If you stealth as part of an action, you must have cover or concealment (or hide in plain sight, or invisibility) in order to do it. Remember, you always use stealth as part of an action.You make the Stealth check as part of your next action, since you have concealment until the end of your next action (or you make an attack, or until the end of your turn, whichever happens first). Usually, you will use it to move away, but there are other ways to use it as well.
Hmmm, here's a question for you....
Normally, the rogue would have had to get behind cover in order for that brief period of concealment after a bluff to be useful. However there is this line in the stealth rules: "If during your last action you were hidden to a creature, you are still considered hidden when you make the first attack of that new action". So, doesn't that mean a rogue could bluff, stealth, and then sneak attack all in the same round even without an real cover or concealment around?
I don't consider this overpowered because it is basically a harder version of the Improved Feint feat, but I wanted to make sure that my interpretation was correct and that this was intended in the rules.
Right, but using bluff to create a diversion to hide gives you concealment during your next action, right? That means you could swift bluff, move to get a stealth check to hide, then get a sneak attack because you were hidden to a creature during your last action.
*deletes an edit, hopefully before anyone sees it ;) *
Great read, great clarifications!
To boot, I have just started a stealthy ranger - muahahahahahaa!
Ruyan.
Right, but using bluff to create a diversion to hide gives you concealment during your next action, right? That means you could swift bluff, move to get a stealth check to hide, then get a sneak attack because you were hidden to a creature during your last action.
Which makes perfect sense.
"Hey, do you see that?"
"What, where?"
*stab*
:)
If you stealth as part of an action, you must have cover or concealment (or hide in plain sight, or invisibility) in order to do it. Remember, you always use stealth as part of an action.
But a successful feint would seem to grant you the required concealment needed to hide regardless of whether you have HiPS, something to hide behind or whatnot. So a rogue can spin in place (to feint) right in front of his opponent and deliver a sneak attack as a standard action as long as he succeeds on both the bluff and stealth opposed rolls. Is this correct?
Was it the intent that spells that don't "come from" a caster would still break stealth?
Such as Call Lightning.
Verbal Component?
Wild, crazy, probably unsteathly Somatic components?
Yup, though it would sound like you could make a new check to stay hidden.
You still need to make clear how someone/thing with Scent can detect a scent (DC? Automatic?)and how and if Stealth affects that.If it is within range, it is automatic. Stealth doesn't help you when going up against a creature that has scent. That's the long and short of it.
So when does a creature with Scent need to make a scent Perception roll (at a +8 bonus, as noted in the Perception skill)? Never? Only when the scent is out of the listed range? Is the detection still automatic if the creature is asleep?
I have a slight nitpick on the Blindsense ability: it only mentions creatures, not objects. By contrast, Tremorsense mentions both creatures and objects. As written, bats might be bouncing off of walls quite frequently. ;-)
But a successful feint would seem to grant you the required concealment needed to hide regardless of whether you have HiPS, something to hide behind or whatnot. So a rogue can spin in place (to feint) right in front of his opponent and deliver a sneak attack as a standard action as long as he succeeds on both the bluff and stealth opposed rolls. Is this correct?
Why not just make a feint? That's only one Bluff check?
Spinning around in place is not technically a move action (it's a swift action if you are using Stealth to stay immobile...and by immobile I mean staying in the same square). You have already spent your swift to create the diversion.
You could create the diversion, make a 5-foot step (succeeding the Stealth check) and then make the attack, yes. You could move instead--It's the "look over there" and then strike maneuver--but movement still provokes since you are considered to have concealment, not total concealment, but then you don't get the miss chance.
Often you're just better off making a feint action (with Improved Feint if you have it). Feint also has the benefit of having a long duration to its effect (next attack rather than next action).
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Stephen, regarding the discussion of casting if non-attack spells are possible while remaining stealthy - I'd point out the wording of the description of verbal components:
A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice.
