Can you use the concealment granted by the feat to Stealth on your move action?
I think a simple answer would be "no". Same as for concealment due to Blur for instance - there isn't anything out there actually concealing you.
Additionally, it is a move action to use stealth I believe, which means you would have to double-move to get the concealment, and would not have a move action left to use Stealth.
I do love the feat though :)
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Additionally, it is a move action to use stealth I believe, which means you would have to double-move to get the concealment, and would not have a move action left to use Stealth.
Actually, a Stealth check is made as part of a move action. So, technically, you could double move and use Stealth.
Hmm.. yep, you're right Fatey, I should have checked.
Still no way to use that concealment, but if you could get into concealment or cover, sure. Not a bad way of getting the heck out of someplace.
I also just thought of a great benefit of Wind Stance I hadn't thought of - the 20% concealment for ranged attacks helps vs. ranged touch spells as well!
Unless there is wording to contradict it, multiple benefits of the same type don't stack, but if given for different reasons, I would allow consecutive rolls instead of stacking.
I would allow two rolls for a cloak of displacement and Lightning Stance. Lightning Stance means that you're in a different square than
However, I would not allow a double roll for Wind Stance and Lightning Stance.
|
Can you use the concealment granted by the feat to Stealth on your move action?
I don't see why not, it provides concealment, and you are even doing two move actions.
Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.
Can you use the concealment granted by the feat to Stealth on your move action?I don't see why not, it provides concealment, and you are even doing two move actions.
Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.
Check the stealth description. You have to get to a location where you are unobservable, and then you suffer a -10 to your stealth check. Simply moving 5' as a move action, and then move 5' back into the original square as your second move action, doesn't really qualify as ducking for cover for an unobservable location so much as moving in such a way as to make opponents aim for the wrong spot when trying to hit you.
And if they're trying to hit you, then you're obviously not being stealthy.
In addition to needing to be unobserved to hide without the aid of 'hide in plain sight'
I'd say the concealment is granted AFTER you moved twice meaning you've already taken your entire turn and are unable to make a hide action. Can't do it as part of the movement either since you weren't concealed untill after the movement.
From the skill description:
Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.
|
|
Check the stealth description. You have to get to a location where you are unobservable, and then you suffer a -10 to your stealth check. Simply moving 5' as a move action, and then move 5' back into the original square as your second move action, doesn't really qualify as ducking for cover for an unobservable location so much as moving in such a way as to make opponents aim for the wrong spot when trying to hit you.And if they're trying to hit you, then you're obviously not being stealthy.
I did, I suggest you check the previous sentence to the one you reference
"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. "
http://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/Home/skills/stealth
Flavor text it's the: I run behind a few friends or obstacles, and double back in some way.
If you're running behind friends and obstacles, you have soft cover, anyways.
The question is basically, if I run behind these trees and come out on the other end, by virtue of the fact that my quickness giving me 50% concealment, can I still be hidden?
I would say no, not in of itself. You would need some circumstance to allow you to use stealth.
If I lightning stance my way down a hallway, yes, I get the benefit, but no, I don't get to use it for stealth purposes.
|
|
If you're running behind friends and obstacles, you have soft cover, anyways.
The question is basically, if I run behind these trees and come out on the other end, by virtue of the fact that my quickness giving me 50% concealment, can I still be hidden?
I would say no, not in of itself. You would need some circumstance to allow you to use stealth.
If I lightning stance my way down a hallway, yes, I get the benefit, but no, I don't get to use it for stealth purposes.
May I suggest that having and using Lightning Stance is exactly one of the potential circumstances required?
EDIT: Withdrawn, misinterpreted a previous post.
For the record, I'd say it's pretty clear from the Concealment section of the combat chapter that you can use concealment (of any sort) to hide.
Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.
I have a question about this subject.
I was always under the impression that Blur could not be used to hide. I cannot find that rule anywhere in the PRD. Was this a rule in 3.5 that was done away with for 3.PF?
