Stealth Playtest, Round Two

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

The spell is vaguely written. What happens when you full-attack a dude while Invisible? People have ruled that only the first attack and that all attacks benefit, but the old playtest!Stealth (helpfully) clarified that only the first attack benefited. That clarification is no longer present.

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.

Where does it say that?

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.

It needs to be clearer. Examples would help.

As discussed above, the act of hiding does provide you with total concealment, which you may use to continue your stealth checks.

No, it doesn't.

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.

Nowhere there is Total Concealment mentioned, and its absence is noteworthy because the only difference between Hidden and Invisible is that Invisibility means you have Total Concealment.

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.

I´m 100% certain that the intent is not for Hidden to be a self-perpetuating Stealth enabling condition, and that is born out by the rules:

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

Hmmm... Good spot.

I could have sworn that was different in the last round of the play test, but it is in the core book that soft cover doesn't allow Stealth checks... which seems very weird now I stop and think about it.

Soft cover provides the same AC bonus as regular cover (so just as much of you is hard to target) it just doesn't add to your Reflex checks (which generally require an actual solid something between you and the fireball - or whatever - to get the bonus). On the other hand, it seems as if partial cover (which, by the AC bonus, covers only half as much of you as soft cover does) does permit Stealth to be used.

Those two seem reversed to me. Shouldn't it be that soft cover allows Stealth, but partial cover doesn't? I realise there's potential abuse in combat situations with Rogues vanishing behind their buddies and all that, but surely the defining factor of whether you get to try Stealth or not is how perceptible (or not) you are in the first place?

Enaris wrote:

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.

Where does it say that?

The latter part of the Check section (which has been noted to be densely worded, probably can be streamlined)

Enaris wrote:

As discussed above, the act of hiding does provide you with total concealment, which you may use to continue your stealth checks.

No, it doesn't.

playtest!Stealth mk 2 wrote:

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.

Nowhere there is Total Concealment mentioned, and its absence is noteworthy because the only difference between Hidden and Invisible is that Invisibility means you have Total Concealment.

Right, the discrepancy in wording would make one think that.

The latter part of the Check section (which has been noted to be densely worded, probably can be streamlined)

Noted and edited. This introduces new issues.

Added to that post:

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

Right, the discrepancy in wording would make one thing that.

But what does the rules for Total Concealment say:

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).

Which makes the discrepancy between the wording in Hidden/Invisible irrelevant as to which has Total Concealment, since Hidden says there is no line of sight (which triggers Total Concealment per the standard rules).

Okay... so is Stealth self-sustaining or not? The intent needs to be made 100% clear.

Added to that post:

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

This has already been discussed by others up-thread, and responded to by Stephen.

Okay... so is Stealth self-sustaining or not? The intent needs to be made 100% clear.

Well, it´s 100% clear to me that Stealth is not sustaining, since it (Hidden) lasts UNTIL (just before, with no gap) the beginning of your next action (which which you can make the next Stealth check)... And that is backed up by multiple references to losing stealth when you don´t have the conditions for it (e.g. ending turn in area of non-concealment, e.g. bright light).

The exact distinction between Hidden and Invisibility re: Full Concealment isn´t clear to me, since what Stephen wrote doesn´t seem to correspond to how the RAW lines up with the general rules for Full Concealment (triggered by lack of Line of Sight, which Hidden restricts). I don´t think it´s productive to discuss that aspect any further, until Stephen chimes in, and I don´t really like repeating how Stephen´s responce is ´wrong´ given that over-all this Errata-in-Progress is just about the best I could expect from a system that doesn´t wildly diverge from the existing Stealth/Perception set-up.

-----------------------------------------------------

People mentioned the lack of info on other senses... I think Silence can be handled pretty much like Darkness (they prevent Perception checks via relevant sensory organ, although Vision is ´more important´ given No Line of SIGHT = Full Concealment) but it still isn´t clear if you can/should be making Perception checks via ´Touch´ or Smell to ´notice´ creatures for which you can´t see/hear. Stealth says it only applies to visual/auditory Perception, so such checks shouldn´t have to deal with any Stealth rolls...??? What do such senses actually reveal though? I´m not sure if there´s any wording saying that Vision/Hearing reveal details (actual square) more accurately than other senses.

This has already been discussed by others up-thread, and responded to by Stephen.

