| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Revising the skill text and the invisible condition is more trouble than it is worth. Best to change the Stealth wording in a way that doesn't drag more text in it, and make it behave as it should.
The invisible state is not broken, stealth is.
lets not forget to address the stealth enhancing feats and traits in various sourcebooks.
A clarifed version of stealth is needed, but hopefully ot will address all the other abilities/feats/traits/items that modify/use/change the skill.
keep up the good work.
I think people take a bit too much issue with successful Stealth granting you invisibility, and not taking noise into account. Form my perspective, New Stealth is all about moving silently. Consider these two failure situations under the proposed new rules:
1. You are hiding around a corner, or in some other situation where it would be impossible for who you're hiding from to see you. If you succeed at the check, they do not know you are there. If you fail, you make noise, and they hear you, knowing you're around the corner. If you have a turn before they get there, you may still have a chance to find another place to hide before they arrive (perhaps in a locker or under a box?) since you still have total cover from them (however, they will likely be suspicious if you are missing when they arrive, and more thoroughly search the area). If you do not have a turn before they get there, however, they turn the corner and see you, revealing your presence.
2. You are sneaking through an open area, using stealth to move across a hallway where guards are stationed. If you pass, you succeed - since you moved silently, you never alerted the guards to your presence. If you fail, you make noise, and they immediately turn to see you, revealing your presence.
A successful Stealth check under these rules makes you silent AND invisible to those you check against - it's just that invisibility doesn't mean much when you're around a corner or behind a wall where they can't see you anyway.
That being said, I think it needs to be emphasized that a successful Stealth check makes you invisible AND silent.
One thing to keep in mind as the discussion continues (and thank you for the great discussion, everyone!) is that we are using the invisible condition (Core Rulebook page 567) not the invisibility special ability as described in spell descriptions and on pages 563-564, though it is a goal of mine to make sure that in the final Stealth fix that those rules work together in clear and meaningful ways.
The need to make this distinction at all does not bode well for the simplicity of the thing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The need to make this distinction at all does not bode well for the simplicity of the thing.
Don't worry overly much. This is not my first rodeo. I'm confident with all the great feedback and suggestions happening on this board, and our own desire to make this work in the simplest and most playable way, we can find the solutions.
I'm an optimist. I'm also a realist. I also love this kind of work.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@tanonev: Remember that nothing in the rules (current or proposed) causes anyone to forget that the invisible person is around. Consider this:
I see a rogue duck behind a corner/behind a bush/in the shadows/whatever. I know they're there, but I can't see them. I approach cautiously, but because I can't see them (despite knowing they're there), I can't prepare to properly defend myself - I'm flat-footed against them. Not because they were 100% imperceptible, but because I couldn't see/perceive them clearly enough to keep an eye on their movements and defend myself as properly as I could if we were dueling on equal ground. Naturally, knowing that the rogue is (probably) waiting for me behind the foliage, I could prepare myself (ready an action to go into total defense, etc).
That's why we don't need rules for "marking" or "tracking" a stealth'd character - you already can. The stealth-granted invisibility (or whatever the final effect is) doesn't represent totally forgetting where he is, it represents not being able to track his movements closely or precisely enough to engage him "properly".
I would like to see the dice interaction between a single Stealth-er and a group of observers more clearly defined. One pet peev of mine is when I call for each PC to make a Perception check, but then they start chiming in with every familiar and mount and hireling making a Perception check as well, which makes it nearly impossible for the Stealth-er. As fun as it is to get into an argument for the upteenth time as to whether or not the fighter's horse can spot the ambush, it'd be nice to have a neatly packaged answer to that particular table scenario.
Also, can we clarify what it means for someone to "observe" you? There's a big difference between a gaurd-on-duty and someone hanging out in an area. As others have mentioned: does fighting in melee combat make you UNobservant?
One particular use-case I'd like to see addressed (and Stephen, perhaps this one is near and dear to you, as you designed the Gunslinger) is a shootout: where one cowboy has ducked behind a barrel (ie total cover), and another is standing in broad daylight. The one standing in the open has a readied action to shoot at the other as soon as he peeks out from behind the barrel. How's this work?
