Stealth Playtest

I don't have anything informative at this stage, but I do want to say that I respect the whole approach to this idea. Thanks.

Sniping: If you already are invisible to a target and you are 10 feet from that target

Should that read "and you are AT LEAST 10 feet from that target"

An absoulte 10' range seems odd

Does this mean I can Stealth behind a pillar, then on my next turn, make another Steath check, move at half my rate into the open, and jab someone invisibly, assuming they don't roll enough Perception to see me?

If so, is this true even in bright daylight?

Paizo wrote:

Sniping: If you already are invisible to a target and you are 10 feet from that target

Should that read "and you are AT LEAST 10 feet from that target"

An absoulte 10' range seems odd

Yes, it should be at least 10 feet from the target.

As a longtime proponent of Stealth Reform, I just wanted to pop in before I even read the skill and say:

Thanks. You guys are awesome.

*off to read*

This is why you guys get my cash.

Does this mean I can Stealth behind a pillar, then on my next turn, make another Steath check, move at half my rate into the open, and jab someone invisibly, assuming they don't roll enough Perception to see me?

If so, is this true even in bright daylight?

Yes, that is what it means. This is to simulate the sneaky part of stealth, I was hidden, I come out sneak up on you, and then when I make the attack, you know that I am there. Remember Stealth isn't just about hiding, it is also about moving silently.

We used the invisible condition because it gets the job done, and it was a condition already in the game.

Overall, this looks pretty clean for a stealth skill. Well done!

Issues:
• Formatting of this blog post - shouldn't "Create a Diversion to Hide" be its own heading (new line, bold font) instead of being inside the Sniping section?

• Why is the Bluff check for a diversion opposed by Perception instead of Sense Motive?

• When you successfully create a diversion via Bluff, why don't you have to make a Stealth check? As written in the blog post, someone with a negative Stealth modifier but a high Bluff modifier can go invisible in broad daylight, while a high-Stealth/low-Bluff character can't. Was that intentional?

Yes, that is what it means. This is to simulate the sneaky part of stealth, I was hidden, I come out sneak up on you, and then when I make the attack, you know that I am there. Remember Stealth isn't just about hiding, it is also about moving silently.

We used the invisible condition because it gets the job done, and it was a condition already in the game.

Good, because I thought requiring cover to remain stealthed was a little restrictive on getting in a sneak attack. I generally allowed a move action at half speed to remain stealthed up to the beginning of the next action, which this new version more explicitly allows. Very cool.

We used the invisible condition because it gets the job done, and it was a condition already in the game.

Been waiting on that one. :D

Question: Is stealth opposed or not? Opposed checks have to be beaten (not met), but...

If a creature makes a Perception check as a move action to notice an invisible creature, the DC of the Perception check is the invisible creature's last Stealth check. This is also the case if a creature makes a Perception check to notice an invisible creature because the perceiving creature is entering an area where it could possibly notice an invisible creature.

DCs are, by my understanding "meet-or-beat." This seems contradictory, though I may just not be understanding some subtle difference in the situational conditions... I think I prefer opposition to setting DCs at any rate.

Grammar Police:

A few times you refer to "making" actions. Generally, I believe the ruleset uses "taking" or "using" actions. So:

In the Check section:

It's usually impossible to use Stealth while making an immediate action, standard action, or a full-round action, unless you are subject to greater invisibility or a similar effect, you are sniping (see below), or you are using a standard action to ready an action.

Should be:

It's usually impossible to use Stealth while taking an immediate action, standard action, or a full-round action, unless you are subject to greater invisibility or a similar effect, you are sniping (see below), or you are using a standard action to ready an action.

Also...

Action: Usually making a Stealth check is not an action. Using Stealth is part of the action are making.

Should be:

Action: Usually making a Stealth check is not an action. Using Stealth is part of the action you are taking.

Some corner case thoughts:

Readied actions and Delayed actions - Let's say the target you're hoping to use Stealth on by ducking behind such a pillar, either readies an action or delays with the expectation that you will have to come out from behind it at some point. I'd assume the proposed target of your Stealth check should then get a massive bonus on his Perception to defeat such an attempt. Or, alternatively, that it would impose a penalty on your Stealth check.

