Any sensible DM would consider the stealther in that situation to have total concealment from the sleeper- his eyes are closed lol.
But there's nothing in the RAW that says your eyes close when you sleep. Thus, the real flaw isn't the Stealth RAW, but rather than eyelid RAW. When the 2nd edition of PF comes out, I certainly hope they include more detailed eyelid rules so that can finally have some clarification and closure.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
Request thread title be changed to- "Stealth doesn't work when your trying to sneak in front of someone in broad daylight".
+1
As I read it it means that someone sleeping in the open (a grass field for example) a bright summer afternoon cannot be approached stealthily.
This is not actually the case. It is only made to look that way by someone who was TRYING very hard to make it look that way. He was incorrect.
But there's nothing in the RAW that says your eyes close when you sleep. Thus, the real flaw isn't the Stealth RAW, but rather than eyelid RAW. When the 2nd edition of PF comes out, I certainly hope they include more detailed eyelid rules so that can finally have some clarification and closure.
This is outstanding. Good laugh.
okay got it... So can we say that someone sleeping is considered "distracted" and "blind" ? (and "Helpless" by the way ?)
okay got it... So can we say that someone sleeping is considered "distracted" and "blind" ? (and "Helpless" by the way ?)
Yeah.
|
Request thread title be changed to- "Stealth doesn't work when your trying to sneak in front of someone in broad daylight".
Have you ever seen someone at the mall that you really didn't want to talk to, and managed to get by him without him noticing you?
Congratulation, you have used Stealth to hide from someone in broad daylight.
Request thread title be changed to- "Stealth doesn't work when your trying to sneak in front of someone in broad daylight".Have you ever seen someone at the mall that you really didn't want to talk to, and managed to get by him without him noticing you?
Congratulation, you have used Stealth to hide from someone in broad daylight.
Damn post monster. TOZ, you get consolidated version:
Crowd may = cover.
Shopping = distraction, allowing stealth
failed perception check = not observed, allowing stealth
congratulations, if 1 of 3 is true, you can stealth in broad daylight by the rules.
Many interpretations of the stealth rules as written provide solid rules and allow you to do pretty much anything you could do in real life. The problem is that the rules are vague in many places, allowing for multiple interpretations. The line about distractions is particularly ambiguous and up to the GM to arbitrate.
I think the point that MiB made was... made. The rules as written don't allow a lot of leeway, and if you play with any sort of rules-lawyer at your table, you are in for a heck of a night.
I think most of us have at some point in time come up behind someone and said "boo" in broad daylight and had them jump in surprise. According to the RAW, that should never happen. It just feels wrong. I think that should be part of the litmus test that all rules should have to pass - if you can think of an example within a couple of minutes that would defeat what shouldn't be a magical rule, then maybe some further comment is needed. I would definitely like a little designer comment on this heated topic. And I definitely think stealth is something that warrants a larger section in the rules since it is a rather common item in most games. It'n not like it is overrun... which from what I could see had more words devoted to it than stealth...
On another note:
Is there a thread that has a proposed rewrite of the stealth rules? I would certainly like to read something like that. Or maybe even just a thread that has multiple house-rules for stealth so we can at least pick an interpretation that we find more to our sensibilities.
So, to the Necromancer's point, there is the Consolidated Stealth Threads (for easy FAQ clicking). A number of those are rules debates over how different people interpret stealth rules. If you read them, you can see that I go with a very loose interpretation of distracted that can be prolonged over several rounds, and as long as the opponent is distracted continuously you can make stealth checks in the open.
Request thread title be changed to- "Stealth doesn't work when your trying to sneak in front of someone in broad daylight".Have you ever seen someone at the mall that you really didn't want to talk to, and managed to get by him without him noticing you?
Congratulation, you have used Stealth to hide from someone in broad daylight.
I have to say THIS more than any other abstractions of stealth and scenarios is where it BOTHERS ME TO NO END how Stealth Rules currently fail.
You just can't be "sneaky" in general (as above) in moments and places where *clearly* you can be sneaky IRL.
If there was just something to address that and a move AWAY from the absolute statements of Stealth that are currently present (bright daylight, I'm lookin' at YOU, sucka'!!!) then *I* for one would be REALLY happy with just that small change in a PF 2e product.
