Stealth Playtest, Round Two

Can anyone help clarify how the "must begin your action with cover or concealment" yet being able to traverse unconcealed areas undetected interacts with, say, shot on the run?

A player of mine wanted to dash from behind a tree to behind a tree, shooting a drow guard on the way using the rules for snipe. For game purposes, and epicness, I decided this was valid with these playtest rules. Is it?

Can anyone help clarify how the "must begin your action with cover or concealment" yet being able to traverse unconcealed areas undetected interacts with, say, shot on the run?

A player of mine wanted to dash from behind a tree to behind a tree, shooting a drow guard on the way using the rules for snipe. For game purposes, and epicness, I decided this was valid with these playtest rules. Is it?

I really want to say no.

Snipe is a standard action while shot on the run is a full round action. If the player would have simply not moved in the first place it would have worked.

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.

The odds of using most spells and staying hidden is very low.

There is such a thing as a strong whisper.

I think when they used the word strong, they meant strong as in sure. You can't stutter or mispronounce things (such as when you are deafened).

I will say the general paradigm going back a long while has always been an audible voice, and the reason why they create a silent spell (metamagic) feat.

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.

Sure, a door could. But this is a rules discussion. Rules are supposed to help GM's, not be 'fixed'.

Giving moving such small penalty is a bad idea. I've got halflings and elves now that have no problems sneaking under the much greater regular penalties.
Allowing people to cross broad daylight is a bad idea.
Encouraging other classes to sneak is a bad idea. The stealth rules could be an opportunity to make the rogue class more viable. TAKE IT.

Give rogues per level bonuses to stealth.
Give them stealth tricks that they can do as part of level advancement.

For example, perhaps a 4th level guard can distract one guard by a jedi mind trick. At 8th level he can using tools at hand distract 4 guards.

Perhaps at 12th level he can subtly (without leaving cover) disrupt a mages casting so that he needs to make a CL level check.....

The odds of using most spells and staying hidden is very low.

The odds are directly related to how good you are at making a standard stealth check with no special penalties; I asked and got a direct response early in the thread, and the clear intent is that as long as the spell is not an attack, you may cast it and make a Stealth check to remain hidden.

So 'strong voice' arguments are irrelevant; unless they rewrite that part of the stealth rules, its completely legal to cast a spell and make a stealth check to remain unnoticed, verbal component or no.

I am not saying you cannot attempt a stealth check. I am saying the DC to hear you casting is going to be 5 - 10 + the distance modifier.

I am not saying you cannot attempt a stealth check. I am saying the DC to hear you casting is going to be 5 - 10 + the distance modifier.

And what Krispy (and the blog) is saying is that no, the DC to hear you casting is going to be your stealth check result.

I am not saying you cannot attempt a stealth check. I am saying the DC to hear you casting is going to be 5 - 10 + the distance modifier.

What you said was "The odds of using most spells and staying hidden is very low."

Even if you know a spell was cast, the caster remains Hidden.

I'll admit, its not totally unreasonable to say it may be possible to hear a spell was cast. Its definately an inference though, and not really part of the core rules.

So the bard is going to cast a spell and stay hidden?

There is a good chance he is playing an instrument or singing.

So the bard is going to cast a spell and stay hidden?

There is a good chance he is playing an instrument or singing.

He can use Perform (dance) or Perform (sing) with Bardic Performance and remain hidden, in fact.

VonGonda wrote:

So the bard is going to cast a spell and stay hidden?

There is a good chance he is playing an instrument or singing.

He can use Perform (dance) or Perform (sing) with Bardic Performance and remain hidden, in fact.

But if a bard is trying to perform stealthily, there's a good chance he's going to accidentally be hidden from his companions, in which case (if memory serves) they'd stop benefitting from his performance.

Unless of course the whole party is huddled together behind a rock wall and he can only use stealth against people on the other side. That's actually kind of a cute scene: the bard leading a quiet round of patty-cake behind a rock before they engage the enemy.

That's actually kind of a cute scene: the bard leading a quiet round of patty-cake behind a rock before they engage the enemy.

