should Stealthy classes (not) be allowed to do non-strictly-mundane things with Stealth above a certain threshold of skill?
Nope, they shouldn't (much). They're rogues, trained to sneak, spot and disable traps, open locks, steal things, hit most things in tender spots, put lots of handy skills like climb, acrobatics, stealth, etc. to good use, and maybe pull off a fancy trick here and there with their diverse rogue talents.
Of course, rogues have a few talents that give them actual spellcasting ability, but it's very limited, and it should be.
Rogues should not really be much more magical than fighters, really. Just different kinds of training is all (though rogues can pick up a few arcane spells with their talents if they wish, but even that is really limited).
Now, if they want magic, or even just supernatural abilities, they should consider a career change, such as becoming an Arcane Trickster or Shadowdancer, or just flat out picking up levels of a basic spellcasting class (bard, sorcerer, and wizard are all decent fits, more or less, depending on the rogue).
The same holds true for other stealthy classes like monks. Note that rangers already get their own magic, but if that's not enough, they have the same career-change options as everyone else.
Heck, the same holds true for non-stealthy classes. Want magic? Take levels in a class that gives you magical abilities.
|
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 !
I get that much. But why aren't rogues magic?
Don't answer that. (Please.) It's just a variation of fighters-don't-get-nice-things.
Rogues aren't fighters, though; they already walk the line with magical knacks, UMD, and so forth. Rangers are actual spellcasters. (Admittedly, they do get HIPS, which might be really powerful if anyone in the world could figure out how exactly it's supposed to work.) Monks get a pile of abilities which are just plain magical. Bards cast spells.
This isn't the main question of the thread (which is "Why are a bunch of realistic and/or genre-appropriate sneaky things not allowed by Stealth?"), but I've been pondering another STealth question: should Stealthy classes (not) be allowed to do non-strictly-mundane things with Stealth above a certain threshold of skill?
I agree here. I do see high skill scores as the equal of magic and therefore should be allowed to achieve extraordinary results unbound by "common sense", "reality" or whatever you want to call it.
Just how I see it in my game.
Cheers
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.
What I'd say is that, per RAW, his ability is "Camouflage" which is a different thing than "invisibility." Camouflage is the ability to blend in perfectly with a background. So to give an example of an extremely difficult area which is still listed per the rules, let's say we have a city rogue who is good at blending in with cities. He can stand up against a brick wall and look like a brick wall. However, if he's standing alone in the middle of an empty market square, he can't disguise himself to blend in with the cobblestones because he's six feet tall and there's nothing for him to blend in relative to, unless you're talking about him being viewed from above, in which case okay.
The reason Woof can see the ranger going across his line of vision, even with Hide in Plain Sight, is because something opaque is trying to pass for something clear.
Camouflage is being like a chameleon or a flounder, changing its coloration to fit it's background. If there is no background, there's nothing to hide against.
Someone who was truly invisible could crawl across the rose window of the cathedral while the sun was shining through and no one inside would notice the slightest difference. But someone using Hide in Plain Sight would be silhouetted like the batman because camouflage does not let your turn transparent nor does it allow you to emit light to blend in with a lit background.
It's a very good ability, but it's still not as good as true invisibility.
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.
So you're saying that Stealth is waiting for the moment that someone looks away or is distracted. Fine. But that's a different thing than crossing someone's field of vision at the moment they're alert and vigilant and still going unnoticed.
It's a very good ability, but it's still not as good as true invisibility.Why?
Because, as I said earlier, but will reitterate, it does not let you camouflage yourself against a transparent, translucent, or illuminated background. Nor does it allow you to not cast a shadow.
The reason Woof can see the ranger going across his line of vision, even with Hide in Plain Sight, is because something opaque is trying to pass for something clear.
Camouflage is being like a chameleon or a flounder, changing its coloration to fit it's background. If there is no background, there's nothing to hide against.
Someone who was truly invisible could crawl across the rose window of the cathedral while the sun was shining through and no one inside would notice the slightest difference. But someone using Hide in Plain Sight would be silhouetted like the batman because camouflage does not let your turn transparent nor does it allow you to emit light to blend in with a lit background.
blah blah blah ... the sky is a background. typically a blue one.
also being stealthy implys avoidance of these "breaking" scenario's as a risk treatment.
HiPS or Invisibility implys risk assessment and acceptance and participating with this risk treatment.
...and thats my second and last 2c.
you may all now return to your roll-playing
With bluff the high level character could convince an entire town that he is the god Aroden returned to life.
Hell, with high enough Bluff, the character can force a non-magical magical suggestion on people.
Because, as I said earlier, but will reitterate, it does not let you camouflage yourself against a transparent, translucent, or illuminated background. Nor does it allow you to not cast a shadow.Why not?
Not RAW-why. But try this on.
"You are a master of going unseen, and mere hiding is beneath you. (Alternate: "You are so sneaky that the only hiding place you need is a mark's blind spot." "You have such mastery of concealment in your favored terrain that you can disguise yourself as or capitalize on natural phenomena to hide in plain sight.") As part of a move action, you may conceal yourself from view in plain sight. You no longer need a distraction, cover, or concealment to use the Stealth skill, and your location is concealed from enemies who have not spotted you.
"Anyone looking for you cannot locate you with visual or auditory senses (Alternate: "cannot locate you at all"; depending on how you want Scent/Tremorsense/Blindsight/Blindsense to interact with it) until they have succeeded on a Perception check opposed by your Stealth check. [Some sort of text about how you get a spot check when you first hide or they first get LOS to you, then a standard action to search for you.] You cease to be hidden as soon as you make an attack or [short list of stuff we don't want you to do while hidden]."
