Stealth Playtest, Round Two

Malignor wrote:

If a creature is detected by you, you would get a +4 on perception checks to locate and a +2 to observe a hiding creature.

If a creature is located by you, you would get a +4 on perception checks to observe a hiding creature.

I don't like this though. It is just more rolling an complication added in.

I'm not suggesting more rolls.

concerro wrote:

Malignor wrote:

If a creature is detected by you, you would get a +4 on perception checks to locate and a +2 to observe a hiding creature.

If a creature is located by you, you would get a +4 on perception checks to observe a hiding creature.

I don't like this though. It is just more rolling an complication added in.

I'm not suggesting more rolls.

I'm suggesting:
if someone were attempting stealth while they are detected by scent or hearing, those who detect the stealther get bonuses on their perception checks.
if someone were attempting stealth while they are located by tremorsense, blindsense, scent or hearing, those who detect the stealther get even higher bonuses on their perception checks.

Your whole suggestion is very interesting, but I fear it will be beyond the scope of this change. From what I get the idea is to produce something that can be printed as an errata of the current rulebook and will be used in its next printing.

It would be very good for Pathfinder 2.0.

concerro wrote:

Malignor wrote:

If a creature is detected by you, you would get a +4 on perception checks to locate and a +2 to observe a hiding creature.

If a creature is located by you, you would get a +4 on perception checks to observe a hiding creature.

I don't like this though. It is just more rolling an complication added in.

I'm not suggesting more rolls.

I'm suggesting:
if someone were attempting stealth while they are detected by scent or hearing, those who detect the stealther get bonuses on their perception checks.
if someone were attempting stealth while they are located by tremorsense, blindsense, scent or hearing, those who detect the stealther get even higher bonuses on their perception checks.

Ok. I like the idea, but I want the rules to have as few changes as possible. Sorry I was not clear on that.

Bascaria wrote:

I'm not saying stealth should be an autosuccess. I am saying that a 7th level small rogue should have a greater than 63% chance of successfully sneaking up on two first level characters.

I suppose you have corrected the level of the halfling to keep up to the class bonus of the rangers.

The problem is what the elves know even if they detect the presence of something.
If your halfling keep behind full cover, unless he fail in some catastrophic way like stubbing a toe and cursing in halfling, all the rangers know is that hey have heard the sound of some small creature moving in the brushes.
It can be a fox, jackal or wolf attracted by the smell of the elves meal. It is worth rousing the camp for that?

So keeping behind cover should help.

If the halfling is signalling silently to his friends "there are 2 guards, flank them", doing that while in sight of the elves require an extra check (movement is easy to detect). If he has full cover there will be no need unless he speak.

--

Your statement is very reductive too: "7th level small rogue should have a greater than 63% chance of successfully sneaking up on two first level characters."
You are cutting out a lot of information.
"A small rogue without low light vision or darkvision that is taking 13 move actions in sight of 2 first level level elf rangers has a 63% chance of success" and I think that is only right.

Note that you have chosen:
a) a class for which perception is a class skill;
b) a race with a bonus to perception.
c) a rogue with a race that don't see in the dark.
So you have staked the test in favour of the people perceiving and then protest the result.

Let's check the math with humans fighters:
As the halfling now is level 7 he has +20 while the guards have +3 (I keep the high wisdom).
At 10' the guards need a 19+ to beat a roll of 1 on the halfling part.
At 15' only a 20 vs a 1 on the halfling part.

So chance to be spotted by one guard at 15' 1/400
At 10' 3/100
At 5' 3/100...

It doesn't matter how catastrophically or not the rogue fails his check by. If he fails, he is detected. Anything different is houseruling. The presence of a class ability (distraction ability of the burglar rogue) which allows a bluff check on a failed stealth check to have the perceiver think the stealther was something other than a stealther when the perceiver does not have line of sight implies that without that ability, you are perceived. Even without the perceiver having line of sight. So the elves know that someone is sneaking in. That's worth rousing the camp.

Once again, keeping behind cover won't help. All of my math assumes that the rogue already has full cover at every single square.