Basically, Sharp Eye Guard can call out the Sneaky Dude´s location (using action for speaking).
Either that´s specific enough that anybody can target the square itself
(this is where the differences between Hidden/Invisiblity re: Full Concealment get very relevant)
or the other characters can spend a Move Action to make another Perception check (standard rules).

This needs to be in the rules. An example would be very helpful.

Well, it´s 100% clear to me that Stealth is not sustaining, since it (Hidden) lasts UNTIL (just before) the beginning of your next action (which which you can make the next Stealth check)... And that is backed up by multiple references to losing stealth when you don´t have the conditions for it (e.g. ending turn in area of non-concealment, e.g. bright light).

The exact distinction between Hidden and Invisibility re: Full Concealment isn´t clear to me, since what Stephen wrote doesn´t seem to correspond to how the RAW lines up with the general rules for Full Concealment (triggered by lack of Line of Sight, which Hidden restricts).

This would definitely benefit from clearer writing.

I think I wrote this last round, but whenever the final version is done,
I think it would be HUGELY helpful for many people to have a more explanatory ´Rules Blog´ coverage giving EXAMPLES of how the new Stealth rules apply in a variety of situations... This can also be used to show-case good GM techniques, like being able to figure out ´can´t possibly Perceive´ distances, as well as Take 10 Rules as applied to either Stealth or Perception.

Having solid, consise rules is the main goal at this point, and those should really be able to stand on their own, but an extra Blog post giving good, revealing examples of how the rules work in different situations will really help alot of people get on board the new rules quickly, and get the most out of them (especially if it showcases cases where the new rules diverge from the old, or show interesting tactics to use for both Stealthers and Perceivers).

I thought it would be helpful to look at what invisibility actually means, and how it relates to hidden.

Invisibility

The ability to move about unseen is not foolproof. While they can't be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt.

Yet, hidden, as a result of stealth, also covers these senses?

Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision, including darkvision.

Hidden does not.

Invisibility does not, by itself, make a creature immune to critical hits, but it does make the creature immune to extra damage from being a ranger's favored enemy and from sneak attacks.

How does hidden square up with this?

A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check.

Hidden is an opposed check, however, which has the potential to be much higher.

The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check.

Can someone clarify what this +20 DC modifies?

Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance).

We've mostly come to the conclusion that while hidden does break line of sight, it provides no miss chance by itself.

There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.

Invisible creature is... Perception
In combat or speaking... –20
Moving at half speed... –5
Moving at full speed... –10
Running or charging... –20
Not moving... +20
Using Stealth... Stealth check +20
Some distance away... +1 per 10 feet
Behind an obstacle (door)... +5
Behind an obstacle (stone wall)...+15

These are fairly similar to how hidden works, except the combat and running, which appear to be impossible while hidden, and the not moving bonus, which does not seem to be a part of stealth.

A creature can grope about to find an invisible creature. A character can make a touch attack with his hands or a weapon into two adjacent 5-foot squares using a standard action. If an invisible target is in the designated area, there is a 50% miss chance on the touch attack. If successful, the groping character deals no damage but has successfully pinpointed the invisible creature's current location. If the invisible creature moves, its location, obviously, is once again unknown.

I don't think these rules apply to the hidden condition.

If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves). The only exception is if the invisible creature has a reach greater than 5 feet. In this case, the struck character knows the general location of the creature but has not pinpointed the exact location.

Hidden ends when the hidden creature attacks.

If a character tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has pinpointed, he attacks normally, but the invisible creature still benefits from full concealment (and thus a 50% miss chance). A particularly large and slow invisible creature might get a smaller miss chance.

Despite providing full concealment on a technicality, I do not believe being hidden was meant to provide miss chance.

If a character tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has not pinpointed, have the player choose the space where the character will direct the attack.

Can someone clarify how this works with hidden? The same way, I assume?

If an invisible character picks up a visible object, the object remains visible. An invisible creature can pick up a small visible item and hide it on his person (tucked in a pocket or behind a cloak) and render it effectively invisible. One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour falls off or blows away).

How can a hidden creature take a non-hidden object? Perhaps sleight of hand?

Invisible creatures leave tracks. They can be tracked normally. Footprints in sand, mud, or other soft surfaces can give enemies clues to an invisible creature's location.

Does the same apply for hidden?

A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.

prd wrote:

Scent (Ex) 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 the creature is within 5 feet of the source, it pinpoints the source's location.