Facing - Something I've always wanted to see as a rules tweak to Stealth involves "facing" on the battlefield. Let's say there are no pillars behind which to hide. But, it's a colossal showdown with a whole bunch of melee opponents on either side. The trusty rogue manages to take down his guy and the rogue wants to aid the fighter (who's across the room) with a timely sneak attack on the adversary that's beating him down. Say, the rogue wants to hurl a quick dagger into the bad guy's back and hopefully take him down (thereby stealing the glory from the frontline warrior). Do the flanking rules already cover this situation (i.e., assuming he's in range, and has either Precise Shot or decides to roll with the -4 friendly fire penalty)? Or, would an opportunity exist for the rogue to make a Stealth check to be "invisible" to that particular opponent (but not to anyone else who's facing him)? I've always felt the bad guy in that situation really ought to be flat-footed to the rogue and subject to sneak attacks, even though they're in general melee at that point and not in a surprise round, etc. Is this already covered as a ranged sneak attack?

Food for thought,
--Neil

The reference to "invisible" will create some problem with strict rule minded players as it is the term for a very specific condition in game. I fear you would need to address the definition of invisibility too it you use this way in the definition.

Two questions/problematic points:

1) what happen when you are using senses that aren't sight and the person using stealth benefit from the Invisibility spell?

2) I am using stealth and between me and my target there is a wall higher than both of us. I get a bonus to stealth? It is automatic? What if happen if I make a lot of noise?
In full darkness?

A note:
Please, explain exactly what scent do. A lot of people is convinced that it work as a form of blindsense within its range.

Thanks for the attempt to clarify this skill. I think you should expand the list of situational modifiers, using different modifiers to Perception when the attempt to detect a stealthy guy by sound or other sensory apparatus.

Overall, this looks pretty clean for a stealth skill. Well done!

Issues:
• Formatting of this blog post - shouldn't "Create a Diversion to Hide" be its own heading (new line, bold font) instead of being inside the Sniping section?

• Why is the Bluff check for a diversion opposed by Perception instead of Sense Motive?

• When you successfully create a diversion via Bluff, why don't you have to make a Stealth check? As written in the blog post, someone with a negative Stealth modifier but a high Bluff modifier can go invisible in broad daylight, while a high-Stealth/low-Bluff character can't. Was that intentional?

Yeah, there are some formatting problems with the blog post. I'll see if I can get those fix.

This is one of our crazy ideas to simplify this mechanic and make it more useful. Playtest it, see if it works, and then come back with your findings. General comments on this idea are also welcome.

Neil wants facing, too! *swoon*

I totally want facing in the game, even though the way I read this, it's not a consideration within this rewrite.

The way the game is built ground-up just seems like any consideration of facing in combat would be a serious revision.

Add a clause about some actions not revealing your pressence, per GM discression.
Examples: picking up a pie, opening a door quietly

I would also add a clause about concealing actions using stealth/bluff opposed by perception/sense motive. Examples: slight of hand to conceal an object, opening a door just enough to look through without people noticing.

You will also want to look at other placed stealth is mentioned, like lighting conditions.

I love that stealth is getting an overhaul. Different interpretations have caused problems at my table. I can't wait to get something everyone can agree on.

... It's usually impossible to use Stealth while making an immediate action, standard action, or a full-round action, unless you are subject to greater invisibility or a similar effect, you are sniping (see below), or you are using a standard action to ready an action...

You realise this wording means it's impossible to sneak up behind someone and attack them without using magic? Unless I'm missing something.

Grammar Police:

A few times you refer to "making" actions. Generally, I believe the ruleset uses "taking" or "using" actions. So:

In the Check section:

It's usually impossible to use Stealth while making an immediate action, standard action, or a full-round action, unless you are subject to greater invisibility or a similar effect, you are sniping (see below), or you are using a standard action to ready an action.

Should be:

It's usually impossible to use Stealth while taking an immediate action, standard action, or a full-round action, unless you are subject to greater invisibility or a similar effect, you are sniping (see below), or you are using a standard action to ready an action.

Also...

Action: Usually making a Stealth check is not an action. Using Stealth is part of the action are making.

Should be:

Action: Usually making a Stealth check is not an action. Using Stealth is part of the action you are taking.

