It says everything you need to know.
Creating a diversion to distract someone can allow you to attempt a stealth check. This is done by using the Bluff skill.
The Bluff skill states that it is an opposed roll against the victim's Sense Motive.
The only part missing from the RAW is what kind of action is needed to pull off the diversion. Normally, using Bluff to tell a lie takes a full round action, but feinting in combat is only a standard action. Creating a diversion is far more like a feint, and it doesn't require any kind of elaborate verbal lie, so it's fairly clear that it works like a feint, therefore it must be a Standard Action.
What more do you need?
On your turn, you are standing in plain sight of an ogre. You want to use Stealth, but he's watching you. So you point behind the ogre and you shout "Hey, what's that?" and roll your Bluff check against his Sense Motive. This uses a standard action.
If you succeed, you have created a diversion and now you can try to use your Stealth skill to hide from the ogre. Now you move to some little bit of cover or concealment (this is required unless you have Hide in Plain Sight) and as you move, you roll your Stealth check at -10 opposed by the ogre's Perception check.
That's all there is to it.
If you succeed, you have created a diversion and now you can try to use your Stealth skill to hide from the ogre. Now you move to some little bit of cover or concealment (this is required unless you have Hide in Plain Sight) and as you move, you roll your Stealth check at -10 opposed by the ogre's Perception check.
I noticed something while reading over Stealth and how to perform this very maneuver a few days ago. I have a question about this part.
The Stealth skill says this:
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.
Would I be correct if I took that to mean you need more than just concealment to use Stealth in this maneuver? An unobserved place sounds to me like you have to get to either cover of some type or outside a creatures visual range in the current light (or other) conditions. What is your take on this?
Would I be correct if I took that to mean you need more than just concealment to use Stealth in this maneuver? An unobserved place sounds to me like you have to get to either cover of some type or outside a creatures visual range in the current light (or other) conditions. What is your take on this?
I suspect they just mean a place that's not being observed due to the distraction just created. The normal rules about needing cover or concealment to hide would apply too, though.
I can definitely see that interpretation. My problem with the situation is this:
1) Concealment doesn't mean you are unobservable; you are still visible just much harder to make out.
2) In dim light, the Rogue standing in the square adjacent to you has concealment. So if concealment is a suitable method to use Stealth with this maneuver you could effectively: Bluff, move, in a "U" pattern, away from the guy while using Stealth and then come right back to another adjacent square and stand right next to him, virtually invisible, until you attack him again the next round. Or really, you could Bluff him and then just move 5 feet to another square adjacent to him while using Stealth. You have only moved 5 feet and then virtually disappeared only to reappear right next to him next round as you stab him in the kidneys.
It just seems like that is basically the same as HiPS. The only difference is a Bluff roll and a -10 penalty. That is why I feel a little bit like this should be a higher requirement and the unobserved place should mean you need some cover or to be out of visual range.
Taking the example above, when you point and yell "Look at that guy on the water skis!" the ogre turns and looks. If the Ogre is alone, and looks, where you are becomes "unobserved", and allows for stealth.
that's my take on things anyways...
I was hoping that the rules were actually written somewhere, and it is frustrating to find that they are not. Is there a PF Core errata thread around somewhere so I can post this? I cannot be arsed to search.
What more do you need?
The rules are not clear on what is involved in saying, "Look at that guy on the water skis!" unfortunately.
The only part that isn't written is the one detail about which type of action is required to create the diversion.
Since the system clearly states that you can tell an entire lie in a mere round, and you can feint in combat as a standard action, all you have to do is ask yourself if shouting "Look out!" sounds more like telling an entire lie, or just making a feint.
My answer is feint.
And if that isn't suitable enough, consider that spending two full rounds to hide (one round to distract the guy, next round to hide) is silly, and wouldn't even work. You would distract him but then your turn ends before you hide, then on his turn he looks at you again since you're still standing there.
So, unless creating a diversion is meant to only work when you're hasted, it obviously must be used in the same round that you hide, therefore it cannot require a full round action, which means you take the next longest action, a standard action, and then you evaluate if this action makes sense in the game context.
And it does:
1. You only need a move action to use Stealth, so using your standard action to create the diversion works mechancially.
2. Feinting is a standard action, and usually a feint is a quick flick of the wrist or a jerk of a shoulder, or maybe a shifting of your weight from one leg to the other. That stuff is fast but it takes a standard action. So shouting "Look out!" shouldn't be faster than feinting.
3. Since it can't be a full round and shouldn't be faster than a standard action, it must be a standard action.
QED
You are right. It would be nice if they had spelled out this detail. But, after all, it is just a small detail, and applying just a little logic to it reveals the answer fairly easily.
If you succeed, you have created a diversion and now you can try to use your Stealth skill to hide from the ogre. Now you move to some little bit of cover or concealment (this is required unless you have Hide in Plain Sight) and as you move, you roll your Stealth check at -10 opposed by the ogre's Perception check.I noticed something while reading over Stealth and how to perform this very maneuver a few days ago. I have a question about this part.
