Stealth Playtest

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.

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.

Perhaps ACs could only be allowed to aid another?

Tremorsense appears to be foolproof Stealth-beating radar. Working as intended?

Not if the rogue use stealth and is flying. Or Am I wrong?

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Hidden does not thwart divination spells.

RAW, it thwarts both See Invisibility and True Seeing, both with PF Stealth and new!Stealth.

If so it should probably be addressed in a FAQ because I have seen this topic on the messageboard a lot of times.

As for true seeing there is one exception perhaps. Does in not negate any magical bonus to stealth? Such as Elixir of hiding and Ring of Chameleon Power?

So I was thinking on the infinite stealth loop issue.

I see where people are coming from with the concealment granted from stealth itself. I don't agree that the loop is there, but all debate can be settled, I think, by stating that concealment granted by the stealth check cannot be used (just as you can't use your own shadow to hide in plain sight as a shadowdancer), a caveat like that should seal the loop.

Blur does indeed allow stealthing under this rule. It also allowed it under the existing rule. Further, under blur or hide in plain sight, you could only get a maximum of two stealthed attacks. One from an initial stealth, the second from a swift action. After that second, you could not restealth, even with blur. If you don't have a round to stealth up, you only get one attack. If you want to stay stealthed, you only get one attack. The swift action addition to the rule is a great touch for this reason.

Really this is no worse than Improved Feint. Make skill check, get sneak attack. Repeat next round.

Why you think that the swift action will benefit from you being stealthy if your hidden/invisible condition was already broken by the first attack?

I don't see anything that can support that idea.

Why you think that the swift action will benefit from you being stealthy if your hidden/invisible condition was already broken by the first attack?

I don't see anything that can support that idea.

You can only do this if you have hide in plain sight (and meet its conditions) or have blur. You qualify for stealthing and can restealth as a swift action.

It's true the first attack makes you visible, but because blur gives you concealment and/or hide in plain sight allows you to ignore the concealment/cover requirement, you can make another stealth check as a swift action.

This is why (quite a ways upthread by now) I suggested an addition to the presented rewrite: "If another creature takes an action that causes you to lose your cover or concealment relative to that creature, you lose the benefits of stealth against that creature at the end of that action."

I am not convinced it is necessary.

As I pointed out, the Rogue still benefit from stealth till the beginning of his move even if his cover was compromised, as long as his stealth roll was better than the guard perception roll.

While it can seem strange it happen often enough in reality. You have achieved line of sight with someone/something but you don't "pinpoint" him till it act. Remember that a round is 6 seconds. So our guard has barely the time to move and glance in the general direction of the rogue. His eyes can see the rogue but his brain need time to process the informations he receive from them.
Hour brain is wired in a way meant to protect us from predators. We notice movement way better that an immobile object. Sudden movements better than slow and steady movements.

In the guard/rogue/pillar scenario the rogue, unless he has the possibility to attack as his first action, don't benefits from a sneak attack. To me it seem reasonably balanced.

Visualize it this way:

Game situation
- the spotted rogue move behind a pillar and hide;
- the guard move around the pillar trying to break his concealment;
- the guard fail his perception check and is within 5' of the rogue;
- the rogue make a sneak attack.

RL depiction of the situation:
- the guards see the rogue moving behind the pillar.
- he think the rogue has moved further away or don't want to fight but want to run;
- the guard round the pillar and his startled to find that the rogue is right behind it ready to stab him, for a split second he is incapable to react;
- the rogue stab the guard.

Alternate situation:

Game:
- the spotted rogue move behind a pillar and hide;
- the guard move around the pillar trying to break his concealment but being more cautious keep his distance from the pillar;
- the guard fail his perception check but is further than 5' of the rogue;
- the rogue move and his detected.

RL depiction of the situation:
- the guards see the rogue moving behind the pillar.
- he is dubious on what the rogue has done and take the cautious approach, keeping his distance from what are blind spots at the start of his move;
- the guard round the pillar. His eyes see the rouge, but the rogue is so perfectly immobile that the animal parts of his brain label him as "no immediate threat" and the rogue isn't immediately "detected";
- the rogue move. For the instinctual part of the guard brain his status is immediately changed from "no threat" to "immediate threat". The guard notice him and the rogue can't sneak attack.

