Knowing your opinion on the general subject I suspect your silence regarding my particular post is not to be taken as assent. No thoughts on what I said regarding context? Such as for instance, the vision and light text being inappropriate for non-vision-related uses of stealth?
Also! Bonus insane-o accusation:
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.Also, like seriously what? Did I mispost this on the WOW forums or something? BUFF HEMO PLOX kthx
I want to be able to run games with Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser where the Grey Mouser can nick a chicken if he feels the need. D&D 3e, and PF in particular, aren't that game without some judicious modification. If I can post and round up enough agitation against that problem, it helps generate interest in fixing that problem.
Oooh, I seem to have struck a nerve. Awfully harsh in your response. The Man in Black doth protest too much, methinks...
I find it further salient that, of my entire post, you only chose to respond to only this one sentence.
So, what say you to the rest of that post? You know, the stuff about balance and how Stealth should not be the "I WIN" button for every situation, and how there really should be some things that defeat Stealth. What say you to those things?
Or are you still too busy protesting too much?
The OT's stipulations are uniformly ridiculous unless he's playing a character with a severe mental impairment - which could very well be a factor and indeed an interesting roleplaying hook, but I digress.
Mathematically it's been shown by many people that in this case Stealth does NOT drop to DC 0 as MiB repeatedly stipulates, under the circumstances given, unless our rogue goes out of his way to focus the dog and farmer's attention on himself. Perhaps he's wearing a hat with bells on it.
Given the rules and explanations so thoroughly gone over, Stealth seems to work just fine, it's just not always automatically successful. And that's good.
Sometimes thieves get caught. That doesn't mean they'll always be caught.
The OT's stipulations are uniformly ridiculous unless he's playing a character with a severe mental impairment - which could very well be a factor and indeed an interesting roleplaying hook, but I digress.
Mathematically it's been shown by many people that in this case Stealth does NOT drop to DC 0 as MiB repeatedly stipulates, under the circumstances given, unless our rogue goes out of his way to focus the dog and farmer's attention on himself. Perhaps he's wearing a hat with bells on it.
Given the rules and explanations so thoroughly gone over, Stealth seems to work just fine, it's just not always automatically successful. And that's good.
Sometimes thieves get caught. That doesn't mean they'll always be caught.
Come to think of it, we should thank the OP for presenting this lovely scenario that proves just how well Stealth really works.
Stealth is good, you can do a lot with Stealth, but there are a few things like bright light, attentive obsevers, wide open spaces, and extraordinary senses that, quite rightfully so, make Stealth difficult or impossible.
An excellent, well-presented argument for the fact that Stealth does, in fact, work very well in the RAW.
Come to think of it, we should thank the OP for presenting this lovely scenario that proves just how well Stealth really works.
An excellent, well-presented argument for the fact that Stealth does, in fact, work very well in the RAW.
Was that on page five? I haven't gotten there yet.
Silence should not make me harder to SEE. Sunlight should not make me easier to HEAR. Hiding from people who can't see me due to intervening objects should not be impossible, even if those objects are so flimsy that they will not stop an attack (concealment but not cover), no matter how sunny the day.
And if you are sneaking up on a blind man while under the effect of a Silence spell, guess what: Automatic success.
I definitely agree with what you are saying and it is easily addressed by applying common sense to the written rules. I don't think it is necessary to house rule it though. I think if you apply common sense to the RAW as you are implying in your statement then the rules work just fine. It is when you take RAW and pretend that the laws of the universe don't exist and take the rules completely out of context that many of these problems start popping up.
I think part of the problem here is the definitions and applications of Concealment vs. Cover in the OP. IIRC the definitions and conditions of gaining concealment and cover in 3.5 were different and a little more confusing. In PF though it is relatively easy to see that ANYTHING that is made up of solid substance and impedes vision between you and your opponent grants you COVER not concealment. Concealment is only granted by things without substance that make you harder to visually pinpoint (IE: dim light/darkness/Obscuring Mist/Lightning Stance/invisibility). A lot of people have noticed something wrong with Jack not being able to hide in the bushes but, IMO; they are targeting the wrong problem. Many are arguing that concealment, in this case, should be enough to let him hide in this scenario, but the real problem is that the hedges should be granting COVER and therefore Jack should be allowed to hide. Actually I think the Corn Field, if it granted anything, would grant cover as well, not concealment.
As for sneaking around when your opponents back is turned. There really is no mechanic to hide with no cover/concealment and no way to get to any. But there is a mechanic for running between areas of cover/concealment in the Complete Adventurer and I believe it symbolizes exactly what you are saying, making your move when your opponent isn't looking.
So, let's apply a little Reductio ad Absurdum here. . .
I agree completely. Stealth is a powerful tool and it is completely reasonable and balanced to have equally powerful methods of defeating it. Besides, it makes perfect sense to be more difficult to hide in some situations than it is in others. Also, I think of a Rogues stealth as his secret weapon and I feel it should be just as challenging and rewarding for him to master this as it is challenging and rewarding for a Fighter to master his chosen weapon or for a Wizard to master his magic (both of which can also be defeated by other elements of the game).
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.
None of Jacks three enemies (farmer, dog, and chicken) would have been able to take 10 on a Perception check to notice Jack. The farmer was concentrating on his crossbow; the dog and chicken were both sleeping.
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10.
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.
Actually, that isn’t what RAW says. Sleight of Hand says this:
When you use this skill under close observation, your skill check is opposed by the observer's Perception check.
Not everyone in the bar is closely observing you, unless you go around making yourself the center of attention before you pickpocket someone. In which case, you should probably give up thievery.
A few lines down:
If you try to take something from a creature, you must make a DC 20 Sleight of Hand check. The opponent makes a Perception check to detect the attempt, opposed by the Sleight of Hand check result you achieved when you tried to grab the item.
And right here it specifically says the only person who gets to notice you take something is the person you are taking it from.
Now does that mean that there couldn't be a city guard posted in the bar to keep the peace and identify pick pockets? No, if there were such a "bouncer" he would fall under the close observation rule and would probably get to make a Perception check (if the crowd between he and you is thin enough that he could reasonably see you) and in this case his success or failure could likely represent whether or not he was looking your way when you picked that pocket.
|
And right here it specifically says the only person who gets to notice you take something is the person you are taking it from.