Yes, should be taking.

Some corner case thoughts:

Facing - Something I've always wanted to see as a rules tweak to Stealth involves "facing" on the battlefield. Let's say there are no pillars behind which to hide. But, it's a colossal showdown with a whole bunch of melee opponents on either side. The trusty rogue manages to take down his guy and the rogue wants to aid the fighter (who's across the room) with a timely sneak attack on the adversary that's beating him down. Say, the rogue wants to hurl a quick dagger into the bad guy's back and hopefully take him down (thereby stealing the glory from the frontline warrior). Do the flanking rules already cover this situation (i.e., assuming he's in range, and has either Precise Shot or decides to roll with the -4 friendly fire penalty)? Or, would an opportunity exist for the rogue to make a Stealth check to be "invisible" to that particular opponent (but not to anyone else who's facing him)? I've always felt the bad guy in that situation really ought to be flat-footed to the rogue and subject to sneak attacks, even though they're in general melee at that point and not in a surprise round, etc. Is this already covered as a ranged sneak attack?

Food for thought,
--Neil

You know I love you, Neil. But we are not doing facing.

Since we have been doing stealth in a very similar manner to what was posted and hardly find it overpowered, I think this is a very good change.

Yeah you need to clarify how scent interacts with stealth.

so if I spend 3 rounds in a room with 3 people while having soft cover, assuming I use my standard action to move, then I'll have to:

make 4 stealth checks per round (I use my free, immediate and 2 move actions)
each time I am opposed by 3 perception checks, this during 3 rounds

so I have to beat an opposed perception check 3*3*4 = 36 times in a row, to not get noticed?

If this is the case, then probability is really against me, as the enemy only needs to win once, but I need to win 36 times to not get seen. So as a rogue I take 10 of course (with the trick) and I honestly have to hope the ennemy also has a take 10, that's the only case this really "works" in my opinion.

Anyhow, you asked that we poke holes in your idea, and maybe I read something wrong.

But I'm sure happy that you still try to improve parts of the game that could have been smoother.

Edit: strike that immediate action, that makes 27 checks.

Da Blog wrote:

... It's usually impossible to use Stealth while making an immediate action, standard action, or a full-round action, unless you are subject to greater invisibility or a similar effect, you are sniping (see below), or you are using a standard action to ready an action...

You realise this wording means it's impossible to sneak up behind someone and attack them without using magic? Unless I'm missing something.

I think the reply is in this phrase:

"When you make your Stealth check, those creatures that didn't succeed at the opposed roll treat you as invisible until the start of your next action or until the end of your turn if you do not end your turn with cover or concealment."

So you check your stealth when you start your move action and you keep it until you make your attack.

I like that you have asked the player base once again for imput and I like the idea of giving the invisibility condition

To verify: since the invisible condition is used, it is possible for me to start behind a pillar (cover) and use stealth successfully (beating any perception score) - I'm now considered invisible to any perceivers. I can now move out from behind the pillar and sneak to somebody in the room. On my next turn I am still invisible, thus qualify for a new stealth check (due to concealment, from being invisible) and can move circles around somebody in the room - all without being spotted (assuming that my sneak beats their perception). In principle I can keep this up all day long.

Correct?

First impression: The main check block is really convoluted in its wording.

That entire series of clauses about action types should be moved to the "Action:" section where it belongs.

I don't understand what "You can always spend a swift action to stay immobile and make a Stealth check." means. The semantics of "always" are particularly troublesome.

If the new primary mechanical effect of stealth is to confer the invisibility state, please say that up front, don't delay until the end of a long paragraph on action types.

Reducing the effects of stealth to an application of the invisible state will almost certainly have unforeseen consequences. I suggest a "hidden" state as distinct from invisible. The language of both states should be cleaned up to work with the established roles of Hide in Plain Sight and Camouflage. (that is, "being observed" for HIPS and Invisible) vs. "has concealment or cover" for Camouflage and stealth )

Why can you still not use soft cover for stealth? A person can certainly hide behind a bush.

Overall, I am overjoyed to see a Stealth rewrite, but this doesn't begin to address my issues with the skill, and unfortunately it isn't clearly worded. Please do keep working on it, though!