The only thing I can add to the general discussion here is that

a) The fact that Stealth creates invisibility should be moved to the begining of the Stealth description, vice the end. If you're just skimming the rules, you're going to miss it, otherwise, and it's a big deal. And;

b) If you're going to use invisibility as your model, you really should call out that this is not a magical effect, and thus isn't subject to things like anti-magic sphere.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Why you think that the swift action will benefit from you being stealthy if your hidden/invisible condition was already broken by the first attack?

I don't see anything that can support that idea.

You can only do this if you have hide in plain sight (and meet its conditions) or have blur. You qualify for stealthing and can restealth as a swift action.

It's true the first attack makes you visible, but because blur gives you concealment and/or hide in plain sight allows you to ignore the concealment/cover requirement, you can make another stealth check as a swift action.

Ah, your previous post was a bit unclear to me, I thought you were saying that you could make a second swift attack while still benefiting from sneak attack, not that you could re hide using a swift action.

1. Sneak across field: One stealth check. One perception check per guard or creature.

You want to sneak across a 300' field with 1 roll? What is the modifier for being subject to scrutiny for a minimum of 10 rounds?

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.

I think blindsight and so on should keep working just as they do now. The only thing that needed to be cleared up is the perception vs stealth rules.

How Stealth interacts with Scent isn't exactly clear, and new!Stealth seems to interact strangely with Blindsense, due to some confusion about attacking invisible foes.

Maddigan wrote:

1. Sneak across field: One stealth check. One perception check per guard or creature.

You want to sneak across a 300' field with 1 roll? What is the modifier for being subject to scrutiny for a minimum of 10 rounds?

1. Why would you be subject to scrutiny if they can't see you and aren't actively looking for 10 rounds? Some guard wandering around the ramparts of a castle may look a few times, but isn't going to be actively looking for you for the entire time you are crawling across the field.

2. No modifier other than distance. Situation based stealth checks reduce rolls and better simulate what you see in movies, books, and even real life. If a guy in a movie, a book, or even real life had to make the number of rolls the stealth skill calls for, no one would ever use it. It would be completely ineffective and no one would even teach it at a school. With all those rolls someone is bound to spot you.

Moving across a field with one check is a situation based roll. A lot of far more advanced game systems than Pathfinder or D&D have been using them for years.

As a GM you decide how difficult it is to accomplish a certain task liek say "moving across a field". You make your player make his stealth check. You check it against the passive perception of the guards. If you succeed, you make it across the field.

That is a situation based stealth check. It is a far more elegant and intelligent design decision than basing stealth on actions and requiring an insane number of rolls.

Pathfinder could do exactly the same thing if they wanted to.

For example, rather than the table reading

Conversation DC 0

The table could read:

Sneak up to individual target DC Opposed perception check with target

Sneak Across open field with guards watching DC 10 plus perception of guards

You see how that works? It's a situation based roll rather than an action based roll. It works a great deal better than action based skill rolls for reasons I've already stated.

Pathfinder should adopt this type of stance for many of its skills in the future. This is the type of skill design many other game systems use. And it works really well and makes it much easier for a DM to adjudicate and players to roll out.

I would also prefer a situational stealth DC, like:
10 + highest Perception + 2 per additional person.

Put some modifiers in there like:
people aren't looking very hard = -5
guard (dogs) with scent = +8
few covers = +5
open field without any kind of cover = +40 (negated by HIPS)

failure = if you fail by more than 5, you'll be immediatly noticed
if you fail by 5 or less, you'll be noticed after 1d4 rounds.

this way when planning all you need is the "room DC" + "people modifier", all of whom should be static. All rolls are made by GM, that way if you go unnoticed for the first round, you might still be discovered in the fourth round.

a direct check of perception vs stealth should only be for special things like sniping, and only vs the person you are sniping.

Anyhow this is more or less how I houserule it in my games, I like the rogues to do their thing, and I hate rolling for every 6 seconds outside of combat.

Edit: you might also add, that you only go unnoticed for as many rounds as you've beaten the DC before you have to check again.

Just a quick question to clarify.

Would this new rule fully replace all of the old ones or not?

I simply ask because from a quick glance treating stealth like the invisibility spell adds other things that seem a bit weird.