Is that overpowered? Why or why not? Is that out of flavor for some of the classes with Stealth as a classs skill? Why or why not?
"Overpowered" and "Out of Flavor" are two entirely separate issues, except when they get comingled, which is the case here.
I have no trouble with the basic power issue. If some class gets the ability to turn invisible while holding perfectly still at one level, and the ability to stay invisible while running around at another, this is fine.
What is not fine power-wise is when a certain flavor is used to used to hide from a certain power but without being willing to take the drawbacks that come with that certain flavor.
Invisibility is magical. It's the best sort of invisibility there is, except when people have stuff like True Seeing and See Invisible going. Then it sucks.
Camouflage is supposed to be nonmagical. Someone with True Seeing, See Invisible and whatever, unless they succeed in an insane Spot check, cannot spot the flounder blending in with the sandy bottom, the leaf bug hidden in the bush, or the assassin hiding in the shadow of the second bush which is actually a ranger in a ghillie suit.
There are, however, some drawbacks to this. Infravision if it still existed would work to spot any of them. Deathwatch, its replacement, will still work to pick any of them out (unless its an undead flounder, and then there are spells to detect undead too). And simply knowing the terrain will allow someone to spot something out of place. You may take it as an insane Spot bonus for locals, but if there's a new bush there that wasn't there the day before, the king's gardener is going to notice and investigate. It's like a mimic trying to hide in a house that has regular occupants. It's not "You spot a mimic!" but "Honey, when did we get the new couch?" or "Where did you find an ottoman to match the divan? It's upholstered in the same fabric and everything!"
One of the drawbacks of camouflage is the "flat featureless plain" scenario. It can be the barren lawn of Farmer Brown's front yard, a smooth salt desert, a deserted market square, an empty beach or whatever at high noon. The trouble is, there's nothing to cast a shadow and nothing to hide behind. The ranger on the beach can be wearing a sand-colored cloak and can lie down and disguise himself as a drift of sand, but if it's a completely smooth beach, this terrain variation will be noticeable, and if he's standing up and bouncing around, there's no possible ghillie suit that will simultaneously camouflage you against the white sand, the bright blue sky and the deep blue sea. (That is unless you come up with the "It's magic but it doesn't detect as magic!" cheese which is one of the many reasons I have no use for the Book of Nine Swords.)
You really can't have it both ways. Either the ranger's camouflage is a masterfully made ghillie suit constructed and used by a master woodsman, or else it's a supernatural ability of someone so in tune with his environment that he could strip buck naked and still change his coloration like a chameleon or flounder to blend in with the terrain, and he can also squeeze himself as flat as a flounder if the terrain is something like the black and white tiled floor of the queen's entryhall. Either the assassin is a master of stealth who knows how to conceal himself in shadows behind pillars and tapestries or he's a supernatural creature of shadow who can ooze shadowstuff out his pores, and if there aren't any shadows in the area to hide in, he'll make some.
Of note, the ranger's "Hide in Plain Sight" is listed as an Extraordinary ability whereas the Assassin and Shadowdancer have theirs as Supernatural abilities. I take this to mean that the ranger's is actually mundane, and is just a really good ghillie suit, so if you stripped him buck naked, he'd just be a naked man, whereas the assassin and the shadowdancer could still hide naked in the shadows.
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.
The problem I see with the blanket rule that any concealment is acceptable in bright light is this: It left WoTC having to go through every source of concealment and say "yes / no" to whether or not it could be used to hide. I actually think Blur was ousted as a way to hide. Also several later abilities were specifically printed with the caveat of "can or can't be used to hide" later in 3.5 and it doesn't seem any of that made the transition from 3.5 to PF. That is where I think the lighting rule comes in.
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.
I could see this working in certain situation but mostly in a situation where you are already in a hard to see area. I don't think this would work in a sunlit street. How would being a wavy, shadowy form allow you to hide in the sunlight. If you are hiding and your opponent doesn’t perceive you then you are unnoticed. But the Blur effect would be highly noticeable and odd in the middle of a sunlit street. I would say that it would make something far more noticeable. Instead of seeing a normal guy walking out in the middle of the street you are seeing a shadowy apparition. True, you may be able to hide your features and your identity, but you are still a big blurry shadow running around in the sunlit street; to disappear from sight in this scenario is a bit hard for me to see.
Now if Blur made a character translucent I could understand but all it says is that it makes your form blurry, shifting, and wavering.
Also there is a specific example of a (SU) ability that grants you concealment (20%) from shifting shadows wrapping around you as you move. It is the Child of Shadow stance in the Bo9S and it specifically states you can't use it to make hide checks, even though it is in fact granted by shadows concealing your exact location.
Personally this is what I think PF was addressing when they printed that lighting rule. It is a blanket way of not having to go through every single source of concealment from present and future PF products and say "ok this one is acceptable but this one isn't." The blanket statement seems, in my eyes, to be that these forms of concealment are not going to cut it for hiding in broad daylight. But most forms of concealment that grant Total Concealment (IE: Invisibility) are still perfectly reasonable methods to hide.
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.
That is why I included the caveat, "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." But what if a player started his turn under total concealment or hidden under cover? He would begin his move and even though he will be leaving concealment/cover he can hide using the concealment granted by his feat.
I agree with your statement that this was probably not the intention of RAI. But it forces you to be the one to make the call. Do I let this feat make you virtually invisible and thereby allow you to hide (albeit in very few situations) or do I house-rule it. But with the lighting rules this would never come into play. This concealment doesn't make him "unseen" just harder to target. So, he can't use concealment to hide in the light and he can't use the total concealment granted here because it isn't making him invisible. Therefore the only time you could justify hiding with this would be at night, but you already have concealment in the dark so you can hide anyway and don't need the double movement. It just seems to be a blanket way of addressing the abuse of concealment to hide with no environmental cover/concealment.
