coldkilla's page

And there would be no "debt" anyway. The duration of the fatigue or exhaustion rolls down normally, immune or not.

Yeah, that's more consistent. The whole "debt" thing was ill-considered. I need to go back to lurking more.

No, he becomes immune, period. the local terrain has no effect.

==Aelryinth

Cool, thank you.

Let them stack. Makes it consistent with a lot of other class features available to more than one class, and it doesn't seem broken.

If the Shadow Dancer class said "select from the Rogue Talents list, but consider them of a different type - 'Shadow Dancer Talent'", then I'd say stacking would be out.

Oh, does the Horizon Walker immunity to fatigue only work while he's IN the desert? In that case, he'd accumulate the debt while in the desert and if he leaves that terrain during the same day, the debt would catch up and take effect.

Yes, I'd say the immunity to fatigue would prevent the condition from taking effect as long as it is active. So the fatigue debt is still sort of lurking in the background if something were to suppress the immunity. Until you sleep/rest, which should reset any fatigue/exhaustion debt to zero. Since it's a "permanent", always-active, class-feature-based immunity and not a temporary one that expires in rounds/minutes, for most practical purposes, you'd never be affected by the fatigue debt.

Disclaimer: IANARL -- I am not a rules lawyer. These are mostly my opinions, based on the overall concepts and rules of Pathfinder.

Under the description of the Rage class ability, I believe it says you cannot enter rage while fatigued/exhausted. So as soon as you leave rage, you can't re-enter for 2 x (# rage rounds) unless you have some magic or ability that removes the fatigue/exhaustion entirely. I don't know about defensive stance.

On a general note, I think that the rounds of a specific debuff/condition that you bring on yourself via your own decisions and actions should be cumulative/serial and not concurrent/parallel. This is in contrast to the explicit rule about multiple instances of a single debuff/condition bestowed on another creature, which states that their durations DO overlap and expire in parallel, while the effect is applied only once (non-stacking).

I also think that debuff rounds should be delayed, not extinguished, by temporary "immunity".

So in the case you've described, the Horizon Walker would enter rage at the beginning of his turn, perform his actions, then end rage which triggers 2 rounds of fatigue. His turn in the initiative comes around again and he can't enter rage/defense again because he's fatigued.

But assuming something suppresses or delays the fatigue, he rages again, accumulating 2 rounds of what would be exhaustion, but the Horizon Walker ability converts it to fatigue, so when he leaves rage after his 2nd round, he has 4 rounds of fatigue "debt". Short of a magical ability/spell that specifically removes the fatigue/exhaustion debuff, I feel there should not be any way to exploit this as a loophole and avoid paying the debt.

Blake I see your point about why you think no one would snipe (e.g., why not just shoot, then move, and use your move action to restealth?). Sniping exists, despite it's unfavorable (from the perspective of the sniper) -20 stealth penalty because of this:

"It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging."

My interpertation of that rule is that (other than when sniping) if the rogue attacks during a given round, he will be seen.

The sniping rules exist as the one exception where the rogue can attack and stay stealthed so the rogue is NEVER EVER seen and the attacker has NO IDEA where the rogue is. If the rogue attacks, is seen, moves, and hides again, the wizard enemy still has a reasonable chance of guessing and dropping a glitterdust on the offending rogue who probably moved at most 30 feet. If the rogue snipes, then the wizard has NO IDEA where the rogue is (although, I'd let the party eventually guess at the direction from how the arrow is sticking in the body of whoever got hit, and start zeroing in ... but I suppose that's a houserule).

Bingo! +1

DM Blake, I have said it a couple times. I think that sniping allows you to never reveal your location, while just shooting and restealthing reveals your location when you shot. That is a huge advantage in some cases, like when they have readied actions or guys with AoEs, or you just don't want them to know your general location. I do not think I would allow you to fire through solid cover like a tree, where you normally have no LoS.

