Stealth Playtest

actually I would like that stealth is undetectable for most simple magic means. Mainly those that scan the area, not scrying to find the person.

Reason:
Casters can already get a +20 to +40 on stealth by casting invisibility just like that. Don't let them get +20 on perception to spot the rogue.

If I remember correctly the 3.5 rogue had the problem that the wizard could do everything he could, and better. The PF rogue only has the ninjas stealth abilities that beats his simple sneak (mostly), especially at lvl 20.

I don't ask for an antimagic aura on the rogue, but if the "general anti-surprise-spells" could that heavily interfere with the rogue, well then sneak-attack is pretty much all that's left. I mean even as it is, the rogue can't stealth for the rest of his party, the wizard can mass invisibility everyone.

Anyhow, I'm a rogue-fan, and I may be biased.

Quote:

So then is stealth to be undetectable to anyone anytime? You just vanish *poof*, you are gone, no magic can detect you, no spells reveal you... because there are none that work with this new condition we've added to the game.

Fight steel with steel, magic with magic. If someone turns invisible you cast invisibility purge. If someone hides, you LOOK.

It's really easy to ramp up a skill in Pathfinder to ridiculously high levels. After a certain point any sort of opposed check becomes "I win" unless you run into another person who hyper focuses on the counter ability. To make things worse, there are a lot more magic items in the game that boost stealth than perception.

If it were a matter of designing a new game it would be simple, you could account for it, build NPCs up with that in mind, people could build PCs with that in mind. As it stands, this is essentially a new thing. It either needs to maintain the existing counters (doesn't work in normal light or against darkvision), or it needs to have some effective counters that exist in the game already (invisibility purge, etc...).

It's really easy to ramp up a skill in Pathfinder to ridiculously high levels. After a certain point any sort of opposed check becomes "I win" unless you run into another person who hyper focuses on the counter ability. To make things worse, there are a lot more magic items in the game that boost stealth than perception.

Ok, but is this really a bad thing? I mean shouldn't a stealth focused character with a maxed out stealth skill, uber dex, cloak of elven kind, and a potion of stealth be able to.. you know.. stealth somewhere?

As long as the rules can avoid an infinite stealth loop they should be fine.

And they couldn't do this with the invisibility condition?

What SRM proposed is far more useful than the current version of stealth, essentially bumps it to being comparable or better than the best skills in the game. You want more?

While I'm not a savant on everything PF, I believe there is a ton of things that help perception, like scent, blindsense and all those things.
Also on nearly every classbuild-guide I've read, perception was blue because you just want to see the enemy before he sees you.

A rogue with maxed out stealth still has to be beat every single perception check thrown at him, because if one person sees him, he's normally loosing his stealth very fast.

But perhaps we could find a compromise: see invisibility negates every magical help to stealth for example. So you can't use cloak of elvenkind, but still most feats like skill focus.

I mean most guards should be well trained in perception but not in magic. Should mages take away their job?

Invisible
Not visible

These are completely different things that only explain a portion of the actions behind the skill known as stealth.

Examples:

- Harry Potter is using his cloak to sneak around. He is both invisible and not visible to most observers.

- Ron is trying to hide behind a curtains/a barrel/some pillars/a suit of dress armor. Unless he starts sneezing like a madman he is not visible to most observers in that area. If he stays completely in place while totally quiet and someone walks over to pull open the curtains he is not automagically invisible.

Use of the word invisible for the sake of working along with the conditions in the game does not have to be done when codifying how someone/thing tries to be sneaky (hidden while silent as to go unnoticed) in various environments.

Stealth as a whole is such a blanket type of system with so many conditionals at this point that to redefine it requires the use of rewording certain things. The use of such words as hidden or unnoticed would probably be the most viable choices to use in the context of explaining stealth without a need for expansion into the conditions section.

Perception in relation to Stealth
Perception as the opposing skill already has information that should get folded into the Stealth skill text to fortify the opposing skills.

Distance to the source, object, or creature: +1 DC/10 feet

The Stealth skill has no minimum distance in it. Perception as above has a 10 foot distance as the minimum until penalties start to appear. This seems like a good minimum distance for someone to be hidden from one person depending on the various factors involved in such an interaction between 2 parties. The reverse is not covered in relation to a penalty for getting closer to a target that has not noticed you. Distance from a target is most often the best factor involved when trying to go unnoticed. Since there is no mention of this in the Stealth skill, it requires the knowledge of the Perception skill as a whole to bridge the relation of the two. Two way skill entries need to work off of each other and are probably best if they are worded to cover each other.

It is late and this might have turned into a ramble. I just had to get those thoughts out since this reply box has been open for a few hours now and I just got around to being able to finally type this out. Some additional thoughts on facing/flanking, advancing/retreating, and so forth will have to wait until later when I am not pretending to go to sleep.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Is perfectly covered by the rogue finding a spot where he is hidden by some furniture, pillar or other item and then snaking aroudn the battle to find the gizmo. So it is perfectly doable with teh current rules.