Stealth and sneaking is FAR more possible than the RAW account for, and on that front I'm totally backing MiB here - he's spot-on! The existing rules ARE ridiculous and seemingly arbitrary on the denial of stealth options that we all KNOW will work perfectly well IRL ... because as pointedly non-CIA trained/non-Navy Seal trained specialists *we* have managed to accomplish the "stealth" actions we're talking about.
I find it REAL hard to believe that, for a trained "expert" in stealth (ie: someone with lots of skill ranks compared to *my at best* +2 ... *maybe* skill) to auto-fail in situations where I have certainly managed to accomplish the task.
It just doesn't jive with my sense of things. Hell ... 2e, frankly, had a better approach to this as it DID allow for the sneaky guy to ... well, *sneak* if he/she made the check. Now? Too much nonsense getting in the way of the sneak/don't sneak and outright BANNING a sneak in the first place. Sure, the mechanics of it may have left something to be desired, BUT the UTILITY of stealth was there - fully intact and there was no sort of modern correlative to "cover" or what have you banning it outright if not present.
None of which contradicts my point that he was wrong about "Stealth doesn't work when your trying to sneak in front of someone in broad daylight". Actually, you PROVE my point even more.
Never said I was disagreeing with you.
Seems to me if Jack really wants the chicken he stealth as close as possible to the chicken coup using the corn field for concealment. Then he bolt out of the corn field and grabs a chick gaining a surprise round on the farmer and dog if they fail to notice him in the corn field. Then he runs back with chicken, snapping it's neck to keep it quiet. With the concealment of the corn field he makes stealth check to get away.
It's broad daylight with a farm and dog. He's not going to be able to get away with chicken with out being seen but should get the chicken before they farmer can do anything to catch him. Of course with only +12 stealth he'd be better off just running instead of moving 5 feet a turn as the dog has +8 perception which could aided by 8 or higher roll by the farmer for +10 perception. Chance are the dog is going to find you before you can move far enough away at that slow speed.
|
|
None of which contradicts my point that he was wrong about "Stealth doesn't work when your trying to sneak in front of someone in broad daylight". Actually, you PROVE my point even more.Never said I was disagreeing with you.
Well, thank you! I'm sure I would have picked that up from the devoured post.
If you read them, you can see that I go with a very loose interpretation of distracted that can be prolonged over several rounds, and as long as the opponent is distracted continuously you can make stealth checks in the open.
Now, short of official re-writes and the like, for me THAT is the best way to adjudicate the situation as the GM.
Leave it broad and open and NOT be afraid to use the GM Fiat and let things take place, otherwise, by strict RAW, then the whole 360 degree awareness default of the game ruins stealth at every turn.
If there is no "back" space or approach possible, how can you come from behind?
If you can see perfectly unimpeded from peripheral vision (you know - eyes mounted like a horse - sides of the head - don't YOUR eyes frame your face the same way? *rolls eyes*), then how can anything come from an unexpected direction on you?
When 3e did away w/official facing, *I* think a good chunk of the problems w/stealth crept right in and made themselves at home.
Just saying ...
|
First - I am totally buying that tee shirt.
Second - Here are some salient points on this topic:
.
- The problem is NOT that players and DM's are having trouble coming up with reasonable solutions to the problems presented by the Stealth RAW.
- The problem IS that a game mechanic which amounts to a major class feature for a minimum of one and probably two core classes is ill-defined (and this part is key) in the context of an otherwise exhaustive and comprehensive 570-page treatment of the rules. There's no problem at all with "lol wing it" as a solution, if the rest of the rulebook also amounts to "lol wing it". But the rest of the rulebook is, with rare exception, very detailed, specific, and comprehensive. Sure, arguements crop up here and there about various sections, but is there any other topic as nebulous and enigmatic as Stealth? I'd dare say there isn't.
- Sorry for using the tired reiteration meme, but Stealth amounts to a major class feature for the Rogue, at minimum, and the Ranger (although in different ways) as well. No other classes do it as well, it's a rather niche skill, and as such it falls squarely into the domain of those two classes. For players of those classes to not really know from one table to the next (let alone from one moment to the next at the same table) precisely what this key skill enables them to actually do is... well, it's very off-putting, to say the least. At my weekly table, nobody has played a Rogue since just after the first week the game came out because of a protracted arguement that we had about how the mechanic is actually supposed to work. It ate into our gaming session, wasn't fun for the rogue, wasn't fun for the DM, and wasn't fun for the other players. We're just steering clear of the class entirely (and, I might add, unconciously - it's nothing we've talked about) just so that we don't snipe at each other and get pissed off.
