Stealth Playtest

Also on Stealth subjects to cover:
Stealth normally needs Cover or Concealment to use.
Typical Cover or Concealment actually only deals with VISUAL perception, not sound...
Yet Perception AND Stealth are supposedly using/applicable to sound.
Given that`s true, unless you have SONIC Cover/Concealment, how can you ever Stealth via Cover/Concealment?
Sorting out those distinction seems important...

I don't like the idea of magical invisibility granting a straight up bonus to stealth. Because Hide and Move Silently have been combined this really doesn't make sense anymore. After all the invisible target is no harder to hear than they were before.

I would apply it as a penalty to perception checks to pinpoint an invisible character (-20 for moving, -40 for immobile) instead.

So a magically invisible character would make a stealth check to bypass a guard. If the guard's perception beats their normal stealth check then he's aware of their presence. If the character was moving and the guard's perception beats their check by 20 then they've been pinpointed. If they're not pinpointed while moving but the guard hears them (by beating the base stealth check) and begins actively looking for the character who in turn stands still to avoid detection, then the guard needs to beat their stealth check by 40 to pinpoint them (because they're now immobile).

Instead of stealth being 'invisible with detriments', I wish invisible was 'hidden with benefits'. That however would imply a re-write of everything concerning stealth AND invisibility, and therefore undesirable in this case.

[edit] actually it kind of is at the moment...

As it stands, I'd be happy with stealth = invisible. It's not perfect and nor totally accurate, but for the sake of conceptualization in game terms, it's close enough and clear enough for me.

Besides, stealth can borrow from invisibility without being only about being unseen. A clause about sound can exist IN ADDITION to the invisible condition; one does not prevent (or isn't limited to) the other...

'findel

Quandary wrote:

The only thing to look out for with this as a codified rule is that people would then make bunches of stealth checks during their actions, UNTIL they get a Nat 20 (or just really high), and then say they are using that roll from then on.

Isn't that fundamentally the same as taking 20 on a stealth check? That's 2 minutes of trying to hide just right.

And you can`t Take 20 when there is a chance of negative effect, which failing and being noticed seems like it should count as. To point out, while you are rolling these checks, you are no WORSE off then if rolling high and keeping that result wasn`t your goal, and once you hit 20 (or whatever) you are `golden`. Needless to say, this approach increases the average result of all your Stealth rolls (the amount depending on how many times you would normally roll after the point where you get a high result and keep it). What Rogue woulnd`t do this (if allowed) when walking thru some dungeon? (if they planned to Stealth anyways)

I understand that HOW YOU HAVE USED THIS APPROACH probably isn`t very disruptive, but if it is codified as you have suggested, it becomes wide-open to abuse, and abuse by design is how most people would see it, since it wouldn`t even be stretching the rules.

I don't like the idea of magical invisibility granting a straight up bonus to stealth. Because Hide and Move Silently have been combined this really doesn't make sense anymore. After all the invisible target is no harder to hear than they were before.

I would apply it as a penalty to perception checks to pinpoint an invisible character (-20 for moving, -40 for immobile) instead.

So a magically invisible character would make a stealth check to bypass a guard. If the guard's perception beats their normal stealth check then he's aware of their presence.

+1

EDIT: I think this goes right along with the subject I raised a few posts back:

Typical Cover or Concealment actually only deals with VISUAL perception, not sound...

Yet Perception AND Stealth are supposedly using/applicable to sound.
Given that`s true, unless you have SONIC Cover/Concealment, how can you ever Stealth via Cover/Concealment?

For potential observers with both visual and auditory senses that work as normal

(NOTE: that still leaves things open for some monster to be able to see thru sound waves, thus they can ignore visual-only perception impediments like cover, when determining whether such monster can `see` you)

You can`t Take 20 when there is a chance of negative effect, which failing and being noticed seems like it should count as. To point out, while you are rolling these checks, you are no WORSE off then if rolling high and keeping that result wasn`t your goal, and once you hit 20 (or whatever) you are `golden`. Needless to say, this approach increases the average result of all your Stealth rolls (the amount depending on how many times you would normally roll after the point where you get a high result and keep it). What Rogue woulnd`t do this (if allowed) when walking thru some dungeon? (if they planned to Stealth anyways)

You obviously misread what I wrote.

I've always run Stealth as part of an existing movement action.

Except, of course, that the movement action can move you from 0' to your maximum.

Also, once you determine the stealth roll result, you need not roll again until you perform any action requiring sound or movement (such as talking, drawing a weapon, attacking, waving a wand, or standing up). Until then, the result simply functions as a DC for perception.

This means the a Rogue can try to hide, over and over again, and once they're "golden" they can't move or make noise. If they move, or make noise, they have to roll again.

This is why I use it to lay in wait for ambush.

Your solution his meant to beat stealth through dice rolling but the player is not your adversary. The idea is that you play to have fun.

If the goal is to make hiding difficult because the guards are specially trained in spotting hiding people giving them skill focus in perception and/or higher wisdom is better than using hundred of rolls and the "sooner or later a 20 will come up" philosophy.

You might be interested in knowing that my example was taken from my personal experience as a PFS player while the GM was one of the most fair guys I know.

And I am quite in agreement with your conclusion. Unfortunately, the way the skill is worded both in the RAW or in the blog post, long-distance stealth automatically suffers from the "sooner or later a 20 will come up" philosophy, which is why I was asking for a rewording authorizing one opposed roll to cover more time (and distance) than a half-move.

@Malignor: Yes, I think my eyes got tired of all the text, and missed that part.
(thanks for the boldify!)

Whether nor Taking 20 on hiding yourself (and then doing nothing) is desirable or not, that`s obviously a totally different beast than what I said in response.

The other school of thought on hiding yourself is that it`s hard to know how well you are really hidden, thus Taking 20 perhaps is not appropriate. Of course, if you have somebody to help by looking at your hiding spot from all angles, that may not apply (and thus Take 20 could/should work). I have suggested/asked for some synergy with Survival and such usages of Stealth to create hidden ambush points.

Vendis wrote:

General combat doesn't count as a distraction in terms of granting you Stealth check. In this, anyone wanting to use stealth is unable to. A'course, in situations in which concealment is available, they can, but that's a moot point to this discussion - it's specifically about combat.

