Stealth Playtest

Invisibility would have worked if the system had been built from the ground up with "stealthed = invisible" in mind. But as a patch, as a targeted subsystem change years into the product's life cycle, it's simply too ungainly. The results will be one of:

A) Changes too many things (Stealth skill, Invisibility condition, every spell, effect, creature, item, etc that references Invisibility), or
B) Doesn't actually work any better than the current system (changes Stealth to be Invisible, but doesn't significantly alter the Invisible condition)

I mean, if Paizo is willing to go through and do a major edit of every rulebook they've released just to support the alteration of the Invisible condition so that it also functions as a successful stealth condition, all's well, but that's a LOT of editing for what's supposed to be a fairly narrowly-targeted rewrite. They would have to go through the Core Rulebook, the APG, UM, UC, both Bestiaries, the ISCS, ISM, and everything else that might possibly have things dealing with invisibility. That's several thousand pages, and some things would inevitably be missed, leading to all kinds of confusion.

The rules currently assume that invisibility is purely magical. There is no way within the current rules as written to become invisible without using magic (or being naturally invisible, as is the case with invisible stalkers, which are outsiders and thus inherently magical). That means that 100% of the interactions with invisibility in the current rules as written assume that the only way to be invisible is through magic.

That is an entirely reasonable assumption in the current state of the rules. It is an assumption that breaks stealth if it's carried over into the new stealth rules as proposed.

The issue here is that blindsense and tremorsense use the word pinpoint, but they only detect what square you are in, even though the miss chance is still there.

Good point... although, thinking about it, that's probably even better: four possible results of attempting Stealth - Undetected, Detected (they know something is around, somewhere, in general - could be you, could be a cat...), Pinpointed (they know your square), and Targeted (they can target you) - with 'Targeted' requiring line-of-sight or (to use an old Hero System term) another such 'targeting' sense.

All I ever wanted was a RAW way for a rogue to exit from hiding, approach a target that failed its perception check and get in a sneak attack.

The way the skill has been re-written seems to accomplish that. I'm happy. Meh.

Actually, since the BLAW (BLog As Written) states that all Stealth does is impose the invisible condition, which only effects sight, but the (un-touched) Perception rules still cover all your senses, following BLAW means it's pretty much impossible to Stealth at all. BLAI might be another matter, of course... ;)

So you want to replace a version of a skill that does not work with a version of a skill that does not work past 5th level? Why bother changing anything if all spellcasters have automatic and instant counters to stealth at such low...

You want to replace an ability which works outside of combat for scouting just fine, with an ability which works in combat and has no counters at all...

I just don't like the concept of making a state which is better than invisibility, that has no counters.

What would you like to discuss about sound. How does it affect things?

A few of the critiques are really rational and obviously need addressing. At this point, I'm waiting and hoping for a follow-up blog post that incorporates the feedback, so I can test that. I'm not going to test this as written, too many potential interactions to just drop in a high-level campaign.

I know Stephen said upthread he's working on something else right now, but at his convenience it would be nice to know: is there going to be another playtest round, or is this the only wording we're going to get during playtest? And when might we expect that, so we don't chew too hard on our own tails?

My most serious critique of Paizo's open playtests to date is the lack of a final stage of testing, with critiques of earlier versions addressed. We needn't playtest the final version, but we should see something close so that we can discover the problems that our solutions have caused!

You want to replace an ability which works outside of combat for scouting just fine with an ability which has no counters at all...

What? No. Where the bleep did you get that from?

Perception is, always has been, and always should be the counter to Stealth. Not invisibility purge.

What would you like to discuss about sound. How does it affect things?

If a successful stealth check only grants the invisible condition, and the invisible condition function as proposed, then stealth simply does not cover moving silently. It would be impossible to move silently using the rules of the game if successful stealth grants invisibility. This is because invisibility is specifically defined (even in the re-write) as being undetectable by sight but detectable normally through every other sense. That means there's no way to mask any noise you make, and any non-deaf creature automatically detects you because you cannot hide the noise you make "sneaking" up on it. Same for any other sense; you can't mask your scent with scent maskers like modern hunters do, you can't stagger your footsteps in the sand to prevent sandworms' tremorsense from detecting you, etc, which are all things Stealth should cover.

Alternately, if you change "invisible" to mean "undetectable by any sense", then you make all the other means of invisibility considerably better, and still make see invisibility and invisibility purge even more awesome spells, empowering mages even further.

Also, I'll note that some creatures get see invisibility and true sight as an always-on ability. Is it really fair that they become completely, 100% immune to stealth, where AFAIK only creatures with Blindsight (very rare) are intended to be completely immune to stealth?

You want to replace an ability which works outside of combat for scouting just fine, with an ability which works in combat and has no counters at all...

I just don't like the concept of making a state which is better than invisibility, that has no counters.

Sure it has a counter. It’s the same counter it’s always has. It’s called Perception.

If someone can hide/keep themselves quiet well, a character shouldn’t be able to wave their hands or a magic wand and just negate any ability for them to hide (Stealth).

