Stealth Playtest, Round Two

Tuesday, September 20, 2011


Illustration by Christian Pearce

In case you missed it, a few weeks ago the Pathfinder design team previewed some changes we were considering making to the Stealth skill. Like any design endeavor, game design benefits from iteration. After letting all of you playtest the rules and let us know what you thought of the first draft, we went back to the drawing board and made some changes based on that fantastic feedback.
In this round of playtesting, you'll find that we've cleared up some action issues. We have opened up the possibilities for using standard actions with the Stealth skill, as long as those standard actions do not attack creatures. In this way, the Stealth skill mirrors the rules found in the invisibility spell; at least as far as what actions you can attempt while you are hidden without automatically ending that condition.

Speaking of hidden, while we have kept the invisible condition, and have even strengthened the wording on that condition a bit, we have also created a lesser, connected condition called hidden. You gain the hidden condition when you benefit from Stealth, and you gain the invisible condition when you use a spell or effect that makes you visually undetectable, like the invisibility spell. Hidden is the base condition, and invisible is an upgrade of that condition.

Lastly, we have added some small language changes to explain how the hidden condition interacts with some universal monster rules dealing with senses—specifically blindsense, blindsight, scent, and tremorsense.
Just like the last round of playtesting, keep in mind that these changes are not yet official. While you are free to use them in your home game—and we would like you to do so—these changes are not yet ready for Pathfinder Society play. This time around we are going to give you two weeks to playtest and comment on these proposed changes, so tell us what you think sometime before October 3rd. We'll announce the final version in the Design Tuesday blog sometime after the playtest is completed, and make changes to the rules using the Pathfinder RPG FAQ system.

Stealth

(Dex; Armor Check Penalty) You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. This skill covers hiding and moving silently.

Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. 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. You cannot spend a free action to initiate Stealth, but if you spend a free action while under the effects of Stealth, you must make a new Stealth check to continue its effects. You can always spend a swift action to stay immobile and make a Stealth check. You can move up to half your speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half your speed and up to your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty on the Stealth check. 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). When you make your Stealth check, those creatures that didn't succeed at the opposed roll treat you as hidden until the start of your next action or until the end of your turn if you do not end your turn with cover or concealment. You are not hidden from creatures that are observing you (creatures that you didn't have cover or concealment from) or that succeed at the opposed check.
A creature larger or smaller than Medium takes a size bonus or penalty on Stealth checks depending on its size category: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Large –4, Huge –8, Gargantuan –12, Colossal –16.

Attacking while Hidden: Usually, making an attack against a creature ends the hidden condition. For purposes of Stealth, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Actions directed at an unattended object do not end Stealth. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. 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.

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.

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.

Creating a Diversion to Hide: 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.

Action: Usually making a Stealth check is not an action. Using Stealth is part of the action you are taking.

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. If you have the Stealthy feat, you get a bonus on Stealth checks (see Chapter 5).

Conditions

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.

Invisible: Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature or object gains the benefits of the hidden condition. An invisible object or creature gains total concealment.

Universal Monster Rules

Blindsense (Ex) Using nonvisual senses, such as acute smell or hearing, a creature with blindsense notices things it cannot see. The creature usually does not need to make Perception checks 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. Any opponent the creature cannot see still has total concealment from the creature with blindsense, and the creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment. Visibility still affects the movement of a creature with blindsense. A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.
Format: blindsense 60 ft.; Location: Senses.

Blindsight (Ex) This ability is similar to blindsense, but is far more discerning. Using nonvisual senses, such as sensitivity to vibrations, keen smell, acute hearing, or echolocation, a creature with blindsight maneuvers and fights as well as a sighted creature. invisibility, darkness, and most kinds of concealment are irrelevant, as is the hidden condition, though the creature must have line of effect to a creature or object to discern that creature or object. The ability's range is specified in the creature's descriptive text. The creature usually does not need to make Perception checks to notice creatures within this range. Unless noted otherwise, blindsight is continuous, and the creature need do nothing to use it. Some forms of blindsight, however, must be triggered as a free action. If so, this is noted in the creature's description. If a creature must trigger its blindsight ability, the creature gains the benefits of blindsight only during its turn.
Format: blindsight 60 ft.; Location: Senses.

Scent (Ex) This special quality allows a creature to detect approaching enemies, sniff out hidden foes, and track by sense of smell. Creatures with the scent ability can identify familiar odors just as humans do familiar sights.
The creature can detect opponents within 30 feet by sense of smell. If the opponent is upwind, the range increases to 60 feet; if downwind, it drops to 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 triple normal range.
When a creature detects a scent, the exact location of the source is not revealed—only its presence somewhere within range. The creature can take a move action to note the direction of the scent. When it is within 5 feet of the source, the creature pinpoints the source's location or notices a hidden creature.
A creature with the scent ability can follow tracks by smell, making a Wisdom (or Survival) check to find or follow a track. The typical DC for a fresh trail is 10 (no matter what kind of surface holds the scent). This DC increases or decreases depending on how strong the quarry's odor is, the number of creatures, and the age of the trail. For each hour that the trail is cold, the DC increases by 2. The ability otherwise follows the rules for the Survival skill. Creatures tracking by scent ignore the effects of surface conditions and poor visibility.
Format: scent; Location: Senses.

Tremorsense (Ex) A creature with tremorsense is sensitive to vibrations in the ground and can automatically notice hidden creatures and objects as well as pinpoint invisible creatures and objects in contact with the ground. Aquatic creatures with tremorsense can also sense the location of creatures moving through water. The ability's range is specified in the creature's descriptive text.
Format: tremorsense 60 ft.; Location: Senses.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Christian Pearce Design Tuesdays Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Playtest Stealth
101 to 150 of 437 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:
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.

Then you should make that very clear in the rules. With the current wording my opinion was that the creature with scent had to make a perception check (with the scent bonus and modifiers for appropriate "cover" against scent).

Liberty's Edge

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Jeremiziah wrote:
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.

the rules look great as they are written here.

Don't change that! This is something sneak character (especially rogues) NEED!

If anything i personally would change it so you only need cover or concealment to START stealth, not to continue it (in other words the hidden condition should not end if you end your turn without this cover or concealment)

otherwise nice rules :)


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The only two things that I would like to see..

Is a change for Hide in Plain Sight that Rogue's can get as an advanced rogue talent, from the version that ranger's get to the version that Shadowdancers/Assassin's get. I wouldn't mind multi-classing into a prestige class, but I'd like to be able to Hide in Plain Sight as a high level Rogue as well. (Source: Ultimate Combat)

Also, I really like the rules on distractions but with HiPS would you even need to cause a distraction in order to hide? How does it interact with Darkvision, Low-Light Vision, and other senses that do not care about darkness/lighting? Has there been any talk as to whether or not allowing HiPS to work in all areas of light would be a viable action?

I am usually okay with getting assistance from Invisibility, but I don't think that it should be a "required" aspect of a high level rogue's stealth toolkit.

The Exchange

Kalraan wrote:


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?

