules of PF much of the time. It doesn't work well when there's been a significant change in the rules, though. And I would consider the inclusion of all one's senses in regard to observation as a significant change in the rules.
4. What's the historical data on PF running Stealth the same way as under 3.5? I seem to have missed that.
5. You've provided a designer statement regarding Hellcat Stealth. That feat allows you to make Stealth checks in Bright or normal light, which is different than normal. It does not mention dim lighting or any other situation providing concealment. And technically, the wording of the feat and the "Normal" line from the entry tends to imply that being in concealment means you're not "being observed". After all, the thing being changed is the lighting condition. Nothing else.
This is yet another example of "proof" for either side that really can easily be interpreted to support either side. That's sort of the point here and it's been stated by a number of posters already; the Stealth rules as they are written don't really lend themselves to being easily understood.
My position isn't that a person in concealment can make a Stealth check but a person behind cover can't because you can hear that person. My position is that concealment breaks observation, much like cover. The most common counter to this position is "You're being observed." And my response, which we've been arguing about for a while, is that the explicit language of the rules on the page do not limit observation to only sight. And they don't. You cannot say that the line "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth" means that observation only applies to sight. Despite the fact that this may be how Hide worked in 3.5, that has been changed in PF. Observation explicitly applies to all senses.
As you've noted and as I've pointed out, this makes Stealth rules quite difficult to work. That's the entire point of me discussing hearing the guy behind the crate. It's to demonstrate that maybe RAW doesn't work too smoothly, particularly if you're insistent upon relying on the observation language, but only for one sense.
So if you think I advocate that a GM address each situation as it comes up, you're right; that's pretty much my position. Do I think it's necessarily appropriate that dim lighting concealment alone should provide for a Stealth check in every situation (like standing right next to somebody)? Not really. But I'm not going to uniformly and flatly deny a rogue standing 30' away in the shadows the ability to Stealth in battle because s/he's "being observed" any more than I will prohibit the Rogue who ran behind a bit crate from doing the same because s/he's also "being observed". As a GM, you should exercise your discretion and make sure everybody is on the same page. RAW doesn't work particularly well in this area, so figure out what does. For me and my group, that includes allowing concealment to break observation much of the time.
Finally, in regards to the me hearing my cat bit, you're confusing the two points being discussed.
Then you are not "observing" your cat with your ears. If you were "observing" it, it wouldn't be able to use Stealth to move silently. Because if it's "observed" it can't use Stealth until it breaks that "observation."That's not the point I was making. I was demonstrating why the definitions you used to support your pinpointing claim weren't making the point you were trying to make.
Me being able to hear my cat sometimes doesn't mean I think my cat can never move more silently than I can hear.
I wasn't addressing whether my cat would be allowed to make a Stealth roll because I can hear here walking around the bedroom late at night. I was addressing your argument that "observe" = "pinpoint" because you traced the definitions of synonyms to things like "to be aware". I was simply pointing out that "to be aware" isn't nearly so precise as you are claiming it to be.
My exact quote was
I mean, we can get into the semantics all day, but a vast majority of the words you bolded don't actually necessitate the conclusion you're saying that they do. Discern, pay attention to, informed, aware? These are the words you think mean A LOT (to use your emphasis) more than having some vague idea that something is around (which, again, wasn't something I've ever actually argued)? I can discern different ingredients in food by taste. I can become aware that my cat has walked into a dark room and know precisely where she is because I can hear her walking on the carpet. I can identify a composer of a piece of music by sound alone.
The point wasn't, "I can hear my cat, therefore anything I hear is denied a Stealth check." The point was, "Your argument that the definition of 'to be aware' supports your belief that 'observe' means being able to 'visually pinpoint' is ill-founded."
Shadowlord wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
1. You see a guy dive behind a crate 15' away from you. You can hear him moving around. Are you observing him? Undoubtedly yes.
How do you KNOW you can hear him moving around behind the crate? This is a serous question. You can no longer see him and you can only hear him IF a listen based Perception check says you can. And if you have to roll Perception to "determine whether or not you can still hear him" how can you claim to be actively "observing" him in such a manner that he cannot at least attempt to use Stealth and move silently?