I think it could be clarified how this interfaces with stealth, since it is an opposed check. Can you stealth from scent? This has been talked about before with no discernible answer, excuse me if I missed the post.

Invisible creatures cannot use gaze attacks.

Can hidden ones?

I've omitted some sections of the invisibility description that I felt required no further clarification.

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.

...and they laughed at my halfling rogue when he insisted to bring a big St.Bernard on every adventure... even the high levels. Not only they have Scent and can auto detect things attracted by your campfire, but if you're a halfling, you can just use them as a warm blanket at night... who needs cold weather gear or Endure Element really! :)

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.

It helps quite a bit... you just need to carry a reach weapon.

That is awesome. You just discovered the Sneak Attack Magnet maneuver. Not a lot of people know of it. Where is your Stonecutter's birthmark? :)

why is tremorsense automatic?

doesn't stealth include move silenty?

I thought I would call the Moonlight stalker feat tree into question here. "While you have concealment, your opponents' miss chance against you increases by 10%." Does this include quasi-concealment from your bluff check to hide?

Rangers's Camouflage vs Ranger's Hide in Plain Sight (or "being observed" and "creatures that are observing you"

I had problems to understand the difference between Camouflage and HiPs using the original rules, with the new rules I can't see any difference.
With the original rules the difference was how you'd define "being observed", however the new rules define beign observed based on cover and concealment, which is what Camouflage deals with, and the usual requirements for Stealth.

Camouflage (Ex): A ranger of 12th level or higher can
use the Stealth skill to hide in any of his favored terrains,
even if the terrain doesn’t grant cover or concealment.

Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): While in any of his favored
terrains, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use the Stealth
skill even while being observed.

[...]
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
[...]
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 think on two ways to read it, both seem wrong:

The ranger is in some favorite terrain without cover or concealment. Usually a character can't make the Stealth check.

Now the ranger uses Camouflage or HiPS to make a Stealth check.

a) Camouflage doesn't give you concealment or cover, just the ability to make the skill check. Thus you can't be hidden from creatures observing you (everyone, because there is no cover or concealment). Summing up: Camouflage is useless.

b) Camouflage just allows you to hide as having cover or concealment, thus you are hidden from creatures observing you. So, HiPS is useless if you already have Camouflage (ie 17th level Ranger).

I suggest adding new requisites to the "observing you" definition, cover and concealment only is redundant (you can't make a stealth check without cover or concealment). I would add something like actively searching in your direction, or being aware of enemies. Or rewriting those abilities.

----

Also, with those rules, some cheap or confusing situations come to my mind, but I don't know if I'm reading the rules right.

I.e.
I'm playing with my friend Jhon at an old park, it is plain place with just two 5x5x10' concrete blocks on it. The distance between the two blocks is about 30'.
I see Jhon walking behind one of the blocks. I keep staring in his direction.
Then he uses stealth to move 30' until he is behind the other block, he uses a move action and suffers a -5 penalty, as I understand it he can't make a full round withdraw action to move 60'.
Because he did have cover or concealment the rules say that I'm not a creature that is observing him (???).
Thus he is hidden (as long as he succeds at the stealth check) until the start of his next action or until the end of his turn (he ends the turn with cover)

It means that he moved about 10 meters in front of me and I didn't noticed.
But now I read the hidden condition "you (are) not invisible", so ¿did I notice and I just lost the Dex bonus (plus +2att)?.
Also I read "You do not have line of sight to a creature or object that is hidden from you". So, if I was ready to throw a stone at Jhon, I was not able to perform that action (requires LoS iirc) because he was too fast (i.e.).
Not sure what's right.

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.

Any chance we could get a third round of playtesting? I don't have any objection to a timeline of when comments close and it goes back for another iteration, but I feel like this is going to need enough changes that a third round before it's finalized would be good.

Obviously, if there's a larger deadline (like "We want to make the changes for the next printing, and all changes for that need to be in by this date"), then it won't be possible. But in the absence of a fixed deadline like that, I don't see any reason not to continue iterating until these issues are resolved.