The character with the high Perception has always been the one pick out the NPC/opponent with the high Stealth. Why does that need to change?

Edit: Beaten by Fozbek again. :)

Fozbek wrote:

So you want to replace a version of a skill that does not work with a version of a skill that does not work past 5th level? Why bother changing anything if all spellcasters have automatic and instant counters to stealth at such low...

You want to replace an ability which works outside of combat for scouting just fine, with an ability which works in combat and has no counters at all...

I just don't like the concept of making a state which is better than invisibility, that has no counters.

What would you like to discuss about sound. How does it affect things?

No counters? Perception, scent, blind-sense, bind-sight, tremor-sense, uncanny dodge, alarm, a slew of divination spells. The spells you are talking about counters to illusion magic, that is all. Why would see invisible give 360 vision all of a sudden?

No counters? Perception, scent, blind-sense, bind-sight, tremor-sense, uncanny dodge, alarm, a slew of divination spells. The spells you are talking about counters to illusion magic, that is all. Why would see invisible give 360 vision all of a sudden?

Maybe you missed Fozbek's post two up where he suggests most of those things shouldn't work against stealth? He even suggests scent shouldn't work. I've been told twice now tremor sense shouldn't work. What about echo-location? Should that work against stealth?

What about 360 degree vision and darkvision (which are quite easy to attain)?

I personally think that scent should reveal presence but not location. It should probably give a bonus to perception rolls to pinpoint locations, but not be automatic.

Creatures with 360 degree vision (and maybe improved uncanny dodge??) should be immune to whatever "sneak up" clause allows the rogue to close on them without cover/concealment.

Anburaid wrote:

No counters? Perception, scent, blind-sense, bind-sight, tremor-sense, uncanny dodge, alarm, a slew of divination spells. The spells you are talking about counters to illusion magic, that is all. Why would see invisible give 360 vision all of a sudden?

Maybe you missed Fozbek's post two up where he suggests most of those things shouldn't work against stealth?

Please cite where I say that Perception, scent, blindsense, blindsight, tremorsense, uncanny dodge, or alarm would not be effective against Stealth? I said you should be able to use make a Stealth check opposed to the Perception check of a scent or tremorsense using creature to hide from them.

Those two abilities (which is far less than "most"; 2 out of 7 is less than 30%, thank you very much) should make it easier to find hiding creatures by giving you the ability to detect them where otherwise you wouldn't; for example, if you're hiding motionless behind a wall that provides total cover, you cannot be seen, and cannot be heard except under extraordinary circumstances ("I hear little hearts beating. Yesss... beating faster now. Soon the beating will stop."). You wouldn't even need to make a Stealth check because it's impossible to find you under normal circumstances. However, a dog isn't going to be fooled by that if you havn't masked your scent in some fashion (used Stealth to hide your scent), and will need to make a DC 0 Perception check to find your obvious scent and know you're there. If you have made the precaution to (for example) wear clothes that have the dog's owner's scent on them, you should be able to make a Stealth check to "hide" from the dog's Scent special ability, because the dog may not be able to discern that your scent is not its owner's. It would still get to roll Perception against you to tell if it does.

If a successful stealth check only grants the invisible condition, and the invisible condition function as proposed, then stealth simply does not cover moving silently. It would be impossible to move silently using the rules of the game if successful stealth grants invisibility. This is because invisibility is specifically defined (even in the re-write) as being undetectable by sight but detectable normally through every other sense. That means there's no way to mask any noise you make, and any non-deaf creature automatically detects you because you cannot hide the noise you make "sneaking" up on it. Same for any other sense; you can't mask your scent with scent maskers like modern hunters do, you can't stagger your footsteps in the sand to prevent sandworms' tremorsense from detecting you, etc, which are all things Stealth should cover.

Alternately, if you change "invisible" to mean "undetectable by any sense", then you make all the other means of invisibility considerably better, and still make see invisibility and invisibility purge even more awesome spells, empowering mages even further.

Also, I'll note that some creatures get see invisibility and true sight as an always-on ability. Is it really fair that they become completely, 100% immune to stealth, where AFAIK only creatures with Blindsight (very rare) are intended to be completely immune to stealth?

There are currently no bonuses to perception built into the system for things like tremorsense, all around vision, superior hearing... I'm ok with the idea that you could use stealth to bypass them but what is the DC? Is it just as easy to sneak up on a guy with all around vision as it is to sneak up on a normal guy? What's the point of all around vision then? "Can't be flanked", ok, but a guy can walk up in broad daylight and stab you in the face?!? What about tremorsense? Why shouldn't it be more difficult to sneak up on someone with tremorsense? I mean it's an amazing ability.

What about echo-location? Another awesome ability, stealth ignores this too?

Essentially, you either ignore all these fairly cool abilities which SHOULD make it harder to sneak up on but don't, or you cook up a bunch of tables with new DCs which sort of escapes the whole premise of a simple re-write.

What about instead of auto-success, see invisible just gives you a +20 or +40 to perception. That way the skill may pace up with the spells.