Now does that mean that there couldn't be a city guard posted in the bar to keep the peace and identify pick pockets? No, if there were such a "bouncer" he would fall under the close observation rule and would probably get to make a Perception check (if the crowd between he and you is thin enough that he could reasonably see you) and in this case his success or failure could likely represent whether or not he was looking your way when you picked that pocket.
I'd probably throw in a Sense Motive check from the city guard vs some form of bluff/ diplomacy/ sleight of hand roll - if he failed hes not actually watching the right people :)
|
And if you are sneaking up on a blind man while under the effect of a Silence spell, guess what: Automatic success.
I would disagree here. The blind man should still be allowed a perception check to smell (and or feel via air movement) to note at least the presence of the silenced opponent. The RAW allow this and the modifications to the DC would remain unchanged. Range, favorable or unfavorable conditions, being distracted etc would all function as normal.
Without the Scent ability the blind man would only be able to detect the presence of the silenced opponent but not determine direction etc.
I'd probably throw in a Sense Motive check from the city guard vs some form of bluff/ diplomacy/ sleight of hand roll - if he failed hes not actually watching the right people :)And right here it specifically says the only person who gets to notice you take something is the person you are taking it from.
Now does that mean that there couldn't be a city guard posted in the bar to keep the peace and identify pick pockets? No, if there were such a "bouncer" he would fall under the close observation rule and would probably get to make a Perception check (if the crowd between he and you is thin enough that he could reasonably see you) and in this case his success or failure could likely represent whether or not he was looking your way when you picked that pocket.
I didn't even think of that. I was thinking about the possibility of a percentage roll to determine if he was looking in your direction which would probably be appropriate as well.
I'd also grant a check to notice the absence of noise, at least if you got too close to the blind guy.
Honestly, I think part of the trouble here is the OP set up a situation with unanswered questions and odd assumptions as to what someone would do in such a situation.
First, to layout the description of the scene, we have a cornfield standing adjacent to a lot in the middle of which is a farmhouse. The farmhouse has a porch and there are hedges in front of the porch.
Many of the other later posters go on to talk about the amount of cover that hedges give, but this is going on the idea that these are high hedges that would be used as a fence at the edge of a property line rather than low hedges as one might have planted just outside the railing of a porch.
The OP set up a situation where Jack does not want to sneak around the back of the house because he doesn't know what's there and doesn't want to bother with it. This strains some credulity because most other things on a farm house are easier to deal with than a man with a crossbow. But we'll let that slide.
Then we have Jack trying to sneak to the cover of the hedges, when he could instead note that houses have sides, and rather than sneak to the back of the house where he doesn't want to go, he could just run to the side of the house. Then he could crouch low and run around the front. The one trouble is that five foot gap between the front hedges. We'll assume that the farmer is on the porch in a chair off to one side so he doesn't have a clear view of the steps, but Woof will have taken the dog's position right in the middle of the path so he can see anyone who might approach, especially a thief sneaking along in front of him.
This is what the whole situation boils down to: Can you walk in front of a guard dog without it noticing you?
If it's asleep, then maybe. If it's awake, no chance in hell without serious magic. That would be "Pay no attention to the man whose butt is currently blocking your view of the road." Even Hide in Plain Sight shouldn't cover that.
The other question is, what is on the far side of the chicken coop, and why isn't Jack approaching from that angle where the farmer and the dog can't see him?
I'd say Stealth does work but it still can't accomplish miracles.
And if you are sneaking up on a blind man while under the effect of a Silence spell, guess what: Automatic success.
I would disagree here. The blind man should still be allowed a perception check to smell (and or feel via air movement) to note at least the presence of the silenced opponent. The RAW allow this and the modifications to the DC would remain unchanged. Range, favorable or unfavorable conditions, being distracted etc would all function as normal.
Without the Scent ability the blind man would only be able to detect the presence of the silenced opponent but not determine direction etc.
Well, I guess you have me there. If he didn't bathe that day and is the only other guy in the room I guess he could smell the Rogue. He won't feel any vibrations in the air though, unless he has blindsense/tremmorsense/blindsight. Even so, the DC would be ridiculous. It is a DC +20 just to notice an invisible creature (and that is if you can still hear it and see the effects of it passing) so combined with the Silence spell (which I would say provieds terrible conditions) it would be another +5 to the DC and if he is distracted it would be another +5. So, the DC would be at least a 30. And that is even in a situation where our Rogue hasn't masked his scent and he is the only other guy in a room devoid of powerful opposing odors.
It is easy enough to mask your scent. Perfume would make him think you are a woman. If you are in a crowd or at tavern with several other powerful smells (other people/alcohol/food) he probably would not have the ability to discern your presence at all.
I'd also grant a check to notice the absence of noise, at least if you got too close to the blind guy.
Yeah I guess that would be a pretty big indicator. He would automatically know something is up, but probably still wouldn't be able to determine specifically if someone was there.
|
|
I'd also grant a check to notice the absence of noise, at least if you got too close to the blind guy.
Absolutely. Depending on the circumstances this could be pretty much automatic.
The blind man is in a noisy tavern? Automatic that he would notice the absence of noise.
He would of course have no idea as to the source of the silence and would still need a perception check to notice the silenced figure. The origin of the silence would actually have no bearing on his ability to notice the silenced opponent. Everyone within the area of silence would fall under the same perception check from the viewpoint of the blind man.
I would even go so far as to allow the blind man to use his perception check to identify the presence of a previously not present person just by smell. If the blind man had been seated at a table with two smelly orc barbarians (smelling of sweat and blood) and a drunken dwarven miner (who smelled of alcoholic and dirt) I would allow the check to signal to the blind man that someone who smalled faintly of oiled leather was now moving nearby. Of course he would have all the penalties to this check due to unfavorable conditions, range etc.
YMMV
I'd also grant a check to notice the absence of noise, at least if you got too close to the blind guy.Absolutely. Depending on the circumstances this could be pretty much automatic.
