Anyway, the scenario was designed with the intent of exploiting Stealth's weaknesses. It is harder to sneak in torch light than it is in dim light. So if we set up a scenario where there is no dim light because there are so many torches Stealth will fail. Well yeah, it will certainly be much harder, but if you set out to design an encounter specifically to defeat a particular thing, chances are you will be able to do it relatively easy. Hmm, let's make an encounter that renders all magic users worthless, ok, let’s put the castle in a big dead magic field. See, it's as easy as that, and 50% of the classes in the game are worthless in that encounter.On that I don't agree... In a high magic environment if lights and two guards is enough to guard an entire fortress why try to have more ?
Everburning torch are cheap... It's easy to have some everywhere around your castle... And so you can make economy on men... If four young recruit, one at each corner, are sufficient to guard efficiently the castle from intruder why make things more complicated ?
People will always do the simpler and cheaper things... So you will have castle designed like that, walls higher than any other buildings with corner tower roof on the same level of the wall and a lot of everburning torch... Hell it provide line of sight cover on the main dungeon... so no spell directly on the noble house... Why building a high dungeon ?!?!
When you build something you have to think about magic, not black powder... ;)
Yes but in a high magic environment it is likely the Rogue would have access to some form of invisibility which makes your whole construction format a moot point. In addition most people of POWER do not do things in the simplest and cheapest way possible. They many times do the exact opposite, building fancy, intricate, and expensive things simply because they have the resources to do so and wish to display their power and wealth.
You know, I'm going to start bumping old argument threads for fun. They are so easy to reanimate!
Please don't!
I must say, I tend not to bring Facing rules into the game. Nowhere in the game is Facing mentioned in any way. If you want to allow your player to sneak up on someone, well they must start in cover/concealment, if they have successfully used Stealth to hide; they may approach the target using Stealth and hopefully get to him without being seen. There are rules for it in the Complete Adventurer. You can also use the...
Well, I wasn’t even talking about incorporating facing completely. Not even use the modifiers to AC/to hit. Just to make distinction in someone is not looking your way.
I don’t know how many times I, me personally, have been able to sneak up on someone because they were not looking in my direction, and did so without causing a distriction someplace else, and my stealth is probably equivalent to a -1.
I am just saying you should have that opportunity to do so in game, as well, at least outside of initiative.
You can't sneak around indefinitely without cover/concealment. However if you come from a position of cover/concealment it is possible to sneak up on someone without breaking Stealth. There were rules set for it in Complete Adventurer but most people just roll it into basic Stealth.
Ok, I see your point, because if you are able to make Stealth checks without the basic rules of cover or concealment, then you are basically able to hide even better than HiPS for Shadowdancer/assassin.
I just don’t like that the very stealthy character loses out if no one is observing him, it is just impossible for him to sneak up on someone in the open, lit area (without causing a distraction). And it is something that can be done, as I said even I can do it, the most unstealthy person in the world.
It just is another nail to show how the Stealth rules are borked.
My only argument against you is that you do not need to cause the distraction, the person just needs to be distracted. If someone is actively looking for you, it is very difficult to sneak up behind them in broad daylight. If they are distracted by a conversation, looking for something, playing a game, or any of a wide variety of activities and they are not actively looking at their surroundings, you can sneak up on them with relative ease. This is represented in the rules by allowing you to make stealth checks and giving the person a +5 to their perception DC.
I don’t know how many times I, me personally, have been able to sneak up on someone because they were not looking in my direction, and did so without causing a distriction someplace else, and my stealth is probably equivalent to a -1.
Sure but what other circumstances were involved. I know most times I take opportunity to sneak up on someone they are either distracted or I am coming out from some type of cover/concealment granting location.
For instance, you could easily sneak up on someone at the mall when they are looking at something interesting or talking to some friends. You can easily close distance by melding into a moving crowd and getting closer to them even if there is no cover. At night you could be standing right next to someone, so close you can reach out and smack them and they will never see you. I have snuck up on people in the house by coming out from behind cover and making it to them before they notices me. All of these things are also possible by RAW using Stealth. Distraction isn't just something that you have to cause, distractions are everywhere, most people go through the majority of their day distracted in one way or another, refer to my post above on that subject.
If it is this easy to sneak up on people, or avoid people, who know you are there and are / or are looking for you. Think of how easy it would be to sneak up on someone who was distracted at a guard post and didn’t know you were coming. All you have to do is read up on the Stealth rules and figure out what scenarios would best describe that situation.
Yes, I see both your points. The more I think about it, the situations I am thinking of they are distracted in some sense, even if minorly. Like watching tv, looking out the window briefly (not intent on something), etc.
And a guard, who is being paid to be attentive, would be much harder to sneak up on. And if he isn’t being attentive, then the DM could assign a bonus. Probably a bonus already indicated on charts under Stealth.
Yes...delicious.
Feed me with your consternation! Your confusion!
RE-hash the past.
FFFeeeeeddd MMMMeeeeee
Oh and good points everyone, you are all doing very well!
|
This is a pretty ridiculous example. If one were to use an ACTUAL castle design (with cover, buildings inside of the curtain wall, catwalks which overhang the wall, etc), it is pretty easy to sneak into a castle.Well, in fact, if it's easier to guard a castle designed like this what would be ridiculous is if they design their castle in this world like the actual castle in our world...
Since it is easier to defend a castle designed like this with the sneak rules beign what they are... :)
That's what I mean, you purposely gave an extreme example to prove your point (that it is impossible to stealth into the area and kill the guards). Of course it will be impossible in a very small area which is fully lit and has no cover.
Your example is like saying it is impossible to make lemonade with unripe grapefruits and a lemonade press made of wet sea sponges. Your thought experiment is designed for failure and it proves nothing about the rules.
And a guard, who is being paid to be attentive, would be much harder to sneak up on.
Not necessarily:
Exactly my point: Let's put this very small citadel in a realistic environment. How about in a town, let's say it is a military barracks inside a small city, which is reasonable considering its small size. Now, guarding something every single night and never seeing much in the way of excitement leads to complacently and boredom, which leads to distraction. Add on top of that the fact that the city is not utterly devoid of life and you have all kinds of distractions as local merchants bustle by the walls, and the drunkards come out at night hollering, and also guard patrols on the street may stop to have a short word with the guards stuck on the tower, guards do such things to break up the monotony of a long boring night. Some guards will strike up long conversations with total strangers on the street just to pass a little bit of time. Within the ranks of regular military, distraction is the rule not the exception. Even if he is the exceptional guard who is vigilant all night, what is it he is looking at? He is looking "out" toward the streets and base of the wall. He is certainly not fixated on his fellow guard at the opposite guard tower all night. Even the exceptional guard is fixated elsewhere, allowing you to exploit the areas outside his focus, all of which I equate to being "distracted in relation to you."
Most people walk through the majority of their day distracted. You are distracted by what you are typing on the computer, or watching on TV. You are distracted by the pretty woman who just walked by. You are distracted by the guy on the bicycle who almost ran over you in the street. You might even be distracted by a bird or other natural device, how about wind blowing through a set of chimes. People are constantly distracted by conversations they are having while walking along. How many car accidents happen because someone was momentarily distracted? See, driving is a serious situation, much like being a guard, you would thing a person would be highly alert at a time like that, but repetition breads complacency. All you have to do is look down at the radio for a split second while someone pulls out in front of you and it’s all over. Same with the guard.
If the guards are more likely to see you it is reflected in their increased Perception skill, rather than necessarily their level of distraction. Elite guards would likely be far more attentive you are right, but the average regular military/militia night guard? Not that disciplined, and even if they are disciplined they are focusing elsewhere.
And if he isn’t being attentive, then the DM could assign a bonus. Probably a bonus already indicated on charts under Stealth.
Exactly.
Yes...delicious.
Feed me with your consternation! Your confusion!
RE-hash the past.
FFFeeeeeddd MMMMeeeeee
Oh and good points everyone, you are all doing very well!
*Rebukes* Back to your hole, minion! This is my playground! MYYYYYY PLAAAAAYGROOOOOUNDDD!!!!
Oh great, who let out the Necromancers?
It doesn't. But that still doesn't reflect an inherent problem with the way the Stealth skill is now. Most of the problem is that people don't know the rules. Or know them, and don't like the amount of effort it takes to maintain (which is I think your point).
Ok - fine. However, people don't know the rules because of the poor layout, terrible overlap, and lack of clear examples in application. Case in point: you've referenced "Complete Adventurer" a few times as a place that fixes the rules. Well ... that's not present anywhere else, SO ... what good is a "fix" if it's not freely available to everyone? You have to have that book to make stealth work like you use. BUT ... if you don't have the book, what then? [sounds like a rule-failing]
It's *all* a problem, my man. All of it - it's just bleeding into several places and UNLESS you dedicate yourself to tracking down books and supplements, and becoming an encyclopedia-like master of pages, books, references numbers for books, ad nauseum - you "do it wrong" by the RAW apparently.
That is REALLY a problem and it's definitely the point I was making (or at least half of it - the reference you made above).
I do see the point you are making, I understand what you are saying, and I see where you are coming from. But I still think it boils down to a difference in preferred play style. You like the ultimate basis for success or failure to be entirely in the hands of the skilled player vs. the NPC guard. The way RAW stands there is a lot depending on the scenario that the DM has put forth and it requires a lot of knowledge on both the player’s part and the DMs part. In addition it requires a great deal of communication between the DM and the player. In the end it isn't entirely in the hands of the skilled player. If the DM doesn't do a good job in creating the scenario it dooms the player to fail, unless they are using house-rules to make up for it. Again, I don't feel that is a failing of the rules that is a difference of taste with play style.
Hmm ... requires a LOT of knowledge on PC and DM ... requires purely gamist designations and understanding of said designations WITHOUT clear references or examples in the RAW ... in the end it's in the GM's court anyway, and the player fails w/DM's that don't "know it all" instantly unless they intercede with house rules ...
And yet the assertion is that there is, [Ben Kenobi]"Nothing to see here, move along. These aren't the droids you're looking for." [/Ben Kenobi]
This is NOT making for a strong case that the "rules are fine" you realize, right?
;-P
Oh - hey, re: the bold part above - not quite.
What I prefer is for the skill to be applied equally, about like all other skills. Ie: if other skills don't have to jump through hoops to be applied, why is stealth hit with both the GM adjudication approach, AND the polarized yes/no of things that will insta-fail any stealth check?
What I *prefer* is internal consistency to the rule-set, if anything. I could care less otherwise if ALL skills were equally polarizing and required to meet absolute conditions and likewise were included to have insta-fail options. Since they don't, I look at Stealth and wonder ... "wtf, happened here?"
Then I scratch my head ...
Ok - fine. However, people don't know the rules because of the poor layout, terrible overlap, and lack of clear examples in application.
It might be a difficult layout for tracking down rules looking at the book from a Stealth point of view. But the layout of the Core Rulebook itself is actually quite good. The book has things divided into logical sections. Stealth, and things that affect Stealth just happen to be located throughout several sections of the rules due to how light, environment, combat, and special abilities affect it. However, if you read the entire rule book, as you should do with any game you have purchased and plan to successfully play, you would be able to find those things relatively quickly and it would cease to be such a daunting problem.
Case in point: you've referenced "Complete Adventurer" a few times as a place that fixes the rules. Well ... that's not present anywhere else, SO ... what good is a "fix" if it's not freely available to everyone? You have to have that book to make stealth work like you use. BUT ... if you don't have the book, what then? [sounds like a rule-failing]
I believe the rules are already posted in this thread, by me, when it was active the first time. However, as I also pointed out, I referenced these rules only to suggest the possibility of such actions with Stealth, and the intent of the rules to allow such actions. Most people simply roll these actions into the basic rules for Stealth.
Example: You are hidden in the concealment of a dark alley. Your enemy walks in the adjacent street which is lit by torches. He is 15' away from the edge of the dim light. You wish to leave concealment travel 15' to your opponent and stab him in the back before he realizes you are there.
Now, the Complete Adventurer has specific rules for how far you can go outside cover/concealment and maintain Stealth, it also gives penalties for how far you must go to reach your destination or target. A lot of people need that kind of "explicit" published proof that such a thing can be done in the rules before they will accept that the rules allow for such actions. So I pointed that out here. Do I believe it is necessary to incorporate that type of action, NO.