Yes, but my point is that if you are sniping, the person never sees you attempt to shoot them, but if you are not sniping and just using stealth they would catch a glimpse of you, be able to fire, and then would lose sight of you again. I believe the stealth check is made simultaneously with the attack. Normally, you are revealed when you are attacking. This would make it so you never get revealed.

I agree with Caineach's interpretation of sniping. You don't move and you always take the -20 penalty to re-Stealth after the shot, because by winning that check, you effectively never de-Stealth like you normally would after an attack.

I disagree with DM_Blake's interpretation that Sniping is a special full-round action that allows you to move out of cover/concealment, take a shot (at which point you are de-Stealthed), and then move back to the starting position behind cover/concealment and re-Stealth. Only the Shot on the Run feat should allow something like this in a single turn.

I also disagree with DM_Blake's interpretation that you can make a Stealth check at no penalty after a ranged shot made while standing still (no movement) behind cover/concealment. I assert that unless you started out Stealthed (unobserved), you would be unable to make the post-shot Stealth check because your attack automatically makes you observed by at least the target of the attack.

I assert that THIS scenario is the true definition of Sniping per the RAW: You have to start the turn already Stealthed at least 10' away from the target. You make a single ranged attack as your standard action, then a Stealth check at a -20 penalty after the shot as your move action. Winning the Stealth check prevents anyone from noticing where you are during and after the attack, and you begin your next turn Stealthed (assuming other creatures haven't changed position and gained observance of you), thus they cannot counter-attack, which is the real benefit over and above simply making a non-Stealthed ranged attack from cover/concealment.

Also, determining an enemy's cover relative to your ranged attack only uses your selected (favorable) corner of your square and all 4 corners of the enemy's space, thus 4 lines must be evaluated, not 16. (Edit: ninja'd by Tem on this point, although given how slow I am to read and post, a Galapogos tortoise could ninja me.)

The fighter gets sniped from over in the bushes. "I ready an action to shoot anyone who sticks their head up over there."

If the sniper won the opposed Stealth vs. Perception check after the shot, then the fighter has no idea where the shot came from. Unrealistic perhaps, but it fits the game mechanic. If the sniper lost the opposed check to re-Stealth (very likely given the -20 penalty), the fighter would know where the shot came from.

So I'd rule he can't ready an action against something he can't see and when he doesn't even know from which direction the threat is coming.

The rogue is clearly visible when he pops out to snipe, does the fighter get to shoot him or is he still under stealth? If he's not under stealth while then does he get to sneak attack when sniping? How does it make sense that the fighter can use a readied action to shoot someone but is flat footed against his attack?

Is there a special exception for when you are particularly alert for a recently de-stealthed enemy so you can ready an action? This seems counter to the distraction rules which seem to assume that you are alert unless distracted.

I don't understand the assumption that the sniper has to move or "pop out" to take the shot. Dim lighting (which provides concealment of the 20% miss chance variety) allows you to Stealth, so that's no problem -- there's no actual obstruction. Hiding in some bushes? Shoot through a gap in the foliage. Hiding around a corner? Lean a bit and fire (yes, in real life, you'd be spotted, but this is a game). Hiding prone on a rooftop from a ground target? Peek over the edge and shoot.

Hard cover need not be 100% solid and unbroken in order to provide Stealth-friendly conditions. Gaps, holes, slits, etc will all allow the sniper to do his dirty work without making himself "clearly visible".

So fighter takes Sneak Attack damage, the sniper is considered to be hidden (Stealthed) the whole time if he wins all the checks, and the fighter can't use a readied action.

Readying an action against an enemy specifically for when they try to initiate Stealth? Hmmmm, that's an interesting one. Dunno how you'd handle that. Maybe a circumstance bonus on the Perception check? +5 maybe?

Heh, I agree. It seems to me like this is one of those issues which are huge problems on the boards but not an issue at the table. Maybe some groups have lots of arguments about it? Our group has a lot more arguments about spells than stealth.

LOL, I guess your group doesn't consist of 4 lawyers, a doctor, a software engineer and a biomedical researcher. WE ARGUE ABOUT EVERYTHING! Mostly because someone is always trying to push the envelope.