The blind man is in a noisy tavern? Automatic that he would notice the absence of noise.
He would of course have no idea as to the source of the silence and would still need a perception check to notice the silenced figure. The origin of the silence would actually have no bearing on his ability to notice the silenced opponent. Everyone within the area of silence would fall under the same perception check from the viewpoint of the blind man.
I would even go so far as to allow the blind man to use his perception check to identify the presence of a previously not present person just by smell. If the blind man had been seated at a table with two smelly orc barbarians (smelling of sweat and blood) and a drunken dwarven miner (who smelled of alcoholic and dirt) I would allow the check to signal to the blind man that someone who smalled faintly of oiled leather was now moving nearby. Of course he would have all the penalties to this check due to unfavorable conditions, range etc.
YMMV
I agree that would be perfectly reasonable. In truth my comment:
And if you are sneaking up on a blind man while under the effect of a Silence spell, guess what: Automatic success.
was just a joke to lead into my main idea. I didn't think it would lead to so many comments but I think you are right; smell is still a viable method of noticing someone's presence.
Even Hide in Plain Sight shouldn't cover that.
I agree with your whole post except this point. Hide in Plain Sight does exactly that, and can easily be justified and explained. But what you have to remember about HiPS is that every form of it has different circumstantial/environmental requirements that must be met before it will function.
Shadowdancer gets HiPS(SU) and can hide any time he is within 10' of an area of dim light, even with nothing to hide behind and with people observing him.
Assassin gets HiPS(SU) and it is the same as above except replaces "area of dim light" with "some shadow."
Ranger gets HiPS(EX) but only in his favored environments. His HiPS lets him hide while being observed but not without something to hide behind. Camouflage(EX) is what lets him hide without anything to hide behind and again, this is only in his favored terrains. I think most farmland would fall under Plains and so a Ranger of 17th lvl could do this easily.
While a Shadowdancer's and Assassin's HiPS is a magical ability and can be visualized as them simply melding into shadows, I think of a Ranger's HiPS as being from an expert ability to blend into his surroundings using discipline and practice (represented by HiPS) as well as mundane forms of concealing himself (represented by Camouflage) for example: A ghillie suit. Do you think you would see this guy moving against the background of a Wheat Field? Not a chance, and the same could be done for the colors and textures of a Corn Field (But I don't think I could find a picture of that. I don't think they make a Corn Field ghillie suit, it would have to be custom.)
Even Hide in Plain Sight shouldn't cover that.I agree with your whole post except this point. Hide in Plain Sight does exactly that, and can easily be justified and explained. But what you have to remember about HiPS is that every form of it has different circumstantial/environmental requirements that must be met before it will function.
Shadowdancer gets HiPS(SU) and can hide any time he is within 10' of an area of dim light, even with nothing to hide behind and with people observing him.
Assassin gets HiPS(SU) and it is the same as above except replaces "area of dim light" with "some shadow."
Ranger gets HiPS(EX) but only in his favored environments. His HiPS lets him hide while being observed but not without something to hide behind. Camouflage(EX) is what lets him hide without anything to hide behind and again, this is only in his favored terrains. I think most farmland would fall under Plains and so a Ranger of 17th lvl could do this easily.
While a Shadowdancer's and Assassin's HiPS is a magical ability and can be visualized as them simply melding into shadows, I think of a Ranger's HiPS as being from an expert ability to blend into his surroundings using discipline and practice (represented by HiPS) as well as mundane forms of concealing himself (represented by Camouflage) for example: A ghillie suit. Do you think you would see this guy moving against the background of a Wheat Field? Not a chance, and the same could be done for the colors and textures of a Corn Field (But I don't think I could find a picture of that. I don't think they make a Corn Field ghillie suit, it would have to be custom.)
I'm thinking that it's high noon. The dog is sitting on the porch at the top of the front steps looking straight down the front walkway edged on each side by the utterly barren front yard and ending at the roadway. On the other side of the road is something unremarkable for farm country. Let's say it's a walnut orchard in early spring. That means mostly bare trees except for some small green leaves. Oh, and there's also occasional bunches of daffodils. Woof is looking down the porch directly at the base of one of the walnut trees where he thinks he may have seen a squirrel an hour ago.
At this moment, both the shadow dancer and the assassin have no shadows to hide in, except for maybe underneath the porch itself, and the point of the exercise isn't to bypass Woof anyway--they could probably walk around the back of the house with far less trouble--but to walk across the section of path that Woof is looking down without him noticing something blocking his view of the squirrel's tree.
Now for the the ranger's ghillie suit. Even if he wore bark-colored clothes, tied daffodils to his boots, and carried around armloads of branches Forest of Dunsinane style, I think Woof would notice if a new walnut tree started walking around the orchard, let along prancing across the front lawn. Woof might think he was chasing a midget treant, but he knows his yard, he knows no trees were there before, and he always suspected that squirrel was up to no good and now he has proof!
Woof! Woof! Woof!
Don't do that, it makes it a real pain to reply to you. Anyway. It boils down to this.
Fair enough, I shall no longer veil my sometimes ridiculously long posts.
I would like you to show me by RAW where it says that Stealth does not allow you to walk through walls.
I hope that is not the best argument you can think of to prove your case.
In the meantime, the rules say what you can do, not what you cannot. Taking the Scent example, you can use Stealth to hide or avoid being heard, not prevent yourself from being smelled. Scent allows you to detect people nearby. There is no rule allowing people to avoid being smelled/tremorsensed/blindsensed/blindseen, save magical effects.
Your claim that the rules say what you can do not what you can’t is wrong. The books are full of perfect examples of rules telling you what you CAN’T do and several have been posted already in this thread.
Scent gives a +8 to Perception checks for the creature that has scent. Perception is countered by Stealth. I tend to see stealth as a talent for masking your presence, not just hiding and staying quiet. The reason I say that is the first sentence in Stealth: “You are skilled at avoiding detection.” That said, I do see what you are getting at and I would accept a GM ruling that the dog’s Scent would detect me with a Perception check against a static DC rather than against my Stealth check.