The same way you KNOW it's the person you're looking at even though he's standing in really dim lighting 30' while you're in the middle of a pitched battle.And I didn't ever say you have to roll perception to determine if you still hear him. The same way you don't have to roll perception to determine if you still see him.
There is no roll to detect a guy standing there in front of you because you probably auto-detect him starting at level 1. If something is visible and your Perception bonus is high enough that you would detect it even if you rolled a 1 (auto-detect) then it is "observed." Otherwise you probably can't strictly say it is "observed" because you have to roll Perception to determine if you notice it's presence. The thing is, most characters at lvl 1 can visually auto-detect a guy standing in concealment from a pretty high distance.
In the case of a guy standing in the open, in an area of dim light, 30' away, the DC to detect that guy is 5 (Base DC 0, +3 Distance, and +2 Unfavorable Conditions). Most characters can visually auto-detect that guy at level 1 even if they aren't taking 10 on Perception. So, he can relatively easily be, "observed." Throw in that, outside of combat, an adventurer is probably taking 10 on Perception nearly all the time. Now you begin auto detecting things out to at least 110' (90' with Unfavorable Conditions).
There is no auto-detect DC for a guy who is not visible and is trying to be quiet behind a crate. In fact, there are rules that support the idea that if you don't have line of sight to someone the base DC for you to notice them is their Stealth check. Furthermore, you have to beat that DC by 20 to pinpoint their location.
A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents' Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature “over there somewhere.” It's almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature's square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature).
So, if you don't have LOS to something, you can't auto-detect it via Perception. If you can't auto-detect something via Perception you aren't automatically "observing" it. And if you're not observing it, it can use Stealth. Is that a clearer/fairer way to state what I have been saying this whole time? Maybe I should have used the term auto-detect vs. pinpoint in my original posts.
...
Yes, he can. But I think you're forgetting that I don't think the "being observed" language is as strict (in regard to any sense) as you do (in regard to vision). I'm pressing the hearing issue because I think people aren't being uniform in their application of the rules, not because I'm actually advocating for that interpretation.New Scenario 1:
Round 1: Rogue and Guard begin combat. Rogue wins Initiative, pulls out a scroll of Blindness/Deafness and uses it. Guard fails save and is Blinded. Rouge takes a 5' step into a square adjacent to the Guard and rolls for Stealth to mask his movement. In your opinion, is the Rogue allowed to do that? Why? Can't the Guard still hear the Rogue?
So your argument is "for equal treatement of all senses in regard to Perception checks." Would that be a fair assessment?
The problem with that is: In no place in PF is it indicated that all sense are equal. There are several rules examples where, unless you have special senses, VISION is your most important sense. That is not just fluff, that is from a mechanical standpoint. The rule I quoted above are a perfect example. The rules for detecting an invisible attacker are another perfect example. Or how about the fact that Invisibility confers a +20/+40 to Stealth checks because they make vision based detection impossible while the Silence spell confers exactly +0 bonus to Stealth checks. Yes it makes audio detection impossible but there is no inherant bonus to Stealth or inherant penalty to general Perception checks. Or that a creature with Scent, the keenest of noses, can't locate a creature it can't see unless it comes within 5' of that creature. The fact is, all senses are NOT equal. Most things are vision based, to the point that the mechanics of the game are largely vision based. Creatures who can auto-detect with senses other than vision have Special Senses listed.
...
The question is whether you think a Stealth roll should be allowed in conjunction with a 5' step. It sort of depends on if you think "as a part of movement" means "as a part of movement through use of a move action" or just as a part of covering any particular distance.
Part of a movement =/= part of a Move Action. No matter how much anyone wants it to be the same, the fact is, movement is not the same as Move Action. The Stealth description even goes so far as to specifically state the only situation in which using Stealth actually takes up a full Move Action:
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.
To back that up:
Also, don't forget the first line in the action description says, "Usually none."