Since invisible grants a bonus to stealth, counter it with a bonus to perception. Invisibility purge would still counter, though I suppose.

That would not work because you can never see something that is truly invisible. The rogue would still have a 50% miss chance. It would also make the name of the spell misleading.

edit:I also think hide and move silent should have been kept separate. That is part of the issue now.

Kryzbyn wrote:

What about instead of auto-success, see invisible just gives you a +20 or +40 to perception. That way the skill may pace up with the spells.

Since invisible grants a bonus to stealth, counter it with a bonus to perception. Invisibility purge would still counter, though I suppose.

That would not work because you can never see something that is truly invisible. The rogue would still have a 50% miss chance. It would also make the name of the spell misleading.

edit:I also think hide and move silent should have been kept separate. That is part of the issue now.

Ahh good point.

wraithstrike wrote:

The issue here is that blindsense and tremorsense use the word pinpoint, but they only detect what square you are in, even though the miss chance is still there.

Good point... although, thinking about it, that's probably even better: four possible results of attempting Stealth - Undetected, Detected (they know something is around, somewhere, in general - could be you, could be a cat...), Pinpointed (they know your square), and Targeted (they can target you) - with 'Targeted' requiring line-of-sight or (to use an old Hero System term) another such 'targeting' sense.

I like that better.

There are currently no bonuses to perception built into the system for things like tremorsense, all around vision, superior hearing... I'm ok with the idea that you could use stealth to bypass them but what is the DC? Is it just as easy to sneak up on a guy with all around vision as it is to sneak up on a normal guy? What's the point of all around vision then? "Can't be flanked", ok, but a guy can walk up in broad daylight and stab you in the face?!? What about tremorsense? Why shouldn't it be more difficult to sneak up on someone with tremorsense? I mean it's an amazing ability.

Read the Perception skill. Tremorsense gives +8 if it's applicable (ie non-incorporeal, non-flying creatures).

Go back a couple pages... or HERE. This pretty much addresses special sense types. Granted, there's nothing there about all-round vision, because it didn't come to mind until you just mentioned it now.

I think someone hit on it earlier. Foghammer pointed out that any fix of Stealth is going to require a fix of perception. The two need to be more tightly coordinated.

For example :

One of the two should be the DC for the other.

Active Stealth : When you are actively stealthing while performing any action, you must make a stealth check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 plus the highest Perception bonus of any passive observers. Each doubling of the number of Observers who could possibly observe the stealth attempt increases the DC by +2. You gain a bonus to your stealth roll equal to the minimum distance modifier based on the closest observer. You gain +10 to stealth for partial concealment, and +20 for total concealment. Partial and total cover give the same bonuses. You cannot actively stealth if you are already being observed, unless you have Hide in Plain Sight. If you ever end your movement in a location you cannot attempt a stealth check from, or if you make an attack, you are no longer considered unobserved.

Example : Sneaky Sam is trying to sneak past Farmer Frank and his Dog Duke. Both Frank and Duke are the same distance away. Sneaky Sam's DC is 10 + highest Bonus (+8 from Duke) + 2 (2 observers) = 20. Sam get's his own +8 bonus, + 5 for partial concealment (he's in the bushes, but not completely concealed), and +2 for distance (his distance from the observers). Sam rolls a 10, and his final check is 10 + 8 (skill) + 5 (partial cover) + 2 (distance) = 25. He remains unobserved as he dashes across the opening and into the next set of bushes. If he stops in the open, he loses his stealth.

Example : Assassin Anne has snuck up to a pillar. Unfortunately, a guard has come around the corner. She starts with total concealment (+20 to her stealth). She wishes to sneak out behind the guard and hit him with a sap and do sneak attack damage to knock him out without killing him. She makes a stealth check. The guard is 20 feet away, so Anne has to make a full move to get to him, so she takes the -5 penalty for making a full move. Her DC is the guard's Perception plus 10, or 20 (10 skill, 10 base). She rolls a 7, netting her 7 + 20 (total concealment) - 5 (full move) + 8 (Skill) = 30. She beats the DC handily, and sneaks up to the guard in one swoop and hit's him with a sap, applying sneak attack as the guard is flat-footed to her for her attack.

Active Perception : Whenever you make an Active Perception test, you make a DC check against any hidden or stealthed opponents within range of any of your senses. Your DC is 10 plus the stealth skill of the stealthee, plus any bonuses for concealment/cover, plus any distance penalties.

Example : Duke the Dog yawns and get's bored watching Frank work on sharpening his pitchfork. So he starts padding around the farm, doing a patrol. He passes within 15 feet of Sneaky Sam, and spends an action performing an active perception. He has no distance modifiers. Duke's DC is 10 + 8 (Sam's Skill) + 10 (partial concealment) = 28. Duke has a +8 for his skill. He also has scent. The GM rules that the wind has changed, and Sam is now upwind from Duke. Since Sam hasn't bathed in a week, he's getting pretty ripe. So the GM gives Duke a +5 to notice Sam, due to his smell. Duke's total bonus is now 8 + 5 = 13. Duke rolls 16, for a total of 29. Sam takes off at a dead run as Duke begins barking, summoning Fred and his extra sharp pitchfork.