Apparently you aren’t satisfied with the simplicity of Stealth vs. Perception, so I will argue it according to your view and stop trying to convince you of mine for a moment:
SCENT
A creature with the scent ability can detect opponents by sense of smell, generally within 30 feet. If the opponent is upwind, the range is 60 feet. If it is downwind, the range is 15 feet. Strong scents, such as smoke or rotting garbage, can be detected at twice the ranges noted above. Overpowering scents, such as skunk musk or troglodyte stench, can be detected at three times these ranges.
The creature detects another creature's presence but not its specific location. Noting the direction of the scent is a move action. If the creature moves within 5 feet (1 square) of the scent's source, the creature can pinpoint the area that the source occupies, even if it cannot be seen.
Creatures with the scent ability can identify familiar odors just as humans do familiar sights.
False, powerful odors can easily mask other scents.
Alright if we take your position that scent ignores Stealth and works at a solid DC to detect someone then this is how I see it according to the wording in PRD.
1) Jack can use the range of the Scent ability against the dog. Stay 15 feet away and approach from downwind (that should be easy since if he is on the porch and you are on the other side of the hedges you are probably at least 15 feet away already, now all you have to do is look at the corn and see which way the wind is blowing it from). You can also kill a skunk or pick up some rotten garbage in town and place it within the range of Scent; this will at least give a -5 to the dog’s Perception check.
2) Also along the way you can coat yourself in a layer of soil from the corn field, which is a familiar odor to the dog and make him far less likely to detect your scent.
3) We have already covered how a powerful odor in the range of the dog’s scent can easily mask other scents in point 1. I would say: if you drop a dead skunk 180’ upwind of the dog that would give a -5 and if you also rub the soil from the corn field (which by the way is probably laced with fertilizer = manure) all over your cloths it would give the dog another -2 on top of that.
Given these points I would say that even if Jack couldn’t use his Stealth against the dogs scent he could easily avoid it:
Dog’s Perception +8
The DC 0 to detect a scent is increased by: + 10 because he is sleeping, + 5 for terrible conditions (dead skunk), +2 for unfavorable conditions (corn field soil to mask your scent), +2 for 20’ of separation. So, by this accounting of the condition it is a DC 19 for the dog to notice the scent.
All this has done so far is let him know something in the area; he still doesn’t know where it is or if it’s hostile yet. And he certainly can’t find Jack instantly just because he knows something is there, Jack is still hidden so the dog doesn’t see or hear him which means he has to track Jack using the Scent description of following a trail with Survival (Tracking). It is a move action just to figure out the direction of the scent, knowing the direction will lead him to the tracks where Jack passed by. Now he has to try to use Survival to track Jack's scent, which may not be easy. (Have you ever seen a dog that smelled something but couldn’t figure out where it was and kept chasing the smell back and forth but never successfully finds what he is looking for? Well that is represented here: Scent allows the dog to become aware that something is there, but he has to use Survival (Tracking) to follow Jacks trail; just because he knows something is there doesn’t mean he sees or hears Jack so he doesn’t automatically know which way the trail is going.) So the dog attempts to track the scent. Well, the DC for the Survival check to track Jack is automatically 20 because of the presence of a powerful opposing odor. Also Jack rubbed soil on his cloths and was already moving at roughly half speed due to Stealth so he qualifies for the hiding his trail and moving at half speed bonus to the DC to track him, which is another +5. So the dog is looking at a Survival check DC 25 to follow Jack’s scent. I hope Woof has a racial bonus on Survival and a high Wisdom because otherwise he is going to be wandering aimlessly.
Let’s just say he succeeds to follow the tracks for a moment: He will likely be moving at half his base speed with his nose to the ground (moving faster than that adds another +5 to the DC). And he still has to succeed at a vision or hearing based Perception check to spot Jack otherwise he can’t pinpoint him until he is within 5’ of Jack’s actual location.
Woof’s Perception is +8 (although we could argue the +8 from Scent doesn’t apply to locating Jack with vision or hearing in which case he would have +0)
Jack’s Stealth is +12 and if he waits until night fall, any Perception checks will have a -2 or -5 to find him.
Based on that I would say odds are the dog won’t actually pinpoint Jack until he has gotten to within 5’ of Jack’s actual location, moving at half speed the whole way. Now, if that is the case then Jack has probably had plenty of time to kill a chicken before the dog gets there. So, he sees Woof, moseying on up (as the dog would not automatically perceive him as an enemy, and unless this is a trained guard dog he is not going to automatically become hostile to Jack either). Jack decides to do the smart thing and cuts a little bit of flesh from his freshly killed chicken as a peace offering to Woof. The dog enthusiastically takes the meat from Jack and is immediately his new best friend. Now Jack can do one of three things, he can take Woof (his new friend) with him; he can leave Woof with the farmer and come back any time he likes, without concern, now that the dog is his friend; or he can stab poor gullible Woof in the chest. (It is a surprise round/Woof is flat footed but may have concealment if it is dark. Either way the dog would lose that battle and now instead of chicken for one night he can have chicken and dog for 3 days and come back to that farm any time he likes without concern of a dog sniffing him out.) If I were Jack I would leave the dog with the farmer, who would probably never even realize he was missing a chicken. (Depending on how many he had to begin with. And if he did realize it would think it was just a wild animal that picked one off.)
As for hedges and cornfields, undergrowth is concealment despite being a solid object, so there's no rule anywhere about "solid = cover, non-solid = concealment." (It wouldn't make a bad house rule though.) Hedges aren't hedgerows (type "hedgerow" into GIS and you'll see what I mean), and there are like six posts already in this thread pointing this out.
Well played sir. I stand corrected on the point that ALL solid substances provide cover as opposed to concealment.
However, my opinion still stands that hedges of any kind (hedgerows or other) should provide cover. Undergrowth is listed as: Vines, roots, and short bushes that cover much of the ground in a forest. This is sparse and un-kept. What I am trying to say is that no one is pruning these vines and bushes so it isn’t a solid wall of branches, leaves and shrubbery. Even heavy undergrowth is still probably only supposed to represent bushes and roots that are no more than knee or waist high and they would be see through. Look at most small bushes in the wild, even if they are tall enough to conceal a grown man, there are visible holes in them where you can see right through. If that grown man is wearing bright colors, or if he starts moving around, it is easy to see him even through the bush. This is not so with any hedges I have ever seen whether tall or short. Hedges are thick, well kept and pruned, they are often a privacy barrier and no less see through than a brick wall.