Emphasis mine. Wouldn't a strong voice break your attempts to be stealthy (it's certainly not a whisper). I'd suggest updating the stealth rules to indicate that any spellcasting with verbal components (or without silent meta-magic) ends the hidden condition to non-deaf creatures.
|
|
If you stealth as part of an action, you must have cover or concealment (or hide in plain sight, or invisibility) in order to do it. Remember, you always use stealth as part of an action.But a successful feint would seem to grant you the required concealment needed to hide regardless of whether you have HiPS, something to hide behind or whatnot. So a rogue can spin in place (to feint) right in front of his opponent and deliver a sneak attack as a standard action as long as he succeeds on both the bluff and stealth opposed rolls. Is this correct?
Well, let's look at it.
Rogue without cover or concealment attempts to cause a diversion (swift action). He succeeds. This grants him concealment until the end of his next action, until he attacks, or until the end of his turn, whichever comes first.
What is his next action?
Attack: You don't get sneak attack just from attacking out of concealment. You need to be hidden, and "It's usually impossible to use Stealth while taking [...] any action to make an attack, unless you are subject to greater invisibility or a similar effect [...]". No real advantage here.
Move: If his next action is to move and attempt to use Stealth as part of the move, fine - but his concealment ends at the end of the move action. However, the line "If during your last action you were hidden to a creature, you are still considered hidden when you make the first attack of that new action" applies here. Was the rogue hidden during his move action? Why yes, yes he was. Then he's still hidden for his first attack of his attack action. SNEAK ATTACK. According to the text, this should work.
I don't think it's bad, I don't think it's broken. I think it's a buff to Rogues with good Bluff modifiers, which is totally in order.
Great job on take two, SRM.
|
So if I stealthily cast haste (to buff my party) I remain stealthy.
(Not using Invisibility, but the stealth skill)
But when I stealthily cast Ice storm, my stealthiness fails...
To take it a step further, I can remain in stealth if I cast Interposing Hand, but not if I cast grasping hand?
Why does an attack spell that doesn't visibly originate from the caster break stealth?
Why not just make a feint? That's only one Bluff check?
Spinning around in place is not technically a move action (it's a swift action if you are using Stealth to stay immobile...and by immobile I mean staying in the same square). You have already spent your swift to create the diversion.
You could create the diversion, make a 5-foot step (succeeding the Stealth check) and then make the attack, yes. You could move instead--It's the "look over there" and then strike maneuver--but movement still provokes since you are considered to have concealment, not total concealment, but then you don't get the miss chance.
Often you're just better off making a feint action (with Improved Feint if you have it). Feint also has the benefit of having a long duration to its effect (next attack rather than next action).
Thanks for the clarification, I'm just curious about this because sometimes you have a rogue who wants to get a sneak attack in that round, but he doesn't have Improved Feint yet ;)
Hmmm, one other question then. The new rules say "usually a Stealth check is made at the start of an action". Do you become 'hidden' at the start or the end of the action? I'm assuming you get the hidden condition as soon as you succeed on the stealth check at the start of the action.
This is important because it means that a rogue who uses a distraction to hide + a stealth check at the start of a move would not provoke attacks of opportunity while he's moving (if he succeeds at both rolls). I'm assuming that the 'hidden' condition protects you from attacks of opportunity at least, lol.
|
|
Why not just make a feint? That's only one Bluff check?Spinning around in place is not technically a move action (it's a swift action if you are using Stealth to stay immobile...and by immobile I mean staying in the same square). You have already spent your swift to create the diversion.
You could create the diversion, make a 5-foot step (succeeding the Stealth check) and then make the attack, yes. You could move instead--It's the "look over there" and then strike maneuver--but movement still provokes since you are considered to have concealment, not total concealment, but then you don't get the miss chance.
Often you're just better off making a feint action (with Improved Feint if you have it). Feint also has the benefit of having a long duration to its effect (next attack rather than next action).
I kind of have to disagree here, though, sir. Feint has action economy problems which makes it less attractive than the situation I just outlined above in quite a few cases. At the start of the game, rogues get one attack, and feint is a standard action. That's a no-brainer in favor of trying the tactic I described above, because you can Cause a Diversion, 5-foot w/ stealth, and get your "full attack" WITH sneak attack all in one turn, and you can wash, rinse, repeat.
With Improved Feint, feint is still a move action. Feint now has basically the same exact effect as Creating a Diversion, only it takes no Stealth roll. Slight advantage to Improved Feint... but I had to invest two feats to get there in a feat-starved class.