In the basic rules for Stealth there are two penalties listed for movement. A -5 penalty if you move more than half your speed and a -10 penalty for quickly moving up to your full speed for the Bluff/Stealth maneuver to gain Stealth from someone observing you. Take that principle and apply it to coming out from Concealment and traveling in the open to your target unseen. You start your movement with a Stealth roll as as you leave concealment, you travel 15' to your target (half the movement of a medium character so no penalty on Stealth), the target rolls Perception to see you, you attack him. That all takes place in your turn and if he fails to meet your Stealth roll with his Perception roll you get Sneak Attack damage. It is the same concept put forth in the Complete Adventurer sub-rule set but without the hassle of collecting that book. Better still, this is all well within the basic rules of Stealth found in the Core Rulebook. Now, if you had needed to move more than 15' it would be a -5 to your Stealth, and if you had to move very quickly at your full movement rate of 30' it would have been -10 to Stealth. Can you move further than your base movement rate using Stealth? No, it is impossible to run or charge using Stealth.
It's *all* a problem, my man. All of it - it's just bleeding into several places and UNLESS you dedicate yourself to tracking down books and supplements, and becoming an encyclopedia-like master of pages, books, references numbers for books, ad nauseum - you "do it wrong" by the RAW apparently.
I am drawing everything I have posted from the PRD Core Rules. I have made references to other things simply to prove general principles. But in fact, you do not need all those extra sub-rule sets that WotC and 3.5 published, you only need the core rules, they allow for all the stuff that I have said with no issue. The only thing you need to read is the PRD or Core Rulebook. When you plan to play a game you need to read the rulebook. It is not a failing of the rules if they don't present themselves in the order you would prefer. If you are tracking down Stealth specific rules it can be a bit problematic because Stealth permeates so many sections of the book. But if you read the book as a whole, it is divided in a very well thought out fashion.
Hmm ... requires a LOT of knowledge on PC and DM ... requires purely gamist designations and understanding of said designations WITHOUT clear references or examples in the RAW ... in the end it's in the GM's court anyway, and the player fails w/DM's that don't "know it all" instantly unless they intercede with house rules ...
Not unlike a player or DM who intends to use a Wizard character. You must know all of the spells you intend to use, know how they work, and know what they require. You must have the proper components (although most groups simply ignore this bit of rules, not unlike what most groups do with portions of Stealth when they simply don't know or don't want to look it up). You must be prepared to roll concentration or caster level checks if need be. Also not unlike a Fighter who uses many Feats which must be calculated for in every combat, not unlike someone using combat maneuvers, you must know how the maneuver works and when you can employ it. You must know the calculations involved.
Stealth is really no more or less complicated than several other facets of the game. The issue is that most people don't study Stealth with the same dedication given to spell lists or combat rules. Everyone needs to know how to proceed through combat. Everyone needs to have a basic understanding of magic for spells and magic items. There are only two classes that utilize Stealth in any major way and a hand full of PrCs. Of those only one class and two PrCs use it to any great extent in most groups/games. So most of the time, Stealth is scanned over and passed by. The problem arises when you need to use it, the DM has an NPC or monster that uses Stealth, or the party Rogue or Ranger is utilizing it. Then Stealth rules become important but no one actually knows what they are because before that no one cared. This is not a problem with the rules.
What I prefer is for the skill to be applied equally, about like all other skills. Ie: if other skills don't have to jump through hoops to be applied, why is stealth hit with both the GM adjudication approach, AND the polarized yes/no of things that will insta-fail any stealth check?
You mean like the relationship between Scent, Perception, and Survival, which leads you all over the Rule Book? What about Spellcraft, which requires you to constantly refer to the spell section of the book to determine DC scores? (Well we covered that though, it's not a big deal because everyone has a fair understanding of the spells section) Or what about Use Magic Device which could require you to know a host of things before you are able to apply a proper DC to activating an item? Yes, Stealth is among the more complicated of the Skills, probably the most complicated but some of that perceived complication is due to lack of familiarity, while other complicated aspects of the game are perceived as simple due to extreme familiarity.
1) If there wasn't a problem in layout/format (admittedly, it's pretty much narrowed to Stealth only - the rest is, as you say, quite nicely done), 99% of THESE threads wouldn't exist. So, I refute your insistence upon "the rules are fine - just read" as nonsense. Note: I did not imply or mean to imply there was a failing with the layout of ALL rules in the books - just the Stealth ones (which you've even admitted to being all over).
2) If the rules were clearly stated in the core of anything - again, see point 1. (evidence: THIS thread at the least)
3) "It is not a failing of the rules if they don't present themselves in the order you would prefer."
Really? Are you *sure* that's the best statement to make in defense of something obviously confusing? To *me* that seems like PRECISELY the reason to hire things like, you know, EDITORS and the like to clean up the format amongst other things. It's also a good reason for Errata, patches, indexes, etc, etc.
That's a TERRIBLE reason for justification. It's like you're insisting the Jedi mind trick will fix the rules by force of your will alone, when clearly there's a black and white issue on the page. All well and good ... IF WE LIVE IN GEORGE LUCAS' HEAD mind you.
4) Spells - are spells. Individual special powers with detailed effects, uses, requirements, etc. You read the spell description, and EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW is right there in the spell description. (ie: it's fully contained, and explained in the same place).
If Stealth were similarly formatted with clarity, the OP never would have been made, this thread would not exist, and MANY similar thread since 3.0 popped out would likewise, NOT exist.
Instead, we have several counter points to "nothing to see here, move along" almost anywhere you look.
5) Scent and Perception are PART OF THE STEALTH problem anyway - of *course* they should be connected to this issue (lack of clarity). Survival though? Lost me there.
Skill-wise, the format goes:
*Skill
*description of what it's supposed to be
*description of how it works (mechanics lingo)
*description of interactions with other gamist-elements (more mechanics outside of THAT skill alone)
For stealth, it *sort* of does that, and then throws many more finer points all over the book and really does nothing to clarify it IN THE SKILL section itself.
Quick example = Jump. You have the skill, you have a chart of skill vs. distance DC's, and it's pretty much self-contained. (ie: all you need to know is there, listed under the skill itself - including the Feats that help/modify it from the core book).
99% of the skills all do this. Stealth does not ...
/end criticism.
Revision thought: you're point is that the rules *do* work presently.
This is true.
My point is that the rules *as they currently exist* are neither user-friendly, nor well organized or concise.
Major Criticism (not to YOU, mind you, but to Paizo I guess): can you make the Stealth rules more user friendly, improve the organization of stealth, and make the it all more concise in presentation?
At the heart of all of these thread is basically this sentiment expressed from pretty much everyone on our side of the fence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) If there wasn't a problem in layout/format (admittedly, it's pretty much narrowed to Stealth only - the rest is, as you say, quite nicely done), 99% of THESE threads wouldn't exist. So, I refute your insistence upon "the rules are fine - just read" as nonsense. Note: I did not imply or mean to imply there was a failing with the layout of ALL rules in the books - just the Stealth ones (which you've even admitted to being all over).
So, we can agree that the Core Rulebook for the most part is formatted in a very logical and easy to follow manner. The issue then is that things concerning Stealth are spread out through the book. Fair enough, I can certainly admit that tracking down everything in the book that interacts with Stealth is quite a task. There are, however, reasons for this:
a) Logical division of the rules.
b) Things in several different sections of the rules interact with Stealth.
c) Space constraints.
What I mean by this is: The designers did in fact set up the book to divide the rules of the game into easy to follow and very logical sections and chapters (a). However, there are things concerning Stealth in several different areas of the game, light, environment, combat, even spells and special abilities (b). Now the intersection of points (a) and (b) leave us with two clear possibilities for courses of action. The first would be to pull everything relating to Stealth into the skills section dedicated to Stealth. That decision would have solved point (b) but thrown chaos into the rest of the book effectively destroying (a) through the whole book. The second option is to copy/paste everything that is located through the book which interacts with Stealth into the Stealth section. This would both solve (b) and maintain the order of (a). However it would produce a third problem (c) the designers were running out of space in their publication. They have already done an amazing job of squeezing everything they needed for a single book game release into the Core Rulebook; if they start doubling up on printed rules it will quickly overrun their book. So what's the solution? It's a bit of a compromise. Put the core mechanics for Stealth into the skills section. Then allow the other rules to be scattered through the book where logic dictates they would be: Environmental things that effect Stealth are in the Environment section, Combat related things which effect Stealth are in the Combat rules, etc.
In order to pull everything related to Stealth into one section they would have had to displace all of these rules and put them in one place:
1) Stealth skill description
2) Bluff skill description
3) Perception skill description
4) Scent
5) Survival skill description
6) Darkvision
7) Low-light vision
8) A host of spells and magic items that effect Stealth
9) HiPS
10) Supernatural abilities description
11) Extraordinary abilities description
12) Cover description from Combat section
13) Concealment description from Combat section
14) Vision and Light rules section
15) Environmental things that produce cover/concealment from the Environment section
16) Tremorsense
17) Blindsight
18) Blindsense
So the compromise is, the core of the rules/knowledge you need to understand Stealth is already in one logical location, the skills section. The Stealth skill description tells you most of what you need to use Stealth effectively. The rest is just tracking down things that provide cover/concealment and knowing how special abilities and magic interacts with it.
I suppose a third option would be to reduce all the Stealth/Perception rules to a single die roll contest as you described. IMO this would over simplify things and put a mechanic in place that would allow WOW-like Stealth where I can become invisible no matter where I am or what’s around me. I can use Stealth in the middle of the road with no distractions around and no cover/concealment to be seen. Why? Because I rolled the die for Stealth and you didn’t beat my score with your Perception roll. That may not be what you intend, but it seems to me that is where it would end up. Besides, you also said you would keep things that give cover or concealment as bonuses to Stealth, which in effect wouldn’t simplify anything as you would still be riffling through the different sections of the book looking for anything and everything that grants cover or concealment.
3) "It is not a failing of the rules if they don't present themselves in the order you would prefer."
Really? Are you *sure* that's the best statement to make in defense of something obviously confusing?...
It's a true statement, addressed in detail above. The rules don't work, or fail completely =/= the rules work but are somewhat scattered and difficult to track down.
4) Spells - are spells. Individual special powers with detailed effects, uses, requirements, etc. You read the spell description, and EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW is right there in the spell description. (ie: it's fully contained, and explained in the same place).
Yes but some spells give you special abilities, which force you to track down the descriptions and rules regarding those. Some turn you into different creatures or summon those creatures, which force you to go to a completely different book to gain understanding of that creature and its abilities. The one thing that Spells do far better than Stealth is give you references to everything you need to look up. A good reference section put into the Stealth skill description would help immensely.
If Stealth were similarly formatted with clarity, the OP never would have been made, this thread would not exist, and MANY similar thread since 3.0 popped out would likewise, NOT exist.
The OP created this thread as a direct result of my pointing out rules interacting with Stealth found in the Vision and Light section in a separate thread, which he had been previously unaware of. So we come back to not knowing the rules because you haven't read the rulebook. As for the many other threads dealing with Stealth questions, most of them also stem from a lack of knowing the rules. I have seen very few posts where someone actually KNEW all the rules involved with what they were asking but simply didn't know how to interpret them. I have also made many mistakes with the rules concerning Stealth as well as other aspects of the game. Generally it is due to not knowing all the rules involved with that aspect of the game, or not referring back to the rules and instead opening my mouth with only what I remember of the rules, then later finding out I didn't remember quite accurately.
Instead, we have several counter points to "nothing to see here, move along" almost anywhere you look.
My counter points have been showing how the Stealth rules, as they stand now, do in fact allow for the things that people in these threads say are impossible using Stealth as written.
I would also point out that my argument has not changed: "The rules work, they allow for anything you could reasonably do with Stealth, you just have to read the rules. I admit they are scattered could be written more clearly in some places; and that can be problematic." Your argument, on the other hand, has changed from "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..." to the point where in your most recent post here you said "Revision thought: you're point is that the rules *do* work presently. This is true. My point is that the rules *as they currently exist* are neither user-friendly, nor well organized or concise."
Hmmm:
"The rules work, they allow for anything you could reasonably do with Stealth, you just have to read the rules. I admit they are scattered could be written more clearly in some places; and that can be problematic."
"You're point is that the rules *do* work presently. This is true. My point is that the rules *as they currently exist* are neither user-friendly, nor well organized or concise."
It seems we are now in complete agreement.