Why do you want or even need to use stealth in combat?

Give us a compelling reason as to why a rogue would need to be stealthy once combat has been initiated.

If he wants to get a good flanking position, he should use acrobatics.

If he wants to run away, he should use the withdraw action and run like hell, though honestly, I can't think of a way for him to keep from drawing any attacks of opportunity ALL of the time.

If he's going for the lever in the wizard's throne room, then he doesn't have to be in combat, and the DM has to set up the room for stealth to be viable.

So tell me what application you have in mind for using stealth in combat. I can't see a single one, because what I understand of stealth is that the entire purpose is to AVOID CONFLICT.

I've had players use it during combat. Let me name a few scenarios:

1) Character was a blind samurai, battling a rogue medusa. She was using Stealth to maneuver around him and get off attacks and he was having problems pinpointing the square she was in.

2) Character used obscuring mist spell, did a Bluff check to create a diversion, then used the mists to hide in. Either sneaks away or sneaks up on an enemy.

3) Rogue character creates diversion to hide with Bluff, then Stealths away. Comes around from a different vantage point to sneak up on enemies that thought he was gone.

Not so. In bright light (which includes simple sunlight) you can't hide in anything less than total concealment, because this version doesn't change the Environment rules which prohibit that.

You can't hide there but you can be invisible there. In other words you can't start hiding in the cornstalks at noon but if you start hiding you can move through the cornstalks, or an open space, as long as you either get to your target or more cover.

Also on Stealth subjects to cover:

Stealth normally needs Cover or Concealment to use.
Typical Cover or Concealment actually only deals with VISUAL perception, not sound...
Yet Perception AND Stealth are supposedly using/applicable to sound.
Given that`s true, unless you have SONIC Cover/Concealment, how can you ever Stealth via Cover/Concealment?
Sorting out those distinction seems important...

Most things that block vision also block a considerable amount of noise. That's always been okay by me.

I don't like Stealth being tied to the Invisibility condition.

was in the middle of a much longer post, and accidently hit teh refresh button, killing it.

Spells shouldn't be auto-kills to Stealth.

Bleh

Yes, I am calling for more abstraction instead of less.

...

Perception has to not be about "seeing" or "hearing", but about noticing. How many times have you looked right at the object you are trying to find on the table right in front of you and not noticed it? Heard someone talking to you but missed what they were saying? That is perception.

Any fix to stealth has to fix perception as well since the two are interconnected by being opposed checks.

This. I like this very much.

Man that's a lot of posts to sift through. My thoughts:

This cannot be corrected by addressing JUST Stealth alone. Perception and several of the existing standards need adjustment. It's probably not TOO much that needs changing, however.

We need a Distracted Condition. Its effects: -5 on Perception Checks. What makes a person distracted? Good question. I propose that people on guard duty (i.e. taking 10 on Perception) use their Swift Actions to do so. They are not distracted. People observing in detail is a Move Action as normal - also not distracted. People making reactive perception rolls are 'distracted'.

This would make Perception rolls by PCs more difficult, especially in combat, as they would want to save their Swift Actions for things other than taking 10 on Perception checks. All I can say is combat should be distracting. Actually, combat should automatically be distracting and probably not allow taking 10, but we could easily allow people to employ their Swift Action in combat to avoid the -5 penalty (keeping an eye out in the fight), which lets people actually employ their Swift Actions who might otherwise have no use for them.

This lets you do a bunch of things.

Distraction = Concealment: Allow a character to employ Stealth vs a target with the Distracted condition, as if he had Concealment. This gets rid of a lot of bugaboos about it being impossible to sneak up on someone in the open. He's distracted, you have enough Concealment to try. Apply a penalty to the Stealth check as appropriate. As it stands, the absolute "bright light, no concealment = FAIL" is a poor simulation given we have abstract facing rules.

So Stealth still requires Concealment, but a Distracted target provides it.

Slight of Hand or Bluff to Create a Distraction: Both these skills could create a Distracted condition on a target (or more than one target) to otherwise allow Stealth to happen. The canonical 'toss a rock behind them' or 'throw your voice and make them think it's a cat' become useful tools to the Stealthy. Heck, somebody else could even use Diplomacy or Intimidate (or violence) to create the necessary Distracted condition. Allow people to be creative.

Stealth to Re-Create Surprise: As in the Surprise Round. If a character wins the Stealth vs Perception roll-off, the target is Surprised against the Stealther's next partial action (like in the Surprise Round). This lets Rogues hide and then attack from cover, even allowing them to partial charge, abandoning Stealth entirely as they do so, and still get in the necessary attack vs. Flat-Footed, but not Full Attack. Probably the Surprised target can't Ready an action vs the Stealthed target, and maybe Surprised should also be a new Condition:

Surprised: Considered to be Flat Footed against targets it does not perceive and cannot act against targets it is not aware at the start of its round until its next round.

I think this approach uses a lot of the existing notions in the rules, while still allowing stealth to do things it should, while still addressing the whole notion of abstract facing essential to Pathfinder. Rules adjudication for things like special senses, actual all around vision and the like are needed, naturally.

Competent sentries wouldn`t be Taking 10, at least if they may be prepared for very Stealthy opponents, because it isn`t the most effective approach, especially when there are longer approach distances involved (i.e. multiple checks). When you have multiple sentries, them alternating rounds between one Taking 10 and the other actually rolling may be the ideal, in fact. Regardless, a Blog Post covering the subject of how to best run Take 10 WHEN YOU DECIDE TO USE IT, would be useful for many GMs, IMHO.

Yeah, I'll stop rambling. Just wanted to chime in on the Taking 10 thing. I think it's good.

I've had players use it during combat. Let me name a few scenarios:

1) Character was a blind samurai, battling a rogue medusa. She was using Stealth to maneuver around him and get off attacks and he was having problems pinpointing the square she was in.

2) Character used obscuring mist spell, did a Bluff check to create a diversion, then used the mists to hide in. Either sneaks away or sneaks up on an enemy.