Upthread, someone mentioned "entering Stealth" the same way we talk about "entering Rage." I think adopting this nomenclature would be useful.
Finally, I think there's a use for Sleight of Hand here. Perhaps this could be used to conceal Standard Actions while Stealth-ing?
An interesting thought, what if the Invisible condition wasn't called Invisible? What if it was called "hidden" instead? I think part of the problem with using the invisibility condition is that is is so associated with the spell that a nonmagical way to become invisible seems wrong to most people, even though the condition itself is very appropriate.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to say that I'm very grateful that you guys are doing this. This is exactly the kind of stuff I want Paizo to do now that a bunch of stuff is released and out there; tune that stuff to perfection. I'd buy a book full of updates like this, but that might just be me.
At a quick glance, this looks great and I think it's a big improvement to how stealth is currently described.
Now, let's tackle some of the Stealth rules that aren't actually written under the Stealth entry.
What benefit does HIPS grant that Camouflage does not? It seems that Camo gives always-on concealment in appropriate terrain, which means that a ranger is never in plain sight in any situation where he'd be able to use HIPS.Camouflage (Ex)
A ranger of 12th level or higher can use the Stealth skill to hide in any of his favored terrains, even if the terrain doesn't grant cover or concealment.Hide in Plain Sight (Ex)
While in any of his favored terrains, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use the Stealth skill even while being observed.
I think Camouflage is about hiding yourself ´ahead of time´ in some area (where you can ambush the new entrant), but doesn´t get rid of the observation part (which HiPS does). How that interacts with how often you have to make checks is unclear, but at mimimum, if the apporaches to the area don´t have Line of Sight to it then when the new person enters the area, you can immediately act while still benefitting from your Stealth roll... I think. If you don´t have make new checks (which would be negated if you are observed, pre-HiPS) until you do something, then it´s even stronger, though still not as good as HiPS ´in combat´. It DOES let you move to some concealed/covered area during Combat, and even if the opponent moves into that area to follow you, you would have already stealthed... I think :-) At least, that distinction makes the most sense to me... Now the rules just have to fall in line... :-) ...EDIT: Camouflage also makes sense as how hunter´s lay traps/ambushes. So you can stay in an area until the prey shows up, or you can move around your favored terrain, benefitting from Stealth until your next turn/action, but if you come across a target, you will need to move to cover/concealment immediately if you aren´t to lose your Stealth. Or something like that.
These look really solid, in my opinion. I like them a lot.
Is there a chance that the relationship between sneak attacking and concealment will be addressed? As it stands, one without low-light vision can't sneak attack someone in a dark alley. Something is off, there.
Can rogues have Death Attack as an advanced talent?
Can I have a pony?
... in all seriousness though, this is a great find. I'll be saving these somewhere for next time I play a rogue, and my sorcerer could definately have benefited from these in the last few sessions. It's great to see such a response to the several very angry threads on this topic, thanks. :D
Edit: Oh man, good to see that issues around scent and blindsense and so on are being addressed too. You guys are so good to us.
stuffWith Camouflage, you always have concealment. Under new!Stealth, you can hide with concealment, even if the enemy has already observed you and knows where you are.
With that in mind, what does HIPS do for a ranger?
As far as I can tell, HIPS lets you stealth while observed, and Camouflage lets you stealth without concealment. Unless you're seeing something I'm not, the Camouflage feature simply waives the concealment requirement, it does not grant concealment.
The first part I understand and play it that way.
The second part I would not. That is a sure way guarantee stealth failure, especially at higher levels when perception checks for creatures are high, and thus force players to rarely use stealth.
I prefer stealth to operate like other game systems. Where you make a roll per situation. For example, if you are sneaking across a field of grass 300 feet long in front of castle with 5 or 6 guards on the ramparts. You make a single stealth check for the entire distance and the guards make a single perception check for the entire 300 feet. It will take you roughly 20 move actions to move across that field.
If the expectation is that I sit there and roll out 20 stealth checks and roughly a 100 perception checks (a perception check per guard per stealth check), that is not going to happen. And that is a very poor way to run the stealth skill.