5) Scent and Perception are PART OF THE STEALTH problem anyway - of *course* they should be connected to this issue (lack of clarity). Survival though? Lost me there.
Scent/Perception/Survival is sometimes part of the Stealth issue, when Stealth is involved. But Scent/Perception/Survival is used for more than just opposing Stealth. There is a complicated triangle between these three things before you ever involve the complications of Stealth.
This is something a lot of people seem not to know. And something I didn't realize myself until I studied the rules concerning Scent while dealing with things in this thread. Scent does two things:
1) Gives a +8 to Perception checks dealing with scents.
2) Allows the creature to track via scent.
Creatures can detect anything scent based within their range via a Perception check with a +8 modifier. But all that does is tell them something is there, it doesn't make it visible to them nor does it tell them which way in their range the scent is coming from. In order to track a specific scent, first the animal has to be interested enough to try to track it, second the animal has to use the Survival skill to track it using Scent in place of footprints. In addition the animal tracking the scent has to come within 5' of an unseen target before it can pinpoint the location of the scent.
My point being, most people don't realize that, they think the minute something smells you it knows where you are because it has the Scent ability. The rules for Scent actually lead you all over the place in the book; you have to know the rules for Perception, the rules for Scent, and the rules for Survival in order to know how to correctly apply the ability. Only then do you realize, hey first the creature has to actually detect my scent with a Perception check +8, then it has to care that I am poking around, then it has to actually succeed on tracking my via Survival to within 5' of my actual position before it finds me (Unless it sees or hears me before that: Perception without the +8 bonus for scents vs. my Stealth roll). And the fact is, this is just a very basic run down for the purposes of answering your question, there are actually a few more things involved.
@ The Speaker in Dreams
I think you misunderstand me. Allow me to explain: Virgil wrote a scenario where he suggested distraction could not be used becuase that function is not sufficient to use Stealth in the scenario. He said an individual might be proped up in a corner or stuck to the roof.
Well firstly, propping ones self up in that corner or holding on to something and sticking flat to the ceiling would require a substantial Climb check, after that Stealth would only be possible if some other element allowed it. Those elements, however, could easily be present in those situations by RAW:
I don't know how many people watched the series, Heroes. There were several examples there, one with Mohinder on the ceiling and unnoticed until blood fell from the ceiling onto Peter (well-lit if I recall), or when Monica/St. Joan was in that gang's building and unnoticed until she dropped stuff, and it was certainly never dark enough for people to actually suffer 20% miss chances. We also have a well-lit scenario here, practically every depiction of Spider-man ever, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid, Kill Bill, etc.
Hide in Plain Sight is a piss-poor ability to explaining any of this (disregarding the incredibly high level it appears for anyone), because that makes you able to Stealth while observed (skipping the need to make the Bluff check for a distraction), not obliviate the need for cover/concealment; besides, few of the characters I've given as an example have been able to make Stealth checks while observed, and have in fact had be out-of-sight beforehand. I'd not call all of those people Shadowdancers, who are the ONLY people in D&D who don't need cover or concealment to maintain Stealth.
When you bring up training/abilities, that more than anything implies they actually put ranks in Stealth, rather than giving abilities that basically tell you the only time you can use the skill is if you have special abilities that let you or you're already unable to be seen. I'm accusing you of saying Stealth doesn't work unless you have abilities that make exceptions, yes; an Ogre behind a 5' wall is able to make Stealth checks, while an elf standing atop (or floating above) said wall is completely unable to hide his presence. The two expose just as much surface area (if not less for the Large creature). Saying that 'obviously' the Ogre ninja is crouching/kneeling means that he's giving himself total cover and doesn't even need to make a Stealth check to avoid being seen; also, kneeling/crouching a real mechanic that gives modifiers to his AC that the Ogre can choose to not do and still make a Stealth check.
People keep invoking distraction as this universal panacea for Stealth, including situations few DMs will ever approve of. I mean, what DM is going to start saying the guard on patrol is distracted because he wouldn't be looking behind him (which is an underhanded way to bring back facing)?
Distracted, again, only works if the hider moves into cover/concealment. If he moves closer to make an attack or even stands still, distraction doesn't prevent instant awareness.
The calling for dim lighting to allow for it to work does bring a serious problem for rogues in D&D. You can't make sneak attacks against people with concealment, which means a very large majority of the hiding rogues can't make that 'assassin' kill because the observer is potentially just as shadowed as the rogue.
@Shadowlord - I hate copy/pasting and formatting quotes. So ... I'll just hit your replies, ok? ;-)
1) I *totally* agree that the rule-book, generally, is just fine in layout.
I do NOT agree with any calls made for stealth. Calling "the rest" a matter of tracking down rules scattered everywhere is piss-poor as far a "user-friendly" goes, and explains why there are so many threads looking for clarification and understanding of the rules. If you, yourself, said you didn't understand about the scent issues, and YOU are the one saying it's all just peachy ... there's problems. [Note: I've been fully aware of scent not being an auto-detect feature as well, mind you - as well as fully aware of pretty much all of the rules. I just haven't been quoting them as - again - I'm not a fan of such things - too much work for too little payoff, IMO.]
Back to this point, though - you listed out 18 references (and I'd whittle those down myself as, I *believe* they already have pretty clear references in the stealth skill - my impression anyway - not looking ATM). 18 references to "track down" and learn ... that's a LOT of flip-flopping my man. That is *clearly* unreasonable, and a HUGE red-flag for revision if I ever saw one - I don't care WHAT needs doing, but something needs doing to fix that. It's a damn mess - asserting otherwise is the epitome of foolishness.
Indicating that those who can't be bothered to track down the same 18 references is, also pretty damn insulting. {for the record, I'm fully aware of how these things all interact btw - even before pointed out. It still didn't change my opinion of major/serious rule revision needed, though}.
2) I think a clear definition of "rules failure" is in order then, because when a LARGE population of players takes issue with it and/or house rules it and/or has a few miffs in-game/at the table about it ... there is certainly something amiss. A good rule, *to me* fades into the background of the system and is easily addressed in order to help facilitate the game play. It doesn't promote countless arguments and/or threads requesting clarification if it's working fine - as is - right out of the box (so to speak - PF clearly isn't a "boxed set" at all). That's what *I* (and I think most that call "shenanigans" here as well) am using as my frame of reference.
Sure, ONCE YOU TRACK IT ALL DOWN, it can make sense - but it's at the sacrifice of many key definition elements I posit above. So, no - it's a "failure" for me EVEN AS the rules (currently) are a "success" in that they *do* work.
3) Spells, of their nature can/will demand more than something *everyone* can do. Granting Darkvision, or changing form of body are also REAL easy to cover. You go to the CLEAR description (where the rules are quite clear on each), and you now have the instant information needed.
Stealth, by comparison, still needs the 18 references you're listing above ... surely, you *do* see the discrepancy there in design elements? The one side (magic) is comprehensive and fully functional. The other side (stealth) is a damn nightmare.
I will quote you this, though, "A good reference section put into the Stealth skill description would help immensely." This is probably one of the ONLY statements I have no beef with you about. It would be a HELL of a right step in the proper direction ... it's still 18 references by your count at least, though. So, back to my definition of rule failure - and ... even that is still short. However, the statement is still something that PF could have done in the conversion w/out touching any "legacy" issues at all and it would have certainly helped to clarify quite a bit, actually. I'd have called it the right 1st step in the proper direction. As it stands ... the best I've got is: Well ... it was a faithful conversion.
:shrugs:
4) Your counter points of showing how the RAW "works" involved a LOT of GM discretion that is not clearly interacting with many of the statements by RAW - a point made already in a previous analysis by me of your own posited "this is how it's done" scenario. You even agreed where the overlap was and on the point I was making. Again, this is a problem that stems from the competing design paradigms that exist ONLY in the Stealth rules (for whatever reason).
Just the last post counters that *any* of those calls would be consistent from GM to GM, and yet there you are claiming it's "the way it works" so now we've got a system that works RAW differently from GM to GM out of hand ... how the heck does THAT help consistency or make a case for "rules work fine" argumentation?
I *could* challenge those GM calls as well - I didn't, though, because I can see that it's clearly a flawed paradigm approach from the get-go. The *best* "real" solution is only going to come when one, or the other paradigm overtakes the rule entirely. As long as both stand side by side, they will NEVER fix this skill.
That's also why I'm preferring a more generalized skill resolution over the on/off or polarized one. Every GM *is* different, and things WILL run differently. They just will - unavoidable fact there. So ... the *best* rule to address that eventuality will be the one with an open design paradigm that will let the GM make his/her calls and be adaptable enough to handle that (ie: push out ENTIRELY the on/off nature of you can NEVER use the skill of condition X isn't present period, basically). This is why I suggest that the ideas remain as MODIFIERS to the skill check, and not be absolute measures that determine IF the skill can be used in the first place.
Now - a quick example of this just for clarification:
Character A is stealthy, character B is there in the road. I'm using your "guy in the road" scenario here. Removing the REQUIREMENT of cover or distraction and instead using them as modifiers (that I'm TOTALLY pulling out of thin air, mind you), we have A approaching B in a pretty clear stretch of road and B has nothing really there to help out - lets make it high-noon on top of it all, yes? So ... A wants to sneak by/past/up to/whatever B. I could CARE LESS about his purpose, he's just decided to scare B or something - it doesn't matter even a little. Point is the condition and that A wants to try it. So, given NO real cover or anything, you can just call it a -4 modifier for trying it. A is crazy-stealth dude and has say a 12 total on his check, he's down to a +8. The other guy is pretty normal, maybe a 2nd level commoner or something - let's go farmer like the OP's scenario. He had what a +2 on his perception check, right? So ... quick contest of +8 vs. +2 isn't all that crazy for EITHER ONE to win, right? So ... if A wins, he's just walking slowly (condition for stealth anyway) and doesn't really manage to draw enough attention to him to draw notice (no sounds worthy of note given the result). So, by way of keeping a more generalized check here we can say that A managed to stealth by with say keeping in his "back face" or walking slow, or what have you. Hell, if we WANT we can even say the farmer just "spaced out" and wasn't really even LOOKING at him. This more abstract approach allows for a stealth even w/360 degree awareness (foolish as THAT is), and grants both GM and player a way to rationalize the results. This will hold true regardless of whether he wins or fails the check. Adjust the #'s like so, call the "no cover" thing a -8, so it's +4 vs. +2, and now the farmer wins (he could have won even at the +8 mind you), so very simply - he sees and notices the guy's approach to his location. The 360 thing doesn't EVEN ENTER the picture, really, since you've just allowed it as part of the stealth check in the first place by NOT denying A the *chance* to stealth in the first place. It's really just a matter of flavoring up the modifiers for cover/concealment properly and it's just fine. Hell - why not make Stealth checks something similar to the CMB check-system? Instead of a contested roll, make it some sort of DC incremental system with the variable added being the target's Perception score instead of BAB/To Hit score? This can be even faster in play, and is REAL easy to calculate and has the same strengths. This, of course, is a paradigm shift towards the abstract over the polarized for clarification, by elimination polarization and instead applying the same concept as a significant modifier to the check.
5) Regarding my "shifting position" or whatever - it's never shifted, at all. My opening statement was conditional (again - I don't like going over all things until they come up) upon the problem being tied to GM discretionary calls to be made left and right, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME PC's are forced to, and can directly point to (within constraints of GM descriptions) meeting conditions REQUIRED for checks to take place. Yet ... GM still is given a wide ability to assign what become judgment calls left and right. (reference your scenario with my bolding previous - I'm NOT going to go back and quote it.)
In another GM's hands, at a different table those guards will MOST CERTAINLY not be "distracted" in the least while they are "on guard" at all. [just to pick on one thing quickly.] You, however, are granting "distraction" on an active guardsman because it's not in his direct "area of duty" to watch his fellow watchman (which, frankly, is crazy-cakes on the behalf of ANY defender so distracted). Add to this the polarized nature of "on/off" for meeting conditions of the *chance* to even bring stealth to bear, and full 360 awareness ... my original point stands in that, the RAW (since a LOT is GM dependent DESPITE being polarized, or rather, BECAUSE it's operating from both competing paradigms of design) absolutely WILL cause instant-failure of stealth in many instances where is should/could be attempted (pending GM adjudication).