The Stealth skill says this:
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.Would I be correct if I took that to mean you need more than just concealment to use Stealth in this maneuver? An unobserved place sounds to me like you have to get to either cover of some type or outside a creatures visual range in the current light (or other) conditions. What is your take on this?
Look at the rules for Cover and Concealment, pages 196 and 197. Both of these conditions state that you can use them to make Stealth checks. So, even just normal (partial) cover or concealment is sufficient to use Stealth to hide from an opponent - just not while he is directly watching you.
So create your diversion (standard action, Bluff check) then, assuming you succeeded at the diversion, dart into cover or concealment and hide (move action, Stealth check at -10).
That's all it takes.
The only part that isn't written is the one detail about which type of action is required to create the diversion.Nor do they state that it is an opposed check, nor what it is opposing.
Looks pretty straight forward to me. This is the second sentence under the Bluff skill:
Check: Bluff is an opposed skill check against your opponent’s Sense Motive skill.
You say that it's just like feint,
No, I said the time involved in shouting "Look out!" to create a diversion is pretty much like the time involved in performing a combat feint.
For a more detailed deconstruction of this assertion, see my previous post.
except that you've said that it's a Bluff versus Sense Motive check, when feinting is Bluff versus BAB+wis.
Here you have a good point, though I disagree with you.
Feint is quite specifically a combat tactic. It is only used in combat, specifically to limit your foe's ability to protect himself from your attack. This is why it uses BAB. The assumption is that a skilled (high-BAB) combatant is well trained to ignore feints regardless of his Sense Motive skill.
But bluffing to create a diversion is not necessarily a combat tactic. It could be used in any encounter, including those where nobody is trying to hurt anyone, attack anyone, or engage in any combat whatsoever. For example, you might just be sneaking past a watchful (but non-hostile) guard - he sees you, so you distract him so you can try to hide again.
Sure, it can also be used in combat, but clearly, it is not a purely combat tactic. This is why creating a diversion is opposed by the target's Sense Motive rather than his BAB. There is no reason at all to expect that someone who is a great swordsman won't be fooled into believing there is a danger behind him (after all, there might really be a danger behind him, and only his ability to sense your motive will determine whether he believes it's worth the risk to ignore the possibility).
You've stated that it must be a standard action, when Stealth already calls out the sort of action required to use it and it's either no action or a move action.
You're mistaken; you're mixing up your two actions. You are right that Stealth already defines the action you need to use your Stealth skill to hide. This part is true.
But that is not the part I'm talking about when I say creating the diversion is a standard action. You see, creating the diversion is [b]NOT[/i] part of the same action as trying to hide. These are two separate actions.
Creating the diversion is a standard action using your Bluff skill, and hiding is a free action using your Stealth skill, taken while you perform your move action to dart into an unobserved location.
You're using two skills, with two skill rolls, using two different actions.
I don't understand why you're bending over backwards to justify what is pretty obviously a simple omission caused by moving the rules to create a distraction from the Bluff writeup to the Stealth writeup. I know how it's supposed to work; it's supposed to work like 3.5. The problem is that the rules don't mention how it's supposed to work.
I didn't think I was bending over backward.
You're the one who created this thread. You asked the question. I merely answered it. Then you said you needed more, so I gave you more. Then you doubted my response, so I justified it. Now you've offered some rebuttals showing the areas about which you are still unclear, so I am responding to provide that additional clarity.
I did it all for you.
Sniff...
You're right, the writers could have been mor thorough. They could have clarified the type of action so we didn't need to deduce the fact that it's a standard action to create the diversion. They could have added a whole new section on this, creating multiple paragraphs in the skill and/or combat chapters.
But, space is limited. They quite clearly explained every part of this process except the action needed to create the diversion. Unfortunately, you need to read two skills and part of the combat chapter to thoroughly understand how it works. It's silly, and poor workmanship on their part to make it so that we need to read three sections of the rulebook to understand one simple rule, but given the size of the book and their obvious need to conserve space, I can understand why they didn't feel obligated to .
I do wish, however, that they had clarified the action type. That omission is clearly an oversight on their part and it should have been included.
Nor do they state that it is an opposed check, nor what it is opposing. You say that it's just like feint, except that you've said that it's a Bluff versus Sense Motive check, when feinting is Bluff versus BAB+wis.
You are leaving out a big portion of Feinting. It is only a Bluff against the enemy’s BAB + Wis mod if the enemy is untrained in Sense Motive. If the enemy you are trying to Feint IS trained in Sense Motive then it is a normal Bluff check DC equal to the enemy’s Sense Motive score (If his Sense Motive score is better than his BAB + Wis mod).
The reason the enemy doesn't get to roll a SM check during a Feint is because it is too fast, based on his ability to read others intentions (his static score) he either falls for it in that split second or he does not. Read the action required to use a Sense Motive check, it is stated that using it generally takes at least one minute.
You've stated that it must be a standard action, when Stealth already calls out the sort of action required to use it and it's either no action or a move action.