For example someone using the new stealth would get the 50% concealment and the +20 to there stealth check (the +20 is only if part of the old stealth rules still apply). Not only this but spells such as see invisibility would hard counter stealth making it useless.

Good start i think but it needs a lot more clarification. I think a new condition should be made instead of using the current invisibility one.

Congrats paizo on taking the time to tackle this issue.

I'm going to echo what a few others have said.

1) Don't use invisible. You could easily use 'undetected', and avoid unwanted interactions with existing rules/spells etc. Also undetected covers sight/smell/tremor sense etc. they are undetected, plain and simple.

2) Keep the number of checks low and allow GM's to use discretion. For every action type you say triggers a stealth check, players will find 1,000,000 particular version of that action shouldn't cause a stealth check. I think Raving_dork has the right idea, "Any time an action could cause you to become detected ...".

3) Bluff should be opposed by sense motive. If someone makes a bluff check, that gets opposed by sense motive, and then the stealth opposed by perception.

Using GM discretion goes a long way, and that's what they are for anyway, discretion. If a gm feels that the guards ontop of the ramparts 300 feet away get 1,2,3..40 checks as 2 PCs talk quietly moving across a field, then so be it. We've had stealth house ruled to 100% GM discretion for the last year or so anyway, and its worked fairly well.

Calling a similar condition hidden does have its strengths and proponents in the office. I'm not unsympathetic to that. We just have to see if we can make it work with the other goals of this little experiment.

Personally, I favor calling it something different than the "invisible" condition. I mean, we've got so many varying degrees of fearful conditions (i.e., shaken, frightened, panicked), why not create a varying system for creatures in different stages of hiding...(i.e., blurred, hidden, invisible, etc.) with elevated mechanics behind them and specific skills, spells, and extraordinary/spell-like/supernatural abilities that grant those conditions? There'd be something to say for the symmetry (and the precedent) in that. Borrow from the language for lighting conditions, if necessary.

Or, failing that, just change the name of the "invisible" condition to the "hidden" condition. That way, there's no more confusion in associating it with the spell...whether see invisibility counters it...and so on. In other words, for clarity's sake, in terms of wording, it might be better to just call it the "hidden" condition and then change all the references for invisibility and elsewhere to point to that. And, later on, if you want to build off of it by enhancing the "hidden" condition with certain effects corresponding to the various senses (i.e., invisibility for further defeating sight-based opponents, silence for defeating hearing-based opponents, a scent-masking effect to counter the scent ability, a vibration-nullifying effect to counter tremorsense, etc.), you'll still have room for that without the baggage of having the underlying condition still called "invisible" and just having it be sight-based.

Then again, maybe all of this is getting too concrete and you need to stay more abstract with these rules. I'm a detail-oriented person. So, it's easy for me to get down in the weeds and lose sight of the bigger picture. Not all gamers are going to want that level of complexity. But, rules in and of themselves are usually meant to help you define complex situations within the game so they can be consistently applied. This seems like a case where it might be warranted given the amount of confusion and FAQs on the subject of Stealth.

Another two cents,
--Neil

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

I figured that the look on his face reflected his uncertainty regarding the stealth rules and whether moving out from behind that column will automatically alert the formian queen of his presence or not.

"...I've got 6 ranks in stealth, +3 Dex, there's dim light at this end of the room and a -1 penalty to her perception check for every 10-ft. of distance between her and me. Oh wait, I have an armor check penalty... I need at least concealment to attempt stealth so... Crap. Does dim lighting offer concealment? What if she's got darkvision? I bet those big bug eyes of hers grant her Darkvision. Can I take 20 or 10? Crap. Crap. Crap. Why the heck didn't I become a wheelwright like my father wanted?!?"

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but how about changing the wording of the condition of "Invisible" to something like "Imperceptable" ?

Really, the only purpose of granting the "invisible" condition is for making that attack. And it seems it would be easier to do things exactly that way.

Successful stealth means you're unnoticed. Attacking an opponent while unnoticed grants the benefits of being an invisible attacker for purposes of that attack, but also blows your stealth.

Is there any reason to grant the invisible condition generally rather than just for purposes of an unnoticed attack? Because I'm pretty sure you don't want the stealther to enjoy the defensive benefits of the condition, such as the 50% miss chance and +20 bonus to further stealth checks.