My stance hasn't changed ... it's still the "well I can do this IRL anyway" that gets me. It's still poor framing/organization of rules that impedes this, and it's still conflicting paradigm designs that puts the whole effort more or less in the hands of the GM - I'd rather the rules were simply up front about it rather than trying to hide behind polarizing conditions, etc before hand. It just is much cleaner rule design (again - as defined above for meeting my conditions of a "clean" rule set).
Keep in mind, I suggest very little overall change - just consolidation of modifiers, and adoption fully of one or the other paradigm - not both together in competition.
6) Scent and bonuses ... I know about. Was the survival --> track connection you're getting at? (I also know that.)
I wasn't one saying scent defeats it outright, either though. I know the point you're making - but I was fully aware of that as it stand. Still - this will help those that didn't realize the connection, so good on that point, and seconded by me. I just wasn't thinking of the Tracking part (just stealth and on it's own, Tracking/Survival has NO interaction with Stealth - so that threw me).
I don't know how many people watched the series, Heroes. There were several examples there, one with Mohinder on the ceiling and unnoticed until blood fell from the ceiling onto Peter (well-lit if I recall), or when Monica/St. Joan was in that gang's building and unnoticed until she dropped stuff, and it was certainly never dark enough for people to actually suffer 20% miss chances. We also have a well-lit scenario here, practically every depiction of Spider-man ever, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid, Kill Bill, etc.
It's a game, and no game is going to be able to anticipate every possible corner case. Clinging to the ceiling while your enemy passes beneath you is most certainly a corner case. You do certainly have a point though, without some other mechanic involved they would be plainly visible. I would point a few things out though.
1) In your Schockmercenary example: They guys passing through the hallway are "distracted" by their own conversation.
2) Assassin's Creed clearly has a detailed facing system involved.
That said there are certainly cases where your point is clear and true, without some sort of distraction, cover, concealment, invisibility or something of that nature. The guy stuck to the ceiling is in plain view according to a strict reading of RAW.
Hide in Plain Sight is a piss-poor ability to explaining any of this (disregarding the incredibly high level it appears for anyone), because that makes you able to Stealth while observed (skipping the need to make the Bluff check for a distraction), not obliviate the need for cover/concealment; besides, few of the characters I've given as an example have been able to make Stealth checks while observed, and have in fact had be out-of-sight beforehand. I'd not call all of those people Shadowdancers, who are the ONLY people in D&D who don't need cover or concealment to maintain Stealth.
This is incorrect in a couple of ways.
To the point of HiPS being high level, with a Shadowdancer or Assassin you could potentially get HiPS at level 6 or 13 respectively. The Ranger gets his at 17. So, of the three, Shadowdancers can attain this ability at low levels, Assassins get it just above mid level and Rangers are the only ones who wait until very high level to get this ability.
To the point of Shadodancers being the only ones who can maintain Stealth without cover/concealment. This is also incorrect; Assassins have the same HiPS that Shadowdancers have. You are correct that Ranger HiPS only allows for using Stealth while observed but you are wrong that they cannot use and maintain Stealth without cover or concealment. Rangers get the Camouflage ability at 12th level which allows them to do just that. So between Camouflage and HiPS they are able to do everything the Shadowdancer and Assassin does and they aren't even restricted to dim light, they merely need to be in one of their many Favored Terrains to use these abilities.
Actually I would say that Ranger HiPS is a great way to explain those corner cases you are talking about because they use their familiarity with the terrain to stay hidden rather than dim light or any other forms of concealment or cover.
When you bring up training/abilities, that more than anything implies they actually put ranks in Stealth, rather than giving abilities that basically tell you the only time you can use the skill is if you have special abilities that let you or you're already unable to be seen. I'm accusing you of saying Stealth doesn't work unless you have abilities that make exceptions, yes; an Ogre behind a 5' wall is able to make Stealth checks, while an elf standing atop (or floating above) said wall is completely unable to hide his presence. The two expose just as much surface area (if not less for the Large creature). Saying that 'obviously' the Ogre ninja is crouching/kneeling means that he's giving himself total cover and doesn't even need to make a Stealth check to avoid being seen; also, kneeling/crouching a real mechanic that gives modifiers to his AC that the Ogre can choose to not do and still make a Stealth check.
You have a point here too. Personally I don't think either of them should be able to use Stealth. The Ogre can because those are the mechanics, that's how it works. But if you think about it he will be taking massive negatives to the check so probably won't be successful anyway. The elf, well why should be able to use Stealth? He is plainly floating out in the open.
People keep invoking distraction as this universal panacea for Stealth, including situations few DMs will ever approve of. I mean, what DM is going to start saying the guard on patrol is distracted because he wouldn't be looking behind him (which is an underhanded way to bring back facing)?
In a way you are right, it is a way to apply a facing type situation. And why not? That seems to be what you people are asking for. I am simply providing a method within existing RAW to do it. Is it explicitly stated in RAW that I can do this with distractions, no, but it also is not explicitly forbidden. My understanding is that the designers have stated in the past that Stealth was intentionally left somewhat vague to allow for DMs to do a lot of situational interpretation. So, why not do it here?
Just because most DMs wouldn't approve it doesn't mean it isn't a valid use of the rule or realistic. The rules do not give specifics of what a distraction can be. Distractions can be anything and like I said before, and I maintain, most people go through the majority of their day distracted. so why shouldn't the game reflect that reality? I have had a lot of experience with guards, both civilian and military. Yes the military guards are generally better at standing watch without distractions (higher Perception ranks) but they get distracted too. When you are on guard duty for 8 to 12 hours through the night with nothing to do you get bored and distracted. So would it be easy to sneak up on a guard who is zoning out, listening to birds sing, at his post because he has been standing there for 8 hours during an uneventful night? It depends on which way you approach him from. If you approach from the direction he is looking in he will probably see you. He is zoned out yes, but movement through his field of vision will bring him out of that. If you walk up from opposite his field of vision, then he is "distracted" in relation to you. In this case distracted simply means that he is zoned out, listening to birds sing, and isn't actively turning his head from side to side getting a look behind him with peripheral vision. I don't see that as unreasonable. Would every DM call it that way? No, most DMs run a game where everyone is a robot and are at their peak awareness level at all times. Some DMs even say that people are at peak awareness while asleep = dog and chicken in the OP. Does that mean they are right? No. Does that mean I am wrong for saying my guard is a human and sometimes becomes distracted during his 12 hour shift of staring out into the night? I don't think so, as I believe it is an accurate representation of reality.
As for civilian guards, well I have driven my car past gate guards in gated communities without them so much as looking up at me. These guards are supposed to step outside and check for access cards mind you. I have also driven by those guards using a shopping receipt or a business card in place of my access card and gotten waved through. So, you tell me how "aware and perceptive" guards really are. My opinion is that they are easily distracted because the monotony of their job breeds complacency and boredom. They may not stay distracted for long, but they do become distracted.
Distracted, again, only works if the hider moves into cover/concealment. If he moves closer to make an attack or even stands still, distraction doesn't prevent instant awareness.
Well to be perfectly specific: Distraction only works when you are already being observed to break observation allowing you to move to an unseen position under Stealth. Now, if someone is observing you, the assumption would be that after the momentary distraction they would look back at you. So, this temporary distraction is not enough to maintain Stealth, which is why you must find your way to cover or concealment. But the important thing is that it sets a president that is, distraction allows for use of Stealth. So now what if there is a more prolonged distraction. You can't do this with Bluff, which is only a temporary distraction, but what if the guard is distracted by a beautiful tavern girl walking by? She holds his attention for a good 12 to 18 seconds; I don't think it is unreasonable to think that a man might look at a woman for 18 seconds as she walks by, which are 2 or 3 rounds of utter tunnel vision on the guard's part. Do you think it is unreasonable to be able to use Stealth in such a manner? According to the Bluff/Stealth president it is quite possible as long as you have cover or concealment by the time the guard returns to his previous routine, looking around and being generally perceptive. Or you could walk right up behind him and slash his throat while he has tunnel vision.
I am not saying that you can maintain Stealth indefinitely without cover or concealment by simply assuming that everyone is distracted all the time. I am saying that distraction happens a lot, and the rules don't specify what constitutes a "distraction."
1) The Bluff/Stealth maneuver sets the president that Stealth can be used if your opponent is distracted.
2) RAW doesn't dictate what a distraction is.
3) Prolonged distractions may allow for Stealth while they persist?
The calling for dim lighting to allow for it to work does bring a serious problem for rogues in D&D. You can't make sneak attacks against people with concealment, which means a very large majority of the hiding rogues can't make that 'assassin' kill because the observer is potentially just as shadowed as the rogue.
This is an issue, but there are numerous ways to attain low-light vision or darkvision which solves that problem. Also, from what I understand, the APG has put out a couple feats that take care of that problem for Rogues.
I do NOT agree with any calls made for stealth. Calling "the rest" a matter of tracking down rules scattered everywhere is piss-poor as far a "user-friendly" goes, and explains why there are so many threads looking for clarification and understanding of the rules. If you, yourself, said you didn't understand about the scent issues, and YOU are the one saying it's all just peachy ... there's problems. [Note: I've been fully aware of scent not being an auto-detect feature as well, mind you - as well as fully aware of pretty much all of the rules. I just haven't been quoting them as - again - I'm not a fan of such things - too much work for too little payoff, IMO.]
I have been agreeing with this point since the first time this thread was active. I have no argument with you here; it is a pain to track down all these rules, there is no denying that. My argument is not that it is simple and handed to you in an easy format, they are certainly not. My argument is that most things people keep saying is impossible, really is possible if you know the rules. The rules do work in all but a few corner cases, which you admit is true. As for it needing to be more, as you say "user friendly" I have been agreeing with that for a long while now. The rules could use consolidation and rewording in a few places.
Indicating that those who can't be bothered to track down the same 18 references is, also pretty damn insulting.
I am not trying to be insulting. I am simply stating what I have seen to be the norm within these Stealth threads, as well as many other Rules Questions threads. People ask questions to which the answer is fairly plain when you find the appropriate rules section. Many individuals come onto the boards claiming fervently that they know all the rules to a given scenario and then ask questions that reveal they clearly do not. When I started reading the rules for myself instead of relying on others to tell me how it worked, I started realizing that a lot of the things I thought were rules were really just misinterpretations by DMs who didn't know the rules and made things up to make up for it. Now I constantly double checking myself in the PRD before I make posts concerning RAW. Even if I believe I know the answer I will double check myself incase my memory isn't as clear as I think.
I think a clear definition of "rules failure" is in order then...
Fair enough. Like I said, I have always agreed with your point that things are a pain to track down. My only disagreement has been when people lay down a whole list of things they say can't be done with Stealth when they actually can. Your initial posts seemed to indicate this type of attitude, if I am mistaken about that I apologies. The fact is I agree with a lot of the things you have stated about the rules, both regarding Stealth and other things. Some of the house-rules you have proposed are not bad ideas. In fact you mentioned one thing about group fighting and how a static +2 for all flanking enemies is unrealistic. I agree, in another thread a while back I posted a diagram of what I thought it would realistically look like; it is brutal and ugly. There was a cumulative increase in their bonuses to hit you based on how many guys were surrounding you as well as bonuses of varying sizes for being in your primary field of vision (FRONT/SIDE-FRONT) vs. being in your secondary or non-visual areas (SIDE/SIDE-REAR / REAR). Anyway, back on point, I understand what you are saying and have no argument with the spirit of it: "Stealth needs consolidation and a bit of rewording to smooth some things out." I just don't agree that there are a whole host of things that can be done in real life but can't be done with Stealth RAW. Most of them can be done; it's just a matter of being familiar with the rules.
Actually I think Virgil is the first person who has completely stumped me in saying something "can't" be done with Stealth. Technically the guy stuck to the ceiling is in plain view unless there is another element in play, IE: distraction, cover, or concealment. Now there is a camp of people who say "the only time distraction, cover, and concealment are mentioned in Stealth is when you are already being observed so outside of that you should be able to use Stealth without it." I am not going to open that can of worms though because it is another un-winnable argument. There is other wording in other descriptions that imply you do need it outside of the condition of being observed but in the end I don't think it is something that can be definitively said in either way.
Spells, of their nature can/will demand more than something *everyone* can do. Granting Darkvision, or changing form of body are also REAL easy to cover. You go to the CLEAR description (where the rules are quite clear on each), and you now have the instant information needed.
Stealth, by comparison, still needs the 18 references you're listing above ... surely, you *do* see the discrepancy there in design elements? The one side (magic) is comprehensive and fully functional. The other side (stealth) is a damn nightmare.