Yeah, I kind of think this makes Feint more or less obsolete. Not that it got a lot of play anyway. I think this is much, much better, and needed for the rogue.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
But you "cannot spend a free action to initiate Stealth," and technically that is what we are doing: 5-foot stepping to initiate stealth.
Actually, I just looked it up and a 5-foot step is not a free action. It is simply categorized as a "Miscellaneous Action". So, according to the rule, there isn't anything stopping you from using a 5-ft step to go into stealth.
Cause a Diversion, 5-foot w/ stealth, and get your "full attack" WITH sneak attack all in one turn, and you can wash, rinse, repeat.
Nope, only with your first attack. And only if you have hide in plain sight or a similar effect.
|
|
Nope, only with your first attack. And only if you have hide in plain sight or a similar effect.
Cause a Diversion, 5-foot w/ stealth, and get your "full attack" WITH sneak attack all in one turn, and you can wash, rinse, repeat.
At low levels, your first attack is your only attack. And feint only gives you your first attacka anyway, even with Improved Feint.
Can you explain why HiPS is necessary? Here's the scenario again for your convenience:
Rogue without cover or concealment attempts to cause a diversion (swift action). He succeeds. This grants him concealment until the end of his next action, until he attacks, or until the end of his turn, whichever comes first.
If his next action is to move and attempt to use Stealth as part of the move, fine - but his concealment ends at the end of the move action. However, the line "If during your last action you were hidden to a creature, you are still considered hidden when you make the first attack of that new action" applies here. Was the rogue hidden during his move action? Why yes, yes he was. Then he's still hidden for his first attack of his attack action. SNEAK ATTACK. According to the text, this should work.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Firstly, WOW what a wonderful re-write!
This is such a great improvement to the existing rules. "wonders when these conditions will get added to the condition card set? :)"
One question I do still have though. multiple onlookers.
The rules clearly state how stealth works against a single person.
They also clearly state how stealth works when you are hiding from multiple onlookers.
But it doesnt clearly define how stealth is handled when one person spots you but others do not while trying to maintain stealth.
In the past when someone spots a sniper up on a rooftop he would use an action to help others by pointing the target out (thus prompting a new perception check from those that failed). Is this how you see these rules working or would you recommend something else?
The rules do allow for additional perception checks base on new stimuly (such as sniping every round) but what about when your trying to lay low?
Take a swift action to feint, make an attack, take a 5-foot step and make a Stealth check as part of that move, and then make another attack.
Per the above discussion, you can't hide as part of a free action, so you can't hide when you take a 5-foot step.
Is the intent:
If you take a free action while already under the effects of Stealth, you must make a new Stealth check to continue its effects. You may not initiate Stealth as part of a free action other than a 5' Step.
?
Actually, I just looked it up and a 5-foot step is not a free action. It is simply categorized as a "Miscellaneous Action". So, according to the rule, there isn't anything stopping you from using a 5-ft step to go into stealth.
But you "cannot spend a free action to initiate Stealth," and technically that is what we are doing: 5-foot stepping to initiate stealth.
Ooooh. That's a good find. I don't know if anyone actually thinks of it as other than a free action, so it should be specifically called out if its intended to be used to Stealth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's make sure we're all on the same page first:
-Bob the rogue begins his turn.
-Bob takes a swift action to create a diversion to hide (Bluff vs. Sense Motive). Bob succeeds.
-Bob now has concealment from Orc.
-Now that Bob has concealment from Orc, Bob takes a move and makes a Stealth check vs. Orc's Perception check as part of that action. Relevant text: "Usually a Stealth check is made at the start of an action when you have some kind of cover (except for soft cover) or concealment." Bob could draw a weapon, or stand up from prone, or load his hand crossbow, or move towards Orc at half speed, open a door, or any other move action Bob can think of, and make a Stealth check vs. Orc's Perception check as part of that action. Let's assume that after this 5' step or move action, Bob has succeeded on his Stealth check and is adjacent to Orc.
-Bob now has the Hidden condition against Orc.
-Bob stabs Orc as a standard action. Bob gains +2 to hit for the Hidden condition, and Orc does not get to apply his Dex bonus to AC. If Bob's attack hits, Bob can add his sneak attack dice to his damage roll.
-Bob's Hidden condition ends.
