Just bear in mind the designers have said they would like to re-examine stealth in one of the blog posts. I forget when.
My feeling has already been made clear in other posts. You can't attack and then use stealth once you have attacked. As the post above makes clear, you can't use stealth while attacking. As you obviously can't use stealth alongside a standard attack or full attack action (because they aren't move actions) I chose to believe the designers didn't intend the phrase to be redundant and it actually means something.
There is an exception clearly described as sniping, which can be done if you are more than 10ft away and already hidden, by using a move action with a significant penalty. I so nothing to indicate that this should also be made redundant by letting people attack and stealth normally.
I really don't see that we need to complicate things with debates about five foot steps or the length actions take. It really seems quite simple.
Peace out.
I would point out that using the Sniping has a different advantage. If successful, your opponent does not know which square you attacked from, since you remain obscured.
If you move after attacking, you can stealth as part of your movement as long as the other requirements are met.
it is a minor difference that isn't expressly made clear in the rules. To my knowledge. Do you have a reference?
|
Well, you would have to start in a cover or concealment situation before you can use stealth. If you are in a melee situation, your opponent would see you moving into that cover/concealment before you could use stealth. With sniping, you are presumably attacking from the concealed location.
While the RAI is certainly up for debate, per RAW you could easily be in concealment while attacking in melee if you are under the effect of Blur, or if you just drop a smoke pellet. You have to be in concealment to stealth - not full concealment.
the prohibition against attacking and stealth is quite clear. You can't signal your presence to someone in a very real and visceral way then melt into shadows a split second later.
I can see why someone would want to but the two actions are literally opposed to each other. If you want to use stealth you wait until your next round.
To those claiming you can attack and use stealth, could you explain what the phrase "It is impossible to use stealth while attacking" means?
|
|
per RAW you could easily be in concealment while attacking in melee if you are under the effect of Blur, or if you just drop a smoke pellet.Indeed. Something as simple as Fog Cloud, or whatever, could supply concealment. I am supposing the character in question could have been hiding in the fog. The opponent moves adjacent without noticing him. The character attacks and then moves off with stealth. It seems reasonable...
I'm rather dubious of being able to do all that in a single turn. I'd probably require a move action to stealth again - I was just pointing out that you can have concealment while making a melee attack.
Smoke pellets are great for getting full attack SAs with Moonlight Stalker Feint though.
|
You would need a way to become unobserved and get behind cover using only a move and/or swift action.
Distraction to hide usually won't work because that requires a standard action which would have already been used for the attack.
Hide in Plain Sight to move to a concealed location would allow it, as would some sort of concealment good enough to prevent them from figuring out where the attack came from in the first place.
Thus, no it isn't usually possible to attack and then use stealth to hide in the same round, but there are some scenarios where it could be done.
the prohibition against attacking and stealth is quite clear. You can't signal your presence to someone in a very real and visceral way then melt into shadows a split second later.
I can see why someone would want to but the two actions are literally opposed to each other. If you want to use stealth you wait until your next round.
To those claiming you can attack and use stealth, could you explain what the phrase "It is impossible to use stealth while attacking" means?
(1) "As my standard action, I attack my opponent." It is impossible to use stealth during this action.
(2) "As my move action, I move away from my opponent, using Acrobatics to avoid the AoO, then move around the pillar to break line of sight. Since I have broken line of sight and this is part of a move action, I go back into stealth."
I see nothing wrong with this by RAW or by RAI. You've moved away, so it isn't "while attacking", it's clearly "after attacking."
I agree with the post above; sniping is really nice because your opponent doesn't know what hit him.
@ no-body's home: You never could make a stealth check as a standard action - it is never been suggested. Why would you need a rule to prevent it? Are you saying this line is redundant, because there is a whole 100 post thread about bardic knowledge and redundant lines. You also can't use stealth while casting a spell or channelling energy but that was never mentioned!