I was going to make a "HELPFUL SUMMARY" post like I did for the last playtest, but I think there's really one major issue that keeps coming up and dwarfs everything else:

• The content of the write-up is confusingly arranged. We've got text walls, we've got exceptions coming before the things they're exceptions to, and we've got important chunks of mechanics that have to be extrapolated from the text rather than being plainly stated. I admit I skimmed some of the posts, but it really seems like most questions' answers are actually in the text but you have to look in the last part you'd expect, turn it around backwards, and do some long division while singing "I'm a Little Teapot" to get there. Same with concerns that you can/can't do X; most of them turn out to not be true, but again you have to bend over backwards to extract the relevant information from the text.

This seems like the biggest thing that needs to be addressed.

Quote:

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.

Any chance we could get a third round of playtesting? I don't have any objection to a timeline of when comments close and it goes back for another iteration, but I feel like this is going to need enough changes that a third round before it's finalized would be good.

Obviously, if there's a larger deadline (like "We want to make the changes for the next printing, and all changes for that need to be in by this date"), then it won't be possible. But in the absence of a fixed deadline like that, I don't see any reason not to continue iterating until these issues are resolved.

Thisthisthisthisthis.

I mean, at this point, people haven't even finished wading through the unclear wording to get to the actual content so that they CAN playtest it.

Rangers's Camouflage vs Ranger's Hide in Plain Sight (or "being observed" and "creatures that are observing you"

I had problems to understand the difference between Camouflage and HiPs using the original rules, with the new rules I can't see any difference.
With the original rules the difference was how you'd define "being observed", however the new rules define beign observed based on cover and concealment, which is what Camouflage deals with, and the usual requirements for Stealth.

Quote:

Camouflage (Ex): A ranger of 12th level or higher can
use the Stealth skill to hide in any of his favored terrains,
even if the terrain doesn’t grant cover or concealment.

Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): While in any of his favored
terrains, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use the Stealth
skill even while being observed.

Quote:

[...]
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
[...]
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 think on two ways to read it, both seem wrong:

The ranger is in some favorite terrain without cover or concealment. Usually a character can't make the Stealth check.

Now the ranger uses Camouflage or HiPS to make a Stealth check.

a) Camouflage doesn't give you concealment or cover, just the ability to make the skill check. Thus you can't be hidden from creatures observing you (everyone, because there is no cover or concealment). Summing up: Camouflage is useless.

b) Camouflage just allows you to hide as having cover or concealment, thus you are hidden from creatures observing you. So, HiPS is useless if you...

Camouflage

HIPS
Same ranger, only now he is 17th level.
Same featureless plain.
He set his ambush point 100' from the dirt track.
Again you need to beat his stealth to see him.
You failed and he fire at you, then he use HIPS and the sniper rules to hide again as he can hide even if he hasn't any cover/concealment.

I fail to see how they appear the same thing to you.

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?

They are only 99% at your mercy. Helpless means completely(IE 100%) at your mercy. Anything less that 100% means you are not helpless. They are still able to move, they could duck or turn away at the last second, and survive via pure dumb luck. If they have uncanny dodge, they would get the benefit of it, where a helpless person does not.

Being unaware of an opponent has disadvantages in the form of surprise round, denied dexterity and dodge bonuses, etc. It is still far short of being helpless.

I always explain the difference between helpless and unaware as this:

When you are unaware, dumb luck can still save you. You might shift your weight at the last second, oblivious to the onslaught, in such a way as to render your breastplate useful against the assassin's blade.

Not so when you are held or put to magical sleep, or bound and gagged.

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 omitted **

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

I'd argue that someone who failed their perception by a wide enough margin is equivalent to someone who is asleep. Unless your characters tie them selves up before bed. Mine do not.

Maybe it would be permissible only when the gap between the perception and the stealth checks exceeds, say, 8? That's the sum of deafened and blinded...

I always explain the difference between helpless and unaware as this:

When you are unaware, dumb luck can still save you. You might shift your weight at the last second, oblivious to the onslaught, in such a way as to render your breastplate useful against the assassin's blade.

Not so when you are held or put to magical sleep, or bound and gagged.

But this same description applies to normal sleep (you might roll over or wake up), and as far as I'm aware, CdG applies to that situation.

Camouflage

The ranger want to ambush you and he is 12th level.
His preferred terrain is plain.
He know you will be travelling along a dirt track in a featureless plain.
He use camouflage and hide 100' on the side of the road, waiting for you to pass so he can ambush you and turning you in a pincushion full of arrows.
As long as he wasn't observed while hiding he can hide in the featureless plain.
To spot him while travelling you have to be successful at a perception check against his stealth check.
After his first attack he can't hide again as he hasn't any concealment or cover and he is observed.

