I don't think we are in the diving area, but I am guessing that some water treading will be required.
Yes, this.
Also this little hexcrawl may turn out to be anticlimactic, it's up to the dice. But you don't want to make a habit of venturing out there just for the heck of it until level 5-6.
Save a hostage and back real quick, ok, but just lookin for trouble and treasure? Not yet.
The local map and the Mouth of Doom dungeon are tough enough for now.
Rushing through the Durance of Hate just to hit the level two waypoint before those damn pygmies explode and kill you... Good times. Not getting as much excitement from D3 though. Path of Exile is what I'm playing.
XP: 200 Rollplay Ad Hoc
90 Hound's Recap
400 Company of the Crying Maiden
200 Located the cabin (key to finding MoD)
50 Death of hostage delayed
50 Location of hostage shack learned
200 Murder Crow defeated
Q, just thinking out loud let me know if we're on the same page.
Normally you can only ready a standard, not a full attack, but if you just rolled over to the top of initiative in the next round since the trigger for your ready never came, you would still have a full-action available before the crow.
I worked for PAF (performing arts facilities) at college. I remember when real shows came through it was some long days. Worked 2 20 hour days in a row one weekend. Glad I am not doing that any more, although it was fun.
If you are at Smith, you are only a few hours from me. I am in southern NH. Are you going to TotalCon next weekend?
I started a group wide discussion thread for the whole mega-campaign, everyone check in, I'm going to use it to make a few announcements over the next couple weeks.
If anyone can point me to the official rule on stealth penalty for double moves I'll use it but until then -5 for up to full speed seems like enough for me. Still no running of course.
My interpretation is that a "Double Move" is moving normally, and would take a -5. The rule specifically says you cannot use stealth while "running". I would look at this as with the mantra "inclusion of one indicates the exclusion of others." By listing running as not allowed, then a double move, which is not running, would allow stealth. Also, a double move is really just 2 normal moves. You are simply giving up the ability to do something else.
Dang, it is hard to get those sneak attacks in from range...
Raziel tries to momentarily distract the gnoll fighting Ogrim, by pointing in the opposite direction and shouting - "Look out!" - then dashing into hiding.
So... I think this is possible, right? I'll try to bluff him (I imagine it is a standard action), then stealth to P:6 behind the tree (move action)? This can be done, right? At -10 to stealth I believe :/
Before the errata to the stealth rules in the 6th printing of the CRB, I used to use a fair bit of fiat regarding facing and distraction so that stealth wasn't basically useless. If you played Pathfinder using the strictest and most pedantic of interpretations of the RAW it used to be literally impossible to move past anyone that had line of sight to you. Since there are no facing rules in pathfinder, every creature effectively has always-on omnidirectional vision. You can't sneak behind someone because there is no behind them. They are facing everywhere at once.
I never had a problem with this because facing rules be damned I would just decide which way the creature was facing and whether they were distracted. I might impose a -5 penalty on the rogue to move quickly while a back was turned, or I might call for a bluff check which could be flavored any number of ways.
Now with the errata, stealth works reasonably well without any fiat required, so we may as well run it by the RAW. However, while I can see the case that using bluff to "create a diversion" should require a standard action (equivalent to using a feint in combat) I can not find this explicitly stated anywhere.
Stealth wrote:
Creating a Diversion to Hide
You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.
Unless someone wants to convince me otherwise, my ruling is that there is no action cost to create a diversion using bluff.
And if someone hasn't observed you yet and you want to sneak past them but you can't make it to concealment in one round, by all means ask if they are facing away or distracted already. There is always a way to adjudicate these things on a case-by-case basis.
Hope that's consolation for no hellcat stealth allowed.
Hmmm, your ruling makes stealth more interesting, and I would dare say MUCH more useful and playable - I say we go with modified RAW, and take it from there. Thanks DM Grimmy.
So that would mean that in the current case I could try to stealth towards O:4 and sneak attack the one in L:11?
Lol. If you guys know something I don't speak up. Raziel will have to forgive you for taking away his toy. I have 3 arcane tricksters, two of them ranged, so I have to be sure I rule reasonably on this.
In hindsight I can see /i was probably wrong. I was thinking of moving through observation, or moving from observation to concealment, but I didn't mean to allow creating a diversion, rolling stealth, and attacking with SA from right where you stand.
Is there a default action type that skill checks take if not specified? Move action?
Personally, although this does not help the party, I would think that a diversion to allow one to become unseen/allow sneak damage, should be a standard action. Bluff/standard to hide, move to get to a new place which will allow the sneak attack next round. If it is a free action, or even a swift or move action, then the rogue could keep getting sneak damage every round as long as they had tossed points into Bluff which is a rogue skill.
I would say using the rules for Feint, and their respective feats, is probably the best way to keep it within the rules.
As a note on the Arcane Tricksters, at level 10, they only get the sneak damage on the spells when the opponent is flatfooted, I do not think that it is available when flanking or if dex is denied. I tried to look this up, but could not find anything expanding on this.
Yeah I was definitely thinking of a bluff check for a chance to high tail it to nearest concealment, not to disappear in plain sight and then just stand and deliver with SA.
Really curious what the RAW is now, there is nothing in the stealth description that equates "creating a diversion to hide" with "feint", it just says, "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."
Then under bluff it doesn't say anything about action cost for "creating a diversion to hide."
From my part, I never thought that anyone could just bluff, disappear from sight, and SA from where he stands.
Here's where I was basing my assumptions:
Stealth:
Stealth
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 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.