I simply ask because from a quick glance treating stealth like the invisibility spell adds other things that seem a bit weird.

As has been pointed out upthread, the proposed rules do NOT treat stealth like the invisibility spell. They let stealth grant the "invisible" condition (which has its own definition elsewhere in the rules). There is a big difference there - one that an ever-growing list of posters is failing to see.

There is nothing in the proposed rules to suggest that the condition granted by stealth parallels the spell invisibility. Every other ability in the game whose effect simulates a spell will call that spell out by name (in italics and everything) and then say something like "as the spell" to indicate the relationship. These proposed rules do not.

The notion that the proposed stealth rules parallel the invisibility spell is the product of careless reading/skimming of the new rules and jumping to conclusions.

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but how about changing the wording of the condition of "Invisible" to something like "Imperceptable" ?

Inconceivable?

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but how about changing the wording of the condition of "Invisible" to something like "Imperceptable" ?

Only about fifteen times per page. ;)

You're definitely in the majority in wanting stealth to grant something other than the "invisible" condition.

Sigil87 wrote:

I simply ask because from a quick glance treating stealth like the invisibility spell adds other things that seem a bit weird.

As has been pointed out upthread, the proposed rules do NOT treat stealth like the invisibility spell. They let stealth grant the "invisible" condition (which has its own definition elsewhere in the rules). There is a big difference there - one that an ever-growing list of posters is failing to see.

There is nothing in the proposed rules to suggest that the condition granted by stealth parallels the spell invisibility. Every other ability in the game whose effect simulates a spell will call that spell out by name (in italics and everything) and then say something like "as the spell" to indicate the relationship. These proposed rules do not.

The notion that the proposed stealth rules parallel the invisibility spell is the product of careless reading/skimming of the new rules and jumping to conclusions.

If most people are reading it wrong, they why not just change it to fix the confusion. Making things less confusing is always better than saying RTFM if its affecting a large 'ever-growing' amount of people.

If most people are reading it wrong, they why not just change it to fix the confusion. Making things less confusing is always better than saying RTFM if its affecting a large 'ever-growing' amount of people.

As much as it pains me to rewrite what's already clear in order to keep "skimmers" from fabricating connections that aren't there, I agree.

Also, I'm in favor of a condition other than "invisible" anyway, so yeah.

jakebacon wrote:

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

I figured that the look on his face reflected his uncertainty regarding the stealth rules and whether moving out from behind that column will automatically alert the formian queen of his presence or not.

"...I've got 6 ranks in stealth, +3 Dex, there's dim light at this end of the room and a -1 penalty to her perception check for every 10-ft. of distance between her and me. Oh wait, I have an armor check penalty... I need at least concealment to attempt stealth so... Crap. Does dim lighting offer concealment? What if she's got darkvision? I bet those big bug eyes of hers grant her Darkvision. Can I take 20 or 10? Crap. Crap. Crap. Why the heck didn't I become a wheelwright like my father wanted?!?"

I'll admit. I chuckled.

Regarding Scent, Tremorsense, Blindsense, Darkvision, etc.

Special vision types can ignore forms of concealment, and can thus pull the rug out from underneath some uses of stealth.

Tremorsense, blindsense, scent etc. are less precise/direct means of detection, like hearing. I propose that, if a special sense is not circumvented (such as flying or becoming incorporeal vs. tremorsense, or masking your odor vs. scent), you get +8 to your perception. If more than one special sense is applicable, add another +2 for each additional one.

===SUMMARY===
applicable special sense: +8
each additional applicable special sense: +2
Special vision type: no bonus, but can negate forms of concealment and thus any stealth based on that concealment.

Visualize it this way:

Game situation
- the spotted rogue move behind a pillar and hide;
- the guard move around the pillar trying to break his concealment;
- the guard fail his perception check and is within 5' of the rogue;
- the rogue make a sneak attack.

RL depiction of the situation:
- the guards see the rogue moving behind the pillar.
- he think the rogue has moved further away or don't want to fight but want to run;
- the guard round the pillar and his startled to find that the rogue is right behind it ready to stab him, for a split second he is incapable to react;
- the rogue stab the guard.