The community can (and has, and, I suspect, will) work around the problem. However, it will continue to come up periodically on the boards, and I think it will be seen as the largest/only major failing of the PFRPG when viewed through the lens of history 10 or 15 years from now.
tl;dr - There is a problem, it's not entirely in people's heads. Compromises can be made about how the skill is supposed to work, but time spent clarifying corner cases at the table is not time spent gaming, which acts to everyone's detriment.
Note that farmers tend to be rather active during the day. If he's patient Jack can wait until the farmer is out tending his fields a good distance away. If the farmer is just a peasant with barely a half acre to call to his name... than he doesn't have a legion of dogs at his call, or may not even have one. If so, why is Jack stealing from someone who's probably worse off than he is?
Maybe because Jack is "evil dumb", and so he fail because he deserve to...
If he was Chaotic Good and have tried to free the chicken from their slavery I'm sure he'll have succeed... ;)
Dexter Morgan would have far fewer victims if you couldn't sneak up behind somebody.
I vote for the thread title to be changed to:
Stealing a chicken in broad daylight from a farmer who is holding a crossbow, looking at you, and saying "Don't steal my chicken" is generally a poor idea.
+1
Also, since the game doesn't use facing I propose a new condition.
Oblivious: an oblivious character takes a -10 to perception checks. They are considered to be flat-footed and everyone has cover in relation to them. If an oblivious character takes damage or is participating in combat he/she automatically loses this condition.
Maybe a less hilarious name is required, but it helps out people sneaking about.
Heh, you made my day AMIB. I lol'd.
Request thread title be changed to- "Stealth doesn't work when your trying to sneak in front of someone in broad daylight".Have you ever seen someone at the mall that you really didn't want to talk to, and managed to get by him without him noticing you?
Congratulation, you have used Stealth to hide from someone in broad daylight.
Not when we were the only two people at the mall. I usually use other people for cover (which they can provided) and hide. Alternatively, I just walk by him hoping, that while he sees me (seeing a person at the mall is no cause for suspicion), his perception check isn't high enough to recognize me.
So...you've never been distracted by a book/game/ball in a cup and not noticed someone walk up to you until they get your attention?
Well, of course not. Remember, there is no looking down and you can always see 360 degrees.
:D
Well, don't even need to do that. There is no facing for anyone.
So...you've never been distracted by a book/game/ball in a cup and not noticed someone walk up to you until they get your attention?Well, of course not. Remember, there is no looking down and you can always see 360 degrees.
:D
Unless there is a beautiful woman involved. Then tunnel vision ensues. Yes, even in the game that has no facing rules. Trust me, that's just how it works.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4
Very easily extrapolated to show it to be viable in a combat situation where you're paying attention to the area.
One interpretation I've considered is that so long as long as you start out unobserved, you don't need to maintain cover/concealment to continue to use Stealth against an observer (maybe a -10 penalty?).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4
Very easily extrapolated to show it to be viable in a combat situation where you're paying attention to the area.
One interpretation I've considered is that so long as long as you start out unobserved, you don't need to maintain cover/concealment to continue to use Stealth against an observer (maybe a -10 penalty?).
Excellent example of how you can walk right through someone's field of vision without them noticing you, without even using Stealth, as long as they are distracted.
And RaW says all that distracted does is give a +5 to the DC to notice someone and allow Stealth long enough to go into cover/concealment in that round.
What about the classic scene of a guard going into a room in search of someone, fails to find him, and returns while his quarry props himself in the upper corner (or stuck to the ceiling)? The guard is anything but distracted, and the rules state he'll see the hider instantly.
And RaW says all that distracted does is give a +5 to the DC to notice someone and allow Stealth long enough to go into cover/concealment in that round.
What about the classic scene of a guard going into a room in search of someone, fails to find him, and returns while his quarry props himself in the upper corner (or stuck to the ceiling)? The guard is anything but distracted, and the rules state he'll see the hider instantly.
Actually the crowd in the bar, or the crowd in your video can provide a needed element, other than distraction, for Stealth. They provide cover.
Crowds: Urban streets are often full of people going about their daily lives. In most cases, it isn't necessary to put every 1st-level commoner on the map when a fight breaks out on the city's main thoroughfare. Instead, just indicate which squares on the map contain crowds. If crowds see something obviously dangerous, they'll move away at 30 feet per round at initiative count 0. It takes 2 squares of movement to enter a square with crowds. The crowds provide cover for anyone who does so, enabling a Stealth check and providing a bonus to Armor Class and on Reflex saves.