3) Rogue character creates diversion to hide with Bluff, then Stealths away. Comes around from a different vantage point to sneak up on enemies that thought he was gone.

Excellent. So, further evidence that Stealth can be used in combat, and the examples I asked for. Vendis should like that.

Razz wrote:

I've had players use it during combat. Let me name a few scenarios:

1) Character was a blind samurai, battling a rogue medusa. She was using Stealth to maneuver around him and get off attacks and he was having problems pinpointing the square she was in.

2) Character used obscuring mist spell, did a Bluff check to create a diversion, then used the mists to hide in. Either sneaks away or sneaks up on an enemy.

3) Rogue character creates diversion to hide with Bluff, then Stealths away. Comes around from a different vantage point to sneak up on enemies that thought he was gone.

Excellent. So, further evidence that Stealth can be used in combat, and the examples I asked for. Vendis should like that.

Fog, you're arguing MY point. Look at the entire quote on Razz's post - he is quoting you in which you quote me. Your asked me specifically to ask for situations in which stealth would be used in combat, because it's used to avoid combat. I hadn't responded yet, though Razz did, and now you say that. I mean, seriously, look at the first sentence of your quoted bit in Razz's post.

My point is that through the interpretation that combat counts as a distraction for stealth is silly. I -want- stealth to exist in combat, but to come with its own set of rules, because using the whole "combat = distraction" is using a subset of rules that is designed for specific situations, not something as expansive as combat.

Combat as a distraction is way too broad; however being engaged in melee makes for a great distraction. Engaged in melee, you're focused on a particular individual, or worse individuals. Otherwise, that character is free to look around the room. I'd also argue that characters concentrating on spells or aiming are also distracted. Let us not forget that a round is six seconds and an adventurer with any sense would keep tabs on their environment so facing is highly irrelevant in most cases. However having a limited scope of vision offers some opportunity to stealthy person, especially if the target has low perception.

I think what my biggest problem is that stealth doesn't really give a distinction between hiding your presence and hiding your location. Just because someone is aware of your presence does not mean they know where you are. If anything being aware should give them a bonus to perception.

Man that's a lot of posts to sift through. My thoughts:

This cannot be corrected by addressing JUST Stealth alone. Perception and several of the existing standards need adjustment. It's probably not TOO much that needs changing, however.

We need a Distracted Condition. Its effects: -5 on Perception Checks. What makes a person distracted? Good question. I propose that people on guard duty (i.e. taking 10 on Perception) use their Swift Actions to do so. They are not distracted. People observing in detail is a Move Action as normal - also not distracted. People making reactive perception rolls are 'distracted'.

This would make Perception rolls by PCs more difficult, especially in combat, as they would want to save their Swift Actions for things other than taking 10 on Perception checks. All I can say is combat should be distracting. Actually, combat should automatically be distracting and probably not allow taking 10, but we could easily allow people to employ their Swift Action in combat to avoid the -5 penalty (keeping an eye out in the fight), which lets people actually employ their Swift Actions who might otherwise have no use for them.

This lets you do a bunch of things.

Distraction = Concealment: Allow a character to employ Stealth vs a target with the Distracted condition, as if he had Concealment. This gets rid of a lot of bugaboos about it being impossible to sneak up on someone in the open. He's distracted, you have enough Concealment to try. Apply a penalty to the Stealth check as appropriate. As it stands, the absolute "bright light, no concealment = FAIL" is a poor simulation given we have abstract facing rules.

So Stealth still requires Concealment, but a Distracted target provides it.

So everyone in combat is constantly distracted barring the moment in which they are using a action for actively perceiving?

Consider this scenario:
- Spellcaster is behind some concealing feature of the terrain
- use a standard action to cast a spell
- hide
- you know where he is but you should hope to beat his stealth roll to target him.

As a caster often has a available move action that he don't need to use he has a easy time hiding almost every round. Even if he get a mediocre die roll he probably get to be hidden from several attackers, so he get an advantage at no cost.
Martial types instead often use full attacks or move and attack maneuvers, so they rarely will benefit from this possibility.

To me it seem an unmotivated gift to spellcaster.

tealth to Re-Create Surprise: As in the Surprise Round. If a character wins the Stealth vs Perception roll-off, the target is Surprised against the Stealther's next partial action (like in the Surprise Round). This lets Rogues hide and then attack from cover, even allowing them to partial charge, abandoning Stealth entirely as they do so, and still get in the necessary attack vs. Flat-Footed, but not Full Attack. Probably the Surprised target can't Ready an action vs the Stealthed target, and maybe Surprised should also be a new Condition:

Surprised: Considered to be Flat Footed against targets it does not perceive and cannot act against targets it is not aware at the start of its round until its next round.

Aaargh, NO!

The surprise round has a lot of special rules.
Repeating it with some guy surprised some not surprised and getting a full round of action would be a total mess.

Perhaps I'm still misreading the blog entry, but am I really one of comparatively few people who is bothered far, far more by the fact that the proposed changes do not seem to allow drinking potions, concentrating on existing spells (e.g. illusions), picking locks, or picking pockets without losing the stealth condition than by whatever label is used to describe it?

Maddigan wrote:

Got a chance to test the Take 10 rule for Stealth in game play. Not going to work. It makes Stealth either an auto-success or an auto-failure. I have no idea where you cut off the immediate danger portion of Take 10 and make the character roll. Within 30 feet? 10 feet? 100 feet?

My PCs moved up on sleeping targets and coup de graced them while stealthing because using the "immediate danger" and Take 10 made it an auto-success to stealth up to a sleeping target and kill them. This could be just as effectively used against PCs. How do I make it so that sleeping NPCs are an "immediate danger" to the PCs or are actively making Perception checks to notice someone? DM caveat?

So the reason you think there's a problem with using take 10 on stealth is because it lets you kill someone in their sleep?

Hate to break it to you, but "in their sleep" is one of the best, most common, and most reliable times to assassinate someone, both in real life and in fantasy.

That's why you have someone stand watch.

I have a problem with it because it lets you do this with no chance of failure. Why should a skill be more powerful than an attack, a spell, or a special ability?

Stealth is most effective as a combat skill. It can allow you to do things no other skill can without a serious feat investment or anything of the kind: sneak up on a creature and coup de grace them.