1. It heights failure to an astronomical level.
2. It requires a number of rolls that would bore the group to tears making them all, especially if more than one member of the party is stealthing.
Two problems - one, that's the mother of all "extreme examples". Seriously, stealthing across a 300ft field? That's supposed to be an example of a failing with the stealth rules?
Two, the problems you list with that example would be greatly reduced if you were running the situation correctly (i.e., "you're doing it wrong"). First, you can't even use stealth unless that field's grass is long enough to provide concealment. Second, since the rogue (or whoever) is not actively being threatened, he's entitled to take 10 on those stealth checks (until he's spotted and has to start ducking around, stealthing "on the fly"). Poof, there go a bunch of those checks. Third, if Mr. Rogue is hundreds of feet away in tall grass, there are probably boatloads of situational modifiers in his favor (I'm not going to look up the exact distance adjustments right now, though). Since a natural 20 is not an...
Do you know what a point man is or an advanced scouting team?
Because of the above I face this situation quite often I'm sorry to say, which is why I brought it up. And yes the grass was quite long enough. This is not rare as you seem to indicate. I have a lot groups that stealth as a group or as the advanced scout or point man. I am running a group right now where four of the five characters can and do stealth. As a DM I have to decide at what point a stealthing individual can be detected using the rules that are there for when two sides can first meet in combat because my group is assumed to be moving along stealthily almost all the time and use advance scouting (point man). This usually puts the characters within a 100 feet or so of the individuals when both sides can start making checks. Even reduced to that 100 feet, that is a lot of rolls for both sides.
The reason I bring up this example is because recently in one of the Adventure Paths, our group had to stealth up to a secret entrance to a fortress while being observed from the ramparts of a fort. This movement took roughly 8 rounds of move actions or 16 move actions. We were within a 100 feet of the fort moving from rock to rock, bellycrawling, etc, etc. Now I did not know about the take 10 rule applying to stealth and it wasn't written in the module, though I've seen it in some 3.5 modules. So I had my players roll since the consequences were the entire fortress coming after them. That would be 5 PCs times 16 move actions over roughly 120 feet (80 rolls) and I think 4 guards on the ramparts (64 rolls). You're telling me I can take 10 on all those with the +9 penalty for distance past the first 10 feet? That should be spelled out clearly in the stealth rules.
Because as far as I know you can't take 10 if there is a dangerous consequence for failure. As far as I know a failed stealth check is detection and being attacked. So that would be helpful if the game designers would incorporate clearly that you can take 10 on Stealth checks and Perception checks, because I was never as a DM under the assumption that the Take 10 rule applied to Stealth and Perception given the consequences of failure. If that was clear to you, it wasn't to me. So you writing that I'm doing it wrong is something only you know and I would like you to provide proof of. I can't find every single errata or FAQ. So find me where Take 10 applies to stealth please, so I can have an official ruling before I implement this.
I run stealth like game systems like GURPS using situation based stealth. Which Pathfinder would do well to investigate since GURPS and other game systems have been running stealth as a single skill for a long, long time. Though they don't make Perception a skill, they make it a passive ability.
I will re-iterate as a DM that uses stealth often for scouting, ambushing, and the like:
1. I would like situation based stealth checks rather than action based. Number of rolls needs to be kept in check or failure is assured because many creatures at high level have high Perception. Even taking 10 as an option will lead to stealth being useless.
2. I would like clarification if Take 10 is allowed with Stealth and Perception checks and at what distance. Being detected while stealthing can mean anything from being ambushed early to having an entire fortress all over you. That is a serious consequence and threat. I assumed Take 10 did not apply, but if it does clear guidance on when it applies would be helpful and should be written as part of such an important skill.
3. I would like the Move Silently part incorporated into stealth and at least a line allowing the GM to use discretion when using field of a vision as a determinant for concealment for stealth use. The classic rogue or stealth warrior sneaking up behind an opponent with minimal to no cover is a risky, but classic, aspect of the stealth skill. And should be a staple of rogue combat even absent what we might consider hard cover or concealment.
My particular group uses stealth a great deal. That's why I have a vested interest in this write up. We view our adventuring groups as special operation teams. Our group fighter even carries alternate armor so he can have a better chance to stealth when it is needed.