Which brings me to my next point, even if the hedges only provided concealment, they might still make Jack virtually invisible, which would also allow him to make a Stealth check even in daylight. If they are thick enough and pruned enough as to completely obscure detection of anything on the other side (which again, any hedges I have ever seen are) I would say that Jack should be able to hide in them. Not because of the concealment, Jack wouldn’t be using the concealment to hide in this case. He is using the fact that on the other side of the hedge he is virtually invisible to the farmer and therefore only has to worry about moving silently to avoid detection. (NOTE: invisibility is an acceptable method of using Stealth even in the light. If the hedges aren’t see-through, then Jack is invisible to the farmer.)
This opinion is even backed up by the rule in the 3.5 SRD that you quoted in a previous thread:
Total cover or total concealment usually (but not always; see Special, below) obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway.
So you already knew this. The only thing I was pointing out with the lighting rules is that it is not the concealment itself that is allowing you to use Stealth, it is the fact that you are, for all intents and purposes, invisible. You have, however, taken that to mean that nothing granting concealment, even total concealment, can allow you to hide during the day. That was never my stance or the point of the lighting rules. I addressed that in my reply to DM_Blake, as well as in a couple other places, although the 3.5 SRD rule does say it in a much easier to understand way than I do. But we both already knew that. Things that provide concealment, especially total concealment, can, and often do, allow you the ability to hide. But, it's not the concealment that is giving you that ability, it is the fact that you couldn't possibly be seen and are thereby considered invisible for the purposes of making a Stealth check.
Now if your hedges were described as being so thin as to be partially see through, or see through in spots AND you said that the hedges only provide partial/normal concealment, I would say that NO, there is no way for Jack to use them to hide during the day. I would not even try to argue that he could, I would accept that Stealth alone is not going to be enough to cut it in that situation and I would either employ a combination of my other skills, find another angle of approach that did grant me cover/invisibility, or wait until nightfall. However, your original post lacked that detail and clarity of description.
And, finally, for the Terrible Conditions bit, I don't see how you can call me on the Bright Light thing in another thread and not understand it here. It's no longer Bright Light, so Jack can use concealment for Stealth.
I didn’t “call” you on it at all; in my original post to you on this subject in the Any other benefits of using two light weapons? thread, I respectfully pointed out something that you apparently did not know:
(Again, I would reiterate, you already knew that if you can't see something you can’t spot it based on the rules you were quoting. All I was doing was pointing out the lighting rules; which, I believe to be the reason the 3.5 SRD Spot vs. Total Concealment/Cover rule is worded the way it is. You aren't using the concealment to hide, you are using the fact that it is not possible for your opponent to see you, it has absolutely nothing to do with concealment vs. cover.)
Yes you would be able to hide from someone if they were blindfolded. But not necessarily for the reason you think. In conditions of normal light or bright light you cannot use concealment to use Stealth, you must instead have cover or invisibility. So, the Total Concealment granted by him being blindfolded would be irrelevant in this situation.
I am not arguing that you cannot hide from a blindfolded or blind man in the daylight. You absolutely can, I am just saying that the concealment isn't a factor. If he is blindfolded or blind then you are, for all intents & purposes, invisible and as such may use Stealth.
If he can't see you then it doesn't matter if you have concealment or cover because you aren't using the "hiding" portion of Stealth, you are using the "moving silently" portion of it. So you roll Stealth (Move Silently) and he rolls Perception (Listen). If he doesn't hear you, and can't see you, then you are successfully hidden.
You then sarcastically challenged that statement, which I replied to HERE. And, in the part of your post that I am quoting below, implied that I was basically a fool and didn’t know what I was talking about:
-EDIT- No, Shadowlord is just wrong.
P-Rizzle Dizzle wrote:
Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.
At which point I posted this in my reply:
PRD wrote:
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.
Now you are again trying to say I don’t know what I am talking about by challenging me on the rules that I informed you of in the first place:
I don't see how you can call me on the Bright Light thing in another thread and not understand it here. It's no longer Bright Light, so Jack can use concealment for Stealth.
In answer to your statement: Yes I do understand the lighting rules, but apparently you still do not. The text for normal light explicitly states in the first sentence, “Normal light functions just like bright light,” which I highlighted in our original exchange as well. You cannot use concealment in normal light either because normal light functions just like bright light with the ONLY exception being that creatures with light sensitivity and light blindness do not suffer in normal light.
So, please stop accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about when you are clearly the one with a questionable grasp of the rules. I thought you were trying to say that Jack was now in conditions of dim light because you showed him using Stealth in an area of concealment that he was unable to hide in while he was in bright light. Unfortunately, I assumed you understood the rules when you read them the first time, which was apparently a wrong assumption on my part.
As for this strategy of getting Jack a chicken, you've quibbled with the GM about what kind of obstruction an ad hoc object is,
It is not quibbling, your descriptions and scenario are a good deal less detailed than they should have been and you have misread and/or misapplied several rules. You say hedges provide concealment, and personally, based on the hedges I have seen in my life, I would say they fit more closely with the descriptions given for things that provide cover. However, if you are going to say something only gives concealment, then you need to be a good deal more specific about whether or not it gives total concealment or otherwise completely obscures visibility of things on the other side. If it does (and I think it should) then Jack will absolutely be able to use Stealth. If it doesn't then they are apparently some very pathetic hedges and Jack would see that long before he made his approach.
you've quibbled with the GM about what kind of terrain a cornfield is,
Again this is no quibble; your entire scenario is stacked against the Rogue using circumstances that are purely fabricated from your personal desire to make Stealth out to be useless. Most GM’s (who aren’t trying to screw over their players) would never say a corn field is difficult terrain. And on top of that you are forcing Jack to approach the situation in the stupidest possible way.
and you've rules-lawyered about lighting conditions in direct contradiction to what the GM has told you the lighting is.