I see the difference, and I wasn't trying to say that all of these things are as complicated as Stealth. I was saying Stealth isn't the only complicated facet of the rules that will send you scouring other sections of the book, or even other books.
Your counter points of showing how the RAW "works" involved a LOT of GM discretion that is not clearly interacting with many of the statements by RAW - a point made already in a previous analysis by me of your own posited "this is how it's done" scenario. You even agreed where the overlap was and on the point I was making. Again, this is a problem that stems from the competing design paradigms that exist ONLY in the Stealth rules (for whatever reason).
Actually all of my counterpoints except a little bit of discretion and interpretation in the "distraction" rules are strictly RAW. The stuff about concealment, cover, or "crowds" being used for Stealth is all explicitly allowed. Even coming out of cover/concealment closing distance and making an attack before being seen is allowable by RAW. The only thing I have taken a little discretion in my own interpretation with is the prolonged distraction. But all that discretion and interpretation was based on what I see in the RAW. You are right, not every DM would do that. But my point was never to say, this is how it must be done. My point was to show that you can do those types of things within the confines of RAW. I can show a logical path between what is written and what I am using it for in those posts and additionally there is nothing saying it can't be used in that way. Anyway, I addressed this in my previous post so I won't go into more detail here. You are right, many DMs may not call it the same way I do, but that is not to say they "can't" or that Stealth "can't" be used in such scenarios.
::NOTE:: I am not sure what you are saying I agreed to. I am thinking it was the post where you too, my scenario and inserted "HERE" to indicate work on the DMs part to make Stealth usable in the scenario.
Character A is stealthy, character B is there in the road. I'm using your "guy in the road" scenario here. Removing the REQUIREMENT of cover or distraction and instead using them as modifiers (that I'm TOTALLY pulling out of thin air, mind you), we have A approaching B in a pretty clear stretch of road and B has nothing really there to help out - lets make it high-noon on top of it all, yes? So ... A wants to sneak by/past/up to/whatever B. I could CARE LESS about his purpose, he's just decided to scare B or something - it doesn't matter even a little. Point is the condition and that A wants to try it. So, given NO real cover or anything, you can just call it a -4 modifier for trying it. A is crazy-stealth dude and has say a 12 total on his check, he's down to a +8. The other guy is pretty normal, maybe a 2nd level commoner or something - let's go farmer like the OP's scenario. He had what a +2 on his perception check, right? So ... quick contest of +8 vs. +2 isn't all that crazy for EITHER ONE to win, right? So ... if A wins, he's just walking slowly (condition for stealth anyway) and doesn't really manage to draw enough attention to him to draw notice (no sounds worthy of note given the result). So, by way of keeping a more generalized check here we can say that A managed to stealth by with say keeping in his "back face" or walking slow, or what have you. Hell, if we WANT we can even say the farmer just "spaced out" and wasn't really even LOOKING at him. This more abstract approach allows for a stealth even w/360 degree awareness (foolish as THAT is), and grants both GM and player a way to rationalize the results. This will hold true regardless of whether he wins or fails the check. Adjust the #'s like so, call the "no cover" thing a -8, so it's +4 vs. +2, and now the farmer wins (he could have won even at the +8 mind you), so very simply - he sees and notices the guy's approach to his location. The 360 thing doesn't EVEN ENTER the picture, really, since you've just allowed it as part of the stealth check in the first place by NOT denying A the *chance* to stealth in the first place. It's really just a matter of flavoring up the modifiers for cover/concealment properly and it's just fine. Hell - why not make Stealth checks something similar to the CMB check-system? Instead of a contested roll, make it some sort of DC incremental system with the variable added being the target's Perception score instead of BAB/To Hit score? This can be even faster in play, and is REAL easy to calculate and has the same strengths. This, of course, is a paradigm shift towards the abstract over the polarized for clarification, by elimination polarization and instead applying the same concept as a significant modifier to the check.
So where I say "distracted" you are saying "spaced out." I think the biggest difference between our points of view on this scenario would be, you are saying the results of the Stealth check vs. Perception check should dictate the "RP" factors involved in his successful or unsuccessful use of Stealth. (IE: He passed Stealth so the farmer may have been "spaced out") Whereas I am saying the factors involved should dictate the success or failure of Stealth. (IE: The farmer was distracted allowing the Rogue to use Stealth). Your way is less rules intensive, and probably more "user friendly" but it is really not all that different from what I am doing. I am creating a detail oriented scene where my player has to be smart and look for tactical advantages. You are using the outcome of the roll to decide what details and tactical advantages, if any, existed around your player.
Regarding my "shifting position" or whatever - it's never shifted, at all. My opening statement was conditional...
Fair enough, from some of the wording you used it certainly seemed like you modified your argument from "This can't be done" to "This can be done but the rules need a general face-lift."
In another GM's hands, at a different table those guards will MOST CERTAINLY not be "distracted" in the least while they are "on guard" at all.
Yes because most DMs depict the "ideal" of a guard rather than the "reality" of most guards. Most DMs depict guards as human Golems; I assure you most human guards won't be 100% aware 100% of the time. Simple evidence of man's easily distracted nature is in how many horrible accidents begin with "I only looked away for a second."
Scent and bonuses ... I know about. Was the survival --> track connection you're getting at? (I also know that.)
I wasn't one saying scent defeats it outright, either though. I know the point you're making - but I was fully aware of that as it stand. Still - this will help those that didn't realize the connection, so good on that point, and seconded by me. I just wasn't thinking of the Tracking part (just stealth and on its own, Tracking/Survival has NO interaction with Stealth - so that threw me).
I wasn't suggesting that you weren't already aware of this. I was simply pointing it out as another thing in the rules which leads you to search for clarification in several different areas of the book.
I don't think it's the "it can't be done" thing so much as a lack of clear examples of things used in play really. The rules are there, scattered, and presented in almost isolation and given almost no "face time" so to speak for showing them in play, especially as regards "distraction" and the like.
Now, to *me* I see it for what it is and can go right along with what you say and use the rules. Thing is the *only* way to make the corner cases work is through that very, VERY liberal application of "distraction" you site. All well and good, but I've also seen THAT come under tremendous fire in other threads as well. Essentially, there are MASSIVE GM trust issues in many cases it seems, so, allowing for that the "distraction" just isn't likely to work out as ideally as you would allow it (mind you - I'm now and FULLY have been behind your use of it as you outlined it initially on like page 6 maybe?). I'm behind it because it's letting the GM have the power of discretion, and I like it because it *is* one way to look at the RAW and say "Oh ... it works like this."
That it's been a point of contention in multiple other threads leaves me to believe even THAT is not enough of a clear revision, and so that's when I really started looking at it from the ground up in design assumptions, and found the 2 competing paradigms in play (which is just a horrible problem and the root problem as well).
On my "left it out" stuff - yeah ... I'll freely admit that I'm not that precise in pointing out every little thing - but I know they're all in place and how they work. My "D20-ese" is pretty terrible as well - I'm always using the wrong "game term" name, but getting the mechanic spot-on, so yup - I'm bad on that end (though I do know the mechanic/important part of how it works).
On the use of the "distraction" - that's good to show how it *can* work, but is NO kind of guarantee that GM's will see it that way (and puts us right back in the whole "these rules suck" position). If they can read the same material, chase down the same facts, and arrive at entirely different applications of "distraction" then the rule is where the problem lies - I can't see it in any other way. Nothing really explains it at that point as BOTH parties (you as GM and other GM's that rule differently) are pointing to rules for back-up.
[Note: the agreement thing was just that you were using GM fiat/discretion/whatever in order to apply conditions in your scenario - essentially that it ONLY works for the corner cases IF the GM decides to make exceptions through discretion, etc at the table.]
On the scenario - I think the characterization is a bit unfair to call it "you are saying the results of the Stealth check vs. Perception check should dictate the "RP" factors involved in his successful or unsuccessful use of Stealth." It was a scenario of very plain/bare bones stealth attempt in the middle of nowhere. In THAT case there were no mitigating factors (the point of your scenario, no?) to help a stealth attempt. I maintained that, but just threw modifiers into the mix (at that, not even complete modifiers, but rather quick ones). I mean to say: because in that one circumstance success can *only* mean that B was "spaced out" (as nothing else can explain why he DIDN'T notice the approach of the character), doesn't mean that the next time, at night, in the forest, will not be able to provide a PC with a tactical approach to get better boons to the check and make conditions more favorable. I was intentionally using ONLY the "worst possible case" to attempt throwing modifiers out there (as a system that doesn't even exist mind you) just to have something a little more solid to point to and grasp.
If we *really* want to go nuts layering on the negatives to the same, we can throw on a penalty for High-noon (and no shade), something for "no concealment/cover" as a penalty as well, and drop that +12 to a -3 if we tried enough ... the point I was making that it IS a more simple mechanic, that it CAN address various levels of crunch, that it IS fast in resolution, that it DOES address the "facing/360 degree awareness" all in one simple package by just shifting the design paradigm fully from a competing one, to a unified one of more a general nature.
It was by no means meant to be a comprehensive analysis or treatment, but your summation makes it sound like one. In the case where additional factors are nil - yes, what you say is true. In a case where all the things that RAW currently put into play as "requisite", however, that system fully shifts, adapts, and it becomes *as tactical* as the current one - only more easily adjudicated. This is a good thing, IMO.
Look, if you're guard comparison is a guy in a gated community ... that's not even CLOSE to a fair comparison. That guy does not fear for his life, is not under constant threat, nor do random bands of monsters, bandits, roving armies, giants, dragons, or invading neighboring kingdoms ever, ever, EVER enter into his immediate sense of self-preservation.
Our fantasy guards - even the "lazy" ones - they're fully aware of things "out in the dark" that want to come in, eat them, their families, and the girl on the corner w/the roses he has a crush on. THEY are the only thing between the monsters and everything that is near and dear to them.
A gated community guard can't even *possibly* compare to that.
I think it boils down to the competing paradigms, really. [mechanically speaking that is]
On the scenario - I think the characterization is a bit unfair to call it "you are saying the results of the Stealth check vs. Perception check should dictate the "RP" factors involved in his successful or unsuccessful use of Stealth." It was a scenario of very plain/bare bones stealth attempt in the middle of nowhere. In THAT case there were no mitigating factors (the point of your scenario, no?) to help a stealth attempt. I maintained that, but just threw modifiers into the mix (at that, not even complete modifiers, but rather quick ones). I mean to say: because in that one circumstance success can *only* mean that B was "spaced out" (as nothing else can explain why he DIDN'T notice the approach of the character), doesn't mean that the next time, at night, in the forest, will not be able to provide a PC with a tactical approach to get better boons to the check and make conditions more favorable. I was intentionally using ONLY the "worst possible case" to attempt throwing modifiers out there (as a system that doesn't even exist mind you) just to have something a little more solid to point to and grasp.
Yeah it was an over simplification. The thing I was trying to say was not that you had not put some work into pre-setting the battlefield; obviously you did and threw out some negatives to represent the difficulty of the PCs task. What I meant to say is that where I say ok he is momentarily distracted so you can try to sneak past him; you are saying, you won the Stealth roll, so the farmer must have been distracted as you snuck by. I am putting the reasons in place before hand and making the player find them. You are using the results of the roll to RP what reasons might have allowed the feat of Stealth. It is a difference in order of business with very similar end results.
Look, if you're guard comparison is a guy in a gated community ... that's not even CLOSE to a fair comparison. That guy does not fear for his life, is not under constant threat, nor do random bands of monsters, bandits, roving armies, giants, dragons, or invading neighboring kingdoms ever, ever, EVER enter into his immediate sense of self-preservation.
Our fantasy guards - even the "lazy" ones - they're fully aware of things "out in the dark" that want to come in, eat them, their families, and the girl on the corner w/the roses he has a crush on. THEY are the only thing between the monsters and everything that is near and dear to them.
A gated community guard can't even *possibly* compare to that.
Most guards, even in a fantasy setting with monsters, magic, and thieves’ guilds, do not live in constant fear for their lives; especially those inside the city walls. Besides if they were in strict fear for their lives there would probably be more than four guards even if four can do the job. They are happy with one at each corner and a well lit walk way, which screams laxity to me.