Your rogue instead seem to be capable to disappear while in the middle of a bare room simply because the combatant ate "distracted".

I see where the confusion is then.

You seem to think that I'm saying a rogue can effectively "hide" (in the strictest sense) in a room because people are distracted. In a way, what I'm saying is that the rogue is ALREADY hidden because he is only being observed by means other than sight. If you're fighting a man, you don't really want to take your eyes off of him. You agreed with me already that perfect combat awareness is impossible. Hence why I say the rogue has a chance to already be going unnoticed. The stealth check I am calling for is for cues other than sight (foot falls, armor-induced noises, etc).

Perhaps a good example would be to say that a rogue and fighter are flanking an orc. The rogue is also flanked by another orc. In game, the orc between the fighter and rogue should be considered reasonably distracted. The rogue, by my reckoning, could make a stealth check opposed by the flanked orc, even though the orc flanking HIM can still see him.

The idea is that stealth is subjective to the observer.

Vendis is the one who thinks you need a way to vanish mid-combat.

EDIT: Gotta go to work. I'll be back to argue some more tonight around 10:30 CST. :D Keep this discussion going strong, Forumites!

Again you start with a reasonable argument and then fall again into this "hiding" in the middle of combat idea.

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)?

In the situation you depicted the orc is desperately trying to maneuver in a way that allow him too keep both assailants in his sight, while the assailants are trying to get to his blind side, but none of them will disappear from his awareness without the use of some magical or pseudo magical power.

They aren't guys entering the fray from surprise, they are already detected guys staying there.

As far as I can see you are trying to get a benefit to which you aren't entitled.

The mechanic you want in your example is perfectly covered by the flanking rules.

I read Jiggy's summary, and it did not contain my 2 biggest gripes.

These rules do nothing to address the invisibility/total concealment disparity. If I am in a fog cloud, 10 feet from my opponent, I make a stealth vs perception check. If I cast invisibility, I get +20 to my stealth check, even though my opponent does not have line of sight to me. Total concealment from any source should grant the same bonus as being invisible.

Second, the bonus for being invisible is way out of line with bonuses from similar spells. Vanish is a level 1 spell that grants +20/+40 to stealth for up to 5 rounds. Invisibility gives you a +20/+40 to stealth for 1 minute per level. Innocence is a level 1 spell that gives a +10 to a limited group of bluff checks. Crafter's fortune is a level 1 spell that gives a +5 to craft checks. Glibness is a level 3 bard spell that gives +20 to bluff checks. I hate that a level 3 wizard can cast a single spell and out sneak a level 8 rogue. The bonus to stealth from invisibility should be about half what is currently is based on the bonuses granted by similar spells.

While Crafter's fortune isn't a valid paragon, the argument is solid.

A +10 to the check while moving and a +20 if immobile sound right, and it should be applied against visual perception every time the hiding character benefit from total concealment.

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

-Or to come at someone from an unsuspecting angle. Sometimes the fighter has charged up to meet the foes and you can't move around to the other side, sometimes the druids animal companion is in the middle of something you'd rather avoid, and sometimes the BBGED keeps his keister to the wall and a mook at his side.

So with stealth you want to do what the ninja does with their trick, vanish, and pop out of the shadows with a backstab because flanking isn't guaranteed.

So I place myself in a position where people can approach me only from my frontal arc, in plain sight, and a guy should be capable of disappearing from mi sight, walk in front of me and sneak attack me without the use of magic or some supernatural power?

There are tricks to do that but they aren't based on the capacity to hide your whole body.

They are based on the capacity to move faster than expected and attack from a strange angle (acrobatics)
or the capacity to draw a hidden weapon with your left hand while I am concentrated on your main hand (sleight of hand and /or bluff).

Making those tricks dependant on stealth will cheapen the other skills and make stealth more powerful.

Jiggy wrote:

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

Could you elaborate on this ?

Because :

1) RAW : "Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10". How would you argue that attempting to sneak past opponents does not include distractions or threats (of being detected for example) ?

Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. ... Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10.

Threats are things that are currently threatening you, not negative consequences of failing the skill roll. You can't take 20 if failing the roll has negative consequences, but you can take 10.

Your guy goal is to stay undetected. So his attention is on being stealthy. You can say that he is distracted by the need to stay hidden if he is using UMD, but not while using his stealth skill.
If your guy get distracted by what is his main goal so easily ... he has better change his profession.

2) Even if you could take 10, and unless your Stealth modifier is at least +10 over your opponent's Perception modifier (an unlikely event in most appropriate CR encounters), one opponent is bound to spot your stealthy Halfling (ie roll a nat 20) if he moves 60 meters (20 checks). If you have 2 opponents (usual guard configuration), make that 30 meters (10 checks each also makes 20 checks total).

Note that I am talking about sneaking past sentries here, ie opponents who are actively searching for something and thus do not use the "Take 10 on Perception" routine.

Why the sentries should roll and not take 10?