Effectively, Bob has spent his swift action, his move action, and his standard action, and has made one attack with the Hidden condition against Orc. He had to win two opposed rolls, a Bluff vs. Sense Motive roll and a Stealth vs. Perception roll.
If Bob were to take two feats for Improved Feint, he could do all this with his move action and his standard action. In doing so, his Bluff check for feinting in combat would be against the higher of DC 10+Orc's BAB+Orc's Wisdom modifier or DC 10+Orc's Sense Motive modifier. Also, Bob would not gain an additional +2 to hit Orc due to being Hidden. However, Bob only has to win one opposed roll.
So, at the additional cost of a swift action and having to make a second opposed roll, Bob saves two feats, Bob gets to do whatever he wants with his move action instead of spending it on the Feint action, Bob has to roll Bluff vs. Sense Motive instead of the higher of DC 10+BAB+Wis or 10+SenseMotive, and Bob gets an additional +2 to hit.
It's time to rewrite the Feint action, as well as the feats which reference it.
Nope, only with your first attack. And only if you have hide in plain sight or a similar effect.
Cause a Diversion, 5-foot w/ stealth, and get your "full attack" WITH sneak attack all in one turn, and you can wash, rinse, repeat.
Why do we need HiPS or a similar effect, Stephen? The new Stealth rules do the job without one.
-Matt
The argument on the stealth rules with scent comes down to this sentence
The creature can detect opponents within 30 feet by sense of smell
I read that as the creature does so automatically, since no roll is being asked for. if someone is hidden within 30 feet of a wolf, the wolf knows that someone is "around" but not where.
Some think this initial awareness calls for a perception check.
A creature with the scent ability can detect opponents by sense of smell, generally within 30 feet. If the opponent is upwind, the range is 60 feet. If it is downwind, the range is 15 feet. Strong scents, such as smoke or rotting garbage, can be detected at twice the ranges noted above. Overpowering scents, such as skunk musk or troglodyte stench, can be detected at three times these ranges.
If the ability isn't supposed to be automatic then what exactly does it do? The distance seems to be important, going so far as to factor in wind speed, but why does the distance matter if its just a perception vs stealth roll? What does the above clause say? Anyone can detect another creature with a perception roll. Furthermore when they do so they spot the creature, they don't just gain a vague sense of "there's something near me"
Quote:
The creature detects another creature's presence but not its specific location. Noting the direction of the scent is a move action.
Noting the direction of the scent is a move action. There is no action listed for detecting a creatures presence. It has to be less than a move action, implying that it was a non action. If its not autodetect then what does it do? Anyone can detect a presence with a perception check.
A creature could take a move action to make a perception check to try to find a creature even if it didn't have the scent ability, and would gain more than "its over that way" if successful.
Quote:
If the creature moves within 5 feet (1 square) of the scent's source, the creature can pinpoint the area that the source occupies, even if it cannot be seen.
It would seem that detecting its precise square once you're within 5 feet is a non action, or else it would be impossible to do (because the creature has to use a move action to detect direction and then a move action to move to it) Since there's no roll, action, system, or mechanism at all mentioned this lead me to believe it was automatic.
Firstly, WOW what a wonderful re-write!
This is such a great improvement to the existing rules. "wonders when these conditions will get added to the condition card set? :)"
One question I do still have though. multiple onlookers.
The rules clearly state how stealth works against a single person.
They also clearly state how stealth works when you are hiding from multiple onlookers.
But it doesnt clearly define how stealth is handled when one person spots you but others do not while trying to maintain stealth.In the past when someone spots a sniper up on a rooftop he would use an action to help others by pointing the target out (thus prompting a new perception check from those that failed). Is this how you see these rules working or would you recommend something else?
The rules do allow for additional perception checks base on new stimuly (such as sniping every round) but what about when your trying to lay low?
That is basically covered in the Perception rules. The guy points it out, and folks can try to spot it again on their turn as a move action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you explain why HiPS is necessary?
It's not, I was having a brain fart.
The idea here was to try and increase the usability for distraction, but it is stepping on the toes of not only the feint section of the Bluff skill, but maybe Sleight of Hand as well.