I'm interested in your further thoughts. What do you think?
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 !
+1
I agree with some of the statements that highly skilled individuals can do some pretty amazing things. But magic is magic and a Rogue with huge amounts of skill isn't supernatural he is extraordinary.
Interesting example, but...
Er...I'm pretty sure a sleeping chicken (unless these chickens are sleeping with their eyes open) is not "observing" anyone, so he should be able to use Stealth normally against their (hearing) Perception check.
To put a fine point on it: Where are the rules separating hearing Perception checks from visual ones?
No GM with two brain cells is going to let the chicken roll Perception against the DC 0 Spot target on the rogue there. That's silly. However, the rules do a bad job of separating rules for seeing from rules for hearing from rules for sensing in other ways and it leads to confusion like "You can't Perceive someone when you're asleep" (as you're seeing all through this thread, and which is plainly false) or "I guess the rules mean for you to spot people while sleeping?"
Here's a poser for you. Are you meant to be able to spot people who aren't sneaking while you're asleep? Why or why not?
+1
You sir, win.
Smartly written look at the ability, satirical, and completely accurate to the RAW. Stealth is a tricky skill to adjudicate, and perception now covers EVERYTHING. Honestly stealth is barely even used anymore in most games unless setting up a surprise round or sniping sometimes.
I follow what the others are saying about stealthing around behind the guy but the modifiers and penalties don't necessarily make those distinctions. Even a high level thief without hide in plain sight shouldn't really be able to do much in front of anybody anyway, and roll all day long and something with blindsight or scent will know you're there.
Oh and I'm not sure I agree with Scent based perception checks. A lot of animals have some pretty incredible sniffers (Polar Bears can find a seal under 4 feet of ice a mile away through a snow storm...figure THAT out.)
Ultimately this comes down to the style of game you're playing. If you want a more realistic look at stealth I'd use the RAW, if you want a more comic-book/high fantasy style I'd house rule it out...or I'd remember, suddenly, that the most important rule (add, subtract, or change these rules as you see fit) is also RAW.
In general, you cannot use an ability for something unless the ability says you can use it in that way. There may also be specific restrictions on general allowances, but this doesn't negate the fact that the rules in general are exception-based.
I still disagree. However, your argument works against you as much as for you. Scent doesn’t state you can ignore your opponents Stealth. It simply adds to your Perception. So by your argument if Scent doesn’t specifically state it bypasses Stealth, then Jack can use his Stealth check to avoid Scent, which was my stance to begin with.
Perception is countered by Stealth.
Except that Stealth doesn't say that and Perception doesn't say that.
Really?
Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you.
Check: Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised.
The rest is going over the Scent rules for the umpteenth time. Really, we don't need to do this. You understand what I am saying, I understand what you are saying, and anyone who reads the discussion can see where we both stand. Like I said before, I can't even describe your interpretation of Scent as a houserule, but look at the sheer variety of ways people are suggesting that you have to beat Scent.
Actually I think that is the first time someone has gone all the way through the Scent works against Stealth scenario, unless I simply missed that post. The point of your demonstration was to say that Scent hands down rendered Stealth utterly useless. That was evident in your OP and you have stated as much in your comments on this thread. And I have demonstrated quite effectively that Scent is not a serious trump card and certainly isn’t the Stealth dissolving ability that you made it out to be in the OP. It is easily avoided/defeated and just because something knows you are in a 15’/30’/60’/or 180’ radius doesn’t mean it automatically defeats your Stealth, it just means it may know you are around. It still has to find you and that is far from easy.
GM fiat (a stealth-beating object laying around), Survival, Disguise, Stealth... which is it supposed to be?
Again, it isn’t a Stealth beating object. Not by far. I have demonstrated that twice now using two different methods.
And if you are sneaking up on a blind man while under the effect of a Silence spell, guess what: Automatic success.
This was just meant to be a joke. I was fully aware when I said it that there were ways around this, as there are ways around just about everything.
Fly/Invisibility = winning on pretty much every Stealth check. Few people challenge this.
See Invisibility (lvl 2 spell cost 5,000gp to make permanent) + Disenchant or Antimagic Field. See, everything can be beaten and at least the Rogue is on the ground when his stuff stops working. The Wizard better have a Featherfall memorized or gravity is going to smite him pretty hard.
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.
Magic, while very powerful, is not the end all, be all either. There are numerous ways to bypass or defeat magic, possibly even more so than there are to beat mundane abilities. There are: Dead Magic Zones, Wild Magic Zones, Antimagic Field, and even simple Silence (And before anyone says anything I know Silence only stops spells with Verbal components) just to name a few more well known ones.
There are very few methods to spot a Rogue at night, you pretty much just have to have amazing Perception (or a hand full of (EX) or (SU) abilities that let you detect things you can’t see or hear). Also, Invisibility only gives you a +20 to your Stealth (+40 if you don’t move) but the basic Stealth skill can be raised higher than that and can’t be beaten by a lvl 2 spell (See Invisibility) and it still works in an area of Dead/Wild Magic or an Antimagic Field.
Don’t get me wrong, I think magic is very powerful, but I don’t think that Stealth is weakened by the fact that it isn’t magical. And HiPS(EX) in the hands of a Stealth based character is far more dangerous than invisibility. (Really any form of HiPS is but especially (EX) because that guy can disappear right in front of you and doesn’t need magic to do it, nor will most magic be able to detect him.)
.
