I was about to ask the same thing. Has a final verdict been decided. I want to roll up my Ninja!
| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It's been a few weeks since the last post here. Has there been any official word on this subject? I would love to see an update by the PF designers, even if it is just to say you are still just working on it or that the update has been postponed indefinitely. Any update on this subject would be appreciated.
Unless you want to bypass scent and similar special abilities I don't think it is that hard to do so. The problem is writing in such a way that makes it easy to interpret correctly
I think they moved on to something else... like fixing the flat footed till initiative rule ^_^
|
Outside of the 'create a diversion to hide' mechanic, we've been using the round 2 playtest rules without issue in our game.
For the most part, the revision is pretty good, and I approve of the two new mechanical benefits:
* With the hidden condition, you get +2 on an attack roll (which breaks the hidden condition).
* When sniping, you no longer need a dedicated move action to "re-stealth", making it more plausible to use a crossbow for sniping.
Obviously the diversion rule is one that can easily bog down combat, since it seems to imply you can burn a swift action every round for a shot at Bluff vs Sense Motive, followed by Stealth vs Perception to gain 'Hidden' (and the +2 attack benefit for being hidden).
Even with a +0 Bluff and a +0 Stealth, I'd likely burn a swift action every round against my opponent who has a +0 Sense Motive and a +0 Perception... because, hey, free +2.
I imagine the biggest hold-up to releasing this is only if the designer feels there's still some place better this can be taken which is divergent from the 2 rounds of playtesting we've seen.
But I'd give this +1 to start using in campaigns, the Hidden condition is a great addition.
We've been playtesting this rule since November, and it seems to be working out quite well.
Come on guys, this should finally get official.
And the flat-footed/denied DEX should also be cleaned up along with a lot of rogue and other talents referring to this, especially Sneak Attack.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It's been a few weeks since the last post here. Has there been any official word on this subject? I would love to see an update by the PF designers, even if it is just to say you are still just working on it or that the update has been postponed indefinitely. Any update on this subject would be appreciated.
+1. If there's issues, there's issues.
But I don't see why that fact should be secret information that can't be released, so people are forever wondering 'what's up with Stealth?', when these blog posts have already made clear (if it wasn't before) that Stealth/Perception DO need Errata of some kind. I felt the last update was pretty much 99% complete as far as core book goes, perhaps boilerplate to apply to 'life sense' type ability in non-Core would be appropriate until those are actually Erratad/Updated themselves...
...somewhat related, but where's the action listed for creating a diversion to hide?
Action: Attempting to deceive someone takes at least 1 round, but can possibly take longer if the lie is elaborate (as determined by the GM on a case-by-case basis).
That is the best I could find which makes it not that good at all for combat.
The thing is that in 3.5, it was explicitly a standard action.
I'm a bit confused what it's supposed to be in PF.
I would have thought it would be a standard or move action alo. I might check the rogue talents to see if there is anything that gives it a short time so I can figure out what the normal time is.
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
OK, so it probably isn't a 1 round thing. They're distracted momentarily, so that probably means 1 round tops. So...standard action works.
its the same as feinting in combat, a standard action or shorter with the according feats.
its the same as feinting in combat, a standard action or shorter with the according feats.
Could you point where the rules state this?
Is this going to make it into the rules anytime soon?
*BUMP*
A 2 hour bump. Now that's impatience :)
A 2 hour bump. Now that's impatience :)
Nope. I just know the folks at Paizo are busy, and I figured that posting in a relatively short interval would improve it's odds of being noticed. At least that was the theory.
Reality turned out to be quite different. Apparently the new Stealth rules succeeded at their Stealth check! :P
I want to say I am pretty disappointed with Todd, or Paizo (if not his call), in just going completely silent on this.
If you decided to abandon it, fine, just please let us know. I know you guys are busy, but a simple “this is still in the works, please be patient”. :)” or “We’ve decided not to pursue this at this time” is enough. So we aren’t sitting her wondering if this is something going to be implemented.
If no one asks Paizo at Paizo Con (and gives us lowly folk an update on the boards), then I’ll be sure to ask at Gen Con.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do have to agree with Hobbun's comment. What's up with the silent treatment? At least comment on why the subject's been ignored for so long ...
I do have to agree with Hobbun's comment. What's up with the silent treatment? At least comment on why the subject's been ignored for so long ...
Yes, an answer would be nice! Please!
Honestly, the last post seemed so close to production-quality, that I am not surprised if they are just waiting for the next print-run to come out, and only at that time will they release the 'final' new Stealth with minor tweaks to the last blog post. I well understand that Paizo will not announce the release date of said new printing, but it doesn't really spoil anything to say if that is indeed their plan with this, since it's hardly a secret that they WILL make a new print-run at some point in the future, regardless of new Stealth or not.