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I have a question about this subject.
I was always under the impression that Blur could not be used to hide. I cannot find that rule anywhere in the PRD. Was this a rule in 3.5 that was done away with for 3.PF?
I'm not aware of this every being written as a rule, but iirc there was an FAQ or Sage Advice stating that the "concealment from non hidden sources" like Blur shouldn't be used to hide behind.
The fluff for the feat reads, "The speed at which you move makes it nearly impossible for opponents to strike you." Not much here suggesting that the user of the feat actually conceals themselves.
That's not what the text of the feat says though. Lightning Stance doesn't grant a miss chance as if from Concealment, it grants actual Concealment. The only kind of Concealment in the game is the one that lets a creature use Stealth.
So, there's no right way to read this. The meaning of the feat is different from the mechanical implementation, which means that little bit of the game is just busted.
So, the GM in this situation has to use The Most Important Rule to make the feat work like they think it should work, and move on. :']
PS - There's no way to escape the paradox by thinking about timing (such as when the Concealment takes effect) because it's granted for 1 full round. Either the Concealment starts during the initial use of Lightning Stance and ends at the beginning of the character's next turn, or else Concealment starts at the end of the character's turn and lasts until the end of their next turn. Either way, they will be moving slower than a run during which they are Concealed.
PPS - The -5 penalty for using Slealth while moving faster than half one's movement rate may also apply.
Can you use the concealment granted by the feat to Stealth on your move action?
I don't think I would really have a problem with this. To me it would make lightning stance actually worth taking without a really specialized build. Keep in mind if you're being observed you can't use stealth without hide in plain sight. I could see however someone really fast darting from cover in one place to another so quickly that noone notices except possibly sees something out of the corner of their eye. You would need fast stealth to do it without penalties anyways.. I think it would be a neat quirk for a really quick character.
I think this is one of those RAW vs. RAI things. By RAW it definitely seems you could use any type of concealment to make a Stealth check.
Keep in mind however, the only time concealment is acceptable to use Stealth are situations in which you probably already have concealment (IE: dim light, darkness, fog) and don't need Blur or Wind Stance anyway.
I am pretty sure Wind Stance wouldn't work at all though. You only have concealment against ranged attacks. It doesn't make you any harder to see you are just harder to target for an archer. The concealment won't help you against anyone not trying to hit you with a ranged attack.
However, even if you wanted to use a Blur spell or the Wind Stance it would be quite sub-optimal.
Firstly with Blur or Wind Stance you could only hide under circumstances that you could normally hide anyway even without them. In areas of dim light or darkness you can use concealment to use Stealth. In areas of normal Light or bright Light you must have cover; concealment isn't going to cut it. Against a creature with Darkvision you must have cover or invisibility to use stealth within the range of his Darkvision. He can see in dim light and darkness just as well as others can in normal/bright light so if concealment isn't going to hide you in the light it won't hide you in the darkness against a creature with Darkvision.
Even if the above wasn't the case, you still can't hide while being observed (unless first making a Bluff check or you have HiPS). Also when you use a Bluff to distract your opponent and then try to use Stealth, remember, it doesn't say you can use concealment/cover in that situation to hide. It says you must be able to move to an unobserved place. If you are only using Blur or Wind Stance you are still perfectly observable. Even with some forms of cover you are still perfectly visible; specifically you can never use soft cover to make a Stealth check.
So if by some stretch of the imagination you rationalize a way to use Wind Stance or Blur to gain Stealth it would look something like this: Standard Action (Bluff to distract your enemies), Move Action (Gain Concealment against Ranged Attacks. Must still move to an unobserved place, use Stealth).
So, even if by RAW you want to argue that it "can" be done, it would likely only be in one or two very specific and once in an adventure type situations (personally I can’t think of even one situation). I think it would be pretty pointless to do it that way and would be mostly a waste of time.