It can also be descriptive; I've heard combat described as a sort of dance in literature, and you can get pretty flowery about stealthy movement as well. As well, focusing chants/tunes which can be softly spoken or hummed aren't out of line either.

Doing so without it giving your position away is pretty well in line with heroic characters IMO.

As well, focusing chants/tunes which can be softly spoken or hummed aren't out of line either.

I now want to make a bard whose style of choice is Perform (Ominous Latin Chanting).

But I guess we're getting sidetracked again.

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.

The attack portion of this one needs to be removed otherwise you are breaking the entire feint feat tree.

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.

The attack portion of this one needs to be removed otherwise you are breaking the entire feint feat tree.

It's already been pointed out that this section allows you to make a bluff check and then (if successful) make a move/draw a weapon with a stealth check, and then (again, if successful) attack from your hidden condition (getting sneak attack, in the rogue's case).

Some have called it cheese, others have called it a classic trope, and still others have pointed out (as you did) that it seems to perhaps step on the toes of feinting.

In any case, Stephen Radney-McFarland has acknowledged it and is considering only allowing a move or withdraw instead of just returning you to your regularly scheduled program.

I'm not sure where I stand on it, though.

Regarding the issue of should spellcasting that is not silent (through use of Silent Spell or spells with no verbal component) be able to be cast with stealth, this is a playtest and opportunity for feedback.

Yes, under the current iteration of the stealth playtest rules presented, you CAN cast a spell and stay hidden using the stealth skill, as long as it's not an attack, the point some of us are making is that we feel you should not be able to do so. We're pointing to the current rules definining Verbal components and the "strong voice" clause as support for this stance.

It's counter productive to say, "well, the stealth rules allow it, so who cares what the Verbal component rules say", when the whole point of this blog/thread is to discuss the stealth rules and bring up issues surrounding them.

If, after this discussion, the designers feel that they do want to allow stealthy spellcasting using the stealth skill, after reviewing the feedback, then that's fine. If that is the decision, I hope they would also revise the description of Verbal components to remove the ambiguity between the wording there and the updated stealth rules.

Regarding the issue of should spellcasting that is not silent (through use of Silent Spell or spells with no verbal component) be able to be cast with stealth, this is a playtest and opportunity for feedback.

Yes, under the current iteration of the stealth playtest rules presented, you CAN cast a spell and stay hidden using the stealth skill, as long as it's not an attack, the point some of us are making is that we feel you should not be able to do so. We're pointing to the current rules definining Verbal components and the "strong voice" clause as support for this stance.

It's counter productive to say, "well, the stealth rules allow it, so who cares what the Verbal component rules say", when the whole point of this blog/thread is to discuss the stealth rules and bring up issues surrounding them.

If, after this discussion, the designers feel that they do want to allow stealthy spellcasting using the stealth skill, after reviewing the feedback, then that's fine. If that is the decision, I hope they would also revise the description of Verbal components to remove the ambiguity between the wording there and the updated stealth rules.

There's one very important thing that this argument is missing - being hidden does not mean that no one knows you are there. It just means that they don't know where you are. So if you speak out loud to cast a spell, then make your stealth check, they hear you cast the spell, they know that there is now a spellcaster in the room with them, but they have no idea who cast it or where the caster is.

Note that I'm not saying that people automatically know that someone is hidden in the room with them. Just that the knowledge that there is someone is entirely separate from the hidden condition.

If a spell caster is currently under the effects of Ventriloquism they should have the power to use the stealth skill as prescribed in this play test, otherwise pinpointing their location from audible voice should be as perception check of 10 or so.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/ventriloquism.html#_ventriloquism

It's counter productive to say, "well, the stealth rules allow it, so who cares what the Verbal component rules say", when the whole point of this blog/thread is to discuss the stealth rules and bring up issues surrounding them.

My bad. So many posts in this thread have been "so these rules now allow/disallow X" and have been wrong that I was still in clarification mode. :P

Can anyone help clarify how the "must begin your action with cover or concealment" yet being able to traverse unconcealed areas undetected interacts with, say, shot on the run?

