|
To me the fact that it's interpreted differently at every table isn't a horrible thing. It doesn't make the game less fun, it just means you have to get used to different GMs. For the typical group you just get used to your GM.For tournament play and pickup games it's a bigger issue but I've never really had any issues with it. I don't have a huge amount of experience with that though.
+1
This goes for all rules discussions IMO. Of course I can decide whatever I want for my sessions, but it is nice to know what the "official" stance is on a lot of issues for the reasons you stated.
Cheers
|
I can appreciate the question and the scenario. It really disappoints me when folks say "dumb" and "poorly written"; I have no comprehension of why anyone would try to steal a chicken in broad daylight while in front of a farmer and hound that are watching? What's up?
I understand this is a point to illustrate the difficulty of the situation, and it shows the rules are correct on this matter and it is either the rogue who is lacking in wisdom attribute points, or the player who feels he/she deserves to win every time based on skill check numbers alone. Context matters.
Either the rogue is desperate enough to attack and disable the dog and farmer, or he will need to wait a while for better environmental conditions to use stealth effectively.
Just because something in the setting is mundane, does not mean it cannot trump even the most powerful of PCs. Higher feats, skills, and attributes in fantasy role-play never meant that you could will yourself into royalty bloodlines, defy the internally-consistent laws of the universe, nor guarantee the stealth of a chicken in broad daylight right before the eyes of Farmer Brown and Bascombe.
Obi-wan Kenobi couldn't quietly help Luke in the Canteena without causing a scene and slicing someone's hand off - stealth would not help him there even with ample shadow and cover. Indiana Jones could not defy a simple rope before his father accidently set fire to the room - he couldn't begin undoing ropes in front of the Nazis. Again, while I appreciate the discussion, let's discuss and not call the game we love "dumb" or "broken" or filled with "inherited problems". How are any of those comments helpful? Circumstances win every time, and it is a shame that they have been demoted to nothing more than an incidental +2/-2 DM's best friend in some games. At my table, the rogue had better make a wisdom check to help him decide that high noon is not the best time to steal from Farmer Brown.
Well, it's easy enough to come up with rationales for why someone might be attempting such a thing. It could be that Jack was posed this task as an initiation stunt to get membership in the local thieves guild. It could be that Jack has decided to attempt this stunt to hone his skills, since a rural farmer has less pull with the law than the gnomish bankers he'd really like to rob in town. There are all sorts of "could be" situations which will make it make sense.
However, if you go with the given premise of "all Jack wants is a chicken dinner" and "Jack is attempting to do this via Stealth at high noon" the only logical conclusions are "Jack is an idiot" or "Jack has a death wish" or "Both."
If you want a chicken dinner and you've got massive amounts of Stealth, you go to an inn, you get dinner, and then sneak out without paying.
|
|
I think the actual scenario is irrelevant to the actual concerns of the OP.
Only a group of hard core ROLE players would question the rogue's intentions and or intelligence about going during the day. :)
Is this farm in a box canyon? Why does he have to sneak past the farmer and the dog exactly? :)
I think DM_Blake take on the scent is spot on, but that abilities like tremorsense (especially underwater scenarios) and blindsense are lacking enough counters.
A lot of adjudication is required when using stealth, is really the main thing I take out of this thread (what is the best way to adjudicate breaking from cover to cover for instance).
Cheers
Umm, hedges offer concealment and all you need is concealment to make Stealth checks. Also, if the dog and farmer are asleep, they're blind, which gives enemies concealment---which means you can make Stealth checks!
What I find funny is someone just bringing a tower shield. They offer cover (which is useful for Stealth) so you can walk around and make Stealth checks with a tower shield...assuming you can get around that hefty check penalty.
Umm, hedges offer concealment and all you need is concealment to make Stealth checks. Also, if the dog and farmer are asleep, they're blind, which gives enemies concealment---which means you can make Stealth checks!
What I find funny is someone just bringing a tower shield. They offer cover (which is useful for Stealth) so you can walk around and make Stealth checks with a tower shield...assuming you can get around that hefty check penalty.
It has already been addressed and confirmed that concealment is only acceptable for Stealth in conditions of dim light or darkness. As per the rules quoted here:
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.
The dog's scent ability is precisely why people keep guard dogs--they can literally smell trouble.
A trained guard dog. It's in the Handle Animal skill. ...but that's another can of worms.
Now, let's say we have Jack B. Nimble, a 5th level rogue down on his luck. Jack has 18 dex and has maxed his ranks in Stealth, giving him a +12 on Stealth checks. He's not had a lot of luck lately, so he wants to steal Farmer John's chickens. Farmer John (no great shakes for observation: level 2 in a non-Perceptive class and wis 10, giving him a total of +2 to Perception) has Woof, a dozey dog (Perception +8) guarding the coop. The farmer is puttering around on his porch (which is surrounded by concealing hedges, with a 5' opening in the front). Farmer John's coop is a distance away from his house, which is between the coop and a dense cornfield. Chickens, incidentally, have the same stats as lizards because it amuses me and they're pretty spot on, so their Perception is +1.
Personally I think this is a pretty bias example. I see that you are just providing a series of examples but this scenario is utterly stacked against Jack in every way. In addition, you have forced Jack to take several actions that are beyond stupidity.
First of all a lvl 5 Rogue is going to have a lot more that what you are giving him. Even his basic stat is a bit low. Let’s say the highest roll that Jack got at character creation is a 17. Now if he knows that he wants to be a bit of a thief then he will probably do the smart thing and put his highest score in Dex. Being a human he gets a plus two bonus to throw somewhere, again Dex. And being lvl 5 he has one ability point to spend so if we throw that into Dex as well he has a base of 20. (I don’t think it is unreasonable to suggest he might have rolled at least one 17 in creation and if you used a point buy system he would probably want one high ability so a 20 Dex at lvl 5 isn’t really out of the question at all.) Secondly even if you just created this character as a lvl 5 character he starts off with 10,000gp according to PF SRD. (And with most GMs I have been under if you play a character up from lvl 1 you usually end up with far more than the chart says you get if you create a character at that lvl.) And finally you have left out feat selection completely. A character who knows that, even at low lvls, he wants the biggest Stealth advantage he can get will have at least one feat devoted to the skill. Sneaky would give him +2 and Skill Focus (Stealth) will give him +3. This would paint a far different picture of Jack, a picture in which he is not a complete scrub who would be better off begging for food in town. Jack could easily have a base of +18 to Stealth and a Cloak of Elvenkind that gives him a +5 on top of that. Personally, I also think that a farmer worrying about Perception is a bit much too. He would probably be more worried about Craft, Profession, Knowledge Nature, and maybe Survival. (I might just be nit picking though, after all it’s only 2 ranks.) The dog has a +8 to Perception and the Scent ability. That is all well and good but Scent is not the all powerful ability that you claim it to be (more on that later).
As for the situation: You are the DM of this scenario so if you say concealing hedges then I guess it is just something Jack is going to have to deal with but I would like to know how your came to the conclusion that these hedges don’t provide some form of cover. As someone posted up-thread they could indeed provide total cover. Think about it, the hedges are a solid (IE: not like dim light or fog) and it would be difficult to shoot an arrow through thick hedges. There is nothing in any rules I am aware of that states hedges give only concealment.
Well, first he needs to find a good hiding place on the edge of the cornfield. It's going to be slow going for quite a while; to avoid a sizable penalty to his stealth, he's moving one 5' square a turn through the still-flowering cornstalks. Good thing he's not in a hurry to eat!
Much of the terrain that actually allows you to use Stealth also cuts your movement in half. It's cut in half again to keep from suffering a -5 penalty to your Stealth skill. Even 30' movers will be moving 7.5' a round, which is rounded down to 5'.
Actually I believe that would be wrong on two levels. Firstly how are you getting that a corn field it “difficult terrain” I looked briefly at terrain and the closest thing I could see to a corn field would be thick undergrowth which I don’t think would apply here. Secondly Jack, being a sneak, could easily have picked up Fast Stealth as one of his Rogue Talents and so would not take the -5 to move his full speed and use Stealth.
Eventually, Jack makes it to the edge of the cornfield about lunchtime, the sun high in the sky. Woof is sound asleep, snoring away in front of the clucking hens. Farmer John is tinkering with his crossbow on his porch, fiddling with something or another and muttering about coyotes. Jack isn't sure what's around back behind the house and doesn't want to take a chance, so he ducks down low and creeps up to the hedges...and is instantly spotted by Farmer John. Whoops. He barely makes it back to the cornfield without catching a crossbow bolt in the hindquarters.