And I wasn't making a single comparison to civilian gate guards. I was talking about both civilian and military guards. Military guards are better but still distractible and they can become complacent due to the monotony of their job. In fact, most of what I said in that explanation was in reference to military guards, yes even in a war zone. However, I only gave specific examples of civilian guards, and I am only going to give civilian examples. Don't get me wrong, military guards are more observant than the average by far and when something happens they are extremely quick to react, but they are still human and as easily distracted as any other human being. No one stays 100% vigilant 100% of the time; it's a fact of life. Now in a situation where the guards were in constant fear for their lives, I already admitted, with elite guards on alert the situation would be more difficult. That would most certainly be the exception though, not the rule. I was describing low level Warrior NPCs guarding a small barracks inside city walls, not 10th level Fighters on the wall making their final stand against the evil Orc hordes. His scenario of only four guards standing watch on a highly lit walkway didn't strike me as a band of elite guards who were fearful for their lives.
In the basic rules for Stealth there are two penalties listed for movement. A -5 penalty if you move more than half your speed and a -10 penalty for quickly moving up to your full speed for the Bluff/Stealth maneuver to gain Stealth from someone observing you. Take that principle and apply it to coming out from Concealment and traveling in the open to your target unseen. You start your movement with a Stealth roll as as you leave concealment, you travel 15' to your target (half the movement of a medium character so no penalty on Stealth), the target rolls Perception to see you, you attack him. That all takes place in your turn and if he fails to meet your Stealth roll with his Perception roll you get Sneak Attack damage.
Now Shadowlord, I hate to pick out this small part of your post, but this one portion does not make sense. Note emphasis mine.
Yes, you are allowed to make a Bluff check (at -10) to distract your opponent(s) when you are being observed and to therefore allow a Stealth check. However, from my understanding, you are only allowed to do that if you are heading to an unobserved place.
In your example, you are leaving concealment of the shadows (dim light) in the alleyway and attacking someone in the open. Now, if you were heading to another shadow after making the Bluff check to distract, that would work, but you are attacking an opponent who is exposed.
So I believe that would not work per RAW.
Most guards, even in a fantasy setting with monsters, magic, and thieves’ guilds, do not live in constant fear for their lives; especially those inside the city walls. Besides if they were in strict fear for their lives there would probably be more than four guards even if four can do the job. They are happy with one at each corner and a well lit walk way, which screams laxity to me.
And I wasn't making a single comparison to civilian gate guards. I was talking about both civilian and military guards. Military guards are better but still distractible and they can become complacent due to the monotony of their job. In fact, most of what I said in that explanation was in reference to military guards, yes even in a war zone. However, I only gave specific examples of civilian guards, and I am only going to give civilian examples. Don't get me wrong, military guards are more observant than the average by far and when something happens they are extremely quick to react, but they are still human and as easily distracted as any other human being. No one stays 100% vigilant 100% of the time; it's a fact of life. Now in a situation where the guards were in constant fear for their lives, I already admitted, with elite guards on alert the situation would be more difficult. That would most certainly be the exception though, not the rule. I was describing low level Warrior NPCs guarding a small barracks inside city walls, not 10th level Fighters on the wall making their final stand against the evil Orc hordes. His scenario of only four guards standing watch on a highly lit walkway didn't strike me as a band of elite guards who were fearful for their lives.
And I just totally agree with you... I think that most of towns guards are far from elite... ;)
You just have to remember the Sergeant Colon and the Corporal Nobbs... :DOk you have to remember there's Captain Carrot and Sergeant Angua too in the watch... :p
In the basic rules for Stealth there are two penalties listed for movement. A -5 penalty if you move more than half your speed and a -10 penalty for quickly moving up to your full speed for the Bluff/Stealth maneuver to gain Stealth from someone observing you. Take that principle and apply it to coming out from Concealment and traveling in the open to your target unseen. You start your movement with a Stealth roll as as you leave concealment, you travel 15' to your target (half the movement of a medium character so no penalty on Stealth), the target rolls Perception to see you, you attack him. That all takes place in your turn and if he fails to meet your Stealth roll with his Perception roll you get Sneak Attack damage.
Now Shadowlord, I hate to pick out this small part of your post, but this one portion does not make sense. Note emphasis mine.
Yes, you are allowed to make a Bluff check (at -10) to distract your opponent(s) when you are being observed and to therefore allow a Stealth check. However, from my understanding, you are only allowed to do that if you are heading to an unobserved place.
In your example, you are leaving concealment of the shadows (dim light) in the alleyway and attacking someone in the open. Now, if you were heading to another shadow after making the Bluff check to distract, that would work, but you are attacking an opponent who is exposed.
So I believe that would not work per RAW.
LOL! man ... back there again!
Ha! Timely example, too. GM's discretion isn't necessarily discreet at all, is it, by RAW? In this case you're [Hobbun] making the case that the GM can't let this happen ... but then there is still more text elsewhere that will support exactly what Shadowlord described.
It's exactly the kind of problem that comes into play when there are 2 competing design paradigms.
This problem will continue to exist until one or the other "wins" so to speak. As long as it just keeps going along, there will *always* be exactly that argument, Hobbun. GM makes a "call/uses discretion" and then someone points in the book and starts quoting the absolutes of conditions met in the polarized yes/no format that instantly trumps stealth out of hand.
Ergo - my suggestion that the *better* paradigm to win out is the more general approach that doesn't disallow stealth out of hand, but rather accounts for it through modifiers and grants an ATTEMPT at least (however heavily penalized it may be). When the WHOLE SYSTEM is set under that paradigm, there *is* nothing for anyone to argue about at the table other than the value of the modifiers (ie: no more instant "disallow" or what have you in play on account of pure RAW and/or interpretations of it).
@Shadowlord: yes - the difference in order of business *is* there and it does arrive at similar results. HOWEVER, by the RAW and your described order above - we have RAW/RAI and interpretive dance-offs for GM's to figure out how/when/why to apply things, multiple threads of dissent and confusion, etc. When we generalize it and switch that order around - ALL of those problems disappear, do they not?
Re: guards --> I do suppose there is a certain amount of "blah" to just your routine duties. I am shocked to hear you describe military security as so lack-a-dazical in our modern society. I've run into a few and they are far from the way you describe it (of course, I was also looking like the "intruding" sort as well - with no business really to be there). This is all entirely subjective, though - and really has no bearing on the mechanics issues.
For amusement's sake, though, I will say this on the guards: if *I* lived in a place with monsters and what have you ... you'd be DAMN sure that I'm going to be the nearly-hyperactive guardsman on duty ... but I'm also a bit of a pessimist/planner for the worst case, so make of that what you will. I'd MUCH sooner deal with some guy w/a gun or sword than a freakin' dragon or wyvern, or undead clawing at my gates!
[Snagglepuss]"Exit!!! Like, stage left even!!!!" [/Snagglepuss]
Edit: A new thread popped up that WILL be of high interest to any following this, or similar threads. By all means, go check it out as I think it's a great idea and it works without changing *anything* at all to the current rule set (all you Shadowlord!). Click here to see it. It's something in the "House Rules" section of the board, and is pretty much a great way to approach the problem laterally by a simple skill extension.
That's why guards, and PCs, etc. are making Perception CHECKS as opposed to auto-fails or auto-succeeds. The random factor of a perception check takes into account both these factors and the relative skill of the character in surmounting them. a character or a guard with a high perception score reflects training and discipline in mitigating those factors. The skill in Stealth reflects among other things making the most of it.The judgment call of a DM and the strategy of a player determines when to invoke such checks. A dedicated guard guarding the closed entrance to a vault isn't going to get his check when the clever thief has found an entrance from the vault's interior ceiling. However if the guard walks into the vault as part of a periodic check then he very well be entitled to a check if the thief has not been prepared or careful enough.
Actually, I would never give a guard an auto-fail or auto-success, however lazy or diligent he is.
All guards would get Perception checks, however good or bad they are. And what I would actually do is give negative modifiers to the ones who are being lazy, not paying attention or not being attentive in general.
Actually, I would never give a guard an auto-fail or auto-success, however lazy or diligent he is.
All guards would get Perception checks, however good or bad they are. And what I would actually do is give negative modifiers to the ones who are being lazy, not paying attention or not being attentive in general.
So ... would you endorse a movement towards "all modifiers" and a simple skill contest then? It sounds like it ... just curious. ;-)
LOL! man ... back there again!
Ha! Timely example, too. GM's discretion isn't necessarily discreet at all, is it, by RAW? In this case you're [Hobbun] making the case that the GM can't let this happen ... but then there is still more text elsewhere that will support exactly what Shadowlord described.
It's exactly the kind of problem that comes into play when there are 2 competing design paradigms.
This problem will continue to exist until one or the other "wins" so to speak. As long as it just keeps going along, there will *always* be exactly that argument, Hobbun. GM makes a "call/uses discretion" and then someone points in the book and starts quoting the absolutes of conditions met in the polarized yes/no format that instantly trumps stealth out of hand.
Ergo - my suggestion that the *better* paradigm to win out is the more general approach that doesn't disallow stealth out of hand, but rather accounts for it through modifiers and grants an ATTEMPT at least (however heavily penalized it may be). When the WHOLE SYSTEM is set under that paradigm, there *is* nothing for anyone to argue about at the table other than the value of the modifiers (ie: no more instant "disallow" or what have you in play on account of pure RAW and/or interpretations of it).
Well, I do see your argument in that Stealth is not clear in a some aspects, and DM discretion/intervention is needed.
But in this case, it is pretty clear in the rules that using Bluff as a distraction to allow you a Stealth check (while being observed) is only so you can move into an unobserved location, not to make an attack in an area that can be seen (like in Shadowlord’s example). Not trying to be critical towards Shadowlord, but was just pointing that out.
Now of course if the DM chooses to ignore or change that ruling, that is obviously his option to do so, it is his world. I was just pointing out RAW.
So ... would you endorse a movement towards "all modifiers" and a simple skill contest then? It sounds like it ... just curious. ;-)
Isn’t that what skill checks already are, though? Modifiers are taken into account with your existing skill level and then you roll against the DC or opposing roll?
I don’t think there should ever been an auto-success or auto-fail. Well, I should clarify, there should never be an auto-fail unless the opposing roll (or DC) is well above your skill (over +20 of your roll).
And we did use auto-successes in 3.5 if we rolled a 20, but they dropped that in PF. It was an aspect we liked, but went along as it wasn’t a huge impact on gameplay.
Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.
I was wondering; from my reading this would also allow you to use bluff in situations where people are not aware of you. In other words; you can use a bluff check to toss a rock somewhere and have the guard be distracted by this diversion and can then legally make a stealth check to move past the guard in what would otherwise be plain sight (which may or may not succeed).
This would require a bit of creativity in some situations; but this is what roleplaying is all about, no?
That's why guards, and PCs, etc. are making Perception CHECKS as opposed to auto-fails or auto-succeeds. The random factor of a perception check takes into account both these factors and the relative skill of the character in surmounting them. a character or a guard with a high perception score reflects training and discipline in mitigating those factors. The skill in Stealth reflects among other things making the most of it.The judgment call of a DM and the strategy of a player determines when to invoke such checks. A dedicated guard guarding the closed entrance to a vault isn't going to get his check when the clever thief has found an entrance from the vault's interior ceiling. However if the guard walks into the vault as part of a periodic check then he very well be entitled to a check if the thief has not been prepared or careful enough.
Actually, I would never give a guard an auto-fail or auto-success, however lazy or diligent he is.
All guards would get Perception checks, however good or bad they are. And what I would actually do is give negative modifiers to the ones who are being lazy, not paying attention or not being attentive in general.
I would not suggest auto-fail or auto-pass either. There is still a Stealth vs. Perception roll.
Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.I was wondering; from my reading this would also allow you to use bluff in situations where people are not aware of you. In other words; you can use a bluff check to toss a rock somewhere and have the guard be distracted by this diversion and can then legally make a stealth check to move past the guard in what would otherwise be plain sight (which may or may not succeed).
This would require a bit of creativity in some situations; but this is what roleplaying is all about, no?
You can do that as long as you are moving past the guard and your final destination (within your movement) is to an unobserved location (shadows, behind a wall, around the corner of a building, etc).
Here is the quote I have been referring to:
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
That is what it is by RAW, at least. I can certainly see your view as well. The problem with that is if it is allowed, it overrides HiPS if you don’t have to move into an unobserved area, and can continue Stealthing in the open.