Now, what about the rest of my points? There were several valid points in my post after the Scent description and you haven’t addressed any of those. To put it bluntly: I don’t believe the OP scenario was, by any stretch of the imagination, a valid test for Stealth nor do I believe the skill is as crippled as you have made it out to be.
Okay, under that definition of concealment: smoke grenades.
I think we all agree that smoke, no matter how thick, does not provide cover. I think we also all agree that very thick smoke completely blocks vision. Someone standing behind, or within, such a cloud of smoke is completely impossible to see.
He doesn't have cover. He SHOULDN'T have cover: I can just start throwing things at that cloud and I DO have a chance to hit him. But he can't hide from me: I may be taking a penalty to hit him, but I am fully aware when he moves and where he moved to.
That’s not what I was saying. I was saying that it was my opinion that the hedges should grant cover. (NOTE: I have since been shown that some solid objects do indeed grant concealment instead) So, it is purely a matter of opinion if you want your hedges to grant cover or concealment, I think it could go either way. Personally I would call it either total concealment or cover based on the hedges I have seen in my life.
I was not saying that you can never hide in the light using something that grants concealment. The way I see it is this: In the light you need either cover or invisibility to use Stealth. A lot of things grant cover (20%) but those can’t be used IMO because, while they do make you hard to see, for one reason or another, they don’t grant cover and they don’t make you invisible. Most things that grant total concealment (50%) make you impossible to see (IE: invisible) and by virtue of the fact that you cannot be seen (and are thereby invisible) you may make a Stealth check.
Your smoke grenade would give you total concealment and make you impossible to see and therefore you can make a Stealth check.
I feel my explanation is supported by this 3.5 SRD rule:
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, while in the light, you can’t use concealment to hide; you can use the fact that some forms of concealment (generally total concealment) make you virtually invisible. In these cases your Stealth check would represent Move Silently and the enemy would roll a Perception which would represent Listen. If they don’t hear you move, and can’t see you move then they couldn’t possibly know you moved.
Yes, you can totally hide when there are no intervening objects between you and the victim. It's called "sneaking up behind people" and in a game with no facing it's handled with a hide check opposed by spot.
Thanks for the post. Was this official or just a poster’s opinion?
I can see the argument that a lot of people have here. Not yet sure where I stand on that as an interpretation of RAW, but I think it makes a fine house-rule at the very least.
What I'd say is that, per RAW, his ability is "Camouflage" which is a different thing than "invisibility." Camouflage is the ability to blend in perfectly with a background. So to give an example of an extremely difficult area which is still listed per the rules, let's say we have a city rogue who is good at blending in with cities. He can stand up against a brick wall and look like a brick wall. However, if he's standing alone in the middle of an empty market square, he can't disguise himself to blend in with the cobblestones because he's six feet tall and there's nothing for him to blend in relative to, unless you're talking about him being viewed from above, in which case okay.
Firstly, Rogues don’t get Camouflage and a Shadowdancer’s/Assassin’s HiPS works differently (albeit not much differently) than a Ranger’s.
I could go into a lengthy description of what it might look like visually. But the point is: Yes he could hide there with good enough camouflage and depending on where the horizon fell in relation to his height. But it doesn’t really matter how you chose to envision it. The point is per RAW a Ranger with the Urban environment as Favored Terrain who had Camouflage(EX) and HiPS(EX) could do exactly that.
Camouflage (Ex): A ranger of 12th level or higher can use the Stealth skill to hide in any of his favored terrains, even if the terrain doesn't grant cover or concealment.
Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): While in any of his favored terrains, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use the Stealth skill even while being observed.
It is pretty explicit actually that what you are saying he cannot do is exactly what Camouflage says he can do. So again, you can accept it, and try to visualize it in a way that makes sense to you; or you can house-rule it to say that Camouflage (EX) doesn’t do what it explicitly says it does. There is not grey area and no amount of story-boarding it out, or claiming it to be flavor, will change that. If you want to house-rule it that is your business but at least admit it is a house rule.
The reason Woof can see the ranger going across his line of vision, even with Hide in Plain Sight, is because something opaque is trying to pass for something clear.
Again, no amount of story-boarding is going to change that RAW says he could do exactly that. You can follow RAW and visualize as necessary. Or, you can story out a justification of your opinion, which would be a house-rule.
Someone who was truly invisible could crawl across the rose window of the cathedral while the sun was shining through and no one inside would notice the slightest difference. But someone using Hide in Plain Sight would be silhouetted like the batman because camouflage does not let your turn transparent nor does it allow you to emit light to blend in with a lit background.
Yeah, and that would be why they still get a Perception check, with all the modifiers for circumstance.
It's a very good ability, but it's still not as good as true invisibility.
Actually in most situations it is far more useful than invisibility. But under your house-rules I can see that it would certainly not be very useful.
So you're saying that Stealth is waiting for the moment that someone looks away or is distracted. Fine. But that's a different thing than crossing someone's field of vision at the moment they're alert and vigilant and still going unnoticed.
And that is why the enemy gets a Perception check to determine if they were looking at that moment or not. You should not simply mandate that the dogs eyes are on that gap 24/7 without blinking, yawning, sleeping, or otherwise being distracted. The Stealth vs. Perception is what determines that.
I’m not pulling my opinion out of thin air:
You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position.
That pretty much says that Stealth isn’t just being hard to see in a shadow, it is avoiding being seen as well.
The CA-RAW says that Jack can use Stealth past that gap. So he gets a Stealth check to pass it and the dog gets a Perception check to notice him. You can story it out any way you want and try to justify how Jack couldn’t possibly do it because the dog is ALWAYS watching, never blinks, yawns, or becomes otherwise distracted and Jack can’t use Stealth to become invisible. But that is neither based in anything resembling reality nor is it based in RAW. It is a house-rule in direct opposition of RAW.