It's outdoors with the sun shining, so Jack was in an area of bright light. In bright light, characters can't use Stealth without cover or invisibility. Since the hedges only concealed Jack, he couldn't use Stealth. Thus, the DC to spot him was 0, and Farmer John's Perception was -3 with the distraction penalty. Our master rogue was spotted by a take 10.
Well if you are just going to rule that the hedges only provide concealment then you would be right. In that case I would say your Rogue Jack B. is a complete Jack-Ass. He is sneaking up in broad daylight to an area he knows to only provide concealment. He is a Rogue so it is reasonable to assume he knows what he can and can’t use to hide in any given lighting condition. So for him to sneak up in the light and attempt to hide when he knows that in light he needs cover and in your world hedges only provide him with concealment is stupid beyond redemption and he deserves to be caught.
However, I again would like to say that the hedges should give him cover. I would also question you for further details about these particular hedges. Are they thick or thin? How tall are they? Because if the hedges are fairly tall (let’s say between 4-6 feet) and fairly thick (let’s say between 1-3 feet) then the farmer wouldn’t be able to see Jack approach at all. If he can’t see Jack through the hedges then there is no way for him to spot Jack. In this case Jack would be, for all intents and purposes, as good as invisible and could benefit from Stealth. At the very least you could definitely justify cover.
Hunger is a powerful motivator, and Jack gives it a few hours until the sky clouds up. Farmer John is back to puttering with his crossbow (with a vengeance, now) and Woof is still fast asleep. Jack tries to chance his same route again, creeping up to the hedges, with Farmer John none the wiser. Then, as Jack tries to zip past the entrance to the porch, the farmer spots him again, and ends up putting two new holes in Jack's last decent cloak. At this rate, our rogue's going to have to try eating a crossbow bolt!
Oops. You need cover or concealment to use Stealth. Once you step out of your cover/concealment, the DC to spot him is 0 again. Incidentally, if Jack ever had any murderous intentions towards the farmer, this is the point at which all surprise rounds would begin. It's nearly impossible to start a surprise round in melee range.
Complete Adventurer has rules for crossing gaps in cover in this way, but if the gap were 10' wide he'd still be spotted most of the time due to the -10 penalty for crossing a gap that size. He'd almost always be spotted if he were a halfling, since he'd also have to eat the -5 for moving over half speed.
Well, again, Jack B. seems to be a Jack-Ass. From your description the hedges completely encircle the porch with the exception of one gap that is presumably the entrance/exit of the house. Therefore Jack doesn’t even need to cross that gap, he can go to the left, or to the right whichever is more convenient and never have to deal with the gap or even the possibility of being spotted by the farmer. But I understand you are trying to illustrate a point so I will work with it.
First of all since you said it is cloudy now and the hedges that only provide concealment are now sufficiently hiding Jack I am going to use your context to say that jack is in an area of dim light and concealment is now acceptable to hide in.
Let’s say he did want to cross the gap, just for the challenge. Someone has pointed out already that the CA rules seem to be for when people are already alert. The farmer is distracted and not really paying attention. He certainly isn’t observing you so the argument could be made that you could use Stealth to cross that gap and remain unseen. The rules say that against opponents who are observing you or aware of you cover or concealment is generally needed. Granted, the rules don’t give any examples of using Stealth against people who aren’t observing you. They don’t say you can use it outside of cover or concealment, true, but they also don’t explicitly say you leave Stealth the split second you don’t have cover or concealment either. The whole paragraph in which it says against most creatures cover or concealment is needed is talking about any situation in which you are already being observed. I would say that it is reasonable (since you aren’t being observed) that you could allow your Rogue to cross that gap without penalty. He is starting in a position of concealment and ending his movement in a position of concealment. But I will admit this isn’t explicitly supported by RAW so we shall move on.
Ok you really want to let him use the CA rules here. First off the farmer cannot take 10 on Perception to spot Jack, he must roll against Jacks Stealth. We are dealing with a 5 foot gap so that is a -5 to his Stealth check to pass it. Our Rogue has a +12 to Stealth. Let’s say he rolls average (10). Mind you I am not saying he takes 10 but rather that is his roll. That gives him a 22 with a -5 penalty that becomes a 17. The farmer has a +2 to Perception. Lets add up his modifiers: He is distracted -5 and it is also cloudy (which by your context I take to mean dim light) so those are *unfavorable conditions* which is another -2. He now has a -5 Perception and has to roll a 22 to see Jack cross that 5 foot gap. It is actually quite impossible for the farmer to win this scenario even if Jack rolls a 1 because if he did roll a 1 to cross the 5’ gap he would still have an 18 and the farmer could not meet that even with a 20. Even if you made it a 10 foot gap and Jack rolled a 1 the farmer would need a 18 to spot Jack. I am pretty confident that Jack would win in this situation.
* I am being generous here. If they are in fact in dim light and you did not specify that the farmer had a light source on the porch so it could be argued that the farmer was under Terrible Conditions which is a -5 penalty instead of -2. If this were the case there would be no chance of Jack being seen at all even if he rolled a 1 on a 10’ gap and the farmer rolled a 20.
Now here comes the kicker. If we have established that Jack has waited until night fall (dim light) then Jack doesn’t even need to use the hedge for concealment because the night itself gives him concealment at any time he is in at least dim light. So guess what, even when he passes that gap of yours he is still perfectly concealed and would in reality not take a single negative to his Stealth check. As long as Jack stays in areas of dim light or darkness, he is perfectly safe from the Farmer ever seeing him.
The dog is another matter but we will address that further down.
Jack makes his way back to the edge of the cornfield and, what luck! Farmer John has gone inside. Jack creeps over to the coop, being careful to keep it between him and the sleepy mutt. In fact, there's a delicious-looking bird, dozing away, oblivious to the world around it.
Actually, a sleeping chicken should spot him. Take 10, -10 to Perception for being asleep, +1 base Perception mod beats DC 0 to spot someone 5' away. Perhaps this was a particularly oblivious chicken.
Ok this is ridiculous on several levels. First off the bird cannot take 10 on the Perception check any more than Jack can take 10 on the Stealth check to avoid being seen and killed. The bird must roll. Secondly the chicken only starts with a +1, let’s add up his modifiers: -10 for sleeping, -2 (or -5 depending) for the light conditions. The bird has a -11 Perception check at this time. Jack on the other hand has concealment the whole time he is making his approach (dim light and all) and is more than capable of using it to be stealthy (again dim light). So his Stealth check is going to be at least a 13. The bird would have to roll a 24 to wake up and spot Jack on his approach.
Sounds like one dead chicken to me, let’s see what happens with the dog.
He creeps forward to grab it and...suddenly hears a growling sound from the other side of the coop. WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF Jack is chased away from the coop, past the house, and gets a crossbow bolt in the arse for his troubles.
Scent, as well as more-powerful abilities like Tremorsense and Blindsense and Blindsight, just beat Stealth hands down. No check, no nothing. There are feats in various books to work around this, in various books, as it's a well-known failing.
Again, you are off. The rules you sited in your OP even explain in plain terms that you are off. You say no check, no nothing. Where are you getting that information from because it certainly isn’t in the rules of PF? At the bottom of the Perception skill entry it specifically lists Scent as giving a +8 bonus to Perception to detect a scent (which is likely why the dog has a +8 to Perception). Also at the bottom of the chart of modifiers under the sub headings 1 and 2 competing odors and overpowering stenches are specifically named as conditions that could cause unfavorable or terrible conditions for a Perception check. Now that we have solidly identified using Scent as a form of Perception check, let’s go take a closer look at the Scent ability and see what its limitations are: Well it usually has a range of 30’ and double if upwind or half if down wind. It also says that overpowering scents (such as a skunk) can be detected at triple that range.