At least this would conflict with the Ranger HiPS, with the Shadowdancer/Assassin, you would still need to be within 10’ of dim light. This is why the Ranger HiPS is so powerful, he only has to be within one of his favored terrains. Granted, he still needs to continue to make the Stealth checks, but at least he can still attempt it.
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.That is what it is by RAW, at least. I can certainly see your view as well. The problem with that is if it is allowed, it overrides HiPS if you don’t have to move into an unobserved area, and can continue Stealthing in the open.
At least this would conflict with the Ranger HiPS, with the Shadowdancer/Assassin, you would still need to be within 10’ of dim light. This is why the Ranger HiPS is so powerful, he only has to be within one of his favored terrains. Granted, he still needs to continue to make the Stealth checks, but at least he can still attempt it.
Adjacent to the target is an unobserved place, provided the target is not observing you (say for example he is distracted). Aside from that, if you go into the meaning of the RAW, it can be read to mean you need to get to an unobserved place of some kind to maintain stealth. (This would obviously be a mute point if you intend to attack.)
However, allow me also to point out that instead of bluffing for a diversion to sneak attack the target - it would in many ways be simpler to just go ahead and bluff to create a feint and attack with sneak damage.
Mechanically both versions are really close and allow for the conflicting views here to be reconciled. I think. :)
Hmm, yes, that does make sense. If you are successful in your Bluff check (for diversion), that would allow you the sneak attack as he is no longer observing you. I was not thinking of a space adjacent to the opponent as an unobservable space, but that is the whole purpose of the Bluff check and distraction.
I stand corrected and retract my post to Shadowlord, then. :)
In the basic rules for Stealth there are two penalties listed for movement. A -5 penalty if you move more than half your speed and a -10 penalty for quickly moving up to your full speed for the Bluff/Stealth maneuver to gain Stealth from someone observing you. Take that principle and apply it to coming out from Concealment and traveling in the open to your target unseen. You start your movement with a Stealth roll as as you leave concealment, you travel 15' to your target (half the movement of a medium character so no penalty on Stealth), the target rolls Perception to see you, you attack him. That all takes place in your turn and if he fails to meet your Stealth roll with his Perception roll you get Sneak Attack damage.
Now Shadowlord, I hate to pick out this small part of your post, but this one portion does not make sense. Note emphasis mine.
Yes, you are allowed to make a Bluff check (at -10) to distract your opponent(s) when you are being observed and to therefore allow a Stealth check. However, from my understanding, you are only allowed to do that if you are heading to an unobserved place.
In your example, you are leaving concealment of the shadows (dim light) in the alleyway and attacking someone in the open. Now, if you were heading to another shadow after making the Bluff check to distract, that would work, but you are attacking an opponent who is exposed.
So I believe that would not work per RAW.
You are misunderstanding me. The scenario you are quoting has nothing to do with Bluff. So, I will come back to my take on Bluff and distractions in a moment after I explain the scenario. Most people believe and accept that you cannot maintain Stealth outside cover/concealment. So in a case like my scenario where you are hiding in the dim light of an alley way and your target is in the normal light of a torch lit road 15' away. Most people would say you automatically become plainly visible as soon as you step out of the concealment. At that point the target can begin to react to you and there is no further Stealth or Perception, you are plainly visible and cannot achieve Sneak Attack. However, there were specific rules for leaving cover/concealment and still maintaining Stealth against a target in the Complete Adventurer. I wasn't going to dig this up but... just for you Hobbun...
Move between Cover: If you’re already hiding (thanks
to cover or concealment) and you have at least 5 ranks in
Hide, you can make a Hide check (with a penalty) to try
to move across an area that does not offer cover or concealment
without revealing yourself. For every 5 ranks
in Hide you possess, you can move up to 5 feet between
one hiding place and another. For every 5 feet of open
space you must cross between hiding places, you take a
–5 penalty on your Hide check. If you move at more than
one-half your speed, you also take the normal penalty
on Hide checks when moving quickly (–10 for moving
faster than normal speed, or –5 for moving between half
speed and normal speed).You can also use this option to sneak up on someone
from a hiding place. For every 5 feet of open space
between you and the target, you take a –5 penalty on
your Hide check. If your Hide check succeeds, your
target doesn’t notice you until you attack or make some
other attention-grabbing action. Such a target is treated
as being flat-footed with respect to you.
So from reading this you can easily surmise that the intent is there for a Rogue to be allowed to leave cover/concealment and not become automatically visible. The intent is that you might be able to leave your place of cover/concealment and close distance to a target without being spotted and gain the advantage of Sneak Attack. The example that I put in that scenario is how I would handle that mechanic without these specific rules, using only what is in the Core Rulebook as a guideline.
Now if you are going to come out of cover/concealment there is most certainly going to be some movement involved with this Stealth check. In the basic rules for Stealth there are only two penalties given for movement using Stealth. The first is a -5 for moving more than half but less than your full movement speed, so anywhere between 15 and 25 feet on a medium normal character. The second is detailed in the Bluff/Stealth maneuver section where it gives you a -10 to Stealth for moving quickly up to your full movement speed or 30' for a normal medium character. All I did in that explanation was take the principle of the rules in the Complete Adventurer, paired with the principle of penalties for movement with Stealth in the Core Rulebook and with a little insight and discretion used them together.
So, my conclusion is: You can leave cover/concealment and maintain Stealth temporarily. You can move up to your full movement rate. If you move half or less of your full movement you take no penalty to Stealth. If you move more than half of your movement rate you take -5 to Stealth. If you move your full movement speed you take -10 to your Stealth. You cannot do this while moving further than your full movement rate.
I hope that makes more sense than my previous example apparently did.
....
Now onto the Bluff/Stealth maneuver.
Yes, you are allowed to make a Bluff check (at -10) to distract your opponent(s) when you are being observed and to therefore allow a Stealth check. However, from my understanding, you are only allowed to do that if you are heading to an unobserved place.
No, you are allowed to make a Bluff check at no penalty to distract your opponent. The distraction allows you to make a Stealth check -10 because you must move quickly to get to cover/concealment. You need to get to cover/concealment to maintain your Stealth after he turns back around to find you.
But it is in fact the BLUFF that allows you to be unseen as you make your way to cover/concealment. Much in the same way as it is a BLUFF that allows you to mask your attack and gain Sneak Attack with the Feinting combat maneuver.
In your example, you are leaving concealment of the shadows (dim light) in the alleyway and attacking someone in the open. Now, if you were heading to another shadow after making the Bluff check to distract, that would work, but you are attacking an opponent who is exposed.
In my example I am coming out from hiding to get the jump on someone, at which point I become plainly visible. The Bluff/Stealth maneuver is specifically for the purpose of slipping away from someone who is already observing you. As I have stated before, the sub-rules in the Complete Adventurer set the president that allows me to do this, I was just rolling that mechanic into the basic Stealth skill rather than bringing a whole different book and sub-set of rules into the equation.
As for my examples of sneaking past or sneaking up on someone who is distracted: The Bluff/Stealth maneuver sets another president. That distraction allows for the use of Stealth while the distraction persists. When you use Bluff the distraction allows you to use Stealth, but you must get to cover/concealment before the distraction ends.
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.
There are two things that the wording in this section points out to me. Firstly, it is indeed the distraction that allows you to initiate Stealth; however it is the cover/concealment that allows you to maintain Stealth after the distraction. Secondly I draw attention to the "(such as by a Bluff check)" which indicates that a Bluff by the PC is not the only possible source of a distraction.
So, if distraction allows Stealth, and there can be other sources of distraction, which may or may not be persistent and last longer than 1 round. Is it possible to take advantage of outside sources of distraction to use Stealth? I don't see why not, and that was why I put together those examples using distractions as the catalyst for Stealth.
I see nothing in RAW that specifically disallows such a maneuver and from the logical path I just showed you I see a little in the way of implying it is in fact quite possible. There is still the chance you will be seen. Distraction does not equal favorable conditions or the protection of cover/concealment. Their Perception check against your Stealth check will probably have several bonuses. You will likely be out in the open in the light if you are resorting to this method of Stealth, so it will be hard to do. But I believe possible and within the limits of RAW, or at the very least RAI.
....
That is what it is by RAW, at least. I can certainly see your view as well. The problem with that is if it is allowed, it overrides HiPS if you don’t have to move into an unobserved area, and can continue Stealthing in the open.
At least this would conflict with the Ranger HiPS, with the Shadowdancer/Assassin, you would still need to be within 10’ of dim light. This is why the Ranger HiPS is so powerful, he only has to be within one of his favored terrains. Granted, he still needs to continue to make the Stealth checks, but at least he can still attempt it.
Not really. HiPS allows you to continuously use Stealth without cover/concealment. If you follow my logic and decide to incorporate the distraction allows Stealth maneuvers. Stealth is still only possible while the distraction persists. As soon as it ends you had better be in cover/concealment or you will be seen. With HiPS there is no such drawback.
Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.I was wondering; from my reading this would also allow you to use bluff in situations where people are not aware of you. In other words; you can use a bluff check to toss a rock somewhere and have the guard be distracted by this diversion and can then legally make a stealth check to move past the guard in what would otherwise be plain sight (which may or may not succeed).
This would require a bit of creativity in some situations; but this is what roleplaying is all about, no?
You can do that as long as you are moving past the guard and your final destination (within your movement) is to an unobserved location (shadows, behind a wall, around the corner of a building, etc).
Here is the quote I have been referring to:
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.That is what it is by RAW, at least. I can certainly see your view as well. The problem with that is if it is allowed, it overrides HiPS if you don’t have to move into an unobserved area, and can continue Stealthing in the open.
At least this would conflict with the Ranger HiPS, with the Shadowdancer/Assassin, you would still need to be within 10’ of dim light. This is why the Ranger HiPS is so powerful, he only has to be within one of his favored terrains. Granted, he still needs to continue to make the Stealth checks, but at least he can still attempt it.
My understanding is that as long as the distraction persists, it does not matter if you are in cover or concealment. You are still unobserved, and will stay that way until the opponent tries to look at you.
Hide in plain sight is different becuase the person would not need to be distracted at all in order for you to do this.
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.That is what it is by RAW, at least. I can certainly see your view as well. The problem with that is if it is allowed, it overrides HiPS if you don’t have to move into an unobserved area, and can continue Stealthing in the open.
At least this would conflict with the Ranger HiPS, with the Shadowdancer/Assassin, you would still need to be within 10’ of dim light. This is why the Ranger HiPS is so powerful, he only has to be within one of his favored terrains. Granted, he still needs to continue to make the Stealth checks, but at least he can still attempt it.
Adjacent to the target is an unobserved place, provided the target is not observing you (say for example he is distracted). Aside from that, if you go into the meaning of the RAW, it can be read to mean you need to get to an unobserved place of some kind to maintain stealth. (This would obviously be a mute point if you intend to attack.)
However, allow me also to point out that instead of bluffing for a diversion to sneak attack the target - it would in many ways be simpler to just go ahead and bluff to create a feint and attack with sneak damage.
Mechanically both versions are really close and allow for the conflicting views here to be reconciled. I think. :)
Yes mechanically Bluffing for Stealth is very similar to Bluffing for Feint.
If you read the post I did in reply to Hobbun you will see that Bluff is not the only source of a distraction. If you threw the stone I would not call it a Bluff check to create a distraction, I would call it an attack roll to throw the rock where you want it to go and cause a distraction. Either way if the guard was distracted you would be able to sneak past IMO. But as soon as the distraction wore off you would be spotted unless you had made it to cover/concealment.
Hmm, yes, that does make sense. If you are successful in your Bluff check (for diversion), that would allow you the sneak attack as he is no longer observing you. I was not thinking of a space adjacent to the opponent as an unobservable space, but that is the whole purpose of the Bluff check and distraction.
I stand corrected and retract my post to Shadowlord, then. :)
I think I've stumbled on internet karma. Just the other day I conceded a point here on the forums to a poster (on the internet! I know!) - and lo, now somebody else concedes a point to a thought of mine.
Thank you :)
yes - the difference in order of business *is* there and it does arrive at similar results. HOWEVER, by the RAW and your described order above - we have RAW/RAI and interpretive dance-offs for GM's to figure out how/when/why to apply things, multiple threads of dissent and confusion, etc. When we generalize it and switch that order around - ALL of those problems disappear, do they not?
Yes.