No sir, I have pointed out the rules of lighting due to the confusion caused in the scenario based on the GM’s apparent lack of understanding on the subject.
Now, while this GM is a jerk, rules-lawyering over the well-established-in-RAW-and-custom tradition of the GM deciding what general category an arbitrary object fits into is not going to win friends and influence people.
I am a rule-lawyer with you because you have falsely portrayed RAW. You can't proclaim something to be RAW and then insult people for pointing out where you are utterly wrong. Arrogantly and disrespectfully implying someone is a fool and saying someone doesn't know what they are talking about isn't a very good way to win friends and influence people either, nor is subtly insulting someone when you reply. Both of which you have done. Besides, I never said I was trying to win friends, this is about educating; trying to ensure that Stealth is not falsely portrayed as useless by someone who doesn't understand how it works.
stuffUnderstand that any forum conversation lasts as long as it amuses both participants. I really don't care to discuss further with you.
Oh dear. I'm positively mortified.
Yet, since I am even more amused now than I was to begin with, I feel no such need to terminate this conversation prematurely. There is still a great deal of amusement to be had.
I'll take your withdrawal from the discussion as tacit admission to your lack of salient rebuttal. I'm glad that now you, too, see that Stealth is working quite well indeed, which means your original post was not in vain; you learned something and you've become more enlightened through this process.
Of course, since you're brightly enlightened, you cannot use Stealth...
Oh dear. I'm positively mortified.Now, now, nobody likes a sore winner. Just swallow whole and rampage on, Mr. Tarrasque. Skip the end-zone dance. :)
Oh heck no. I wanna see the Tarrasque do the dirty bird.
I'm thinking that it's high noon. The dog is sitting on the porch at the top of the front steps looking straight down the front walkway edged on each side by the utterly barren front yard and ending at the roadway. On the other side of...
Again, our game philosophies seem to differ. If I'm a Ranger with HiPS and Favored Terrain: Desert, it's high noon on the Utah (or wherever) Salt Flats and I'm standing 10' away from you... I'm entitled to a Stealth Check. The rules say it's allowed. I've built my character to allow it. There are no prequisites to using the ability (wearing a Ghillie suit or whatever). The DM or the player or the two of them in concert can decide exactly how it works or why, but there is no basis whatsoever to deny it.
All in all, I don't think it is the Stealth skill that needs examination here. The intelligence and wisdom scores of the rogue that decided to steal a chicken by traipsing through the front yard of a farm,in broad daylight, with the farmer and his dog keeping watch on the front porch should come into question.
I'm thinking that it's high noon. The dog is sitting on the porch at the top of the front steps looking straight down the front walkway edged on each side by the utterly barren front yard and ending at the roadway. On the other side of...Again, our game philosophies seem to differ. If I'm a Ranger with HiPS and Favored Terrain: Desert, it's high noon on the Utah (or wherever) Salt Flats and I'm standing 10' away from you... I'm entitled to a Stealth Check. The rules say it's allowed. I've built my character to allow it. There are no prequisites to using the ability (wearing a Ghillie suit or whatever). The DM or the player or the two of them in concert can decide exactly how it works or why, but there is no basis whatsoever to deny it.
It's Utah.
About an hour west of my house. Millions of years ago, almost all of Utah (not the mountainy parts, of course) was under water. Salt water. Ocean. For whatever geologic reason, that ocean receded, becoming more and more salty as it did (less water but the same salt content). Eventually small enough it became known as what geologists call Lake Bonneville, and it covered about half of the north end of the state. Then it shrank some more, leaving the lake we have today, the Great Salt Lake on the shores of which our capitol, Salt Lake City, is built. And the stuff that is now dry but used to be the bottom of Lake Bonneville is now known as the Bonneville Salt Flats.
I'm thinking that it's high noon. The dog is sitting on the porch at the top of the front steps looking straight down the front walkway edged on each side by the utterly barren front yard and ending at the roadway. On the other side of the road is something unremarkable for farm country. Let's say it's a walnut orchard in early spring. That means mostly bare trees except for some small green leaves. Oh, and there's also occasional bunches of daffodils. Woof is looking down the porch directly at the base of one of the walnut trees where he thinks he may have seen a squirrel an hour ago.
At this moment, both the shadow dancer and the assassin have no shadows to hide in, except for maybe underneath the porch itself, and the point of the exercise isn't to bypass Woof anyway--they could probably walk around the back of the house with far less trouble--but to walk across the section of path that Woof is looking down without him noticing something blocking his view of the squirrel's tree.
That is why I pointed out that all forms of HiPS have situational/environmental requirements to function that must be considered. But actually, everything of substance has a shadow, so there are plenty of shadows in this scenario. But that wasn't the point I was making.
Now for the the ranger's ghillie suit. Even if he wore bark-colored clothes, tied daffodils to his boots, and carried around armloads of branches Forest of Dunsinane style, I think Woof would notice if a new walnut tree started walking around the orchard, let along prancing across the front lawn. Woof might think he was chasing a midget treant, but he knows his yard, he knows no trees were there before, and he always suspected that squirrel was up to no good and now he has proof!
Although I see your point, and its humor, RAW would allow exactly that if the farmland fit into the description of one of the Ranger's favored terrain. So you have to do one of three things: Rule that farmland doesn't fall under any of the Ranger's favored terrains (which would be akin to deciding a corn field should be difficult terrain), house-rule it and say that the Ranger can't do something that his class description explicitly says he can do, or accept that he can do this per RAW and do your best to visualize it in a way that is acceptable in your mind.
Also, even without HiPS, there is RAW in the CA that says a stealthy character could pass by that gap (assuming he started in cover/concealment and ended in cover/concealment) without being seen. So again either you house-rule it and say he can't do that, or you accept it and visualize it some other way that makes sense for you. For instance:
I would visualize it as something like this. Even a dog that is awake doesn't usually pay 100% attention to his surroundings; he isn't an unblinking sentry constantly keeping watch down the road. He lays his head down from time to time so he can gain a moment of shut-eye, as domesticated animals often do even when not tired. He also blinks. So, Jack rolls his Stealth check to cross the gap, and Woof has a chance to spot him with a Perception check. If Woof fails, then he was either catching a moment of shut-eye, looking another way (possibly at his master), blinking, licking his balls, or any number of other things that normal domesticated dogs do.