Directing Crowds: It takes a DC 15 Diplomacy check or DC 20 Intimidate check to convince a crowd to move in a particular direction, and the crowd must be able to hear or see the character making the attempt. It takes a full-round action to make the Diplomacy check, but only a free action to make the Intimidate check.
If two or more characters are trying to direct a crowd in different directions, they make opposed Diplomacy or Intimidate checks to determine to whom the crowd listens. The crowd ignores everyone if none of the characters' check results beat the DCs given above.
Actually the crowd in the bar, or the crowd in your video can provide a needed element, other than distraction, for Stealth. They provide cover.
Wasn't it already proven earlier in this thread that soft cover does not work for the purposes of allowing Stealth checks?
Actually the crowd in the bar, or the crowd in your video can provide a needed element, other than distraction, for Stealth. They provide cover.Wasn't it already proven earlier in this thread that soft cover does not work for the purposes of allowing Stealth checks?
Yes, but Soft Cover in the Combat section is different than Crowds in the Environment section.
Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.
Crowds: Urban streets are often full of people going about their daily lives. In most cases, it isn't necessary to put every 1st-level commoner on the map when a fight breaks out on the city's main thoroughfare. Instead, just indicate which squares on the map contain crowds. If crowds see something obviously dangerous, they'll move away at 30 feet per round at initiative count 0. It takes 2 squares of movement to enter a square with crowds. The crowds provide cover for anyone who does so, enabling a Stealth check and providing a bonus to Armor Class and on Reflex saves.
Directing Crowds: It takes a DC 15 Diplomacy check or DC 20 Intimidate check to convince a crowd to move in a particular direction, and the crowd must be able to hear or see the character making the attempt. It takes a full-round action to make the Diplomacy check, but only a free action to make the Intimidate check.
If two or more characters are trying to direct a crowd in different directions, they make opposed Diplomacy or Intimidate checks to determine to whom the crowd listens. The crowd ignores everyone if none of the characters' check results beat the DCs given above.
As you can see for yourself, there is quite a difference between the cover provided by crowds and the soft cover that happens when someone gets between you and your target.
|
|
This is a Perception Check.
A distracted observer definitely grants a stealth roll opportunity, sez I.
And RaW says all that distracted does is give a +5 to the DC to notice someone and allow Stealth long enough to go into cover/concealment in that round.
What about the classic scene of a guard going into a room in search of someone, fails to find him, and returns while his quarry props himself in the upper corner (or stuck to the ceiling)? The guard is anything but distracted, and the rules state he'll see the hider instantly.
+1 on this point because apparently ... EVERYTHING is a damn beholder (full 360 vision and omni-directional sense of knowing EXACTLY where everyone is at all times).
*rolls eyes*
Seriously ... everyone that keeps popping in like "no problem here - nothing to see" must have their heads buried under house-rules so deep they can't see the flaws of the RAW.
The whole "no facing/instant awareness" is certainly one major factor that is killing stealth rules. I mean, out and out MURDER for use of the skill.
On the front of "well you can't have stealth beat everyone/everything or it's too powerful"
1) Conventions - stealth/sneak/surprise is a *real* advantage to have ... IF you can get it. RAW = 1/2 action/round of actions IF you can find some way to not be auto-detected in the first place, let alone sniping from cover, etc w/it's ridiculous penalties.
2) Stealth is *already* an opposed check (like most skills, or at least a DC) ... Perception, since being evolved from 3.5 is a skill open to ALL characters. Anyone on "guard" duty ought to have a few skill points invested to be worth a damn. Why throw up layer after layer after layer on Skill A of conditions to meet before you can EVEN use it? It's resisted by a skill ALL can use passively and instinctively (ie: untrained) anyway. If someone's NOT put many sp's there, then they're NOT a good candidate to beat a stealth check anyway.
3) Class/cross class has gone away. This means that when characters put SP's into Stealth, they actually get a 1:1 return on those skills ... even if it's NOT a class skill. Set another way, class skill NOW only means a +3 difference period. Again - where's the harm in a 3 point difference?