Yes Stealth is a non-action taken as part of a movement, or as a Move Action in the case of Sniping. But when you Bluff someone you aren't using Stealth you are using Bluff so you thumb over to the Bluff section and BAM it takes a Standard Action to Feint (which is a Bluff made in combat).
It even says this right in the rules:
Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth.
First you use Bluff (Standard Action) then you use Stealth (non-action/part of movement), very simple.
I don't understand why you're bending over backwards to justify what is pretty obviously a simple omission caused by moving the rules to create a distraction from the Bluff writeup to the Stealth writeup. I know how it's supposed to work; it's supposed to work like 3.5. The problem is that the rules don't mention how it's supposed to work.
It actually seems like you are the one bending over backwards to make this more confusing than it is, he is just trying to help you understand. The reason it is in the Stealth write up, even though it is a Bluff skill use, is because it isn’t important to someone reading Bluff it is important to someone who is in plain sight of an Ogre and wants to read up on Stealth to figure out how he can get hidden. And if something worked a certain way in 3.5 than in the absence of new rulings it probably STILL works that way. The PF team has defaulted back to 3.5 rules, Errata, and FAQ on several points.
NOTE: I think DM_Blake did a good job of illustrating how a Bluff to distract your opponent is different than a Feint in combat and therefore would be an opposed SM roll. I tend, however, to disagree based on the description of Sense Motive. I think the Bluff in combat is in fact a Feint action and success would be determined in the same way rather than opposed checks. The Sense Motive check seems to be reserved for determining if someone is telling a full out lie to you and takes at least one minute. I could see it playing out either way though.
My biggest question with this, is does a distracted opponent (one who fails his sense motive check vs the bluff) get to make attacks of opportunity against you? It would be pretty stupid to 'distract' someone, and expect to be able to hide without them noticing if the following movement to get away and hide provoked an attack they could take lol.
I would say they shouldn't. Like you say, common sense. But the closest thing I can think of to a rule that would say that would be to say that if you make the Bluff check and win, then you immediately begin to move away and immediately roll a Stealth check. If they don't beat your Stealth with their Perception, then they don't see you and therefore can't AoO you.
But if you say that then a character who moves out of a threatened square while using HiPS/Stealth wouldn’t provoke AoO either because if you fail your Perception check, you don't see him leaving - hmm.
Look at the rules for Cover and Concealment, pages 196 and 197. Both of these conditions state that you can use them to make Stealth checks. So, even just normal (partial) cover or concealment is sufficient to use Stealth to hide from an opponent - just not while he is directly watching you.
So create your diversion (standard action, Bluff check) then, assuming you succeeded at the diversion, dart into cover or concealment and hide (move action, Stealth check at -10).
That's all it takes.
I understand the cover/concealment rules. Concealment or Cover is needed to hide in dim light or darkness (except for within the visual range of a creature with Darkvision). In areas of normal or bright light or in the visual range of a creature with Darkvision you must have cover. Concealment won't work. Though I would say certain spells like Obscuring mist should allow you to use Stealth even in normal or bright light.
I have no trouble with it working like you say. "Darting off into cover or concealment," probably several squares away. The issue I have is that if a Rogue is fighting an NPC in an area of dim light. He Bluffs, then takes a 5-foot step to another square adjacent to that same NPC and uses Stealth. He is now virtually invisible in relation to that NPC even though he is standing right next to him. I have trouble visualizing this working in the absence of a (SU) ability. The first thing that NPC is going to do is a 360* in an attempt to locate the guy he was just fighting.
Now I can definitely see this working in darkness, because your opponent is virtually blind. But it has to be some very dark shadows to simply disappear when you are really still standing right next to someone.
I can almost see this in dim light as the heat of combat could cause the NPC to overlook the Rogue who is crouching at his side. I guess the -10 is part of that system though, it would be quite hard to pull this off for just the average Rogue against the average Perception check, you would have to be pretty good at Stealth. And so in light of that I can visualize it better.
I agree with you that this does seem to be what the rule is saying. It is just difficult for me to visualize but I think I have it straight. I just wanted to get some other opinions on it. Thanks.
Why is everyone trying to justify to me how it's supposed to work? I know how it's supposed to work. I am unhappy that you need to presume that it's supposed to work like a vaguely similar thing in certain ways but not in others in order to learn how it's supposed to work without reading the 3.5 rules.
This probably has something to do with your original post which asks nothing about where to post this issue to get Eratta'd but rather seems to be asking how it is supposed to work.
My point is that someone who reads PF fresh, not having played 3.5, is going to be confused as to what's involved in creating a distraction to hide, because the rules are not at all clear. When the right answer is one of several valid interpretations of the rules as written, then the rules are not very well written.
I agree it could be a little clearer but I think even someone new to PF should come to a pretty clear understanding of it. Some of the things posted above are widely incorrect and if someone came to those conclusions they are probably making up or misinterpreting several rules along the way and have more to worry about than a little obscure wording.
Now, if people could please stop telling me how it's supposed to work and point me to where you report errata, I'd be super appreciative.