Granted, JJ isn't a Rules Team guy and never claims that his word is official law, or official RAW. But he is a designer and has been playing these games for a very long time. So I usually take his words as a compass point to see if I am in the right ballpark with my own interpretations. As far as I am concerned, use of a 5' Step to initiate Stealth is legit.
...
1. I have provided a painfully long description of my interpretation.1. You've provided a painfully long description about why you think "observe" means "see".
And my interpretation is that "observe" typically means "see." So we agree that I did what I said.
But that doesn't hold up, even in regard to the definitions you provided. Words like "aware", "conscious", "cognizant", etc. do not mean "must have specific, immediate, identifiable knowledge". But that's basically the conclusion you draw. Observe doesn't mean pinpoint. Observe doesn't mean see.
My interpretation has not changed at all, I posted my interpretation in my second post on this threat:
The definitions I used were simply my attempt to explain my interpretation in a new way, because you asked: Where does it say that "observe" = "able to pinpoint"?. My interpretation has not changed at all, as you can see at the end of this post where I say, "Hence my stance of: Are there things that can "observe" you using other senses? YES, they have special senses available to them. Typically you are only trying to avoid visual "observation." So, does someone who heard or smelled you "observe" you? Probably not, as "observation" is typically sight based."
2. You've provided situations that also work under your interpretation. That's fine. It's a valid interpretation. It works under others as well, hence the repeatedly occurring discussion about how the rules work.
There is still the undenyable fact that vision is treated in higher regard than any other sense, from a mechanical standpoint.
3. Historical data is certainly fine. I like looking to 3.5 when interpreting rules of PF much of the time. It doesn't work well when there's been a significant change in the rules, though. And I would consider the inclusion of all one's senses in regard to observation as a significant change in the rules.
From the 3.5 to Pathfinder Conversion Guide:
SKILLS: The biggest change is the elimination and combination
of a number of skills. For example, Hide and Move
Silently have been combined into one skill called
Stealth.
That is litterally all the original conversion guide has to say about it. That dosn't indicate any significant change in rules to me. It indicates exactly what I posted up-thread in my 3.5 to PF write-up. Furthermore, in every situation where the PF designers have spoken up about Stealth or errata'd Stealth, the clarifications they have made are clerifications that were already part of Hide/Move Silently in 3.5 and from WotC FAQ. So if there has been some significant change you are going to have to point it out because none of that sounds all that significant to me. It sounds like, and what they even wrote was, Hide/Move Silently merged into Stealth. No other changes.
4. What's the historical data on PF running Stealth the same way as under 3.5? I seem to have missed that.
In the begining of this post, I explained how PF dropped Stealth Errata that really only included, in their own description, stuff that was already part of Hide/Move Silently in 3.5, and how JB stated that, by RAW, Stealth permits for Sneak Attack... which was also already established from 3.5 Hide. My point being, Stealth started as a simple combination of Hide/Move Silently and even with new statements from designers and Errata there has been no indication that it was INTENDED to work any differently than it did in the 3.5 rules.
5. You've provided a designer statement regarding Hellcat Stealth.
I know. And how does that change anything JJ said about Stealth? All HCS does is modify the circumstances needed for using Stealth. The fact that he is answering a question about HCS doesn't change what he said about the normal use of Stealth:
Normally, even if you have a great hiding spot, you can't make a stealth check when someone's whatching you. You typically have to distract them with a Bluff check or otherwise move into full cover to break line of sight before you can make a Stealth check. This feat lets you avoid that extra step and just try to Stealth... with a big penalty... while someone's looking at you.
The fact that he is answering a question about HCS doesn't change the fact that he compares it to normal Stealth use.
And technically, the wording of the feat and the "Normal" line from the entry tends to imply that being in concealment means you're not "being observed".
No it doesn't. It indicates that "normally" you can make Stealth checks if you aren't observed.
After all, the thing being changed is the lighting condition.
No. What's being changed is the fact that you can use Stealth while being observed. The light levels are included so you know when you can/cannot use this feat. It's pretty obvious if you look at the description of HCS and use some deduction:
Benefit: You may make Stealth checks in normal or bright light even when observed, but at a –10 penalty.