A player of mine wanted to dash from behind a tree to behind a tree, shooting a drow guard on the way using the rules for snipe. For game purposes, and epicness, I decided this was valid with these playtest rules. Is it?

I'd have to agree with the epicness of the Dash from cover to cover using Shot on the Run. It lends itself to heroic actions, the core rules are in place, sniping +20 to the stealth Dc or even the +40 for particularly hectic circumstances.. As long as you don't miscalculate the distance and run out of movement.

Perhaps appending a sentence at the end stating only a specific set of full round actions can be performed utilising stealth to maintain the hidden condition.
Shot on the Run, Flyby attack etc.
You must start your full round action with the hidden condition and move from cover to cover, not soft cover. The DC to remain hidden is the perception check of any enemies, with a cumulative +2 to the DC per enemy. You also take the +20 sniping penalty as you move from cover to cover. You must move at least 10 feet to perform the stealth check and for each 10 feet past the first that you are not in cover then a further +2 is applied to the DC check to remain hidden!

So to total up an example, I'm hidden behind a tree, I want to run to the next bit of cover which is 30 feet away, +4 to the DC, using shot on the run, sniping +20, there are 6 enemies to avoid, +12 to the DC. Final modifier to remain hidden at the end of my go +36!

I think it's do able and awesome!

A few points about casting with verbal components while using stealth:
A) You must be ABLE to speak in a strong voice, not you MUST speak in a strong voice. Intentional?
B) The DC to hear you, I think, would be fairly easy, however, Invisibility places the perception DC modifier for locating a creature speaking as a -20, the SAME AS SNIPING. Intentional?
C) Hearing someone, pinpointing their location, and having line of sight to them are all vastly different things. It would, at least, allow me, as a caster, to "stealth" cast a few buff spells then move half my speed somewhere else. Sure, guards heard me cast, but they STILL don't know where I am because I was still "hidden." I think this is a VERY important distinction.

Edit: Bodrin, that is actually an excellent idea, though I think those are too specific conditional modifiers. I just think that the two move actions and the attack action involved in shot on the run should be, for the purposes of stealth only, not be a banned full round action.

VonGonda wrote:

The odds of using most spells and staying hidden is very low.

The odds are directly related to how good you are at making a standard stealth check with no special penalties; I asked and got a direct response early in the thread, and the clear intent is that as long as the spell is not an attack, you may cast it and make a Stealth check to remain hidden.

So 'strong voice' arguments are irrelevant; unless they rewrite that part of the stealth rules, its completely legal to cast a spell and make a stealth check to remain unnoticed, verbal component or no.

You can make a stealth check, but you have a modifier.

You can make a stealth check, but you have a modifier.

Quantifying it will be a good idea, but you can't claim that speaking don't give a negative modifier to stealth.

I can claim, however, that it is the act of speaking as part of casting the spell which forces a stealth check in the first place.

Being able to speak in a clear voice and remain hidden seems flawed. If you tried to play hide and seek while talking on a cell phone it would be short game.

If the Stealth skill is a merging of Move Silently and Hide, then why do most of the Stealth rulings and clarifications seem to be limited to what would have been covered by the old Hide skill, but not Move Silently?

The only time the Stealth skills seems to acknowledge this is in the second sentence "This skill covers hiding and moving silently.", which then appears to be largely forgotten as the rest of the text focuses on how Stealth prevents a person from being seen visually. Previously, one could raise their Move Silently skill to be able to avoid sonic based detection methods, but now it seems you can't avoid those methods using the combined Stealth skill.

It might be worthwhile to step back and examine how abstract versus how granular you want the Stealth skill to be (should it cover a broader range of "staying undetected" or be largely limited to being a search-and-replace for the old Hide skill)? It may be possible to simplify the skill a great deal depending on what you decide you want the skill to be able to do.

So if you speak out loud to cast a spell, then make your stealth check, they hear you cast the spell, they know that there is now a spellcaster in the room with them, but they have no idea who cast it or where the caster is.