It's Utah.
** spoiler omitted **
Has the real DM_Blake been replaced with some kind of wikipedia spouting robot?
Add to that the plethora of $50 words in his recent posts and I have to wonder. ;)
Nope, same old tarrasque.
I usually keep the verbosity in check except when I'm being deliberately snarky. And I've always been a living wikipedia, I just usually don't sidetrack into that kind of thing often, but the Salt Flats hit kinda close to home.
I'll get right back to chomping people with my armored teeth in due time.
I'm thinking that it's high noon. The dog is sitting on the porch at the top of the front steps looking straight down the front walkway edged on each side by the utterly barren front yard and ending at the roadway. On the other side of...Again, our game philosophies seem to differ. If I'm a Ranger with HiPS and Favored Terrain: Desert, it's high noon on the Utah (or wherever) Salt Flats and I'm standing 10' away from you... I'm entitled to a Stealth Check. The rules say it's allowed. I've built my character to allow it. There are no prequisites to using the ability (wearing a Ghillie suit or whatever). The DM or the player or the two of them in concert can decide exactly how it works or why, but there is no basis whatsoever to deny it.
Just to clarify, I don't intend to imply I see wearing a ghillie suit as a requirement for the Ranger's abilities. I hope I didn't give anyone that impression. That is just an example of how I visualize it in many scenarios. It is an (EX) ability so it is mundane. And camouflage is the most common way of blending into your surroundings. I guess that's probably why his ability is called "Camouflage."
stuffUnderstand that any forum conversation lasts as long as it amuses both participants. I really don't care to discuss further with you.
Many forum conversations last long after they cease to be amusing if both parties remain convinced that they are correct.
Hey DM_Blake:
Not sure if you caught this in my last, ridiculously long, post replying to A Man In Black but it illustrates far better what I was trying to say in my reply to you.
Total cover or total concealment usually (but not always; see Special, below) obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway.
This is what I was trying to say. Concealment itself doesn't necessarily grant you the ability to use Stealth in the light, BUT most things that put you in a position of total concealment (like the examples you provided) make you virtually invisible, thereby allowing you to make a Stealth check.
It isn't so much as a result of the concealment itself though, but by virtue of the fact that you cannot be seen at all.
Hey DM_Blake:
Not sure if you caught this in my last, ridiculously long, post replying to A Man In Black but it illustrates far better what I was trying to say in my reply to you.
Total cover or total concealment usually (but not always; see Special, below) obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway.This is what I was trying to say. Concealment itself doesn't necessarily grant you the ability to use Stealth in the light, BUT most things that put you in a position of total concealment (like the examples you provided) make you virtually invisible, thereby allowing you to make a Stealth check.
It isn't so much as a result of the concealment itself though, but by virtue of the fact that you cannot be seen at all.
Oh, yeah, I never had any difficulty with the concept of total concealment and stealth. I'm 100% on board with stealth always being allowed with total concealment. Bright light is irrelevent if you are unable to be seen.
I still maintain that ordinary concealment is enough to attempt a stealth check in any lighting, and it's a matter of accidental omission that it isn't mentioned along with cover and invisibility in the section on bright lighting.
I still maintain that ordinary concealment is enough to attempt a stealth check in any lighting, and it's a matter of accidental omission that it isn't mentioned along with cover and invisibility in the section on bright lighting.
Fair enough. I would actually really like to see an official statement explicitly saying one way or the other if there was a mistake in the wording. But I doubt it will ever happen.
I am curious though how you would handle those situations I posted up-thread if they were presented in your game:
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.)
I believe in 3.5 FAQ/Errata they went through and specifically named sources of concealment that could or could not be used for hiding. But none of that made it to PF. There were also a lot of sources of concealment in later 3.5 books that specifically stated they could not be used to hide, and I think people using concealment inappropriately, as in my two examples, is why.
I actually felt like the lighting rule was printed as a blanket way for PF to say "No, you can't do that stuff" without going through each and every source of concealment. So then, the only thing that would let you hide is something that granted total concealment because it makes you virtually invisible and invisibility is an accepted method of using Stealth.
I still maintain that ordinary concealment is enough to attempt a stealth check in any lighting, and it's a matter of accidental omission that it isn't mentioned along with cover and invisibility in the section on bright lighting.Fair enough. I would actually really like to see an official statement explicitly saying one way or the other if there was a mistake in the wording. But I doubt it will ever happen.
I am curious though how you would handle those situations I posted up-thread if they were presented in your game:
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?
Tough call on this one. I guess it depends on how you see (no pun intended) the Blur working.
Does it simply make you smudged and hard to find your edges, like a smeared painting? If so, then no, this would need to be an exception to the (assumed) blanket rule about concealment allowing stealth, and should be duly noted in the spell's description.
Does it make you faint and transparent, partially invisible, maybe shadowy and indistinct, like a painting that is half-erased? If so, then yes, it should grant enough concealment to allow Stealth since you are actually harder to see, just like someone crouching behind a bush is harder to see.
I personally see it as the latter, so I would allow it.
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.)
I would disallow this based on the fact that he begins his turn unmoving. Therefore he is visible and subject to everything we know about bright light.
Once he starts moving, he is moving fast, but everyone who was observing him before can still see his speedy little self running around in the brightly lit area. So he cannot disappear from view.
I hate the wording of this ability. It should not say he gets "50%concealment." There is no such thing. There is only concealment, and total concealment. So clearly the feat is worded poorly since it refernces something that doesn't exist.
Note that only Total Concealment grants a 50% miss chance, so this feat is, in effect, making you exactly as hard to hit as if you were invisible.
Now its up to us to us to make a judment call. Do we rule it:
a. You move so fast that you gain Total Concealment and quite literally disappear from all view. Nobody has any line of sight to you because you are moving so fast.
or
b. You move so fast that your enemies have a 50% miss chance when attacking you despite the fact that you are in plain sight.
Based on the wording of this feat, I don't believe for a minute that the RAI was to make you turn invisible. That would be silly. So I interpret the miswording, and the proper fix, to be the latter choice (b).