Your opponent does know what hit him, because it is likely sticking out of his shoulder. What he doesn't know is where the thing that hit him is or retaliate. Which is exactly what happens in the example you gave. In both there is no chance to retaliate expect sniping takes certain conditions and a substantial penalty.
I can't believe people are suggesting it is easier to spot some attacking at range from behind cover who takes their time to hide again, than it is to fond someone who walked up to you and hit you with a stick then hid. It beggars belief.
@ CB Dunkerspn: Any area of dim light would allow you to make a check, as would fog or mist (natural or spell), smoke (alchemical or natural), undergrowth, bookshelves - pretty much anything that covers a proportion of your body...
However that isn't why you can't attack and then use stealth - it's because you just hit your opener with a big stick!
|
|
(2) "As my move action, I move away from my opponent, using Acrobatics to avoid the AoO, then move around the pillar to break line of sight. Since I have broken line of sight and this is part of a move action, I go back into stealth."
Not really. Stealth generally means that the target does not know where you are. In the example above they watched you go behind the pillar and thus on their turn can follow you and automatically gain sight of you when they move so that the pillar is no longer blocking their sight.
The pillar provides total concealment (and cover), but does nothing to erase the target's knowledge of where you are.
the prohibition against attacking and stealth is quite clear. You can't signal your presence to someone in a very real and visceral way then melt into shadows a split second later.
I can see why someone would want to but the two actions are literally opposed to each other. If you want to use stealth you wait until your next round.
To those claiming you can attack and use stealth, could you explain what the phrase "It is impossible to use stealth while attacking" means?
(1) "As my standard action, I attack my opponent." It is impossible to use stealth during this action.
(2) "As my move action, I move away from my opponent, using Acrobatics to avoid the AoO, then move around the pillar to break line of sight. Since I have broken line of sight and this is part of a move action, I go back into stealth."
I see nothing wrong with this by RAW or by RAI. You've moved away, so it isn't "while attacking", it's clearly "after attacking."
I agree with the post above; sniping is really nice because your opponent doesn't know what hit him.
I agree with the above in response to a standard action attack. A full attack would be different, though, because a full action takes an entire round to occur.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So is this a FAQ thread or just another argument?
Yes.
Here's the sentence that seems to say things like breaking Line of Sight, invisibility, Blurr, etc can't be used after making a attack -
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can’t use Stealth.
You attack, target knows where you're at. (but typically sight) Seems to indicate you do not need line of sight to know where they're at.
If the next round the person is still out of line of sight, it could then use a move action as part of a Stealth to move up to the target, stealthly.My opinion and how I'm reading the rules.
I can absolutely agree with that interpretation. Not how we play it, but a good interpretation.
@ no-body's home: You never could make a stealth check as a standard action - it is never been suggested. Why would you need a rule to prevent it?
Er, why not? Do you have a citation? Stealth says that it is usually made as part of a Move action. This leaves whether or not you can do it as part of a standard action open to GM interpretation, depending on the standard action being taken.
The clarification, "If your standard action is an attack, then you absolutely, positively cannot use Stealth" does not seem redundant to me. It seems like it is clarifying an otherwise-open-to-interpretation statement.
If you have a big brother, you know just how easy/hard it is to "hit someone with a big stick" and then run away and use Stealth. It was pretty much exactly how CBDunkerson described it: We'd sneak up behind him, hit him with a stick, and run like blazes for cover. But he'd know exactly where we ran and follow us. So unless there was further cover in our hiding location (inside a tree, down a gutter, etc.), we would get soundly beaten for our troubles. But if there was further cover, we could get away with it. Until we inevitably had to, y'know, go home. Interesting times!
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is what Ultimate Intrigue has to clarify:
Precise and Imprecise Senses: Since Perception covers all senses, it is important to distinguish which of those senses count as observing a creature that is using Stealth.