You can try these:
List of Errata in Pathfinder Core Rulebook
PFRPG user errata
Official Rulings Needed
I understand the cover/concealment rules. Concealment or Cover is needed to hide in dim light or darkness (except for within the visual range of a creature with Darkvision). In areas of normal or bright light or in the visual range of a creature with Darkvision you must have cover. Concealment won't work. Though I would say certain spells like Obscuring mist should allow you to use Stealth even in normal or bright light.Look at the rules for Cover and Concealment, pages 196 and 197. Both of these conditions state that you can use them to make Stealth checks. So, even just normal (partial) cover or concealment is sufficient to use Stealth to hide from an opponent - just not while he is directly watching you.
So create your diversion (standard action, Bluff check) then, assuming you succeeded at the diversion, dart into cover or concealment and hide (move action, Stealth check at -10).
That's all it takes.
Really?
Why is it different?
I ask because if you have cover, I can still see you. I can still attack you (you get +4 AC from the cover). You are still mostly visible to me. With concealment, I can still see you. I can still attack you (I am attacking you, not just the square I think you're in, and all you get is a 20% miss chance). You are still mostly visible to me.
As far as the decision of the whether of not you are sufficiently "unobserved" to use your Stealth skill after a successful Bluff diversion, my instinct says that neither cover nor concealment is sufficiently "unobserved".
To be "unobserved" you would need total cover or total concealment (both of which clearly state that you opponent has no line of sight to you). That would satisfy the need to be "unobserved" which is clearly stated in the Stealth skill.
So that is how I would like to play it.
Unfortunately, the RAW very specifically states:
Cover and Stealth Checks: You can use cover to make a
Stealth check. Without cover, you usually need concealment
(see below) to make a Stealth check.
Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use
concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment,
you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.
They are both very specific on this, and neither of them says you need "total" cover/concealment to use Stealth. To me, that's silly. The rule is that you cannot hide in plain sight, which makes sense - think of the hippo hiding behind a telephone pole - he has cover but not total cover and all his enemies can see him, how can he possibly think he's hiding?.
So if you have cover but not total cover, it is like a 6' tall man standing (not lying) behind a 3' wall, or kneeling behind a 1'tall fallen log, or whatever - your enemies can still see and attack you. How can you hide like that? If the answer is "you lie down behind your wall or log" then I say no, because as soon as you do, you have total cover - lying down behind the obstacle does work, but it doesn't answer the question of how can you hide with cover but without total cover.
The same is true for concealment. If you have total concealment with regard to your foe, then he cannot see you at all. It's too dark, or too foggy, or whatever. But if you only have concealment, then he can see you. You might appear dim, or blurry, or hard to see, but he can still see your form there in the dim light or in the light fog. And if he can see you, you should not be able to hide.
But RAW says you can.
So, me, I'm inclined to houserule it that you need total cover or total concealment to make a Stealth check to hide. Regardless of whether you use Bluff to make a distraction or not (the distraction is only needed if you know you are being observed, but total cover/concealment is needed to hide all the time).
I have no trouble with it working like you say. "Darting off into cover or concealment," probably several squares away. The issue I have is that if a Rogue is fighting an NPC in an area of dim light. He Bluffs, then takes a 5-foot step to another square adjacent to that same NPC and uses Stealth. He is now virtually invisible in relation to that NPC even though he is standing right next to him. I have trouble visualizing this working in the absence of a (SU) ability. The first thing that NPC is going to do is a 360* in an attempt to locate the guy he was just fighting.
I agree with you, but the RAW doesn't.
You're getting into houserules territory here.
Now I can definitely see this working in darkness, because your opponent is virtually blind. But it has to be some very dark shadows to simply disappear when you are really still standing right next to someone.
Of course, because darkness gives you total concealment, unless your foe has darkvision or some other sense to observe you, in which case darkness does not grant total concealment with regard to that foe.
I can almost see this in dim light as the heat of combat could cause the NPC to overlook the Rogue who is crouching at his side. I guess the -10 is part of that system though, it would be quite hard to pull this off for just the average Rogue against the average Perception check, you would have to be pretty good at Stealth. And so in light of that I can visualize it better.
I think the -10 penalty is because you have to "dart" (my word), or "move fast" to get from where you are to where you will have cover or concealment. The diversion doesn't last long. Shouting "Look out!" will distract someone for about a second, two at most. How far can you move in that time? Technically, since it doesn't say, you can move your full movement, which for most people is 30'. 30' in just 1-2 seconds is moving fast. Really fast compared to the 6 seconds it normally takes you to move that far. Hence the -10.
Remember that in combat, there is no facing. Everyone is looking everywhere, all the time. If your fighting an orc to the north of you, and another orc walks up from the south, you automatically know he is there. If he sneaks up from the south using Stealth, you automatically get an opposed Perception check to spot him.
So simply telling someone to "Look Out!" doesn't mean they turn away from you. It only means they briefly look away (if you roll a successful Bluff check to create the diversion). If you only move 5', when that brief look away ends, they will resume looking right at you unless you gained the "unobserved" state and made a Stealth check at -10 because you moved so fast, in which case they oppose with a Perception check and, if they fail, they won't know where you are.
