Stealth Playtest

I´m sorry if this has been adressed, but what are the "issues concerning the Stealth skill"?

And can someone please in a simple manner explain what the changes are, and what´s getting better?

The current system doesn't model facing at all, so you can't sneak up behind someone or sneak past an open door for instance. These things are an auto-fail.

That, and the rules pertinent to stealth are spread all over the book, and the sum of the parts isn't quite as good as most people feel it should be.

You don't need to introduce facing to fix it, you just need to allow the rogue to pass unnoticed without cover or concealment under specific conditions to simulate opportunities generated by facing. This blog post attempts to do this by making stealth work as the "invisible" state under certain conditions.

I´m sorry if this has been adressed, but what are the "issues concerning the Stealth skill"?

And can someone please in a simple manner explain what the changes are, and what´s getting better?

Asmo

If you want, read this thread (edit: did i do something wrong there or is the url too long? ) about why a rogue can't steal a chicken. Its what you get if you play by the raw.

The quickie notes version for the major issues

-You can't stealth, at all, without cover or concealment, so entering an open space, even a 5 foot gap, automatically ends the stealth.

-People effectively have all around vision. There are no facing rules. You thus cannot come up "behind" someone.

-Concealment isn't concealment under bright light

-Too many abilities that are darn near ubiquitous in the monster manual auto detect stealth: scent (the most common), blind sense, blind sight, tremor sense.

-A rogue needs concealment to sneak attack. Concealment stops sneak attack from happening.

------
Whats being fixed

You'll be considered invisible as long as you start and end your turn in cover or concealment, so you can go across the intervening space between your cover and your victim, or slip by the guards.

Erik Freund wrote:

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.

Oh, hell yeah. I am quite tired of arguments from players that their animal companion spotted the stealther and the ensueing discussion if and how the animal companion communicates what the just found. >.<

Animal companions "doubling up" the checks a player has per character really gets on nerves.

Sorry, that's my sole contribution to this debate. Much more rules savvy people in here, so I'll leave the input to them.

Unless the animal companions and familiars should get to make a check. They are characters in their own right, and probably on guard. As for the hirelings, it should depend on what they are doing. If they are making camp for the players then they are not observant, and at the least deserve a penalty to the perception check.

Mosaic wrote:

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.

For sure it need further rules, but stealth should work against that kind of sensory capacities.

Today thieves can avoid anti-burglary systems that closely resemble some of those sensory capacities if they are prepared enough and they know what they are going to face.

Most of them are like radars. I am not talking about scent. That one just needs to be rewritten or better explained.

You can't stealth pass a radar(assuming you are in the radar field). Antiburglary systems don't have radars so I am not on board with it.

So, Vendis and I have been talking, and he seems to think the rules need to be split into Combat Stealth, and Non-Combat Stealth, which I think is ridiculous. I think it should work the same way in combat as it does out of combat.

We were using the Classic Stealth rules for a scenario a few minutes ago, and he argues that in combat, a rogue's only option for stealth is to flee for a hiding spot while an opponent is momentarily distracted.

Per RAW, I suppose he's right, because the book says you must get to cover. I think this is a mistake. The rules for perception muck this up with DCs and modifiers. It's a DC 0 to notice a visible creature, +5 for distraction, and +5 for terrible conditions (I would argue that these two stack in a sizable melee combat because of the lack of focus on extraneous details as well as the clanging and clashing of steel). This sets the DC to spot a visible creature at 10 (+1 for every 10 feet away it is); you can't take 10 in combat because you're immediately threatened.

In my mind, any creature in combat that fails to notice a rogue by failing the above perception check would grant the rogue a stealth check in combat. That doesn't allow the rogue to disappear (or being new!stealth "invisible"), but to merely go unnoticed by the creature(s) who failed to notice him.

What good does it do? Well, not much, because the rogue could just run up and flank the target for SA anyway. I don't know. That wasn't the point of our argument - the point was that Vendis said it isn't possible, but my interpretation is that it is possible.

I don't even know why a rogue would need to use stealth in combat except to maybe sneak up on a creature with reach, or to escape combat without being noticed. If he wants to get sneak attacks in, he should tumble to a flanking position or use feinting. He's wasting time and actions by darting around to hide before dashing in for the kill.

So, Vendis and I have been talking, and he seems to think the rules need to be split into Combat Stealth, and Non-Combat Stealth, which I think is ridiculous. I think it should work the same way in combat as it does out of combat.

We were using the Classic Stealth rules for a scenario a few minutes ago, and he argues that in combat, a rogue's only option for stealth is to flee for a hiding spot while an opponent is momentarily distracted.