They are behind schedule IIRC, and stealth may not have priority. As it stand stealth is workable, even if it is not ideal. The monk is in more dire straights than stealth, IMHO.
sure, the issue isn't stealth per se, it's the big question mark over stealth, after paizo made two blog post-playtests about it, and clammed up after that. whatever their answer is is cool... but it's just a confusing situation, people continue to post threads about stealth, and i don't really know how to answer them (RAW vs. Blog Posts?) given the question mark over the whole thing.
It does need to be fixed. I can't deny that. I was just saying without insight into what is going on inside the company I am not so quick to say they left us hanging. They are pretty open with us, and if they decide to not change stealth I am sure they will let us know, even if it will cause a lot of angry posts.
You know what's funny?
For months I have been sort of confused why the picture posted in this blog is of a guard just standing about. I just now realized there's a rogue sneaking up behind him.
Paizo, are we getting an answer on this?
Still waiting...
You know what's funny?
For months I have been sort of confused why the picture posted in this blog is of a guard just standing about. I just now realized there's a rogue sneaking up behind him.
The guard is also investigating a grappling hook that was used by someone to get up to the top.
I like these rules but I have to ask... how is Stealth broken? I've been playing for the last three years and we have never had any issues with Stealth.
Some things are not clear if you go by RAW, and things that should be able to be done are not possible.
You can't sneak up on people in combat, nor could you steal a chicken ( Jack B Nimble Thread ).
For the chicken example, why is it a DC 0 to spot the sneaking rogue? The DC for spotting someone sneaking is what they rolled for Stealth, not DC 0. And I can't imagine the chicken is observing him while sleeping so I would rule he could stealth. That part just seems like RAW taking to extreme levels.
As for sneaking up in combat, I've always been okay with someone hiding behind somewhere then rolling stealth when they pop out against the opponent's Perception. If it works, then boom, you got it and get a sneak attack. Stealth is about hiding and moving silently. I'll admit, I do wish this kind of action was more clearly stated in the rules.
The DC to spot someone sneaking without cover or concealment is 0. Actually, I'm not even sure if you need to roll perception at that point. You just see them. Their stealth roll is irrelevant since you just see them.
If you are out in the open you don't even get to use stealth so as soon as you break cover stealth is over. Many GM's allows you to use stealth while moving from point A to point B, but that is not how the rules say it is to be done.
By the rules a distraction has to be used to move from one place to the next without cover of concealment, while using stealth.
The DC to spot someone sneaking without cover or concealment is 0. Actually, I'm not even sure if you need to roll perception at that point. You just see them. Their stealth roll is irrelevant since you just see them.
The chicken is sleeping and has his eyes closed. As a GM, I'd rule that he isn't directly observing you and thus, you can try and Stealth. Stealth isn't just hiding and Perception isn't just seeing. Moving silently against his 'listen check' would work in my opinion. It just makes sense to me to do that.
I like these rules but I have to ask... how is Stealth broken? I've been playing for the last three years and we have never had any issues with Stealth.
Stealth in combat only works if the GM and players hand wave away the RAW as written in favour of a loosely interpreted common sense approach to the skill; which I assume is what your group has been doing successfully. The skill swiftly breaks down however when an attempt is made to adhere strictly to the RAW; illustrated rather well in the Jack B. Nimble example linked above.
Many people are so used to the common sense approach to stealth (for lack of a proper alternative) that they don't even realize that they've effectively house-ruled how the skill functions. And that's fine... for some. Others though, myself included, pine for a clearly defined system that works as written with no need for interpretation or hand waving.
I like these rules but I have to ask... how is Stealth broken? I've been playing for the last three years and we have never had any issues with Stealth.Stealth in combat only works if the GM and players hand wave away the RAW as written in favour of a loosely interpreted common sense approach to the skill; which I assume is what your group has been doing successfully. The skill swiftly breaks down however when an attempt is made to adhere strictly to the RAW; illustrated rather well in the Jack B. Nimble example linked above.
Many people are so used to the common sense approach to stealth (for lack of a proper alternative) that they don't even realize that they've effectively house-ruled how the skill functions. And that's fine... for some. Others though, myself included, pine for a clearly defined system that works.
I don't really think common sense aspects need to be defined in the skill because, well, it's common sense. It goes without saying and I don't think everything needs to be spelled out if it makes sense.
Honestly, if there is anything I would want, it's a section on Moving Silently. I feel that people only think of hiding when it comes to Stealth because of the rules of cover and concealment.
Granted, it's also common sense that if you are out and about with no cover or concealment whatsoever, you will be seen my someone in the area. Especially when you assume the "characters see everywhere around them" thing, due to the lack of facing.