This is my case study post from the other locked thread. Sorry that it's so gimongous.

I definitely subscribe to Caineach's interpretation on this. Others seem to be misreading or misinterpreting the rules. I would lay most of the blame on this sentence in the PRD's description of Stealth:

Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.

So people are making two mistakes:
1. They are equating "use Stealth" with the entire move action taken after the Stealth check, when it really only refers to the Stealth check itself.
2. They are twisting the logic of "cover or concealment allows" to mean "cover or concealment is required".

They then conclude that "cover or concealment is required at every point along the movement made after the Stealth check", which is untenable in gameplay terms.

So how do we arrive at a workable set of RAI given the poorly worded RAW? By deconstructing several different cases and applying consistent logic and extrapolating from game rules of which we are more certain.

Maybe we try to define some terms first, so we're working from the same vocabulary.

"Visible" - Well, given that the spell Invisibility exists, this seems straightforward. Visible = Able to be seen, invisible = unable to be seen. Visible gives you a +0 to Stealth checks; invisible gives you a +40 to Stealth when immobile, +20 when moving. Why would you want to make Stealth checks when you're already invisible? Because creatures can still make Perception checks (DC 20 to notice that an invisible creature is within 30', +20 on top of that to pinpoint location, with various modifiers for specific actions the invisible creature might be taking - see PRD Glossary) to perceive the invisible creature.

"Observed" = "Perceived" - And I think we have to treat these as equivalent terms. Once any creature succeeds on its Perception check (whether it's a passive DC or opposed by Stealth) to detect a target, that target is observed/perceived and remains so until something happens to break that "lock", e.g. the target successfully uses Stealth or leaves the vicinity (run, Dimension Door, Planar travel, Teleport). Whether the target is visible only affects the Perception DC/Stealth bonus.

Case 1: Regdar the human fighter and Lidda the halfling rogue wish to fight and begin moving directly toward each other from a starting point 1000ft apart, in clear open (Plains) terrain and day(bright)light. At what point does the encounter begin? When one or both perceive the other. Neither can employ Stealth in bright light and with no cover, so passive Perception DCs are rolled against every round, with all distance and circumstance modifiers factored in. Maybe the encounter begins at 250ft apart, maybe at only 40ft; maybe there's a surprise round, maybe not - it depends on the rolls. Both are visible the whole time and in direct line of sight, but only after a successful Perception check is made can the encounter begin and one character take action against the other.
This case by itself disproves the notion that observation/perception is automatic when a creature breaks cover/concealment; a successful Perception check is still needed (whether against the passive DC or the opposed Stealth roll is an endlessly debatable point, unfortunately).

Case 2: Regdar and Lidda begin the encounter underground, 30ft apart, line of sight, in normal lighting, both aware of the other. This is a common scenario in a dungeon crawl and most DMs won't even bother to roll Perception checks at this range and these conditions. But for our thought experiment, let's consider both PCs Perception checks to have been implicitly rolled and made. Initiative is rolled and combat ensues normally. How could Lidda make use of Stealth under these conditions? Only by turning invisible or by reaching cover/concealment while Regdar is distracted (e.g. Lidda makes a Bluff check, or someone else jumps out and attacks Regdar). Can she just move behind cover/concealment without Bluffing/distracting Regdar? Nope, because he is aware of and is observing her (has Perception-lock on her), or to look at it a different way - if she could just do that, why would they call out the distract/Bluff as a separate case in the rules?