The reference to "invisible" will create some problem with strict rule minded players as it is the term for a very specific condition in game. I fear you would need to address the definition of invisibility too it you use this way in the definition.

Two questions/problematic points:

1) what happen when you are using senses that aren't sight and the person using stealth benefit from the Invisibility spell?

2) I am using stealth and between me and my target there is a wall higher than both of us. I get a bonus to stealth? It is automatic? What if happen if I make a lot of noise?
In full darkness?

A note:
Please, explain exactly what scent do. A lot of people is convinced that it work as a form of blindsense within its range.

Thanks for the attempt to clarify this skill. I think you should expand the list of situational modifiers, using different modifiers to Perception when the attempt to detect a stealthy guy by sound or other sensory apparatus.

1) We know these are issues and have ideas on how to address them, but for our proof of concept, we are looking at sighted opponents.

2) Part of Stealth is moving silently. We are assuming that you are also trying to be silent, or you are not using Stealth.

Keep in mind that we are somewhat restricted to how much we can change. We are attempting to make the best changes we can without changing pagination in our books and without affecting too many rules as they are currently written. We are definitely not looking to expand situational modifiers to Stealth. We want to make this as clear and as simple to use as possible. We will have to live with a reasonable level of abstraction.

Was this comment:

This is one of our crazy ideas to simplify this mechanic and make it more useful. Playtest it, see if it works, and then come back with your findings. General comments on this idea are also welcome.

...a response to this?

• Why is the Bluff check for a diversion opposed by Perception instead of Sense Motive?

• When you successfully create a diversion via Bluff, why don't you have to make a Stealth check? As written in the blog post, someone with a negative Stealth modifier but a high Bluff modifier can go invisible in broad daylight, while a high-Stealth/low-Bluff character can't. Was that intentional?

If so, I (personally) think the idea of creating a diversion to hide using only Bluff is a bad idea. Here's why:

If it was changed to be a Bluff (against Sense Motive) to create a successful diversion, and that successful diversion enabled an attempt at a Stealth check (against Perception) to actually make use of said diversion, that would seem more reasonable and prevent the Bob and John issue, above. It would be slightly more complicated (two rolls instead of one), but would also be intuitive enough that it could be very easily explained. It would also be harder to pull off (need two successes instead of one), but isn't that appropriate - for hiding by means of diversion to be more difficult than hiding behind cover?

Are Stealth rules going to be to Pathfinder what Skill Challenges are to 4E? :)

I think the reply is in this phrase:

"When you make your Stealth check, those creatures that didn't succeed at the opposed roll treat you as invisible until the start of your next action or until the end of your turn if you do not end your turn with cover or concealment."

So you check your stealth when you start your move action and you keep it until you make your attack.

The key bit is '... until the start of your next action...'.

So, that means I Stealth up behind them with a Move action (fine), then declare an attack action as a standard. They automatically notice me (at the start of the action). I can't sneak attack them (or whatever).

To verify: since the invisible condition is used, it is possible for me to start behind a pillar (cover) and use stealth successfully (beating any perception score) - I'm now considered invisible to any perceivers. I can now move out from behind the pillar and sneak to somebody in the room. On my next turn I am still invisible, thus qualify for a new stealth check (due to concealment, from being invisible) and can move circles around somebody in the room - all without being spotted (assuming that my sneak beats their perception). In principle I can keep this up all day long.

Correct?

...treat you as invisible until the start of your next action or until the end of your turn if you do not end your turn with cover or concealment.

Not really. As soon as you end your turn without cover you lose the invisibility. Then, on your next turn you would be out in the open with no cover to re-stealth either.

so if I spend 3 rounds in a room with 3 people while having soft cover, assuming I use my standard action to move, then I'll have to:

make 4 stealth checks per round (I use my free, immediate and 2 move actions)
each time I am opposed by 3 perception checks, this during 3 rounds

so I have to beat an opposed perception check 3*3*4 = 36 times in a row, to not get noticed?

If this is the case, then probability is really against me, as the enemy only needs to win once, but I need to win 36 times to not get seen. So as a rogue I take 10 of course (with the trick) and I honestly have to hope the ennemy also has a take 10, that's the only case this really "works" in my opinion.