Unless they are already on the alert for a intruder, taking 10 is the most logic thing to do.
They are spending hours on duty. Taking 10 is the "non-stressful" way to go when you have a long term thing to do and want to do it well.

Even if you are on full alert, taking 10 against most intruders is the safest way to go if you have at least a little faith in your perception skill.
"Rolling" each round mean that you can easily roll low when the conditions are favourable while you can roll useless high results when the conditions are bad enough that you can't get a success.

Taking 10 represent the act of going around doing something in a methodical way. Exactly what a guard should do.

Following the whim to go and look behind that bush can give allow you to find the hiding guy (rolling high but can allow him to bypass your position easily (rolling low). Taking 10 make you reasonable hard to be bypassed while avoiding the risk of a mishap.

I've only read the first page and this one, but here're my thoughts:

First: The post doesn't mention what's wrong with the Stealth skill to begin with. That makes it really difficult to understand what's going on.

Second: The post doesn't point out what has been changed. Now I have to cross check the proposed version with the current version to find out what the changes are.

Third: I completely agree with the arguments that Stealth should not make you invisible.

Fourth: Why does Stealth suddenly require all those types of action? In the past Stealth was "I try now to be sneaky and take certain penalties for as long as I do".

Fifth: Supposed there is a new Stealth mechanic. How would it be integrated into the game? We already have a bunch of books that reference the old mechanic.

Sixth: What's that Ant-Thing in the picture? ^^

Sixth: What's that Ant-Thing in the picture? ^^

It's from an Adventure...

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".

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

Stealth is great for avoiding combat, but there are many purposes to it during combat too.

* Sneaking about, getting within range and firing off that first bow / crossbow shot with backstab damage.

* Sneak up behind an opponent and grapple them while they are unaware of you. Great way to take an enemy guard while trying to sneak into a complex.

* Confusing the enemy by constantly ducking in and out of hiding in different areas (requires cover and bluff to really be effective).

And more. A properly used Stealth skill can dominate a battlefield, though I have not see many players with this skill actually use it in any creative ways, just the ol' stand by of sneak past or not be noticed at the start of the fight.

@BNW: What about trying to break off combat and run and hide?

What if the enemies noticed your friends but not you and you are maneuvering for an ideal position?

You can't rule out stealth as soon as the combat rounds starts. No other skill works like that; at worst, they just take too long to be relevant in combat.

What I always liked to see is an official rule to run out of sight during combat and then suddenly reappear from an unexpected direction. In an empty room, this isn't possible, and when you run out through a door and come back through the same door, nobody would really be suprised.

But supposed you're fighting in a forest and a rogue runs into the underbrush and suddenly reappears from a completely different direction, he should be able to sneak attack an enemy, who had been in melee with another PC the whole time.

Jiggy wrote:

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

Could you elaborate on this ?

Because :

1) RAW : "Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10". How would you argue that attempting to sneak past opponents does not include distractions or threats (of being detected for example) ?

No, these do not prevent taking 10. Until they actively attack you, you can take 10. The threat of being threatened is not enough to prevent taking 10.

The example of taking 10 in the 3.5 core rulebook was climbing over a deadly precipise. They could take 10 until a goblin came out and started shooting at them. This is the same thing. The threat of falling to your death is not enough to prevent you from taking 10, therefore the threat of being detected by guards is not enough.

2) Even if you could take 10, and unless your Stealth modifier is at least +10 over your opponent's Perception modifier (an unlikely event in most appropriate CR encounters), one opponent is bound to spot your stealthy Halfling (ie roll a nat 20) if he moves 60 meters (20 checks). If you have 2 opponents (usual guard configuration), make that 30 meters (10 checks each also makes 20 checks total).

Note that I am talking about sneaking past sentries here, ie opponents who are actively searching for something and thus do not use the "Take 10 on Perception" routine.

Its really not hard to get 10 over a standard mook sentry's perception check if you want to invest in it. That halfling rogue at lvl 1 has at least a +9 (1 point +3 class +4 size +1 racial dex,) and likely has a +11-13 from higher dex. Your standard town guards have a +0 to +4 (caravan guard +4, city gaurd +3, foot soldier +0 from Game Mastery Guide), and typical monsters will not fair much better (kobold +5, orc/goblin -1). Some of the animals may be an issue, but they should be (dog +8 + scent). All this before you start to add in distance penalties (-1 perception for 10 ft), distraction (-5, not applicable if actively searching) or anything else you may want to throw in.

A rogue is attempting to unlock a chest in a storeroom when a guard walks in and spots him. The rogue on his first move action dives behind a barrel. On his second move action, he makes a successful Stealth check and moves behind a second barrel. The guard moves to the first barrel and does not spot the rogue behind it. He moves to a third barrel and does not spot the rogue behind it.

If this were a Looney Tunes cartoon, the audience would see the rogue poke his head up from behind his barrel and duck down. The guard would move to that barrel and the rogue would poke his head up from behind another barrel. Neither the guard nor the audience would see the rogue dart between barrels.