HIPS
Same ranger, only now he is 17th level.
Same featureless plain.
He set his ambush point 100' from the dirt track.
Again you need to beat his stealth to see him.
You failed and he fire at you, then he use HIPS and the sniper rules to hide again as he can hide even if he hasn't any cover/concealment.

I fail to see how they appear the same thing to you.

This is not how it works with the new rules unless there is some errata I'm missing or the rules are so unclear that everyone is reading them in a different way.

When using Camouflage, after your attack you can hide again because Camouflage allows you to hide even if there isn't any cover or concealment. What's more a creature is observing only if there is no cover or concealment, and Camouflage allows you to hide if there is (was?) no cover or concealment no matter what (altough I suspect that it is not the intent), not to mention that it doesn't clarify WHEN.

Camouflage (Ex): A ranger of 12th level or higher can
use the Stealth skill to hide in any of his favored terrains,
even if the terrain doesn’t grant cover or concealment.

That's why I say that it needs further clarification, that the description of being observed doesn't work, and both abilities do similar things if not the same. Camouflage should allow you yo make stealth checks, not just "hide".

If I undestand it, your point is that "being observed" can be read the other way, well that's just my point, if a sentence can be interpreted in many ways it doesn't clarifies the rules and should be removed or reworked.

Camouflage

The ranger want to ambush you and he is 12th level.
His preferred terrain is plain.
He know you will be travelling along a dirt track in a featureless plain.
He use camouflage and hide 100' on the side of the road, waiting for you to pass so he can ambush you and turning you in a pincushion full of arrows.
As long as he wasn't observed while hiding he can hide in the featureless plain.
To spot him while travelling you have to be successful at a perception check against his stealth check.
After his first attack he can't hide again as he hasn't any concealment or cover and he is observed.

Except that "observed" and "doesn't have concealment or cover" are synonyms. Creatures are observing you if you don't have concealment or cover.

This is not how it works with the new rules unless there is some errata I'm missing or the rules are so unclear that everyone is reading them in a different way.

O RLY?

Bobson wrote:

Any chance we could get a third round of playtesting? I don't have any objection to a timeline of when comments close and it goes back for another iteration, but I feel like this is going to need enough changes that a third round before it's finalized would be good.

Obviously, if there's a larger deadline (like "We want to make the changes for the next printing, and all changes for that need to be in by this date"), then it won't be possible. But in the absence of a fixed deadline like that, I don't see any reason not to continue iterating until these issues are resolved.

Thisthisthisthisthis.

I mean, at this point, people haven't even finished wading through the unclear wording to get to the actual content so that they CAN playtest it.

In fairness, this isn't all that unclear. Contrasted to the original Stealth text, this is like a beacon of daylight. To me, at least.

Evil Lincoln wrote:

I always explain the difference between helpless and unaware as this:

When you are unaware, dumb luck can still save you. You might shift your weight at the last second, oblivious to the onslaught, in such a way as to render your breastplate useful against the assassin's blade.

Not so when you are held or put to magical sleep, or bound and gagged.

But this same description applies to normal sleep (you might roll over or wake up), and as far as I'm aware, CdG applies to that situation.

paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, and unconscious are all specifically called out as making you helpless, being unaware of an enemy is not.

Thus, you have to fall back to the catch all on helpless which says "otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy". Completely means 100%. If you are 99.99% at your opponents mercy, you are still not completely at their mercy. Thus, by RAW, being unaware of someone does not allow you to Coup de Grace them.

Hey guys, remember when this was a Stealth Playtest Blog thread? That was pretty cool, right?

Don`t worry, the trouble-makers already got a warning, now they`re on my list... 8-D

A few questions/issues/observations:

a). Suppose I am a wizard animal shaped or whatever into a cheetah. Or a barbarian. Whatever.

Under the current rules, cant I make the stealth check (free action) then sprint across the brilliantly lit plains 500 feet? And never be seen, if I end in concealment?

Huge loophole you could drive a mac truck through.

The fact that that you do not have to maintain concealment is an issue.

b). The document doesn't make any reference to lighting effects. Ie., is there a point to low light vision any longer?

c). It would be good if conditions modified perception. So, if I am dazed - perhaps I should have a - 5 to perception. Nauseous -10 etc.