Anyhow, you asked that we poke holes in your idea, and maybe I read something wrong.

But I'm sure happy that you still try to improve parts of the game that could have been smoother.

Edit: strike that immediate action, that makes 27 checks.

I know as a GM I'll often simplify: only one perceiver check per stealth roll, using the highest perception of all perceivers. Add a +2 bonus for every additional perceiver. The perceiver may take 10.

This can be wildly inaccurate, and does not take varying distances into account at all - but it does make my GM'ing job simpler.

Keep in mind that we are somewhat restricted to how much we can change. We are attempting to make the best changes we can without changing pagination in our books and without affecting too many rules as they are currently written. We are definitely not looking to expand situational modifiers to Stealth. We want to make this as clear and as simple to use as possible. We will have to live with a reasonable level of abstraction.

If this is the case, a total rewrite of the skill is probably not what you want. You should attack the persnickity clauses that are currently ruining stealth. The invisibility state was not designed to represent stealth, and if you make this kind of change without a far-reaching rewrite, I promise you will be crushing related bugs for several printings.

Skeptical though I may sound, I think it is terrific that you guys are willing to examine this kind of solution!

This is pretty much how we've been running things in our home games. I like that these things are being codified, it works better this way.

I like that sniping is consolidated so that it can be done in a surprise round. That was very much needed.

Diego Rossi wrote:

I think the reply is in this phrase:

"When you make your Stealth check, those creatures that didn't succeed at the opposed roll treat you as invisible until the start of your next action or until the end of your turn if you do not end your turn with cover or concealment."

So you check your stealth when you start your move action and you keep it until you make your attack.

The key bit is '... until the start of your next action...'.

So, that means I Stealth up behind them with a Move action (fine), then declare an attack action as a standard. They automatically notice me (at the start of the action). I can't sneak attack them (or whatever).

It's saying you keep your stealth check, not losing your invisible status, until you attack.

LoreKeeper wrote:

To verify: since the invisible condition is used, it is possible for me to start behind a pillar (cover) and use stealth successfully (beating any perception score) - I'm now considered invisible to any perceivers. I can now move out from behind the pillar and sneak to somebody in the room. On my next turn I am still invisible, thus qualify for a new stealth check (due to concealment, from being invisible) and can move circles around somebody in the room - all without being spotted (assuming that my sneak beats their perception). In principle I can keep this up all day long.

Correct?

The blog wrote:

...treat you as invisible until the start of your next action or until the end of your turn if you do not end your turn with cover or concealment.

Not really. As soon as you end your turn without cover you lose the invisibility. Then, on your next turn you would be out in the open with no cover to re-stealth either.

The problem is that by using the invisibility condition, you are treated as having concealment. Its an adverse side effect/loop hole in the wording.

edit: that being said, I like the idea of being able to walk circles arround an unaware opponent without them noticing. If I can do it to people, there is no reason it shouldn't be able to be done in game.

Are Stealth rules going to be to Pathfinder what Skill Challenges are to 4E? :)

Boooooooooo...Hissssssssssssss... *throws shoes*

<3, TOZ

So, that means I Stealth up behind them with a Move action (fine), then declare an attack action as a standard. They automatically notice me (at the start of the action). I can't sneak attack them (or whatever).

It's even got its own bolded heading; forget to finish reading, did you? ;)

Attacking from Invisibility: Usually making an attack against a creature ends the invisible condition. If during your last action were invisible to a creature, you are still considered invisible when you make the first attack of that new action.

You get your sneak attack.

Add a clause about some actions not revealing your pressence, per GM discression.

Examples: picking up a pie, opening a door quietly

This would also apply to Silent and Still spells. While common sense should apply, it might be worth noting.

This is great seeing that you are taking steps in fixing Stealth. Although if I can make one request, and not the first to say this, but please don't use invisibility to indicate someone is successfully 'stealthing', as invisibility is already a condition in itself.

Why can you still not use soft cover for stealth? A person can certainly hide behind a bush.

But wouldn't a bush provide concealment, which is spelled out as viable for stealthing?

thanks Lorekeeper, thats the way I normally roll too, or I even skip the perception and just give a situational DC.

also as I reread it's maximum 1 check per person per turn.