Some senses are more precise than others. Imprecise senses allow a creature to pinpoint the location of another creature, but they don't allow for the use of targeted effects, and attacks against those creatures are subject to miss chances from concealment. A few examples of imprecise senses are hearing, scent, blindsense, and tremorsense. A sense is precise if it allows the creature to use targeted effects on creatures and objects it senses, and to attack enemies without suffering a miss chance from concealment. This includes vision, touch, blindsight, and lifesense. Precise senses allow the creature to pinpoint an enemy's location. When a creature uses a precise sense to observe an enemy, that enemy is unable to use Stealth against the observer unless it creates a distraction first, or has a special ability allowing it to do so. Senses other than the listed ones count as precise or imprecise at the GM's discretion. A creature might have a limited form of a sense that makes it too weak to count as precise, such as a beast with primitive eyes that has difficulty seeing a creature that isn't moving.
Cover and Concealment for Stealth: The reason a character usually needs cover or concealment to use Stealth is tied to the fact that characters can't use Stealth while being observed. A sneaking character needs to avoid all of an opponent's precise senses in order to use Stealth, and for most creatures, that means vision. Effects such as blur and displacement, which leave a clear visual of the character within the perceiving character's vision, aren't sufficient to use Stealth, but a shadowy area or a curtain work nicely, for example. The hide in plain sight class ability allows a creature to use Stealth while being observed and thus avoids this whole situation. A sneaking character can come out of cover or concealment during her turn, as long as she doesn't end her turn where other characters are directly observing her.
@ no-body's home: You never could make a stealth check as a standard action - it is never been suggested. Why would you need a rule to prevent it?Er, why not? Do you have a citation? Stealth says that it is usually made as part of a Move action. This leaves whether or not you can do it as part of a standard action open to GM interpretation, depending on the standard action being taken.
The clarification, "If your standard action is an attack, then you absolutely, positively cannot use Stealth" does not seem redundant to me. It seems like it is clarifying an otherwise-open-to-interpretation statement.
** spoiler omitted **
I can't be expected to prove a negative. It is for you to demonstrate a RAW example where a standard action would also allow you use stealth (other than by converting it to a move action). If you can then I will gladly shut up.
|
|
Anyway, as long as the action you're doing isn't an action spent running, attacking, or charging, there isn't really a reason to disallow it.
That puts the stealth-spring attack-stealth in a weird spot, since it's attacking and moving. I may not allow it, since the full round action is spent Spring Attacking.
Stealthing after an attacking using another action, such as move actions, swift action abilities, and 5' steps will work. You are no longer considered attacking during those actions, as they aren't attack actions.
|
|
I can't be expected to prove a negative. It is for you to demonstrate a RAW example where a standard action would also allow you use stealth (other than by converting it to a move action). If you can then I will gladly shut up.@ no-body's home: You never could make a stealth check as a standard action - it is never been suggested. Why would you need a rule to prevent it?Er, why not? Do you have a citation? Stealth says that it is usually made as part of a Move action. This leaves whether or not you can do it as part of a standard action open to GM interpretation, depending on the standard action being taken.
The clarification, "If your standard action is an attack, then you absolutely, positively cannot use Stealth" does not seem redundant to me. It seems like it is clarifying an otherwise-open-to-interpretation statement.
** spoiler omitted **
Well, any standard action that also grants an amount of movement (some spells and special abilities come to mind) allow stealth for sure. Otherwise, it's up to the GM since "usually" during movement is "always" during movement.
|
|
If Stealthing as part of a move action and using a standard action to attack was legal. Why is there a special Sniping Rule?
Sniping is the ability to remain in stealth WHILE attacking. That is, you start out in stealth... the target does not know where you are. You then make an attack. Normally that means you automatically lose stealth and the target knows where you are. However, the sniping rules allow you to make a check to remain hidden DESPITE the attack. If successful then the target still doesn't know where you are.
Basically, sniping allows you to attack without giving away your location.