Case 3: Same as case 2 above, but they start around the corner out of line of sight from each other. Lidda makes her Perception check so is aware of Regdar; he fails his and is unaware of Lidda. Lidda is unobserved by Regdar and has cover from him, so she can choose to initiate Stealth. Regdar immediately gets another Perception check to detect her, but this time against her Stealth check instead of her passive DC. If he wins, he knows she's there and combat ensues normally. If she wins the opposed check, she can Sneak Attack Regdar, as long as he is up to her normal speed (halfling = 20') away (although she'd take a penalty to her Stealth check if more than 10' away). The key point is that she maintains Stealth throughout her move, until after she attacks. Why should she be able to stay Stealthed even while moving out of cover/concealment? Because it's a game and nothing else in the game allows passive when-it's-not-your-turn non-action checks (like Perception) to interrupt or change the outcome or flip the condition on a successful use of a skill combined with an action (like Stealth and move). Maybe not a bullet-proof argument, but whaddya gonna do?

Case 4: Same as case 3 above, but Lidda successfully initiates Stealth and chooses to Snipe, waiting until Regdar rounds the corner and putting a light crossbow bolt in him. Now that Regdar is in line of sight, unless Lidda is behind cover/concealment, she's exposed to a normal Perception check and will probably be perceived. But if she has the benefit of cover/concealment, she can re-Stealth as a move action at a -20 penalty. If she wins that check, Regdar still doesn't know exactly where she is or where the attack came from. This case raises an odd side-effect -- unless either Lidda has Rapid Reload, or Stealth can also be employed with move-equivalent actions, she'll be unable to continue Sniping. Lidda's action sequence: standard - attack, move - re-Stealth, move-equiv - reload crossbow without Stealth check, standard - attack (no more Sniping). Only if you allow the Stealth check during the reload or if reloading is a free action does Lidda get to continue Sniping.

Case 5: Same as case 1 above, but Lidda has the Camouflage ranger ability in Plains terrain. Now if Lidda makes her Perception check first and gains surprise, she can use Stealth - she is unobserved and does not need the benefit of cover/concealment in her favored terrain. If she is observed first or simultaneously, then she needs a distraction or a successful Bluff to initiate Stealth. She should also be able to maintain Stealth over multiple rounds by winning the check for every move/move-equivalent action she takes.

Case 6: Same as case 2 above, but Lidda has the Hide in Plain Sight ranger ability in Underground terrain. At any point during the encounter, even though Regdar (implicitly or explicitly) made his initial Perception check and is observing her, she can initiate Stealth without the benefit of distraction/cover/concealment, and if she wins the opposed check, she has broken Regdar's Perception-lock. While he's still aware that she's probably near, he no longer knows her exact location. And if she waited to engage Stealth until Regdar was within 20', then she has the opportunity to Stealth, move in and Sneak Attack. This case best refutes the assertion that Stealth is automatically negated at any point during movement when there is no cover/concealment. If that were true, HiPS would go from being an awesome offensive or defensive ability to being strictly a defensive one.

I think you'll agree that these cases are logically consistent with each other and are the best fit to the spirit and flavor of the rules. If you disagree, please try to come up with a logically consistent set of cases that explain the use of Stealth and Stealth-related abilities.

Awesome job, DM_Blake! Very methodical, logical and well-researched. I'm going to bring over my case study post from the other (locked) thread, and I'd appreciate very much if you'd take the time to address each case to see if they are consistent with what you've stated here.

A couple things off the bat:

1. In the PRD's description of Stealth, we find this line:

Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.

So Sniping is simply the alias for this sequence of actions/conditions: starting the turn already Stealthed from the previous turn, making a single ranged attack (standard action), then re-Stealthing (move action). It's not a full-round action in its own right.

2. Totally agree with the position that successfully Stealthing allows Sneak Attack.

3. Curious about your opinion on the mechanics of what point during the move the Stealth check is made. Can it be made at any point during the move at which Stealth-friendly conditions are available? Or should the check only be made at the beginning or end of the move?
I'm of the opinion that it's like a Jump/Acrobatics check -- it can and should be done at the point in the move that warrants it, whether that's at the beginning, in the middle, at the end.