My understanding of studies on sleeping humans and strong odour (rotten eggs was used in one study) is that it will effect dreams but not wake. I'd rule the same for animals unless someone can prove otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something that bothers me repeatedly is the bonuses based on size.

Rules wrote:


Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Large –4, Huge –8, Gargantuan –12, Colossal –16.

The problem isn't at the upper end, Colossal is pretty easy to see, regardless of the size of the viewer. However... We end up with the following issues :

Spiders : Spiders that don't rely on webs to trap passing insects cease to exist, because they starve to death as a species. So trapdoor spiders, tarantulas, etc all disappear. They starve to death. A trapdoor spider has to have a massive perception bonus to have a chance of noticing a passing centipede (Say, 1 rank in stealth, +16 size bonus, +3 dex bonus, 19+ 1d20, so minimum roll of 20, maximum of 29). To ambush the centipede, the trapdoor spider needs, if he has 1 rank in perception and a +1 wisdom, an 18 or higher to catch him. In other words, a 15% chance of noticing the centipede as it goes past.

Insects : Any predatory insect has the same issues as Spiders. Which means non-predatory insects take over, eat all the crops, and the entire ecosystem dies. :)

Cat & Mouse : Cat's never catch mice, they never notice them. The mice has a +12 bonus to stealth vs something about it's size that's a natural predator for it.

I'm not sure what the fix is. But it bothers me. I started to suggest a bonus based on size difference, but that doesn't work for larger creatures, not really.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Heres a suggestion to fix the diversion part...

[Original]
Creating a Diversion to Hide: 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.

[Proposed]
Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. If you do not have cover or concealment, as a standard action, you can make a feint to gain concealment to make a stealth check to hide. If you are successful, you are considered to have concealment from those creatures (but you do not gain the percent miss chance from concealment) at the start of your next action or you make an attack (as defined in the feint rules). If you do not have cover or concealment by the end of your next action any stealth check to become hidden automatically fails. If you have the improved feint feat you can make a stealth check as part of the feats move action to feint (granting you the hidden condition for that attack).

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The Developers need to make a single Hide in Plain Sight that is the same for all classes that have the Hide in Plain Sight class ability.

Haveing several Class abities with the same name but diffrent rules is confusiong for the players and causes conflict. This is one thing IMO that needs to be updated in the update for stealth

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
mdt wrote:

Something that bothers me repeatedly is the bonuses based on size.

Rules wrote:


Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Large –4, Huge –8, Gargantuan –12, Colossal –16.

The problem isn't at the upper end, Colossal is pretty easy to see, regardless of the size of the viewer. However... We end up with the following issues :

Spiders : Spiders that don't rely on webs to trap passing insects cease to exist, because they starve to death as a species. So trapdoor spiders, tarantulas, etc all disappear. They starve to death. A trapdoor spider has to have a massive perception bonus to have a chance of noticing a passing centipede (Say, 1 rank in stealth, +16 size bonus, +3 dex bonus, 19+ 1d20, so minimum roll of 20, maximum of 29). To ambush the centipede, the trapdoor spider needs, if he has 1 rank in perception and a +1 wisdom, an 18 or higher to catch him. In other words, a 15% chance of noticing the centipede as it goes past.

Insects : Any predatory insect has the same issues as Spiders. Which means non-predatory insects take over, eat all the crops, and the entire ecosystem dies. :)

Cat & Mouse : Cat's never catch mice, they never notice them. The mice has a +12 bonus to stealth vs something about it's size that's a natural predator for it.

I'm not sure what the fix is. But it bothers me. I started to suggest a bonus based on size difference, but that doesn't work for larger creatures, not really.

not sure this is how it would work in the real world.

Trapdoor spiders, cats, etc. would actually only need to perceive their prey who most of the time would not notice the predator. its the predator that is using stealth not the other way round as your reading it. Cats effectively ready an action to attack a mouse when it "breaks" cover.

In effect predators like you describe would actually be using survival to track down their prey then stealth to wait for the moment to strike. The prey is almost always unaware of the danger until its too late.

Liberty's Edge

Bobson wrote:
Matrixryu wrote:
Enaris wrote:


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.
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.

I have always considered it a form of movement that don't cost actions. Not as a free action.

It is subject to all the normal rules related to movement unless the differences are explicitly mentioned (like the rule that say that a 5' step don't provoke and AoO).

Liberty's Edge

mdt wrote:

Something that bothers me repeatedly is the bonuses based on size.

Rules wrote:


Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Large –4, Huge –8, Gargantuan –12, Colossal –16.

The problem isn't at the upper end, Colossal is pretty easy to see, regardless of the size of the viewer. However... We end up with the following issues :

...
Cat & Mouse : Cat's never catch mice, they never notice them. The mice has a +12 bonus to stealth vs something about it's size that's a natural predator for it.

I'm not sure what the fix is. But it bothers me. I started to suggest a bonus based on size difference, but that doesn't work for larger creatures, not really.

You can add that sight don't work the same way for a lot of species.

The cat in your example can see a mouse very well at a a few meters, especially if the mouse is moving, but will not see clearly a human at a hundred meters in a open field, while a human that will have problems seeing the mouse will see the human very clearly.

Predator birds have long range vision, cats don't (I think that dog and wolf have relatively short range vision too, but I am not sure). Most herbivores have short range vision. Insect vision is limited to a few meters.
Some creature even use magnetic fields to detect the ambient around them .....
I doubt there is a way to apply a modifier for all the possible permutations of good/bad sight, hearing and so on. We should use our humanocentric point of view and adapt the rules as possible to the other species.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's my big Jack Can't Steal A Chicken problem: where are the rules for silently killing one orc guard without alerting his friend?

Right now, if Jack tries to wring the chicken's neck (or even just grabs it to stuff it in a sack), boom, he automatically is no longer Hidden and both Woof and the farmer are making DC 0 Perception checks (modified by range and intervening objects) to notice him.

Plus, this is very in-genre. What's the point of being sneaky if you can't do the "quietly picking off the guards one-by-one" scene?

A lesser issue is that Camouflage still makes HIPS moot.

Anyway, clarity issues.

Quote:
Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. 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. You cannot spend a free action to initiate Stealth, but if you spend a free action while under the effects of Stealth, you must make a new Stealth check to continue its effects. You can always spend a swift action to stay immobile and make a Stealth check. You can move up to half your speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half your speed and up to your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty on the Stealth check. 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). When you make your Stealth check, those creatures that didn't succeed at the opposed roll treat you as hidden until the start of your next action or until the end of your turn if you do not end your turn with cover or concealment. You are not hidden from creatures that are observing you (creatures that you didn't have cover or concealment from) or that succeed at the opposed check.

First off, when the crap do I make a Stealth check? As soon as I start moving? After moving? As part of any action that isn't specifically disqualified? I can sort of guess what's intended here, but clarity is a major problem.

The way I understand it, you make a stealth check whenever you want to be hidden, at the same time as using any action that isn't specifically disqualified above, or by burning a swift action if nothing else. Is this correct?