These are rough, I realize. The idea is, make it static checks based on who is actively doing something. Not opposed checks each time either person does something. That' get's hard to follow. The exact bonuses/penalties to each set of rolls is open for debate. The idea is, you make Perception and Stealth work off each other, instead of them being out in two different fields, one playing baseball and the other hopscotch.

EDIT : Yeah, I mixed up a couple of the bonuses on concealment, not going to fix it, the concept is the thing, not the mathematics.

Why the sentries should roll and not take 10?

If the sentries take 10, having more than one sentry will not improve their ability to detect a hidden opponent (since all sentries have usually the same stat block and thus the same Perception modifier).

While if they roll for Perception, the more sentries the better chance to spot him.

Caineach wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Why the flanked orc should "forget" there was a guy attacking him from the other side?

Why the fighter companion of the rogue should lose his flanking bonus (or you want to get the high magic trick of giving the flanking bonus while being "unperceived" by the orc)?

The point he is making is that you should be able to disengage without the enemy noticing. You succeed in getting in his blind spot for a second and when the orc turns you are no longer immediately obvious to him. You may be half way accross the room. He doesn't magically forget that you are there. He just doesn't know exactly where you have gone, and is too distracted by your friend still swinging a sword at him to spend the time to find out. The rogue succeeded a stealth check to slip away in an unnoticed dirrection.

Its not about people not see you. Its about them not noticing you or thinking your important when other things are going on.

Thank you! I was starting to think that NO ONE would get this.

There is already a skill to do that. It is called Acrobatics.

I am not fond of the idea of nerfing other skills to boost the stealth skill.

shotofentropy wrote:

The sniping and "create distraction to stealth" make more sense as feats requiring the stealth skill. I.e. all snipers are stealthy but all those who are stealthy are snipers. Or, also, an advanced stealth feat allowing the incorporation of the stealth "rewrite".

Oh god please do not do this. We need fewer combat actions as specific feats, not more. Feat taxes on cool abilities are high enough as it is, without adding rarely used overly specialized ones to the mix.

My understanding is that feats are just that. So, as a community we want to rewrite a whole skill for the inclusion of some class specific abilities and techniques?

Example : Sneaky Sam is trying to sneak past Farmer Frank and his Dog Duke. Both Frank and Duke are the same distance away. Sneaky Sam's DC is 10 + highest Bonus (+8 from Duke) + 2 (2 observers) = 20. Sam get's his own +8 bonus, + 5 for partial concealment (he's in the bushes, but not completely concealed), and +2 for distance (his distance from the observers). Sam rolls a 10, and his final check is 10 + 8 (skill) + 5 (partial cover) + 2 (distance) = 25. He remains unobserved as he dashes across the opening and into the next set of bushes. If he stops in the open, he loses his stealth.

Example : Duke the Dog yawns and get's bored watching Frank work on sharpening his pitchfork. So he starts padding around the farm, doing a patrol. He passes within 15 feet of Sneaky Sam, and spends an action performing an active perception. He has no distance modifiers. Duke's DC is 10 + 8 (Sam's Skill) + 10 (partial concealment) = 28. Duke has a +8 for his skill. He also has scent. The GM rules that the wind has changed, and Sam is now upwind from Duke. Since Sam hasn't bathed in a week, he's getting pretty ripe. So the GM gives Duke a +5 to notice Sam, due to his smell. Duke's total bonus is now 8 + 5 = 13. Duke rolls 16, for a total of 29. Sam takes off at a dead run as Duke begins barking, summoning Fred and his extra sharp pitchfork.

Poor Farmer Frank and Duke the Dog, they've been hounded by Sam for at least a couple years now.

Sorry, had to say it. Great post btw, mdt.

Caineach wrote:

shotofentropy wrote:

The sniping and "create distraction to stealth" make more sense as feats requiring the stealth skill. I.e. all snipers are stealthy but all those who are stealthy are snipers. Or, also, an advanced stealth feat allowing the incorporation of the stealth "rewrite".

Oh god please do not do this. We need fewer combat actions as specific feats, not more. Feat taxes on cool abilities are high enough as it is, without adding rarely used overly specialized ones to the mix.

My understanding is that feats are just that. So, as a community we want to rewrite a whole skill for the inclusion of some class specific abilities and techniques?

Sniping is something that you can already do with the current rules.

Caineach wrote:

shotofentropy wrote:

The sniping and "create distraction to stealth" make more sense as feats requiring the stealth skill. I.e. all snipers are stealthy but all those who are stealthy are snipers. Or, also, an advanced stealth feat allowing the incorporation of the stealth "rewrite".

Oh god please do not do this. We need fewer combat actions as specific feats, not more. Feat taxes on cool abilities are high enough as it is, without adding rarely used overly specialized ones to the mix.