I'm thinking about changing it so that you can only take a withdraw action (and maybe only a standard action version of withdraw) after creating a distraction. This puts it closer to the intent of the original Stealth rules without some of the wackiness of those rules.
Good catch, folks.
Do the changes to blindsight rules mean that bats (and others using echolocation) can no longer "see around corners"?
The only change made to blindsight was a clause to show how it interacts with the hidden condition. Most of that condition is straight from the current universal monster rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thinking about changing it so that you can only take a withdraw action (and maybe only a standard action version of withdraw) after creating a distraction. This puts it closer to the intent of the original Stealth rules without some of the wackiness of those rules.
Good catch, folks.
And so dies the bluff/move/stealth/sneak-attack/repeat dance.
You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. If you do not have cover or concealment, as a swift action, you can attempt a Bluff check opposed by the Sense Motive of opponents that can see you. If you are successful, you are considered to have concealment from those creatures (but you do not gain the percent miss chance from concealment) until the end of your next action, you make an attack (as defined in the Attacking while Hidden section, above), or the end of your turn, whichever happens first.
This makes improved feint rather superfluous.
Swift action: Look a monkey!
Move action: Sneak sneak sneak 5 feet away
Attack action: Sneak attack!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thinking about changing it so that you can only take a withdraw action (and maybe only a standard action version of withdraw) after creating a distraction. This puts it closer to the intent of the original Stealth rules without some of the wackiness of those rules.
Good catch, folks.
Please don't. There's a reason why the Rogue is widely considered to be the worst class in the game, and the limitations of Sneak Attack are a part of that.
Could you instead look at revising the Feint rules and feats, to make them not suck so much?
-Matt
The whole paragraph under "Check:" is garbley rules-speak that took me several re-reads to even get the gist of it, and I'd like to think I'm somewhat competant at rules-speak.
However, it fails "the wife test": my casual-gamer wife cannot make sense of how to use this ability from the text provided. She's a smart gal, she's just not a PF rulesmonkey. Hence a good litmus for if things are too complicated. :-)
As others have mentioned, the third setence is where the derail occurs: "You cannot spend a free action to initiate Stealth..."
I know you want to put the action stuff under the "Action" header, but introducing an exception before you introduce the general rule is really confusing.
It's usually impossible to use Stealth while taking an immediate action, a full-round action, or any action to make an attack, unless you are subject to greater invisibility or a similar effect, or you are sniping (see below).
-I'm worried that this lets people combine stealth and the +20 from invisibility even when they're standing out in the open. It makes them impossible to find, even in a vauge general sense of "they're over there" that would let you glitterdust or fairy fire them.
And so dies the bluff/move/stealth/sneak-attack/repeat dance.I'm thinking about changing it so that you can only take a withdraw action (and maybe only a standard action version of withdraw) after creating a distraction. This puts it closer to the intent of the original Stealth rules without some of the wackiness of those rules.
Good catch, folks.
real pity. it is very rogueish, using skills and sneak attack to get an advantage in combat.
i too am i favor of keeping it, and maybe modifying the feint feat line somehow. improved feint has always been too costly for a very rogueish thing to do, for a rogue.i will probably keep the dance in my home game, ignoring the fact that it kicks the improved feint feat out of the game.
|
|
The idea here was to try and increase the usability for distraction, but it is stepping on the toes of not only the feint section of the Bluff skill, but maybe Sleight of Hand as well.
I'm thinking about changing it so that you can only take a withdraw action (and maybe only a standard action version of withdraw) after creating a distraction. This puts it closer to the intent of the original Stealth rules without some of the wackiness of those rules.
Would it be possible to make some adjustments to Feint somehow then instead of changing this? Honestly the way you've got it here certainly seems very interesting and would probably strengthen the skill quite a bit in usability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea here was to try and increase the usability for distraction, but it is stepping on the toes of not only the feint section of the Bluff skill, but maybe Sleight of Hand as well.
I'm thinking about changing it so that you can only take a withdraw action (and maybe only a standard action version of withdraw) after creating a distraction. This puts it closer to the intent of the original Stealth rules without some of the wackiness of those rules.
Please don't. There's a reason why the Rogue is widely considered to be the worst class in the game, and the limitations of Sneak Attack are a part of that.
Could you instead look at revising the Feint rules and feats, to make them not suck so much?