New!stealth reminds me of those cartoons. The hidng rogue is not simply hidden from the guard, he is invisible to everybody, except when he fails his Stealth check. Even poking his head up fits these rules: he tried to move, failed his Stealth check at the beginning of the move, which is represented by poking his head up, and decided to remain in place on his move action so that he would still be behind cover for his second move action.

By the way, is the rogue allowed to cut short his move action once he fails his Stealth check? In a game, it could be that the rogue was scouting ahead of the party, tries to stealthily slip past the doorway of the guard room and walk silently to the end of the hallway, and fails his Stealth check. Does the rogue have to finish walking to the end of the hallway, or is he allowed to freeze once he leaves cover and sees he has been spotted by the guards staring at him, or even dart back to his original position?

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.

The thing is, this can be done with the new rules by using a bluff check. I think that should be the way it is handled. I would like to see a feat/rogue tallent to reduce the action cost of using this down to a swift action.

As far as being able to stealth in the middle of the combat with no cover, I think it should be allowed. You basically do not draw attention to yourself, and opponents are too focused on something else to realize that you are a threat. They may see you, but they don't notice what you are doing/consider you a priority.
1. This would still be an opposed check.
2. Anyone not immediately distracted by other things would not be fooled at all.

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.

Since there will be some additional confusion added to the game if stealth grants the invisibility condition why not just simply call out that a hidden character gains the same bonuses as the invisibility condition? Would that satisfy the need without complicating things?

I guess my biggest problem with calling it invisibility, is the issues it causes with other spells/abilities that allows to negate or see someone who is invisible.

I can separate the invisible condition compared to the invisibility spell/supernatural ability (i.e. not be confused), but I don’t want See Invisibility, Invisibility Purge, True Seeing and other spells/abilities that affect the invisibility spell/supernatural ability to affect one associated with stealth. They are ‘not’ the same. One is mundane, the other is magical.

As long as those invisibility interactive spells do not interact with invisible condition, I can live with calling it that.

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.

The thing is, this can be done with the new rules by using a bluff check. I think that should be the way it is handled. I would like to see a feat/rogue tallent to reduce the action cost of using this down to a swift action.

As far as being able to stealth in the middle of the combat with no cover, I think it should be allowed. You basically do not draw attention to yourself, and opponents are too focused on something else to realize that you are a threat. They may see you, but they don't notice what you are doing/consider you a priority.
1. This would still be an opposed check.
2. Anyone not immediately distracted by other things would not be fooled at all.

This is a great point. The skill check opposed to Stealth is "Perception" not "Sight". You may have the eyes of an eagle, but if you're not paying attention you still wouldn't notice the rogue sneaking away from battle.

I think the biggest thing that needs changed in these new rules is that Stealth should not confer the "invisibility" condition, it should be a new condition, such as "hidden", which simply means that you are not currently being perceived by any opponents in the vicinity. "Invisible" is too tied in in people's minds to the spell invisibility.

They aren't going to add facing to the game, so if you're already in combat then you're not gonna suddenly disappear and get a sneak attack, unless you have Hide in Plain Sight (same as it was before). This is FINE! If you're in combat and don't want to run away, you'll have to use the flanking mechanics to get your sneak attack, as it was intended in the first place.

I DO think that other characters in your party should be able to attempt to distract enemies for you, as in the rogue shouldn't have to use his own Bluff check for the distraction if the fighter is standing right next to a dude and uses Intimidate. I think that Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate would all be reasonable skills that one person could use to distract an enemy from another. If allowing other characters to distract for the rogue seems too complex, then you could just use the "Aid Another" mechanic, where the Fighter can aid the rogue on his Stealth checks, even from across the room, by making his own check using any of those Charisma-based skills I mentioned above. The bonus to the rogue's Stealth check would be a competence bonus, which would stack from multiple party members aiding him.

My example: A level 5 party of four is fighting an Orc cleric, who is the vassal of a very old, very angry wizard sitting on a throne, protected by a spell that deflects all projectiles, so the archer is not helpful there. The fighter and bard are on the battlefield, directly fighting the Orc, but the rogue in the party has decided to sneak over to the wizard's throne and try to choke him to death (grapple with a small piece of rope and use the Strangler feat to deal his sneak damage each round that he continues to grapple). There are various large columns on either side of the room, let's say they're 10 feet apart. If the wizard was specifically watching for the rogue, you'd be screwed. However, the fighter and the bard are going to try to distract both the Orc and the wizard, giving the rogue time to sneak up there.

The player running the fighter declares he's going to attempt to aid the rogue's sneak attempts. He does so by attempting to intimidate the Orc cleric, distracting him. He rolls a 19 against the Orc's intimidate DC of 16, so the Orc is distracted, and the rogue gains a +2 on his next Stealth check. (NOTE: This would NOT give the Orc the "shaken" condition, because this Intimidate check was ONLY meant to aid the rogue. It can't also do something else.)