4) Making stealth a flat matter of contest of skills here would NOT make stealth an "I win" maneuver ... at all. As soon as you attack, you're *already* out of it. Beyond this, it's STILL a contested check - they can *always* lose to any reasonable resistance (ie: anyone with some sp's invested in guarding, etc) by way of a failed stealth contest against ANY perception check within range. NO one is suggesting that Stealth be made into an "I win" move - only that it be made more viable with less nonsense in the way to make it usable.
Side Note: Hide in Plain Sight should, by rights, be an Advanced Talent for rogues - just sayin' ...
|
|
And RaW says all that distracted does is give a +5 to the DC to notice someone and allow Stealth long enough to go into cover/concealment in that round.
Wasn;t the crux of the argument about Jack be Nimble was that as soon as he broke cover running from one hedge to another he would be seen. In this case if you go along with the idea that the farmer is distracted Jack can use stealth even though he is breaking cover as long as he reaches cover again in that round.
What about the classic scene of a guard going into a room in search of someone, fails to find him, and returns while his quarry props himself in the upper corner (or stuck to the ceiling)? The guard is anything but distracted, and the rules state he'll see the hider instantly.
Yes, but those people are either unusually adept at stealth due to training, powers etc (e.g. River from Serenity etc) and so may have the Hide in Plain Sight ability, or have concealment (the room is in Dim light) or has some form of cover (a ceiling beam).
Yes the PF rules cnanot model every use of stealth in literature and movies, but it can cover most IMHO.
Seriously ... everyone that keeps popping in like "no problem here - nothing to see" must have their heads buried under house-rules so deep they can't see the flaws of the RAW.
If you consider it a flaw that the rules cannot model every possible scenario, then I guess they are flawed. However I would argue they would only be flawed if they couldn't model most scenarios, and I think they can. My head is not buried in house rules, just using the RAW along with some common sense.
The whole "no facing/instant awareness" is certainly one major factor that is killing stealth rules. I mean, out and out MURDER for use of the skill.
And again I ask that isn't the "no facing" bit only for combats? In combat it is assumed people are expecting threats from all angles and thus are constantly moving, turning their head, looking for any immediate threats. Out of combat that isn't assumed - if the GM describes a thug standing with his back to the PCs, a hood up obscuring his peripheral vision etc, would you really say that the PC couldn't sneak up on him without houseruling?
Would you feel the PF rules would be improved if they included the same sort of text 4e did
Outside combat, the DM can allow you to make a Stealth check against a distracted enemy, even if you don’t have superior cover or total concealment and aren’t outside the enemy’s line of sight. The distracted enemy might be focused on something in a different direction, allowing you to sneak up.
And again I ask that isn't the "no facing" bit only for combats? In combat it is assumed people are expecting threats from all angles and thus are constantly moving, turning their head, looking for any immediate threats. Out of combat that isn't assumed - if the GM describes a thug standing with his back to the PCs, a hood up obscuring his peripheral vision etc, would you really say that the PC couldn't sneak up on him without houseruling?
Would you feel the PF rules would be improved if they included the same sort of text 4e did
4e PHB p188 wrote:Outside combat, the DM can allow you to make a Stealth check against a distracted enemy, even if you don’t have superior cover or total concealment and aren’t outside the enemy’s line of sight. The distracted enemy might be focused on something in a different direction, allowing you to sneak up.
Actually, having read quite a few stealth discussions focusing exactly on that same point (ie: facing), I'd have to say that it's fully unclear as to how facing matters outside of combat presently, and that you'll find just as many that claim it IS valid as that will claim it is not - both pointing somewhere in the book for support as well.
THAT is exactly why I'm backing MiB here - it's just unclear and can certainly benefit from a rule-revision.
Honestly, a line of text as small as what 4e did *would* absolutely be a step in the right direction.
I'll only go so far as to say "step" since the "in combat I know all" nonsense is garbage. You *still* have "back" spaces, and most of your attention is focused upon your immediate enemy trying to kill you right in the space next to you ... NOT his buddy trying to sneak around and get out of your sight.
I would posit this as a truth: if, in combat, you're focus mid-melee is THAT significant that you divert your attention away from the melee combatant to keep track of someone skirting the peripherary of your field of vision there are 1 of 2 things happening. (1) Your melee "threat" isn't really much of a threat since you can *clearly* virtually ignore him/her/it mid-combat and just casually give focus to someone pointedly trying to get around/over/behind/out of sight of you, or (2) While you're so single-mindedly focused upon "keeping tabs on everyone" remotely close by, a real melee threat WILL take advantage of this and kill you.