Alright so now let’s set up this scenario: (Well we would really need a better layout of the farm, how many feet the chicken coup was from the porch and what barriers there are between them. We would also need to know which way the wind was blowing. But for the sake of the example let’s just assume that the coup is inside the range of the dog’s scent) Jack gets to the coup, he is at least 20 feet away from the porch I am sure so that will be a +2 in his favor. He is more than allowed by the rules to use Stealth in this situation (Note: Stealth is avoiding detection so it could very well represent that he rubbed some soil from the corn field all over his tunic, hands, neck and in his hair to mask his smell. Stealth in this situation would also represent moving silently.) The dog has a +8 to Perception. Lets add up his modifiers: -10 for sleeping, -2 (or -5) for conditions (no the light is not a factor here, but the smell of the chickens probably is so I would give him the -2), he is at least 20’ away -2. So Woof is sitting at a -6 to Perception to notice Jacks smell or sound and wake up. If Jack rolled a 1 that would give him a 13 in which case Woof would need to roll a 19 to notice him, so as long as jack rolls better than 1 there is no chance of him getting caught by the dog either. (Again this is generous; Jack could easily have brought something along with him to create a smell that would block the dogs scent all together. It could also be argued, depending on the lay of the land, that the dog is trying to detect Jack through multiple walls of the house. These are probably 1’ thick walls as it is probably a log cabin. Each wall gives a -10 to the dog to detect Jack.)
This is how Jack, with no magical gear, a less than optimal Dex score, and not even a feat to boost his skill, WILL in fact come out the winner of this little scenario. Even with all those stupid decisions he was forced to make. NOTE: If you give him a higher Dex, a Cloak of Elvenkind and two feats he would have +11 to his already +12 and you are looking at a 0% rate of possible failure.
Now let’s take a moment to calculate if the dog would have noticed Jack’s smell as he passed in front of the hedges: Jack has a +12 to his Stealth and as we have established he is perfectly capable of using stealth against the sleeping dog. The dog has a +8 Perception, -10 for sleeping, -1 for 10’ of distance between him and Jack, -2 for conflicting smells with the chicken coup, which all together puts him at a -5 Perception. So even if Jack had rolled a 1 in front of the hedges the dog would have to roll an 18 to notice him passing by. As long as Jack rolls better than a 2 he is safe.
.
Jack gets to the sleeping chicken, draws his knife and (since the chicken has concealment) spends two full round actions for a Coup de Grace = Chicken for dinner.
What I find funny is someone just bringing a tower shield. They offer cover (which is useful for Stealth) so you can walk around and make Stealth checks with a tower shield...assuming you can get around that hefty check penalty.
Wouldn't disguising as a tip-toeing bush be slightly less obvious than the door-sized shield moving across an open area or even a slightly obscured area for that matter?
Umm, hedges offer concealment and all you need is concealment to make Stealth checks. Also, if the dog and farmer are asleep, they're blind, which gives enemies concealment---which means you can make Stealth checks!
What I find funny is someone just bringing a tower shield. They offer cover (which is useful for Stealth) so you can walk around and make Stealth checks with a tower shield...assuming you can get around that hefty check penalty.
It has already been addressed and confirmed that concealment is only acceptable for Stealth in conditions of dim light or darkness. As per the rules quoted here:
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.
I am not the least bit addressed or confirmed on these points.
1. The rules you quote are in direct opposition to the rules here:
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.
The first one states that when you don't have cover, you can use concealment. The second one states you can use concealment. These rules contradict the ones you quoted. They cannot both be right.
2. Logically speaking, if there is a big old hedge between you and someone you want to hide from, it doesn't matter if it is bright daylight or not - you hide behind the hedge.
Let's break that down:
Using the OP's example, suppose instead of a hedge, that were a brick wall. I think we would all agree Jack could use that brick wall for Cover to gain Stealth. In this case, it does not matter even one bit that both the farmer and Jack are in bright daylight, becase the farmer has no way to see Jack.
Suppose instead of a brick wall, it is merely just a wall of darkness or a wall of thick fog - but it is bright daylight where the farmer is and where Jack is. Now instead of having Cover, Jack has Total Concealment with regard to the farmer. I think we would all agree that there is no way the farmer could see Jack through this Total Concealment, so he could use Stealth. Same as the brick wall supposition, the bright daylight is not a factor because the farmer cannot see Jack.
So then suppose instead of darkness or thick fog, it's merely hedge. Per the OP's description, the hedge is thick/dense enough to give Concealment but not to give Total Concealment. It is bright daylight on the farmer's side and on Jack's side, but Jack has Concealment with regard to the farmer. Unlike the brick wall or the wall of darkness supposition (in those cases the farmer could not see Jack at all), this example does not prevent the farmer from seeing Jack. However, it does clearly give Jack concealment so it does not matter one bit how bright the light is because there is a big dense obstacle between the farmer and Jack that makes it hard for the farmer to see Jack.
Does it make it hard enough for the farmer to spot Jack that Jack is able to use Stealth? According to the rule on page 197, the answer is yes, this is enough concealment for Jack to use Stealth.
What we're really talking about is the ability for the farmer to see Jack. I think I have demonstrated that, with a solid enough obstacle to block the farmer's Line of Sight completely, Jack can indeed use Stealth. And as I've demonstrated, both the farmer and Jack can be standing in bright light and it doesn't matter - because of the solid obstacle blocking all line of sight between them.
So we get into a question of "not solid, but solid enough". According to the rules of Concealment, any concealment is solid enough to allow Stealth. Again, the lighting conditions do not matter - it is the almost-solid obstacle blocking most line of sight that grants the ability to use Stealth.
3. The rules you quoted and I requoted at the top of this post are not talking about what happens, in bright light, when one person cannot see the other person because of an intervening obstacle. The whole bright/normal/dim/no lighting breakdown of when you can/cannot use Stealth is clearly presupposing you are only using the lighting conditions to provide a Stealth opportunity.
This is implicit in the part that says "all characters can see clearly". We know for a fact that normal characters CANNOT see clearly through a brick wall, or through a wall of darkness or a thick fog - even in bright light. This line about "all characters can see clearly" is obviously NOT granting us the ability to use x-ray vision. So, oviously, it means "we can clearly see things that are not obscured by obstacles."
Now, you're right, it does say that in bright light you need ivibility or cover to use Stealth. But, I've demonstrated in this post that Total Concealment will also allow you to use Stealth in bright light (the wall of darkness example).
So quite clearly the writer of this rule simply forgot to mention concealment when he or she wrote the rule. I state with no reservations, because we already know this rule contradicts the other rule and they cannot both be correct, and we've seen that Concealment can allow Stealth even in bright light, which means we have seen which rule is correct and which rule is wrong.
This bright light rule is the wrong one (in case you've been skipping parts of this long post), and the wrong part is the omission about Concealment.
QED.
So, if the GM had just said they were hedges then the Rogue should be allowed his Stealth check.
Perhaps the OP did not mean hedgerows, but rather topiary.
Firstly how are you getting that a corn field it “difficult terrain” I looked briefly at terrain and the closest thing I could see to a corn field would be thick undergrowth which I don’t think would apply here.
Medieval sowing techniques were non-mechanical. The kernels would most likely not be planted in neat rows, more likely they would be strewn about by hand. The field would be more like tall grass. Or bamboo.
(Why yes, I am an endless font of trivia.)
So, if the GM had just said they were hedges then the Rogue should be allowed his Stealth check.Perhaps the OP did not mean hedgerows, but rather topiary.
Firstly how are you getting that a corn field it “difficult terrain” I looked briefly at terrain and the closest thing I could see to a corn field would be thick undergrowth which I don’t think would apply here.Medieval sowing techniques were non-mechanical. The kernels would most likely not be planted in neat rows, more likely they would be strewn about by hand. The field would be more like tall grass.
(Why yes, I am an endless font of trivia.)
I like fonts; Comic Sans is one of my favorites.
I also like coups; I prefer bloodless coups to violoent revolutions. I wonder why so many of the chickens on this farm are plotting to overthrow the farmer. Maybe they don't want to get eaten.
As for medieval sowing techniques, corn wasn't farmed medievally since it wasn't discovered (by us caucasion-centric Europeans) until the new world was discovered, and by then farms were in fact planted in rows:
1. Your ox draws your ploughshare through the earth in a big long line. There is no point criss-crossing the lines, so for efficiency, you make the ox walk back and forth in (roughly) parallel rows. You plant your seeds where the ploughshare tore up the earth.
2. Weeding and watering is critical. It's easier to do this if you have a place to stand without trampling your growing produce. Leaving a little space between each row accomplishes this.
3. Medieval (well, let's call it Renaissance) harvesting meant plucking the ears of the stalks. It would be both exhausting and inefficient to have to trample your way though the maze of maize while plucking the ears, so once again, leaving standing room between the ox-ploughed cornrows makes the corn imminently more harvestable.