Likewise, these conditions should affect your ability to hide. What effect does being nauseous have on hiding? What about stunned?

Diego Rossi wrote:

...

This is not how it works with the new rules unless there is some errata I'm missing or the rules are so unclear that everyone is reading them in a different way.

When using Camouflage, after your attack you can hide again because Camouflage allows you to hide even if there isn't any cover or concealment. What's more a creature is observing only if there is no cover or concealment, and Camouflage allows you to hide if there is (was?) no cover or concealment no matter what (altough I suspect that it is not the intent), not to mention that it doesn't clarify WHEN.

Quote:

Camouflage (Ex): A ranger of 12th level or higher can
use the Stealth skill to hide in any of his favored terrains,
even if the terrain doesn’t grant cover or concealment.

That's why I say that it needs further clarification, that the description of being observed doesn't work, and both abilities do similar things if not the same. Camouflage should allow you yo make stealth checks, not just "hide".

If I undestand it, your point is that "being observed" can be read the other way, well that's just my point, if a sentence can be interpreted in many ways it doesn't clarifies the rules and should be removed or reworked.

My reply was aimed at this:

I had problems to understand the difference between Camouflage and HiPs using the original rules, ...

Regarding the in-testing rules, the change should not be under stealth but under camouflage (and other similar abilities), stating that it don't work if you are observed.

Except that "observed" and "doesn't have concealment or cover" are synonyms. Creatures are observing you if you don't have concealment or cover.

No. You can use concealment of cover to become "unobserved" but being observed and not having concealment or cover the two thing aren't identical.

Featureless plain. You are in the middle of it. No one is there. You are unobserved but you haven't concealment or cover.
As soon as someone walk in you are observed.

Scent: I sniff you, you are observed even if you are behind a wall and have cover.

Trying to treat the two things as identical is one of the reason you have trouble with the rules about stealth.

A few questions/issues/observations:

a). Suppose I am a wizard animal shaped or whatever into a cheetah. Or a barbarian. Whatever.

Under the current rules, cant I make the stealth check (free action) then sprint across the brilliantly lit plains 500 feet? And never be seen, if I end in concealment?

Huge loophole you could drive a mac truck through.

The fact that that you do not have to maintain concealment is an issue.

b). The document doesn't make any reference to lighting effects. Ie., is there a point to low light vision any longer?

c). It would be good if conditions modified perception. So, if I am dazed - perhaps I should have a - 5 to perception. Nauseous -10 etc.

Likewise, these conditions should affect your ability to hide. What effect does being nauseous have on hiding? What about stunned?

a) If I'm reading it right you can't perform full round actions (i.e. run). Move and standard actions only.

b) Lightning effects are defined somewhere else in the book, it can provide concealment (and concealment allows you to use Stealth).

a). Suppose I am a wizard animal shaped or whatever into a cheetah. Or a barbarian. Whatever.

Under the current rules, cant I make the stealth check (free action) then sprint across the brilliantly lit plains 500 feet? And never be seen, if I end in concealment?

Well, the actual run action is a full-round action, so isn't compatible with Stealth: at best you could double-Move, which is a bit more limited, and you'd need to meet the conditions for Stealth on both Move actions as far as I can tell. So you can, at most, cover your Move value of 'brilliantly lit plains' between cover or concealed locations. Plus, you're not so much making a Stealth check as a 'free action', but as part of each Move action.

My reply was aimed at this:

Quote:

I had problems to understand the difference between Camouflage and HiPs using the original rules, ...

Regarding the in-testing rules, the change should not be under stealth but under camouflage (and other similar abilities), stating that it don't work if you are observed.

Adding that it will work as before.

Ok, I see it now.

Your proposal is ok to me, altough the description of being observed in the Stealth rules still seems odd to me.

A few questions/issues/observations:

a). Suppose I am a wizard animal shaped or whatever into a cheetah. Or a barbarian. Whatever.

Under the current rules, cant I make the stealth check (free action) then sprint across the brilliantly lit plains 500 feet? And never be seen, if I end in concealment?

Huge loophole you could drive a mac truck through.

Um, no. The proposed rules specifically state that making a stealth check is part of an action to do something else, not a free action you make beforehand. So if you wanted to sprint across the plains, you would start my taking a move action to move up to your speed (though moving more than half gives you a penalty to your stealth check).