It's the bard's turn, and he decides he'll ALSO aid the rogue during his turn. He can't attack the wizard, so instead he'll use his standard action to attempt a Bluff check against the wizard's Sense Motive to make him focus on the bard. He rolls a 22 (thanks to his +5 to Charisma) against an opposed check of 17, so the wizard is distracted by the bard. The rogue gains another +2 to his next stealth check. The bard was also using his "Inspire competence" bardic performance, giving the rogue another +2 to the check.

The rogue's turn comes, his opponents are nicely distracted, so he takes a 10 on his stealth check to move at his normal speed to the next available pillar, giving him something like a 23 (let's say 10 + 5 ranks + 3 trained + 1 size + 2 bardic performance + 4 circumstance). Since neither the wizard nor the Orc are actively looking for the rogue, the DC to remain hidden during his movement action would be equal to 10 + the higher bonus of the two opponents (as if they were both automatically taking 10 on an opposed Perception check), which would be something like 19 or so (10 + 7 ranks + 2 Wisdom for the wizard). The rogue beats the DC, so he is hidden for his entire move action.

The next time it's the fighter's turn, he decides he wants to make a full attack, so he does not give the rogue the +2 bonus from "aid another" on the rogue's next stealth check. This continues until either the rogue is spotted trying to sneak up there by one of the two opponents, or until he starts the grapple on the unaware wizard, which automatically stops his "hidden" condition.

Phew! Lots of writing. Does all of that make sense?

ACK!

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

<----- Is from Foghammer, with the Jaguar Kitty icon, not me. Someone quoted me quoting him as me giving the statement. Ahhh .. the chaos of internet battle...

Fozbek wrote:

Dennis Baker wrote:

Quote:

2) Unusual Senses : Invisibility does not work against tremmor sense, and other unusual senses. Stealth does. Invisibility ONLY works against sight.

Maybe tremorsense *shouldn't* work against stealth? (unless you are flying)

What about hearing? Because as written, Stealth no longer includes Move Silently. Invisibility only protects you from being SEEN, and that's it. If it's changed to also protect you from being HEARD, that changes way, way too many things; creatures, spells, items, etc.

And, as has already been mentioned several times, it has really funny interactions with spells. For example, invisibility purge would provide absolute automatic no-save no-check Stealth prevention in a 25-100 foot radius. For minutes per level.

Invisibility is a bad choice precisely because there are already a lot of things that hook into it. All of the things that currently hook into it consider it to be "auto-win visual-only Stealth", so having non- auto-win, non- visual Stealth hook into it adds way too many additional points of interaction to be a good idea.

So then is stealth to be undetectable to anyone anytime? You just vanish *poof*, you are gone, no magic can detect you, no spells reveal you... because there are none that work with this new condition we've added to the game.

That's the big problem I see, maybe invisibility isn't perfect, but it's something people know how to deal with.

Currently continual light reveals all stealth so why should invisibility purge not work (instead)?

I think a big part of the problem is there was so little agreement on what role stealth actually had in the game previously.

Oddly enough most of the seeing invisibility spells work against the condition invisible, not the spell invisibility. True seeing, see invisibility, and even invisibility purge all have clauses that counter the invisibility condition. (invisibility purge is odd in that it counters both the spell invisibility in the first sentence and the condition invisible in the second sentence). So as written there are a variety of spells that can hose a rogue.

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.

The thing is, this can be done with the new rules by using a bluff check. I think that should be the way it is handled. I would like to see a feat/rogue tallent to reduce the action cost of using this down to a swift action.

This is also what I have been saying. I knew it was already possible, despite whatever odd verb tenses I might have been using to throw people off. I think this is the only valid use of stealth in combat, personally. Any other use (IE: sneaking up behind a guard to grapple him, as mentioned elsewhere) is technically outside of combat. Combat doesn't begin until the surprise grapple.

As far as being able to stealth in the middle of the combat with no cover, I think it should be allowed. You basically do not draw attention to yourself, and opponents are too focused on something else to realize that you are a threat. They may see you, but they don't notice what you are doing/consider you a priority.

1. This would still be an opposed check.
2. Anyone not immediately distracted by other things would not be fooled at all.

This is what I was arguing for, and I also believe this is already possible. I think the point of contention here is that I think combat is a distraction already and Diego does not.

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.

ACK!

Quote:

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

<----- Is from Foghammer, with the Jaguar Kitty icon, not me. Someone quoted me quoting him as me giving the statement. Ahhh .. the chaos of internet battle...

It's okay. Internet battles can be distracting. ;D

He stated they're using the "Invisible" condition to make it easier to remember any modifications, it is NOT invisibility, per say.

Well, I don`t know that we know what the full intention is there, much less if that intention is fixed in stone... I would say I doubt that they really intend See Invisibility to counter Stealth (rather than just negate any bonus to Stealth for Invisibility effects, along with the full concealment and other minor effects that Invisibility normally provides).

See Invisibility (and the like) are magicks that pierce through illusions that conceal. The idea of being stealthy is your movement is so inconspicuous, the targets simply just don't perceive you yet. See Invisibility and the like don't increase your Perception, they just unveil what's magically hidden from sight.