Essentially, combat is distracting enough, especially close, melee combat, that it can most certainly count as a distraction IMO. Yet there's plenty of stuff happening in-game rules and such to go out of it's way to turn PC's into freakin' beholders JUST to prevent this sort of thing. It's nonsense to me - purely some "gamist" sort of thing is going on and it breaks the illusion for me when characters are not allowed to do certain basic things (all it takes is a quick look away, and people are out of sight entirely - yet combat assumes CONSTANTLY looking away, and yet you can NEVER lose sight of anyone short of magic - WTF!?!?!). It also breaks the illusion for me when everyone is granted BY DEFAULT the ability to do stuff they have NO BUSINESS doing (ie: omni-directional vision ... like a beholder) in order to justify WHY the other guys can't be sneaky or sneaking around.
EDIT: Sorry - missed the first part of your question to me re-rules failure.
Yes, I *absolutely* call it a failing if the rules can NOT allow for things that in my experience are reasonable, common, and possible. It's the 1st sign of things not working "right" if you will, and I go IMMEDIATELY to "Rule 0" in those cases.
So, I guess, the "Rule 0" clause would be the *only* way to look at what's currently written and be able to adjust it as needed.
For my preference, though, I think it's a combination of the stealth RAW, excluding interactions with other sensory input beyond vision or hearing, and natural oddities that simply are a part of removing facing rules.
To me, it's like a perfect storm for this ONE skill of all the contributing factors above that "break" it, and make it a sore spot for me to deal with.
Forget 4e's text. If it just was *as simple as* the following, I'd be happy:
"Stealth can be attempted any time within reason as determined by the GM, and is resisted by an opposing Perception check."
That is WORLDS more general and FAR less specific - clearly. However, you know what? I can now, with rules written like that, EASILY attempt stealth *almost* at will. So the rule above, while far more general, can absolutely model "every scenario" just fine.
The only limitation - the GM's call in the above. So ... if a GM thinks it's fine to try, it's fine. No more "cover/no cover" or "concealment" horse-poo-doo! It's a skill, you can try it, and it's resisted ... END of story. End of mechanics. End of problems.
*shrugs and claps hands together as if washing them of the issue*
RAW can be unclear and not very well organized, but has got nice stuff for people using Stealth.
1st. You don't need to move over difficult terrain. You only need something that gives concealment or cover BETWEEN you (the rogue) and the target. That's RAW.
2nd. You can use Stealth against a creature distracted or not observing you, that's RAW. Distraction is difficult in combat situations but is up to DM adjudication, specially out of combat
Anyone pretending that you can use Stealth when moving in front of a near character looking in that direction deserves death penalty imo.3rd. Distance modifiers are insane. If any Perception modifiers to see someone without any kind of cover are too difficult if the guy is far away. Since 20 isn't automatic success for skill checks you will never see someone standing in a road at some distance (i.e. 100 m), it doesn't matter how many time you spend looking in that direction. That's RAW.
But if there's line of sight, then stealth is impossible. Not to be flippant or rude, but that's the RAW.
I back Tanis on this, having (again) witnessed a LONG discussion on the same thing.
Line of sight trumps stealth.
It turned into a problem of line of sight + omni-directional awareness ==> you simply CAN NOT sneak up on anyone w/out ANY sort of "cover" or what have you as it's written ... EVEN IF you were coming up from directly behind (since combat facing was irrelevant, and you were *about* to start a combat but w/no cover you can't even "surprise" the other party in that situation).
Trust me - that RAW junk has been done to death ... it's *always* in favor of ruining the Stealth check for, essentially, the 3 things I posted above: RAW wording, lack of addressing non-visual/non-audible stealth or detection, and lack of facing in favor of 360, "always on" awareness - especially in combat.
:shrugs:
The problems are there.
That people are ok ignoring the "corner cases" is fine ... but ignoring the problem and behaving like a rule-bot or something isn't a very good design decision, or gaming experience, IMO.
If something exists that is an example of a failing in the system, you work to fix the failing of that system ... not insist that there is no problem [unless you're trying to convince stock holders of the health of your company ... but that's another matter entirely ;-) j/k]
+1 on this point...And RaW says all that distracted does is give a +5 to the DC to notice someone and allow Stealth long enough to go into cover/concealment in that round.