(2) "As my move action, I move away from my opponent, using Acrobatics to avoid the AoO, then move around the pillar to break line of sight. Since I have broken line of sight and this is part of a move action, I go back into stealth."Not really. Stealth generally means that the target does not know where you are. In the example above they watched you go behind the pillar and thus on their turn can follow you and automatically gain sight of you when they move so that the pillar is no longer blocking their sight.
The pillar provides total concealment (and cover), but does nothing to erase the target's knowledge of where you are.
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if your opponent knows where you are; it matters if you have cover or concealment to make a stealth check. If you have one of those things, you are allowed to make a stealth check.
Now, if all you have is a single pillar to stand behind, it makes it really easy to figure out where you are. Regardless, you are allowed to make the stealth check. Your opponent can overcome that stealth check by either exceeding the DC with perception or by moving around the pillar far enough so that it no longer provides you with cover with respect to that opponent.
Regardless, none of that changes the fact that if you are actually standing behind that pillar, you get to make a stealth check, even if someone watched you walk over there.
I can't be expected to prove a negative. It is for you to demonstrate a RAW example where a standard action would also allow you use stealth (other than by converting it to a move action). If you can then I will gladly shut up.@ no-body's home: You never could make a stealth check as a standard action - it is never been suggested. Why would you need a rule to prevent it?Er, why not? Do you have a citation? Stealth says that it is usually made as part of a Move action. This leaves whether or not you can do it as part of a standard action open to GM interpretation, depending on the standard action being taken.
The clarification, "If your standard action is an attack, then you absolutely, positively cannot use Stealth" does not seem redundant to me. It seems like it is clarifying an otherwise-open-to-interpretation statement.
** spoiler omitted **
I am a druid about to be eaten by a dire tiger. I consider this a Bad Thing. I use Woodland Stride to move into some nearby bushes, granting me concealment. I could make a Stealth check as part of my move action, but instead as a standard action I use Wild Shape to change into a squirrel, granting me a hefty bonus to my Stealth check, so I would choose to roll Stealth on my standard action, not my move action.
I see nothing in the rules that says this is not RAW or RAI.
just doting for that "Skills in Conflict" post.
Fret, I think you're splitting hairs between making a stealth check and "making a stealth check thats worth the wear on your die" Sure, you can make a stealth check, and get it automatically negated when he comes around the corner. I don't see the difference.
I see nothing in the rules that says this is not RAW or RAI.
Unless those bushes are thick enough to block vision entirely you area still being observed and cannot stealth.
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can’t use Stealth.
If they are thick enough to block vision entirely, the lion moves to them , gets within 5 feet, and knows what square a squirrel is hiding in, and is probably confused as to where that tasty human went. Hopefully its not SO hungry that a squirrel is worth eating.
You only need concealment in order to stealth - not full concealment.Unless those bushes are thick enough to block vision entirely you area still being observed and cannot stealth.I see nothing in the rules that says this is not RAW or RAI.
You need cover/concealment AND not being observed (Unobservedness? Unlookedatness? Inbisibleboy powers go?)
|
|
Regardless, none of that changes the fact that if you are actually standing behind that pillar, you get to make a stealth check, even if someone watched you walk over there.
Eh?
Stealth is movement. Why would you walk behind a pillar observed and THEN make a stealth check? What possible benefit would doing so provide?
You fail the check: They know you are behind the pillar, walk over, see you, and attack.
You make the check: They know you are behind the pillar, walk over, see you, and attack.
Stealth checks are made to move somewhere without being seen to do so.
If you could create a distraction to hide, Hide in Plain Sight, or otherwise get stealth on your movement then you could go behind the pillar and they would NOT know that you are there (though they might well guess if it was the only hiding place in the area).
Likewise, a stealth check to move AWAY from the pillar would make sense... they knew you were behind the pillar, but not where you went after that if you stealthed away successfully.
However, 'stealthing' while standing behind a pillar that you were observed to hide behind accomplishes exactly nothing.