Deathwatch, its replacement, will still work to pick any of them out (unless its an undead flounder, and then there are spells to detect undead too).
Agreed. In fact it would be possible for someone to accidently spot you even with Detect Magic if you (and your magical gear) happen to be where they spend X rounds concentrating.
And simply knowing the terrain will allow someone to spot something out of place. You may take it as an insane Spot bonus for locals, but if there's a new bush there that wasn't there the day before, the king's gardener is going to notice and investigate. It's like a mimic trying to hide in a house that has regular occupants. It's not "You spot a mimic!" but "Honey, when did we get the new couch?" or "Where did you find an ottoman to match the divan? It's upholstered in the same fabric and everything!"
I can somewhat see your point here but these would be rare and extreme cases. Most people walk by the same thing every day and their mind automatically assumes that what they are walking by is the same. Most people would never notice one new bush in the park, or it would take them several days to realize it was there. And that is what the Perception check is for.
Besides, Camouflage represents being able to blend in with your surroundings, it doesn’t mean you dress up like a bush and stand in the middle of the lawn. This isn’t Looney Toons.
One of the drawbacks of camouflage is the "flat featureless plain" scenario.
Again, I could go into several story intensive scenarios to show how you could visualize this, but a lot of it boils down to where you are in relation to the horizon. All that aside it really doesn’t matter if you call it story, flavor, or just plain pet-peeve, RAW says he can do it and if you are creating scenarios in which he can’t then you are house-ruling it. Now, it is absolutely your right to use house-rules to modify portions of the game that you don’t agree with, but that’s what it is and you can’t call it RAW when RAW clearly dictates that it is absolutely possible for your Ranger to hide in the desert sands if his Favored Terrain is desert. Interestingly enough one of the Ranger Favored Terrains is deserts, so the premise you are arguing against is clearly legal by RAW.
Of note, the ranger's "Hide in Plain Sight" is listed as an Extraordinary ability whereas the Assassin and Shadowdancer have theirs as Supernatural abilities. I take this to mean that the ranger's is actually mundane, and is just a really good ghillie suit, so if you stripped him buck naked, he'd just be a naked man, whereas the assassin and the shadowdancer could still hide naked in the shadows.
I absolutely see your point here. But once again, it is not supported by RAW. I might also add these are extreme examples which would be rare and are very different from sneaking past a 5 foot gap with a (likely) grassy yard and a corn field for a background. RAW is what RAW is; it doesn’t make exception for whether or not your Ranger is naked in the desert, it just says he can and anything beyond that (while it may make perfect sense to you) is a house-rule.
No GM with two brain cells is going to let the chicken roll Perception against the DC 0 Spot target on the rogue there. That's silly. However, the rules do a bad job of separating rules for seeing from rules for hearing from rules for sensing in other ways and it leads to confusion like "You can't Perceive someone when you're asleep" (as you're seeing all through this thread, and which is plainly false) or "I guess the rules mean for you to spot people while sleeping?"
So you’re stance is that people need to be spoon fed everything by the game designers? Even common sense things like whether you can visually perceive someone when you are sleeping?
Here's a poser for you. Are you meant to be able to spot people who aren't sneaking while you're asleep? Why or why not?
No, if you close your eyes (to sleep for instance) your enemies have total concealment, which means you can't see them. All five senses were rolled into one Perception skill with the assumption that no one would be stupid enough to think someone who is asleep could see. And for those who can't rely on common sense to tell them this there are the rules of total concealment. However, they might hear someone who isn’t sneaking. In which case, the DC would be at least 20 + 1 per 10’ of separation.
Smartly written look at the ability, satirical, and completely accurate to the RAW.
Only if you throw reality and several printed rules out the window when you sit down to the gaming table.
Even a high level thief without hide in plain sight shouldn't really be able to do much in front of anybody anyway, and roll all day long and something with blindsight or scent will know you're there.
Even if you don’t have HiPS you can use a Bluff to distract your enemy and hide so a high level thief would be perfectly capable of using Stealth even when in the middle of combat without HiPS as long as he can get to a suitable hiding place (IE: cover or concealment). And all those abilities that make Stealth useless against certain creatures (Blindsight, Blindsense, Tremmorsense, and Scent) can be beaten using Stealth by taking one feat.
Oh and I'm not sure I agree with Scent based perception checks. A lot of animals have some pretty incredible sniffers (Polar Bears can find a seal under 4 feet of ice a mile away through a snow storm...figure THAT out.)
Scent is a modifier to Perception, much in the same way that HiPS is a modifier to Stealth. Polar Bears are easily visualized with Perception based Scent. Their range is 30’ and 4 feet under the ice is well within that range. The Scent ability gives them a +8 to Perception so noticing a seal close by would be super easy for them since the seal likely has no method of masking it’s scent. As for the mile away through snow storms: A Scent based Perception checks would lead them to the seal’s trail. After that, it would be a Scent based Survival check to track the seal. I am not going to get into tracking modifiers here but the point is, it is a pretty realistic way of showing what the Polar Bear can do; all based on RAW. By the way, yes they are awesome predators. I'm not sure what the stats on a Polar Bear are in D&D or PF but he should probably get a racial bonus to Perception and Survival in addition to Scent if you want to accurately represent him.
Ultimately this comes down to the style of game you're playing. If you want a more realistic look at stealth I'd use the RAW, if you want a more comic-book/high fantasy style I'd house rule it out...or I'd remember, suddenly, that the most important rule (add, subtract, or change these rules as you see fit) is also RAW.