Furthermore, as the proposed rules ALSO state, a successful stealth check makes you hidden until your next action. So the successful stealth check as part of your move action will only keep you hidden for the duration of that move action. As soon as you do something else, you either lose your hidden condition automatically (like if you attack) or you have to make a fresh stealth check to stay hidden.

So however many actions it takes you to "sprint 500 feet", you'll have to make that many stealth checks. And on top of that, the OTHER part that you failed to read was that in order to make a stealth check, you have to already have cover/concealment when you start the action that you're trying to do stealthily.

What you call a loophole is simply you not reading very carefully at all.

The fact that that you do not have to maintain concealment is an issue.

Again, this is incorrect. Your hidden condition from a successful stealth check only lasts until you either take another action (which may or may not allow an attempt to stay hidden), or end your turn (losing your hidden condition automatically if you're not in cover/concealment when your turn ends).

EDIT: Ninja'd into oblivion.

paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, and unconscious are all specifically called out as making you helpless, being unaware of an enemy is not.

'Sleeping' isn't an in game condition, though. Go check the PRD. I just did. It isn't in there. It appears to appeal to common sense. Neither is held or bound.

Since we have non-conditions on that list, why are we to assume that it is an exclusive list? I could easily see 'oblivious' equating to helplessness.

Charender wrote:

paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, and unconscious are all specifically called out as making you helpless, being unaware of an enemy is not.

'Sleeping' isn't an in game condition, though. Go check the PRD. I just did. It isn't in there. It appears to appeal to common sense. Neither is held or bound.

Since we have non-conditions on that list, why are we to assume that it is an exclusive list? I could easily see 'oblivious' equating to helplessness.

The condition is called flat footed and is already covered in the surprise round mechanics. No, you do not get to coup de grace people for not noticing you there. That isn't the rules, that's munchkining with a giant house on top.

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.

This needs to be changed. Bluff should only allow you to negate the observed clause of stealth, meaning you must end your turn in a location that provides cover or concealment, which would imply a full move action to change your location.

That is only a momentary diversion.

I will also say any sequential usages of this action should be done with a cumulative -10 to your bluff check.

Sure you can trick a person one time or even two times but for 3,4,5 rounds should be effectively impossible.

Spells The arcane spoke voice is not a whisper, so you will be using stealth with a very nasty listen modifier.

Hear the details of a conversation is a DC of zero, so generally speaking without a silent spell or other silent effect you are not going to use stealth and cast spells.

I do not think we want to talk about Feint due to the fact you would have the power to Feint with a ranged weapon, and that breaks part of the Fighter(archer) class.

Creating a Diversion to Hide:
Simply make it a bluff and move full round action, that must end with cover or concealment.

The new stealth rules should not allow ranged feint with sneak attack.

Charender wrote:

paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, and unconscious are all specifically called out as making you helpless, being unaware of an enemy is not.

'Sleeping' isn't an in game condition, though. Go check the PRD. I just did. It isn't in there. It appears to appeal to common sense. Neither is held or bound.

Since we have non-conditions on that list, why are we to assume that it is an exclusive list? I could easily see 'oblivious' equating to helplessness.

Hey guys, remember when this was a Stealth Playtest Blog thread? That was pretty cool, right?

A bunch of wrong stuff

I wish.

Wheareas the truth is that the matter is exactly as I outlined it.

A cheetah can sprint as a *single* move action 500 feet. Clerics with wind walk can do more. But regardless, barbarians, monks, diving fliers, shadow walkers they can all get ridiculous movements.

Allowing any class wth a high movement to move freely with a -5 to stealth is akin to giving all of these classes Hide in Plain sight.

The penalty is way too small, and guaranteed it WILL be abused. Exactly how are you going to ever find someone in a city, or a an orchard or... if they can move freely, without observation?

So according to this proposed rule I could walk under the guard tower, through the messhall, and into the commandants bed. All without having to worry about cover/concealment because I started and ended the move action in cover/concealment.

The -5 penalty will have the additional effect of making stealth required for all characters - and wizards, druids, and many other character types will use the stealth rules.

Whats to stop my elf diviner wizard from being stealthy - and good at it? Nothing!

And if everyone can sneak it will slow the game down, to no good purpose.

Stealth needs to be the province of rogues and ninjas.

Make the stealth penalties more significant
Increase penalty depending on the speed.
Give rogues/ninja's/rangers a bonus to stealth per level

As is, its just a flat out bad rule.