Deduct the light levels and you have: "You may make Stealth checks even while being observed, but at a -10 penalty." That would be blanket HiPS. That would be OMG, stupid powerful.
Deduct the observation part and you have: "You may make Stealth checks in normal or bright light, but at a -10 penalty." Well that certainly seems dumb, especially since you can already make Stealth checks in bright and normal light without a penalty.
The normal and bright light levels are only there to indicate the trigger circumstance for using the feat. Same as every other form of HiPS, there is a trigger: Shadowdancer/Assasin - be within 10 feet of dim light, Ranger - be withing Favored Terrain, Rogue - be within Favored Terrain, Shadow Bloodline - be within 10' of shadow, Hellcat Stealth - be in bright or normal light.
This is yet another example of "proof" for either side that really can easily be interpreted to support either side.
All it demonstrates to me is that you are skilled at evading the very logical arguments of others without posting any actual supporting data for your own argument.
My position is that concealment breaks observation, much like cover.
Cool.
Please tell me the auto-detect DC for a guy who has broken line of sight behind cover and is not moving, I don't see that on the Perception chart. The DC to auto-detect a guy standing in concealment is 2+(1 per 10' of seperation).
Also please justify the following section of rules against your position and the answer you provide for the above auto-detect DC:
A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents' Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature “over there somewhere.” It's almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature's square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature).
The only difference between standing in concealment and standing in darkness is vision based.
The most common counter to this position is "You're being observed."
Well with an auto detect DC of 2+(1 per 10' of seperation) I would say that's a fair answer.
And my response, which we've been arguing about for a while, is that the explicit language of the rules on the page do not limit observation to only sight. And they don't. You cannot say that the line "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth" means that observation only applies to sight.
Please define "but typically sight" in your interpretation. Why do you think that's pressent at all?
Despite the fact that this may be how Hide worked in 3.5, that has been changed in PF.
Roughly 1% of the language was changed from 3.5 rules. I have never read anything that indicates to me that the mechanical intent was changed from 3.5 rules.
So if you think I advocate that a GM address each situation as it comes up, you're right; that's pretty much my position. Do I think it's necessarily appropriate that dim lighting concealment alone should provide for a Stealth check in every situation (like standing right next to somebody)? Not really.
However, if you were correct and by RAW concealment breaks observation, then a Rogue standing right next to you in dim light COULD use Stealth. Whether you think it's appropriate in every situation or not, that is what you would be approving if RAW agreed with concealment breaking observation. That means Rogues in dim light could full attack from Stealth (sneak attack on the first strike) then 5' step and regain Stealth. No Bluff, no breaking of LOS, no special HiPS ability. Just a 5' step. Obsevation is a go/no go point. It is either on or off. If dim light/normal concealment breaks observation, Rogues disappearing right beside you is exactly what would happen.
But I'm not going to uniformly and flatly deny a rogue standing 30' away in the shadows the ability to Stealth in battle because s/he's "being observed" any more than I will prohibit the Rogue who ran behind a bit crate from doing the same because s/he's also "being observed".
The thing about that is, you recieve an automatic Perception check any time you encounter anything you might notice. The DC to notice a guy standing 30' away in dim light is roughly 5, unless he was already using Stealth when you roll your Perception check. So, even at level 1, and rolling a 1 on the d20, most characters would auto-detect that guy as soon as they walk into the area. Also, it's entirely reasonable to think, outside of battle, that a party would be constantly taking 10 on Perception. If that's the case a lvl 1 PC would auto-detect that guy out to a range of at least 90' even in dim light, and that's assuming Perception isn't a class skill and a Wisdom score of 10.
On the other hand, if that same guy is standing 30' away behind cover, total cover, or in total concealment (all of which break line of sight), what is the auto-detect DC for him? IMO that would be resolved similarly to this:
A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents' Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature “over there somewhere.” It's almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature's square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature).
No, my position isn't for equal treatment in regard to senses. I'm not sure how else to say this other than the ways I have. My position is that concealment breaks observation for the purpose of using Stealth. Also that the Stealth rules as written don't necessarily work great in every scenario. But mostly that first bit.