For years we have been running Stealth like games like GURPS. We were very happy Pathfinder finally took the leap to making Stealth a condensed skill like it should be. A further refinement of the skill for easier adjudication would be highly welcome for myself and our gaming group.
I highly recommend that Stephen Radley-MacFarland maybe take a look at how GURPS does stealth for at least some ideas on how best to run the skill. They may have already since the Pathfinder stealth skill does incorporate some of the ideas GURPS uses. But keeping rolls down is important and making clear about things like Take 10 for stealth is also important. These kinds of clarifications make skills easier to run when they are a part of the skill rather than making DMs guess as to when those rules apply.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Because as far as I know you can't take 10 if there is a dangerous consequence for failure. ... So that would be helpful if the game designers would incorporate clearly that you can take 10 on Stealth checks and Perception checks, because I was never as a DM under the assumption that the Take 10 rule applied to Stealth and Perception given the consequences of failure. ... So you writing that I'm doing it wrong is something only you know and I would like you to provide proof of. I can't find every single errata or FAQ. So find me where Take 10 applies to stealth please, so I can have an official ruling before I implement this.
Have you read the definition of take 10? It has nothing to do with consequences of failure (that's take 20, which is a completely different concept, despite the deceptively similar name - but that's a nomenclature rant for another time). Here, straight from the CRB/PRD (not an errata):
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.
Nothing about consequences of failure. The only restriction is that you can't be in "immediate danger" or be "distracted". If the guards are minding their own business 100 feet away, you're not in immediate danger (and I hope you're not distracted either, if you're deciding to infiltrate the castle or whatever - pee before you start).
Take 10 is not called out in each individual skill description as a yea or nay for that skill - you just go by the general definition of Take 10. Does that help?
So, with that in mind: how many rolls are left for your infiltration sequence?
Revisiting the idea of hiding behind a pillar, stealthing out at half speed and jabbing someone with sneak attack:
What kind of bonus might you give to the Perception roll of the victim if others are actively pointing out the stealther to him? "Look out, he's behind the pillar!"
That would be helpful information. I know our wisdom-focused Ranger/Zen Archer Monk picks up on stuff all the time far earlier than the rest of the party due to a far superior Perception. She communicates that to the rest of the party. I normally make it a stealth failure if even one member of the party picks up on the stealther and alerts the party early enough to act. Otherwise I play it like a surprise round.
Would see invisibility defeat the invisibility status acquired with stealth? If yes, a second level spell/scroll/potion would defeat a 20th level rogue in stealth. If not, that should probably be stated very clearly somewhere.
Also, using the invisible condition would probably create the necessity of modifying the following:
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
So personally, I think it would be better to add the "hidden" condition to the rules.
Because as far as I know you can't take 10 if there is a dangerous consequence for failure. ... So that would be helpful if the game designers would incorporate clearly that you can take 10 on Stealth checks and Perception checks, because I was never as a DM under the assumption that the Take 10 rule applied to Stealth and Perception given the consequences of failure. ... So you writing that I'm doing it wrong is something only you know and I would like you to provide proof of. I can't find every single errata or FAQ. So find me where Take 10 applies to stealth please, so I can have an official ruling before I implement this.Have you read the definition of take 10? It has nothing to do with consequences of failure (that's take 20, which is a completely different concept, despite the deceptively similar name - but that's a nomenclature rant for another time). Here, straight from the CRB/PRD (not an errata):
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.Nothing about consequences of failure. The only restriction is that you can't be in "immediate danger" or be "distracted". If the guards are minding their own business 100 feet away, you're not in immediate danger (and I hope you're not distracted either, if you're deciding to infiltrate the castle or whatever - pee before you start).
Take 10 is not called out in each individual skill description as a...
I read that. That would reduce the rolls if that's how it is supposed to be played.
I'm far too used to GURPS situation-based stealth. Never even thought to apply the Take 10 rule to Stealth because I figured you were considered in immediate danger since you'll be attacked if you're spotted. But I guess you're saying immediate danger is "in the middle of combat" or "already spotted and being chased aka in the middle of combat". Would be nice if they made it clear that immediate danger basically means in combat when it comes to skills like stealth.