My understanding is that feats are just that. So, as a community we want to rewrite a whole skill for the inclusion of some class specific abilities and techniques?

1. And we have too many feats like that now that people complain about having to pick and choose between cool abilities that they think thye should have.

Dennis Baker wrote:

There are currently no bonuses to perception built into the system for things like tremorsense, all around vision, superior hearing... I'm ok with the idea that you could use stealth to bypass them but what is the DC? Is it just as easy to sneak up on a guy with all around vision as it is to sneak up on a normal guy? What's the point of all around vision then? "Can't be flanked", ok, but a guy can walk up in broad daylight and stab you in the face?!? What about tremorsense? Why shouldn't it be more difficult to sneak up on someone with tremorsense? I mean it's an amazing ability.

Read the Perception skill. Tremorsense gives +8 if it's applicable (ie non-incorporeal, non-flying creatures).

All-round vision should also give some bonus, maybe +4?
Basically, each special sense should have conditional bonuses... as in bonuses for cases where they apply.

Go back a couple pages... or HERE. This pretty much addresses special sense types. Granted, there's nothing there about all-round vision, because it didn't come to mind until you just mentioned it now.

Also doesn't cover blindsight.

Bleh, As mdt said (repeating others):

...any fix of Stealth is going to require a fix of perception. The two need to be more tightly coordinated.

Only, I think it's bigger than that. A lot of the sense based abilities need to be revisited also.

This is in a nutshell why I kind of like invisibility. I get that it's a poor 'fix', I just think any other fix is going to require touching a lot more of the rules (or is going to leave some holes you can drive a truck through).

There is already a skill to do that. It is called Acrobatics. And the difficulty is not set by how good is the perception of the guy you are fighting but by his fighting prowess (his BAB), as it should be.

I am not fond of the idea of nerfing other skills to boost the stealth skill.

But I still don't see any reason to use it in the midst of combat (other than sneaking away when you notice the trap door lever) that can't be achieved with other skills.

Honestly, are you even reading my posts? I've been saying that all along.

Go back and reread my posts about this matter. None of them contradict one another, and in NONE of them do I say you can use stealth in combat to "disappear" entirely.

That is twice now that you have used one of my own arguments as a way to attempt to discredit my point. It isn't working.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Why the sentries should roll and not take 10?

If the sentries take 10, having more than one sentry will not improve their ability to detect a hidden opponent (since all sentries have usually the same stat block and thus the same Perception modifier).

While if they roll for Perception, the more sentries the better chance to spot him.

You have ever seen real sentries (barring those doing dress duty) staying flank to flank looking the same area?

They are staggered at different points, possibly in a way that allow them to check the status of the other sentry and a overlapping piece of terrain.
So in game every sentry has a different modifier for the distance between him and the hidden guy.
Depending on the terrain the hidden guy can benefit from cover or concealment toward one sentinel but not the other and if he is trying to incapacitate a sentinel he should find a way to do hit without being seen by the other (he can be hidden, but the sentinel he is attacking isn't).

Your solution his meant to beat stealth through dice rolling but the player is not your adversary. The idea is that you play to have fun.
If the goal is to make hiding difficult because the guards are specially trained in spotting hiding people giving them skill focus in perception and/or higher wisdom is better than using hundred of rolls and the "sooner or later a 20 will come up" philosophy.

Diego Rossi wrote:

There is already a skill to do that. It is called Acrobatics. And the difficulty is not set by how good is the perception of the guy you are fighting but by his fighting prowess (his BAB), as it should be.

I am not fond of the idea of nerfing other skills to boost the stealth skill.

Foghammer wrote:

But I still don't see any reason to use it in the midst of combat (other than sneaking away when you notice the trap door lever) that can't be achieved with other skills.

Honestly, are you even reading my posts? I've been saying that all along.

Go back and reread my posts about this matter. None of them contradict one another, and in NONE of them do I say you can use stealth in combat to "disappear" entirely.

That is twice now that you have used one of my own arguments as a way to attempt to discredit my point. It isn't working.

Caineach wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Why the flanked orc should "forget" there was a guy attacking him from the other side?

Why the fighter companion of the rogue should lose his flanking bonus (or you want to get the high magic trick of giving the flanking bonus while being "unperceived" by the orc)?

The point he is making is that you should be able to disengage without the enemy noticing. You succeed in getting in his blind spot for a second and when the orc turns you are no longer immediately obvious to him. You may be half way accross the room. He doesn't magically forget that you are there. He just doesn't know exactly where you have gone, and is too distracted by your friend still swinging a sword at him to spend the time to find out. The rogue succeeded a stealth check to slip away in an unnoticed dirrection.

Its not about people not see you. Its about them not noticing you or thinking your important when other things are going on.

Thank you! I was starting to think that NO ONE would get this.

Foghammer: "Caineach, you have got exactly what I did mean."

So you want to use the stealth skill to disengage from combat or not?

Beside that, why do you get so angry for a comment that is meant as much for Caineach as for your own?
Both are cited as a whole.