So that's two reasons I would disallow it.
Oh, sure, T O, you made a good point that I never responded to.
Thanks so much! :']
However, the hiding and spotting rules are as essential to one (and arguably as many as four) of the core classes as the rules for hitting people are to melee classes, yet they are not rigorous enough to be played similarly from table to table.
This is one of the things that surprises me so much about your position. I've played D&D for a long time and stealth has always seemed to work (and be ruled on by the GM) in a fairly sane way. I'm sure interpretations of stealth rules have varied, but I'd say no more than any other aspect of play. Lord knows, there have been plenty of tableside arguments resulting in the GM invoking his infallibility about the spellcasting and combat rules. :'P Anyway, I know my own experiences aren't statistically significant enough to say they're conclusive; I'm just telling you why I was so surprised. :']
I do agree with your assessment that the stealth rules could probably benefit from being reworded or clarified, though. This thread is proof enough of that. I wouldn't say it's really necessary though. This is because, now that (thanks to you, heh) I've read the stealth rules very thoroughly, I think they work well enough to go on.
If I come to your game having been allowed to sneak up on people and stab them in the back, then I am going to be quite incensed when I join a new game and I am not allowed to do that ever without risking DC 0 spot checks.
I would be, too. That would be grounds for packing away the gear and going home, and never coming back, as far as I'm concerned. If I'm right then the GM is misinterpreting rules really egregiously and I should leave. If you're right the GM is not willing to fix egregiously busted rules, and I should leave. Quod Erat Demonstrandum, baby.
I'm not entirely sure if that addresses your point. I'm just annoyed by core schticks in D&D that are still up to GM handwaving on whether they work or not, and hiding from people is one of those core schticks because the RAW abilities it grants are so vague and limited.
I think it does address my point in that I'm trying to understand things better. :']
Anyway, I think the key thing is that I'm willing to accept that sometimes even the "core shtick" is open to GM interpretation. After all, the GM is already in charge of deciding whether you face a troll or a tarrasque, right?
I do understand your annoyance though. If you sign up because you want to be a ninja and you're stuck being comic relief, it must be very frustrating.
After all, the GM is already in charge of deciding whether you face a troll or a tarrasque, right?
Ooooh, pick me, pick ME!
Oh, I do ever so dearly hope he picks me, I am singularly famished!
That's the trouble with being CR 20, few people get high enough to pick you. :/Ooooh, pick me, pick ME!
Oh, I do ever so dearly hope he picks me, I am singularly famished!
That's CR 25 to you, pal! Well, actually, to everyone!!
Bwu ha ha ha ha!
ROAR!
I'm also faster, I can reach farther, I do more damage, my teeth became twice as sharp as they used to be, I gained a plethora of immunities, I can leap like a kangaroo, I gained a ton of critical feats, and most interestingly at all, I have figured out how to fire a barrage of spikes like a really really big manticore.
Look for the new and improved tarrasque, coming to a flattened and well-chomped city near you.
Seriously, a 5th level rogue stealing chickens? In broad daylight? Jeez.
Now IF a 5th level rogue was going to steal a chicken under the given situation, Stealth would not be his best card to play. A berserk charge to kill the farmer would probably be almost automatically successful. Sneaking through the house from the back and sneak attacking the farmer with a sap would too, for the less bloody-minded. Throwing a poisoned dart is an alternative, but would put into question why he didn't instead use his 2000 gp or so to buy several luxurious banquets (no, poison has never been realistic in terms of prices...) Simply stepping up to the rogue and threatening him for a chicken (wearing a mask, of course) would likely be eminently successful. Oh, and just because it's utterly insane, scrubbing yourself with any sort of dead animal to avoid detection by a dog... Well, let's just say the dog is likely not to care about some boring human while sleeping... but a dead-squirrel-meat-feast lumbering close would get any dog in his right mind VERY attentive VERY quickly.
However, the best alternative is still to move to a big city. Those things have excessively big amounts of people, huge potential for pickpocketing, handy crowds, and probably even a thieves' guild for work safety. There is a reason why small villages don't have big thieves' guilds, you know?
Why is the rogue/ranger/monk laboring under such strict rules when magic isn't? Why do we need a goofy class ability in order to make stealth even half as good as a second-level spell, at 11th or 15th or whatever level? This is a topic big enough for its own thread; I'm been fooling with a Stealth 2.0 post for a new thread.
Don't bother; there's a simple answer.
Because Invisibility is !
The answer is the same as the answer, in the real world, to the question "why do I need a goofy pilot's skill to operate clunky machinery to be able to fly not even half as good as a simple CR 1/8 sparrow?"
The sparrow has an ability to do something that we humans cannot. We need large and bulky machinery to be able to fly, along with lots of training.
In D&D, a mage with an invisibility spell can do things that normal humans can't. Some "goofy" class abilities might allow some people to approximate that invisibility spell, whether it's "half as good" or not, but really, why should any class ability ever naturally have the raw power of magic?
Shouldn't magic be something special, something hard to learn, something only the magical classes can do, and nowhere near as easily as dropping a few ranks into a common, untrained skill?
Perhaps next you'll want your rogues to have a goofy class ability to be able to fly at least half as good as a 3rd level Fly spell. And they may also need another goofy ability to teleport at least half as good as the 5th level Teleport spell. And let's toss in a goofy ability to disintegrate things half as good as a level 6 Disintegrate spell. And, for the granddaddy of all capstone abilities, let's give our rogues the goofy class ability to make wishes at least half as good as the 9th level Wish spell.
Where should it end?
Magic is awesome; only the trained and dedicated can do it. Sneaking around in bushes and shadows is merely mundane; anyone can do it.
..........so your walking along a lonely path and you see something you like in a corn field. you stumble aimlessly in the wrong direction lost and find yourself at a farm. somewhat unsuprisingly there is a farmer and some farm appropriate animals there, like a dog and some chickens, dare i suggest even a cow?
OH MY GOD ITS A THEIF KILL IT. BURN IT WITH FIRE!!!!
I'm less sure this is the players fault than it is the DM's.