When are you noticed if you fail a Stealth check? Before, after, or during the relevant action?

What happens if you hide with multiple characters who can see you, and beat some but not all?

You seem to have added rules that require multiple Stealth checks per turn, like if I draw a weapon with Quick Draw (free action) and walk from X to Y. Is this intentional?

Quote:
You cannot spend a free action to initiate Stealth, but if you spend a free action while under the effects of Stealth, you must make a new Stealth check to continue its effects.

Dropping concentration on a spell requires a new stealth check? It's not the only example of a purely mental action, but it's the most obvious and specifically called out in the free action portion of the combat rules.

Also, spells that don't involve attacks don't require a separate stealth check, even if they have verbal(!) components. Intentional?

Full-round actions traditionally include lots of things people in the real world can do sneakily, including slitting helpless people's throats, picking locks, or really anything that requires multiple rounds.

Quote:
A creature larger or smaller than Medium takes a size bonus or penalty on Stealth checks depending on its size category: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Large –4, Huge –8, Gargantuan –12, Colossal –16.

It's kind of weird that giants can't play hide-and-seek with each other, because they all suffer from huge Stealth penalties but see Medium-sized things equally as well as a human does. Oh well.

Quote:
Actions directed at an unattended object do not end Stealth.

Seriously? So you can silently hew a door with a fireaxe?

Quote:
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.

Is it intentional that you can snipe someone without cover/concealment?

Quote:
When a creature detects a scent, the exact location of the source is not revealed—only its presence somewhere within range. The creature can take a move action to note the direction of the scent. When it is within 5 feet of the source, the creature pinpoints the source's location or notices a hidden creature.

Does the "5' rule" only apply when taking a move action to find the scent, or is it always-on 5' range Stealth-beating radar?

Quote:
A creature with the scent ability can follow tracks by smell, making a Wisdom (or Survival) check to find or follow a track. The typical DC for a fresh trail is 10 (no matter what kind of surface holds the scent). This DC increases or decreases depending on how strong the quarry's odor is, the number of creatures, and the age of the trail. For each hour that the trail is cold, the DC increases by 2. The ability otherwise follows the rules for the Survival skill. Creatures tracking by scent ignore the effects of surface conditions and poor visibility.

Unrelated to Stealth, but is this LITERAL tracks only, or can Scent let you track things that float, swim, or fly?

Quote:
Tremorsense (Ex) A creature with tremorsense is sensitive to vibrations in the ground and can automatically notice hidden creatures and objects as well as pinpoint invisible creatures and objects in contact with the ground. Aquatic creatures with tremorsense can also sense the location of creatures moving through water. The ability's range is specified in the creature's descriptive text.

Is the omission of line-of-effect intentional? This currently jumps gaps in the tremorsense medium, and I don't think that's intentional.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

How does this affect non-attack spells that use verbal components? It seems to me that those should be, if not automatically breaking stealth, then at least imposing a pretty hefty penalty on the check. After all, you have to speak in a "strong voice."


Diego Rossi wrote:

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?

Which is all irrelevant; the spell could require you to dance and sing, but this write up of stealth allows you to do all that without being noticed.

Heck, with this, we can literally dance and sing without being noticed; Bardic Performance is a non-attack thats less than a full round action, right?

Now, I'd say again; I dont know if this is an issue. The idea is to conceal these actions from your enemies, and it does require cover or concealment. Which realistically should mean you have something working for you to keep these things from your opponents.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Tangental question.

What do spells like faerie fire and glittersdust do to the hidden condition?

Grand Lodge

A Man In Black wrote:

Here's my big Jack Can't Steal A Chicken problem: where are the rules for silently killing one orc guard without alerting his friend?

Right now, if Jack tries to wring the chicken's neck (or even just grabs it to stuff it in a sack), boom, he automatically is no longer Hidden and both Woof and the farmer are making DC 0 Perception checks (modified by range and intervening objects) to notice him.

Plus, this is very in-genre. What's the point of being sneaky if you can't do the "quietly picking off the guards one-by-one" scene?

A lesser issue is that Camouflage still makes HIPS moot.

I think your right on some of this.

Sniping definately needs ammending to cover what the image in the blog post portrays. Just some clarification that if you effectively "assassinate" a target from the hidden condition, those nearby will be able to make perceptions to notice the action but the act does not break stealth/hidden for those who fail to notice you.

A Man In Black wrote:

Anyway, clarity issues.

First off, when the crap do I make a Stealth check? As soon as I start moving? After moving? As part of any action that isn't specifically disqualified? I can sort of guess what's intended here, but clarity is a major problem.

The way I understand it, you make a stealth check whenever you want to be hidden, at the same time as using any action that isn't specifically disqualified above, or by burning a swift action if nothing else. Is this correct?

According to the writeup

Action: Usually making a Stealth check is not an action. Using Stealth is part of the action you are taking.

My reading of this is the roll should be made when the GM feels it needs...
some situations might simply be easier to do it first. some GMs may feel sneaking between two points and knowing the result of sucess or failure may lead to a player changing his mind.

How I would work it is you make a stealth check. player starts his movement. once completed I roll perceptions for onlookers and determine results appropriately.

A Man In Black wrote:
When are you noticed if you fail a Stealth check? Before, after, or during the relevant action?

see above

A Man In Black wrote:
What happens if you hide with multiple characters who can see you, and beat some but not all?

Another grey area and very situational. I would normally allow completion of actions and base responces on the actions that follow. If 2 of 5 guards spot a rogue moving one might call out while another might move to investigate. yet the rogue could be lucky and the guards simply turns a blind eye.

A Man In Black wrote:
You seem to have added rules that require multiple Stealth checks per turn, like if I draw a weapon with Quick Draw (free action) and walk from X to Y. Is this intentional?

Draw a weapon is part of a move action - they are one and the same. however, for each action stealth attempts may be required but the rules seem to indicate to me that the first action in a round that you try and conceal with the stealth skill applies to all those actions. this prevents mutliple rolls as indicated by the following...

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.

A Man In Black wrote:

Dropping concentration on a spell requires a new stealth check? It's not the only example of a purely mental action, but it's the most obvious and specifically called out in the free action portion of the combat rules.

Also, spells that don't involve attacks don't require a separate stealth check, even if they have verbal(!) components. Intentional?

The part you quote covers actually making a stealth check at the start of a round - sure those actions will not break stealth but then if you wish to move in the round you will need to make a stealth check to do so. You could mentally end a spell and do no actions - as long as you have cover/concealment you are still hidden thus benefiting from stealth. See the hidden condition...

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.

A Man In Black wrote:
Full-round actions traditionally include lots of things people in the real world can do sneakily, including slitting helpless people's throats, picking locks, or really anything that requires multiple rounds.

Agreed and already stressed in my request for expanded sniping rules.

A Man In Black wrote:
It's kind of weird that giants can't play hide-and-seek with each other, because they all suffer from huge Stealth penalties but see Medium-sized things equally as well as a human does. Oh well.