Per RAW, I suppose he's right, because the book says you must get to cover. I think this is a mistake. The rules for perception muck this up with DCs and modifiers. It's a DC 0 to notice a visible creature, +5 for distraction, and +5 for terrible conditions (I would argue that these two stack in a sizable melee combat because of the lack of focus on extraneous details as well as the clanging and clashing of steel). This sets the DC to spot a visible creature at 10 (+1 for every 10 feet away it is); you can't take 10 in combat because you're immediately threatened.

In my mind, any creature in combat that fails to notice a rogue by failing the above perception check would grant the rogue a stealth check in combat. That doesn't allow the rogue to disappear (or being new!stealth "invisible"), but to merely go unnoticed by the creature(s) who failed to notice him.

What good does it do? Well, not much, because the rogue could just run up and flank the target for SA anyway. I don't know. That wasn't the point of our argument - the point was that Vendis said it isn't possible, but my interpretation is that it is possible.

I don't even know why a rogue would need to use stealth in combat except to maybe sneak up on a creature with reach, or to escape combat without being noticed. If he wants to get sneak attacks in, he should tumble to a flanking position or use feinting. He's wasting time and actions by darting around to hide before dashing in for the kill.

ALSO, this re-reading of RAW has lead me to believe that not only do Stealth rules need a rewrite, but so does the section on Perception. It does not mesh with Stealth AT ALL. There are modifiers there that should apply to stealth as well.

So if I have the spell see invisibility do I have instant anti stealth technology?

I have never used stealth much and am not too familiar with how it works currently, so take this with a grain of salt. When I have attempted it, I fail miserably because it is my single roll against everyone else who cares to roll perception. And, I move super slow so it takes me twice as long (or longer in rough terrain) to even reach my destination. And I have to roll against the others every round. This doesn't seem fair. It seems to me that if you put points into stealth, it should mean something.

The new proposed rules seem VERY CONFUSING. Perhaps it is the grammar or the structure of the rules, but I am having a hard time understanding the whole thing. Is there any way to simplify this? Other games have similar mechanics and it is way easier to understand.

Here are some suggestions, feel free to hate them or use them. If I am completely off my rocker and don't know what I am talking about, then feel free to disregard this.

1. Rather than everyone in the area getting their own roll to detect a stealthed person, have ONE person make the roll and anyone else merely try to aid that person. This makes it one roll against one roll (with possible aid).

2. Rather than make a stealth user do a check every round, allow them the option to do a full round action to move and keep their previous check. They can always reroll as normal using a move action. This lets them carefully maneuver to nearby the destination, but will require a final stealth roll before they go in for the kill/shot.

3. Allow party members with ranks in stealth (or with stealth as a class skill) to stealth themselves AND aid another by taking a penalty (-4?). You could even add a rogue talent to do this w no penalty. Right now, it is almost impossible to get a party to sneak up on anything. You always have the guy(s) who fail their stealth check and then the ones who are stealthed get screwed when it goes to the combat round. This way, the guys who are good at stealth can wrap the armored tank's feet or show them how to move without stepping on twigs, and so on. Alternately, make a feat that allows one ally per round to also use your stealth check roll, even if they have no ranks in stealth.

4. Stealth in rough terrain does not slow you down any more than normal. You are already being very careful and picking your steps, and nobody likes moving 5 ft/round. (It will only take me 14 round to reach the enemy).

So if I have the spell see invisibility do I have instant anti stealth technology?

You're late. :D

I have always wanted to see Stealth take a lesson from Survival. I think you should make one Stealth check, opposed by all observers, and only make another stealth check when conditions become more difficult or when a new observer is encountered.

This significantly cuts down the number of die rolls and reduces the insane number of Perception checks a single sneaker has to contend with when bypassing multiple observers over multiple rounds.

For example, if a rogue wants to sneak through a room with four observers and he is going from one pillar to the next, each of which is less than half his movement away, he makes one check which covers every move he makes. If he comes to a gap in the pillars and has to move a greater distance at full speed then a new check is required because he now has a movement penalty. Likewise if a new observer enters the room, he will need a new check against that observer. Or if all observers were distracted when he started, but half way across the distraction ends, a new check is needed.

And so on.

Oh, and on the party thing, I have a house rule in which I allow a trained character to make a Stealth (or other check) to Aid Others. He takes a -2 penalty on the check per person he's aiding, but then they need only beat DC 10 to get a success themselves. So our super stealthy ranger regularly takes a -6 penalty to allow the whole party to sneak along with him.

The new proposed rules seem VERY CONFUSING. Perhaps it is the grammar or the structure of the rules, but I am having a hard time understanding the whole thing. Is there any way to simplify this? Other games have similar mechanics and it is way easier to understand.