As a DM sneaking around a giant fortress can be considered being in constant immediate danger. So I wouldn't mind the stealth skill having a special: You can take 10 on this skill if you aren't in combat. Stealth is quite different from climbing or disarming a trap. When you stealth you are basically entering a combat situation while trying not to be noticed. You can climb and disarm a trap while out of combat. But in general you are stealthing into a combat or to avoid a combat and the immediate danger is always present. At least that is how I saw it.
If I do use take 10, that will make our stealthing ridiculously easy most of the time. Almost every character has maxed ranked stealth and perception in the war group except the cleric. That will make life easier for them.
I'll give this is a shot and see how it works. It will make rolling easier. We'll see what kind of effect it has on the effectiveness of stealthing if I assume everyone is constantly taking 10 on both Perception and Stealth.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm far too used to GURPS situation-based stealth. Never even thought to apply the Take 10 rule to Stealth because I figured you were considered in immediate danger since you'll be attacked if you're spotted. But I guess you're saying immediate danger is "in the middle of combat" or "already spotted and being chased aka in the middle of combat". Would be nice if they made it clear that immediate danger basically means in combat when it comes to skills like stealth.
As a DM sneaking around a giant fortress can be considered being in constant immediate danger. So I wouldn't mind the stealth skill having a special: You can take 10 on this skill if you aren't in combat. Stealth is quite different from climbing or disarming a trap. When you stealth you are basically entering a combat situation while trying not to be noticed. You can climb and disarm a trap while out of combat. But in general you are stealthing into a combat or to avoid a combat and the immediate danger is always present. At least that is how I saw it.
If I do use take 10, that will make our stealthing ridiculously easy most of the time. Almost every character has maxed ranked stealth and perception in the war group except the cleric. That will make life easier for them.
I'll give this is a shot and see how it works. It will make rolling easier. We'll see what kind of effect it has on the effectiveness of stealthing if I assume everyone is constantly taking 10 on both Perception and Stealth.
You have a point about stealth almost always being either during or on the verge of combat. And I wouldn't even expect the "line" between taking 10 and not taking 10 to be purely a matter of whether or not you're in combat. But I think a certain degree of "likely proximity to combat" could be used in making that call.
For instance: as you approach the fortress and close in from 100ft to 85ft by stealthing through tall grass, you're pretty far removed from danger - even if things went south, you'd still have lots of time before things actually happened. But once you're "up close and personal", dangling on the edge of the wall as you wait for the sentry to round the corner before you hop up, it's a whole new ball game. At that point you're not in combat, but you're likely going round-by-round, so I'd personally start requiring rolls (from the stealthers - guards would still be taking 10).
Basically, the "take 10" mechanic appears (to me) to be intended to remove exactly the kind of extraneous rolls you're talking about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for having this open to the public. I like both you and Wizards, but I like your business practices and how you deliver your products better (I guess you might have more freedom without a big company like Hasbro breathing down your neck). With them, I would have to be apart of D&D insider to get my opinion listened to when it comes to them making changes to rules. I like their system, but that really annoys me about the D&D insider thing. I buy their products, should you not listen to me anyway?
So, thank you for keeping this rule change and question open to your customer regardless of if they are in a subscription or not. :)
Developer
|
So I was thinking on the infinite stealth loop issue.
I see where people are coming from with the concealment granted from stealth itself. I don't agree that the loop is there, but all debate can be settled, I think, by stating that concealment granted by the stealth check cannot be used (just as you can't use your own shadow to hide in plain sight as a shadowdancer), a caveat like that should seal the loop.
Blur does indeed allow stealthing under this rule. It also allowed it under the existing rule. Further, under blur or hide in plain sight, you could only get a maximum of two stealthed attacks. One from an initial stealth, the second from a swift action. After that second, you could not restealth, even with blur. If you don't have a round to stealth up, you only get one attack. If you want to stay stealthed, you only get one attack. The swift action addition to the rule is a great touch for this reason.
Really this is no worse than Improved Feint. Make skill check, get sneak attack. Repeat next round.