I agree too. perhaps the size category should be changed to "diference in size equals -4 per size category"?

A Man In Black wrote:
Seriously? So you can silently hew a door with a fireaxe?

A bit extreme but I can see how it would be read that way. the action would not break stealth (read hidden condition) but the sound of the action would certainly alert people to allow them to notice you thus making a perception check.

A Man In Black wrote:
Is it intentional that you can snipe someone without cover/concealment?

Sniping allows you to make a stealth check to remain hidden - since a stealth check requires some form of cover/concealment you would still need that to succeed at sniping.

A Man In Black wrote:
Does the "5' rule" only apply when taking a move action to find the scent, or is it always-on 5' range Stealth-beating radar?

I would say that if you pass within 5 ft of a creature scent is automatic like a sniffer dog or pointer searching for an item. So the latter.

A Man In Black wrote:
Unrelated to Stealth, but is this LITERAL tracks only, or can Scent let you track things that float, swim, or fly?

again dogs do not need physical references to track with scent. odours can be picked up from concrete or other solid objects. It would be GMs discression if water would effectively mask a scent which i think those rules are covered under tracking/survival (though I havent checked).

A Man In Black wrote:
Is the omission of line-of-effect intentional? This currently jumps gaps in the tremorsense medium, and I don't think that's intentional.

Noticing movement 2 rooms away certainly seems viable but would it work 15 ft away on the other side of a 500ft deep revene? again GM discression I think steps in here.

Senior Designer

Quandary wrote:
Blog wrote:
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?

It is for cases where you have the appropriate cover or concealment, but you still have line of sight to the target you want to snipe. You bring up two examples, there are more. This is not a change to the rules.

Quandary wrote:
Blog wrote:
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). ...?

Your characters move into a room. The GM says everyone make a Perception check. Charlie cheers because he rolls a 20, the GM says there is someone hiding in the corner.

It says that you don’t have to roll a new Stealth when the perception side of the equation changes, only when the Stealth side of the equation changes.

Quandary wrote:
Blog wrote:
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...

If the worry is that an invisible spellcasters can stay in the same square and cast spells gaining a +40 bonus to Stealth, that was always the case. This is not a change in the rules.

When I say it is not a change in the rules, it is also not a section of the rules that we found problematic or received a lot (or any) FAQ questions about. I know there is a tendency to want to tear out the wires with these types of playtest, but as I have stated before, the goal here is to make the Stealth rules work without changing very many assumptions or expectations about how people think the Stealth rules work.

Quandary wrote:
Blog wrote:

Blog wrote (with the full conditions):

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.
Invisible: Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature or object gains the benefits of the hidden condition. 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?

If only hidden, there is not miss chance.

Quandary wrote:

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)

It is also relevant to ranged attacks, whether they come from a weapon or a spell. See page 182 of the Core Rules

Senior Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Morris wrote:

Tangental question.

What do spells like faerie fire and glittersdust do to the hidden condition?

faerie fire provided a -20 penalty to Stealth and negate the possibility of gaining concealment from darkness and other effects. So it grants a negative to Stealth and limits the areas in which you can use the skill.

Glitterdust provide a -40 penalty to Stealth.

Both make it much harder to gain or maintain the hidden condition.


AMiB, silently killing someone should be extremely difficult. I think it should be possible, but it should be combined with some generic rules for gagging someone that would also apply to preventing spellcasting with verbal components. Those things almost seem like they ought to be maneuvers.


So does the Hellcat Stealth feat negate the need for concealment to initiate stealth? Since you dont need dim light to use stealth.


Quijenoth wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:

Here's my big Jack Can't Steal A Chicken problem: where are the rules for silently killing one orc guard without alerting his friend?

Right now, if Jack tries to wring the chicken's neck (or even just grabs it to stuff it in a sack), boom, he automatically is no longer Hidden and both Woof and the farmer are making DC 0 Perception checks (modified by range and intervening objects) to notice him.

Plus, this is very in-genre. What's the point of being sneaky if you can't do the "quietly picking off the guards one-by-one" scene?

A lesser issue is that Camouflage still makes HIPS moot.

I think your right on some of this.

Sniping definately needs ammending to cover what the image in the blog post portrays. Just some clarification that if you effectively "assassinate" a target from the hidden condition, those nearby will be able to make perceptions to notice the action but the act does not break stealth/hidden for those who fail to notice you.

How about: Making a melee attack only breaks hidden vs the creature you are attacking, after the attack. If the creature dies, you can then make a new Stealth check to remain hidden to everyone else. They may still see that the guard just died, but they won't see who did it. If the creature lives, then you're visible. That would cover the "high level rogue picking off low level guards one-by-one" scenario, and make the fact you get sneak attack on that attack more than just "whee, bonus damage". It's what lets a rogue actually be able to one-hit-kill guard mooks, and thus stay hidden.


Isn't the 'killing the guards one by one' scenario covered by, I dont know, killing one guard while you have total concealment from the rest?

I dont see why you should be able to remain hidden if you take one guard out in view of another.


Regarding verbal components and stealth, I believe that people are focusing on the wrong part of the definition. I'm going to bold the part that I think is being glossed over...

PRD: Magic wrote:
Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.

Note that the text says, "must be able to speak in a strong voice", not simply "must speak in a strong voice". IMO this is a key difference and I believe the statement about gags is meant to clarify what is intended by "must be able to" vs. "must".

As a GM, my interpretation of and ruling on verbal components has always been that they can be whispered so long as there are no impediments to one's ability to speak in a strong voice if they so choose.

Examples:

  • Hiding behind a corner the caster has the ability to speak in a strong voice, but is choosing to whisper. No issues for verbal components.
  • Walking away from the campfire with a mouth full of marshmallows, the caster does not have the ability (at that moment) to speak in a strong voice. No verbal component possible, they'd have to use Silent Spell, or get their mouth clear.


  • Good to hear the RAI is consistent with 3.X when it comes to the scent mechanic. It has always worked that way.


    Bobson wrote:
    How about: Making a melee attack only breaks hidden vs the creature you are attacking, after the attack. If the creature dies, you can then make a new Stealth check to remain hidden to everyone else. They may still see that the guard just died, but they won't see who did it. If the creature lives, then you're visible. That would cover the "high level rogue picking off low level guards one-by-one" scenario, and make the fact you get sneak attack on that attack more than just "whee, bonus damage". It's what lets a rogue actually be able to one-hit-kill guard mooks, and thus stay hidden.

    Or instead of "if the creature dies", make it "if the creature cannot subsequently act". For example, let's say you paralyze em, knock em out with a sap, or similar.

    On a side note, I love where this is going. The idea of being a sneaky character is suddenly becoming worthwhile! Maybe rogues won't be such pushovers after this.