What about the classic scene of a guard going into a room in search of someone, fails to find him, and returns while his quarry props himself in the upper corner (or stuck to the ceiling)? The guard is anything but distracted, and the rules state he'll see the hider instantly.
Why so? Just because one little piece of Stealth doesn't work in this particular scenario doesn't mean the whole Stealth skill is broken. Ok, so that guy in the bar isn't using a distraction, that doesn't fit here. There are other solutions. Like perhaps that corner is very shadowy, they usually are = dim light, he can now hide. Perhaps that roof is also very shadowy; they also usually are in those scenes, same deal. Or perhaps he is using the "crowd" in the bar to hide him, which I posted rules for above that allow Stealth and would certainly apply in a tavern scene.
+1 on this point...And RaW says all that distracted does is give a +5 to the DC to notice someone and allow Stealth long enough to go into cover/concealment in that round.
What about the classic scene of a guard going into a room in search of someone, fails to find him, and returns while his quarry props himself in the upper corner (or stuck to the ceiling)? The guard is anything but distracted, and the rules state he'll see the hider instantly.
Why so? Just because one little piece of Stealth doesn't work in this particular scenario doesn't mean the whole Stealth skill is broken. Ok, so that guy in the bar isn't using a distraction, that doesn't fit here. There are other solutions. Like perhaps that corner is very shadowy, they usually are = dim light, he can now hide. Perhaps that roof is also very shadowy; they also usually are in those scenes, same deal. Or perhaps he is using the "crowd" in the bar to hide him, which I posted rules for above that allow Stealth and would certainly apply in a tavern scene.
Ah! You liberally apply "rule 0" then, eh?
;-)
Good on you, man!
It doesn't mean the problem is non-existant.
At the very least, for pointedly NOT indicating how and where the *exact* limiting conditions are supposed to apply and appear vs. leaving them as absolutes (by RAW) which are then left somewhat vague and up to interpretation by the masses, yet which remain as ABSOLUTE MEASURES to allow/disallow the check.
Nah - it's a problem. You can *always* Rule 0 it, and as the GM it's absolutely YOUR call to make.
The rules AS WRITTEN, however, leave much to be desired.
Ah! You liberally apply "rule 0" then, eh?+1 on this point...And RaW says all that distracted does is give a +5 to the DC to notice someone and allow Stealth long enough to go into cover/concealment in that round.
What about the classic scene of a guard going into a room in search of someone, fails to find him, and returns while his quarry props himself in the upper corner (or stuck to the ceiling)? The guard is anything but distracted, and the rules state he'll see the hider instantly.
Why so? Just because one little piece of Stealth doesn't work in this particular scenario doesn't mean the whole Stealth skill is broken. Ok, so that guy in the bar isn't using a distraction, that doesn't fit here. There are other solutions. Like perhaps that corner is very shadowy, they usually are = dim light, he can now hide. Perhaps that roof is also very shadowy; they also usually are in those scenes, same deal. Or perhaps he is using the "crowd" in the bar to hide him, which I posted rules for above that allow Stealth and would certainly apply in a tavern scene.
What exactly about my statement implies use of "rule 0" not that I mind using it. But hiding in the dimly lit corner of a bar, or the shadowy crevasses in rafters, or the crowded room of a bar is all perfectly accomplishable by RAW applications. I am not sure why you would say any of that would fall under rule 0.
|
|
Actually, having read quite a few stealth discussions focusing exactly on that same point (ie: facing), I'd have to say that it's fully unclear as to how facing matters outside of combat presently, and that you'll find just as many that claim it IS valid as that will claim it is not - both pointing somewhere in the book for support as well.
I would be interested to see what parts of the book they are quoting, as I am struggling to find anything relevant searching on Facing.
I'll only go so far as to say "step" since the "in combat I know all" nonsense is garbage. You *still* have "back" spaces, and most of your attention is focused upon your immediate enemy trying to kill you right in the space next to you ... NOT his buddy trying to sneak around and get out of your sight.
Well if that buddy doesn't have any cover or concealment and its not dim light then yes the RAW would say you see him. I can deal with that given that the not being able to focus all around you is also represented in flanking - so you may see someone moving around behind you automatically but you still can't defend easily.
Maybe Paizo will indeed add some comment as you suggest if enough people indicate they are having problems with the Stealth rules (4e errated Stealth quite early on).
@IkeDoe: Yes - combat encounters, and most others more generally. Especially, though, if fails in combat.