Regardless of the strong voice while casting issue per se, this again brings up the actual differences between different modes of perception. Assuming the caster is (still) Hidden, observers don´t have Line of SIGHT to them. OK. But anybody making the Perception Check to hear something (casting) perceives something... It´s just as far as I can tell, the rules don´t distinguish the differences in degree of precision/results of a passed check for Perception based on different senses... So I don´t see why anybody passing a Perception Check to hear that a spell was cast, wouldn´t in fact know the exact square it was cast in. This goes for all the senses, smell and touch (vibration ala tremorsense?) included.

Question re: ´sense creature burrowing beneath you´: How is the 25 DC derived / how else does it combine with other modifiers... I mean, should the ´Full Cover´/thickness of wall modifier also be applied? Overlapping with the normal distance modifier? etc...

Likewise, for smell: the Scent ability has an ´automatic´ function within range which only tells you of presence (and you can Move action to note general direction), but not specific square. But does a succesful Perception check using SMELL... which isn´t opposed by Stealth (most Perception checks seem to be assumed to use all senses, unless one isn´t relevant e.g. sight is blocked by Darkness, Smell is blocked by wind wall or vacuum or water, etc) reveal the exact square? There is nothing saying otherwise, so I don´t know on what basis we´re supposed to think that a succesful Perception checks using smell/whatever give any different result than one using Sight or Hearing for example.

Realistically, in the case of Hearing, it´s MORE than reasonable for a blindfolded person to be able to ´pin-point´ (on a 5´square grid) the location of somebody making noise who is 5-10´ straight ahead or behind... Pin-pointing to a 5´square grid to somebody who is 100´ away doesn´t seem quite a realistic for an average person... though being able to get close enough that Splash rules came into play seems reasonable.

Being able to speak in a clear voice and remain hidden seems flawed. If you tried to play hide and seek while talking on a cell phone it would be short game.

Guess I should have waited 2 pages to make my prior post on this subject. ;)

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.

VonGonda: Note how we each quoted the same rule but bolded different parts? From what I've seen, most folks fixate on "strong voice" without heeding the rest. My point is, people are confusing "must be able to speak in a strong voice" for "must speak in a strong voice".

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.

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.

Then why even bother to speak, if verbal components only need the potential to speak clearly. They never actually say you need to speak. I mean we both see that they clearly mean for you to speak, no one is arguing that, but you're right, by RAW, you don't actually need to speak.

I'd call that mincing terms.

I think spell casting with a verbal component flat out needs to come off of the things you can do while hidden. I understand trying to keep hidden as close to invisible as possible but why is it easier to stay hidden casting haste than slow?

Now why in the name of all that's polyhedral would you have to be able to speak in a strong voice if they weren't going to have you speak in a strong voice? Does the universe have some sort sort of retroactive effect-cause schrodingers cat that looks into the future and sees if you WOULD have been able to speak in a strong voice before you started whispering or mayby.. just mayby...do you actually have to speak in a strong voice?

also: I never understood the discrepancy between Blinded and Invisibility.
Why does Blinded just impose a -4 Perception penalty, but Invisiblity increases the DC by 20/40?
Since integrating Invisibility to Stealth was one goal, it seems reasonable to integrate all aspects of Perception.

EDIT: also, why Deafened imposes a -4 penalty on all Perception checks while Silence doesn´t do so.
(neither does Darkness affect non-visual Perception checks, while Invisiblity does appear to do so, increasing the Perception DC)

They never actually say you need to speak. I mean we both see that they clearly mean for you to speak, no one is arguing that, but you're right, by RAW, you don't actually need to speak.

You, EL, and BNW might be misunderstanding me. I never implied (and I don't think anyone would seriously argue) that you don't need to speak at all. If one of my players tried to pull the "you don't actually need to speak" line on me, I'd shoot down that nonsense with a DC 50 GM Glare gaze attack. :)

What I was pointing out is that verbal components provide more leeway in terms of volume than some people would otherwise believe. There is a BIG difference between the benefits of Silent Spell and whispering.