I strongly agree that the Creating a Distraction rule overlaps WAY too much with Feint... It is not so much an issue of it being MORE powerful, but 1) making the Improved Feint Feat semi-superfluous since you can do (most of) what it does from Level 1 without spending any Feats and 2) it´s just massively confusing to re-hash what already exists in another section of the rules, just with differing action mechanics, etc.
Perhaps what needs to be done is integrating (adding) the ´pseudo-Concealment´ into the base Feint itself... One would still take Improved Feint/etc, to reduce the action cost. With pseudo-Concealment, you can (from Level 1 with no Feats) ´approximate´ a half-Withdraw, because if the Stealth Check succeeds (at beginning of Move Action), they can´t take an AoO against you (and you can still Tumble just in case the Stealth fails). I.e. Standard (Feint), Move (Stealth at beginning), possibly 2nd Stealth as Free Action when you actually move into real concealment/shadows.
I think giving more reasons for people to actually take the Feint Feats is a good thing.
Wow I really like the style of that art piece for some reason! I'm gonna have to look up Christian Pearce, now.
Sniping: If you already are hidden to a target and you are at least 10 feet away from that target, as a standard action, you can make one ranged attack against that target and immediately make an opposed Stealth check to stay hidden. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check when attempting to snipe.
Just to clarify, when does this apply? Since it doesn´t include any movement, it doesn´t seem like you can step out from behind a corner and step back to your Cover... So it basically is when you are Stealthing in shadows (Concealment) or have PARTIAL Cover that doesn´t prevent shooting?
Other Perception Checks: If a creature makes a Perception check as a move action to notice a hidden creature, the DC of the Perception check is the hidden creature's last Stealth check. This is also the case if a creature makes a Perception check to notice a hidden creature because the perceiving creature is entering an area where it could possibly notice a hidden creature.
WHat does the last line actually mean? Is it talking about when you move around a corner and newly gain potential Line of Sight? But can´t you ALREADY make Perception checks even without Line of Sight, there is just a penalty when doing so (Cover, etc)? I´m just not seeing what situations would qualify as suddencly being able to ´possibly´ notice a creature, unless you´re talking about situations where the DC is above/below what is achievable on a Natural 20 (which I don´t get the impression is what you´re talking about here). ...?
Special: If you are subject to the invisibility or greater invisibility spells or a similar effect, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks while you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks while you're moving.
BigNorseWolf brought this up (though I´m slightly confused about the relationship of what he quoted to his comment). ...Would it be more reasonable if the +40 while immobile bonus ONLY applied when you took NO other action besides the Swift Action to Maintain Stealth?
Hidden: You do not have line of sight to a creature or object that is hidden from you.
Invisible: An invisible object or creature gains total concealment.
What is the difference here?
Example: Joe Fighter is told by his friend Sharp Eye that the Evil Ninja is hidden in square E-4.(I don´t usually play that people can call out exact locations of hidden opponents, but if it happens to correspond to an obvious landmark, e.g. ´the corner´ or ´on top of the 5x5 table´, you should be able to target a specific square in this manner)
Joe Fighter moves into range and swings blindly at square E-4.
If Evil Ninja is Invisible, Joe Fighter rolls 50% Miss Chance.
If Evil Ninja is merely Hidden, does Joe Fighter roll Miss Chance, or not?
In other words, if the target square can be targetted accurately, does Hidden provide no other protection?
Given how scent works (you ´notice´ adjacent Hidden creatures - the same term used for succesful Perception checks, while you ´pin-point´ adjacent Invisible ones), I suspect that Hidden grants no Miss-Chance, but it seems that could be made a little bit more obvious.
Is ´not having Line of Sight´ only relevant to spells, etc, which target specific creatures, but not physical attacks? (or magical attacks that make attack rolls)
Blindsense: The creature usually does not need to make Perception checks notice hidden creatures or to pinpoint the location of an invisible creature within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature.
Blindsight: ...though the creature must have line of effect to a creature or object to discern that creature or object... The creature usually does not need to make Perception checks to notice creatures within this range.
This can be alot clearer. Exactly when DO they need to make Perception Checks?
When there is Cover or Partial Cover?IF you use the phrase ´usually´, you need to make explicitly clear when are the exceptions.