4. And when your nosy neighbor comes over and tells you that you wasted all that square footage leaving space between the rows, or that you could have planted more corn per acre without all that empty space between rows, you can show him that your ears of corn are 2x longer and produce 4x as much actual corn as his because they have room to get sunlight, they all get sufficent water and soil nutrients, and it's all because you didn't plant them too close to each other and create too much corny competition for the natural resources avialable.
I too am an endless font of trivia, with the occasional splash of practical knowledge thrown in for color.
;)
Well, medieval farmers didn't have American corn either, unless we're talking about medieval Hopi or Aztec or Cherokee, who wouldn't be using neat little modern North American farms with plotted fields but instead planted it along the stream banks where you wouldn't have to deal with tedious things like irrigation.
We will assume that Farmer Brown, who is tinkering with his crossbow, also rigged up a combine harvester with his artificer levels and a blade barrier spell.
After all, if it were really the middle ages, he'd be keeping the hens inside of his own house along with the rest of the livestock on the ground floor too.
But I think I think an anachronistic Victorian/Edwardian farmer with a horse and plow works just fine.
You could have your musically inclined friend approach the farmer from the opposite direction and start 'dueling banjos' with him. Then while they're thoroughly distracted make off with a chicken for you and your starving Bard friend whose banjo playing will finally come in handy.
Well, people. I think that regarding toi stealth it doesn't matter whether it's cover or concealment... the difference between terms is that both block vision, but only cover actually blocks projectiles, etc.
Any yes, you can hide behind a tower shield. Usually it's done by trying to convince the enemy, that the shield is standing at the wall without anyone behind it (rather high bluff check to create diversion IMO), because you are observed).
|
Can someone indicate the page number/section regarding sleeping or being asleep? From what I have seen sleeping just means your helpless I have found nothing in the SRD (literally word searched each section of the SRD) about its own condition or being a condition that affects any skill. As far as I see the dog is asleep, cannot observe the rogue with scent any more than it can with sight or hearing and if he passes his check it keeps sleeping. Nothing says that would wake it up f he moved within scent range. If the dog is awake and blind it can observe you with scent but it can no more observing when asleep then it can when it is awake.
Also, as to taking 10, you may take 10 if you are in no immediate danger. If the Thief wanted to prevent the farmer with his crossbow from taking 10 all he would need is a stout stick or a hefty rock and the condition 'I'm gonna brain that farmer if he spots me'.
This was a fun little thread. The bright daylight and open space gave me some pause. The hedges not giving cover was just silly, to make it fair you could have said picket fence but that would have made it even harder to argue. I could have sworn they changed Scent at some point to just be a bonus to perception but it looks like it is back to old annoying self. The sleep situation is a little weird. I would have thought it would be it's own condition under Helpless, like Paralyzed is (i.e. You are Paralyzed and also Helpless).
Once again if anyone has the section/link/page numbers detailing the affects of the sleep condition or being asleep please post them here.
Once again if anyone has the section/link/page numbers detailing the affects of the sleep condition or being asleep please post them here.
You should have searched for "asleep"...
It's right there in the Perception skill:
Creature making the check is asleep +10 (to the DC)
You're right though. Sleeping should be a condition all it's own, but for now, it's just one way to be helpless:
Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy.
So, treat all sleeping critters as helpless.
You'll note that nothing in that description of Helpless says you are unable to make passive Perception checks, and the Perception rule says you get a -10 for being alseep, ergo, you can make (difficult) Perception checks while sleeping.
|
Of course it is. The point is that Stealth just plain stops working in a handful of not-uncommon situations. Thus, I have strung all of these situations I could find together.
But these uncommon situations involve trying to hide behind something barely opaque, i.e. some shrubs rather than a proper hedgerow. Also your example ignored the fact that both the farmer and dog were distracted, so sneaking across open ground is possible.
The take-home points are that Stealth shuts down at certain silly points, leading to DC 0 Spot checks,
I am not so sure they are "silly points" now I understand that your hedges aren't hedgerows. Also Stealth shuts down only if someone were directly observing the area and not distracted.
and that creatures frequently get Stealth-defeating radar. Even if you rule Scent isn't Stealth-beating radar, Blindsense and Blindsight are. They specifically say they just work, no Perception needed.
Do they explicitly say that "No Perception check required". I agree it is ambigous and as such is open to interpretation, but I don't think it is explicitly against teh RAW to say a Perception check is required.
The Perception skill in teh PRD states:
"Your senses allow you to notice fine details and alert you to danger. Perception covers all five senses, including sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell."
The first sentance doesn't say a check is required, but that doesn't mean one isn't. Also note that Perception covers smell, scent I would argue is a more acute and accurate version of smell and so should be covered by the Perception skill.
The Stealth rules do not work on scent. They work on hiding from sight or moving silently.
On hiding from sight? The PRD states "This skill covers hiding and moving silently", that could IMHO include hiding from scent (by paying attention to whether you are upwind or downwind etc, to stick close to overpowering scents using them as concealment against scent etc).
It is ambiguous and open to interpretation, so while I am not saying you are outright wrong, I don't think your interpretation can be considered any more correct than the other interpretation that a Perception check is required.
|
Nice summary.But the last assumption is wrong. There is no valid reason in the RAW to disallow use of extraordinary abilities while sleeping and there is no reason to automatically assume that Scent requires some kind of active effort.
your correct its not in the RAW which is why I marked that entry as [ASSUMED] but Flight is an (Ex) ability, how many birds do you know fly while they are sleeping? :)
The creature must spend a move action to pinpoint a creatures location when in range of scent which does require active effort. The only use of scent with a skill is tracking via survival which does also require active effort.
Detecting approaching enemies. Now, if we were a human and didn't have the Scent ability, how would we detect approaching enemies? We would use our eyes or our ears. What is the game mechanic for that? Perception. What is the action required for a Perception check?
The OP goes under the assumption that Scent is an automatic detection because it has a range, it doesnt allow a perception check, a creature with scent mearly knows something is within 30 ft of it.
Also stealth requires cover and concealment - yet scent ignores these so how can a creature make a stealth check agaisnt a dog?
I agree with you that you should make a perception check but then so too should it be affected by all modifiers; -10 for being asleep but what is the base DC for it? 0, 5, 10, 20? or the rogues stealth DC? line of sight is not required so cover and concealment do not work, this would rule out the rogues stealth DC but distance would certainly count (-1 per 10 ft). I would probably rule that the base DC was set at 5, identical to determining if food is spoiled, +10 for being asleep, +1 for 10 ft distance (if jack gets that close to the dog to enter the coop) making the dogs DC equal to 16 but I would only rule this if it was in the best interest of the players (a PC with scent should see some benefit from it)
But sometimes its easier to say scent is automatic if within range. For an automatic detection like this I would rule a creature would have to be awake to use it.
---------------------------------------------------
On a side note I dont agree with sleeping opponents being able to take 10 for two simple reasons...
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10....
Being asleep means you are distracted so you cannot take a 10.
Also being asleep means you are helpless and failing a check means you are vulnerable to a coup-de-grace which is a SERIOUS threat.|
|
As a matter of fact, it does explicitly say that.
Do they explicitly say that "No Perception check required". I agree it is ambigous and as such is open to interpretation, but I don't think it is explicitly against teh RAW to say a Perception check is required.
Ummm, no it doesnt...
Blindsense (Ex): Using nonvisual senses, such as acute smell or hearing, a creature with blindsense notices things it cannot see. The creature usually does not need to make Perception checks to pinpoint the location of a creature within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature.
Blindsight (Ex): This ability is similar to blindsense...
Invisibility, darkness, and most kinds of concealment are irrelevant, though the creature must have line of effect to a creature or object to discern that creature or object. The ability's range is specified in the creature's descriptive text. The creature usually does not need to make Perception checks to notice creatures within range of its blindsight ability.
Scent (Ex): This special quality allows a creature to detect approaching enemies, sniff out hidden foes, and track by sense of smell. Creatures with the scent ability can identify familiar odors just as humans do familiar sights.
The creature can detect (not "DOES DETECT") opponents within 30 feet by sense of smell.
This basically means that, just like someone seeing a man in a field during the day does not need to make a perception check to spot him.
Anything blocking line of effect will result in the sense requiring a perception check. In addition distractions would also prevent or impede detection.
Tremorsense (Ex): A creature with tremorsense is sensitive to vibrations in the ground and can automatically pinpoint the location of anything that is in contact with the ground. Aquatic creatures with tremorsense can also sense the location of creatures moving through water. The ability's range is specified in the creature's descriptive text.