This is very similar to what I imagine when I visualize the guard/rogue/pillar or curtain conundrum. Remember, even though we break rounds up into turns, everything is happening all at once conceptually. So, the rogue ducks behind the pillar, and the guard moves to look for him. On the rogue's turn, either he darts to a new hiding spot(conceptually happened as the guard was moving), or he stabs the guard in the spleen (sneak attack conceptually happens the moment the guard looks around the pillar- yikes rogue!). If the rogue just stands there like a lump during his turn, he is spotted as he no longer has cover/concealment.

We certainly need a clarification that the invisible condition granted by stealth does not itself count as concelament for continuing stealth.

Okay, I've been thinking for a bit about how to introduce a non-ambiguous "hidden" state without changing the word-count or linking invisibility.

Semantically, "hide" "hiding" and "hidden" are superior to "Stealth" "Stealthing" and "Stealthed" (which are not very proper English, BTW). I think the aversion to using the words "hide" and "hidden" in the rule text is to distinguish it from 3.5 Hide, but the simple fact is when someone hides, silence is implicit.

So I think the generic use of stealth to avoid detection should be hide (still part of the Stealth skill mind you).

The rules should be phrased: "When you are hiding..." not "When you are using stealth..."

Using semantically ideal terms at the outset will help to keep things clear and simple down the line.

What I would like to see from the devs is what scenarios they are contemplating when creating the rule.

I like the pillar scenario - it gives me something to build off of. I think Diego did a good job laying it out.

What do you think you should be able to accomplish with stealth? Go from there.

Did a little playtest last night with a couple people. (Was in no way an extensive test, just existing rogue and stealthy monk.) Didn't really click until we banned the question "wait.. how did it work before?"
Once everyone got a good feel for it, it felt pretty intuitive.

At that point we really started wanting two things...
Something similar to what Lore keeper suggested with putting the onus on the observer.
And a mechanic similar to Measure the Mark in cutpurse archetype (APG)... but for stealth. As rogue talent, feat, or archetype class skill.

I would also prefer a situational stealth DC, like:

10 + highest Perception + 2 per additional person.

Put some modifiers in there like:
people aren't looking very hard = -5
guard (dogs) with scent = +8
few covers = +5
open field without any kind of cover = +40 (negated by HIPS)

failure = if you fail by more than 5, you'll be immediatly noticed
if you fail by 5 or less, you'll be noticed after 1d4 rounds.

this way when planning all you need is the "room DC" + "people modifier", all of whom should be static. All rolls are made by GM, that way if you go unnoticed for the first round, you might still be discovered in the fourth round.

a direct check of perception vs stealth should only be for special things like sniping, and only vs the person you are sniping.

Anyhow this is more or less how I houserule it in my games, I like the rogues to do their thing, and I hate rolling for every 6 seconds outside of combat.

Edit: you might also add, that you only go unnoticed for as many rounds as you've beaten the DC before you have to check again.

I REALLY like this approach. This sounds pretty great at first glance. I can't believe no one has commented on it.

I will definitely be making a list of DCs later, followed by conditional modifiers.

I REALLY like this approach. This sounds pretty great at first glance. I can't believe no one has commented on it.

I will definitely be making a list of DCs later, followed by conditional modifiers.

Be sure to share em, pardner.

As has been pointed out upthread, the proposed rules do NOT treat stealth like the invisibility spell. They let stealth grant the "invisible" condition (which has its own definition elsewhere in the rules). There is a big difference there - one that an ever-growing list of posters is failing to see.

Could you explain the difference between the invisibility spell and the invisible condition?

I have serious doubts that action type can be used to define what breaks stealth. There are too many exceptions, too much weirdness.

I would much prefer a short description and a GM leeway clause, something like "any action that interacts with a perceiving character or creates a perceivable incidence renders the character visible." etc.

Leaving it to action types is going to generate a lot of weirdness.

Did a little playtest last night with a couple people. (Was in no way an extensive test, just existing rogue and stealthy monk.) Didn't really click until we banned the question "wait.. how did it work before?"

Once everyone got a good feel for it, it felt pretty intuitive.

At that point we really started wanting two things...
Something similar to what Lore keeper suggested with putting the onus on the observer.
And a mechanic similar to Measure the Mark in cutpurse archetype (APG)... but for stealth. As rogue talent, feat, or archetype class skill.