Bleh, As mdt said (repeating others):

Quote:

...any fix of Stealth is going to require a fix of perception. The two need to be more tightly coordinated.

Only, I think it's bigger than that. A lot of the sense based abilities need to be revisited also.

This is in a nutshell why I kind of like invisibility. I get that it's a poor 'fix', I just think any other fix is going to require touching a lot more of the rules (or is going to leave some holes you can drive a truck through).

• Perception
  
• Stealth
  
• Invisibility (spell)
  
• Invisibility Purge (spell)
  
• Silence (spell)
  
• All-Around Vision
  
• Blindsense & Blindsight
  
• Lifesense
  
• Darkvision
  
• Low-Light Vision
  
• Natural Invisibility
  
• Scent
  
• See-in-Darkness
  
• Tremorsense
  
• Earth Glide (I think this is relevant to Tremorsense)

If I missed anything here, someone correct me.

EDIT: Added Darkvision. (Herp Derp, Foghammer.)

Foghammer: "Caineach, you have got exactly what I did mean."

Foghammer again: "Diego, how you dare say that that was what I mean."
So you want to use the stealth skill to disengage from combat or not?

When you use it in the sense that you're trying to correct me, then no, I don't have any reason to think you understand.

I have never had a reason in game to disengage from combat, and I find stealth mostly useless. That said, the rules allow for such a use of stealth, regardless of whether or not there are already better ways to do it.

If I missed anything here, someone correct me.

Perhaps a word if there is a special interaction with a ninja's "Light Step" ability in conjunction with stealth.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Foghammer: "Caineach, you have got exactly what I did mean."

Foghammer again: "Diego, how you dare say that that was what I mean."
So you want to use the stealth skill to disengage from combat or not?

When you use it in the sense that you're trying to correct me, then no, I don't have any reason to think you understand.

I have never had a reason in game to disengage from combat, and I find stealth mostly useless. That said, the rules allow for such a use of stealth, regardless of whether or not there are already better ways to do it.

As I added above, the point was for Caineach and you both. The whole piece was cited and commented.

And no, currently stealth alone don't allow you to do that. You need to use Bluff and then Stealth.

If two or three posters are going to dominate the conversation, I would ask that they please check their posting for a good signal-noise ratio. Just make sure you're posting something new and not merely clarifying/defending points that have been made already, and we can keep this whole thread useful to the devs.

Not indicating anyone specific, merely a concern of mine.

Okay. Whatever the deal was with the other thing, I'll let it go, but...

And no, currently stealth alone don't allow you to do that. You need to use Bluff and then Stealth.

False. You CAN use Bluff to create a diversion, but it is not absolutely necessary if something else is already distracting your target.

If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.

(Emphasis mine.) Just because there are rules for making a bluff check to divert a target's attention doesn't mean that's the only way to do it.

EDIT: Sorry, Lincoln; I understand your concern, and I'll be more aware now. I feel like this is a valid enough point about existing stealth rules, however. The ability to use stealth against a distracted opponent is a major issue that could make or break the use of the skill*. EDIT 2: * IMO, anyway.

There are currently no bonuses to perception built into the system for things like tremorsense, all around vision, superior hearing... I'm ok with the idea that you could use stealth to bypass them but what is the DC? Is it just as easy to sneak up on a guy with all around vision as it is to sneak up on a normal guy? What's the point of all around vision then? "Can't be flanked", ok, but a guy can walk up in broad daylight and stab you in the face?!? What about tremorsense? Why shouldn't it be more difficult to sneak up on someone with tremorsense? I mean it's an amazing ability.

Both Scent and Tremorsense have built-in Perception bonuses. I don't have a problem with other relevant abilities getting Perception bonuses; that's a less invasive and less problematic change than stealth=invisibility.

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

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

I'm sticking with how I do it now:

1. Situational Stealth: I determine the difficulty of the stealth check according to the situation. I decide how many rolls I want according to when changes in the situation might occur like changes in cover or awareness. I always make both the stealther and the target roll. No auto-success or auto-failure based on a skill being so good they can't succeed at either Perception or Stealth.

2. I use the 20 auto-success and 1 auto-failure rules for Stealth opposed by Perception because a stealth check can mean death or success at a major campaign goal. So I feel I must allow some chance of failure or success with Perception. Sneaking up on sleeping targets makes it too easy as does ambushing. And average NPCs don't have very high Perceptions.

3. I incorporate field of vision into stealth to ensure a rogue or stealthy attacker type can engage in sentry removal or sneak attacking across open ground because that makes sense to me.

Bottom line is stealth is one of those skills that requires DM intuition and understanding of what is trying to be done and how best to adjudicate that given the basic rules. Stealth is very hard to make into a hard and fast, action by action rule like combat and make it fit what it is supposed to do.

I'm going to keep running it as I have been. That works best for our group. Keeps the rolls down. Makes it so stealth at least has some chance of failure or success. And allows the use of stealth to sneak up on targets even when the stealther doesn't have what would constitute full cover and concealment other than staying out of the targets field of vision. That's how I feel stealth should work.