Short of having darkvision, seeing in the dark won't matter. I did chose a race that can't see in the dark, but I also chose the quinessential rogue race. Bonus to dex, small size gives +4 to stealth, and their racial abilities make them good rogues. Not seeing in the dark sucks, but the elves don't have darkvision either. Assuming dim light everywhere from the moon, there is no mechanical difference between the rogue's normal vision and the elves' low light vision.

And yes, I chose a class with perception as a class skill to stand guard at the camp. Forgive me, that doesn't seem like much of a stretch.

You can't take 10 on a stealth check. Distraction and danger.

Any circumstantial bonus is going to be up to DM interpretation, and can't be easily relied on for situations like this. Plus, remember I already gave the rogue a +2 circumstantial bonus for favorable conditions from the darkness. More circumstantial bonuses stemming from the darkness seems highly unlikely.

Spring Attack Question:

I have a rogue/shadow Dancer in a high level campaign.

I've been using this tactic:

1: Partial move with spring attack
2: Stealth while moving using HiPS
3: Make attack with hidden condition
4: Hidden condition ends
5: Take second partial spring attack move
6: Stealth while moving away using HiPS

This lets me make a sneak attack every round.

There doesn't appear to be any restriction with how many stealth checks you can make in a given round, it's just based on the action types you use.

Since spring attack lets you split your move, I don't see any real reason why you couldn't make the two stealth checks.

Thoughts?

Spring Attack Question:

I have a rogue/shadow Dancer in a high level campaign.

I've been using this tactic:

1: Partial move with spring attack
2: Stealth while moving using HiPS
3: Make attack with hidden condition
4: Hidden condition ends
5: Take second partial spring attack move
6: Stealth while moving away using HiPS

This lets me make a sneak attack every round.

There doesn't appear to be any restriction with how many stealth checks you can make in a given round, it's just based on the action types you use.

Since spring attack lets you split your move, I don't see any real reason why you couldn't make the two stealth checks.

Thoughts?

Under the current RAW, Stealth does not make your opponent lose his DEX, thus no Sneak Attack. This Blog is working on redoing the Stealth rules. But for now, HIPS or Stealth does not grant you Sneak Attack at all.

Would Uncanny Dodge function vs Hidden? Like it does for Invisibility?

If so, I would also like to see Uncanny Dodge updated the hidden condition is accounted for.

It is only loosely related to this thread, but I think it is a good location to point this our so a Developer see it:

Rogue:

Uncanny Dodge (Ex): Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. A rogue with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses the feint action (see Combat) against her.

Barbarian

Uncanny Dodge (Ex): At 2nd level, a barbarian gains the ability to react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She cannot be caught flat-footed, even if the attacker is invisible.nothing here She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. A barbarian with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses the feint action against her.

Going with the RAW the barbarian lose his Dexterity modifier to AC if attacked by an invisible opponent.

Under the current RAW, Stealth does not make your opponent lose his DEX, thus no Sneak Attack. This Blog is working on redoing the Stealth rules. But for now, HIPS or Stealth does not grant you Sneak Attack at all.

You don't know where your opponent is, so you can react to him.

Dexterity apply to AC if :

Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.

Uncanny Dodge (Ex): At 2nd level, a barbarian gains the ability to react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She cannot be caught flat-footed, even if the attacker is invisible.nothing here She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. A barbarian with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses the feint action against her.

That help Deigo?

Uncanny Dodge (Ex): At 2nd level, a barbarian gains the ability to react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She cannot be caught flat-footed, even if the attacker is invisible. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. A barbarian with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses the feint action against her.

That help Deigo?

No, flat-footed and losing the dexterity modifiers are different things.

By the RAW of the text the rogue isn't caught flat footed and don't lose his dexterity bonus to AC even against invisible opponents.
The barbarian isn't caught flat footed by invisible opponents but he still lose his dexterity.

I think that RAI they are meant to have exactly the same ability, but it is described differently.

Losing the dexterity modifier is one of the effects of being flat-footed, but losing the dexterity modifier don't mean you are flat footed.

Color me confused then what does flat footed do if not remove your dex bonus?

Color me confused then what does flat footed do if not remove your dex bonus?

Flat-Footed: A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.

Being flat footed includes not making immediate or free actions like shouting a warning, casting an immediate spell, using special counter attacks like tose given by some feats and so on at libitum.

There is a tendency to equate the two things, but they are different.