Make sure to keep the double movement rule, so fast stealth is worth having.

It may be pedantic, but it wouldn´t hurt to actually say that Full Cover blocks Line of Sight... I´m not sure that´s stated anywhere.

Jiggy wrote:

A bunch of wrong stuff

I wish.

Wheareas the truth is that the matter is exactly as I outlined it.

A cheetah can sprint as a *single* move action 500 feet. Clerics with wind walk can do more.

Wrong. It can (once per hour) sprint 500 feet as part of a charge, which is a full-round action, which is not valid for making a stealth check. Similarly, a wind-walking cleric can cause themselves to be blown 600 feet in a round, but not as a move action.

Exactly how are you going to ever find someone in a city, or a an orchard or... if they can move freely, without observation?

Right, because I've NEVER heard of someone trying to disappear in a city.

So according to this proposed rule I could walk under the guard tower, through the messhall, and into the commandants bed. All without having to worry about cover/concealment because I started and ended the move action in cover/concealment.

Only if you can do all that in a single move action. And again a "move action", as you apparently need pointed out, is a very specific term with a very specific meaning, not just an umbrella term for anything you do that involves moving.

The sky is not falling, cp.

Backing off from the mechanical details themselves, the change to allow crossing areas of non-concealment as long as you end in one was CLEARLY AN EXPLICIT DESIGN GOAL of the new changes. Yes, this can work quite differently from the old sytem, but it´s clear that Paizo believed a more flexible Stealth was ´A GOOD THING´. WE can play-test and clarify the specific RAW/RAI, and otherwise help this Errata be the best it can be, but going against Paizo´s chosen design direction just isn´t going to have much effect I can guarantee you.

Fortunately, there´s thousands of books printed with the old rules if you don´t like whatever Paizo comes up for the new version.

...to allow crossing areas of non-concealment as long as you end in one

Unless I missed it, you don't even have to end in cover/concealment. You just won't stay hidden very long if you don't. ;)

EDIT: What I mean is, the endpoint of your movement doesn't have to be cover/concealment in order to allow the movement to be done stealthily. Just the starting point.

Sure, I was just talking about a vanilla use-case, and not in strictly 100% rules-legalese.

Honestly, I would agree it would make sense for there to be some mechanic that made ´crossing un-concealed space´ harder to do the more observers there are (like Tumbling past multiple opponents), to reflect having to ´time´ your movement when all are looking away (etc), but given the fact you make the stealth check when you ARE in concealment/cover (and nobody may actually be observing your location at the time), it seems like it may be too un-wieldy to pull off... Probably would work best as a bonus to the Perceivers. And still probably too un-wieldy... But maybe Stephen will pull off some Crunch Magic, so who knows?

Honestly, I would agree it would make sense for there to be some mechanic that made ´crossing un-concealed space´ harder to do the more observers there are (like Tumbling past multiple opponents), to reflect having to ´time´ your movement when all are looking away (etc), but given the fact you make the stealth check when you ARE in concealment/cover (and nobody may actually be observing your location at the time), it seems like it may be too un-wieldy to pull off... Probably would work best as a bonus to the Perceivers. And still probably too un-wieldy... But maybe Stephen will pull off some Crunch Magic, so who knows?

On the other hand, if you make your tumble against all but one guy, he doesn't get to say "There he is!" and partially nullify your successes against the others. I think the scaling DCs for tumbling balance with the "alarm" potential of being spotted by even one guard.

Quote:

So according to this proposed rule I could walk under the guard tower, through the messhall, and into the commandants bed. All without having to worry about cover/concealment because I started and ended the move action in cover/concealment.

Only if you can do all that in a single move action. And again a "move action", as you apparently need pointed out, is a very specific term with a very specific meaning, not just an umbrella term for anything you do that involves moving.

The sky is not falling, cp.

Also, something as simple as a door would stop this kind of cheese cold.

After all, you need to stop your movement (likely without cover or concealment) in order to use your move action to open the door.

I suppose a flying sneak could do this with Flyby Attack, but even then it would only get them past a single door. Even this will fail if the door is locked.

Can someone explain to me the part about actions directed at an unattended object, or causing harm indirectly not breaking steath when Attacking while hidden. I think it needs more explanation. Here is a youtube video of what I envision (it is from a Fist Full of Yen).

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u_IWft7rmk (skip to 3:56)

Thanks