A creature with the scent ability can detect opponents by sense of smell, generally within 30 feet. If the opponent is upwind, the range is 60 feet. If it is downwind, the range is 15 feet. Strong scents, such as smoke or rotting garbage, can be detected at twice the ranges noted above. Overpowering scents, such as skunk musk or troglodyte stench, can be detected at three times these ranges.
To follow up on BigNorseWolf´s treatment of this... The problem comes down to the word ´can´.
By your statements on this subject, it seems that the intent is for Scent to automatically negate the need for any Perception check within range. But ´can detect´ is rather ambiguous: it could mean ´you detect them´, or it could mean ´you can (possibly) detect them´. The latter reading is re-enforced by what is actually stated in Scent: ´you can detect opponents... or smoke, garbage, skunks, or troglodytes´. Perception has a table of DCs/modifiers, and there are specific DCs/modifiers for smoke and garbage (which Scent says ´you can detect´, same as for opponents). Although there is no Peception DC/modifier for ´detect scent of opponents´, that could be presumed to have a zero modifier for Perception DCs.
If the intent is to bypass Perception checks (and Stealth) completely, I think that intent should be explicitly spelled out. At minimum, the ambigous phrase ´can´ should just be removed, hopefully replacing with it with ´automatically´ or something to that effect. That results in a ´stronger´ sentence stating what you DO, rather than suggesting a capacity of things you ´can´ do.
EDIT: It seems that Scent should work not just for OPPONENTS (as is RAW), but for ´creatures´ in general (in addition to smoke, other smelly objects), since there isn´t really any plausible reason you can smell-detect opponents (and notice/pin-point adjacent ones) but not your own Invisible allies (for example) or non-combatant NPCs.
So when does a creature with Scent need to make a scent Perception roll (at a +8 bonus, as noted in the Perception skill)? Never? Only when the scent is out of the listed range? Is the detection still automatic if the creature is asleep?You still need to make clear how someone/thing with Scent can detect a scent (DC? Automatic?)and how and if Stealth affects that.If it is within range, it is automatic. Stealth doesn't help you when going up against a creature that has scent. That's the long and short of it.
I hate to bump my own comment, but is there a consensus over when scent Perception rolls are necessary?
Bats have echolocation, which is listed as being a blindsight ability. Does it say otherwise in the bestiary?
The Bestiary says bats have blindsense, not blindsight.
So when does a creature with Scent need to make a scent Perception roll (at a +8 bonus, as noted in the Perception skill)? Never? Only when the scent is out of the listed range? Is the detection still automatic if the creature is asleep?
I hate to bump my own comment, but is there a consensus over when scent Perception rolls are necessary?
Well, Stephen´s comments in this thread are a mostly clear indication of RAI, though I´m not sure how to deal with all the cases you mentioned... But the RAW itself is definitely not clear: Things mentioned as ¨you can detect¨ (including smoke, garbage, besides opponents) in fact have specific DCs/modifiers to detect them with the Perception skill, so it´s not at all clear what ´you can detect´ means re: automatic-ness and/or implications for Perception checks.
I´m mostly very impressed with this iteration of the Stealth changes.
If the issues people have mentioned are addressed, I think it will be very good.
I do strongly agree with other people who have complained about the legibility...
I´ve mostly hacked my way thru it... But for a typical reader, who isn´t approaching it from a Rules Playtest perspective, but is just playing the game and the Stealth rules are just another paragraph, this can be written ALOT more clearly and consisely. I´m SURE that this functional rule-set can be re-phrased in a way that is signifigantly shorter (I see alot of repetition) AND easier to understand... Possibly spending some of the ´word tightening´ in spelling out things that aren´t specifically stated (currently).
Hidden: You are difficult to detect but you not invisible. A hidden creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). You do not have line of sight to a creature or object that is hidden from you.
I feel like the identity of ´You´ is switching around between the first sentence and the last...
If you continue the identity of ´You´ as ´the Hider´, the last sentence means that Stealthed characters can´t target people they´re Hidden from... which is wierd.(Attacking should normally break the Hidden Condition, but if you can´t Target the potential observers, you couldn´t do what is necessary to break the Hidden Condition in the first place)
I suspect the intention is that the people you´re Hidden from can´t Target YOU (the Hider), but that switch of perspective is far from obvious, and the ´concealed´ switch of perspective makes the passage hard to read (even if people will understand your meaning).