I agree with this sentiment. I couldn't even tell the myriad things that had been fixed until I read about them in this thread. What you can and cannot do with a skill should be obvious from reading the description alone. Reading forums for understanding, or knowing the minutiae of legalese, should not be a requirement to using a skill.

One thing I immediately thought of when I saw the "no facing" part is the Tower Shield rules.

Those have facing, in so much as you create cover in a specific direction.

I don't see why something similar to that can't work for this.

I have never used stealth much and am not too familiar with how it works currently, so take this with a grain of salt. When I have attempted it, I fail miserably because it is my single roll against everyone else who cares to roll perception. And, I move super slow so it takes me twice as long (or longer in rough terrain) to even reach my destination. And I have to roll against the others every round. This doesn't seem fair. It seems to me that if you put points into stealth, it should mean something.

The new proposed rules seem VERY CONFUSING. Perhaps it is the grammar or the structure of the rules, but I am having a hard time understanding the whole thing. Is there any way to simplify this? Other games have similar mechanics and it is way easier to understand.

Here are some suggestions, feel free to hate them or use them. If I am completely off my rocker and don't know what I am talking about, then feel free to disregard this.

1. Rather than everyone in the area getting their own roll to detect a stealthed person, have ONE person make the roll and anyone else merely try to aid that person. This makes it one roll against one roll (with possible aid).

2. Rather than make a stealth user do a check every round, allow them the option to do a full round action to move and keep their previous check. They can always reroll as normal using a move action. This lets them carefully maneuver to nearby the destination, but will require a final stealth roll before they go in for the kill/shot.

3. Allow party members with ranks in stealth (or with stealth as a class skill) to stealth themselves AND aid another by taking a penalty (-4?). You could even add a rogue talent to do this w no penalty. Right now, it is almost impossible to get a party to sneak up on anything. You always have the guy(s) who fail their stealth check and then the ones who are stealthed get screwed when it goes to the combat round. This way, the guys who are good at stealth can wrap the armored tank's feet or show them how...

I'm just going to put my two cents in and repeat what somebody else said (I'm sorry, I can't remember right now who posted it)- Paizo shot themselves in the foot when they combined skills.

By making the entire issue revolve around only two opposing checks- Stealth and Perception, you've limited yourself to the point where the ONLY way to RP every conceivable scenario with a rogue trying to sneak up on somebody or sneak past somebody or whatever is to use a long list of modifiers and penalties, and that STILL won't cover absolutely everything, even with the proposed 'invisible' state.

I know it was said 'that ship has sailed' but I'm sorry, you can solve a lot of these problems quite easily by just going back to Hide and Move Silently from 3.5 and have them be opposed by Spot and Listen.

That's what I do in my games. We ignore the Pathfinder rules on Stealth and Perception altogether.

I have always wanted to see Stealth take a lesson from Survival. I think you should make one Stealth check, opposed by all observers, and only make another stealth check when conditions become more difficult or when a new observer is encountered.

This significantly cuts down the number of die rolls and reduces the insane number of Perception checks a single sneaker has to contend with when bypassing multiple observers over multiple rounds.

For example, if a rogue wants to sneak through a room with four observers and he is going from one pillar to the next, each of which is less than half his movement away, he makes one check which covers every move he makes. If he comes to a gap in the pillars and has to move a greater distance at full speed then a new check is required because he now has a movement penalty. Likewise if a new observer enters the room, he will need a new check against that observer. Or if all observers were distracted when he started, but half way across the distraction ends, a new check is needed.

And so on.

3.5's Complete Adventurer had rules for moving from hiding place out into open spaces. For every 5 ranks the creature had in Hide, the creature could move 5 feet into the open with no penalty, but every 5 feet thereafter imposed a -5 penalty to stealth. (I presume this -5 penalty stacks onto the stealth check already made and applies cumulatively until the creature in question is either spotted or finds cover/concealment again, at which point a new stealth check may be rolled, though I am not quite sure.)

I wonder if anyone has given this a look yet and what their thoughts are on the subject.

To be fair, the fact that it's not in a book with trade-dress and is actually marred by art due to the line wrap around the art is sure to be causing more confusion that would otherwise occur.

The art itself is cool, though.

Also, i know writers hate to do this, but no matter how well you think you're seperating one idea from another, everything in the same paragraph makes it unclear which clauses are independent and which have something to do with the previous sentence. If something is this complicated, please consider using bullet points.

I wonder if anyone has given this a look yet and what their thoughts are on the subject.

-I'd rather just allow people out into the open than to do long division. Also most of my games don't get much past level 8, so i'd rather not spend most of the game unable to use stealth.