However that includes dex loss in the condition so immune to the condtion would be immune to the dex loss.

If i'm immune to sleep and someone uses something that puts me to sleep i don't have a -10 to perception just because it doesnt point it out.

However that includes dex loss in the condition so immune to the condtion would be immune to the dex loss.

If i'm immune to sleep and someone uses something that puts me to sleep i don't have a -10 to perception just because it doesnt point it out.

Wrong example.

Being flat footed impose on you a series of drawbacks, one of those drawbacks is the loss of dexterity for defensive purposes; other situations and effects can make you lose your dexterity for defensive purposes without making you flat footed, for example being attacked by an invisible adversary.
The rogue specifically keep his dexterity if attackd by a invisible adversary, the barbarian not.

The rogue specifically keep his dexterity if attackd by a invisible adversary, the barbarian not.

Yes, there's a bit of a language muddle regarding the two versions of Uncanny Dodge, and the Barbarian gets the significantly less useful version of Uncanny Dodge.

Upon re-reading invisiblity, gaining immunity to flat-footedness versus an invisible opponent seems to be quite irrelevant. Let's read the Glossary Entry on Invisiblity:

PF Invisibility: Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See Invisibility, under Special Abilities.

So even if the Barbarian's Uncanny Dodge provides immunity to the Flat Footed condition, being invisible removes the DEX bonus and does not make you treat the creature as if they had the Flat Footed condition. Therefore, gaining immunity to flat-footed versus invisible opponents doesn't really do anything, ruleswise.

This is the same reason that Feint can still effect a character with Uncanny Dodge: because it removes the DEX bonus and does not impart the Flat Footed condition.

There is no "rogue version" or "barbarian version" of uncanny dodge, or the two wouldn't be able to stack.

There is no "rogue version" or "barbarian version" of uncanny dodge, or the two wouldn't be able to stack.

Agreed.

It seems to me that the proposed rewriting of the Stealth skill forces even more Stealth checks (and thus even more chances of failing one) than the current version.

I believe that forcing PCs to make so many checks to approach NPCs undetected just makes it irrealistic to try a stealthy approach, as sooner or later one of the NPCs will detect the sneaking PC (usually, sooner). The "anyone who might notice you" bit does not help here.

Also it will slow down the game even more as a stealthy character basically has to make his check at least twice a round just to move while other players are waiting for the action to begin.

Finally, it will make the discrepancy I noted while playing between a stealthy approach by PCs (which needs many checks) and a stealthy approach by NPCs (where most often I was only asked to make a Perception check once before we entered the surprise round) even more pronounced. YMMV on this one though, as apparently, some GMs indeed have NPCs use the same rules (and huge number of Stealth checks) as PCs and do not resort to the "only one Perception check for each PC" policy.

I know the focus of this thread is Stealth, but a lot of people have brought up the inter-connectedness of Stealth and Perception, especially in Pathfinder, where Perception isn't just sight. This may stray a bit toward Pathfinder 2.0, but what about integrating the rules for Perception and light a little better?

One thing I often forget when dealing with Stealth/Perception are the distance penalties, -1 on the check (or +1 to the DC) per 10'. That can make a BIG difference. Plus, someone recently brought up the question of max perception distances. There doesn't seem to be a "you can only see 1000'" rule, just increasing Perception penalties until you just can't make the check. A few realism issues (you can't, technically, Perceive something a mile away), but it works fine as a rule and is consistent with other rules. That helps me remember. But then you throw in lighting conditions, and the radii of different light sources, and different kinds of vision, like low-light. I'd like to suggest that all this be rolled into the existing Perception distance penalty.

So RAW, in normal light, the Perception penalty is -1/10'.
What if, in dim light, it becomes -2/10'?
And in darkness, -4/10'?

Figuring out the penalty would be like calculating movement in difficult terrain, you'd just count squares and conditions in each square from perceiver to target.

Other effects would still apply - 20% miss chance in dim light, 50% in darkness, effectively blind in darkness - but this would better model how other senses still work in poor light, and would be consistent with the existing increasing Perception penalties for distance.

There is some hints of this in the current RAW, but it would mostly be connecting the dots between point A and point C and bringing two different-but-related rules into an actual system.