    Sovereign Court

    I think that the hidden condition should only end as it concerns the creature you attacked, and you must make a stealth check as part of the attack to hide the attack from other creatures. This would allow you to silence a guard somehow without alerting his fellows, so long as you had at least partial cover or concealment from the other guards.
    example: mcsneaky is sneaking into the orc fortress, via the bushes. orc guard 1 rounds a corner, ending mcsneaky's concealment against that guard and noticing him. mcsneaky luckily saw the guard coming, and so acts in the surprise round. he quickdraws his hand crossbow and sneak attacks orc guard one.
    this attack ends his hidden condition in the current rules.
    with this proposed amendment, mcsneaky could roll a stealth check as part of the attack to keep the hidden condition against the other guards, as he hides the body.


    Just to be clear, if a rogue has Mistmail (or anyone, really) activated, they can use Stealth in it and treat enemies as flat-footed, correct?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I noticed that the invisibility modifiers to stealth are unchanged. This make invisibility by leaps and bounds the greatest skill enhancing spell at +20/+40 for a level 2 spell that lasts for 10 min/level. Glibness is the next best at +20 for a level 3 bard only spell for 10 min per level.

    I still feel that invisibility bonuses to stealth are too good for a level 2 spell, and that is without factoring in the other benefits of total concealment.

    +20 to hide made sense in 3.5 when hide and move silently were separate skills, but not that stealth is a combination or hide and movesilenty, +20 just sees like way too much.

    Other than that, I like it.


    In response to A Man in Black's comment about rogues being able to 'silently' pick off enemies.

    That's assuming that you can adequately and instantly kill in one hit.

    Which is effectively what the Assassin PRC allows you to do with it's death attack... followed later by Quiet Death (allowing you to make a free stealth check after successfully using death attack to kill somebody.)

    Though I do believe that you shouldn't necessarily have to go into the Assassin PRC to be able to do this, but maybe add a version of the Quiet Death class feature as an advanced rogue talent. (With Death Attack, and possibly a level requirement as prerequesites.)


    InsaneFox wrote:

    In response to A Man in Black's comment about rogues being able to 'silently' pick off enemies.

    That's assuming that you can adequately and instantly kill in one hit.

    Which is effectively what the Assassin PRC allows you to do with it's death attack... followed later by Quiet Death (allowing you to make a free stealth check after successfully using death attack to kill somebody.)

    Though I do believe that you shouldn't necessarily have to go into the Assassin PRC to be able to do this, but maybe add a version of the Quiet Death class feature as an advanced rogue talent. (With Death Attack, and possibly a level requirement as prerequesites.)

    A rogue could do it against lower level mooks with enough sneak attack. Think about a level 9 rogue picking off level 2 guards. The danger is not that they will actually kill you, the danger is that they will shout out an alarm and attract attention you don't want.

    The Exchange

    Great update!

    I like the fact you can now sneak up behind some unattentive mook and coup-de-grace him, but if other mooks are in the area they spot you. That allows even 1st level Commoners to 'pick off the guards', under the right circumstances, but also maintains the value of things like the Rogue's Sneak Attack and the Assassin's Death Attack, which can be done with less than full-round actions (so those guys can potentially sneak up to a guy on one round, then kill him and sneak away on the next round, assuming some concealment - such as dim lighting or smoke - exists). That would seem to do the job nicely, without devaluing the higher level abilities or the benefits of magical concealment.

    Limiting the 'diversion to hide' to Withdraw actions (as a special exclusion to the 'no Full Round Actions' clause of the Stealth skill) seems like a good idea to me. If a Rogue wants to distract their opponent in a fight to Sneak Attack them, then just use the Feint action already - that's what it's there for, after all.

    On the other hand, one suggestion I would make would be to expand the 'diversion to hide' to allow others to gain the benefit instead of you. That would allow the classic where one character goes over to talk to the guards (using Bluff) and the others slip in the door behind them. If this was allowed, then the limit to 'Withdraw actions only' I support in the above paragraph would need to only apply when it's you trying to distract some mook who's already watching you, if that makes sense?

    Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    ProfPotts wrote:

    Great update!

    I like the fact you can now sneak up behind some unattentive mook and coup-de-grace him,

    Except that you can't, because he's not helpless.

    You can still shove a knife up his arse, though.

    The Exchange

    Jiggy wrote:
    Except that you can't, because he's not helpless.

    Hmmm... maybe I put the 'unattentive' bit in there for a reason, huh? ;)

    Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    ProfPotts wrote:
    Jiggy wrote:
    Except that you can't, because he's not helpless.
    Hmmm... maybe I put the 'unattentive' bit in there for a reason, huh? ;)

    Wait, so you're saying that in your games you treat unaware creatures as helpless? That's... terrifying. Remind me to max out perception if I ever play in one of your games, lest I get coup de grace'd while walking down the street.


    Jiggy wrote:
    ProfPotts wrote:
    Jiggy wrote:
    Except that you can't, because he's not helpless.
    Hmmm... maybe I put the 'unattentive' bit in there for a reason, huh? ;)
    Wait, so you're saying that in your games you treat unaware creatures as helpless? That's... terrifying. Remind me to max out perception if I ever play in one of your games, lest I get coup de grace'd while walking down the street.

    He's saying he's inattentive.


    Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
    Quandary wrote:
    Blog wrote:
    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?...

    Your characters move into a room. The GM says everyone make a Perception check. Charlie cheers because he rolls a 20, the GM says there is someone hiding in the corner.

    It says that you don’t have to roll a new Stealth when the perception side of the equation changes, only when the Stealth side of the equation changes.

    Gotcha. I guess this is one of the cases where I think it could be written more clearly.

    The current blog RAW doesn´t actually completely correspond to what you describe as the intent: ´new perception checks resulting from new opportunities/circumstances use the last valid Stealth check to determine DC´.

    The blog RAW only mentions Move Action Perceptions and ´entering an area´ Perceptions as using the last Stealth check, meaning other ´new Perception opportunities´(like having Light Cast in an area) isn´t covered by the current text... That is aside from the issue that characters CAN make Perception checks to notice a Hidden Target from OUTSIDE a room (with penalties for Cover, etc), so your scenario of entering a room doesn´t seem to qualify as ´making possible a Perception check´ since a check ALREADY was possible (aside from invoking what is possible/impossible on a Nat 20, which I don´t believe is the intent here). OTHER scenarios involving changing thesholds of Perception working/not working, e.g. Humans & Total Darkness, would qualify... But those thresholds can change without any ´entering areas´ whatsoever, e.g. Light spell, although that would´t ´trigger´ this rule-set since no entering of areas occured.

    I think it would be alot easier for everybody to understand the simple concept you´re trying to convey here by just spelling it out directly: ´Stealth checks persist as the relevant Perception DC modifier until the Stealth user needs to make a new Stealth Check (as part of action) or the Hidden Condition ends´. That covers ALL cases, and doesn´t require the reader to divert themself from the meat of the Stealth rules themself in order to grasp the semi-complicated scenarios you´re currently using.

    Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
    If only hidden, there is not miss chance.

    I´m just trying to clarify how all this squares up as a whole...