Tremorsense is the only ability that appears to be automatic without need of a check.
|
|
Also being asleep means you are helpless and failing a check means you are vulnerable to a coup-de-grace which is a SERIOUS threat.Woof is at serious risk of being murdered in his sleep? You'd think he wouldn't be so dozey.
When you go to sleep tonight what are the odds of you being murdered in your bed by a burglar? With that thought going through your mind I'm sure you wont be sleeping so well :)
You go to bed knowing your safe - Woof is lasy because he knows hes safe BUT theres always a chance your not as safe as you think! Being aware of that fact will likely affect your sleep pattern.
|
|
As a matter of fact, it does explicitly say that.
Apologies, I obviously hadn't read your posts clearly, you were referring to Blindsight when I thought you were still talking about Scent. So in relation to Blindsight I agree.
Sneaking into the dragon's lair to steal the macguffin right from under its nose? You totally can't do that.
Yes, you totally can. You cannot pinpoint with Blindsense, which is what dragons have. All you know is that there's someone within 30' of you.
For the record, the entire reason dragons in 3.x have Blindsense is Smaug in The Hobbit. "Well, thief...I smell you, feel your air. I hear your breath."
And, yet, Bilbo got away with stealing from Smaug's lair. You can, too, in 3.P. (or 3.5, for that matter, as the relevant rules havn't really changed)
Blindsense explicitly states that you can pinpoint with it, the only arguable point is on the 'usually' wording that's included. Not that it matters once you break cover to reach the hoard of treasure that the dragon sits on, because of the whole DC 0 thing.
|
|
Actually, yes he does. You use the Perception check to determine the distance at which he spots the man in the field.
the roll to notice a man in a field is to determine the point at which an encounter starts, not trying to spot the man. you can do that from up to a mile away.
A better example is this.. do you role a perception check for the PCs whenever an NPC enters the tavern? no. You simply describe the situation.
You might ask them to make a perception check to notice the symbol the NPC is trying to hide under her dark cloak of the fact that the NPC is infact the princess but thats a specific "hidden" fact.
I suppose you could ask for a perception to see if they notice someone walking into the tavern every time but the DC would be so low it wouldn't ever fail.
You're forgetting that Woof is asleep on a creaky old porch. Anyone wishing to murder him in his sleep will need to make a major Stealth check versus Woof's Perception to not wake him up. Remember, this is normal sleep, not drugged or enchanted sleep.
|
|
After 135 posts of jibber-jabber on this "rogue-steals-chicken" scenario, I'm almost afraid to ask this question: How many of you as GMs, just use these situations as story mechanisms anyhow? A lot of what I perceive to be the confusing parts of rulesets is players trying to apply RAW numerics to situational circumstances.
Possible outcomes you'd see at my table:
Assumption: Rogue uses stealth to steal chicken in front of farmer.
Outcome: Farmer threaten's Jack and reports him to the authorities.
or
Outcome: Farmer provides story adventure seed because the farmer knows what its like to be down on your luck, and offers Jack an opportunity to help pay-off the chicken or find enough treasure to put an end to his poverty.
or
Outcome: No matter what happens to the chicken, the rogue also notices that the farmer's dog is holding the hand of a kobold in his mouth and upon the hand is a shiny ring.
Now... to make a point - is anyone, anyone really playing the game as a "get powers so you can hide in plain sight" kind of experience? If so, why?
Why do players even care about how a skill like stealth will play out in this one, of one billion possible scenarios? Is there a mandate on the rule-set to always/or not always deliver chickens to rogues? What happened to context? story?
The issue isn't RAW, it is interpretation of certain elements in RAW.
From Stealth: " Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you.......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."
The first line in the part of my snipped text from stealth is the culprit. The OP is most likely taking a very broad based interpretation of 'anyone who might notice you'. My intepretation is 'anyone who has a reason to notice you', which is more narrow in scope.
If the good farmer lost some chickens the other day and was sitting on the porch to keep half an eye out on the chicken coop, there is a reason to allow perception checks for the farmer - he is paying some attention to area about the chicken coop, hoping to observe (by sight or sound) what might be making off with his chickens. Attempting to sneak into the chicken coop will trigger perception checks because of the farmer has a reason to be watching the area of the chicken coop.
Now on the other hand, if the good farmer hadn't lost a chicken in some time and it sitting on the porch, thinking about riding into town and chatting up the barmaid at the local 'hug & slug', there no reason for the farmer to be paying attention to the chicken coop and unless Jack does something to drawn attention to the area, the farmer doesn't automatically get attempts to try to detect Jack.
Put another way, consider the following - in RAW, the rules apply equally but consider the following. A soldier is at a guard post and our good farmer is at the bar chatting up the barmaid. Jack is trying to steal up on them in turn. In the soldier at the guardpost, the very nature of the situation allows the guardsmen a perception check. It is a GUARDPOST after all and the role of the soldier to challenge people coming through and to watch for people try to sneak past. Hence, the soldier gets perception checks on any anyone trying to sneak past.
Jack is now stealing up on the farmer in the bar talking up the barmaid. The farmer is in a public place, distracted with the barmaid, but more importantly, unless the DM has given the farmer reasons otherwise and Jack isn't doing something rash or blatant, the farmer has NO reason to be watching for the likes of Jack to move up to him. The RAW clearly, by a looser interpretation, could apply to both situations but if one takes a tighter interpretation of 'who might notice you', at least for me, the guardman gets a check, the farmer does not, unless as the DM, I modify the circumstances to give a REASON to allow the individual to notice, such as the farmer got pick pocketed in this bar previously.
Therefore, by my interpretation of RAW, sleeping characters don't automatically get perception checks because sleep by its nature, means you are not paying attention to the enviroment and therefore, no reason exists to allow a perception check unless circumstances allow for it (being prodded, loud noise, changes in the enviroment that a sleeper may notice - like getting wet, or it suddenly getting extremely hot or cold, etc.)
In my game, given the scenario outlined by the OP, Jack gets his chicken dinner unless circumstances dictate otherwise.
For those interested, I strongly suspect A Man In Black started this conversation as a result of this other thread; you can see for yourselves the beginning of it by searching for the word "Stealth."
There's no way I'm going to read 135 posts in any case; instead I'd prefer to continue from where we left off:
Well, sure, if you write some new rules for stealth that aren't 3e's rules, then the rules for stealth don't suck any more!
When a GM makes a judgement at the game table about a situation not covered by the rules, the GM isn't inventing new rules. In law, this is the difference between setting a precedent and drafting legislation. It so happens that the GM is both a lawmaker and a judge when running a roleplaying campaign, but that doesn't give one license to confuse one from the other.
What do you think of my previous arguments about context? You didn't say anything about it at the time it first came up. It continues to be relevant: There isn't a general rule about blindfolds, only rules about how blindfolds function relative to creatures with gaze attacks. ;']
|
|
What do you think of my previous arguments about context? You didn't say anything about it at the time it first came up. It continues to be relevant: There isn't a general rule about blindfolds, only rules about how blindfolds function relative to creatures with gaze attacks. ;']
I, for one, recognize context is king.
Players need to refrain from throwing "broken" and "doesn't work" in everyone's face. I missed your earlier post T.O., but agree that context is king. Everything else is an attempt to find exceptions to the rule that is just a tool for the GM anyhow.
I missed your earlier post T.O., but agree that context is king.
From the previous thread, I meant. Sorry for confusion. :]
PS - I like your nickname; I actually had to delete prima facie from a draft of a post from a little while ago. :'P
After 135 posts of jibber-jabber on this "rogue-steals-chicken" scenario, I'm almost afraid to ask this question: How many of you as GMs, just use these situations as story mechanisms anyhow? A lot of what I perceive to be the confusing parts of rulesets is players trying to apply RAW numerics to situational circumstances.
Possible outcomes you'd see at my table:
Assumption: Rogue uses stealth to steal chicken in front of farmer.
Outcome: Farmer threaten's Jack and reports him to the authorities.
or
Outcome: Farmer provides story adventure seed because the farmer knows what its like to be down on your luck, and offers Jack an opportunity to help pay-off the chicken or find enough treasure to put an end to his poverty.
or
Outcome: No matter what happens to the chicken, the rogue also notices that the farmer's dog is holding the hand of a kobold in his mouth and upon the hand is a shiny ring.Now... to make a point - is anyone, anyone really playing the game as a "get powers so you can hide in plain sight" kind of experience? If so, why?