Probably better to phrase the last line: Creatures you are Hidden from do not have Line of Sight to you.
(I´m not sure why Object were included in the first place... If any object is acting independently, it essentially counts as a Creature. Otherwise, Objects don´t care about Line of Sight AFAIK. Line of Effect still matters, e.g. for Area Effects, but that isn´t addressed here)
|
Thanks for this change in the stealth rule. To pick up on the HiPS discussion, we are now saying that:
HiPS is done are part of an action as any Stealth check
A successful opposed stealth check using HiPS gains the Hidden condition
?
If so, that clears up a lot of the extra sensory perception questions, except for one: Darkvision.
Any chance of clearing that one up once and for all?
Other Perception Checks: If a creature makes a Perception check as a move action to notice a hidden creature, the DC of the Perception check is the hidden creature's last Stealth check. This is also the case if a creature makes a Perception check to notice a hidden creature because the perceiving creature is entering an area where it could possibly notice a hidden creature.WHat does the last line actually mean? Is it talking about when you move around a corner and newly gain potential Line of Sight? But can´t you ALREADY make Perception checks even without Line of Sight, there is just a penalty when doing so (Cover, etc)? I´m just not seeing what situations would qualify as suddencly being able to ´possibly´ notice a creature, unless you´re talking about situations where the DC is above/below what is achievable on a Natural 20 (which I don´t get the impression is what you´re talking about here). ...?
On second thought, I guess this is covering situations like a Stealther in an area of pure Darkness, i.e. where non-Darkvision species just can´t see them PERIOD, and that Darkness is subsequently Dispelled/raised to brighter state where they CAN ´possibly´ be seen (in which case their last Stealth check is used). I still think the wording can be alot clearer/more obvious about these things (since ´entering an area´ normally doesn´t fundamentally change what you can perceive, unless you are carrying a light source, but that isn´t an obvious component of ´entering an area´, and as per the above Dispel example, this rule seems like it would apply for alot more than just ´entering an area´ = moving).
|
|
Just a couple of queries which doesn't appear to be clear:
EXAMPLE 1: A character is currently "hidden" behind cover. The character has a move of 30'. The target, a guard, which is 30' away is looking out over a battlement on guard duty (i.e. taking a move action each round to perceive his surroundings). The character moves from the cover, moves at half speed and makes a Stealth skill check (at no penalty as he only made a half move). The guard makes an opposed roll using his Perception skill in order to "notice" the character but fails to beat the character's Stealth skill check result. The character therefore still has the "hidden" condition from the guard's perspective.
Q1. Is this correct?
Q2. If so, can the character in the next round make a half move again, coupled with a Stealth check to remain hidden from the guard in order to make an attack?
Q3. Is it possible for a character to have the "hidden" condition towards one enemy, and yet not have it for another in the same encounter (i.e. In this scenario, the big bad was watching from a tower and saw the character moving towards his guard)?
EXAMPLE 2: A party is resting for the evening. The party consists of 4 characters, one of whom is a druid with an animal companion with Scent as an ability. The animal is asleep as is the druid. An enemy is using stealth to infiltrate the camp but the character on watch fails to "notice" the enemy sneaking in.
Q1. Does the Scent ability "switch off" when a creature with that ability is asleep?
Q2. If so, does the Perception check from the animal gain any bonus versus the opposed Stealth check?
|
|
Go Unnoticed just became really good :)Wait... can I cast a spell and make a Stealth Check to remain hidden?
If not, can someone point out for me where it says I can't?
By this, I mean a spell which is not also an attack (like buffs, or heals), cast targeting myself, an object, or an ally.
I liked stealth on casters before. Now? Like this? Its near required.
And a good thing!
Remember, it the spell has a vocal component you need to speak in a [b]strong voice[b].
In my opinion that should be true for all the command worlds too.How much a malus to stealth is casting with a strong voice, or if you can hide at all is a good question.
"Hear the detail of a conversation" as a DC of 0. You don't even need to hear the details, but you only need to hear the caster speaking. DC -5?