    It´s been stated elsewhere that if one character´s Perception beats the Stealth check, they may ´call out´ the location, and anybody else can make an ´extra´ Perception check as a Move Action.
    But if the location is specific enough that it´s easily communicable (in the doorway, on the table, etc), it seems like a ´melee´ character can attack the Hidden target with full effectiveness (if they know what square to target) without bothering with any Move Action Perception check? And after they attack the Hidden target, the target is STILL Hidden to them? (can move away without worry of AoO´s, etc) That just seems rather... wierd.

    This is besides the fact that it seems wierd to not have Miss Chance when you are apparently ´blindly´ attacking into a square... e.g. you couldn´t possibly distinguish between any targets in that square (assuming multiple Tiny targets).

    I guess I´m not sure about Hidden itself not having Miss Chance...
    It also seems like a Hidden character who is hit should now be ´seen´ by their attacker... I´m not sure how that should interact with Invisiblity... Possibly the attacker should just get a bonus/free Perception check to notice the Hidden character (that they just hit), maybe with some bonus to the check? (since they KNOW the exact square for certain, etc).

    Anyhow, a small suggestion: to ´mirror´ how Stealth works (the Check is made along with an action, e.g. movement), instead of merely allowing an additional Perception check as a Move Action (itself), it seems very reasonable to allow an additional Perception Check AS PART OF ANOTHER MOVE ACTION. That prevents Full-Round action effectiveness, but it seems more than reasonable that while you are moving around (possibly towards where your ally pointed out the Hidden enemy was), you could make another Perception check. Making this mutually exclusive with the ´drawing a weapon as part of movement´ seems a reasonable balance on it as well... But the Peception check could possibly be made along with ANY Move Action, e.g. drawing a weapon as a Move Action (plus extra Perception check) and staying still/5´ stepping, leaving a Standard Action.

    ProfPotts wrote:
    On the other hand, one suggestion I would make would be to expand the 'diversion to hide' to allow others to gain the benefit instead of you...

    I support allowing this usage to create Distraction for OTHERS (i.e. Distraction IN GENERAL, providing pseodo-Concealment which allows Stealth to EVERYBODY the target of Distraction could possibly observe... potentially including characters the Distractor themself doesn´t know about).

    I also understand the desire to not ´rip out the wires´ in each and every area, but I DO think that re-addressing the exact conditions you can gain the +40 bonus for not moving (e.g. to also require not doing anything substantial) is a very reasonable move in terms of game balance. The current RAW ´works´ and isn´t UNCLEAR, but that doesn´t mean it couldn´t be better... Certainly a tweak in what qualifies for the +40 bonus doesn´t have big complicated rules interactions across the board, you either get the +40 or you don´t... I also agree that clarifying how ´speaking strongly´ (for Verbal component Spells, possibly Wands) impacts on Stealth is a good move.

    Sovereign Court

    Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
    If only hidden, there is not miss chance.

    I think there needs to be clarification on when and how the hidden condition ends.

    example:
    1)My rogue has concealment, but not total concealment. My stealth check is 30.
    2)The enemies roll perception checks- none get higher than a 30, no one notices me.
    3)I decide to dash past the guards stealthily. I roll a stealth check with a -5 to move my full speed, scoring a 20. During this move, I have no sort of concealment, but I am ending it with partial concealment.
    4)One of the guards spots me, and shouts to the other guards "he's in square x!"

    This brings up when does stealth end?

    blog wrote:
    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.

    Therefore, I roll my stealth check at the beginning of my move during step three, taking a -5.

    blog wrote:


    When you make your Stealth check, those creatures that didn't succeed at the opposed roll treat you as hidden until the start of your next action or until the end of your turn if you do not end your turn with cover or concealment.

    So... while the "hidden" condition does not impart a miss chance, you can't even be hidden unless you have concealment during that action.

    This puts my second example on the spot. To dash past the guards, I am forced to make a distraction or dash from cover to cover in order to maintain the hidden condition, since I must "end my turn with cover or concealment."

    So here's the kicker:

    PRD wrote:
    Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

    You do not have line of sight to a creature or object that is hidden from you! Hidden, as the rules are written, grants you total concealment. THIS IS AS IT SHOULD BE.

    P.S: Why do you receive a +2 on attack rolls while hidden, but not while invisible? This makes no sense. Instead, why not just make the hidden condition simply that an opponent from whom you are hidden does not have line of sight to you, therefore you have total concealment from that particular opponent.

    P.S.S: Nevermind above PS. Invisible stacks with hidden. Whoops.

    The Exchange

    Jiggy wrote:
    Wait, so you're saying that in your games you treat unaware creatures as helpless? That's... terrifying. Remind me to max out perception if I ever play in one of your games, lest I get coup de grace'd while walking down the street.

    Creatures which fail to perceive you, have no reason to even suspect you're there, aren't in a threatening situation, and aren't doing anything you could count as physically moving about a lot, then yeah - I'd class that as 'or otherwise at your mercy'. If you can coup-de-grace some mook who's asleep, then you can coup-de-grace some mook who's oblivious and taking a leak in the corner sure, why not?

    At the end of the day, if the DM wanted to kill your character whilst he was 'walking down the street' in a completely out-of-adventure situation he just can: DM's can drop rocks, after all. Good DMs don't do that... but they do occassionally allow PCs to do cinematic (and plausable) stuff like slitting an oblivious guard's throat whilst he's taking a leak, without having to take levels in a Prestige Class to do so... IMHO anyways... ;)

    Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    ProfPotts wrote:
    Jiggy wrote:
    Wait, so you're saying that in your games you treat unaware creatures as helpless? That's... terrifying. Remind me to max out perception if I ever play in one of your games, lest I get coup de grace'd while walking down the street.
    Creatures which fail to perceive you, have no reason to even suspect you're there, aren't in a threatening situation, and aren't doing anything you could count as physically moving about a lot, then yeah - I'd class that as 'or otherwise at your mercy'. If you can coup-de-grace some mook who's asleep, then you can coup-de-grace some mook who's oblivious and taking a leak in the corner sure, why not?

    Alright, I can dig that house rule. Sounds pretty fun, honestly.

    I would caution you, however, against posting in a playtest thread for an official rules change by saying "so this will let you do X!" when it actually doesn't let you do X unless you're using your house rule. Seems like that could cause confusion for other posters and complicate the thread and the efficacy of the playtesting and discussion, but maybe that's just me.

    The Exchange

    The 'or otherwise at your mercy' bit isn't a house rule - it's Core (in both the coup-de-grace section and the helpless condition). I could equally suggest that you chosing to be harsh and not ruling an oblivious mook taking a leak as being helpless is your house rule.


    @Enaris: The Blog already discuss how Stealth ends:
    When you make your Stealth check, those creatures that didn't succeed at the opposed roll treat you as hidden until the start of your next action or until the end of your turn if you do not end your turn with cover or concealment. Maybe if the wording is pared down and clarified a bit, stuff like that will be more obvious and less buried in the nether regions of this rules section.