Why do players even care about how a skill like stealth will play out in this one, of one billion possible scenarios? Is there a mandate on the rule-set to always/or not always deliver chickens to rogues? What happened to context? story?
I can see the point you are making and would agree that situations like this can often be turned into very good story hooks. For instance one time I (a Rogue) was breaking into a jewelry shop. I got caught by a trap that put me to sleep until the guards (a band of contract mercenaries) came. I didn't get my hands cut off and, due to escaping my cell and incapacitating several guards, in fact earned a measure of respect for my talent. They struck a deal with me and said I could have back my sword but the rest I would have to earn back by working for them. It wasn't something I wanted to do, and I wasn't happy about it, but it was a good story hook and lead to some pretty cool stuff.
For those interested, I strongly suspect A Man In Black started this conversation as a result of this other thread; you can see for yourselves the beginning of it by searching for the word "Stealth."
There's no way I'm going to read 135 posts in any case; instead I'd prefer to continue from where we left off:
Well, sure, if you write some new rules for stealth that aren't 3e's rules, then the rules for stealth don't suck any more!When a GM makes a judgement at the game table about a situation not covered by the rules, the GM isn't inventing new rules. In law, this is the difference between setting a precedent and drafting legislation. It so happens that the GM is both a lawmaker and a judge when running a roleplaying campaign, but that doesn't give one license to confuse one from the other.
What do you think of my previous arguments about context? You didn't say anything about it at the time it first came up. It continues to be relevant: There isn't a general rule about blindfolds, only rules about how blindfolds function relative to creatures with gaze attacks. ;']
Personally I think the circumstances speak for themselves and you would have to be stupid or intentionally limiting the characters not to allow Stealth against a blind / blindfolded person.
But the rules also speak for themselves in this situation. If you are invisible you can use Stealth, regardless of cover, concealment, or lighting. If someone is blind then you are invisible to them.
Reply to DM_Blake's Post: This is really long and in the interest of saving space I thought I would post it under a spoiler veil.
.
I am not the least bit addressed or confirmed on these points.
I am aware of your stance. Also, I did answer your post in the Distractions to Hide thread HERE. I didn’t ignore what you said there. I cannot prove to you or anyone else that the writer didn’t simply make a mistake on the lighting section. But I will do my best to address each point of your stance here.
1. The rules you quote are in direct opposition to the rules here:
Pathfinder Core Rules, Cover, Page 196 wrote:
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.Pathfinder Core Rules, Concealment, Page 197 wrote:
Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use
concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment,
you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.The first one states that when you don't have cover, you can use concealment. The second one states you can use concealment. These rules contradict the ones you quoted. They cannot both be right.
I actually don’t think these rules do contradict one another. If you see them as polar opposites then they would, if you see the rules as working together than they would not. I will try to explain what I mean by that. First I would say that these rules are saying that you “can” use X & Y to do Z. But the word can doesn’t necessarily mean you “can always” use them; it could just mean you can under certain situations. Now I know it sounds like a word game and that I am reaching, but allow me to elaborate as we go further.
2. Logically speaking, if there is a big old hedge between you and someone you want to hide from, it doesn't matter if it is bright daylight or not - you hide behind the hedge.
Actually I would agree with you, because the Hedge should provide cover. Solid objects provide Cover, visual distortions provide concealment. NOTE: The Tower Shield now provides Cover in PF not Concealment. But I understand that isn’t the point you were trying to make. Actually I agree with your stance as presented in the Distractions to Hide thread and also as you present it here on most points, just not for the reasons you have presented. But I do believe there are specific situations in which concealment definitely shouldn’t be acceptable to use Stealth. (More on that toward the end.)
Using the OP's example, suppose instead of a hedge, that were a brick wall. I think we would all agree Jack could use that brick wall for Cover to gain Stealth. In this case, it does not matter even one bit that both the farmer and Jack are in bright daylight, becase the farmer has no way to see Jack.
Agreed.
Suppose instead of a brick wall, it is merely just a wall of darkness or a wall of thick fog - but it is bright daylight where the farmer is and where Jack is. Now instead of having Cover, Jack has Total Concealment with regard to the farmer. I think we would all agree that there is no way the farmer could see Jack through this Total Concealment, so he could use Stealth. Same as the brick wall supposition, the bright daylight is not a factor because the farmer cannot see Jack.
I agree with the spirit of your statement. However, I agree for different reasons than yours:
1) Most things that grant TOTAL concealment make a person invisible, or at least as good as invisible. Darkness states that characters without Darkvision are effectively blind. Obscuring Mist states the vapors obscure all sight even Darkvision, this would also logically lower the lighting condition in the area, though it doesn’t say so. If a character is blind then anyone would have Total Concealment against him even in bright light. Invisibility specifically states you cannot be detected by sight and gives you total concealment. You have used examples like this to show that concealment could be used to hide in bright light. I would say that these examples would work in bright light as well, but not because of the concealment. All of these things make you effectively invisible (IE: Undetectable by sight). Even Obscuring Mist says you cannot use sight to locate a target more than 5’ away. The farmer isn’t capable of visually detecting him through the effect which makes Jack virtually invisible. And since invisibility is one of the specified methods of using Stealth in bright light, Jack can use Stealth.
2) A wall of darkness is circumstantial though. In PF the Darkness spell only lowers the lighting condition by one step. So, in an area of bright light the darkness would make it normal light, and Jack is still perfectly visible with no concealment at all because you don’t get concealment from normal light. In an area of normal light the darkness would make it dim light and Jack would have concealment. There is no such thing as a wall of darkness, which I am aware of, but I would say that it would allow Jack to use his concealment to hide. Not because of the concealment itself but because: What is the difference between hiding in the darkness and hiding on the other side of the darkness? The farmer still has to spot him through an area of dim light and dim light allows him to use concealment to hide. However, if the farmer had Darkvision (let’s pretend a minute he is a half-orc farmer) then the concealment from dim light and darkness is not acceptable to hide in within the range of his Darkvision. Why? Because with Darkvision the farmer can see in/through dim light and darkness as easily as in daylight and in daylight concealment doesn’t allow you to hide.
So then suppose instead of darkness or thick fog, it's merely hedge. Per the OP's description, the hedge is thick/dense enough to give Concealment but not to give Total Concealment. It is bright daylight on the farmer's side and on Jack's side, but Jack has Concealment with regard to the farmer. Unlike the brick wall or the wall of darkness supposition (in those cases the farmer could not see Jack at all), this example does not prevent the farmer from seeing Jack. However, it does clearly give Jack concealment so it does not matter one bit how bright the light is because there is a big dense obstacle between the farmer and Jack that makes it hard for the farmer to see Jack.
I think this is a rather irrelevant point. I say that because solid objects do in fact give you cover. Concealment is granted by non-solid visual distortions. Cover allows you to use Stealth in conditions of light so Jack could use the hedges to hide.
However, to address your point: If the hedges were enough to render jack virtually invisible, with regard to farmer. Then Jack could use them to hide, regardless of cover vs. concealment, by virtue of the fact that he is, for all intents and purposes, invisible to the farmer. For instance if it was a 7’ wall of solid shrubbery then yes it would allow Jack to hide. Whether you chose to rule that the hedge provides cover or concealment is irrelevant because Jack cannot be visually detected on the other side of that barrier and is hence invisible. However, if you’re talking about a 3’ high row of bushes that only grants cooncealment, I would say “no” he can’t hide there. (Again, the whole point is irrelevant in my eyes because solid barriers of any kind provide cover, which allow Jack to hide, and yes bushes are a solid. Fog is not a solid, bushes are, and even if they are not a dense solid like rock they are still solid.)
If you are going to say that by RAW a Rogue cannot use concealment to hide in daylight (which I believe the rules are saying) then you can’t start making random solid barriers, that should provide cover, instead only provide concealment just to screw the Rogue.
Does it make it hard enough for the farmer to spot Jack that Jack is able to use Stealth? According to the rule on page 197, the answer is yes, this is enough concealment for Jack to use Stealth.
What we're really talking about is the ability for the farmer to see Jack. I think I have demonstrated that, with a solid enough obstacle to block the farmer's Line of Sight completely, Jack can indeed use Stealth. And as I've demonstrated, both the farmer and Jack can be standing in bright light and it doesn't matter - because of the solid obstacle blocking all line of sight between them.