Don't like skills that allow auto-success for a death attack. I don't care if it is only a 5% chance of failure. I want some chance of failure.

And your weak comeback about always having guards up is ridiculous. No one always has guards up in the room their in. As though they're going to have guards by their bed all the time in the same room as them. Really? That is what you expect every enemy and every PC to have? Really?

How about not designing a skill that allows for auto-success for a death attack? That seems like a better way to design a skill.

Not sure why you think this is any change from before. You could always do this, since 3.0.

Don't consider it a change. I ran it the same way in 3.0. I have been running Stealth like GURPS rather than D&D for a long, long time.

Why should sneaking up on sleeping opponents be hard? It should be autosuccess. The trick is getting to sleeping opponents.

Quote:

I didn't say it should be hard. I'd appreciate you not putting words in my posts that aren't there.

What I said is I don't think it should be an auto-success. I think any ability that can automatically kill a character or enemy should have some chance of failure or serious limitation. That's why Stealth and Perception should be an exception to the normal skill rules that don't allow failure on a 1 or auto-success on a 20.

If a person rolls a natural 20 on their Perception check, they should spot a stealther. It doesn't matter how good you are, there is always a chance someone picks up on you.

It doesn't matter how good you are at stealth, something can always go wrong.

Stealth is very much a combat skill. It's important it be looked at differently, as it seems Paizo is currently doing, than say Appraise, Knowledge (Local), or Craft (weaponsmithing).

It's not just coup de grace on sleeping targets. Even gaining an advantage in the surprise round of an additional standard or move action is an extremely potent advantage. That's why Take 10 and auto-success for skills doesn't work for my games.

Anything that can give out the kind of benefit Stealth can give should have some inherent chance of failure. It's that simple to me. Stealth is a combat skill. No different from invisibility, casting a spell, or rolling an attack roll.

Rolling a nat 20 and 1 should not be a factor. Sometimes your best is just not good enough, and you can be so good at something that even on your worse day you can do it.

Maddigan wrote:

Got a chance to test the Take 10 rule for Stealth in game play. Not going to work. It makes Stealth either an auto-success or an auto-failure. I have no idea where you cut off the immediate danger portion of Take 10 and make the character roll. Within 30 feet? 10 feet? 100 feet?

My PCs moved up on sleeping targets and coup de graced them while stealthing because using the "immediate danger" and Take 10 made it an auto-success to stealth up to a sleeping target and kill them. This could be just as effectively used against PCs. How do I make it so that sleeping NPCs are an "immediate danger" to the PCs or are actively making Perception checks to notice someone? DM caveat?

The point it it should work exactly that way.

If you are sleeping and don't have taken any precaution (guards, alarms or whatever) a guy barely competent in sneaking around will have a easy time killing you.

The "competition" is between the precautions you have taken beforehand and the dedications of the stealthy character in being stealthy.
Not between 2 dice rolls.

That said, darkness without darkvision or dim light without low light will generally require a die roll.
Dim light is a bit so-so as under the conditions in its descriptions a guy that had the time to adapt to darkness can see well enough to avoid most mishap.
With our consuetude with bright light rooms and light polluted night skies we have a hard time realizing how much is possible to seen under a starry sky after an hour of acclimation.

The dice rolls emulate the random variability of life. The off chance a sword blow goes wide even from an expert swordsman swinging at a inexperienced commoner. The slight chance the bowman shoots wide even when firing at a defenseless infant. That's what the natural 1 and natural 20 rule are for.

So for stealthing the chance of failure is to emulate the possibility that the target wakes up from his sleep because he his having a horrible dream to spot the stealther. Or the off chance that the stealther scrapes his foot against something or accidentally bumps a vase walking up his target.

Stealthing is a high stress situation and things can go wrong. Emulating that sense of stress should be a part of the skill. That's why I think the natural 1 and natural 20 rule should apply and there should always be a roll between Perception and Stealth.

D&D is ultimately walking the line between simulating a book or movie and playing a game. I've read plenty of books and seen plenty of movies where some small event wakes a person up to save their life from someone sneaking into assassinate them. And also from a gamist perspective, I want Stealth to have an inherent chance of failure. Otherwise it is too strong an ability.

Perhaps I'm still misreading the blog entry, but am I really one of comparatively few people who is bothered far, far more by the fact that the proposed changes do not seem to allow drinking potions, concentrating on existing spells (e.g. illusions), picking locks, or picking pockets without losing the stealth condition than by whatever label is used to describe it?

-There's been a few whacks at trying to change the wording on what you're allowed to do while hiding. I think it quickly reached consensus that it was going to have to be the DM's call because there are way too many free actions that you can't stealth through (ie, shouting a warning), many full round actions that make no noise (concentrating on a spell), move actions that might call for another stealth check (drawing a weapon quietly)

Perhaps I'm still misreading the blog entry, but am I really one of comparatively few people who is bothered far, far more by the fact that the proposed changes do not seem to allow drinking potions, concentrating on existing spells (e.g. illusions), picking locks, or picking pockets without losing the stealth condition than by whatever label is used to describe it?

-There's been a few whacks at trying to change the wording on what you're allowed to do while hiding. I think it quickly reached consensus that it was going to have to be the DM's call because there are way too many free actions that you can't stealth through (ie, shouting a warning), many full round actions that make no noise (concentrating on a spell), move actions that might call for another stealth check (drawing a weapon quietly)

Stealth should have huge write up and table for D&D. It's one of those skills that needs it. You could even argue there is a larger penalty for drawing a two-handed weapon over a dagger.

So everyone in combat is constantly distracted barring the moment in which they are using a action for actively perceiving?

Most people IRL are distracted a lot; they're doing work, reading a book, daydreaming, etcetera. People concentrating on their surroundings are expending their attention to do so; in game terms, that says to me they're using actions to make Perception checks.