    To your second point, along with the quote saying that you have Full Concealment when you don´t have Line of Sight,
    that confirms to me that there´s a minor problem with Hidden saying you* don´t have Line of Sight, apparently separately from Invisiblity saying you have Full Concealment. If they are the same thing (as the rules for Full Concealment suggest), Invisibility doesn´t need to repeat that (and Hidden WOULD have Full Concealment miss chance). If the intent is to break the No Line of Sight => Full Concealment relation, it needs to SPECIFICALLY be broken / made an exception, which isn´t done in the current text.

    * and I presume they mean your potential observers don´t have line of sight to you, rather than impeding your own attack options vs. people you are Hiding from (which would be conveyed meaning if one continued with the identity of ´you´ established earlier in the paragraph.)

    Sovereign Court

    Quandary wrote:

    To your second point, along with the quote saying that you have Full Concealment when you don´t have Line of Sight,

    that confirms to me that there´s a minor problem with Hidden saying you* don´t have Line of Sight, apparently separately from Invisiblity saying you have Full Concealment. If they are the same thing (as the rules for Full Concealment suggest), Invisibility doesn´t need to repeat that (and Hidden WOULD have Full Concealment miss chance). If the intent is to break the No Line of Sight => Full Concealment relation, it needs to SPECIFICALLY be broken / made an exception, which isn´t done in the current text.

    * and I presume they mean your potential observers don´t have line of sight to you, rather than impeding your own attack options vs. people you are Hiding from (which would be conveyed meaning if one continued with the identity of ´you´ established earlier in the paragraph.)

    Invisibility confers more than just total concealment, it specifies "Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision, including darkvision." Which, really, is different than simply hidden. Another reason they should still be two different, if overlapping, conditions is the CRB passage: "Since some creatures can detect or even see invisible creatures, it is helpful to be able to hide even when invisible," which suggests to me that invisible is a purely magical or supernatural condition. (except in special cases, such as the hellcat, which may need revision with the advent of the hidden condition)

    I don't think that the "No Line of Sight => Full Concealment relation" should be broken in this case. If you can't see something, that's that- you can't almost not see it, or sort of not see it, you CAN'T see it.


    ProfPotts wrote:
    The 'or otherwise at your mercy' bit isn't a house rule - it's Core (in both the coup-de-grace section and the helpless condition). I could equally suggest that you chosing to be harsh and not ruling an oblivious mook taking a leak as being helpless is your house rule.

    Spoiler:

    Helpless
    A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks get no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.

    As a full-round action, an enemy can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless foe. An enemy can also use a bow or crossbow, provided he is adjacent to the target. The attacker automatically hits and scores a critical hit. (A rogue also gets his sneak attack damage bonus against a helpless foe when delivering a coup de grace.) If the defender survives, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity.

    Creatures that are immune to critical hits do not take critical damage, nor do they need to make Fortitude saves to avoid being killed by a coup de grace.

    You are seriously suggestion that someone who is merely unaware of your presence is the same as being paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping or unconscious?

    Sorry, but the helpless condition is well defined, and standing around taking a leak is not even close to being helpless, especially if you have uncanny dodge. Unaware != completely at your opponents mercy


    Enaris wrote:
    Invisibility confers more than just total concealment

    Who said otherwise?

    Enaris wrote:
    Another reason they should still be two different, if overlapping, conditions is the CRB passage...

    Who said they shouldn´t be different?

    Enaris wrote:

    I don't think that the "No Line of Sight => Full Concealment relation" should be broken in this case.

    If you can't see something, that's that- you can't almost not see it, or sort of not see it, you CAN'T see it.

    I don´t think it should be broken either,

    my previous (long) post went into the non-beleivability of that (e.g. when pointed out which square to attack).
    But what Stephen specifically wrote was that merely being Hidden does not grant any Miss Chance, e.g. Full Concealment. (although you may likely have Partial Concealment if you are Hidden).
    But if No Line of Sight causes you to have Full Concealment, what he wrote about lack of Miss Chance isn´t true...

    The current language is just confusing by using different langauge un-necessarily, even though that leads to the same thing. It´s fine if Invisibility has extra wording ´ensuring´ that Full Concealment exists/Line of Sight is lost EVEN WHEN Hidden is lost (e.g. Perception beats the Invisibility-boosted Stealth check), but the wierd discrepancy in the wording approaches doesn´t help convey that... and given Stephen´s response (saying Hidden doesn´t grant any Miss Chance, i.e. Full Concealment) which apparently contradicts the rules for Total Concealment (stating it is triggered by lack of Line of Sight, AKA what Hidden does), it seems that the current wording is confusing for people at all levels.

    @Charender/ProfPotts: I don´t think this is the thread for this discussion...

    The Exchange

    Charender wrote:
    You are seriously suggestion that someone who is merely unaware of your presence is the same as being paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping or unconscious?

    Again, no...

    ProfPotts wrote:
    Creatures which fail to perceive you, have no reason to even suspect you're there, aren't in a threatening situation, and aren't doing anything you could count as physically moving about a lot, then yeah - I'd class that as 'or otherwise at your mercy'.

    ... Or to put it another way: how is someone like that not helpless towards you? I completely agree that simply being 'unaware of your presence' does not equal being helpless; but being unaware of your presence, having no reason to even suspect you're there, or that there's anything threatening about, and not doing anything that would make him particulary hard to hit? How is that functionally any different from the guy being asleep (for example) when you whack him one?


    The problem I'm having with these writeups is that the Perception and Stealth skills are being written assuming visual-only based stuff, when the rules have been consolidated so that:

    Perception wrote:
    Perception covers all five senses, including sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.
    Stealth wrote:
    This skill covers hiding and moving silently.

    Where are the rules about making it so you aren't heard when you hack a door apart (instead of just not "seen").

    I like having one consolidated roll for keeping yourself hidden from sight and from sound, but it needs to be written with that in mind.

    What about when the party is simply walking through the dungeon, and you want to roll to have other monsters hear their progress?
    What about the Big Animal Hunter that covers himself in deer urine to mask his smell when hunting? Or, you know.. when exactly does the +8 perception bonus for smelling things kick in?
    When exactly do you roll a perception "touch" check, if not for tremorsense situations? If someone is aware that they might be facing a creature that can feel movements, can they not try and do something that would make this a little less obvious (maybe it feels like a small mouse or fish movement instead of a big person)?

    I'm fine with making sight and sound the only things Perception and Stealth play off of, and the rest are a series of automatic pass or fails depending on circumstance. However, at the moment it's not the case: "Perception Check: Sense a burrowing creature underneath you, DC 25".

    To me, it seems like the "atypical situations" would be covered if the person actively attempts to use them, and then just use the Stealth skill (like the game hunter masking his scent vs the creatures with scent having a +8 racial bonus to smelling).
    However, without actively trying to do so, a stealth skill check wouldn't be allowed (DC 0 with modifiers).

    RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

    1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
    Quijenoth wrote:
    How I would work it is...