I'll refrain from posting hastedly and reread carefully before I post again.

@Sniggevert: Thanks :)

...

Two issues:

1. There'll have to be a few words for what happens with creatures that have "see invisibility" or similar effects. Having stealth fail because the target has true seeing is a bit dumb.

2. Sense distraction: similar to creating a distraction, it should be possible to get a feeling for whether a particular target is paying attention to you right now or not. Essentially a Sense Motive check to determine if somebody is paying attention to you right now, if not, then you are considered concealed for them for your next action.

I'm glad to see changes being made where they're needed.

Also, did anyone else think the guy trying to hide in the image has that worried look on his face not because he might get caught but that he might be the father? The larvae do kinda look like him...

I like where this is going. One issue though and maybe I'm just having a brain fart. Stealthing makes you invisible (to those that fail their perception). Using the spell invisibility makes you invisible. These would now be identical, right? So what's the point of the invisibility spells giving you a bonus to stealth? Even if an enemy can see invisibility, that just means your invisibility spells shouldn't give you a bonus anyway.

*Casts summon aMiB*

Sniggevert wrote:

LoreKeeper wrote:

To verify: since the invisible condition is used, it is possible for me to start behind a pillar (cover) and use stealth successfully (beating any perception score) - I'm now considered invisible to any perceivers. I can now move out from behind the pillar and sneak to somebody in the room. On my next turn I am still invisible, thus qualify for a new stealth check (due to concealment, from being invisible) and can move circles around somebody in the room - all without being spotted (assuming that my sneak beats their perception). In principle I can keep this up all day long.

Correct?

The blog wrote:

...treat you as invisible until the start of your next action or until the end of your turn if you do not end your turn with cover or concealment.

Not really. As soon as you end your turn without cover you lose the invisibility. Then, on your next turn you would be out in the open with no cover to re-stealth either.

The problem is that by using the invisibility condition, you are treated as having concealment. Its an adverse side effect/loop hole in the wording.

edit: that being said, I like the idea of being able to walk circles arround an unaware opponent without them noticing. If I can do it to people, there is no reason it shouldn't be able to be done in game.

OK, I can see that as needing some clearing up of the language. I think the intent is clear, it's just getting the language cleaned on when it fails.

I like where this is going. One issue though and maybe I'm just having a brain fart. Stealthing makes you invisible (to those that fail their perception).

Wait, what? *rereads new description* Ugh.

Using the spell invisibility makes you invisible. These would now be identical, right? So what's the point of the invisibility spells giving you a bonus to stealth? Even if an enemy can see invisibility, that just means your invisibility spells shouldn't give you a bonus anyway.

My exact question as well.

I'm not a big fan. These rules make it too easy for stealthy characters to remain essentially permanently invisible.

If you're going to go ahead with something like this please include a section on 'countering stealth' and specifically what a character that has successfully used stealth has going for them. Are their victims completely unaware where the attack came from? Do the victims have any recourse for finding the stealthy character beyond beating their stealth check with a perception check? I've seen what happens when stealth is too easy to use (it's called 4e) and when that happens things get really silly really fast.

I like where this is going. One issue though and maybe I'm just having a brain fart. Stealthing makes you invisible (to those that fail their perception). Using the spell invisibility makes you invisible. These would now be identical, right? So what's the point of the invisibility spells giving you a bonus to stealth? Even if an enemy can see invisibility, that just means your invisibility spells shouldn't give you a bonus anyway.

I like Evil Lincoln's idea of having a special "hidden" condition created by successful stealthing, rather than using "invisible". This is one reason why.

But if you read through the post and replace the word "invisible" with "[condition granted by stealth, to be later named and codified]", the overall structure of the skill's mechanics are looking pretty good.

Other things you can't do while sneaking:

Drink a potion
Activate a magic item
Concentrate to maintain a spell
Dismiss a spell
Draw a hidden weapon
Lower spell resistance
Use an extraordinary ability
Use any skill which takes 1 action (including picking locks or pockets via Disable Device or Sleight of Hand)

It's even got its own bolded heading; forget to finish reading, did you? ;)

No... although I'll admit the whole 'invisible condition' confused me a bit... :)