Note that in your example, casters with Move Actions to spare might well be using them to make Perception checks to prevent people from sneaking up on THEM. Currently a caster near cover can basically do what you suggest anyways. Yes, my suggestion makes it easier for them to hide, but I think allowing a Swift action to ignore Distraction on the reactive Stealth vs Perception keeps it under control. It might be worth giving a bonus to Perception rolls for those people who use a Move Action to actively look for things. Bottom line, if you want to 'keep an eye out' in a fight, use your Swift action for that. Want to use your Swift action for something else? It becomes easier to sneak up on you - you're distracted. Not a big stretch.

Aaargh, NO!

The surprise round has a lot of special rules.
Repeating it with some guy surprised some not surprised and getting a full round of action would be a total mess.

Note that I described the effect of the Surprised condition in one reasonably unambiguous sentence - they're flat footed vs people they don't perceive and can't take actions against them in the current round. You could make trying to 'surprise' someone a Move Action, which would prevent it getting too abusive (or emulating the surprise round more closely).

So it would work as follows: Rogue who has the option to stealth (however he gets it) opts to 'Surprise' a target as (say) a Move Action (or more likely as part of a Move Action). He makes the requisite Stealth vs Perception check. Success renders his target Flat Footed vs the Rogue (for that round) and the target can't act directly against the Rogue (for that round). This is a bit better than Improved Feint (admittedly a feat), but given the concealment requirement of Stealth it may be fair. It may be worth allowing the target to act vs the Stealthed rogue AFTER the rogue is done his turn; this turns Surprise Attacks into an analogue of Feinting, with more difficult setup to compensate for the lack of feats required.

Fog, you're arguing MY point. Look at the entire quote on Razz's post - he is quoting you in which you quote me. Your asked me specifically to ask for situations in which stealth would be used in combat, because it's used to avoid combat.

EDIT: Combat as a whole should not be a distraction. I'm pretty sure that over the course of this argument, MELEE combat was just shortened to combat because we kept going over it.

If initiative is rolled, that doesn't mean everyone is immediately distracted. That's dumb. The orc warlord sitting on his would-be throne watching his champions fight the PCs is not distracted unless he is immediately engaged, somehow.

The wizard BBEG from the earlier example was assumed (by me) to be distracted by the party wizard. If they're casting at each other, they have to be counter-spelling. The perception checks required for the two to hear each other and recognize somatic components across the melee field, as well as having the presence of mind to make spellcraft checks should count as having your attention on something else.

Distraction (or diversion as some people would opt to call it, it seems) does need to be more defined if it's going to be used, but as of right now, anything the DM deems fit can be considered a distraction. This is not a terrible way to handle it.

And your weak comeback about always having guards up is ridiculous. No one always has guards up in the room their in. As though they're going to have guards by their bed all the time in the same room as them. Really? That is what you expect every enemy and every PC to have? Really?

Wait, are your PCs making enemies who are sending reasonably experienced assassins after them, then staying in some common inn room where their enemy knows where they are? And not keeping watch or taking any precautions at all? IMO they deserve to be killed then. IRL, powerful people with powerful enemies do have bodyguards day and night. They stay in nice hotels with high security, or they don't let people know where they are.

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but staying at an inn does warrant precautions like alarm and arcane lock. Plus, mid level characters should be able to afford places with superior (DC40) locks on the doors.

Short version: If the assassin is already in the room with your unguarded, sleeping body, you've already lost. Stealth should be a near auto-win at that point. Although, as a house rule, I would tend to let characters with uncanny dodge wake up suddenly when attacked. It's uncanny how they anticipate unexpected attacks, after all.

Perhaps I'm still misreading the blog entry, but am I really one of comparatively few people who is bothered far, far more by the fact that the proposed changes do not seem to allow drinking potions, concentrating on existing spells (e.g. illusions), picking locks, or picking pockets without losing the stealth condition than by whatever label is used to describe it?

-There's been a few whacks at trying to change the wording on what you're allowed to do while hiding. I think it quickly reached consensus that it was going to have to be the DM's call because there are way too many free actions that you can't stealth through (ie, shouting a warning), many full round actions that make no noise (concentrating on a spell), move actions that might call for another stealth check (drawing a weapon quietly)

I wholeheartedly agree!!!

Perhaps I'm still misreading the blog entry, but am I really one of comparatively few people who is bothered far, far more by the fact that the proposed changes do not seem to allow drinking potions, concentrating on existing spells (e.g. illusions), picking locks, or picking pockets without losing the stealth condition than by whatever label is used to describe it?

-There's been a few whacks at trying to change the wording on what you're allowed to do while hiding. I think it quickly reached consensus that it was going to have to be the DM's call because there are way too many free actions that you can't stealth through (ie, shouting a warning), many full round actions that make no noise (concentrating on a spell), move actions that might call for another stealth check (drawing a weapon quietly)

I brought it up on page 1, and Proffessor Potts agreed with me. Its kind of gotten burried, but I think its just become an obvious place to change that there is little debate over its necessity.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Perhaps I'm still misreading the blog entry, but am I really one of comparatively few people who is bothered far, far more by the fact that the proposed changes do not seem to allow drinking potions, concentrating on existing spells (e.g. illusions), picking locks, or picking pockets without losing the stealth condition than by whatever label is used to describe it?

-There's been a few whacks at trying to change the wording on what you're allowed to do while hiding. I think it quickly reached consensus that it was going to have to be the DM's call because there are way too many free actions that you can't stealth through (ie, shouting a warning), many full round actions that make no noise (concentrating on a spell), move actions that might call for another stealth check (drawing a weapon quietly)

I brought it up on page 1, and Proffessor Potts agreed with me. Its kind of gotten burried, but I think its just become an obvious place to change that there is little debate over its necessity.

Yeah, I brought it up in my own words a little bit later as well. Though there seems to be little debate over it, it bears repeating.

-There's been a few whacks at trying to change the wording on what you're allowed to do while hiding. I think it quickly reached consensus that it was going to have to be the DM's call because there are way too many free actions that you can't stealth through (ie, shouting a warning), many full round actions that make no noise (concentrating on a spell), move actions that might call for another stealth check (drawing a weapon quietly)

Yes, this is important.

I brought it up on page 1, and Proffessor Potts agreed with me. Its kind of gotten burried, but I think its just become an obvious place to change that there is little debate over its necessity.