So we get into a question of "not solid, but solid enough". According to the rules of Concealment, any concealment is solid enough to allow Stealth. Again, the lighting conditions do not matter - it is the almost-solid obstacle blocking most line of sight that grants the ability to use Stealth.
I would agree that it is solid enough to allow Jack to use Stealth. But that is not saying I think he can use concealment to use Stealth in conditions of bright or normal light. I am saying that the bushes are a solid and as such provide cover not concealment. Based on that, Jack can use them to hide behind regardless of the dominant lighting in the area.
3. The rules you quoted and I requoted at the top of this post are not talking about what happens, in bright light, when one person cannot see the other person because of an intervening obstacle. The whole bright/normal/dim/no lighting breakdown of when you can/cannot use Stealth is clearly presupposing you are only using the lighting conditions to provide a Stealth opportunity.
I don’t think so. If that were the case it would not have to say anything at all about needing cover vs. concealment. Of course you couldn’t use the concealment granted by lighting conditions to hide in bright or normal light. Why? They don’t provide concealment. So why would it mention anything at all about it if that was the intent. It says you must have Cover or Invisibility. NOTE: It specifically references invisibility even though all that does is provide concealment. Why? Because it specifically says that you are visually undetectable in the invisibility description and therefore can use Stealth regardless of cover vs. concealment. If they intended you to be able to use any form of concealment they would have said concealment and would not have to then say anything about invisibility because invisibility is concealment.
If what you are supposing was the truth the writer could have left out the whole text. He could say: In bright light creatures can see normally. Bright light doesn’t give you concealment. A character would realize that he couldn’t use lighting conditions to hide using concealment because bright light doesn’t grant concealment. Therefore he would automatically know he needs to find an alternate source of concealment, cover, or invisibility. But that isn’t what it says at all and I don’t think that is the intent.
It also doesn’t say you can’t use the concealment of lighting conditions to hide in bright light. It says you can’t use concealment to hide in bright light. It doesn’t say you can’t use the concealment granted by dim light or darkness to hide from Darkvision. It says you can’t use concealment to hide from Darkvision. Why? Again, because a creature with Darkvision can see as easily in the dark as he can in the light and in the light concealment isn’t an acceptable way to gain Stealth.
This is implicit in the part that says "all characters can see clearly". We know for a fact that normal characters CANNOT see clearly through a brick wall, or through a wall of darkness or a thick fog - even in bright light. This line about "all characters can see clearly" is obviously NOT granting us the ability to use x-ray vision. So, oviously, it means "we can clearly see things that are not obscured by obstacles."
A brick wall gives cover. Again I agree but I see it differently than you do. You are using a wall that the farmer cannot see through which makes jack undetectable by vision (IE: Invisible). We already know that an area of dim light or darkness grants you the ability to use concealment to gain Stealth. And the farmer is trying to spot Jack through an area of darkness. You are just using a of a condition that allows concealment to gain Stealth. It would be like casting Darkness in an area of normal light with both Jack and the farmer inside. Then the DM says, “No you can’t hide because you are in bright light,” and you say, “Yes I can because Darkness is providing dim light which allows me to hide with concealment.” The only difference is that in your situation they aren’t in the dim light, but the farmer still has to see through it. What is the difference between being in it and trying to see or being outside it and trying to see through it? Jack is visually undetectable either way.
Now, you're right, it does say that in bright light you need ivibility or cover to use Stealth. But, I've demonstrated in this post that Total Concealment will also allow you to use Stealth in bright light (the wall of darkness example).
1) Some of your demonstrations showed Jack getting concealment from a solid object and using it to hide. I agree he could hide, regardless of the lighting conditions, using a solid object. But solid objects grant cover not concealment. And THAT is why he can hide in daylight using the hedges.
2) I have already addressed why the wall of Darkness or Fog could allow Jack to hide.
3) So by your interpretation cover is acceptable to hide with in daylight. You use a wall of darkness to demonstrate that. BUT – That wall is forcing the farmer to spot Jack through a condition of dim light or darkness, which allows Jack to use Stealth. It also makes him virtually invisible to the farmer. So, I agree he could hide, but not because of the cover, it is because Jack is virtually invisible from the farmer, who is trying to see Jack through a condition that allows him to use concealment for Stealth.
4) If your stance is that the rule I have quoted is wrong and that concealment is always acceptable for using Stealth, what would you say about the following examples?
a) A Rogue is standing in the middle of an open field in broad daylight. He uses a scroll of Blur on himself. He now has Concealment 20%. Can he now vanish from sight using Stealth?
b) A Rogue has the Lightning Stance feat. The flavor text says: “The speed at which you move makes it almost impossible for opponents to hit you” and the feat states that any time he uses a double move or withdraw action he gains 50% concealment for 1 round. Can the Rogue use this in broad daylight to disappear from view? I realize he couldn’t use this after people were aware of him because he can’t Bluff and take a double move, but assume opponents aren’t aware of him when he starts his double move. By the time the opponents have the possibility of noticing him he is under the benefit of 50% concealment and has used Stealth.
Under your blanket statement of concealment being used to make Stealth checks, characters would be well within their rights to perform either of these actions, as well as use these actions to hide from creatures with Darkvision. Under my interpretation of how the rules you quoted interact with the rules I have been quoting: The characters would never use either of these sources of concealment to gain Stealth. In daylight they aren’t allowed to use Stealth with concealment, they must find cover or be invisible. In dim light or darkness they can use concealment to make Stealth checks but under those conditions they already have concealment and so wouldn’t be using the concealment from Blur or Lighting Stance.
So quite clearly the writer of this rule simply forgot to mention concealment when he or she wrote the rule. I state with no reservations, because we already know this rule contradicts the other rule and they cannot both be correct, and we've seen that Concealment can allow Stealth even in bright light, which means we have seen which rule is correct and which rule is wrong.
If that were at all the case why would he bother to put anything there at all. We already know from the Stealth skill that concealment, cover, and invisibility are ways to use Stealth. Why would he be trying to say: “In areas of bright light you must have concealment, cover or invisibility to use Stealth.” It doesn’t make sense; that is something we already know. I think the writer said exactly what he intended to say. I don’t think the writer made any such oversight in this regard. If he wanted to put concealment he would have put concealment, and wouldn’t have needed to mention invisibility at all (since it is merely a source of concealment).
Also, the word “can” is not definitive. Can does not equal always under any circumstance. It could just as easily mean what I am saying: You can use concealment to hide; however, in areas of bright or normal light you must have cover or invisibility.
This bright light rule is the wrong one (in case you've been skipping parts of this long post), and the wrong part is the omission about Concealment.
I am not skipping parts, but I do not agree with your stance. I hope I have explained my stance clearly and look forward to your comments.
Reply to A Man In Black's Post: This is also really long and again I decided to veil it.
.
Of course it is. The point is that Stealth just plain stops working in a handful of not-uncommon situations. Thus, I have strung all of these situations I could find together.
Fair enough, I am aware that you were just trying to make a point. But my point is that if a Rogue knows that certain situations leave him vulnerable, then he should be smart enough to avoid them.
He could have an untyped +100 bonus to Stealth for all I care. The take-home points are that Stealth shuts down at certain silly points, leading to DC 0 Spot checks, and that creatures frequently get Stealth-defeating radar. Even if you rule Scent isn't Stealth-beating radar, Blindsense and Blindsight are. They specifically say they just work, no Perception needed.
I would disagree that it is silly; I think it should be extremely hard to avoid sight during the day. Everything has weaknesses and situations in which it cannot be used. Even magic suffers from Dead Magic Zones or Antimagic Fields. As for Blindsight and Blindsense they should be powerful abilities, it is like a bat’s sonar ability, try hiding from a bat or a dolphin. I don't think there is any hiding from Blindsight unless you take some feats. Blindsense however is a different thing and even says in the description that it is effected by whether or not the creature can visually detect you. In lore there are plenty of situations where Blindsense is beaten by Stealth (Bilbo and Smaug was an example presented up-thread.) And there is a 3.5 feat that allows you to hands down beat both of these abilities.
Jack B. Nimble could be level 20 and shooting for the Demigodhood of Chickensnatching and he still would fail at this. He could just afford a ring of invisibility or whatever so I didn't go that high level.
He might fail a broad daylight attempt at thievery, perhaps that is why thieves traditionally work at night. He would most certainly succeed against these odds at night.
