|
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check; see below), though, you can attempt to hide. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Hide check if you can get to a hiding place of some kind.
Because not all hiding places involve total cover, areas of shadow. low walls that only provide partial cover etc, and to do it so that the enemy doesn't know where you went.
That's why the bluff rule was added, to add ways to hide when there isn't a corner to run around, cover to duck behind, or you don't want them to know where you went at all.
|
|
Someone just humor him and say that it requires a bluff check, geeze. Any respectable rogue will have that nearly as high as his hide check, anyways. And I know that by the rules that is the way to do it, I still can't imagine how that would realistically work. (refers to my original post) Assuming you are 20-30ft away and someone is in melee with the sneak-attackee, what would that bluff check consist of doing?The difference between what They seem to think the way it works and what I seem to think the way it works and what it would take is this.
Them:
1 RoundMove Behind Corner: Move Action
Hide: Part of that Move Action
Attack: Standard action with Sneack Attack
*Sniping changes things, you can't attack this round if you are sniping because sniping is another move actionMe:
1 Round
Bluff Check to Distract: Standard Action
Move Behind Corner: Move ActionWith Mine you can't start attacking until the next round.
Also worth noting is that if he did our version he's no longer hidden (because he can't snipe as it has been clearly pointed out as a move action and isn't open for interpretation) and is out in the open for counterattacks.
Oh and for the record I also Agree with the OP that the player can't get a flank with a ranged weapon. I realize I have been commenting on the side topic without talking about the OPs specific question but I did that because I felt it had been sufficiently answered.
This is fun, Dragonmoon -like I said, I enjoy a good debate, so please accept it as such. =-)
Here's something official on the subject from Skip Williams, in the "All About Sneak Attacks" portion of the WoTC "Rules of the Game" archive:
"To properly defend itself in combat, a creature must be able to see its foe, or use some ability acute enough to substitute for sight, such as the blindsight special quality."
If you are hidden, and your opponent cannot spot you, they cannot see you. If they cannot see (or "observe" you) then they do not get their dex bonus in combat. Notice that it doesn't say anything about "knowing where they are," which is the same difference as someone on the edge of a wall of fog or correctly guessing the square of an invisible opponent.
Let me take a different approach, and highlight and emphasize a different portion of the same sentence you are using to back up your argument:
If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide. You can run around a corner or behind cover so that you’re out of sight [b]and then hide[]/b, but the others then know at least where you went.
In this sentence, it CONFIRMS that you can still hide. To break it down more simply: "If they can see you, you can't hide, if they can't, you CAN, but they know where you went."
Knowing that you ducked around a corner doesn't give them the ability to react when you peek around from the shadows and fill them full of arrows. A high enough spot lets me "know" where an invisible opponent is, but doesn't prevent a knife in my gut for +4d6 damage...
Fleece
I really can see both sides of this issue, and I am interested in sorting it out.
I can understand that if a rogue ducks completely around a corner and you can't see him anymore (whether in stealth or not), you know he's around that corner and are expecting that an attack may come at any time. I can see still having Dex bonus for this since you are on your guard.
OTOH, in this same scenario, if the rogue hides, and comes out from around the corner and you fail to beat his spot check, the defender does not see him. So when he shoots at you the arrow/bolt comes out of nowhere, even though it's from the area he was expecting an attack from. So I can see this side too, that it IS a sneak attack.
It seems to me that this is an in-between case, where an attack is expected, but the attacker is not seen. So it's essentially like the attacker being invisible. When invisible, the attacker always gets sneak attack, even though he knows an attack is probably coming. Same as in the scenario above. This seems to support that you'd get the sneak attack.
But in the SRD there is the bluff stuff, so perhaps this applies to cases where the cover/concealment is not total? I don't know.
Either way, wouldn't the Blindfight feat negate these sneak attacks? I think RAI it would.
Knowing that you ducked around a corner doesn't give them the ability to react when you peek around from the shadows and fill them full of arrows. A high enough spot lets me "know" where an invisible opponent is, but doesn't prevent a knife in my gut for +4d6 damage...Fleece
But hiding is unlike invis in the case where the spot check is successful. In this case the invis is gone.
But hiding is unlike invis in the case where the spot check is successful. In this case the invis is gone.
Right-O -but that's the only difference in the eyes of the rules -they can either see you or not, and knowing your location doesn't make a lick of difference.
But, you know, after reading the SRD over and over, Dragonmoon does have an excellent point and a convincing argument. My group and I have always assumed that bluff passage dictated situations with less than total cover, such as hiding behind a pillar, BUT, the rules no longer differentiate between types of cover -you either have cover or concealment or you don't. And, the rules say, if you have either, you can hide. The whole "casual observation" is throwing it off (how long have we all been playing this game?) and it does make for a fun, compelling debate.
We need to look up the clarified Hide skill in Complete Adventurer that lets you creep away from your hiding spot. There might be something in there that would help one or the other argument.
So, yeah -there is definitely a point to consider here, and I'm willing to concede that it is, at the least, a confusing, poorly worded element of the Hide skill.