In regard to what your lengthy post demonstrated, it was that your position was observation necessitated sight.
As to the significant change, as noted, clearly and unequivocally stating that observation is pertinent to all senses, not just one, is a rather significant change. Hence, 3.5 and PF are not necessarily the same.
That the question was being answered about Hellcat Stealth actually really does matter. Normally, you cannot make Stealth checks while observed. Hellcat Stealth lets you make Stealth checks in bright or normal light, even while being observed. So per your interpretation, you're better at hiding in broad daylight than in moonlight. *shrug*
The Perception rules cover making DC checks with all senses and the unfavorable modifiers also discuss them explicitly. So just like you craft your auto-detect DCs for vision-based checks, it looks like you can do them just the same with audio-based checks. Hearing the sound of a creature walking is DC 10. That seems to me to adequately reflect the idea that most PCs are predominantly sight-based; the ordinary DCs for Perception checks for other senses are higher. Add 2 for background noise. Adjust for distance. Voila! Works just like with vision.
Hopefully that (again) deals with the "typically vision" nonsense. "Typically" does not mean "exclusively". And the rules cover for non-vision based Perception checks.
*shrug*
I'm perfectly comfortable with all the implications of how I interpret the Stealth rules. That you're not is of no consequence to me.
EDIT: Also, I should note that Hellcat Stealth is intended to function just like HiPS. As you yourself noted here, Sean made it known that this was point.
That the question was being answered about Hellcat Stealth actually really does matter. Normally, you cannot make Stealth checks while observed.
And what words does JJ use interchangably with the term "observed?" I'll give you a hint:
Normally, even if you have a great hiding spot, you can't make a stealth check when someone's whatching you. You typically have to distract them with a Bluff check or otherwise move into full cover to break line of sight before you can make a Stealth check. This feat lets you avoid that extra step and just try to Stealth... with a big penalty... while someone's looking at you.
Hellcat Stealth lets you make Stealth checks in bright or normal light, even while being observed. So per your interpretation, you're better at hiding in broad daylight than in moonlight. *shrug*
Absolutely, because you have a feat that gives you daylight HiPS. That feat is specifically designed to mimic a Hellcat, which is invisible during the day.
The Perception rules cover making DC checks with all senses and the unfavorable modifiers also discuss them explicitly. So just like you craft your auto-detect DCs for vision-based checks, it looks like you can do them just the same with audio-based checks. Hearing the sound of a creature walking is DC 10. That seems to me to adequately reflect the idea that most PCs are predominantly sight-based; the ordinary DCs for Perception checks for other senses are higher. Add 2 for background noise. Adjust for distance. Voila! Works just like with vision.
The DC I put together is for a visible person. Please quote the DC for a person you can't see who is not walking.
ALSO: Please explain, in your interpretation, why the darkness rules don't just have an auto-detect DC of 10 +/- but rather say your DC is the Stealth check of creatures you are trying to find. What, if anything, is the difference between a guy you can't see because he is behind cover and a guy you can't see because he is in total concealment? Either way the base DC to hear him should be the same. Reference:
A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents' Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature “over there somewhere.” It's almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature's square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature).
I'm perfectly comfortable with all the implications of how I interpret the Stealth rules. That you're not is of no consequence to me.
You honestly think PF designers intended for someone to be able to full attack, then 5' step into Stealth, without total concealment or a special ability (HiPS)? I am comfortable with those implications. I'd love that. I just don't think that's RAI or even RAW.
EDIT: Also, I should note that Hellcat Stealth is intended to function just like HiPS. As you yourself noted here, Sean made it known that this was point.
I know, I was there. The question Lokie asked SKR was a result of THIS conversation I had with him. When I first saw the feat, my thoughts were: It allows you to use Stealth while being observed but doesn't mention anything about canceling the need for cover/concealment. At that time I believed, while the feat allowed you to use Stealth while being observed, you would still need to have cover/concealment. That is why Lokie asked his question. And SKR's answer was in regard to that. The feat explicitly states it trumps observation, that was already known. All his statement confirmed was that it was also meant to trump the need for cover/concealment. That in no way implies that cover breaks observation if that is what you're trying to imply. You may find my views have evolved a little bit since that post in 2009, but my interpretation that you must have two things to achieve Stealth has not changed, and my view that concealment doesn't break observation has not changed.