If we want to be RAW pedants (I did set the tone and all), hedgerows are cover. Hedgerows are 1/3 hedge and 2/3 wall. They are an example of cover because they were frequently used to absorb bullets and explosion shrapnel in the world wars. They share nothing in common with decorative hedges save the word "hedge" and the presence of foliage. One could argue that decorative hedges are cover, but someone posted that they aren't cover because they don't stop a bullet and I pretty much agree with that.
Well your whole premise is that by RAW Stealth loses in many situations. And then in order to fabricate a situation you have taken a circumstance (hedge) that would normally provide cover, and decided that instead it should only provide concealment simply based on opinion. You can't argue that by RAW Stealth fails when you aren’t using a RAW situation to test it. If you are forcing the Rogue to adhere to RAW then your circumstances and situations should adhere to RAW as well, or you are breaking your own rules. As for your opinion: Perhaps you should read the examples for Cover because a barrel can provide you with cover and that would certainly not stop a bullet either. Even another person can provide you with cover and if you use the right weapon that person wouldn't stop a bullet any more than a hedge would. Besides, the hedges don’t have to stop bullets they only have to stop a crossbow bolt and I am fairly certain they could do that depending on how thick they are. Hedges, even if they are thin, are a solid substance, and therefore fit far better under examples of cover than examples of concealment.
I also covered this in my reply to DM_Blake. Any solid barrier grants cover. Concealment is granted by non-solid visual distortions. (I realize that hedges are not as solid as a Brick wall. But they certainly are a solid by virtue of the fact that they are not a liquid or a gas. And a Brick wall would give total cover, whereas the hedges only provide cover.)
I'm kind of being a dick here to Jack, but he's a fifth level rogue who can't afford food so the tone is set. A cornfield would have to be quite a mess to be difficult terrain, but then again it'd be pretty lousy concealment as well. The point was to illustrate how punishing the half-speed penalty is, not to make some point about cornfields.
Your point was “Much of the terrain that actually allows you to use Stealth also cuts your movement in half” and I would argue that difficult terrain probably isn’t as common as you suggest. Also the movement penalty is easily defeated with a Rogue Talent that can be picked up as early as lvl 2.
They could be brick walls and it would still be impossible for Jack to slip past the entrance without the farmer getting a DC 0 Spot check (possibly modified by range, as some canny posters noted).
That is debatable. But the easiest argument to this point is the rules in the CA. They are printed, published, and easy to interpret. All your gap does is apply a -5 penalty to his Stealth check to cross.
There are four categories of light.
• Bright light, which dazzles light-blinds, negates hiding in concealment, and burns light-vulnerables.
• Light, the basic level of lighting.
• Dim light/shadowy illumination, which limits sight distance and grants concealment.
• Darkness, where nothing can be seen.
A cloudy day is light. A cloudy day is not bad nor terrible conditions for spotting someone; it is the default condition.
Your example showed Jack using the Hedges that you had previously stated only granted concealment to perform Stealth. Therefore I inferred that the conditions must be dim light. I explained that in my post. At no point in my post did I say that a cloudy day was bad or terrible conditions. That whole portion was based on the premise that Jack was operating in dim light and was well illustrated in my example.
Interesting that you bring up Terrible Conditions. Since you can only hide in the first place with concealment, and dim light grants concealment, can you only ever make Stealth checks under Terrible Conditions?
No, you can hide perfectly well during the day as well, using cover. Not being able to see very well (IE: dim light) is specifically stated as providing bad/terrible conditions for Perception checks, even if you have a candle with you the -2 for unfavorable conditions applies.
The Stealth rules do not work on scent. They work on hiding from sight or moving silently. Thus, it is a DC...well, undefined, to smell Jack. Assuming it's 0 like seeing someone, then Woof cannot fail to smell anyone within his scent range even while sleeping, due to a +16 modifier. This is a CR 1/3 creature.
Show me by RAW where it says, "you can’t use Stealth against Scent." There is not such entry. So you must chose: Is your default setting going to be to disallow anything not expressly permitted by explicit wording or will allow for other possibilities based on the wording of the skill.
The first sentence of Stealth is: “You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position.” The first sentence under the Check portion of Stealth is: “Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you.” NOTE: It doesn’t say the Perception check of "anyone using their eyes and ears" to find you. And the first line of Stealth says you are "skilled at avoiding detection," not you are "skilled at not being spotted or heard."
I would say Stealth is acceptable to be used against anyone who could roll a Perception check to spot you. And what is Perception: “Your senses allow you to notice fine details and alert you to danger. Perception covers all five senses, including sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.”
Also note: Scent is listed in Perception as granting a +8 bonus. It is not listed anywhere as bypassing or negating Stealth.
You've gone and allowed Stealth to work in a bunch of circumstances where Stealth, RAW, doesn't work. That's fine, it should do more than RAW allows it.
That is quite a boast. I would like you to show me by RAW (I mean point me to the rule) where I have allowed stealth to be used in any circumstances where it is forbidden. NOTE: I am now aware that your example was of a cloudy day. However, mine was of a dim light night. I didn’t realize you were still talking about a situation in daylight.
Why do players even care about how a skill like stealth will play out in this one, of one billion possible scenarios?
Agreed. In my own way, I have been attempting to show that Stealth is probably the WORST possible choice for this scenario and that there are better ways and/or SKILLS to get THIS particular task accomplished.
If you somehow have a SPECIAL Rogue who apparently only gets 5 skill points total by 5th level(impossible using an elite array rogue) and puts them ALL into Stealth, I doubt you'll starve to death in the 6 hours waiting nightfall assuming you remember to breath with your 7-8 INT.
Stealth is a fail at High Noon on the open plains, GOT IT. Simple answer, use a DIFFERENT skill, set of skills or abilities you've acquired in 5 levels.
yea, not buying the +10 while asleep. Taking 10 is an active, not passive use of skill. It implies focus.
I can just imagine a game write now putting a perimeter of chickens around his BBEG to thwart the heroes. (Perhaps the chicken sleep in shifts)
Curses, foiled again!
Besides, they don't need to sleep in shifts if they are ZOMBIE chickens!
Now I want to raise an army of undead poultry...
I seem to remember Colonel Sanders and his undead chicken cannon from somewhere...
Personally I think this is a pretty bias example. I see that you are just providing a series of examples but this scenario is utterly stacked against Jack in every way.Of course it is. The point is that Stealth just plain stops working in a handful of not-uncommon situations.
So, let's apply a little Reductio ad Absurdum here.
The counterpoint to your argument (or at least the portion of it I've quoted here) is this: If we fix all these situations, then there is nothing that defeats stealth. Stealth becomes the ultimate weapon to do anything you want, anywhere you want, and nobody can stop you if you're stealthy enough.
I'm somewhat beginning to wonder if you're playing a rogue here, championing your class and trying to get people to side with you that you need to be more uber.
Stealth must be balanced.
By balanced I mean that there are a number of ways that Stealth can trivialize a challenge or encounter, so, to balance that, there need to be a number of ways that can render Stealth ineffective or at least difficult to use.
If this balance is not achieved, then Stealth would become the epitome of the "I WIN" button.
Fortunately, the game designers included enough balancing factors that Stealth is only a situational "I WIN" button while being difficult and even worthless in other situations.
It's even more fortunate that they chose things like bright light, line of sight, direct observation, and extraordinary senses that are not fooled by a light step and a crouch.
I cannot tell you how exhultantly grateful I am that the game has this balance, and in such a well-considered and verisimilitudinous fahsion.
Great OP. I also don't like how someone's skill is just as good whether they're actively looking for you or just standing around (but not "distracted"). I tend to favor a "take five" kind of mechanic for when you are reactively doing something all the time.
I also don't like the "everyone gets a check" effect. Try to pick someone's pocket in a bar, and RAW all 20 people in the bar get a Spot check on you. Someone will always make it. If your party is trying to hide, even if you're all good at it (and usually someone isn't), one of you is going to get a bad roll. Most PC parties have totally given up on the entirely genre-appropriate "hey let's the four of us sneak up on those two orc sentries" scenario- it's just not possible. And as the OP shows, unless they have deliberately placed themselves in a huge field of cover, even a highly skilled rogue can't do it. Which is lame.
Everyone in the bar has a chance to see you picking a pocket if you're trying to pick the pocket of the bartender, or the can-can dancer, or anyone else who there's excellent visibility of.
If, however, you're trying to pick the pocket of someone off to one side the bar, your back will block everyone's vision except the guy you're pickpocketing and his nearby table companions.