I wouldn't mind the stealth skill having a special: You can take 10 on this skill if you aren't in combat. Stealth is quite different from climbing or disarming a trap. When you stealth you are basically entering a combat situation while trying not to be noticed. You can climb and disarm a trap while out of combat. But in general you are stealthing into a combat or to avoid a combat and the immediate danger is always present. At least that is how I saw it.
Seconded.
As for the stealth loop, I really don't see permanently darting in an out of cover as a viable option. The enemy will simply follow you out into the open. Now, he might provoke, but your hiding spot is compromised, as he now has line-of-vision.
People seem to be discounting that enemies will be taking actions too...
|
Just to toss in some more thoughts:
Stephen, thank you for clarifying the crowd thing. I was actually unaware that crowds are cover RAW, despite having a 12th level shadow dancer (actually, getting HiPS made me effectively ignore a lot of those conditionals-- hey look dim light, I'm good!).
Jiggy, I agree with your thoughts and comments wholeheartedly. I do not believe there needs to be an kind of unnecessary complications to PFRPG like facing or move silently. Those would require far reaching changes to how PFRPG works and that is definitely not the goal here. Instead the goal is to make stealth more streamlined and clear.
I may be in the minority, but I actually like the use of "invisible" the status Versus invisibility the spell. The status "invisible" is already in the rules.
Invisible: Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted o pponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any).
Please note that this does NOT mean that the rogue goes translucent video-game style. He is not under a magical effect and is NOT subject to spells like invisibility purge. Also note that this is on a case by case basis: he can be invisible to one monster(against whom he fulfills the conditions of stealth) but not against others.
So back to the pillar and the guard example. If the guard rounds the pillar looking for the rogue and moves into a position where there is no longer cover, then the rogue is no longer treated as invisible.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So back to the pillar and the guard example. If the guard rounds the pillar looking for the rogue and moves into a position where there is no longer cover, then the rogue is no longer treated as invisible.
The thing is, this isn't actually in the writeup of proposed stealth rules. It's obviously how it should work, but the rules text isn't there (yet).
The reason it's not there is because they solved the pillar-hopping problem: they removed the auto-reveal that came with moving from Cover Point A, across open territory, into Cover Point B. But by letting you do that, they (perhaps inadvertently) produced the result of not causing a reveal when the guard comes around the corner and finds himself face-to-face with the rogue.
This is why (quite a ways upthread by now) I suggested an addition to the presented rewrite: "If another creature takes an action that causes you to lose your cover or concealment relative to that creature, you lose the benefits of stealth against that creature at the end of that action."
That way you keep the pillar-hopping fix (since that'll always be the stealther's action) while allowing a reveal when the guard comes around the corner (an enemy's action). And the "at the end of that action" clause at the end allows room for a readied sneak attack.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hiding: Hiding is a condition relative to other creatures. While successfully hiding from a creature
-You may not be detected with hearing or vision by that creature, including darkvision.
-You gain a +2 attack bonus on your first attack against that creature, and it looses its dexterity bonus to armor class against this attack. The first attack removes the hiding condition from you.
- Hiding does not, by itself, make a creature immune to critical hits, but it does make the creature immune to extra damage from being a ranger's favored enemy and from sneak attacks. A creature attempting to attack a hidden character's square suffers a 50% miss chance
-If you are damaged while hiding you must make a stealth check VS the damage taken or loose the hidden condition.
-If a creature suspects you of hiding in a square, it may search one square as a move equivalent action. The creature gets a new perception check with a +10 bonus against your last stealth roll.
-If a hidden creature makes an attack, casts a spell with a verbal or somatic component, ends his turn in a square without cover or concealment, fails to spend at least a swift action to maintain its stealth, then the creature looses the hidden condition.
Invisible creatures leave tracks. They can be tracked normally. Footprints in sand, mud, or other soft surfaces can give enemies clues to an invisible creature's location.
A hidden creature in the water displaces water, giving a +4 circumstance bonus to note its location, or +8 if it moves.
A creature with the scent ability can detect a hidden creature as it would a visible one.