One thing I immediately thought of when I saw the "no facing" part is the Tower Shield rules.

Those have facing, in so much as you create cover in a specific direction.

I don't see why something similar to that can't work for this.

That is only because the tower shield acts like mobile miniature wall, and how it is place determines which way you get cover from. It is no different than any other wall in that regard so there is really no facing. You just have to determine how you want your "wall" to sit.

Wording

To use the stealth skill, you need either one of two supporting circumstances:

-Too many abilities that are darn near ubiquitous in the monster manual auto detect stealth: scent (the most common), blind sense, blind sight, tremor sense.

Scent don't autodetect anything.

Scent: ... The creature can detect opponents within 30 feet by sense of smell.

Emphasis on can. To autodetect something by smell you need blindsense or blinsight:

Blindsense (Ex) Using nonvisual senses, such as acute smell or hearing, a creature with blindsense notices things it cannot see. The creature usually does not need to make Perception checks to pinpoint the location of a creature within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature.

Blindsight (Ex) This ability is similar to blindsense, but is far more discerning. Using nonvisual senses, such as sensitivity to vibrations, keen smell, acute hearing, or echolocation, a creature with blindsight maneuvers and fights as well as a sighted creature. Invisibility, darkness, and most kinds of concealment are irrelevant, though the creature must have line of effect to a creature or object to discern that creature or object.

Scent give a specific bonus to perception and allow to pinpoint a detected creature/object when it is within 5'. There is a strong tendency to give scent the powers of blindsense or blindsight, but that is an error.

Diego, that argument's not new, and it doesn't fly any better today than it ever has. You're basically requiring people to make a roll every time someone wants to use a feat, since they have the same language.

Abraham spalding wrote:

So if I have the spell see invisibility do I have instant anti stealth technology?

You're late. :D

Figures.

So, Vendis and I have been talking, and he seems to think the rules need to be split into Combat Stealth, and Non-Combat Stealth, which I think is ridiculous. I think it should work the same way in combat as it does out of combat.

We were using the Classic Stealth rules for a scenario a few minutes ago, and he argues that in combat, a rogue's only option for stealth is to flee for a hiding spot while an opponent is momentarily distracted.

Per RAW, I suppose he's right, because the book says you must get to cover. I think this is a mistake. The rules for perception muck this up with DCs and modifiers. It's a DC 0 to notice a visible creature, +5 for distraction, and +5 for terrible conditions (I would argue that these two stack in a sizable melee combat because of the lack of focus on extraneous details as well as the clanging and clashing of steel). This sets the DC to spot a visible creature at 10 (+1 for every 10 feet away it is); you can't take 10 in combat because you're immediately threatened.

The problem is that the distracting and terrible conditions apply to the stealth roll too.

"I try to move to the blind side of that orc chieftain." OOps, I must dodge 2 normal orcs and hit lieutenant, keep an eye on the orc shaman to see if he is firing a fireball from that wand of his and avoid messing with the movement and line of fire of my friends.
While you are doing all the above your target has moved and dodged around to avoid other attacks from your friends.

So Vendis seem right. The rogue can't use stealth as long as he is in the middle of the battle.

On the other hand he can use the flanking rules. They are there exactly for that reason.
They are the system you have to achieve sneak attacks when in the middle of a melee using the opportunities the melee give.

I like the clarity of the writing and inclusion of "invisibility" in the definition. I have pretty much been running stealth as you have described it. I believe I was once educated on the matter through the old 3.0 & 3.5 FAQ.

Thanks for the work.

One more thing that would be nice to have at least semi-codified: Distraction.
Whether the farmer shucking his corn while smoking faeryweed, the shopclerks flirting while changing shift, or the guard deliberately distracted by the high CHA party Rogue, distraction as ´enabler´ of Stealth seems like something very useful to cover, ESPECIALLY in a game that has thrown away character facing / directional Line of Sight.

I could see using Sense Motive to determine when a given potential observer actually is distracted - failure means they aren´t distracted and will observe you, success means you sussed when they weren´t paying attention and they aren´t actually observing you for that round. Other means like Bluff can actively draw their attention/obsevation away.

Definitely this can be carried too far, but some limited ability seems reasonable.

Foghammer wrote:

So, Vendis and I have been talking, and he seems to think the rules need to be split into Combat Stealth, and Non-Combat Stealth, which I think is ridiculous. I think it should work the same way in combat as it does out of combat.

We were using the Classic Stealth rules for a scenario a few minutes ago, and he argues that in combat, a rogue's only option for stealth is to flee for a hiding spot while an opponent is momentarily distracted.