Because the major kinks in new!stealth are already exposed, we run the serious risk of bickering over minutiae about Stealth themes instead of how it works in play. My next game is on Sunday, I'll have more to say after that.

Also on Stealth subjects to cover:

Stealth normally needs Cover or Concealment to use.
Typical Cover or Concealment actually only deals with VISUAL perception, not sound...
Yet Perception AND Stealth are supposedly using/applicable to sound.
Given that`s true, unless you have SONIC Cover/Concealment, how can you ever Stealth via Cover/Concealment?
Sorting out those distinction seems important...

This doesn't even touch on Olfactory Cover/Concealment when opposing someone who has the Scent ability when making Perception checks.

In all seriousness, the main way someone is going to detect you is visually and breaking that visual connection is going to be the key factor.

Also, when you're being sneaky and moving at half-speed, you're going to be quieter. The DM can always put a penalty if you're walking across a noisy surface (squeaky floor, pea gravel, snow compacting, etc) or if you have something on you that adjusts how noisy you are (clanky armor, wearing clogs, being sovereign glued to the Halfling bard) and is part of the reason an armor check penalty exists.

As for scent, then you want to come from downwind, not upwind. You'll also want to make sure you bathed recently (without using those fancy perfumed soaps the cleric is so fond of) so that your odor doesn't waft too freely. Again, the DM can adjust penalties if this is the case.

However, as I said in the beginning, vision is going to be the primary thing that you're fighting against. The closer you are, the more those other factors are going to start coming into play, but vision has, by far, the longest distance of any of our senses and is the most relied upon. Countering that would be Stealth's primary purpose with moving silently actually being a distant second.

I don't like the idea of magical invisibility granting a straight up bonus to stealth. Because Hide and Move Silently have been combined this really doesn't make sense anymore. After all the invisible target is no harder to hear than they were before.

Perception does not equal seeing or hearing. It is noticing. It's not about the sensory input, but how well you process it. We need to move away from the old paradigm of spot and listen. The problem is that we are hanging on to checks based on individual senses. Sure they are more realistic, but they (potentially) bog down game play.

What you are heading toward is a very granular check that provokes more checks until the target makes all of them or fails 1 and is located. You will get bogged down into "check if I can hear him", "check if I can see him", "check if I can smell him".

Embrace the abstraction!

If anything, I would go in the direction of failing a perception check by 5 or less gives you a +2 bonus (circumstance/alertness) on your next check against the same target.

Otherwise you risk going down the path of triggering a re-roll if you would have succeeded without a specific modifier.

Maddigan wrote:

Got a chance to test the Take 10 rule for Stealth in game play. Not going to work. It makes Stealth either an auto-success or an auto-failure. I have no idea where you cut off the immediate danger portion of Take 10 and make the character roll. Within 30 feet? 10 feet? 100 feet?

My PCs moved up on sleeping targets and coup de graced them while stealthing because using the "immediate danger" and Take 10 made it an auto-success to stealth up to a sleeping target and kill them. This could be just as effectively used against PCs. How do I make it so that sleeping NPCs are an "immediate danger" to the PCs or are actively making Perception checks to notice someone? DM caveat?

The point it it should work exactly that way.

If you are sleeping and don't have taken any precaution (guards, alarms or whatever) a guy barely competent in sneaking around will have a easy time killing you.

The "competition" is between the precautions you have taken beforehand and the dedications of the stealthy character in being stealthy.
Not between 2 dice rolls.

That said, darkness without darkvision or dim light without low light will generally require a die roll.
Dim light is a bit so-so as under the conditions in its descriptions a guy that had the time to adapt to darkness can see well enough to avoid most mishap.
With our consuetude with bright light rooms and light polluted night skies we have a hard time realizing how much is possible to seen under a starry sky after an hour of acclimation.

Have you ever tried getting out of your bedroom without waking up your significant other ? Or walking by the kids' bedroom without waking them up, especially on Christmas ?

There is no such thing as auto-sneaking a sleeping person.

If only because, even when you are sleeping, your brain and senses are still working full-time, perceiving and analysing everything that happens around you.

Perhaps I'm still misreading the blog entry, but am I really one of comparatively few people who is bothered far, far more by the fact that the proposed changes do not seem to allow drinking potions, concentrating on existing spells (e.g. illusions), picking locks, or picking pockets without losing the stealth condition than by whatever label is used to describe it?

I initially shared your problem with the new stealth rules. But then I looked at it again and realized that if you have cover or concealment, they don't have line of sight to you, so you don't need a stealth check. Additionally, most standard actions should break stealth with a couple of possible edge case exceptions. Still, let's look at how what you mention is already covered.

Most potions you would be drinking while stealthed should last long enough that you would drink them before you stared.

Concentrating on a spell means you broke stealth to cast it in the first place. While the DC to notice a visible creature is 0, it requires line of sight. If they can't see you (no line of sight), no stealth is needed. (see Cover and Concealment)

Picking pockets is already covered by making a sleight of hand check as a move action with a -20 penalty.

Picking a lock - are you trying to pick the lock without anyone noticing you standing next to it? If not, I would say you want a slight of hand check to conceal the lock picks. (Or a bluff check to convince anyone who asks what you are doing that you are too drunk to realize this isn't your house you're trying to open the door to, or how to get your own door open even if it were your house)
Otherwise it's back to Cover and Concealment, or having an ally provide one hell of a good distraction.

I wholeheartedly agree!!!

*grumble* now i need to change my position....:k

But then I looked at it again and realized that if you have cover or concealment, they don't have line of sight to you, so you don't need a stealth check.

Only total concealment blocks line of sight. You can have regular concealment (20%) and people who make their perception checks can see you. This often bites human rogues in the rump because they think they're standing in shadows while the elf wonders why the idiot is standing in light he can read fine print by.

Most potions you would be drinking while stealthed should last long enough that you would drink them before you stared.

-You don't always know when combat is going to start to pre buff, and sometimes you need to down some healing potions in the middle of the fight. What you think is a necessity of performing an act shouldn't interfere with how hard the act is to do should it become neccesary. A potion is a very small amount of liquid, you should be able to drink while crouched under the bushes.