Completely agree with you here. RAW is a pretty realistic look at Stealth if correctly applied.
Scent-beating object, sorry.GM fiat (a stealth-beating object laying around), Survival, Disguise, Stealth... which is it supposed to be?Again, it isn’t a Stealth beating object. Not by far. I have demonstrated that twice now using two different methods.
Okay, that makes more sense now that I know what you were trying to say.
But the point I was getting at was that Scent isn't a Stealth killer, not even if you rule that Scent bypasses Stealth. All Scent does is tell the creature something is somewhere in a radius between 15' and 180' from me. Then they have to take a move action to note direction and use Survival to track it until they either see/hear it or until they get to within 5' of its actual location.
Blindsence and Blindsight are a far bigger concern but creatures that have it are far less common and both of these abilities have a much smaller, static range. Again though, there is a single feat which takes care of all three of these plus Tremmorsense (which I'm not sure still exists in PF).
In all honesty, I think Darkvision is the biggest pain in the butt when it comes to Stealth, but there are ways around that too.
Once Jack spots the chicken, he creeps on it. Once again, the chicken is at -9 (+1, -10 for sleeping) to it's perception check. So if Jack took 10 on his Stealth check +12 for his Stealth Skill, the chicken needs to roll a 31 or hope for a Nat 20.
Actually, I don't think a natural 20 would be enough. It isn't automatic success on skill checks, so even with a natural 20, the chicken only gets a total of 11, not nearly enough to perceive Jack in this case.
Once Jack spots the chicken, he creeps on it. Once again, the chicken is at -9 (+1, -10 for sleeping) to it's perception check. So if Jack took 10 on his Stealth check +12 for his Stealth Skill, the chicken needs to roll a 31 or hope for a Nat 20.Actually, I don't think a natural 20 would be enough. It isn't automatic success on skill checks, so even with a natural 20, the chicken only gets a total of 11, not nearly enough to perceive Jack in this case.
Don't argue with him. He's read and understands the rules.
Again, I could go into several story intensive scenarios to show how you could visualize this, but a lot of it boils down to where you are in relation to the horizon. All that aside it really doesn’t matter if you call it story, flavor, or just plain pet-peeve, RAW says he can do it and if you are creating scenarios in which he can’t then you are house-ruling it. Now, it is absolutely your right to use house-rules to modify portions of the game that you don’t agree with, but that’s what it is and you can’t call it RAW when RAW clearly dictates that it is absolutely possible for your Ranger to hide in the desert sands if his Favored Terrain is desert. Interestingly enough one of the Ranger Favored Terrains is deserts, so the premise you are arguing against is clearly legal by RAW.
Okay, I've gone and looked at the RAW, and yes, indeed, a ranger's hide in plain sight is an extraordinary ability, one of his favored terrains is indeed desert, and the explanation of extraordinary abilities says that they are not magical and still function in an antimagic zone. And they can violate the laws of physics.
So let's posit a great magic barren wasteland, the Vast Expanse of Eternal Suckitude, or just a salt flat with an antimagic field. It's 5 PM and everything in the middle of the wasteland, meaning living characters, are casting long shadows. Everyone is also leaving a clear trail of footprints in the dust except the druid who has turned on her Trackless Step ability (which is also extraordinary so also still working).
Now the ranger turns on his Hide in Plain Sight and blends in not only with the background but with the other characters who are standing around him, so well camouflaged he looks like parts of the people he's standing between. We don't question how this can happen, since this is better than magic or the mere supernatural--it's extraordinary!--but here are the questions.
1. Can you follow the ranger's footprints in the dust to guess where he is? No one else has tracking, but it's kind of obvious, and he doesn't have Trackless Step, so he is leaving them.
2. Does he cast a long shadow like everybody else? And can you use that to figure out where he is?
3. If it's noon instead, do you still see a small black shadow with footprints appearing in it as the hidden ranger crosses the wasteland?
And on a related note, even if Woof didn't notice the ranger sneaking across his walkway, could he notice the strange moving shadow?
he doesn't have Trackless Step, so he is leaving them.
Please re-read the Ranger class.
A ranger traveling through his favored terrain leaves no trail and cannot be tracked (though he may leave a trail if he so chooses).
As for your other two questions: there's a shadow, but it's not "ranger-shaped". It appears to be the shadow of a part of the landscape, just as the ranger appears to be something that's part of the landscape. If the landscape is so bleak and barren that there's really not much landscape to be part of, the ranger gets a circumstance penalty to his stealth check. No one's saying Camouflage and HiPS are automatic "you can't even roll Perception vs my Stealth" abilities.
he doesn't have Trackless Step, so he is leaving them.Please re-read the Ranger class.
A ranger traveling through his favored terrain leaves no trail and cannot be tracked (though he may leave a trail if he so chooses).As for your other two questions: there's a shadow, but it's not "ranger-shaped". It appears to be the shadow of a part of the landscape, just as the ranger appears to be something that's part of the landscape. If the landscape is so bleak and barren that there's really not much landscape to be part of, the ranger gets a circumstance penalty to his stealth check. No one's saying Camouflage and HiPS are automatic "you can't even roll Perception vs my Stealth" abilities.
So you're saying you can see the shadow but you can't notice the six foot tall pillar of salt that's sticking up out of the salt desert when there wasn't one before.
This doesn't even get into the trouble of the urban ranger trying to hide in plain sight in the middle of a roadway. Do the horses notice the six foot tall pile of cobblestones or do they plow right into it/him?
I can understand appearing to be part of the natural terrain, but if the natural terrain is flat--and a hell of a lot of it is--unless the ranger is flat on his back and flat as a flounder, I really can't think of anyone failing to notice the new terrain feature.