Stealth isn't magical, it's a skill. Meaning you've mastered methods and techniques to stay out of sight and to move with little to no noise in order for your enemy to accept you as nothing to notice as any threat (or to not notice you at all). See Invisibility has nothing to do with that.

Right... Mostly, with the exception that Invisibility doesn`t need to be Illusion magic, or even magical at all (i.e. Extraordinary Invisibility). I mean, in real-world terms, that is magic, but not in game terms :-)

...I think a new draft of the rules, possibly with broader scope in looking at other sub-systems (if not every single one for the purposes of a blog/play-test) is what is needed at this point... It doesn`t sound like people have any more insights on potential issues/opportunites.

Oddly enough most of the seeing invisibility spells work against the condition invisible, not the spell invisibility. True seeing, see invisibility, and even invisibility purge all have clauses that counter the invisibility condition. (invisibility purge is odd in that it counters both the spell invisibility in the first sentence and the condition invisible in the second sentence). So as written there are a variety of spells that can hose a rogue.

Right, and that’s what I don’t want to see. There is no reason to make it so a caster negate someone’s stealth ‘completely’ just from one spell.

And this is coming from someone who usually plays caster and has never played a rogue.

Oddly enough most of the seeing invisibility spells work against the condition invisible, not the spell invisibility. True seeing, see invisibility, and even invisibility purge all have clauses that counter the invisibility condition. . (invisibility purge is odd in that it counters both the spell invisibility in the first sentence and the condition invisible in the second sentence). So as written there are a variety of spells that can hose a rogue.

This is exactly my point. The problem is people are talking about inventing some other new condition which those spells don't apply to. All the advantages of actual invisibility but none of the counters.

Lab_Rat wrote:

Oddly enough most of the seeing invisibility spells work against the condition invisible, not the spell invisibility. True seeing, see invisibility, and even invisibility purge all have clauses that counter the invisibility condition. . (invisibility purge is odd in that it counters both the spell invisibility in the first sentence and the condition invisible in the second sentence). So as written there are a variety of spells that can hose a rogue.

This is exactly my point. The problem is people are talking about inventing some other new condition which those spells don't apply to. All the advantages of actual invisibility but none of the counters.

Uh, no. Those spells currently do nothing against a hiding rogue. Why should a change in the stealth rules make those spells more powerful by making them magical automatic skill check bypassers to detect hiding rogues? Especially when a major design goal for the original core rulebook was to remove spells that automatically solve encounters for you?

And you're ignoring the fact that invisible is not inaudible, either in the current rules or the proposed changed rules, which means that using Stealth only covers the 3.5 Stealth skill under the proposed rule, not Move Silently (or any other form of making yourself hard to detect). Which, again, goes directly against one of the main design goals of Pathfinder, the consolidation of skills.

So as written there are a variety of spells that can hose a rogue.

Like Daylight?

Lab_Rat wrote:

So as written there are a variety of spells that can hose a rogue.

Like Daylight?

"Hey, there are already spells that hose hiding, so let's just add some more new ones (that are already excellent spells in their own rights) just for the hell of it! BRILLIANT!"

Yeah, no, pass.

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.

Unless a creature has 'all around' vision I don't think it should get an auto-I-detect-you. I know there is no facing but it doesn't mean we have to treat everything as always being aware of everything in LOS.

Heck, you can scan a crowd of people from five feet away and still not see your wife standing there looking pissed at you...

Dennis Baker wrote:

Lab_Rat wrote:

Oddly enough most of the seeing invisibility spells work against the condition invisible, not the spell invisibility. True seeing, see invisibility, and even invisibility purge all have clauses that counter the invisibility condition. . (invisibility purge is odd in that it counters both the spell invisibility in the first sentence and the condition invisible in the second sentence). So as written there are a variety of spells that can hose a rogue.

This is exactly my point. The problem is people are talking about inventing some other new condition which those spells don't apply to. All the advantages of actual invisibility but none of the counters.

Uh, no. Those spells currently do nothing against a hiding rogue. Why should a change in the stealth rules make those spells more powerful by making them magical automatic skill check bypassers to detect hiding rogues? Especially when a major design goal for the original core rulebook was to remove spells that automatically solve encounters for you?

And you're ignoring the fact that invisible is not inaudible, either in the current rules or the proposed changed rules, which means that using Stealth only covers the 3.5 Stealth skill under the proposed rule, not Move Silently (or any other form of making yourself hard to detect). Which, again, goes directly against one of the main design goals of Pathfinder, the consolidation of skills.

Had another reply all typed up and was going to post, but Fozbek said it better.

+100

Had another reply all typed up and was going to post, but Fozbek said it better.