In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat ... and takes a –4 penalty on Perception checks that rely on sight ...

This modification would eliminate the need for "that rely on sight" and avoid those arguments - for most of us, sight is primary and we're handicapped without it. Perception is a global skill, so you can make Perception w/o sight, but, wow, not so well.

This system also accommodates low-light vision. Just like someone who has the ability to cross difficult terrain counts movement differently than someone who doesn't, someone with low-light vision in dim light takes the normal -1/10' penalty. Gone would be the confusing "sees twice as far in dim light" language, they'd just make a perception check like anyone, only with much less penalty.

Similarly, someone with darkvision would take the normal -1/10' penalty in darkness.

Other feats and monster abilities could be described in terms of Perception penalties - Far Vision: Daytime distance penalties to Perception are halved.

Looking at this, I realize that it has gone way beyond a "clarification." 2.0 is more like it. But, personally, I like it when rules work together, and when rules for one system mirror rules for another system - it makes them easier to remember and more likely that I won't forget them. Perception begins to mirror movement. Difficult terrain => difficult perception conditions (dim light, fog, rain, etc.) with cumulative Perception penalties; very difficult terrain => very difficult perception conditions (darkness, obscuring mist, etc.) with big cumulative Perception penalties. There is even already something akin to a 5' step for Perception in RAW. It shows up in a couple of places, for example ...

Fog: Whether in the form of a low-lying cloud or a mist rising from the ground, fog obscures all sight beyond 5 feet, including darkvision.

So maybe you can always (usually) Perceive within 5', or at least you get one more chance. This is where it comes back to Stealth. I'm fine with a guy making one Stealth check to run across a field, but dang, I'd like one last chance to notice him when he gets 5' away from me and tries to stab me in the back. Almost like an AoO. Perception of Opportunity. If you move 5' from Hidden, you're fine and your previous Stealth covers it. But if you move more than 5' to get into my bubble, I get the opportunity to notice you again. Anyway, a whole new can of worms there. But does that offer a useful angle on the question of which actions require a new Stealth check, ask - "Would it provoke an AoO?"

Anyway, thanks for the ramble, hope there are some ideas somebody can use in there. :)

There is no "rogue version" or "barbarian version" of uncanny dodge, or the two wouldn't be able to stack.

I´m not so sure about that...

Ok, so what version of uncanny dodge does a rogue 5 barbarian 5 have?

I've been out of the loop on this for awhile... So is the stealth playtest officially over yet? Has an official revision to the skill been finalized and released?

I've been out of the loop on this for awhile... So is the stealth playtest officially over yet? Has an official revision to the skill been finalized and released?

I would also like to know when/if play test ends and revisions are published.

I am glad to see Stealth is getting some much needed attention, revision, and explanations as it is a pretty highly debated subject in the PF community.

I think it is still being worked on. I hope it gets done before RPG Superstar starts. As much as I enjoy it nothing much gets done with regard to rules clarifications until it ends.

There is no "rogue version" or "barbarian version" of uncanny dodge, or the two wouldn't be able to stack.

Yeah... kind of like how there's four or so versions of Hide in Plain Sight rolling around?

Ok, so what version of uncanny dodge does a rogue 5 barbarian 5 have?

Depends on which class gained uncanny dodge first... they don't stack, they both allow you to gain improved uncanny dodge.. if you were to gain uncanny dodge again.

Stynkk wrote:

ninquark wrote:

Does this mean that if my Goblin Ranger is wearing a Minor Cloak of Displacement -or- is under the effects of a Blur spell, since it grants concealment I am able to make a Stealth check at any time?

What a can of worms, this is a highly debated issue... I have heard both sides of this argument before.

I hope the stealth re-write will address this issue and also the usage of Stealth with other forms of concealment like Lightning Stance.

There's a huge difference in spells that distort your image from effects that block line of sight. If you're blurred or displaced I can still see you without having to make a Perception check its just I can't focus on you well enough to hit reliably. This is a no brainer that a GM should make a call on. I'd never let a player try to hide because they're blurred or displaced unless they had someway to interrupt line of sight in some other way or could make a distraction. A Miss Chance in and of itself shouldn't allow a Stealth check.

--School of Vrock

Dredging this up from the other thread... Sorry Vrock, but you can roll stealth with any kind of concealment (under RAW).