If a termite mound my height suddenly appeared in the middle of my lawn, I'd sure as hell notice.
I have a new question for all of you following this thread. Several people have mentioned things like this:
Yes, you can totally hide when there are no intervening objects between you and the victim. It's called "sneaking up behind people" and in a game with no facing it's handled with a hide check opposed by spot.
You're also hung up on how bright light screws up Stealth. It only screws it up if people are OBSERVING YOU. And in your little scenario Farmer John IS NOT observing Jack.
I understand the argument: The first sentence of the Stealth check is that you are opposed by the Perception of anyone who might notice you. (no mention of needing cover/concealment here) Then you go down and the only area that mentions needing cover/concealment is the Paragraph that is talking about what you need to hide from opponents who are aware of you or observing you.
I would like to hear people's thoughts on this?
All scent does is add a +4 to the dogs Survival check to track.
.
Out of curiosity where did you get this figure from? I can't find anything about Scent under the Survival skill description and I don't see where Scent gives a +4 to Survival (track) under the Scent description in the PRD. I do see where it gives a +8 bonus to Perception. In fact Tremmorsense gives a +8 bonus to Perception as well so now I need to go read up on Tremorsense to see if it is the Stealth killer everyone thinks it is too.
.
::EDIT:: Well, Tremorsense does seem to be a Stealth killer within its limited range:
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.
I'm not sure why something with this ability would need a +8 to Perception. Maybe that is to notice things outside its actual Tremorsense range.
So you're saying you can see the shadow but you can't notice the six foot tall pillar of salt that's sticking up out of the salt desert when there wasn't one before.
You can notice it, sure. It's a pillar of salt. It's not a ranger (unless you make your perception check). The shadow is that of a pillar of salt (unless you make your perception check).
The ranger likely has a hefty circumstance penalty in terrain as flat and barren as you're talking about. That's the way the rules work. You're trying to prevent the ranger from using a class ability which is very clear about being usable, just because it isn't magic. This is, as mentioned above, a variant of "fighter's can't have nice things, because they can't do magic". The levels Rangers get Camouflage and Hide In Plain Sight are, in the 4th edition scale, epic levels; in 3.P, they're the levels where all your characters are superheroes. So, yes, the superhero with the ability to blend in with certain terrains can, indeed, blend in with certain terrains.
|
|
All scent does is add a +4 to the dogs Survival check to track..
Out of curiosity where did you get this figure from? I can't find anything about Scent under the Survival skill description and I don't see where Scent gives a +4 to Survival (track) under the Scent description in the PRD. I do see where it gives a +8 bonus to Perception. In fact Tremmorsense gives a +8 bonus to Perception as well so now I need to go read up on Tremorsense to see if it is the Stealth killer everyone thinks it is too.
It is listed in the stat block for dogs in the Bestiary.
I'm not making any claims as to why... just to where Sanakht got the figure from.
On the whole Perception of things right in front of you (HiPS), has anyone here ever heard of the Gorilla in the crowd experiment? As I recall, a group of college students were asked to watch a series of videos and count something on screen (I don't remember exactly what they were supposed to be counting). After the series of videos were finished, the students were asked one question: How many of you saw the man in the gorilla suit? Most of the students completely missed him, because they weren't expecting to see a gorilla in the middle of a crowd. And this was a gorilla that was not trying to hide, simply walking down the street, or across the yard, whatever. Seems that, if your observers are not expecting to see something out of the ordinary in an ordinary situation, they tend not to see it at all.
1. Can you follow the ranger's footprints in the dust to guess where he is? No one else has tracking, but it's kind of obvious, and he doesn't have Trackless Step, so he is leaving them.
As Zurai has pointed out, Rangers in their Favored Terrain do indeed have trackless step.
2. Does he cast a long shadow like everybody else? And can you use that to figure out where he is?
I would say that he probably still has some form of shadow (though I agree with Zurai it may or may not be Ranger-Shaped). However, I would say that a creature could possibly notice the shadow and thereby find the Ranger. And as I stated above already, this would be a perfect example of what Perception is for.
In the circumstance you have created I would even give anyone trying to spot the Ranger a +2 for Favorable conditions. But it probably wouldn't matter much since the Ranger has a +2 to Stealth in Favored Terrain which goes up in the same way his Favored Enemy bonus does.
3. If it's noon instead, do you still see a small black shadow with footprints appearing in it as the hidden ranger crosses the wasteland?
You would see the Ranger's shadow with a Perception check. You would only see tracks if the Ranger were feeling generous and wanted a challenge.
And on a related note, even if Woof didn't notice the ranger sneaking across his walkway, could he notice the strange moving shadow?
I have bolded the word "notice" in your quote because I want to point something out to you:
Your senses allow you to notice fine details and alert you to danger.
Check: Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly.
So again, I would say that spotting someone’s shadow while they attempt to Stealth past the gap would be a fine representation of a successful Perception check.
So you're saying you can see the shadow but you can't notice the six foot tall pillar of salt that's sticking up out of the salt desert when there wasn't one before.
I'm feeling something along the lines of a Perception check here.
This doesn't even get into the trouble of the urban ranger trying to hide in plain sight in the middle of a roadway. Do the horses notice the six foot tall pile of cobblestones or do they plow right into it/him?
Sounds like a Perception check to me. Oh, and I will add that your Ranger is as dumb as Jack in the OP if he is going to stand there and get run over.
I can understand appearing to be part of the natural terrain, but if the natural terrain is flat--and a hell of a lot of it is--unless the ranger is flat on his back and flat as a flounder, I really can't think of anyone failing to notice the new terrain feature.