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

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

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

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

That's why you have someone stand watch.

Frankly, the easiest way to avoid all of this mess with conditions and lists of allowable actions and multiple rolls per round is to just change Stealth so that your Stealth check isn't directly opposed.

For example:

---

Check: You can use Stealth to make yourself harder to notice. For every 5 points by which your Stealth check exceeds 10, the DC of any Perception check made to notice you or an action you perform is increased by 5. This benefit lasts until the beginning of your next turn.

Creatures are assumed to take 10 on all reactive Perception checks. For as long as a creature fails to notice you, you have total concealment against that creature and sounds you make cannot be heard by that creature. [Insert attacking from invisibility text here.]

[Insert size modifier text here.]

[Roll all other Stealth modifiers into Perception DCs. Add concelament- and cover-related modifiers (that apply whenever you have concealment/cover or perform an action that you started while having concealment/cover) to Perception DCs.]

[Insert creating a diversion text here.]

Action: Using Stealth is a swift action. If you used Stealth on your last turn, you can instead use Stealth as a free action in response to the benefits of your previous Stealth check ending.

---

So, using something like the above...

What happens when a rogue hides behind a pillar? Compare a Perception DC (with a bonus from Stealth) to 10 + Perception. Bam. Done.

What happens when he runs out from behind the pillar? Compare a Perception DC (with a bonus from Stealth) to 10 + Perception. Bam. Done.

What happens when he ducks behind a different pillar? When he makes a ranged attack? When a guard walks around that pillar? When a ghoul that smells like rotting garbage tries to sneak by while the rogue and the guard are playing hide-and-seek? Compare a Perception DC (with a bonus from Stealth) to 10 + Perception. Bam. Done.

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

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

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

I'm sticking with how I do it now:

1. Situational Stealth: I determine the difficulty of the stealth check according to the situation. I decide how many rolls I want according to when changes in the situation might occur like changes in cover or awareness. I always make both the stealther and the target roll. No auto-success or auto-failure based on a skill being so good they can't succeed at either Perception or Stealth.

2. I use the 20 auto-success and 1 auto-failure rules for Stealth opposed by Perception because a stealth check can mean death or success at a major campaign goal. So I feel I must allow some chance of failure or success with Perception. Sneaking up on sleeping targets makes it too easy as does ambushing. And average NPCs don't have very high Perceptions.

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

3. I incorporate field of vision into stealth to ensure a rogue or stealthy attacker type can engage in sentry removal or sneak attacking across open ground because that makes sense to me.

Bottom line is stealth is one of those skills that requires DM intuition and understanding of what is trying to be done and how best to adjudicate that given the basic rules. Stealth is very hard to make into a hard and fast, action by action rule like combat and make it fit what it is supposed to do.

I'm going to keep running it as I have been. That works best for our...

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

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

The point it it should work exactly that way.

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

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

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

I'm gonna make a list to all of the appropriate topics (as I can remember them):

...

Add

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

Slitting someone's throat or stabbing them in the heart will certainly create enough noise to wake non-magical-sleeping opponents, unless somehow done expertly. I would apply a -20 to the stealth check result after the first kill.

Caineach wrote:

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

Slitting someone's throat or stabbing them in the heart will certainly create enough noise to wake non-magical-sleeping opponents, unless somehow done expertly. I would apply a -20 to the stealth check result after the first kill.

Your quoting Maddigan, not me.

That is also covered too by the current rules. Its a full round action. Performing the full round action will remove you from stealth. Therefore, anyone else gets a perception at just the normal penalties for sleeping to try to wake up.

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

For that purpose, in-line with the new functionality introduced in the blog,
I see splitting it`s effect into two parts: a succesful check means you remained Stealthed until the end of your turn OR any action which ends it (attacking, etc).
ALSO, Stealth will continue until your next turn, UNLESS anything (i.e. cover/concealment) no longer provide the conditions for Stealth... then you would drop Stealth (on a relative basis, i.e. if Monster A now sees you then you aren`t Stealthed vs. them, but you are if Monster B still can`t see you because of cover/etc.)

...That means if you have Stealth Pre-Reqs and Pass the Check on your turn, you fully benefit from Stealth for the duration of your turn (or until your own actions break it), AND the Stealth persists until your next turn as long as conditions permit (judged on relative character vs. character basis re: things like Line of Sight).

Action: Using Stealth is a swift action. If you used Stealth on your last turn, you can instead use Stealth as a free action in response to the benefits of your previous Stealth check ending.

This also has the problem of 1-round duration effects ending exactly BEFORE the new turn, and any actions (even if free) that you could take... Which I think is also applicable to other things, like Rage, that you `maintain` round-to-round. Probably a centralized `maintain` free action that happens just before your turn technically starts is the ideal solution to all of them.