Per RAW, I suppose he's right, because the book says you must get to cover. I think this is a mistake. The rules for perception muck this up with DCs and modifiers. It's a DC 0 to notice a visible creature, +5 for distraction, and +5 for terrible conditions (I would argue that these two stack in a sizable melee combat because of the lack of focus on extraneous details as well as the clanging and clashing of steel). This sets the DC to spot a visible creature at 10 (+1 for every 10 feet away it is); you can't take 10 in combat because you're immediately threatened.

The problem is that the distracting and terrible conditions apply to the stealth roll too.

"I try to move to the blind side of that orc chieftain." OOps, I must dodge 2 normal orcs and hit lieutenant, keep an eye on the orc shaman to see if he is firing a fireball from that wand of his and avoid messing with the movement and line of fire of my friends.
While you are doing all the above your target has moved and dodged around to avoid other attacks from your friends.

So Vendis seem right. The rogue can't use stealth as long as he is in the middle of the battle.

On the other hand he can use the flanking rules. They are there exactly for that reason.
They are the system you have to achieve sneak attacks when in the middle of a melee using the opportunities the melee give.

I would likewise turn the tables on your argument and ask why these other combatants aren't distracted as well. If all of those enemies are focusing their attention on the rogue as he attempts to do his duck-out-for-stabbity-justice move, why is he even bothering with the attempt in the first place instead of retreating for a better tactical situation.

I'm not sure if what I just said will make sense to anyone but me, so I'll try to put it another way.

If the rogue is the focus of 4 other orcs, why is he choosing to attack the 5th one, distracted by the fighter instead of tumbling his way up to the more squishy shaman?

The orcs in your counter-example are not distracted by combat because they are attacking the rogue, correct? Wouldn't that mean they are distracted as far as OTHER combatants are concerned? And if the rogue is focused on performing his own actions, he is already distracted by combat and may not even notice these other orcs coming after him, so they may not even factor in to his calculations, if he's single-minded about it. Why isn't the rogue's wizard or cleric helping with crowd control? Lots of lower-level mooks? Then they should be a non-issue to the rogue.

To accurately portray the scenario I suggested, I would like to assume that there is a logical reason for the rogue to want to sneak up on the combatant and some reasonable circumstances under which it could be attempted (it doesn't have to favor the rogue, just be workable), because I'm not trying to prove the EFFECTIVENESS of this use of stealth, merely the fact that it could be done within the rules, which Vendis says it can't. I honestly can't think of a reason to want to do it, but he insists that stealth should be usable in combat. I say it already is, it just isn't practical.

I am not going to sit here and say "Well, if the rogue has X, Y, Z, and a ring of invisibility, you can do [this!]" because that's creating a scenario built to prove my point - I don't NEED a scenario built for that, because again, I'm not trying to prove effectiveness. It is far easier to say "Well, X, Y, or Z would keep a rogue from doing just that." because any scenario may or may not be conducive to any given course of action.

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

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

Any melee attack automatically negates stealth, as written here:

Given that they're only allowed a single attack per round, I can't imagine snipers being overpowered, even if they stay hidden for many rounds in a row. If you could use sniping with a full attack action, then that would definitely be too OP, but this isn't.

One more thing that would be nice to have at least semi-codified: Distraction.

Whether the farmer shucking his corn while smoking faeryweed, the shopclerks flirting while changing shift, or the guard deliberately distracted by the high CHA party Rogue, distraction as ´enabler´ of Stealth seems like something very useful to cover, ESPECIALLY in a game that has thrown away character facing / directional Line of Sight.

This is necessary for about half a million heist tropes, and increases co-operation between the party as well. You know, like what Skill Challenges were supposed to model, except this actually works in a logically consistent manner. Please add.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Foghammer wrote:

stuff

stuff

stuff

Here's a good situation: The party is trying to take down a generic BBEG wizard. Combat starts. The rogue of the group decides he wants to sneak over next to the BBEG's throne area where he knows there is a lever to drop out part of the floor, right where the giant construct is standing while fighting the party. The rules as written here and as proposed say that there is no way for the enemies to NOT know exactly where that rogue is going, barring an incredibly conveniently placed wall or something akin to that. The rogue just has to hope that the enemy (including a BBEG -wizard-) doesn't realize his intent; otherwise the golem might move or the wizard might stop said rogue. I think a rogue should be able to use stealth to some degree in combat, because while I can't present you a whole mess of situations where it'd be useful, there -are- situations that exist and as much as we've all played the game, we know that they will come up eventually, either through clever thinking on players' parts or some unintended series of events.