Two things you need:
1: Cover/Concealment.
2: Not being observed.
2a: If observed you must break observation.
2b: Concealment alone doesn't break observation.
*shrug*
Seems like from the playtest the developers intend to have concealment break observation. They didn't adopt the rules because it amounts to a rewrite, beyond the scope of errata.
You can say it hasn't been adopted, therefore it's not intent. But the indication regarding how they think concealment interacts with observation is pretty clear from that. They just didn't make it more explicit. They're not really operating under the assumption that everything is just like 3.5. RAI, for me then, seems to indicate that concealment works to break observation.
If you're in darkness, you have > concealment, you can Stealth. Makes sense to me. Someone who's staying still behind cover, in my opinion and under my interpretation, that'd also be their Stealth check. Works the same for me. You're forgetting that I'm not actually advocating a restrictive position on observation.
And you still haven't convinced me that "Observing using any of your senses (typically sight)" means "Observing using any of your sensing (exclusively sight, unless you have a superpower enhancing a different sense)". RAW, observation applies to all senses.
It's almost like RAW doesn't really work all that great. That may be the reason they so strenuously playtested new Stealth rules.
I know, I was there. The question Lokie asked SKR was a result of THIS conversation I had with him. When I first saw the feat, my thoughts were: It allows you to use Stealth while being observed but doesn't mention anything about canceling the need for cover/concealment. At that time I believed, while the feat allowed you to use Stealth while being observed, you would still need to have cover/concealment. That is why Lokie asked his question. And SKR's answer was in regard to that. The feat explicitly states it trumps observation, that was already known.
I guess then I'm a bit curious about this response:
Deduct the light levels and you have: "You may make Stealth checks even while being observed, but at a -10 penalty." That would be blanket HiPS. That would be OMG, stupid powerful.
That's all I was getting at. It's supposed to be a blanket HiPS, but with a -10 penalty because you're in bright or normal light.
Well, F@#$ me. It looks like I was mistaken about normal concealment not breaking observation. At least in JJ's opinion, which is enough for me. For your consideration:
Concealment gives the rogue (or ANYONE for that matter) the opportunity to make a Stealth check. If she's successful, the person observing her loses track of her, and she can then make a sneak attack or whatever when she's next able to do so.
fretgod99, thanks for debating me until I started to question myself and had to ask. Apparently, basic Stealth is a little more potent than I thought.
....
And you still haven't convinced me that "Observing using any of your senses (typically sight)" means "Observing using any of your sensing (exclusively sight, unless you have a superpower enhancing a different sense)". RAW, observation applies to all senses.
You can't deny that most of the rules are heavily slanted toward vision as the primary sense. But, the point is moot since the only thing I was trying to debate was concealment breaking observation and I was mistaken.
It's supposed to be a blanket HiPS, but with a -10 penalty because you're in bright or normal light.
That was from the POV that you still wouldn't be able to use Stealth in normal concealment without first breaking LOS. It's only HiPS in normal/bright light at -10... so I guess in a way it is blanket HiPS, considering you can already hide while someone is looking at you in concealment. Although, actual shadow HiPS does still confer the advantage of being able to use Stealth against Darkvision and LLV and up to 10' outside of dim light without a penalty... so I guess it's still worth getting. I was just attributing being able to hide in normal concealment while someone is looking at you to HiPS, not normal Stealth.
Undoubtedly the rules are heavily slanted towards vision. That's one of many reasons why it's certainly understandable that a lot of people shared your perspective. As everyone's noted, it's not like the Stealth rules are particularly easy to parse out; hence the frequently reoccurring, long running debates.
To be honest, if I had to read it cold (especially without knowing about the extensive playtesting), I would just as easily (if not be more likely to) come to the conclusion you did.
Cheers and Happy Gaming!