You and I seem to be considering houserules to the effect that "unobserved" requires total cover or total concealment. Raw says otherwise.
I agree with you that this does seem to be what the rule is saying. It is just difficult for me to visualize but I think I have it straight. I just wanted to get some other opinions on it. Thanks.
It seems we're pretty much in agreement here. I mostly made this post to put this down in writing for everyone.
Judging by the number of posts I've seen about hiding, hiding in plain sight, diversions, and other cover/concealment/stealth rules, a lot of people are unclear on this stuff.
I partially blame the rulebook for this unclarity. The rules are scattered throughout the book (mostly for good reason) and understanding them with any clarity requires reading multiple sections of the book and assimilating the rules and then corelating them with each other to form concise rule combinations that are not clearly mapped out in the book. Not everyone has the time, temperament, or inclination to do that, and even when we do, it's easy to misconstrue some or all of it.
Hopefully this thread has clarified at least this combination of rules for any and all concerned.
My biggest question with this, is does a distracted opponent (one who fails his sense motive check vs the bluff) get to make attacks of opportunity against you?
Great question, Sometimes they do sometimes they don't.
Feint:
You can also use Bluff to feint in combat, causing your opponent to be flat-footed against your next attack.Flatfooted:
Cannot make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat or Uncanny Dodge class ability.
You can see the intent is to have the opponent flatfooted against your following action. Might not fly with the most hardcore RAW people. Also, of course if you failed the bluff check there's no point to go running off to try and hide with him staring you down anyway. This of course is if you see fit to use the feint rules. It is very much something that could use clarification.
References:FlatFooted
Bluff
Really?
Why is it different?
The reason I said that was:
In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. Some creatures, such as those with light sensitivity and light blindness, take penalties while in areas of bright light. A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover. Areas of bright light include outside in direct sunshine and inside the area of a daylight spell.
Normal light functions just like bright light, but characters with light sensitivity and light blindness do not take penalties. Areas of normal light include underneath a forest canopy during the day, within 20 feet of a torch, and inside the area of a light spell
This text is found in the Additional Rules section of the PRD.
So that is how I would like to play it.
I really don’t so much see any issue with hiding in partial concealment/cover “before” someone becomes aware of you, it is pretty easy to hide in shadows from someone who doesn’t expect you to be there, or if they know you are around but don’t really know what area you might be in. It would be ridiculously hard to hide from someone who has already seen you and in fact is in the process of trying to kill you. But then again I guess that is what the -10 is supposed to represent. The average scrub isn’t going to be able to pull this off.
To be clear, I probably wouldn’t house rule it because I think it works well the way it is written. That is, I don't think it is unbalancing. I would have to think about it though, it seems to step on the toes of HiPS a bit (if only a little). I just have a difficult time visualizing it in certain situations. I wanted to bounce this off you and see what your take on it was. The wording (unobserved) just threw me off, especially when I noticed it for the first time because it gets misquoted a lot.
They are both very specific on this, and neither of them says you need "total" cover/concealment to use Stealth. To me, that's silly. The rule is that you cannot hide in plain sight, which makes sense - think of the hippo hiding behind a telephone pole - he has cover but not total cover and all his enemies can see him, how can he possibly think he's hiding?.
This was what I was getting at, but like I said above, it’s not so hard for me to visualize if the guy doesn’t know you are there yet, but after combat starts, it seems like you would need to get completely out of sight to hide again. But I can agree that doesn’t seem to be RAW at all.
So, me, I'm inclined to houserule it that you need total cover or total concealment to make a Stealth check to hide. Regardless of whether you use Bluff to make a distraction or not (the distraction is only needed if you know you are being observed, but total cover/concealment is needed to hide all the time).
Under most circumstances I don’t have any problem visualizing someone hiding in less than total concealment/cover. They are blending into the shadows and staying perfectly still/quiet or they are crouching behind the barrel near the corner of the alley way. The only issue I had when I read the rules for the Bluff, then get to cover/concealment and use Stealth tactic is that you don’t actually have to run to cover or concealment, you could be standing right there next your enemy the whole time and that is a little hard to believe, but I guess by the time someone could do this (considering the -10 penalty) they are a pretty accomplished sneak.
I agree with you, but the RAW doesn't.
You're getting into houserules territory here.
I mostly just wanted to get some other opinions and see if anyone else saw that as a little strange. I wanted to see what people’s opinions of the RAW were because when I read the (unobserved) part it made me question if I had been doing this wrong. I guess the rules consider any concealment/cover an unobserved place as long as you are not being actively observed. So if you can break your opponents attention (Bluff) you can be unobserved if you have cover/concealment.
So simply telling someone to "Look Out!" doesn't mean they turn away from you. It only means they briefly look away (if you roll a successful Bluff check to create the diversion). If you only move 5', when that brief look away ends, they will resume looking right at you unless you gained the "unobserved" state and made a Stealth check at -10 because you moved so fast, in which case they oppose with a Perception check and, if they fail, they won't know where you are.