@ no-body's home: You never could make a stealth check as a standard action - it is never been suggested. Why would you need a rule to prevent it?Er, why not? Do you have a citation? Stealth says that it is usually made as part of a Move action. This leaves whether or not you can do it as part of a standard action open to GM interpretation, depending on the standard action being taken.
The clarification, "If your standard action is an attack, then you absolutely, positively cannot use Stealth" does not seem redundant to me. It seems like it is clarifying an otherwise-open-to-interpretation statement.
** spoiler omitted **
Stealthing does not require a move action, it can be done in conjunction with movement. A 5' step, for example, is movement.
However, 'stealthing' while standing behind a pillar that you were observed to hide behind accomplishes exactly nothing.
It may not accomplish much, but it IS legal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From ultimate intrigue...
When a creature uses a precise sense
to observe an enemy, that enemy is unable to use Stealth
against the observer unless it creates a distraction first,
or has a special ability allowing it to do so
So yay, this if finally put to bed! Its ove....
but a shadowy area or a curtain work nicely, for example.
*facepalms* and says that.
|
|
As melee, you can be Stealthed (Hidden) before your attack, move, breaking LOS, and according to you, make a stealth check being hidden again.
You don't actually state where the attack takes place in there, so I'll assume the intent is;
Hidden
Move to target (using stealth)
Attack (automatically lose stealth)
Move to concealment (using stealth)
Hidden
That's one move action too many for a single round and would require something like Hide in Plain Sight or a distraction (potentially requiring another standard action in the same round) for the second movement to be unobserved.
There's a number of different effects and abilities that would allow this if it's legal. Without taking the -20 penalty the Sniping Rules apply to Stealth Checks.
Again, Sniping allows you to make an attack without ever being observed. The target does not see where you are or even WHO you are. With melee attacks they automatically see you. The fact that you can then hide again (on a subsequent round) is not in any way the same thing as sniping.
Assuming no special powers / other actions / special circumstances the situation you describe would play out over two rounds and allow the target to make a full attack on the 'stealth' character. That is completely different than the sniper who could attack and remain hidden / suffer no counter-attack.
|
|
Sniping has been brought up as a reason it shouldn't work so...
With Sniping, you maintain your obscures location and you never break stealth during the attack. What this means is that a spellcaster couldn't even hit you with a readied spell, because you don't technically appear (as long as you pass your checks). You never show up. The enemies know that an attack came from that direction, but they didn't see who or what you are. This can be pretty handy, and comes with that hefty penalty. Luckily there are racial and class features that can reduce this, making sniping pretty viable.
For the rest of the peasants, you can stealth during movement. Your opponent sees you attack because attacking breaks stealth (except for sniping!) They may use a readied action against you to counter your stealth tactics. Even then, you need to beat them in the opposed rolls for it to matter. Concealment is the best way to do this, but if they remove your concealment you cannot stealth in front of them. Same as if they move to a position where your cover is gone.
Stealth can be amazing, it can be mediocre. It comes down to dice rolls and favorable conditions.
You need cover/concealment AND not being observed (Unobservedness? Unlookedatness? Inbisibleboy powers go?)You only need concealment in order to stealth - not full concealment.Unless those bushes are thick enough to block vision entirely you area still being observed and cannot stealth.I see nothing in the rules that says this is not RAW or RAI.
Being behind cover and/or in concealment means, for game purposes, you are not "being observed". That was prior to UI. After UI, that aspect doesn't seem to have changed, as noted in your citation.
As melee, you can be Stealthed (Hidden) before your attack, move, breaking LOS, and according to you, make a stealth check being hidden again.
There's a number of different effects and abilities that would allow this if it's legal. Without taking the -20 penalty the Sniping Rules apply to Stealth Checks.While I used to think you could try Stealthing after making a attack. My interpretation of the rules, at this time, is you can not.
Please FAQ this.