...But I don`t think having any action is even necessary for Stealth, as long as you have the conditions you should be able to make a Stealth check... There can be a line saying you can always enter Stealth as a Move/Standard Action (to cover when you don`t do anything else besides Stealth), but other-wise, any action that itself wouldn`t break stealth should be able to integrate a Stealth check into it at any point. Probably should include something so that a given action can only allow one Stealth check, to prevent making a kazillion Stealth checks by just moving 30` with a Move Action thru compatable (concealment) terrain.

The idea of putting Stealth modifiers (situational, etc) together on the same table with Perception modifiers makes TONS of sense to me, and makes it alot easier to play with on the spot, instead of looking up two different tables and keeping track of two separate modifier totals to two different (opposed) skills.

I've always run Stealth as part of an existing movement action.
Except, of course, that the movement action can move you from 0' to your maximum.

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

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

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

I think there shouldn`t be anything that allows a single check to cover multiple actions.
If you are JUST HIDING, i.e. not taking actions, you can `maintain` Stealth (and your previous check) as a Free action.
COMPETENT usage of Take 10 should cover other cases... A Blog FAQ explaining how this is best used really would help alot of people know how to do that, i.e. which side Takes 10, and situations like 2 guards who `trade off` Taking 10 and rolling each round, etc.

There are currently no bonuses to perception built into the system for things like tremorsense, all around vision, superior hearing... I'm ok with the idea that you could use stealth to bypass them but what is the DC?

This is a problem. All of these are treated separately, an artifact of having separate spot and listen skills. All these "enhanced senses" need to add modifiers to perception.

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

The alternative is one set of checks for sight, one set for hearing, one set for smell, one set for echo-location, one set for tremorsense. It ridiculously bogs down the game and nerfs stealth since more checks results in more possible chances to fail one.

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

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

----------

As for the blog proposal, it fixes the problem where moving from concealment broke stealth.

Having action types (free, move, standard, etc.) determine whether or not you can use stealth "feels" off to me, but after looking over the actions in combat table in the Combat section, I can live with it.

I have to agree with those opposed to stealth applying the invisible condition. See Invisibility, Invisibility Purge, and True Seeing all state that they allow one to see someone with the invisible condition thereby negating it. They should not interact directly with stealth at all, only with non-mundane effects. Either the spells need to be changed to exclude stealth, or a new condition needs to be created (even if it is nearly identical to invisible). I will however state that these spells should negate the bonus to stealth checks from invisibility.

Overall, I think I like it. At least the version I am reading today. It could use some further refinement, but it seems mostly clear and playable.

One formatting note, for clarity, please break the "Check:" section into multiple paragraphs. Too much detail is blurred together in a wall of words. Something more like this:

I think this blog post has been updated since I read it yesterday (or maybe it's just my perception rolls). It seems much clearer now.

Proposed Version:

Works in any light as long as you start with concealment or cover

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

The black raven wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Why the sentries should roll and not take 10?

If the sentries take 10, having more than one sentry will not improve their ability to detect a hidden opponent (since all sentries have usually the same stat block and thus the same Perception modifier).

While if they roll for Perception, the more sentries the better chance to spot him.

You have ever seen real sentries (barring those doing dress duty) staying flank to flank looking the same area?

They are staggered at different points, possibly in a way that allow them to check the status of the other sentry and a overlapping piece of terrain.
So in game every sentry has a different modifier for the distance between him and the hidden guy.
Depending on the terrain the hidden guy can benefit from cover or concealment toward one sentinel but not the other and if he is trying to incapacitate a sentinel he should find a way to do hit without being seen by the other (he can be hidden, but the sentinel he is attacking isn't).

Your solution his meant to beat stealth through dice rolling but the player is not your adversary. The idea is that you play to have fun.
If the goal is to make hiding difficult because the guards are specially trained in spotting hiding people giving them skill focus in perception and/or higher wisdom is better than using hundred of rolls and the "sooner or later a 20 will come up" philosophy.

I'm with Diego here. Standardized use of Take 10 makes stealth a viable activity, especially if you have an additional roll made whenever the difficulty would increase (either because the sneaker must move faster, they've encountered more perceptive guards, they move substantially closer to an existing guard, etc). It also has the benefit of basing success on the investment the player has made in their character rather than random chance.

For the record I also reverse this procedure for sneaking bad guys. They always take 10 on Stealth against Perception checks rolled by the players.

This may not seem fair, but it's definitely more fun for the player and much quicker to adjudicate.

Maddigan wrote:

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

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

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

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

That's why you have someone stand watch.

I agree, this is not a good enough reason to say "it wont' work". Just have your monsters (or your players) set up someone on watch. There has never been a time in any DND game I've ever played when we've rested for the night out in the wilderness and one of the players hasn't said "i'll take first watch."

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

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

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

If it's a movement action, it means you can only do it up to twice a round (movement, standard-as-movement). In the meantime, you're shuffling around, trying to get into the right position.

When I DM, I often have enemies lying in ambush by taking 20 if they have the time for it.
Well... more to the point, I have one or two (the most qualified, if available) take 20 and the rest simply take full cover, awaiting the signal from their hiding comrades.