I can understand your trouble with certain things, for instance: I think Perception checks should get bonuses based on how close you are to a creature using Stealth, not just penalties for how far away you are. But that isn't RAW and so if I were to come up with some kind of rule for that I would have to admit that it is a house-rule. In the extreme, ridiculous, situations you have presented, you could add some kind of ad-hoc bonuses to Perception checks against the Ranger, but again, house-rule, unless you can find printed rules as to what Bonuses/Penalties there would be.
Just for the sake of debate though, we have people in our military whose job it is, and indeed their lives depend on, going unseen through a barren desert. Oddly enough, many of them are quite successful. Now, does that mean they could seemingly disappear right in front of you in the middle of a salt flat? Ok, probably not, but I'd bet they could in a jungle or a wheat field. The thing is, there is a certain point where you just have to accept that it is a GAME, and you can play by RAW or you can house-rule it and move on.
If a termite mound my height suddenly appeared in the middle of my lawn, I'd sure as hell notice.
Congratulations, you would have succeeded on your Perception check. But any ranger hiding as a termite mound in your yard is probably a jack-ass and deserves to be caught. Again, this isn't Loony Toons.
.
So, here is how it breaks down:
1) Camouflage and HiPS allow you to use Stealth in situations you otherwise couldn't.
2) Stealth allows you to hide from view and avoid being noticed.
3) Perception is how you notice someone using Stealth.
It is pretty simple. Anything beyond that is probably a house-rule.
On the whole Perception of things right in front of you (HiPS), has anyone here ever heard of the Gorilla in the crowd experiment? As I recall, a group of college students were asked to watch a series of videos and count something on screen (I don't remember exactly what they were supposed to be counting). After the series of videos were finished, the students were asked one question: How many of you saw the man in the gorilla suit? Most of the students completely missed him, because they weren't expecting to see a gorilla in the middle of a crowd. And this was a gorilla that was not trying to hide, simply walking down the street, or across the yard, whatever. Seems that, if your observers are not expecting to see something out of the ordinary in an ordinary situation, they tend not to see it at all.
I have seen the video. I didn't see the gorilla the first time. The mind sees what it wants to see.
|
I admire the tenacity of this community.
Reading these pages makes me feel like I passed a high constitution check or made a powerful Will Save.
Some often overlooked and undervalued considerations:
>Is the chicken itself the culmination of some quest?
>Is this scene an important exposition piece, or just a related set piece?
>Is this the introduction of the rogue character the first introduction to the party? Are they watching this unfold or counting on success to evaluate their trust/competence of the new party memeber.
>Where does the GM wish to place focus, and which areas are simply the "blurred" implication of background setting/scenery?
>If there is no significance to the story, or to the player, or to the GM, or to the game..... why are you ostensibly role-playing breakfast? (lunch in this case). (Note: 'role-playing breakfast' is my term for a game that has digressed so far away from anything important as to have the characters role-playing breakfast). Caveat to the note: nothing against this per se, as sometimes it is fun to talk of sausages, pastries etc. This perjorative term is used only to refer to those instances when everyone is dissatisfied AND it is obvious that the game satisfaction is due to a lack of any semblance of story so-much-so that players are resorting to roleplaying breakfast just to have something to do AND most everyone except for the most dissatisfied players feel the tension in the game room but are unwilling to say anything about it.)
In fact, if the scenario has no particular value, not even as a fun break from the adventure... just say, "okay, Nimbles the rogue returns about 15 minutes later with 2 chickens, sets up a fire, and you all enjoy roasted chicken for lunch. Where do you go after lunch?"
But what if this is just an honest rules question meant to highlight some shortcomings of a skill (probably the intent of the OP) ?
I might still leave this discussion in the category of the "Did Han Shoot First" or "Who would win: Goofy or Mighty Mouse?"
It may be worth pointing out that the discussion has generally been a healthy one, save for the few who actually got upset. And perhaps those on the extremes aren't looking for consensus here, but rather claiming absolute righteousness.
It is listed in the stat block for dogs in the Bestiary.
I'm not making any claims as to why... just to where Sanakht got the figure from.
In the Monster Manual on page 272. Dogs: Dogs have a +4 racial bonus on Survival checks when tracking by scent. Page 314 has the full description of what scent does. And contrary to what the OP stated, Scent simply doesn't work the way he stated it does.
Thanks guys, I don't have the books yet so I am working strictly off PRD/SRD.
.
I disagree with a minor point. I don't think Scent gives a +4 to Survival (track). I think the dog's Racial Bonuses give him a +4 to Survival when using Scent to track. There is nothing in Scent or Survival that says it normally gives anything to Survival. So, the racial bonus would be above and beyond what other creatures might have when using Scent.
For instance: The Dire Lion also has Scent, but does not have any bonuses to Survival (track), in fact it isn't even listed as one of his skills, because it isn't Scent that gives that bonus to the dog, it is the dog's racial bonuses when using Scent. But the Lion's Perception is +11, which is +3 for it being a class/racial skill and +8 for Scent.
In the Special: section of Perception it names Scent as giving a +8. But there is no such entry under Survival. So, I think it is just the Dog's racial bonuses to use Scent that gives him the +4 to track.
.
The dog still needs to make a perception check in order to use Scent . . .
I too have posted a rather long walk-through on how the Scent scenario would play out.
|
|
Here is the relevant portion of the stat block from the bestiary:
"Skills Acrobatics +1 (+9 jumping), Perception +8, Survival +1
(+5 scent tracking); Racial Modifiers +4 Acrobatics when
jumping, +4 Survival when tracking by scent"
So yes, I would agree with your disagreement. :)
The +4 is a racial bonus to survival (when tracking by scent) not to scent itself.
Cheers