I could also see it representing moving to someone’s blind spot when they turn their attention away from you, then they turn back to where you were and you have moved so it takes a second for them to find you again, by that time you have already stabbed them. (This would be much easier to visualize if there was facing in 3.5)
You and I seem to be considering houserules to the effect that "unobserved" requires total cover or total concealment. Raw says otherwise.
That word unobserved did throw me off. I’m not sure if I would house rule it or not, it just seems odd to me and I have trouble seeing it. I suppose it has to be pretty dark to cause you to accidentally miss someone you are trying to hit (20% concealment) so I can see it being dark enough to slip into a shadow and stay still, crouched, and silent and in the heat of battle, just maybe (-10 to Stealth), you will do it well enough that you won’t be spotted right away.
It seems we're pretty much in agreement here. I mostly made this post to put this down in writing for everyone.
I think so too and appreciate the feedback.
Hey if you get a chance would you mind taking a look at THIS. It is another little hiccup in the wording of things and I have been trying to get it answered but no one I talk to can show me how the RAW is supposed to work. I believe that I know how it is supposed to work RAI but I don’t see the wording supporting it 100%. Perhaps you can point something out to me that I am overlooking. (WITHOUT OFFICIAL RULING I AM IN SUPPORT OF OPTION - B. You will understand what I mean if you read it through.)
Really?
Why is it different?
The reason I said that was:
This text is found in the Additional Rules section of the PRD.In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. Some creatures, such as those with light sensitivity and light blindness, take penalties while in areas of bright light. A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover. Areas of bright light include outside in direct sunshine and inside the area of a daylight spell.
Normal light functions just like bright light, but characters with light sensitivity and light blindness do not take penalties. Areas of normal light include underneath a forest canopy during the day, within 20 feet of a torch, and inside the area of a light spell
You do realize that concealment doesn't usually occur naturally, right? Certainly not in bright daylight. And according to this rule, you can use stealth in all but "bright" lighting.
Natural fog or a blizard or a sandstorm might be able to exist during daylight hours, and if you fly above them you might have bright daylight, though I don't see how you could say that you have bright daylight when you're actually in any of those weather conditions.
So, bright daylight generally precludes all situations of natural concealment, but the reverse is also true
What's left?
Spells like Obscuring Mist. You certainly can have those in bright daylight, though again, I would argue that inside the area of the spell's effect the daylight is not so bright. Not even normal.
So again, if someone drops an Obscuring Mist on the battlefield, or any other spell that grants concealment, it automatically by definition diffuses or outright blocks the bright light in its area, making Stealth possible.
So I don't see this rule you've quoted as disagreeing with anything I have said, or anything that is said under the Stealth, Cover, or Concealment sections of the core rules.
Maybe the writer could have added a little clarity in the to section on Vision and Lighting (the rule you quoted) to include a sentence about "All areas that grant concealment automatically diffuse or block bright light and therefore Stealth can be used within such areas, even if those areas exist in what otherwise would be bright light." Or something to that effect.
Under most circumstances I don’t have any problem visualizing someone hiding in less than total concealment/cover. They are blending into the shadows and staying perfectly still/quiet or they are crouching behind the barrel near the corner of the alley way. The only issue I had when I read the rules for the Bluff, then get to cover/concealment and use Stealth tactic is that you don’t actually have to run to cover or concealment, you could be standing right there next your enemy the whole time and that is a little hard to believe, but I guess by the time someone could do this (considering the -10 penalty) they are a pretty accomplished sneak.
I am not sure how you could reach that conclusion (I bolded it above). The Stealth rules very clearly state that this is not the case.
Here is the exact quote from the Stealth skill:
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.
So quite clearly, you use your Bluff skill to create a diversion. If it works, you "can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind." This presupposes that you are not already in an "unobserved place of some kind" because if you were, you wouldn't need the Bluff check. Since you are not already in an unobserved place, and since you can only use your Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place, QED, you must move to it.
So no, you cannot simply bluff the foe and then stand there while you use your Stealth skill.
I could also see it representing moving to someone’s blind spot when they turn their attention away from you, then they turn back to where you were and you have moved so it takes a second for them to find you again, by that time you have already stabbed them. (This would be much easier to visualize if there was facing in 3.5)
Only if that blind spot also gives you cover or concealment.
There is no "facing" in combat. I don't believe this is specifically stated, but in all the combat rules, there is never once any mention, at all, of facing, or any facing-related effects.
Line of Sight is not dependent on which way you are looking, or which way your figure is facing on the battlemat.
Combatants get a full 6 seconds every round. They are surrounded by danger on every front, living in a world full of magic and monsters and who knows what. Even when they know for a fact that their good buddy has their back, they still look over their shoulder every round. Their heads are practically on swivels on full alert for any and all danger.
Given that, there is no such thing as a "blind spot". If there were, then there would be some rule for it, somewhere, in all this big heavy Core rulebook.