+100

This was why I stopped arguing. It felt like Dennis wanted spells to counter stealth because he feels it's too easy to boost skills. Thus his like of actual Invisibility status for stealth, since there's so much that counters it. Since I really hate that concept, and I wanted to keep the conversation polite, I just quit responding. Thanks to Fozbek for finding a way to say it without all the insults I would have used. :)

+1,000,000,000,000,000,000

Besides, there are already spells that counter stealth quite successfully.
Faerie Fire
Glitterdust

Dennis Baker wrote:

Lab_Rat wrote:

Oddly enough most of the seeing invisibility spells work against the condition invisible, not the spell invisibility. True seeing, see invisibility, and even invisibility purge all have clauses that counter the invisibility condition. . (invisibility purge is odd in that it counters both the spell invisibility in the first sentence and the condition invisible in the second sentence). So as written there are a variety of spells that can hose a rogue.

This is exactly my point. The problem is people are talking about inventing some other new condition which those spells don't apply to. All the advantages of actual invisibility but none of the counters.

Uh, no. Those spells currently do nothing against a hiding rogue. Why should a change in the stealth rules make those spells more powerful by making them magical automatic skill check bypassers to detect hiding rogues? Especially when a major design goal for the original core rulebook was to remove spells that automatically solve encounters for you?

I was talking about the new version of the ability, not the current version of the ability.

Current Version:

Hobbun wrote:

Had another reply all typed up and was going to post, but Fozbek said it better.

+100

This was why I stopped arguing. It felt like Dennis wanted spells to counter stealth because he feels it's too easy to boost skills. Thus his like of actual Invisibility status for stealth, since there's so much that counters it. Since I really hate that concept, and I wanted to keep the conversation polite, I just quit responding. Thanks to Fozbek for finding a way to say it without all the insults I would have used. :)

+1,000,000,000,000,000,000

Because it IS ridiculously easy to ramp up skills. I'm not in love with invisibility. I just don't care for this whole "I WIN" ability that can't be countered at all.

Now: I cast light -> Rogue can't sneak attack me as long as I'm not next to cover/ concealment.
Proposed: ....!

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.

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.

I quite like the sound of this.

Because it IS ridiculously easy to ramp up skills. I'm not in love with invisibility. I just don't care for this whole "I WIN" ability that can't be countered at all.

Now: I cast light -> Rogue can't sneak attack me as long as I'm not next to cover/ concealment.
Proposed: ....!

But if the player is willing to spend the ranks, get the feats and take the class abilities, why shouldn’t he/she have a high Stealth?

You talk about it being easy to raise a skill, it’s even easier for a caster to cast a spell 2nd level spell to completely negate that Invisible condition. And unlike ‘ramping up the skill', it doesn’t take all that many levels.

Fozbek wrote:

Dennis Baker wrote:

Lab_Rat wrote:

Oddly enough most of the seeing invisibility spells work against the condition invisible, not the spell invisibility. True seeing, see invisibility, and even invisibility purge all have clauses that counter the invisibility condition. . (invisibility purge is odd in that it counters both the spell invisibility in the first sentence and the condition invisible in the second sentence). So as written there are a variety of spells that can hose a rogue.

This is exactly my point. The problem is people are talking about inventing some other new condition which those spells don't apply to. All the advantages of actual invisibility but none of the counters.

Uh, no. Those spells currently do nothing against a hiding rogue. Why should a change in the stealth rules make those spells more powerful by making them magical automatic skill check bypassers to detect hiding rogues? Especially when a major design goal for the original core rulebook was to remove spells that automatically solve encounters for you?

I was talking about the new version of the ability, not the current version of the ability.

Current Version:

Doesn't work in normal light

Ignores invisibility detection spells can be scryed or detected by other means though

Can be countered with continual light or by simply looking removing the cover/ concealment.

Proposed Version:

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

Can be detected as if it were invisibility

Cannot be countered with lighting the room you are in.

If you are eliminating the existing counters, you need to replace them with something else (or just don't eliminate them).

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 levels? And let's be blunt, +20 to Perception is pretty much automatic at level 3 (see invisibility) to 5 (invisibility purge).

And you STILL havn't addressed the fact that Invisibility only covers sight, so it's impossible to move silently under the new rules (or it will cause a massive cascade of unforeseen side effects by expanding the range of senses invisibility affects).

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.

I quite like the sound of this.

I don't. I thought the whole idea was to make it possible to do things without using magic. This just ramps up the whole magic christmas tree battle to even higher levels. Wanna stealth? You're gonna have to be invisible to do it, and you're gonna have to have other bonuses because a see invisible gives you a +20 to see people sneaking through bushes, which is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard.

This is why I HATE the idea of using 'invisible' for stealth, it ends up in this confusion where suddenly see invisibility doesn't just cancel invisibility, it instead negates stealth completely by somehow not just negating the illusion spell but also seeing through bushes, through dim lighting, everything.

Just more and more confusion heaped onto it. BLECH!

Dennis Baker wrote:

Because it IS ridiculously easy to ramp up skills. I'm not in love with invisibility. I just don't care for this whole "I WIN" ability that can't be countered at all.

Now: I cast light -> Rogue can't sneak attack me as long as I'm not next to cover/ concealment.
Proposed: ....!