Sort of like how when Commissioner Gordon is talking to Batman he always thinks Batman is still there, but then turns around and Batman is gone? Batman waited until Gordon was distracted, perhaps using Sense Motive, then hid with stealth.

Measure the mark seems like a bit much to me though.
Edit - Seems like that it would be a rogue talent, at least.

I just found something in the Classc Stealth rules that I had never noticed before.

If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight) you can't use Stealth.

So, by RAW, if the guard knew our example rogue was behind a pillar, he would be watching AND listening for him (for the sounds of weapons being draw, footsteps, maybe verbal spell components). Therefore, the rogue could not stealth because he is being "observed" through sound.

I'm sure most people here already knew that... but for the ones like me who had never noticed, I thought it somewhat relevant to the discussion going on around the rogue being "invisible" behind the pillar.

Quote:

As has been pointed out upthread, the proposed rules do NOT treat stealth like the invisibility spell. They let stealth grant the "invisible" condition (which has its own definition elsewhere in the rules). There is a big difference there - one that an ever-growing list of posters is failing to see.

Could you explain the difference between the invisibility spell and the invisible condition?

Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any).

One of the biggest differences is that the latter grants the former, and it is therefore impossible for them to be the same thing.

Furthermore, invisibility has, as you may have noticed, a much longer description than the condition. As such, things that appear in the description of the spell but not in the description of the condition (such as the +20/+40 bonuses) do not apply to the condition. Similarly, dispel magic can dispel invisibility (which in most cases would indirectly cause the loss of the invisible condition) but cannot dispel the invisible condition - the condition is not inherently magical. Same goes for things like anti-magic fields, etc.

### Cover vs. Concealment ###
Consider these wall spells.

Wall of Fire
Wall of Stone
Wall of Force
Windwall
Illusory Wall

Which would let someone avoid detection from...
- Vision?
- Hearing?
- Scent?
- Tremorsense?

I bring this up because the notion that you need cover for stealth is retarded.
You need concealment for stealth, not cover.

Cover means nothing - look at Wall of Force! It's functionally like a wall of bulletproof glass, providing oodles of cover, but is totally useless to evade visual detection.

Concealment is the ticket to evading detection, and concealment is not universal - different things conceal against different senses.

Windwall conceals against scent, but nothing else.
Wall of Force conceals against some LoE senses.
Wall of Stone conceals against all senses but tremorsense.
Illusory wall conceals against only the vision of those duped by the illusion.
Wall of fire conceals against vision, maybe hearing (white noise of fire), and scent.

Please consider these when assessing all text regarding perception and/or stealth in relation to cover & concealment.

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

You need concealment for stealth, not cover.

This sounds like you think the proposed new rules don't let you use concealment for cover. They do.

If you already knew that, then nevermind. :)

I have serious doubts that action type can be used to define what breaks stealth. There are too many exceptions, too much weirdness.

I would much prefer a short description and a GM leeway clause, something like "any action that interacts with a perceiving character or creates a perceivable incidence renders the character visible." etc.

Leaving it to action types is going to generate a lot of weirdness.

Agreed. Blanketing action types will mean that every time they release a new book, there will be more and more loose ends that need to be wrapped up. New class that can use a move action to do X or Y or Z will be eligible for using Stealth, which might not always make any sense.

Malignor wrote:

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

You need concealment for stealth, not cover.

This sounds like you think the proposed new rules don't let you use concealment for cover. They do.

If you already knew that, then nevermind. :)

Even the old stealth skill said concealment. The rules of cover & concealment deny the use of stealth using concealment in bright light, but allow cover.

That wording let someone hide behind a wall of force in broad daylight; retarded. That wording also did not let someone hide behind a wall of fire in broad daylight; also retarded. It also denied the use of stealth against blind people in broad daylight; also retarded.

The BIG point I'm making is that stealth should be incredibly simple:

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.

Malignor wrote:

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

You need concealment for stealth, not cover.

This sounds like you think the proposed new rules don't let you use concealment for cover. They do.

His point is that it's only concealment, not cover that should matter for stealth. Something that grants cover but not concealment (like a wall of force) should not allow stealth.

My problem with that, is that the transparent barrier is an edge case. Generally, cover also conceals, but cover represents things that they want to give an AC bonus rather than a miss chance. We wouldn't want the wall granting cover to also grant concealment; that's messy and unnecessary. So the rules allow for both.