Foghammer wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Foghammer wrote:

stuff

stuff

stuff

Here's a good situation: The party is trying to take down a generic BBEG wizard. Combat starts. The rogue of the group decides he wants to sneak over next to the BBEG's throne area where he knows there is a lever to drop out part of the floor, right where the giant construct is standing while fighting the party. The rules as written here and as proposed say that there is no way for the enemies to NOT know exactly where that rogue is going, barring an incredibly conveniently placed wall or something akin to that. The rogue just has to hope that the enemy (including a BBEG -wizard-) doesn't realize his intent; otherwise the golem might move or the wizard might stop said rogue. I think a rogue should be able to use stealth to some degree in combat, because while I can't present you a whole mess of situations where it'd be useful, there -are- situations that exist and as much as we've all played the game, we know that they will come up eventually, either through clever thinking on players' parts or some unintended series of events.

I think people are playing too many video games where rogues go invisible when stealthed.

There is a reason there are preconditions to stealth, and adding in the distraction helps with this as now if a conscious effort is made to distract someone, you can then move without being detected by them (possibly).

Stealth is about being perceived / detected, not about being invisible and walking in plain sight to something without anyone seeing you.

for an example of distraction + stealth please see the first mintue of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jKr3Dq0uVw
:P

Distraction.

Whether the farmer shucking his corn while smoking faeryweed, the shopclerks flirting while changing shift, or the guard deliberately distracted by the high CHA party Rogue, distraction as ´enabler´ of Stealth seems like something very useful to cover, ESPECIALLY in a game that has thrown away character facing / directional Line of Sight.

I could see using Sense Motive to determine when a given potential observer actually is distracted - failure means they aren´t distracted and will observe you, success means you sussed when they weren´t paying attention and they aren´t actually observing you for that round. Other means like Bluff can actively draw their attention/obsevation away.

Wonderful.

Please have the stealthy character make only one stealth check (and the opponents only one Perception roll) for a continuous move (ie, same speed, same cover/concealment conditions, same type of move), no matter how many actions it uses.

One of the greatest problems with the Stealth skill is that any attempt at long-distance stealth is an auto-fail. A Halfling has to succeed at a Stealth vs Perception contest every 10 feet. There is no way he can cover 30 meters without being detected (ie, make 10 successful checks in a row).

It may have already been mentioned but more concise rules on distraction may be needed also.

In a big brawl I can definitely see a Rogue being able to slip into Stealth if everyone is occupied, though with a nice modifier.

Foghammer wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Foghammer wrote:

stuff

stuff

stuff

Here's a good situation: The party is trying to take down a generic BBEG wizard. Combat starts. The rogue of the group decides he wants to sneak over next to the BBEG's throne area where he knows there is a lever to drop out part of the floor, right where the giant construct is standing while fighting the party. The rules as written here and as proposed say that there is no way for the enemies to NOT know exactly where that rogue is going, barring an incredibly conveniently placed wall or something akin to that. The rogue just has to hope that the enemy (including a BBEG -wizard-) doesn't realize his intent; otherwise the golem might move or the wizard might stop said rogue. I think a rogue should be able to use stealth to some degree in combat, because while I can't present you a whole mess of situations where it'd be useful, there -are- situations that exist and as much as we've all played the game, we know that they will come up eventually, either through clever thinking on players' parts or some unintended series of events.

The layout of the throne room is very important. A wizard's throne room is likely to be expansive, and would require supports. Pillars, even. Rafters up above. He may have tapestries depicting his exploits or dreams of world conquest. If the DM has put the lever there for the party to use, he has to have given some thought as to how they might get to it. The rogue is the obvious choice here. So, already we have the problem of deferring to the DM's foresight and judgment. I think I've given adequate and fair examples of what the layout might entail.

So we've got a BBEG Wizard and his golem guardian. Two enemies, four members in the party. Were I controlling every PC involved, I'd have the fighter trying to distract the golem, backed up by either the wizard or cleric (having played neither, I do not know which would be most effective in aiding, though I might go with cleric for his armor and BAB). The wizard should square up to the BBEG wizard. If this party is working together, and they should be, then the rogue would have to have discreetly informed the party of what he intended to do, even if only to say "Keep their eyes off me."

The rogue could just duck from pillar to pillar, using the party wizard as a distraction to the BBEG (who controls the golem, I should mention). Alternatively, and possibly the best solution, is to climb into the rafters and sneak over, dropping directly behind the throne for cover.

This is all going to depend heavily on whether or not your DM has given reasonable allowance to make use of the lever. Also, I'm only assuming you're not trying to literally be invisible while doing this because the BBEG wizard can conceivably see invisible creatures.

I think people are playing too many video games where rogues go invisible when stealthed.

Stealth is about being perceived / detected, not about being invisible and walking in plain sight to something without anyone seeing you.

That is not at all what we are talking about.