4. Totally (and respectfully) disagree with you about the definition of "being observed" to mean "being in a location and circumstances where an opponent CAN perceive you", and the resulting consequences for trying to move, while Stealthed, through Stealth-unfriendly squares. I think the definition should be "having been the target of a successful Perception check", i.e. a synonym for being perceived.
Consider 2 hostiles a considerable distance away from each other, unaware of each other, but still in line of sight and within Perception range. Let's say 250' apart. By your definition, even though they are still unaware of each other, they are observing each other because they COULD POSSIBLY be perceived by the other. I say they are each unobserved/unperceived until the Perception checks, with distance and condition modifiers factored in, are successfully made.

To build off of Cart's post what is the point of trying to find cover quickly if you can just stealth out in the open?

You can't. Unless you have Hide in Plain Sight.

But now I think I know why we've been talking at cross-purposes.

You (wraithstrike, cartigan, some others) have been assuming that the Stealth check always happens after the move. Thus the move would generally have to end behind cover/concealment. This is indeed the scenario described by the distraction/Bluff portion of the Stealth description.

I, and possibly quite a few others, have been working under the assumption that the move begins behind cover/concealment and that the Steath check happens before the move.

The rules are silent about when the Stealth check happens, only that the check is made as part of the movement, so it could happen either way. Or in the middle of movement - 10' to get behind cover, successful Stealth check, and continue another 20' (yes, a penalty would apply for moving faster than half speed).

Problem solved.

Sorry, this is going to be a gigantic post.

I definitely subscribe to Caineach's interpretation on this. Others seem to be misreading or misinterpreting the rules. I would lay most of the blame on this sentence in the PRD's description of Stealth:

Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.

So people are making two mistakes:
1. They are equating "use Stealth" with the entire move action taken after the Stealth check, when it really only refers to the Stealth check itself.
2. They are twisting the logic of "cover or concealment allows" to mean "cover or concealment is required".

They then conclude that "cover or concealment is required at every point along the movement made after the Stealth check", which is untenable in gameplay terms.

So how do we arrive at a workable set of RAI given the poorly worded RAW? By deconstructing several different cases and applying consistent logic and extrapolating from game rules of which we are more certain.

Maybe we try to define some terms first, so we're working from the same vocabulary.

"Visible" - Well, given that the spell Invisibility exists, this seems straightforward. Visible = Able to be seen, invisible = unable to be seen. Visible gives you a +0 to Stealth checks; invisible gives you a +40 to Stealth when immobile, +20 when moving. Why would you want to make Stealth checks when you're already invisible? Because creatures can still make Perception checks (DC 20 to notice that an invisible creature is within 30', +20 on top of that to pinpoint location, with various modifiers for specific actions the invisible creature might be taking - see PRD Glossary) to perceive the invisible creature.

"Observed" = "Perceived" - And I think we have to treat these as equivalent terms. Once any creature succeeds on its Perception check (whether it's a passive DC or opposed by Stealth) to detect a target, that target is observed/perceived and remains so until something happens to break that "lock". Whether the target is visible only affects the Perception DC/Stealth bonus.

Case 1: Regdar the human fighter and Lidda the halfling rogue wish to fight and begin moving directly toward each other from a starting point 1000ft apart, in clear open (Plains) terrain and day(bright)light. At what point does the encounter begin? When one or both perceive the other. Neither can employ Stealth in bright light and with no cover, so passive Perception DCs are rolled against every round, with all distance and circumstance modifiers factored in. Maybe the encounter begins at 250ft apart, maybe at only 40ft; maybe there's a surprise round, maybe not - it depends on the rolls. Both are visible the whole time and in direct line of sight, but only after a successful Perception check is made can the encounter begin and one character take action against the other. This case by itself disproves the notion that observation/perception is automatic when a creature breaks cover/concealment; i.e. in the OP's scenario, the rogue doesn't automatically perceive/observe the bugbear when the bugbear moves into the open.