Random question (and there is a point, even if I don't state it initially): Is it possible to make two or more simultaneous attacks? Such as by using more than one weapon, or is it that no matter what, all attacks happen in a sequential order, one following another? That is as simply as I think I can phrase it.

I use a single contested die roll for the entire scene, unless the stealthy character does something especially dangerous or noisy. As much as I can, I do one roll and let it ride. If there are groups involved, only the best Perception person and the worst Stealth person roll.

I get what the designers are trying to do, but I don't get interested in pages of finicky rules like that. I think they need to take a hatchet to the above section on cut it down to about 1/3 its size.

Carnival 3 avatar

+

Random question (and there is a point, even if I don't state it initially): Is it possible to make two or more simultaneous attacks? Such as by using more than one weapon, or is it that no matter what, all attacks happen in a sequential order, one following another? That is as simply as I think I can phrase it

No, when the attacks occur they are one after the other, so that the hits are not simultaneous. If you're hiding or using regular invisibility only one of them is a sneak attack.

About the "absolute" hidden condition and unlocated hidden enemies:

I think the biggest flaw in the play test rules as presented is the binary form of the hidden condition. It works with invisibility. You're ether visually undetectable or you're not. But "hidden" is relative. You can be hidden FROM someone. You might be hidden form all your enemies but since everybody is entitled to roll his own perception, that's often an unlikely event.

So as long as we don't include a kind of "group" or "party perception", I can only see a "hidden from [creature]" as a relative state working.

In practice it would look like this:
Hero H fights against the monsters A, B and C. H finds cover against A and B (but not C), so he tries to hide. He beats both their perception checks, so he gets "Hidden from A" and "Hidden from B". Next round A beats H's stealth check result which negates H's "hidden from A" condition. H is now only hidden from B.

That could work. But we would have to rethink the way, the invisibility condition relies on the hidden condition. Invisibility is an absolute - being hidden is not, hence a necessity for decoupling.

The second biggest problem is what I like to call the "battleship locating dilemma" in miniature-based gaming. What actually are the consequences of an inability to locate an enemy in miniature gaming?

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. If the invisible creature is there, conduct the attack normally. If the enemy's not there, roll the miss chance as if it were there and tell him that the character has missed, regardless of the result. That way the player doesn't know whether the attack missed because the enemy's not there or because you successfully rolled the miss chance.

This "guessing game" seems to rely on the idea, that the gm doesn't use a miniature to mark the location of a monster/npc the players can't pinpoint. Otherwise there wouldn't be any guessing about its location and the fake miss chance roll wouldn't make any sense.

But what if SOME players can pinpoint an invisible/hidden creature and some don't? Should the gm prepare blindfolds for players with low perception? It's actually the same mistake I described earlier: An absolute approach to a problem that can't work without situational ruling.

Players who made their checks to locate an invisible creature can use the aid another action to help others see it. Against players who located the invisible creature its not hidden anymore, that means the creature doesnt get +2 to hit against them. Maybe. If its not invisible, but only hidden some players can see it other not. Against those its still hidden and gets +2. Very simple i think.

What i want to know is how this reacts with hellcat stealth and moonlight stalker. With hellcat stealth i can hide observed in bright light at -10. Does that mean i have concealment in bright light? If so, do i get the bonus from moonlight stalker too?

What i want to know is how this reacts with hellcat stealth

I haven't found hellcat stealth. it is Pathfinder or some outside source?

Players who made their checks to locate an invisible creature can use the aid another action to help others see it. Against players who located the invisible creature its not hidden anymore, that means the creature doesnt get +2 to hit against them. Maybe. If its not invisible, but only hidden some players can see it other not. Against those its still hidden and gets +2. Very simple i think.

It should be, yes. But that's not how the rules as written work.

Hayato Ken wrote:

What i want to know is how this reacts with hellcat stealth

I haven't found hellcat stealth. it is Pathfinder or some outside source?

It's from the Cheliax book. You can see it here.

Would be interesting and nice fluff if they get some hellcat traits through the feat. Like that:

Invisible in Light (Su) In bright light, a hellcat has natural invisibility. In normal light, a hellcat has partial concealment (20% miss chance). In dim light, it has no concealment. In darkness, a hellcat's flickering glow limits it to partial concealment, unless the darkness is magical in nature.