Concentrating on a spell means you broke stealth to cast it in the first place. While the DC to notice a visible creature is 0, it requires line of sight. If they can't see you (no line of sight), no stealth is needed. (see Cover and Concealment)

Perception covers all 5 senses (technically including smell, even for creatures without scent) Even behind a pillar you still make noise while shuffling around and can be heard.

Picking pockets is already covered by making a sleight of hand check as a move action with a -20 penalty.

In a crowd, sure. However i think if you want to pick the pocket of the hobgoblin jailor who's got your buddies in the clink he's going to wonder why you're standing next to him.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Perhaps I'm still misreading the blog entry, but am I really one of comparatively few people who is bothered far, far more by the fact that the proposed changes do not seem to allow drinking potions, concentrating on existing spells (e.g. illusions), picking locks, or picking pockets without losing the stealth condition than by whatever label is used to describe it?

I initially shared your problem with the new stealth rules. But then I looked at it again and realized that if you have cover or concealment, they don't have line of sight to you, so you don't need a stealth check. Additionally, most standard actions should break stealth with a couple of possible edge case exceptions. Still, let's look at how what you mention is already covered.

Most potions you would be drinking while stealthed should last long enough that you would drink them before you stared.

Concentrating on a spell means you broke stealth to cast it in the first place. While the DC to notice a visible creature is 0, it requires line of sight. If they can't see you (no line of sight), no stealth is needed. (see Cover and Concealment)

Picking pockets is already covered by making a sleight of hand check as a move action with a -20 penalty.

Picking a lock - are you trying to pick the lock without anyone noticing you standing next to it? If not, I would say you want a slight of hand check to conceal the lock picks. (Or a bluff check to convince anyone who asks what you are doing that you are too drunk to realize this isn't your house you're trying to open the door to, or how to get your own door open even if it were your house)
Otherwise it's back to Cover and Concealment, or having an ally provide one hell of a good distraction.

Except you are under the impression that vision is the only thing that you are concealing with stealth. Stealth also covers not revealing your location via sound, among other things.

Drinking a potion - yes, the round before you ambush you want to be able to buff with a potion. Or you want to hide and heal. Both should be valid uses of stealth.

Concentration: this is an action that can be done for minutes. 1. I should be able to maintain a spell I already cast when the opponent wasn't near me. 2. I should be able to maintain a spell that I cast before I started to stealth.

Picking pockets: I should be able to pick someone's pocket when they never even saw me. Walk up behind someone, perform the sleight of hand check, and leave before they even knew I was there to begin with. I could be hiding behind the curtain they are sitting in front of, or behind the pillar they just walked by.

Picking a lock: you should be able to do this without making noise and alerting the people on the other side of the door. It is more difficult, and should require a stealth check.

Finarin Panjoro wrote:

I don't like the idea of magical invisibility granting a straight up bonus to stealth. Because Hide and Move Silently have been combined this really doesn't make sense anymore. After all the invisible target is no harder to hear than they were before.

Perception does not equal seeing or hearing. It is noticing. It's not about the sensory input, but how well you process it. We need to move away from the old paradigm of spot and listen. The problem is that we are hanging on to checks based on individual senses. Sure they are more realistic, but they (potentially) bog down game play.

What you are heading toward is a very granular check that provokes more checks until the target makes all of them or fails 1 and is located. You will get bogged down into "check if I can hear him", "check if I can see him", "check if I can smell him".

Embrace the abstraction!

If anything, I would go in the direction of failing a perception check by 5 or less gives you a +2 bonus (circumstance/alertness) on your next check against the same target.

Otherwise you risk going down the path of triggering a re-roll if you would have succeeded without a specific modifier.

I'm not sure I understand how your response relates to my original post. I'm all for the abstraction and I agree that Perception is about understanding (noticing) what one is seeing/hearing/etc. I'm just arguing that invisibility should not apply a bonus to avoid being noticed, but should make it more difficult to pinpoint a target's exact location.

I think what Meepo wrote COULD work with some crucial modifications, like re: what causes you to lose Stealth.

For that purpose, in-line with the new functionality introduced in the blog,
I see splitting it`s effect into two parts: a succesful check means you remained Stealthed until the end of your turn OR any action which ends it (attacking, etc).
ALSO, Stealth will continue until your next turn, UNLESS anything (i.e. cover/concealment) no longer provide the conditions for Stealth... then you would drop Stealth...

Actually, if a Stealth check doesn't grant any condition, but instead merely increases Perception DCs, then you don't need any rules for actions that end Stealth. Just a few Perception DC modifiers for things like cover and making a melee attack.

Example:

Say that Stealth increases Perception DCs based on your roll, and all Stealth modifiers are rolled into Perception DCs. Say also that we add a +5 DC modifier for cover to the Perception skill, and a -20 DC modifier if you made an attack since the beginning of your last action, increasing to -40 if it was a melee attack made against the creature trying to notice you with Perception.

So a rogue starts his turn with cover, and makes a Stealth check that increases Perception DCs to notice him by, say, +15. The DC to notice him is 20 (0 to notice a visible creature +5 cover +15 for Stealth) plus modifiers for distance. When he moves out from behind cover at full speed, the DC to notice him is 10 (0 to notice a visible creature -5 for moving at full speed +15 for Stealth) plus modifiers for distance. When he stabs a guard at the end of his move, the DC to notice him is -5 (0 to notice a visible creature -20 for making an attack +15 for Stealth) plus modifiers for distance, or -25 plus modifiers for distance for the creature being attacked.

All of those DCs are checked against each observer's Perception bonus +10 each time the DC changes.

At no point during any of that was it necessary to remove the bonus granted by the rogue's Stealth check, nor to determine if and when Stealth ended. The rogue became obvious despite his Stealth as a result of cumulative modifiers added to the Perception DC. Essentially, all of the headache involving conditions caused by Stealth, actions that end Stealth, concealment, cover, and sniping got replaced with a few simple lines added to a table in the Perception skill (which may or may not use the place-holder numbers I mentioned above).

Quote:

Aaargh, NO!

The surprise round has a lot of special rules.
Repeating it with some guy surprised some not surprised and getting a full round of action would be a total mess.