A creature with the Blind-Fight feat has a better chance to hit an hiding creature. Roll the miss chance twice, and he misses only if both rolls indicate a miss. (Alternatively, make one 25% miss chance roll rather than two 50% miss chance rolls.)
A creature with blindsight can attack (and otherwise interact with) creatures regardless of whether or not they are hidden.
You cannot hide while carrying a light source.
Hidden creatures cannot use gaze attacks.
Hidden does not thwart divination spells,(edit) but true seeing does not aid you in spotting a hiding character.
|
Developer
|
Hidden does not thwart divination spells.RAW, it thwarts both See Invisibility and True Seeing, both with PF Stealth and new!Stealth.
I wouldn't say it thwarts those as much as they don't do anything that interact meaningfully with the condition.
It's like casting detect thoughts and staring at an inanimate door. The spell isn't inactive, but the door doesn't have anything to it that's relevant to the spell.
|
Developer
|
I wouldn't say it thwarts those as much as they don't do anything that interact meaningfully with the condition.They are spells which let you see people, but specifically do not work on hiding enemies. Hiding keeps you from being seen.
The problem is that BNW's rules, as written, appear to conflict with the wording of those rules.
They don't let you see people so much as they reveal those hidden by certain conditions. The spells are active all the while, whether or not anything is magically hidden. The key is magically hidden. Absent that (or some other things with True Seeing) the spell simply isn't interacting with the thing at hand.
Same way a mundanely hidden secret door isn't revealed. The mundane door doesn't thwart the spells, the spells just don't deal with that sort of thing.
Like detecting a door's thoughts.
Can we make it "new!stealth™"?
P.S. I also want to say join the chorus in saying I love that the Devs are doing this :D
Can we make it "new!stealth™"?
Only if this is a Machiavellian plot to make us stop asking for new stealth rules by introducing horribly broken rules, letting them flop, and return to the old stealth rules, rechristened "Stealth classic"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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*
I can't believe you all didn't consider single payer stealth care!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like that standard actions (among others) give you away. I can think of plenty actions of those types that wouldn't normally reveal you. Instead of using "blanket actions" the new rule should say something to the effect of "takes any action that might reveal you, as determined by the GM" followed by a small list of examples (speaking loudly, dropping a weapon on a hard floor, casting an obvious spell, attacking, running or charging, etc.).
The first part I understand and play it that way.
The second part I would not. That is a sure way guarantee stealth failure, especially at higher levels when perception checks for creatures are high, and thus force players to rarely use stealth.
I prefer stealth to operate like other game systems. Where you make a roll per situation. For example, if you are sneaking across a field of grass 300 feet long in front of castle with 5 or 6 guards on the ramparts. You make a single stealth check for the entire distance and the guards make a single perception check for the entire 300 feet. It will take you roughly 20 move actions to move across that field.
If the expectation is that I sit there and roll out 20 stealth checks and roughly a 100 perception checks (a perception check per guard per stealth check), that is not going to happen. And that is a very poor way to run the stealth skill.
1. It heights failure to an astronomical level.
2. It requires a number of rolls that would bore the group to tears making them all, especially if more than one member of the party is stealthing.
Any stealth design should take into account the number of rolls needed to adjudicate the action. It should be kept simple and low in number to make Stealth a useable and not inconvenient and annoying skill for the DM to adjudicate.
That is why I think it should focus more on situation rather than actions.
It should run per situation:
1. Sneak across field: One stealth check. One perception check per guard or creature.
2. Sneak up behind target: one stealth check, one perception check for guard.
3. Sneak up behind target: one stealth check. Draw weapon; second stealth check.
Not on a per action basis. That is asking for a very unwieldy stealth skill that slows the game down and makes the skill less attractive to use as more rolls heightens chances for failure.
This is one of my concerns as well. That, and just about everything A Man In Black said.
Someone may have already asked this, but if you attack from a hidden position do you get the +2 to attack as if you were invisible?
|
|
+1 on calling it "Hidden" rather than "Invisible." It avoids magic/mundane confusion and avoids problems with things that were written to interact with magical invisibility because that used to be the only kind. Also avoids problems with how magic invisibility stacks with mundane invisibility - what if you go into new!Stealth while magically invisible? Invis while moving is only a +20, and at some point PCs and high-level monsters can beat that. Invis + invis = double invis? But yes, invis does stack with Hidden.