HELPFUL THREAD SUMMARY VERSION 2.0

• Most people don't like the idea of "invisible" being the condition granted by stealth, usually either because of possible confusion with invisibility (the spell) or because it over-focuses on vision.

• Popular solutions to the above include creating a new "hidden" (or similar) condition to be granted, or to use stealth/hiding-oriented language along the lines of "entering a rage" (i.e., not a condition per se, but still clear).

• There is a strong call for clear and explicit text governing the interaction of stealth with non-visual senses.

• There is a common desire for a mechanic to simulate sneaking up behind someone for a sneak attack - currently, the stealthy rogue would only get his sneak attack from hiding if he can attack directly from his hiding place. (I.e., he can't sneak 15 feet into the open and then get a sneak attack, even if the guard had no idea he was there at the start of the rogue's turn.)

• Diversion as an enabler of stealth: allow diversion (either deliberate as a bluff, or as a circumstance) to enable to use of stealth without cover/concealment by someone other than the bluffer.

• Some suggest that the ability to hide behind something be based solely on concealment, completely independently of lighting or cover.

• Some are calling for less frequent rolling of stealth checks, though I suspect the majority of these concerns result from a misunderstanding of the ways in which take 10 should be used for long-distance stealthing.

• Many people dislike the strictly action-type-based restrictions on stealth (i.e., a move action allows a stealth check while a standard does not, etc). The two main solutions proposed are (a) hand it to the GM to decide if a given action could be done sneakily or is inherently "un-stealthable", or (b) set up a non-action-type guideline for what can and cannot be done "stealthily".

Did I miss anything?

EDIT: Added a couple of items.

HELPFUL THREAD SUMMARY VERSION 2.0

• Most people don't like the idea of "invisible" being the condition granted by stealth, usually either because of possible confusion with invisibility (the spell) or because it over-focuses on vision.

• Popular solutions to the above include creating a new "hidden" (or similar) condition to be granted, or to use stealth/hiding-oriented language along the lines of "entering a rage" (i.e., not a condition per se, but still clear).

• There is a common desire for a mechanic to simulate sneaking up behind someone for a sneak attack - currently, the stealthy rogue would only get his sneak attack from hiding if he can attack directly from his hiding place. (I.e., he can't sneak 15 feet into the open and then get a sneak attack, even if the guard had no idea he was there at the start of the rogue's turn.)

• Distraction as an enabler of stealth: allow distraction (either deliberate as a bluff, or as a circumstance) to enable to use of stealth without cover/concealment by someone other than the bluffer.

• Some suggest that the ability to hide behind something be based solely on concealment, completely independently of lighting or cover.

Did I miss anything?

Add in :

and that's a good digest

HELPFUL THREAD SUMMARY VERSION 2.0

Other than the use of 'stealth' as a verb, I'd say this is the best post in the thread. Very helpful indeed.

Add in :

1) clarification on perception using other senses .
2) No set rule for actions that break stealth. Use GM discretion.

Added #1, will add #2 in a second.

Jiggy wrote:

HELPFUL THREAD SUMMARY VERSION 2.0

Other than the use of 'stealth' as a verb, I'd say this is the best post in the thread. Very helpful indeed.

Thanks! :D

ZappoHisbane wrote:

Malignor wrote:

I bring this up because the notion that you need cover for stealth is retarded.

You need concealment for stealth, not cover.

If this were the case, it's be impossible to hide around a corner from someone, or around a pillar like in the example pictured on the blog post. These grant cover (or total cover), but not concealment. As for the invisible wall of force example, those kind of corner cases are easily adjudicated by the DM. That's why they're there after all.

Cover is often also concealment.

Going behind the masonry wall corner, or stone pillar, provide concealment as well as cover... against vision, anyway. Not so much against scent, hearing or tremorsense.

Words like cover and concealment should be intuitive, but should also consider the variety of corner cases, special senses and so on.

Malignor is right. Cover doesn't automatically allow Stealth because someone trying to perceive you isn't just looking for you with their eyes. Perception is now all senses. For most of us, that's sight and sound, and for some critters it includes smell and maybe even touch/vibrations. A rogue may be hiding around the corner, and she may not be visible to me, but if she bungles her Stealth roll, I just heard her.

***
On the topic of how many rolls, I can see the person hiding making a single Stealth check (because she's only hiding once) regardless of the number of observers. But I think each potential observer needs to make a Perception check, because some will be caught unaware and others will not. To just go with a single Perception check, like the highest Perception with a bunch of Aid Another, makes hiding an all or nothing gig. I personally like the degrees of success created by some of the guards seeing you and some of them not.