Keep in mind a LOT of this depends on circumstances. Dashing out of concealment to attack kind of leaves the attacker exposed. But if he has a means of changing his location after that attack pinpoints his location, then I don't see why using stealth should be impossible. Suppose a character (without darkvision) is walking through the dark streets of a town. A wererat with spring attack comes out of one alley, attacks, and then moves to one of three other possible alleyways within his movement's reach. It seems entirely reasonable to allow a stealth check for that wererat at that time. He's moving, meeting the condition for most stealth checks, he's doing so in concealment terrain since it's dark and the character can't see into it.
A lot of circumstances are going to be resolved by a GM's decision. I don't see any reason to categorically deny a stealth check in the same round once an attack is made. What I see are circumstances that could suggest resolution either way.
Regardless, none of that changes the fact that if you are actually standing behind that pillar, you get to make a stealth check, even if someone watched you walk over there.Eh?
Stealth is movement. Why would you walk behind a pillar observed and THEN make a stealth check? What possible benefit would doing so provide?
You fail the check: They know you are behind the pillar, walk over, see you, and attack.
You make the check: They know you are behind the pillar, walk over, see you, and attack.Stealth checks are made to move somewhere without being seen to do so.
If you could create a distraction to hide, Hide in Plain Sight, or otherwise get stealth on your movement then you could go behind the pillar and they would NOT know that you are there (though they might well guess if it was the only hiding place in the area).
Likewise, a stealth check to move AWAY from the pillar would make sense... they knew you were behind the pillar, but not where you went after that if you stealthed away successfully.
However, 'stealthing' while standing behind a pillar that you were observed to hide behind accomplishes exactly nothing.
The point being made isn't that being able to use stealth while standing behind a pillar after someone watched you walk over there is particularly useful; it's that you can do it. And that you can do that means you can do more useful things, like use part of your movement to walk behind a pillar or tree or into a shadowy area, make a stealth check as a part of that movement (because you've broken observation), and then continue that move action to go to a different location or to now make use of being hidden in some other capacity.
And the opponent has to be able to move far enough to negate your cover, too. That's not always possible or practicable.
Being behind cover and/or in concealment means, for game purposes, you are not "being observed".
It does not. Someone is not not observed just because there's a waist high wall or some light scrub.
That was prior to UI. After UI, that aspect doesn't seem to have changed, as noted in your citation.
It hasn't changed and thats the problem. If you're reading the stealth rules as unobserved is a separate condition from cover/concealment you're still reading the UI rules with the emphasis on the first part. If you're one of the easy stealth people you're reading it the way you are. Hence the facepalm.
Vision is a precise sense. Its the precise sense. If they're looking at you with vision you can't stealth.
Being behind cover and/or in concealment means, for game purposes, you are not "being observed".It does not. Someone is not not observed just because there's a waist high wall or some light scrub.
That was prior to UI. After UI, that aspect doesn't seem to have changed, as noted in your citation.It hasn't changed and thats the problem. If you're reading the stealth rules as unobserved is a separate condition from cover/concealment you're still reading the UI rules with the emphasis on the first part. If you're one of the easy stealth people you're reading it the way you are. Hence the facepalm.
Vision is a precise sense. Its the precise sense. If they're looking at you with vision you can't stealth.
A sneaking character needs to avoid all of an opponent's precise senses in order to use Stealth, and for most creatures, that means vision. Effects such as blur and displacement, which leave a clear visual of the character within the perceiving character's vision, aren't sufficient to use Stealth, but a shadowy area or a curtain work nicely, for example.
In other words: You can't use stealth if you are being observed by a precise sense. But, if you are in cover or concealment, you are not "being observed" by that precise sense.
I don't know how else you would read "a shadowy area or curtain work nicely" to avoid an opponent's "precise sense [of sight]" except that you're allowed to use stealth while you're in shadows, even when your opponent watched you walk into the shadows.