Jack was spotted by Farmer John when he broke cover, not the chickens unless I missed a post.
Jack isn't sure what's around back behind the house and doesn't want to take a chance, so he ducks down low and creeps up to the hedges...and is instantly spotted by Farmer John. Whoops. He barely makes it back to the cornfield without catching a crossbow bolt in the hindquarters.
edit:I found the chicken section, but the sleeping chicken does not deny stealth, however it still gets a perception check at a -10 penalty.
Actually, a sleeping chicken should spot him. Take 10, -10 to Perception for being asleep, +1 base Perception mod beats DC 0 to spot someone 5' away. Perhaps this was a particularly oblivious chicken.
I do wish hide and move silent had been kept as two separate skills.
Granted, it's also common sense that if you are out and about with no cover or concealment whatsoever, you will be seen my someone in the area. Especially when you assume the "characters see everywhere around them" thing, due to the lack of facing.
I do agree with the first part to a point. I have met people who think that Stealth is like invisibility and are sorely disappointed when they find out it isn't. However, I don't assume that characters can see everywhere around them because they can't, unless they have something like all around vision or something like that.
Before I'd even attempt to stealth, I'd wait until the person wasn't looking, or use a distraction (Bluff) to get them to look away so I can use Stealth. Facing in combat is obviously impossible, but out of combat, there isn't anything wrong with asking the GM "Hey, is that guy facing me or not?"
Jack was spotted by Farmer John when he broke cover, not the chickens unless I missed a post.
Jack isn't sure what's around back behind the house and doesn't want to take a chance, so he ducks down low and creeps up to the hedges...and is instantly spotted by Farmer John. Whoops. He barely makes it back to the cornfield without catching a crossbow bolt in the hindquarters.
It was this part actually:
Jack makes his way back to the edge of the cornfield and, what luck! Farmer John has gone inside. Jack creeps over to the coop, being careful to keep it between him and the sleepy mutt. In fact, there's a delicious-looking bird, dozing away, oblivious to the world around it.
Actually, a sleeping chicken should spot him. Take 10, -10 to Perception for being asleep, +1 base Perception mod beats DC 0 to spot someone 5' away. Perhaps this was a particularly oblivious chicken.
I don't really think common sense aspects need to be defined in the skill because, well, it's common sense. It goes without saying and I don't think everything needs to be spelled out if it makes sense.
It's a fallacy that "common sense" is common. If it were, there'd rarely be a need for debate in the world, or the game table. What seems to be a matter of "common sense" to one person often seems utterly absurd to another, and vice versa.
Take the issue of facing for example. Common sense would seem to indicate that sneaking up on someone would be easier if they were facing away from you. And yet Pathfinder, for the sake of simplicity and playability, has no rules for facing at all; probably because there's no effective way to track where a creature's head is pointed at any given moment. So despite "common sense" there's no way to sneak up "behind" a creature; they're effectively always facing you no matter from which direction you approach them. Knowing that that's impossible as a matter of common sense you allow a character, with the freedom and time to pick his approach to sneak up behind a guard with his stealth skill. And that's fine for you and your group. But don't forget that you've effectively house-ruled facing into a game which otherwise has no such mechanic.
Granted, it's also common sense that if you are out and about with no cover or concealment whatsoever, you will be seen my someone in the area. Especially when you assume the "characters see everywhere around them" thing, due to the lack of facing.I do agree with the first part to a point. I have met people who think that Stealth is like invisibility and are sorely disappointed when they find out it isn't. However, I don't assume that characters can see everywhere around them because they can't, unless they have something like all around vision or something like that.
Before I'd even attempt to stealth, I'd wait until the person wasn't looking, or use a distraction (Bluff) to get them to look away so I can use Stealth. Facing in combat is obviously impossible, but out of combat, there isn't anything wrong with asking the GM "Hey, is that guy facing me or not?"
That is a houserule though. Any GM can fix a rules issue. That does not mean the rules themselves don't have issues, and that is why people are harping on stealth.
Stealth works in my games too, but only because I don't always follow the rules.
That is a houserule though. Any GM can fix a rules issue. That does not mean the rules themselves don't have issues, and that is why people are harping on stealth. Stealth works in my games too, but only because I don't always follow the rules.
Exactly. The groups in which I play or GM also make use of the stealth skill; though certainly not as it's written, because that's untenable.
Granted, it's also common sense that if you are out and about with no cover or concealment whatsoever, you will be seen my someone in the area. Especially when you assume the "characters see everywhere around them" thing, due to the lack of facing.
I assumed an abstraction of the Stealth check vs. Perception check would account for where the characters might be looking. I never considered characters to be able to see everywhere around them. I always thought All-around Vision represented that sort of thing.