Again, your "house rule" makes more sense, and is more enjoyable/intuitive than the dang RAW - good on you. (It does nothing to address the poorly underlying mechanics - but you're rule works best anyway - certainly for *your* group.)
I'm totally down w/GM's using their powers liberally - they should.
I'm not down w/the existing RAW for stealth as they - frankly - are lacking, and seem to operate from 2 different paradigms AT THE SAME TIME! (see my response to Shadowlord for more on that example-wise). For instance, if the game is so high-strung on wording things out *exactly so* why the sudden shift to hand-waving a LOT of the stealth? Or, just omission of other perception methods beyond sight and sound? So you have the paradigm of "spell it out clearly" lumped together with "hand wave it" but that hand-wave it part is paired with things "spelled out" like cover and/or concealment (yet not much by way of hard rules for any of that).
Camp-wise, I'm in the camp of "fix it for clarity ... if that requires outright rule revision - so be it. I'm good, just FIX it already!!!"
Which is to say, a simple change, or an extensive one would be welcomed by me.
@Shadowlord: Ah! easy - and nothing major my man! (It was NOT an accusation of any sort to say you're using/applying rule 0 - at ALL!)
It's just your use of "other solutions" and just creating a ruling that high corners provide "cover" or what have you so that a Stealth check can be made.
I'm pretty sure you will NOT find any sort of references saying that is an OK way to apply cover ... but it's TOTALLY within your power and rights as GM to let it happen, despite it being odd and strange as "up high in the corner" is hardly what I'd call "cover" or "concealment" at all ... BUT it's an artifact of the GAME RULES and so I can see why you, as a GM operating in these rules would look to make that ruling. On the other hand, while not "cover" or "concealment" as I'd envision them, I do think that "up in the corner" is a pretty good hiding place, depending on ceiling height, etc.
So, for *me* I look at the rules, I call "BS" and just say let's have an opposed Stealth check regardless - the PC has a decent spot eked out (high ceiling corner and he probably needs to make a good DC climb check to get there and stay put).
For *you* you look at the rules, see the situation, and MAKE A CALL (Rule 0) that you're going to tell the PC to use the rafter as "cover" (which will fail as SOON as the NPC's get far enough into the room that the cover of the rafter is defeated by their positioning w/the whole "auto 360" nonsense), or "concealment" (probably better since it won't just "go away" suddenly on the 360 junk) due to the "dark corners" of a (presumably) high enough ceiling.
The "Rule 0" part is where you, as GM need to step in and make a judgment call decision in order to make the action possible. I'd rather just have a more general set of rules that let's me do this all the time w/out having to deal with people saying "It's not fair!" or "You cheated!!! It says right here on page XXX that ..."
There is NOTHING AT ALL wrong w/what you did, nor do I mean to imply such a thing. I'm just saying that, since it relies on GM adjudication (ie: you making the corner "dim light" or whatever) to even be possible, it's a use of Rule 0.
It's a good use, mind you, but what I see is you making calls based around purely gamist garbage because THE SYSTEM makes you do it.
To me, that's a flaw in the system. (most notably cover and concealment in that case.)
@DigitalMage: yeah ... I'm not one for uber-quotes or anything, but I've seen a LOT that go nuts quoting stuff. So, they must be quoting something, somewhere, but I'm not interested enough to try and fact-check it.
Flanking is CRAP for representing the out-right HUMAN LIMITATIONS we have in splitting attention, focus, and allowing for someone to "sneak" up on us, even IN mid-combat.
I've been in a LOT of small-scale skirmish type combats (boffer-combats in college) with LOTS of people to keep track of, and trust me - if it's more than just 1 on 1 ... it's REALLY hard. It also only gets harder and harder the more that come up and join the fight against you, so a flat +2 ONLY on a cross section space of map is nuts. It should be a good deal MORE, or at the very least add a cumulative +2 for every additional person acting against you ... why? precisely BECAUSE you have to split your attention. Can some one sneak up on you in such a circumstance? Absolutely. I've been hit many times from behind while watching the front (mind you - it's like someone came at me out of Hiding, too - I had NO CLUE they were there ... yet it was an open battlefield on top of it).
The "no facing" is really a father of these stealth issues as I see it, though (getting back on track). It's fully possible to lose sight of a LOT of people mid-combat. It's a purely gamist-rule to disallow such a thing, and for *me* it breaks my suspension of disbelief big time (mostly on account of my real wold experiences in big combats).