1) Don't use invisible. You could easily use 'undetected', and avoid unwanted interactions with existing rules/spells etc. Also undetected covers sight/smell/tremor sense etc. they are undetected, plain and simple.

2) Keep the number of checks low and allow GM's to use discretion. For every action type you say triggers a stealth check, players will find 1,000,000 particular version of that action shouldn't cause a stealth check. I think Raving_dork has the right idea, "Any time an action could cause you to become detected ...".

3) Bluff should be opposed by sense motive. If someone makes a bluff check, that gets opposed by sense motive, and then the stealth opposed by perception.

Using GM discretion goes a long way, and that's what they are for anyway, discretion. If a gm feels that the guards ontop of the ramparts 300 feet away get 1,2,3..40 checks as 2 PCs talk quietly moving across a field, then so be it. We've had stealth house ruled to 100% GM discretion for the last year or so anyway, and its worked fairly well.

The above points CANNOT be emphasized enough and thus bear repeating.

The BIG point I'm making is that stealth should be incredibly simple:

Stealth uses concealment to avoid detection.

Concealment is relative to the observer, based on their senses in relation to the concealing effect/object.

Some senses detect without negating the miss chances of concealment, such as scent, hearing, tremorsense and blindsense. These can also be circumvented/negated through planning, magic or circumstance.

My only problem with this, is that concealment is a specific condition that grants a miss chance.

Unless you're wanting all opaque objects that grant cover to also grant a miss chance, we need to find some way to say what you said above using a term other than concealment.

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.

Quote:

As has been pointed out upthread, the proposed rules do NOT treat stealth like the invisibility spell. They let stealth grant the "invisible" condition (which has its own definition elsewhere in the rules). There is a big difference there - one that an ever-growing list of posters is failing to see.

Could you explain the difference between the invisibility spell and the invisible condition?

Taking advantage of the situation to make a really bad joke: So it would seem that Invisibility's perception DC was too high?

BOOOO!

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

My only problem with this, is that concealment is a specific condition that grants a miss chance.

Unless you're wanting all opaque objects that grant cover to also grant a miss chance, we need to find some way to say what you said above using a term other than concealment.

I see your dilemma. It would be easy to just have the 20% become the chance of hitting the cover instead, wouldn't it? Nevermind

Maybe an idea is to distinguish them thus:

"Cover often also functions as concealment, but only for the purposes of stealth and perception. Cover alone does not grant a concealment-based miss chance (though successfully using stealth behind cover does)."

Examples can include:
- Wall of Force
- Illusory Wall
- Using a masonry wall as cover, while in a fog

I think those 3 examples can clarify while covering corner cases.

Richard Leonhart wrote:

I would also prefer a situational stealth DC, like:

10 + highest Perception + 2 per additional person.

Put some modifiers in there like:
people aren't looking very hard = -5
guard (dogs) with scent = +8
few covers = +5
open field without any kind of cover = +40 (negated by HIPS)

failure = if you fail by more than 5, you'll be immediatly noticed
if you fail by 5 or less, you'll be noticed after 1d4 rounds.

this way when planning all you need is the "room DC" + "people modifier", all of whom should be static. All rolls are made by GM, that way if you go unnoticed for the first round, you might still be discovered in the fourth round.

a direct check of perception vs stealth should only be for special things like sniping, and only vs the person you are sniping.

Anyhow this is more or less how I houserule it in my games, I like the rogues to do their thing, and I hate rolling for every 6 seconds outside of combat.

examples: people aren't looking very hard = -5 -aready covered under perception.
guard (dogs) with scent = +8 - included in the creature's stat block

I would like to see some bonuses/penalties for types of cover. These things tend to bog down the game in actual play though, as people have to grab the book for reference every time they want to use stealth, instead of just winging it.

Edit: you might also add, that you only go unnoticed for as many rounds as you've beaten the DC before you have to check again.

I REALLY like this approach. This sounds pretty great at first glance. I can't believe no one has commented on it.

I will definitely be making a list of DCs later, followed by conditional modifiers.

The problem with these situation modifiers is that they are often covered elsewhere

I would not mind seeing a list of terrain modifiers, but that makes stealth much harder to adjucated and bogs down the game as the book needs to be constantly referenced.