Note that I described the effect of the Surprised condition in one reasonably unambiguous sentence - they're flat footed vs people they don't perceive and can't take actions against them in the current round. You could make trying to 'surprise' someone a Move Action, which would prevent it getting too abusive (or emulating the surprise round more closely).

So it would work as follows: Rogue who has the option to stealth (however he gets it) opts to 'Surprise' a target as (say) a Move Action (or more likely as part of a Move Action). He makes the requisite Stealth vs Perception check. Success renders his target Flat Footed vs the Rogue (for that round) and the target can't...

But that is exactly the point: the target is flat footed. He can't act against the rogue this round, but if he is flat footed he stay flat footed till he act the next time.

It if good if it can be done once for each encounter, horrible if it is repeated every other round.

If the rouge has a single target he can repeat his trick every round and make him helpless all the time.

You are trying to use a mechanic meant to be used once for encounter and use it every round.

I agree with the sentiment that in Pathfinder, Perception is not a specific sense, it is the act of noticing something.

Situationally, it could be sight, hearing, taste, smell, or unusual. That's all situational. I think something like this would work :

• Specific Sense Check : Auto-Failure (IE : Being blind and seeing something)
  
• Strongly Associated with Sense : -20 (IE : Drinking the blue potion but not the red potion when using darkvision to see, or noticing someone in the room if you are blind)
  
• Unusual Senses : +5 for each additional sense that can be used.
  

So, for example, you're in an alchemists lab, in the dark, and you are supposed to replace the blue potion with another blue potion. However, you can't see the colors with darkvision. -20 to your perception to find the right potion.

You are looking for an invisible person in a room. You have tremor sense (you're an oracle). You get a +5 bonus for the tremor sense. If you also had scent for some reason (you're a catfolk), you'd get +10.

This takes care of the extra senses. The default assumption is the character has full access to the standard 5 senses, and he takes a huge penalty if the primary sense for a perception roll is missing (blind when you need sight, darkvision when you need to determine color, etc). Beyond that, additional bonus senses not possessed by PC races give you bonuses if they can be used (scent doesn't help underwater for example, unless you're amphibious).

If the rouge has a single target he can repeat his trick every round and make him helpless all the time.

... and then maybe, just maybe, compete with other classes for combat contribution.

No, I am not under the impression that vision is the only thing that you are concealing with stealth. I am under the impression that location is the only thing you are concealing with stealth. By RAW, line of sight/line of effect rules are used for applying cover and concealment. Cover and concealment are conditional prerequisites for stealth.
-----

Detail...........................................DC
Hear the sound of a key being turned in a lock...20

Fixed DC, not an opposed check. Picking the lock would make the same amount of noise.

As for picking their pocket:

Action: Any Sleight of Hand check is normally a standard action. However, you may perform a Sleight of Hand check as a move action by taking a –20 penalty on the check.

Stelath means you must take that -20 if you don't want the target to detect you being near him when you make the attempt. Stealth does not replace sleight of hand for the check for him detecting you picking his pocket.

Notice a pickpocket Opposed by Sleight of Hand

You standing next to him is one check (stealth). You picking his pocket is a separate check (sleight of hand).

But that is exactly the point: the target is flat footed. He can't act against the rogue this round, but if he is flat footed he stay flat footed till he act the next time.

You are trying to use a mechanic meant to be used once for encounter and use it every round.

Then make it last until the end of the Rogue's round (or next attack). Easily solved. People who pay attention to their surroundings (i.e. use a Swift or Move Action for Perception) aren't distracted, so the Rogue has to find actual concealment to try it.

Given the amount of kvetching about how Rogues (not the only Sneak Attacker, but the majority of them) are underpowered/useless, making it easier for them to get in Sneak Attacks hardly seems a bad thing.

Do people easily miss things even while looking directly at them? Yes. Yes they do.

Hiding in combat should be possible, though not easy.

Its already possible, with a bluff check.

Edit - although I wonder if there will be conditions in combat that would allow for a rogue to treat an opponent as distracted, such as if they are stunned, or maybe even dazzled.

In all seriousness, the main way someone is going to detect you is visually and breaking that visual connection is going to be the key factor.

Also, when you're being sneaky and moving at half-speed, you're going to be quieter. The DM can always put a penalty if you're walking across a noisy surface (squeaky floor, pea gravel, snow compacting, etc) or if you have something on you that adjusts how noisy you are (clanky armor, wearing clogs, being sovereign glued to the Halfling bard) and is part of the reason an armor check penalty exists.

As for scent, then you want to come from downwind, not upwind. You'll also want to make sure you bathed recently (without using those fancy perfumed soaps the cleric is so fond of) so that your odor doesn't waft too freely. Again, the DM can adjust penalties if this is the case.

Yes, and there are/should be modifiers for all of those things, or modifications of the ranges of those senses (e.g. for upwind/downwind scent). Those are already factored into stealth in general, or just need some minor tweaking.

I think my main point IS exactly that most of the non-visual senses are rather less accurate than vision, which is the reason why vision is the ´main sense´. But taking that into account, besides dealing with how ´standard´ cover/concealment does/doesn´t affect these other senses, it seems like what should be addressed is that the DC to completely see and localize somebody enough to take AoO´s vs them, etc, seems sustantially different than the DC to notice that SOMEBODY IS IN THE GENERAL AREA, i.e. their presense and possibly general direction (just not exact square).

This really goes beyond just stealth, i.e. even when characters aren´t using stealth, the normal Perception checks will reveal very different things if you can use vision to localize them, or are just using what you can hear to detect the general direction or merely presense of something ´within range´. Stealth is just a modification on top of that, increasing the DC for all senses... But it seems very plausible that a Stealth check could make an observer nto be able to fully localize them (ala vision), but the lower DCs for general direction or mere presense COULD be passable by the observer. That´s what I¨m getting at.

No, I am not under the impression that vision is the only thing that you are concealing with stealth. I am under the impression that location is the only thing you are concealing with stealth. By RAW, line of sight/line of effect rules are used for applying cover and concealment. Cover and concealment are conditional prerequisites for stealth.

Prerequisites yes, guarantees no. You can hear and smell around corners. (well, humans can hear anyway...)