So, according to the portion I highlighted I would say that the 'facing' rule would make perfect sense, but then it could also have effects on stuff like AoOs, etc. Not sure if it could become a problem.
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.
Without the facing ruling, this would be the case.
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.
I think this is the key part right here - my perspective would be: IF there is the possibility to move to an unobserved plce of some kind (behind a tree, under a table, whatever), moving your speed (lets say 30'), THEN a Bluff check can be used to distract a particular target (maybe more with a penalty?), and then stealth to that particular location at -10 (because you are using full speed). That being said, if you make the bluff a standard, you would be able to bluff and stealth (as a move action). What I thought was Grimmy's suggestion was that we made the Bluff a free, or swift, or something - this would mean that, if the above conditions are met (there is a hiding place in 30' range AND you make your stealth roll at -10), then you could Bluff+Stealth+Attack with SA - it really does not seem that unbalanced to me. The only issue I see here is if you are already hidden - you would be able to Bluff + Stealth (as a move, even though you don't move) + attack from the same place - this may or not be disruptive, I would have to play like that for a while to see how far the exploitation could be taken. BUT... You can always rule that you HAVE to move for this to be possible - one could assume the following: I am behind a tree, use Bluff to distract my target but I stay behind the tree - however this should not work since my target would actually have no reason to believe that I have left my position, so even though I could hide, I should not benefit from SA. Makes sense? To be able to strike like that you would have to snipe
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).
Beware of the spoiler, major rant there :D
And that being said, was my action simply a move last round?
So that would mean that in the current case I could try to stealth towards O:4 and sneak attack the one in L:11?
Ok in the current case, you successfully created a diversion and moved to concealment, entitling you to a stealth roll, which unfortunately failed to beat the perception DC, so if you had attacked this turn, no SA damage.
If you had a shot there would be no reason not to take it anyway, your cover was already blown, but you are looking at soft cover from your allies in the way (+4 AC), and from your hiding spot it is out of range anyway.
On the plus side, you are beginning your next turn in concealment, so yes, you can do what you described now, regardless of this raging debate I'm having with myself about the action cost of a bluff check to create a diversion.
O4 is still just outside of range though, so you probably have to shoot from someplace like N6, which is not in concealment so your attack will automatically end your stealth with no chance to snipe, and the gnoll has soft cover from your allies! At least you only have to hit touch AC and you get your sneak attack damage.
Alright, here's my take. [edit: I may have gotten away from the main point, just fyi]
"Action: Attempting to deceive someone takes at least 1 round, but can possibly take longer if the lie is elaborate (as determined by the GM on a case-by-case basis)."
"Feinting in combat is a standard action."
Personally, I would rule a feint as any action taken to cause your opponent to succumb to a distraction. Even still, I'd say a short, "Look, a distraction!" would fall under the four word guideline for a spoken free action.
"Speak
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action."
Then, if you wanted to point:
"If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move." Otherwise "Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action." Since you already have it in hand though, you're not actually drawing it. I'd still agree with a swift (not free) action for point and shout.
TL;DR: Point/Shout = Swift if dropping 2h weapon from one hand, otherwise free bluff to force it to look away, but doesn't grant concealment if they already know you're there. During the distraction, you can stealth which requires a move action to come into play. Then you can attack/snipe from your new position. Or attack first and then play a missed shot off for a bonus to the initial bluff as if you deliberately weren't aiming at them ;)
Yeah I don't remember where you moved from either but remember you declared that move hoping to get to concealment undetected. Only after the fact did you find out the gnoll perception beat your stealth. So, I don't see any way you get a shot off in Round 3.
FYI, I didn't read your spoiler yet but your turn was 100% legit, I was the one who came along and said you still had a standard action since I can't find any rule that says the bluff check to create a diversion has an action cost associated with it. Everything after that was just me second guessing that ruling, thinking out loud about any can of worms it might open.
LOL. Sorry I'm such a spaz today. Over excited about the game.
TL;DR: Point/Shout = Swift if dropping 2h weapon from one hand, otherwise free bluff to force it to look away, but doesn't grant concealment if they already know you're there. During the distraction, you can stealth which requires a move action to come into play. Then you can attack/snipe from your new position. Or attack first and then play a missed shot off for a bonus to the initial bluff as if you deliberately weren't aiming at them ;)
OK that is exactly how I wanted it to work. Let's run with that I don't think it's OP.
Final verdict, even if SKR himself comes along and schools us :D
So yeah, Raziel had a standard that went down the drain in Round 3 because he was out of range.
TL;DR: Point/Shout = Swift if dropping 2h weapon from one hand, otherwise free bluff to force it to look away, but doesn't grant concealment if they already know you're there. During the distraction, you can stealth which requires a move action to come into play (Raziel question: But only if there is some place to hide in a move range, correct? And is this stealth at -10?. Then you can attack/snipe from your new position. Or attack first and then play a missed shot off for a bonus to the initial bluff as if you deliberately weren't aiming at them ;)
OK that is exactly how I wanted it to work. Let's run with that I don't think it's OP.
Final verdict, even if SKR himself comes along and schools us :D
So yeah, Raziel had a standard that went down the drain in Round 3 because he was out of range.
And now he can sneak out and strike in Round 4.
Deal! [So basically it looks a lot like what I spoilered? :D] - please see my questions in spoiler above.
By the way, I will try that move next, against the one in K:12, by moving to J:5 - just saying ;)
And you are right Grimmy - those gnolls were not there when I tried to move into Stealth, and I bluffed against a gnoll that was already dead (the one fighting Ogrim right?).
So no shooting this round :/
*Raziel patiently waits for round 4, lost in his tiefling dark thoughts*