Case 2: Regdar and Lidda begin the encounter underground, 30ft apart, line of sight, in normal lighting, both aware of the other. This is a common scenario in a dungeon crawl and most DMs won't even bother to roll Perception checks at this range and these conditions. But for our thought experiment, let's consider both PCs Perception checks to have been implicitly rolled and made. Initiative is rolled and combat ensues normally. How could Lidda make use of Stealth under these conditions? Only by turning invisible or by reaching cover/concealment while Regdar is distracted (e.g. Lidda makes a Bluff check, or someone else jumps out and attacks Regdar). Can she just move behind cover/concealment without Bluffing/distracting Regdar? Nope, because he is aware of and is observing her, or looked at a different way, if she could just do that, why would they call out the distract/Bluff as a separate case in the rules?

Case 3: Same as case 2 above, but they start around the corner out of line of sight from each other. Lidda makes her Perception check so is aware of Regdar; he fails his and is unaware of Lidda. Lidda is unobserved by Regdar and has cover from him, so she can choose to initiate Stealth. Regdar immediately gets another Perception check to detect her, but this time against her Stealth check instead of her passive DC. If he wins, he knows she's there and combat ensues normally. If she wins the opposed check, she can Sneak Attack Regdar, as long as he is up to her normal speed (halfling = 20') away (although she'd take a penalty to her Stealth check if more than 10' away). The key point is that she maintains Stealth throughout her move, until after she attacks.

Case 4: Same as case 3 above, but Lidda successfully initiates Stealth and chooses to Snipe, waiting until Regdar rounds the corner and putting a light crossbow bolt in him. Now that Regdar is in line of sight, unless Lidda is behind cover/concealment, she's exposed to a normal Perception check and will probably be perceived. But if she has the benefit of cover/concealment, she can re-Stealth as a move action at a -20 penalty. If she wins that check, Regdar still doesn't know exactly where she is or where the attack came from. This case raises an odd side-effect -- unless either Lidda has Rapid Reload, or Stealth can also be employed with move-equivalent actions, she'll be unable to continue Sniping. Lidda's action sequence: standard - attack, move - re-Stealth, move-equiv - reload crossbow without Stealth check, standard - attack (no more Sniping). Only if you allow the Stealth check during the reload or if reloading is a free action does Lidda get to continue Sniping.

Case 5: Same as case 1 above, but Lidda has the Camouflage ranger ability in Plains terrain. Now if Lidda makes her Perception check first and gains surprise, she can use Stealth - she is unobserved and does not need the benefit of cover/concealment in her favored terrain. She should also be able to maintain Stealth over multiple rounds by winning the check for every move/move-equivalent action she takes. If she is observed first or simultaneously, Camouflage does her no good.

Case 6: Same as case 2 above, but Lidda has the Hide in Plain Sight ranger ability in Underground terrain. At any point during the encounter, even though Regdar (implicitly or explicitly) made his initial Perception check and is observing her, she can initiate Stealth without the benefit of distraction/cover/concealment, and if she wins the opposed check, she has broken Regdar's Perception-lock. While he's still aware that she's probably near, he no longer knows her exact location. And if she waited to engage Stealth until Regdar was within 20', then she has the opportunity to Stealth, move in and Sneak Attack. This case best refutes the assertion that Stealth is negated at any point during movement when there is no cover/concealment. If that were true, HiPS would go from being an awesome offensive or defensive ability to being strictly a defensive one.

I think you'll agree that these cases are logically consistent with each other and are the best fit to the spirit and flavor of the rules. If you disagree, please try to come up with a logically consistent set of cases that explain the use of Stealth and Stealth-related abilities.

The big question left unanswered by all this is whether after a successful Stealth check and move action, can one continue to maintain Stealth by winning the opposed checks on subsequent turns and move actions, even when ending a turn in open terrain with no cover or concealment? The existence of the Camouflage ability would indicate to me that the answer is "no", but the question is probably best decided by individual DMs until we get official errata/clarification/new rules.

Holy crap, I'm so pissed. I just wrote a novel-length post with different cases/circumstances broken out to demonstrate how Stealth, Sniping, Hide in Plain Sight work, but the Preview button took me to some random product page and ate my post.

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!

Well, once I swallow down all this bile, I'll come back and try to reconstruct my post. It really does make sense, I promise you.