Fleece
I know this is an old Thread and the new Pathfinder rules had not come out yet but I just ran across it and it seemed like the discussion, while dormant, was never concluded so I would like to throw in my opinion for consideration.
.
First of all, in response to the OP: NO, your ranged attacker is not going to get Sneak Attack from flanking because ranged attackers do not flank. However, IIRC, there is a feat that allows ranged attackers to flank (probably within 30 feet).
.
Also I have a few comments for previous posts.
Also, making a hide check after an attack (sniping) incurs a -20 penalty to your hide check, because the person knows where you are. Hiding in the same spot repeatedly won't fool anyone with an intelligence score.
This use of Stealth is supposed to represent true snipers. Think of a real military sniper. If he is good at what he does and stays perfectly still NO ONE WILL EVER SEE HIM. To use Stealth while Sniping is a Move Action (meaning you are staying perfectly still) with a -20 penalty, but that is not representing some suspension of reality wherein people who saw you still somehow don't know where you are. If you came out of Stealth and your opponents saw you then you are obviously being observed and therefore cannot re-Stealth because it is impossible to use Stealth while being observed.
Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.
I have bolded the relevant portion. It states to maintain your obscured (or unseen) location. If you are sniping and your opponent doesn't beat your Stealth check with his own Perception check, then he will never even see you or figure out where you are shooting him from.
EDIT: Also, how would you bluff from 30ft away to make a distraction? "Hey you! Look that way!" The entire tactic just seems assanine and sub-optimal.
I think in this situation the Bluff check is just a mechanic that makes sense to use when trying to cause misdirection and confusion in order to either feint or distract your opponent long enough to hide. It could represent something as simple as waiting until your opponent isn't looking directly at you. Since 3.5 and PF don't have facing they needed another mechanic to represent this and my guess is Bluff was the best fit. It doesn't have to mean that you distract him with your Bluff but could rather represent that you are using body language and misdirection to make your opponent think you will do one thing and then you do something completely different when his attention is drawn away for that split second.
As for the cinematic aspect of it and the usefulness or believability of the tactic, consider movies for your inspiration. In Batman Begins this is done on many occasions by Batman who is an expert at waiting for that split second when you aren't looking to disappear.
IF you are hidden it doesn't matter if he can see you. . .
Actually if you are using Stealth and he doesn't beat it with his Perception then it means he can't or doesn't see you and 3.5 FAQ has stated that when hidden, if your opponent doesn’t spot you, you are considered invisible for the purposes of rendering him flat-footed to your attack. If he sees you then obviously you are NOT hidden.
Not to mention that it's often forgotten that unless a foes vitals as in reach, you can't sneak attack, which makes ranged weapons better if you're trying to sneak attack somthing like a dragon or tarrasque.
I would say that creatures with no vital areas that can be reached by melee are few and far between. Even the dragon and tarrasque have extremely vital areas, as would most creatures, in their extremities. Most will have tendons and arteries in the wrists, ankles, armpits and thighs to name a few. And although you might find it comical dragons probably have a rather major artery, if not more than one, which runs down the length of their tails. But you are correct that in such a situation it would be nice to have a ranged weapon.
you can only feint in melee.
Could you please post the rule that says that? I have looked in the PRD at all the Feinting rules I can locate and there is nothing I have noticed that says you can only perform that action in Melee. Perhaps it was a rule in 3.5 but I have not seen it in PF and I don’t have access to my 3.5 books right now.
Whenever you run around the corner, you make a hide check. Next round, you attack from hiding, denying him his dexterity bonus to armor class if he fails his spot check vs your hide check, thereby allowing you to gain extra damage from sneak attack. You can then attempt to hide immediately, taking a -20 penalty to your hide check. If he still fails his spot check, you are still considered hidden and can snipe again next turn
This is not entirely accurate. If you run behind a corner, then you have to come back out from behind the corner to attack, which is a move action, which means you cannot snipe because using Stealth while sniping is a move action. Also you cannot use Sniping to hide in the open without cover or concealment, which means you also have to move back behind the corner to hide again.
.
Now for the big debate: Can you just run behind cover and use Stealth or do you need to Bluff first? I will be using the PF rules to give my opinion, I know that this thread's debate took place before they came out but I don't have access to my 3.5 books right now and I actually think the PF skill descriptions are a little better written.
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. 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.
First I would say that several of the arguments presented pick pieces of this description out and seem to disregard or overlook other pieces. I believe, however, that the entire description here is presented and should be taken in as a whole. The way I would read it and understand it is this:
"If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth." Oh, well that sucks, anything I can do about that? "Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth." Nice, so how do I do that? "If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth." Alright, how exactly does that mechanic work? "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."
A little further down it expands upon this skill use:
Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.
Notice here it states Bluffing is for using Stealth if people are aware of you, not just if you are being observed.
So if you put that all together into one seamless picture you have: I cannot hide while people are aware of/observing me. However I can hide if I can find suitable cover or concealment. I do this by creating a distraction (Bluffing) and then dashing for that hiding spot while my observer's back is turned.