I do suppose there is a certain amount of "blah" to just your routine duties. I am shocked to hear you describe military security as so lack-a-dazical in our modern society. I've run into a few and they are far from the way you describe it (of course, I was also looking like the "intruding" sort as well - with no business really to be there). This is all entirely subjective, though - and really has no bearing on the mechanics issues.
Make no mistake; there is a great deal of blah associated with many guard positions. I am not trying to detract from military guards by any means. If you see the guards at their best when they are busy, they are very disciplined, methodical, and alert. What about when there is nothing going on for 8-12 hours through the night? What I am saying is, no one is infallible and it is human nature to get distracted or side-tracked. Those distractions can be exploited by a talented Rogue or some other Stealth user. Also there is a big difference between the guard who just came out of training (1-2 level Fighter) and the guard who has been doing it for 10 years and is a battle hardened professional (10th level Fighter). The difference is the 10th level Fighter is much harder to distract (maybe it would take a fire to pull his attention away from his post) but he will not hesitate to engage and kill you if he spots you.
if *I* lived in a place with monsters and what have you ... you'd be DAMN sure that I'm going to be the nearly-hyperactive guardsman on duty ... but I'm also a bit of a pessimist/planner for the worst case, so make of that what you will. I'd MUCH sooner deal with some guy w/a gun or sword than a freakin' dragon or wyvern, or undead clawing at my gates!
I agree. But even in a fantasy setting, most city guards never see much worse than a local thug or a band of Orcs. Possibly even some renegade Wizard's experiment. It isn't every day that a Dragon attacks the city or a horde of undead come charging the gates. And when that does happen, remember, it is usually adventurers who take care of the issue, not town guardsmen.
So, my conclusion is: You can leave cover/concealment and maintain Stealth temporarily. You can move up to your full movement rate. If you move half or less of your full movement you take no penalty to Stealth. If you move more than half of your movement rate you take -5 to Stealth. If you move your full movement speed you take -10 to your Stealth. You cannot do this while moving further than your full movement rate.
I had read the rest you had written, but only quoted what you said in conclusion as the rest was just too long. :)
The problem with that is you are taking rules from another source that isn't even Pathfinder. I see what you are saying, but to make that leap of assumption just because the minues in Pathfinder is 'similar' to how the rules from the Complete Adventurer are written, are just that, assumptions.
As per RAW in PF, you cannot maintain Stealth outside of concealment/cover unless you create a distraction of some sort (besides any kind of other abilities).
No, you are allowed to make a Bluff check at no penalty to distract your opponent. The distraction allows you to make a Stealth check -10 because you must move quickly to get to cover/concealment. You need to get to cover/concealment to maintain your Stealth after he turns back around to find you.
But it is in fact the BLUFF that allows you to be unseen as you make your way to cover/concealment. Much in the same way as it is a BLUFF that allows you to mask your attack and gain Sneak Attack with the Feinting combat maneuver.
Yes, after rereading the SRD, that is correct. But that is when I was assuming that you had to move to an unobserved location when giving a distraction. As Lorekeeper pointed out, you could just cause the distraction and then Sneak Attack. Granted, you would be exposed after the attack, but it would have allowed you the Sneak Attack.
In my example I am coming out from hiding to get the jump on someone, at which point I become plainly visible. The Bluff/Stealth maneuver is specifically for the purpose of slipping away from someone who is already observing you. As I have stated before, the sub-rules in the Complete Adventurer set the president that allows me to do this, I was just rolling that mechanic into the basic Stealth skill rather than bringing a whole different book and sub-set of rules into the equation.
Once again, you are basing rules off of a book not even in PF.
As for my examples of sneaking past or sneaking up on someone who is distracted: The Bluff/Stealth maneuver sets another president. That distraction allows for the use of Stealth while the distraction persists. When you use Bluff the distraction allows you to use Stealth, but you must get to cover/concealment before the distraction ends.
Yes, the rules indicate you use the Bluff/Stealth maneuver to get away, but I still argue you still need a distraction to get to your opponent Stealthily and Sneak Attack. And I can't see you causing a distraction (to get to him), move up to attack then use the Bluff/Stealth maneuver to get away all in the same round. Way too many actions. You can get up to him and attack, but you will be exposed after the attack.
There are two things that the wording in this section points out to me. Firstly, it is indeed the distraction that allows you to initiate Stealth; however it is the cover/concealment that allows you to maintain Stealth after the distraction. Secondly I draw attention to the "(such as by a Bluff check)" which indicates that a Bluff by the PC is not the only possible source of a distraction.
So, if distraction allows Stealth, and there can be other sources of distraction, which may or may not be persistent and last longer than 1 round. Is it possible to take advantage of outside sources of distraction to use Stealth? I don't see why not, and that was why I put together those examples using distractions as the catalyst for Stealth.
I see nothing in RAW that specifically disallows such a maneuver and from the logical path I just showed you I see a little in the way of implying it is in fact quite possible. There is still the chance you will be seen. Distraction does not equal favorable conditions or the protection of cover/concealment. Their Perception check against your Stealth check will probably have several bonuses. You will likely be out in the open in the light if you are resorting to this method of Stealth, so it will be hard to do. But I believe possible and within the limits of RAW, or at the very least RAI.
This is one of those very questionable areas of Stealth. By RAW, I agree with you, as long as their is something distracting your opponent(s), there should be no reason why you cannot continue to Stealth.
But really, how many things are there that are not momentary (one round) distractions? Unless it's a spell, or if he is concentrated on another fight, most likely you will be caught if you don't find cover/concealment after distracting them.
Not really. HiPS allows you to continuously use Stealth without cover/concealment. If you follow my logic and decide to incorporate the distraction allows Stealth maneuvers. Stealth is still only possible while the distraction persists. As soon as it ends you had better be in cover/concealment or you will be seen. With HiPS there is no such drawback.
Yes, that is what I was getting at in my post. I just did not make it clear enough, apparently.
As long as there is not a distraction of some sort, you should not be able to continue to use Stealth, as that is what HiPS allows.
I agree, if you do not find cover/concealment before the distraction is done with, you will be seen.
The problem with that is you are taking rules from another source that isn't even Pathfinder. I see what you are saying, but to make that leap of assumption just because the minues in Pathfinder is 'similar' to how the rules from the Complete Adventurer are written, are just that, assumptions.
Yes that's true. But the Complete Adventurer is a WotC 3.5 Dungeons & Dragons source book. When PF set out to revise and update the 3.5 rule set it was explicitly stated that it was compatible with 3.5 D&D publications. In fact, a lot of the rules and FAQ from 3.5 have carried over in lieu of official PF rulings to the contrary. A lot of the original Adventure Paths for Pathfinder are not in PF rules either, do you discount any rulings from those old 3.5 APs too? (Not counting things specifically overturned by updated PF rules.)
As per RAW in PF, you cannot maintain Stealth outside of concealment/cover unless you create a distraction of some sort (besides any kind of other abilities).
Actually that is never explicitly stated either. What is explicitly stated is that "when you are being observed" usually finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. But that is a whole different argument.
Once again, you are basing rules off of a book not even in PF.
Yes well almost nothing in the Core Rulebook is originally PF. Classes, Races, combat, skills, feats, spells, pretty much the whole PF system is an update and face-lift to the WotC 3.5 Dungeons & Dragons rule set. The most significant change from 3.5 to PF was the way combat maneuvers worked, the new CMB vs. CMD system. PF was made to be a compatible update and revision to those rules when WotC decided to abandon 3.5 and take D&D to 4E. The rules I am quoting came in a 3.5 D&D source book and just because it didn't make it into the PF Core Rulebook doesn't make it any less valid as a 3.5 sub-rule set, which fixes a perceived problem in the Stealth skill. But you're right; it didn't make it into the PF Core Rulebook revision of 3.5, so take it or leave it. I didn't throw away all of my WotC 3.5 D&D books just because a revision came out. I still refer to them since they are the "Father" of the PF rules, as do many others.
Yes, the rules indicate you use the Bluff/Stealth maneuver to get away, but I still argue you still need a distraction to get to your opponent Stealthily and Sneak Attack. And I can't see you causing a distraction (to get to him), move up to attack then use the Bluff/Stealth maneuver to get away all in the same round. Way too many actions. You can get up to him and attack, but you will be exposed after the attack.
I never said you could cause a distraction, move up to your opponent, and attack all in the same turn. I said that the Bluff/Stealth maneuver sets a president. Using that president you can see that if someone is distracted it allows you to use Stealth against them for the duration of that distraction. I would not suggest that you can cause a distraction, move, and attack in the same turn. But if your target becomes distracted by some outside source, you then could use your move to close distance and standard action to attack with Sneak Attack, and yes you would be quite visible after that.
But really, how many things are there that are not momentary (one round) distractions? Unless it's a spell, or if he is concentrated on another fight, most likely you will be caught if you don't find cover/concealment after distracting them.
This could be any number of things. How many seconds on average would you say you spend staring at a gorgeous woman when she walks by? How many seconds do you spend watching two people who are yelling at each other in the mall? How many seconds to you spend completely lost in your own thoughts while walking down the sidewalk? How many seconds do you spend contemplating buying that irresistible little nick-knack at the hobby shop? How many seconds do you spend watching a couple of drunken strangers go at it in a fist fight?
How many of these things can take more than 6 seconds? How many of these things can be set ups arranged by the Rogue trying to sneak past the guards?
The problem is the whole "facing" idea.
Facing was an optional rule in 2e, and even 3e thanks to Unearthed Arcana, but it's not used for simplicity's sake. During combat, it's assumed you're trying to stay aware of everything around you, turning about every second to change your line of sight so you can try to fend off any attack coming at you. Using Stealth during combat shouldn't be simple.
Now, I think the problem is Stealth outside of combat. It's going to have to be DM's call. I doubt someone standing at a cliffside keeping a lookout for enemies in the valley below, or also even the skies above, is going to constantly be turning his head back to check on a sneaking enemy, especially if they don't think an enemy will be advancing on them and there's no concealment or cover around at all (though, someone with more experience via high Perception modifier will be the one turning at the last second to notice a sneaking enemy).
In that instance, the DM should make the call of whether the enemy is even observing your area, and thus, YOU. If the DM calls that the guards in the other room are looking down the hall with their backs turned to you, then you should be free to make the Stealth check. If the bear in the forest is looking at the river and swatting for fish with its back turned to you, and you need to dive from one tree to the next, then a Stealth check should be allowed.
As for the farmer and his dog. Well, if the dog is sleeping, he's not going to easily detect an advancing enemy. A Perception is needed (he smells or hears the person coming). The farmer, if he's constantly observing the area, yes, he's going to see you the minute you're out of cover or concealment in bright daylight. Makes sense.
But this is where causing a distraction comes into play. Simply make a Bluff check. You throw a rock or cause some other disturbance, then rush to hide elsewhere before they observe the area again. That's one way.
It was dead again! It was Dead! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
WHY!!!!! *wimpers*
Seriously though, someone else linked this somewhere in this undead thread, but I found it a very helpful analysis of stealth, perception, and logical workarounds.
You know this is a reason to play the fighter.
Fighter: "I walk up and hit the chicken with my sword. I miss on a 1, my minim damage kills it out right, and I get more the one attack."
DM: "No don't bother. The farmer does see all this."
Fighter: "Great, is that going to be a circumstance bonus when I try to intimidate him into cooking the chicken for me?"
|
You know this is a reason to play the fighter.
Fighter: "I walk up and hit the chicken with my sword. I miss on a 1, my minim damage kills it out right, and I get more the one attack."
DM: "No don't bother. The farmer does see all this."
Fighter: "Great, is that going to be a circumstance bonus when I try to intimidate him into cooking the chicken for me?"
Totally true. Pretty much completely the reason nobody in my group has played a rogue for a year and a half.
It was dead again! It was Dead! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWHY!!!!! *wimpers*
Seriously though, someone else linked this somewhere in this undead thread, but I found it a very helpful analysis of stealth, perception, and logical workarounds.
I will note that I, and many others, had lots of comments and disagreements with him in that thread. Its a good discussion overall, but it goes to show how many people view these rules differently, which is why they need some clarification.
it goes to show how many people view these rules differently, which is why they need some clarification.
This is exactly it in a nutshell, agree 100%.
I would just set a small fire in the corn field that apparently has no corn in it.
when the dog and farmer take off to see whats up, nark a few chickens.
I do this as a clever five year old with no ranks in stealth, a fat sack on my back and plenty of time.
Oh also the dog doesnt smell me do to the overwhelming smell of smoke in the air...