    I understand your intentions, but this isn't helpful. These are still terribly muddled rules that require houseruling or heavy interpretation for the exceedingly common situations of sneaking past two people or figuring out what happens when you fail a Stealth check. That's not acceptable.

    InsaneFox wrote:

    In response to A Man in Black's comment about rogues being able to 'silently' pick off enemies.

    That's assuming that you can adequately and instantly kill in one hit.

    Yes, it is. I think it's acceptable that a guard will raise holy hell if you stab him and do not drop him. I'm not thinking of a scene where the party takes down level-appropriate foes silently, but instead picks off the mook guards on recon/while infiltrating.

    Also? This means that you can't silently take down people even in an area of magical silence. More on this below.

    -----

    Anyway, more observations:

    The rule that Invisibility fades after you make your first attack has disappeared. Intentional or not?

    How it work when the guard who sees me wants to alert the guard who didn't?

    How aware are people of Bluff attempts to create a distraction? Do they remember the sneaker is responsible for it? Are they aware anything happened at all? Did they notice that the sneaker used one to hide? Does this vary depending on the difference between the opposed rolls?

    The swift action economy means that I can't Bluff to create a distraction then stay in the same place, but I can Bluff to create a distraction, then move in a circle back to where I started. Intentional or not?

    You can still hide behind a Tower Shield. You can also hide by carrying around something large that you can hide behind. It's a pretty infamous soft spot in the rules, can it be fixed while we're here?

    How does Silence interact with these rules? Invisibility interacts with them, but there's no mention of how magical Silence benefits sneaking at all.

    You still can't hide behind concealment in bright light. This was a problem in the last rewrite, and it hasn't yet been fixed. It's an obscure problem, because the rules are buried in the rules for light and not hiding, but simply fiddling with Stealth only won't fix them.

    [url=http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/exploration-movement#TOC-Vision-and-Light wrote:
    Exploration & Movement: Bright Light[/url]]A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover. Areas of bright light include outside in direct sunshine and inside the area of a daylight spell.

    Most importantly: What the hell happens when I fail a Stealth check? How many Stealth checks do I have to make a turn?

    Quote:
    When you make your Stealth check, those creatures that didn't succeed at the opposed roll treat you as hidden until the start of your next action or until the end of your turn if you do not end your turn with cover or concealment. You are not hidden from creatures that are observing you (creatures that you didn't have cover or concealment from) or that succeed at the opposed check.

    I can't believe I missed this.

    You need cover/concealment at the end of your turn! This means that you can't hide in the rafters, or any other place where you're not concealed but nobody would think to look. This also means the "sneak up behind them" scene is capped at 30' at best (with a -5 penalty!)

    This is unrealistically weak. Having hidden in rafters, trailed people without dense crowds, and snuck up on coworkers, this makes me more capable of hiding in plain sight than anything but a double-digit level ranger or rogue.

    It's also out of genre. You can't do the "mind your surroundings" scene with ninjas in the rafters, you can't do the shower scene from Psycho. (Well, you can, the curtain is probably concealment, but there's no shortage of "sneaking up on someone who isn't looking and murdering them" in fiction.) You can't tail people without dense crowds or something to hide behind every 15-30'.

    This is better than the old rules, where you couldn't sneak up on people at all, but still insufficient. It's frustrating that I'm still sneakier than a rogue, and I'd still need to houserule to hell and gone (or have everyone cast Invisibility) to run a game where everyone is sneaky.

    The Exchange

    A Man In Black wrote:
    This is unrealistically weak. Having hidden in rafters, trailed people without dense crowds, and snuck up on coworkers, this makes me more capable of hiding in plain sight than anything but a double-digit level ranger or rogue.

    Even a single person (let alone a crowd) between you and the target provides cover (Core book, pages 195 and 196) so no problems there. A rafter between you and the target could potentially provide cover, but even if it's not that big, how's the lighting up there? Dim light conditions provide concealment (Core book page 172) so that's probably okay too. I can't help with your co-workers though! :)

    But yes, lack of 'facing' rules is still a bit of an issue... just one I doubt will be resolved in this re-write.

    RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

    ProfPotts wrote:
    Even a single person (let alone a crowd) between you and the target provides cover (Core book, pages 195 and 196) so no problems there.
    playtest!Stealth mk 2 wrote:
    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.

    That's soft cover, so it cannot be used for hiding.

    ProfPotts wrote:
    A rafter between you and the target could potentially provide cover, but even if it's not that big, how's the lighting up there? Dim light conditions provide concealment (Core book page 172) so that's probably okay too. I can't help with your co-workers though! :)

    I've hidden above people in well-lit conditions with no cover or concealment. Most people just don't look up!

    Sovereign Court

    A Man In Black wrote:

    Anyway, more observations:

    The rule that Invisibility fades after you make your first attack has disappeared. Intentional or not?

    It has not. That is a function of the spell, not the condition.

    A Man In Black wrote:
    What happens when a creature who could notice you but is indifferent spots you? Right now, if I want to sneak out of a crowded bar without being noticed by the guard who just in looking for the one who was seen in the princess's bedchambers, I fail my Stealth check if a drunk in the corner notices me.

    Perception checks in this case is a per-person check. The drunk notices you, but as long as you do not shank him, the guard may well not.

    A Man In Black wrote:


    How aware are people of Bluff attempts to create a distraction? Do they remember the sneaker is responsible for it? Are they aware anything happened at all? Did they notice that the sneaker used one to hide? Does this vary depending on the difference between the opposed rolls?

    Depends on what you did to cause the distraction. However, "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." Suggests that those opponents could see you plain as day, they may remember if you vanish.

    A Man In Black wrote:


    What the hell happens when I fail a Stealth check? How many Stealth checks do I have to make a turn?

    Quote:
    When you make your Stealth check, those creatures that didn't succeed at the opposed roll treat you as hidden until the start of your next action or until the end of your turn if you do not end your turn with cover or concealment. You are not hidden from creatures that are observing you (creatures that you didn't have cover or concealment from) or that succeed at the opposed check.

    I can't believe I missed this.
    You need cover/concealment at the end of your turn! This means that you can't hide in the rafters, or any other place where you're not concealed but nobody would think to look. This also means the "sneak up behind them" scene is capped at 30' at best (with a -5 penalty!)

    As discussed above, the act of hiding does provide you with total concealment, which you may use to continue your stealth checks. You would, of course, have to make a distraction or hide BEFORE the guards arrive in order for this to work. Acceptable, IMO.

    Sovereign Court

    ProfPotts wrote:
    But yes, lack of 'facing' rules is still a bit of an issue... just one I doubt will be resolved in this re-write.

    I think that facing rules would add unnecessary complication to a game, the "choose which direction your tower shield faces" is still irking me. Apparently, you can't raise it reflexively unless it's a melee attack coming at you?

    Facing rules could be more easily dealt with by expanding on the "observing you" category. Guards cannot possibly "observe" everyone in a thick crowd, and those on station are unlikely to look at the wall, so where are they, and who are they, "observing?"

    101 to 150 of 437 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Stealth Playtest, Round Two--Stealth All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.