Seems much better than the last version. I do, however, have two MAJOR issues with the present version:

1) If I'm reading the proposed rules correctly, this generally requires a Stealth check at the start of every action? If so, then a character trying to do something while using stealth - using a standard and a move action - would now be required to make two stealth checks per turn? Against the perception checks of every possible observer? My problem with this: Too many rolls slows the game down. Perhaps making ONE roll per turn at the greatest appropriate stealth penalty would be superior.

Or alternately keep the last stealth check rolled as long as one is doing something that one can do while hidden...until such point as one conducts an action with higher penalties and/or modifiers. One could even have a character using stealth make the check ONCE per encounter/situation and then have possible observers within a certain distance roll Perception versus that DC every round (as a non-action) until the character is noticed; applying different modifiers to the original roll as appropriate.

2) It seems that using Disable Device while hidden presently seems impossible, since this would require a full round action. No picking the lock of the door behind the guards. Which seems reasonably iconic to -me-. Perhaps the best way to solve this would be simply to call out disable device as an exception to the "generally impossible to use full-round actions bit". Or, as a less ideal solution, allow characters to use Disable Device while hidden as a rogue/ninja talent, class ability, or feat.

I do not believe the words "must be able to" absolve the character from actually doing so. If the writer intended that, it should certainly have been made more clear.

If a player were to argue this at my table, it would be ruled against decisively. Reading into the language to that extent represents a spirit of entrapment that I feel eats away at the fun of the game, and is entirely too prevalent these days.

The passage means to enforce a loud speaking voice for spells. I regret its ambiguity in that I cannot call you unarguably wrong for your reading. Everyone is entitled to their interpretation, such as it is.

In the spirit of design rationale: spellcasters do not need this kind of aid. Combining their already impressive abilities with the option of stealth is showering wealth on a rich man.

OR... although it goes against 1 of Shadowdweller´s points...
Disable Device and other ´allowed´ Full-Round Actions could be treated as 2 actions (Move+Standard)
for purposes of Stealth, and thus require 2 Stealth checks to complete undetected.
Since you can already complete a Full-Round Action over 2 rounds (with 2 Standards) this doesn´t seem such a stretch.

I´m not sure how to reduce the number of rolls... That may just be the nature of the beast.

I do not believe the words "must be able to" absolve the character from actually doing so. If the writer intended that, it should certainly have been made more clear.

Replacing "must be able to speak in a strong voice" with "must speak in a strong voice" would result in the way you and BNW handle verbal components. That wording would be unambiguous and leave little to no room for interpretation. However, I would see that as being a houserule. Why add those words if we are meant to ignore them, and if their absence would have made things clearer?

While I think the fact that those 3 words makes my point, naturally, we're talking the inclusion or omission of 3 words in a book that is over an inch thick. (It seems to be something of an in-joke with the devs than they can make a great book and GMs/players flip out over 1 phrase.) While I can agree to disagree, I don't believe that is helpful in a thread where people are seeking clarity on both existing rules and proposed changed.

Since we do in fact disagree, and we each think we have a firm grasp on RAI and RAW, I'd suggest FAQing the point so SKR or Stephen can address the matter. At this point, I'd say both sides have made their arguments plain enough for a developer to evaluate, don't you?

Edit: Added the aside about '3 words' since upon rereading it was possibly unclear why I mentioned that.

To illustrate why the number of rolls is a problem: Consider a rogue taking a double move while sneaking across a room wherein four guards are in combat with the rest of the party. As DM, I have to slow down the game while I make 8 different rolls - and calculate 8 different sets of modifiers because they will be different distances from the rogue.

There are a number of ways to streamline this as a DM (some of which I'm sure others use) including assuming that the enemy is taking 10 for perception checks. Or one could, alternately, make a a single Perception check for every group of identical monsters, adding some bonus (say +1) for every individual in that group above one.

Some standardization across games to this effect would be nice, however.