As far as him losing track for a second and then it's too late because you're stabbing him, you forget that the Bluff action used your standard action this round to create your diversion. That means all you have left is a movement action. No stabbing allowed. Which means that between the end of your round and the next chance you get to stab him, he gets a full 6 seconds to spot you, and if you don't have cover or concealment, you don't have stealth, so spotting you won't be very hard.
Hey if you get a chance would you mind taking a look at THIS. It is another little hiccup in the wording of things and I have been trying to get it answered but no one I talk to can show me how the RAW is supposed to work. I believe that I know how it is supposed to work RAI but I don’t see the wording supporting it 100%. Perhaps you can point something out to me that I am overlooking. (WITHOUT OFFICIAL RULING I AM IN SUPPORT OF OPTION - B. You will understand what I mean if you read it through.)
Because you asked, my answer was C.
You do realize that concealment doesn't usually occur naturally, right? Certainly not in bright daylight.
I do.
And according to this rule, you can use stealth in all but "bright" lighting.
I believe it also prevents you from using Stealth in normal light. The reason I think this is:
In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. Some creatures, such as those with light sensitivity and light blindness, take penalties while in areas of bright light. A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover. Areas of bright light include outside in direct sunshine and inside the area of a daylight spell.
Normal light functions just like bright light, but characters with light sensitivity and light blindness do not take penalties. Areas of normal light include underneath a forest canopy during the day, within 20 feet of a torch, and inside the area of a light spell
If normal light functions "just like bright light" then it would also disallow use of Stealth except when you have cover or invisibility. The only differance between bright and normal light is that creatures with light sensitivity or light blindness dont take penalties in normal light.
Natural fog or a blizard or a sandstorm might be able to exist during daylight hours, and if you fly above them you might have bright daylight, though I don't see how you could say that you have bright daylight when you're actually in any of those weather conditions.
So, bright daylight generally precludes all situations of natural concealment, but the reverse is also true
What's left?
Spells like Obscuring Mist. You certainly can have those in bright daylight, though again, I would argue that inside the area of the spell's effect the daylight is not so bright. Not even normal.
So again, if someone drops an Obscuring Mist on the battlefield, or any other spell that grants concealment, it automatically by definition diffuses or outright blocks the bright light in its area, making Stealth possible.
I absolutely agree with what you are saying here. That is why I said "I would say certain spells like Obscuring mist should allow you to use Stealth even in normal or bright light." The rules (as far as I know) don't explicitly say that the light condition in the area is changed, (except in the Darkness spells) but it stands to reason (common sense) that they would be.
So I don't see this rule you've quoted as disagreeing with anything I have said, or...
I don't really see these coming into play against what you have talked about regarding Stealth. Because, like you said, of course you can't use concealment to hide in daylight - there is no concealment. The scenarios that I think this would come into play with would be the case of someone standing in the middle of a crowded street during the day, with the sun shining brightly all around. This individual uses an item that gives him a Blur effect, and then says "I can now use Stealth because I have concealment." In this situation (or similar situation) I would say no because he is still in an area of bright or normal light and therefore cannot use the concealment granted by Blur to use Stealth because cover is the requirement. On one thread I was reading, some people thought you could use the concealment from ranged attacks granted by the Lighting Stance feat to make a Stealth check as well. My opinion was that the concealment granted is only against ranged attacks and so unless someone was actively trying to shoot you, there is no concealment, and if someone was trying to shoot you then he is the only person you would have concealment against. Also, if the only time you can use concealment to use Stealth is when you are in dim light or darkness then trying to use Lightning Stance is a non-issue, because in those lighting conditions you already have concealment.
I think situations like these are exactly why that rule about using Stealth in normal or bright light is there. So, PF FAQ/Errata doesn’t have to come back later and say, oh wait you can't use the concealment granted by Blur to hide, which, I believe D&D 3.5 has addressed in their FAQ but I'm not 100% sure. If they put that blanket statement out there then they don’t have to go back through every effect, item, or spell that grants concealment and decide which ones can or cannot be used for Stealth. I know in some of the later 3.5 books there were many things that granted concealment that also had the specific caveat that they could not be used to Hide.
That is what I was getting at. I apologize if the way I said it up-thread was not clear.
Under most circumstances I don’t have any problem visualizing someone hiding in less than total concealment/cover. They are blending into the shadows and staying perfectly still/quiet or they are crouching behind the barrel near the corner of the alley way. The only issue I had when I read the rules for the Bluff, then get to cover/concealment and use Stealth tactic is that you don’t actually have to run to cover or concealment, you could be standing right there next your enemy the whole time and that is a little hard to believe, but I guess by the time someone could do this (considering the -10 penalty) they are a pretty accomplished sneak.
I should have specified that this example could only take place in an area of dim light or darkness where you have concealment even when you are right next to your opponent. In dim light or darkness you can use that concealment to hide, even if your opponent is right next to you. (unless I am missing something)
I am not sure how you could reach that conclusion (I bolded it above). The Stealth rules very clearly state that this is not the case.
Here is the exact quote from the Stealth skill:
So quite clearly, you use your Bluff skill to create a diversion. If it works, you "can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind." This presupposes that you are not already in an "unobserved place of some kind" because if you were, you wouldn't need the Bluff check. Since you are not already in an unobserved place, and since you can only use your Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place, QED, you must move to it.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.