One thing that would be nice, though, would be to clarify, okay one guard sees you. He shouts, "There he is." IMO, the other guards don't automatically Perceive you yet. This is, almost by definition, an example of Aid Another. The other guards can, on their next turn, make an active Perception check with a +2 bonus because the first guy tried to show them where.

***
Two questions-
1) In the current RAW, speaking is a free action, so the first guard could yell out his warning. However, are the other guards instantly aware, or do they have to wait until their next turn to become aware? (i.e., can the rogue Sneak Attack them in the mean time?)

2) Is there a difference between active and passive Perception? Active being: I stop and look around the room, or I heard a noise, now I try to pin point it. It would take a move or maybe a standard action and must be intentional. Passive being: I'm in a room; a sneaky rogue enters. Do I notice? This would be a free action. (I ask because we play this way, and off the top of my head, I can't remember of it's RAW or house rules.)

• Distraction as an enabler of stealth: allow distraction (either deliberate as a bluff, or as a circumstance) to enable to use of stealth without cover/concealment by someone other than the bluffer.

Distraction is an extant term that describes a modifier to perception and a state for casters, I believe.

"Diversion" would be much preferable as the term for an event that enables stealth without cover or concealment.

Jiggy wrote:

• Distraction as an enabler of stealth: allow distraction (either deliberate as a bluff, or as a circumstance) to enable to use of stealth without cover/concealment by someone other than the bluffer.

Distraction is an extant term that describes a modifier to perception and a state for casters, I believe.

"Diversion" would be much preferable as the term for an event that enables stealth without cover or concealment.

Good catch; "diversion" is even the term used in the blog post.

Fixed.

Distraction is an extant term that describes a modifier to perception and a state for casters, I believe.

"Diversion" would be much preferable as the term for an event that enables stealth without cover or concealment.

Good catch on the term already being used w/ spellcasters. But what is the adj. to describe someone - "diverted"?

How different is the "distracted" we're talking about from the "distracted" that can happen to a spellcaster? Could the existing "distracted" be expanded to include what we're talking about for allowing sneaks?

Thinking about this, I agree with those who've said the results of attempted Stealth should basically be 'undetected' and 'detected', but would expand it a little to...

Undetected (the observer has no sensory evidence of where you are... nothing stops educated guesses, of course, so they can still launch 'speculative fire' Fireball spells and the like, if that's their bag...)

Detected (the observer has sensory evidence of where you are, but doesn't have line-of-sight. They can't target you with normal attacks, but certain area attacks are bound to work)

and

Pinpointed (they can see you)

To this I'd add that although line-of-sight is usually required to pinpoint a target's location, touch can also do so (if you've searched the square they're in by touch) and so can other senses if the observer has the requisite abilities - e.g. Scent can pinpoint via smell, Tremorsense can pinpoint by touch at range, etc..

Actual invisibility would generally only remove the chance of being pinpointed (via sight), not the chance of being detected.

I also agree with the need for a 'distraction / diversion' rule. Flanking was basically introduced into the game as an easy way to allow backstabbing without the need for rules on facing. Distraction could be something similar - if there's a successful distraction in the opposite direction to where your Stealthy character is, you're counted as being allowed to attempt Stealth (even without the usual cover and whatnot). For 'opposite direction' just use the arcs they use now for cone spells.

Anyway, that's all very general, but hopefully it makes some sense?

BTW: Diversion? Perfect job for the Martial PCs. Even with no aggro mechanic, they are reliably the first to be exposed.

One thing that would be nice, though, would be to clarify, okay one guard sees you. He shouts, "There he is." IMO, the other guards don't automatically Perceive you yet. This is, almost by definition, an example of Aid Another. The other guards can, on their next turn, make an active Perception check with a +2 bonus because the first guy tried to show them where.

I'm not sure this is the mechanic that should be used, but there should definetely be called out a specific way of handling people telling people where to look for something when one passes the check and annother does not.

Mosaic wrote:

One thing that would be nice, though, would be to clarify, okay one guard sees you. He shouts, "There he is." IMO, the other guards don't automatically Perceive you yet. This is, almost by definition, an example of Aid Another. The other guards can, on their next turn, make an active Perception check with a +2 bonus because the first guy tried to show them where.

I'm not sure this is the mechanic that should be used, but there should definetely be called out a specific way of handling people telling people where to look for something when one passes the check and annother does not.

Grant another check with a +10? I wouldn't call it auto-success, because there are plenty of times people have tried to literally point things out to me that I can't see.

Forgive me if this has been asked but how would is interact with detect invisible?

Forgive me if this has been asked but how would is interact with detect invisible?

It has been asked, but as of yet, no answer from SRM (unless I missed it). As written, it would detect, apparently.