Streamline idea: characters relying on `default` or `free` Perception make ONE Perception check that applies to anything they might perceive during that round (which could be `opposed` by multiple Stealthed actions from the same or multiple characters trying to sneak around). Both sides are still rolling, so there is more variability than CMB vs. CMD, but I don`t see it necessary for both sides to roll MULTIPLE TIMES PER ROUND (potentially).

Stuff like searching for stimulus as a Move Action, or anything else that specifically triggers a Perception check, is beyond that 1 check/round, but NORMAL people will only ever roll ONE Perception check per round... opposed by the DCs of whatever happens to possibly be observable. Perhaps clarification would be needed re: multiple Perception checks (ala searching for stimulus) since the base one is applying to EVERYTHING for the ENTIRE round... Making more checks would mean you use the highest of the rolls for the entire round...???
(that has the issue of passive Perception happening `off your turn` while active perception is on your turn, although saying that characters with `slower` Init `get less out of` taking the best of 2 perceptions when they choose to actively search doesn`t seem the worst of outcomes)

Since we do in fact disagree, and we each think we have a firm grasp on RAI and RAW, I'd suggest FAQing the point so SKR or Stephen can address the matter. At this point, I'd say both sides have made their arguments plain enough for a developer to evaluate, don't you?

I should take a moment to applaud your civility, as this is the most equitable possible response. Would that more such battles could end this way. ;)

I'm sure it must have already been covered in this thread somewhere, but am I correct in my understanding that, according to the current writeup, it isn't feasible to snipe/sneak attack more than once per round?

Diego Rossi wrote:

You can make a stealth check, but you have a modifier.

Quantifying it will be a good idea, but you can't claim that speaking don't give a negative modifier to stealth.

I can claim, however, that it is the act of speaking as part of casting the spell which forces a stealth check in the first place.

KrispyXIV wrote:

Wait... can I cast a spell and make a Stealth Check to remain hidden?

If not, can someone point out for me where it says I can't?

By this, I mean a spell which is not also an attack (like buffs, or heals), cast targeting myself, an object, or an ally.

You can, but you must make a new Stealth check when you do.

As it often happen, your question was too generic to be useful and you are far too happy in transforming a generic answer to a specific one.

The question should be:

As it is possible to cast a spell and stay hidden, what are the modifiers for the different casting situations:

- casting a spell without somatic and verbal components?

- casting a spell with somatic components?

- casting a spell with verbal components?

- casting a spell with both verbal and somatic components?

There should be a difference between casting a silent and still spell against casting a spell with both verbal and somatic components

We should be careful how we pose our questions, as the question condition the answer. There is a old joke that is a perfect example.

A Benedictine and a Jesuit are in a cloister doing the morning prayers.
The Jesuit is smoking.
The Benedictine ask: "How is that you are allowed to smoke while praying? I asked the Prior for permission and he denied it to me."
And the Jesuit reply: "Because you asked if you could smoke while you prayed, and I asked if I could pray while I smoked."

Replacing "must be able to speak in a strong voice" with "must speak in a strong voice" would result in the way you and BNW handle verbal components. That wording would be unambiguous and leave little to no room for interpretation. However, I would see that as being a houserule. Why add those words if we are meant to ignore them, and if their absence would have made things clearer?

Why do you have to be ABLE to speak in a strong voice if you don't actually need to speak in a strong voice? Have the rules as written ever actually been interpreted to be the rules as intended with that level of lawyering?

I'm just looking for some in universe mechanic that would check for the ability to use a strong voice that didn't actually require the use of a strong voice.

Whispering carries a DC 15 Perception check to make out the details — something useful for someone trained in Spellcraft to figure out what's going on. However simply hearing that noise should be an even lower DC. While that might not be enough to pin-point the hiding mage, it should tip off a guard who has been taking-10 to actively look for the source of the noise. DC 10-15 might be a reasonable challenge for low-level mooks (like said guard), but there's maybe only 1 PC between my two groups that would not auto-succeed on that Perception check against an NPC doing the same (barring circumstance modifiers of course).

I have a memory that the capacity to cast spells as a whisper was a ability of some prestige class or granted by a feat in the 3.5, but maybe I am mistaken.