I'd really like to hear more from Stephan on how this is going to interact with Scent, Blindsense, Blindsight, Tremorsense and darkvision. I can totally accept that being Hidden means hard to see and quiet, but it shouldn't cover your smell or reduce your vibrations, at least not without a feat or rogue talent to up-grade it.
What about the whole problem about me not being able to sneak attack someone in Dim Light because they have Concealment from me? Although, maybe that is more a problem with sneak attacks of lighting, and not Stealth.
What kind of bonus might you give to the Perception roll of the victim if others are actively pointing out the stealther to him? "Look out, he's behind the pillar!"
+2? "Aide Another"
Finally: Bravo Paizo for taking this on!
|
|
What about different levels of failure?
I like to be kind to my players when they attempt things exceptional and stealth right now is one of those do or die aspects.
What I propose is that if a stealth attempt fails by less than 5 you can "abandon" your current action to make a new stealth check to "re-stealth". The situation could be highlighted by the DM by saying, "As you go to move in on your opponent you catch sight of a loose stone just before your foot comes into contact with it." (rolls re-stealth) pass = "You quickly step back into the shadows and wait for another opportunity." fail = "as you step to avoid the stone your scabbard scrapes the nearby wall alerting your target to your presence"
I would also allow those under invisibility to increase the fail DC by 10 or less given that their effectively removing one of the senses.
Of cause there may be situations that when cover is broken it cannot be re-established so easily. this is where the second "re-stealth" could include a higher DC or perhaps prevent it altogether (if the cover ,like a wagon, has moved out of range for example).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree that spell-like abilities should give away stealthy characters and monsters. It should depend on the effect being used. Fireball should give someone away, but teleporting from one hiding spot to another (or using detect thoughts) should not.
Again, don't say [blanket action] does or does not give away someone who is hiding. It just doesn't work. I can list examples of things someone could conceivably do while hiding (and things they couldn't) for every single action type in the game. Blanket terminology never works.
Instead, be general, leave it up to the GM, and list a few examples of what does and does not give away a hiding character as a guideline for GMs and players to base their decisions off of.
I think blindsight and so on should keep working just as they do now. The only thing that needed to be cleared up is the perception vs stealth rules.
|
|
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.
This could be better worded in my opinion. You could put something in there about the invisibility staying up so long as no enemies defeat your stealth roll DC.
I would hope being stealth thwarts see invisibility, it's not like it's vein-vision or even x-ray vision.
|
I don't understand why you want to make things so complected. Seriously, how do you get through all the action when you have to be concerned with things so obvious they don't need rules (like a Colossal modifier? Seriously, that should not be able to sneak past something that is relevant to the scene!)
Considering what people say after some car accident "I hadn't seen the ..." in the right conditions you can miss to notice even a colossal object.
|
|
@tanonev: Remember that nothing in the rules (current or proposed) causes anyone to forget that the invisible person is around. Consider this:
I see a rogue duck behind a corner/behind a bush/in the shadows/whatever. I know they're there, but I can't see them. I approach cautiously, but because I can't see them (despite knowing they're there), I can't prepare to properly defend myself - I'm flat-footed against them. Not because they were 100% imperceptible, but because I couldn't see/perceive them clearly enough to keep an eye on their movements and defend myself as properly as I could if we were dueling on equal ground. Naturally, knowing that the rogue is (probably) waiting for me behind the foliage, I could prepare myself (ready an action to go into total defense, etc).That's why we don't need rules for "marking" or "tracking" a stealth'd character - you already can. The stealth-granted invisibility (or whatever the final effect is) doesn't represent totally forgetting where he is, it represents not being able to track his movements closely or precisely enough to engage him "properly".
Not again!
As this is a important rule discussion please be precise. In this situation you aren't flat footed. Your dexterity bonus to AC is negated and you can be sneak attacked, but you aren't flat footed.
You are already playing round by round so there is no surprise round a non flat-footed situation.