I just decided to have some fiendish halflings, made with the racial playtest, who were just too long enslaved by Cheliax and mingled with some hellfolk hehe. With some small horns and a tail, very sneaky.

Rodney, what's the status of these updated stealth rules? This is the last playtest round we've seen (round 2) and this was put out over a couple months ago. What is the status on the next playtest round, or has the final, updated rules been ironed out?

I read the blog every day to see if new rule conundrums are explained, or previews of new products, or game changing rule alterations are made. I love the recent Bestiary 3 previews and the PFS stuff. But once a week log on and see a chapter of a book. I enjoy books, but I just don't feel a whole chapter as a blog instead of addressing rule changes is necessary.

Please finish the stealth rules. If that is still being worked on, then please let us know so we just don't sit here anxiously waiting 3 months and change with no official word. Or keep posting addressing other rule confusions, conundrums, or problems.

Yes, I agree. Now I realize this turned into a can ‘o worms, but it’s about time to make a call here.

What DID happen to this?
It didn't seem to make it into the 5th Printing Errata from November.

There was probably a few loose ends to fit this into the existing rules,
like Uncanny Dodge's usage of Flat-Footed vs. Hidden's saying the attacker ignores the target's DEX bonus to AC (but not other Dodge bonuses?) ...Which is the EFFECT of Flat-Footed (along with no AoOs) but Hidden doesn't actually say that the target is Flat-Footed to them (which is the only thing that Uncanny Dodge cares about, it stops you from being Flat-Footed). That is actually not very different from the state of the current (PRD) rules, which are unclear whether Uncanny Dodge should prevent Sneak Attack against a succesful Stealther, as mentioned in this thread. Of course, since UD is explicitly mentioning applying vs. Invisibility (and Hidden?), I would assume the INTENT is for it to counter Invisibility's Denial of DEX bonus to AC (i.e. apply to something that Invisibility, and/or Hidden, actually DOES), and thus prevent Sneak Attack...

This was a rules update I was actually seroiusly impressed with, in terms of fixing the rules so you can actually use RAW without argument, but it seems to have disappeared into never-never land...???

EDIT: the other abilities that are like Blindsight/sense (Life Sense, etc) could probably uses updates for Hidden, though that would be Errata for other books.

I'm guessing that the whole thing ended up being more complex than first envisioned, and that they're trying to figure out where a significant update could go. Maybe it'll be part of the Advanced Equipment guide or something?

Just a bumb really to see if there is any news on what happened to Stealth?

Yes, I am eagerly awaiting some news here myself.

Hi,

I'm been a little out of the loop regards the new sneaking rules and their effect on some of the monster abilities.

So are these in force now? Are they or will they be in later printings of the Core Rulebook and Bestiaries? Or is this just going to be an FAQ web-type rule change?

Many thanks, and apologies if this is a dumb-arsed question.

S.

PS: Added here at the prompting of Dr Deth...

PPS: Seems lots of interest in this topic, Paizo dudes care you alleviate our stressful situation?

What happened with this playtest? was it abandoned stealthily?

My shadowdancer was looking foward to the rules rewrite.

It seems dead in the water.

Playtest Feedback: Perhaps the new Stealth has become too strong if nobody can tell if it exists or not for over 6 months...

How much did people actually adopt the rules? Our group never really played stealth RAW, but I did like the way the new rules looked. It would be nice to see what the developers thought and if they will be adopting "new stealth", and certainly relevant for PFS players.

Playtest Feedback: Perhaps the new Stealth has become too strong if nobody can tell if it exists or not for over 6 months...

The lack of any movement on this issue is incredibly disappointing. I had high hopes for Paizo in this case, mostly because they are willing to address rules problems that players encounter.

Unfortunately, this issue is one that requires a more significant overhaul to the rules as they are currently comprised and it was my hope that this would lead to a more thorough investigation of some of the other clunky sections of the PF rules (crafting).

I understand that there are many projects at Paizo that demand attention and they likely have put this off for a reason, but I am still disappointed becaused the developers seemed to want to move on this.

I think the problem is that they have to find a way to change stealth without altering other rules "too much".