This was actually the reason I posted my original question about the definition of ”unobserved place.” You see my dilemma with the way this works is only in situations of night fighting. If ”unobserved place” is equal to ”area that you could use Stealth in (IE: Concealment or Cover)” then in a situation where you are fighting someone in dim light, you have concealment even standing right next to him and all you have to do is Bluff him. In dim light you can use concealment to hide regardless of how close your enemy is. Therefore if you Bluff your enemy and he diverts his attention you can attempt to hide from him even though you are still standing right next to him (using the concealment of dim light).
This is the only situation that I am having trouble justifying and was what I was trying to get at with my original question. I think I failed to explain myself clearly though.
So no, you cannot simply bluff the foe and then stand there while you use your Stealth skill.
Not even in the situation as I presented above? What would prevent it, if you are fighting in dim light and can use the concealment of dim light to hide?
Now if ”unobserved place” is not equal to ”any circumstance you could normally use Stealth in” and instead means literally ”an unobserved place,” then the situation that I have presented would in fact be impossible. You could not use concealment of dim light to hide right next to your opponent, and you would need to retreat to cover or whatever to use Stealth.
I could also see it representing moving to someone’s blind spot when they turn their attention away from you, then they turn back to where you were and you have moved so it takes a second for them to find you again, by that time you have already stabbed them. (This would be much easier to visualize if there was facing in 3.5)
Only if that blind spot also gives you cover or concealment.
That is what I meant. I will admit I didn't explain my intent very well and it was a poor example when discussing RAW. I only meant to give the maneuver a visual/cinematic appearance.
There is no "facing" in combat. I don't believe this is specifically stated, but in all the combat rules, there is never once any mention, at all, of facing, or any facing-related effects.
Line of Sight is not dependent on which way you are looking, or which way your figure is facing on the battlemat.
Combatants get a full 6 seconds every round. They are surrounded by danger on every front, living in a world full of magic and monsters and who knows what. Even when they know for a fact that their good buddy has their back, they still look over their shoulder every round. Their heads are practically on swivels on full alert for any and all danger.
Given that, there is no such thing as a "blind spot". If there were, then there would be some rule for it, somewhere, in all this big heavy Core rulebook.
I agree with what you are saying and know that is the way RAW and combat work. It was a very bad example.
As far as him losing track for a second and then it's too late because you're stabbing him, you forget that the Bluff action used your standard action this round to create your diversion. That means all you have left is a movement action. No stabbing allowed. Which means that between the end of your round and the next chance you get to stab him, he gets a full 6 seconds to spot you, and if you don't have cover or concealment, you don't have stealth, so spotting you won't be very hard.
Actually I did not mean to say that he would Bluff, move, use Stealth, and Attack in the same round. But rather that he would Bluff, move and use Stealth, and if his enemy didn't spot him then he would get the opportunity to stab him from Stealth the next round and in that case it would be "too late."
As I said, it was an admittedly poor example and I didn't explain myself very well.
Hey if you get a chance would you mind taking a look at THIS. It is another little hiccup in the wording of things and I have been trying to get it answered but no one I talk to can show me how the RAW is supposed to work. I believe that I know how it is supposed to work RAI but I don’t see the wording supporting it 100%. Perhaps you can point something out to me that I am overlooking. (WITHOUT OFFICIAL RULING I AM IN SUPPORT OF OPTION - B. You will understand what I mean if you read it through.)Because you asked, my answer was C.
Thank you for looking through this and replying so quickly. After having read your post I would say that I agree completely.
The funny thing is that it was always explained to me as "A" and that is the way I always played. Then after I read through it carefully myself I started to think that something along the lines of "C" was probably the true interpretation of RAW. So I posted the question HERE on the Needs Official Ruling thread. The only reply I got there was that with UD you would retain your Dex against invisible attackers but they still get the +2 to hit you, which is where I got "B" but that answer didn't really satisfy me because it isn't supported by RAW. That does seem to be the way most people think of it and play it though (in my experience). "D" was just based on some confusion I came across with the wording of ignores Dex vs. denies Dex and it threw me even further off. In the absence of any official ruling and with a claim that you retain Dex but the invisible attacker still gets the +2, combined with some random FAQ stuff that didn't really seem to fit but sounded like it might apply, I convinced myself to accept "B" as the correct answer. But it kept bothering me that it wasn't supported by any form of RAW. At which point we come to this thread. I have seen several of your posts and you seem like you have a good understanding of RAW so I figured you would be a good person to run this by. Most people seem to have a blanket assumption that "Rogues can never lose their Dex because they have UD" but that is not supported by RAW at all. I think that might also be the source of much 3.5 confusion about whether or not a Rogue/Barbarian could be Feinted. Again thank you for breaking this down. You have confirmed in my mind that the way I always played it, and the way most people try to explain it to me, is in fact incorrect and the interpretation that I came up with myself when I read the rules for myself (answer - C) was in fact correct.