Since we do in fact disagree, and we each think we have a firm grasp on RAI and RAW, I'd suggest FAQing the point so SKR or Stephen can address the matter. At this point, I'd say both sides have made their arguments plain enough for a developer to evaluate, don't you?

FAQed. It is a fairly important question.

Quote:

Replacing "must be able to speak in a strong voice" with "must speak in a strong voice" would result in the way you and BNW handle verbal components. That wording would be unambiguous and leave little to no room for interpretation. However, I would see that as being a houserule. Why add those words if we are meant to ignore them, and if their absence would have made things clearer?

Why do you have to be ABLE to speak in a strong voice if you don't actually need to speak in a strong voice? Have the rules as written ever actually been interpreted to be the rules as intended with that level of lawyering?

I'm just looking for some in universe mechanic that would check for the ability to use a strong voice that didn't actually require the use of a strong voice.

If you interpret "strong voice" as meaning not faltering or stuttering (such as when you are deaf), then it makes perfect sense.

I like it. Seems very detailed. I'll test it soon. I have a battle coming up with a bunch of stealthers versus the party.

With Tremorsense, can you possibly add the line "in all other ways Tremorsense works like blindsense". I'm assuming that a creature with Tremorsense still loses its dex bonus to AC versus invisible foes and can be fooled by concealment and abilities like mirror image. Or can they? Some more clarification for Tremorsense would be helpful.

If you interpret "strong voice" as meaning not faltering or stuttering (such as when you are deaf), then it makes perfect sense.

No that's a completely different argument for the same thing. You're still requiring that they speak in a strong voice by speaking in a strong voice, you've just ... ahem altered what you think a strong voice is.

Why do you have to be ABLE to speak in a strong voice if you don't actually need to speak in a strong voice?

.

• suffocating in a vacuum
  
• choking on gas (probably has a Fort save associated too)
  
• gagged
  
• sitting by the campfire trying to see who can stuff the most marshmallows in their mouth (favorite Boy Scout pasttime)
  
• underwater (also requires a Concentration check)
  
• has a really nasty head cold that's completely stopping them up
  
• has someone holding a pillow over their face (would also require a Concentration check)

There are many situations in the rules where it's simply not feasible to make an exhaustive list of all applicable situations. The devs repeatedly try to impress their need word conservation on us. Stephen even said that the new Stealth rules have to fit in the same space as the old ones.

That is why I think the rules on verbal components were phrased as they are — to allow for leeway rather than mandating that casters must always speak at a volume sufficient to deliver oration to an audience.

EDIT: From what I can see by looking at d20srd.org, the wording for Verbal components was not changed between 3.5 and Pathfinder. It may be that this hasn't been looked at in depth. Clearly, it either needs to have an official clarification, OR the statement that it's left to GM interpretation (less desirable given the need for consistency across PFS groups).

I'm just looking for some in universe mechanic that would check for the ability to use a strong voice that didn't actually require the use of a strong voice.

You mean beside common sense and the GM? I'm really not sure why such a mechanic would be needed or beneficial except in a computer game.

Diego: I agree that a list of conditional modifiers would be useful. Thank's for FAQing the debate.

suffocating in a vacuum

choking on gas (probably has a Fort save associated too)
gagged
sitting by the campfire trying to see who can stuff the most marshmallows in their mouth (favorite Boy Scout pasttime)
underwater (also requires a Concentration check)
has a really nasty head cold that's completely stopping them up
has someone holding a pillow over their face (would also require a Concentration check)

In all these cases you are not able to speak with a strong voice and you also DON"T speak with a strong voice (because you're not able to)

You mean beside common sense and the GM?

Neither are an in universe mechanic. If you're calling your ruling common sense, its not. I've seen the speaking thing come up a lot and this is the first time i've seen it.

I'm really not sure why such a mechanic would be needed or beneficial except in a computer game.

And since this is not a computer game, how would the universe know, or why would it care, if you COULD speak with a strong voice unless you actually ARE speaking with a strong voice?