But if the player is willing to spend the ranks, get the feats and take the class abilities, why shouldn’t he/she have a high Stealth?

You talk about it being easy to raise a skill, it’s even easier for a caster to cast a spell 2nd level spell to completely negate that Invisible condition. And unlike ‘ramping up the skill', it doesn’t take all that many levels.

Even worse, EVERYONE can do it. Wands and UMD? I mean, think about it, this completely and utterly negates Stealth in the game, since ANYONE can 'see invisible' anytime they want for a few coins.

Foghammer wrote:

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.

I quite like the sound of this.

I don't. I thought the whole idea was to make it possible to do things without using magic. This just ramps up the whole magic christmas tree battle to even higher levels. Wanna stealth? You're gonna have to be invisible to do it, and you're gonna have to have other bonuses because a see invisible gives you a +20 to see people sneaking through bushes, which is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard.

This is why I HATE the idea of using 'invisible' for stealth, it ends up in this confusion where suddenly see invisibility doesn't just cancel invisibility, it instead negates stealth completely by somehow not just negating the illusion spell but also seeing through bushes, through dim lighting, everything.

Just more and more confusion heaped onto it. BLECH!

You and I are on the exact same page.

I like the separation of Stealth being mundane and invisibility counter spells not affecting it.

Now if the Rogue (or the class using Stealth) has an invisibility cast on them to bump up their Stealth, then I am all in favor of the spells that counter invisibility countering that. But it should only counter the spell modifier, not the entire Stealth check.

Foghammer wrote:

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.

I quite like the sound of this.

I don't. I thought the whole idea was to make it possible to do things without using magic. This just ramps up the whole magic christmas tree battle to even higher levels. Wanna stealth? You're gonna have to be invisible to do it, and you're gonna have to have other bonuses because a see invisible gives you a +20 to see people sneaking through bushes, which is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard.

This is why I HATE the idea of using 'invisible' for stealth, it ends up in this confusion where suddenly see invisibility doesn't just cancel invisibility, it instead negates stealth completely by somehow not just negating the illusion spell but also seeing through bushes, through dim lighting, everything.

Just more and more confusion heaped onto it. BLECH!

It doesn't need to be +20.

Foghammer wrote:

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.

I quite like the sound of this.

I don't. I thought the whole idea was to make it possible to do things without using magic. This just ramps up the whole magic christmas tree battle to even higher levels. Wanna stealth? You're gonna have to be invisible to do it, and you're gonna have to have other bonuses because a see invisible gives you a +20 to see people sneaking through bushes, which is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard.

This is why I HATE the idea of using 'invisible' for stealth, it ends up in this confusion where suddenly see invisibility doesn't just cancel invisibility, it instead negates stealth completely by somehow not just negating the illusion spell but also seeing through bushes, through dim lighting, everything.

Just more and more confusion heaped onto it. BLECH!

You're right. I had it in my mind that it would make more sense because invisibility adds to stealth, why shouldn't SEE invisibility add to perception. But then you could just cast see invisibility and get stupid bonuses to perception and spot non-invisible sneaky-types pretty much automatically.

Yeah, that wouldn't work. I have no idea where my brain went. <<;

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.

There is also the factor of the built in concealment. Invisibility essentially gives you total concealment in addition to the +20. See invisible should only remove both of those factors. Same with invisibility purge.

I like the premise proposed earlier in the thread that Stealth be treated as a relationship between the two parties rather than a condition, like flanking. I can be hidden from one person and observed by others. Invisible is a condition in which I am hidden from everyone who doesn't have special senses. If there was a condition to make, perhaps there should be an "unaware" condition, which would limit the viewer from acting against a hidden character.

It could be stated that a hidden character treats those who are "unaware" of them as flatfooted (uncanny dodge caveat) and gains a +2 bonus on attacks against them. "Unaware" characters do not know the location of the hidden character and cannot target them for attacks, spells, or other targeted affects.

In this way being hidden works like the invisible condition under the right circumstances, but doesn't add the +40/+20 to perception DCs or get purged by magic.

It doesn't need to be +20.

I'm just saying that if they're going to stick with the invisibility condition, then it needs to be uniform and see invisibility should grant a bonus to counter what that condition grants. Cuz, you know, that's what it's supposed to do.
Personally, I'm not married to the idea of stealth = invisible.
But it hoses rogues less than the exisiting rules, just by allowing them to actually sneak up and attack people.

I think the majority of us hope they drop the "invisible" condition off of the new!stealth rules, and for good reason. There are just too many questions raised by it.

The current stealth rules are not entirely useless, I don't think. I don't think you can exactly do what you SHOULD be able to do with them, but I think the vast majority of the problem with it is that perception rules don't click with them. The two skills are so closely related as to be literally connected to one another, but they have entirely different methods of functioning (perception uses DCs and doesn't use facing, stealth is an opposed check that carries lots of baggage [such as requiring concealment/cover]).

EDIT: Can we get a new discussion going about what's broken with Perception as well?