Then someone would say what about Sniping, you can hide while being observed there. NO, you cannot and it does not say that you can. It says you may use Stealth while sniping as a move action with a -20 penalty to maintain your obscured location, meaning you aren’t ever seen. But guess what, if your opponent beats your Stealth check with his Perception he spotted you, and you cannot use Stealth while being observed so that guy sees you and the only way you can now hide from him is to Bluff and run for another area of cover.
This sentence has been pulled out all alone and used to say that one can in fact run behind a corner and use stealth:
Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.
I bolded the relevant portion of text that I believe argues against that position. Notice it says cover or concealment. So if you justify running around a corner (which grants cover) and making a Stealth check, you must also, by that logic, justify making a stealth check in a square adjacent to a foe when you are in dim light or darkness. Why, because, in dim light you have concealment, which is also named in that sentence as being an acceptable method of using Stealth. Both are used in that sentence and if you are going to justify one you must justify the other. And if that is the case why are there abilities like Hide in Plain Sight? I think a more accurate interpretation here is that it is saying: Okay you can’t hide while being observed; but here is what you can do. With most creatures you can find cover/concealment and use stealth. Here is how you do it . . .
This sentence was used to argue that perhaps the Bluff was just for when you didn't have cover to go hide behind and instead was used to simply to fade away into concealment:
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.
Again I have bolded the relevant portion. It plainly states unobserved place which sounds a lot like cover to me. Even concealment doesn't sound like it qualifies here because, in the concealment of dim light you are still perfectly observable, it just means you are harder to make out. The phrase “unobserved place” doesn't have a specific definition in the rules, so it likely refers to one of two things. Either something already stated in the description above (IE: Cover or Concealment) which I personally don't think is the case because if it were then by that definition: In dim light or darkness a character could make a Bluff check in a square adjacent to a foe and then immediately take a 5-foot step, make a Stealth check right there and be unseen because he had concealment (That is what Hide in Plain Sight is for). Or, it is referring to the actual English definition which would mean UNSEEN. This is what I tend to believe. In which case, it is clearly saying here that you NEED to use the Bluff check to gain that momentary diversion allowing you to dash to an unseen location (IE: cover or outside a creatures visual range in dim light or darkness) and hide.
I have a few examples here that will demonstrate how I see the skill being used:
The first two are for hiding in a forest type area during combat.
This last example is a reference to a situation presented up-thread:
Now the Rogue in this situation could very well have used Bluff in the moment before he ran around the corner in which case it would look something like this: The Rogue is being pursued by an enemy down a dark city street. He sees a particularly dark, disserted, and cluttered alley and he is out of breath so he decides to try his luck. He looks back and quickly Bluffs his pursuer then dashes as quickly as he can around the corner and attempts a Stealth check. Now with the precious seconds between that moment and the moment his foe catches up with him he finds a more suitable hiding place and settles in to avoid detection, perhaps another Stealth check. The pursuer is chasing the Rogue down the street; certain he will have him in seconds. The Rogue turns around and gives his pursuer a sinister smile. Fearing the Rogue’s friends might be catching up to him the Pursuer looks behind him for a split second. Seeing nothing he turns back around only to find the Rogue has disappeared. He must have gone into an alley close by but what if there is more than one? He catches up and looks quickly down a couple alleys, perhaps even passing by the alley the Rogue is hiding in, but when he looks down it he sees only darkness because the Rogue has taken better cover. Now he is stumped and may have to search several alleys giving the Rogue plenty of opportunity to either ambush or slip past the poor fool. (You see, even in this scenario, which does not require a Bluff check, it is a good idea to Bluff and will give you a great advantage.)
There is one final thing that I would share as part of my view. The Hellcat Stealth feat in the PF Cheliax book:
Hellcat Stealth
You are difficult to see in the light.
Prerequisites: Skill Focus (Stealth), Stealth 6 ranks.
Benefit: You may make Stealth checks in normal or
bright light even when observed, but at a –10 penalty.
Normal: You cannot make Stealth checks while observed.
Now, if you could normally hide without a Bluff to first distract your opponent’s attention, why would they have a feat like this, which lets you hide while being observed?
I had noticed that as well in the way it is worded. I am unaware of any other method of creating a distraction, by the rules, so without any further clarification I would say it is up to the DM.
For instance: If I were the DM I would say that if a fireball exploded somewhere on the battle space that would likely cause sufficient distraction for you to attempt to run to cover and make a Stealth check (The only problem being it is probably not your turn). Another problem with that scenario is that you may well be surprised by the fireball as well. But I would say something along those lines. It could also be as simple as throwing a Thunderstone at your opponent. Do the rules say that would distract him? NO. Does it make sense that such an attack would cause him to at least blink or turn his head? Yes.
In short I don't believe there are rules that describe what would cause a suitable distraction and Bluff is the only thing I know of that is explicitly stated in the rules as being a qualifying act.
Afterthought: There may be some spells that specifically "distract" their target, not sure about that, but even if not it seems reasonable that certain spells could creatively be used to cause a distraction not unlike a Bluff.