The GM, naturally.
Snarkiness aside, I happen to agree with your GM that without cover, concealment, or an ability that bends the rules, there can be no stealth.
Yup. Think about hiding behind a goalpost, and then trying to sneak across the length of a football field afterwards. You can do it as long as no one is looking, but if they look, they see you.
Edit: Now that Hide and Move Silently are combined into Stealth, there is still some benefit to using Stealth when trying to cross the football field. If someone is distracted or not paying attention, being quiet is useful. But, if they look, they'll see you.
If the guard is not dilligent, I'd allow a player to use stealth to quietly approach. There is no facing in the game, but that doesn't mean they see all directions at all times either.
Ok as a rogue my gm says I cant stealth up a corridor where there is a guard present. He interprets the rules as saying you have to have cover to maintain stealth. I say you have to have cover to begin stealth then after that it is based off opposed perception. Who is correct?
Your DM is correct. You NEED cover, not just to start stealth, but to remain stealthed.
We've had issues with this since I began my 3.5 campaign months ago. As as foreword, I've combined Hide/Move into Stealth in the last two campaigns I ran, so I refer to it as such, even though technically it's a 3.5 game.
There have been a couple instances just like you describe, where he simply said "I stealth" as if he expected to become translucent, like in World of Warcraft or something. Using the 3.5 Hide as a guideline, I determined that he could not use his Stealth skill to hide from sight without any cover. He could not approach a monster from the front without it seeing him when he got within a reasonable distance, or when he left the cover.
However in another instance, I ruled that his stealth would work for at least a moment without cover. He had a camouflage ability and activated it as he pressed himself up against a wall, around the corner from two approaching enemies, who did not expect a fight. The wording of the camouflage ability did not say it provided or counted as cover. But as DM, I determined that the enemies did not see him right away (they certainly saw the rest of the party, down the hall from him), even though, strictly speaking, he had no cover at all. As a result, I allowed him to get in a single round's worth of sneak attack. After he moved (and attacked) he lost stealth and even though he was camouflaged, could not have regained it without actual cover.
|
I have seen a neat ruling on this that you could move five feet out from cover and keep your stealth til the end of your turn(long enough to step out and stab a guard) and that distance increased by another five feet for each 5 ranks in stealth.
Now that is a house rule type thing, but it seems reasonable and gives some stable rules for it since by raw people do see all ways at once for foiling stealth.
I have seen a neat ruling on this that you could move five feet out from cover and keep your stealth til the end of your turn(long enough to step out and stab a guard) and that distance increased by another five feet for each 5 ranks in stealth.
Interesting, although you could cover much of the same thing via the surprise round, since you can charge up to your movement and attack in that case.
Now that is a house rule type thing, but it seems reasonable and gives some stable rules for it since by raw people do see all ways at once for foiling stealth.
Although, I'd think there is an attentiveness element involved too. A guard behind a desk reading a magazine would be less likely to notice someone than a guard standing at attention alertly looking about. In neither case would you be able to use stealth to hide yourself. However, you might be able to use stealth to move quietly by in the former case.
Actually, looks like there are rules for this:
Under Perception:
DC 0 to notice a visible person
+5 for someone distracted
+1/10 ft distance away
So, the guard reading a magazine gets a DC 6 check to notice someone walking 10 feet in front of his desk.
This also means you don't always get noticed by alert guards if you are far enough away, which is also good to know.
Ok as a rogue my gm says I cant stealth up a corridor where there is a guard present. He interprets the rules as saying you have to have cover to maintain stealth. I say you have to have cover to begin stealth then after that it is based off opposed perception. Who is correct?
Of course, the DM is always right, but I think it's worth noting that I wouldn't have ruled out stealth as your DM did. It depends on the circumstances. Is the guard attentive? Distracted? Bored? Half asleep?
Stealth isn't just hiding. If you have concealment or cover from which to watch the guard and gauge his mental state, then it might be possible to pick your time and quietly slip past him/her.
If you're trying to walk by an attentive guard in a brightly lit, long corridor, then you're probably hosed without magical aid. No argument there. But just because there's a guard in a hallway doesn't mean you can't necessarily use stealth to get by them. Good luck!
I have seen a neat ruling on this that you could move five feet out from cover and keep your stealth til the end of your turn(long enough to step out and stab a guard) and that distance increased by another five feet for each 5 ranks in stealth.
Now that is a house rule type thing, but it seems reasonable and gives some stable rules for it since by raw people do see all ways at once for foiling stealth.
I think that's an actual rule from 3.5, something about moving between different points of cover. I don't remember where it's from, off the top of my head. I'll try and find it for you.
For the OP:
Those are two major schools of thought regarding how Stealth works. By strict RAW your DM is correct, however, some people do interpret it to be more along the lines of your opinion. Your DM is correct both by strict RAW and by virtue of the fact that he is DM and has the final say on rules in the game. So with that said there are a few things you can do to put yourself in better position when things like this happen.
Firstly: Evaluate the conditions in said corridor where the guard is. What are the lighting conditions? Are there corners or obstacles that could grand you cover?
A) Concealment: How is this corridor lit? If it is just by candles or torches there is a chance you could sneak around through most of it. There are four lighting conditions in PF: Bright Light, Normal Light, Dim Light, Darkness. In Dim Light and Darkness you have concealment and so can use Stealth at any time as long as you are not being actively observed. It is quite possible that this corridor will be sufficiently lit to provide Normal Light, but it could have areas that are only Dim Light and will provide a place to hide. Have your DM map this detail out so that you can operate.
B) Cover: Is this just a straight plain corridor? If there are corners, barrels, crates, half walls or even curtains you can potentially use them to gain cover which will grant you a hiding place.
Secondly: I believe these are the rules that others in this post have been referring to:
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.
Lastly: Consider acquiring Hide in Plain Sight. With this ability you don't need cover/concealment to hide and can hide even while being directly observed. The only prerequisite for using this ability is being within 10' of an area of dim light. (The prerequisite is different with each type of HiPS but always explained in the ability.)
Skill Tricks are in the Complete Scoundrel.
The rules I posted above are in the Complete Adventurer.
|
|
What you're PROBABLY looking for isn't really Stealth, it's Hide In Plain Sight.
So your situation is this..
You have a corridor. You have a guard.
Here are some viable options..
Is it a well lit corridor? Because if there isn't, you can still hide in the shadows.
Is it night time? If it is, the guard could get sleepy.. stealth up to him when he falls asleep.
How about a distraction? ALTER the guard, make him come to you and sneak past.
Here's where the DM has got you..
It's a well lit corridor with a guard that doesn't sleep and summons more guards when you try to distraction him.
What you're PROBABLY looking for isn't really Stealth, it's Hide In Plain Sight.
So your situation is this..
You have a corridor. You have a guard.
Here are some viable options..
Is it a well lit corridor? Because if there isn't, you can still hide in the shadows.
Is it night time? If it is, the guard could get sleepy.. stealth up to him when he falls asleep.
How about a distraction? ALTER the guard, make him come to you and sneak past.
Here's where the DM has got you..
It's a well lit corridor with a guard that doesn't sleep and summons more guards when you try to distraction him.
..summons more guards when you try to distraction him. ..
If any guard would always call his comrades if he is distracted by a bluff, they will beat him after the 5th or 6th summoning. "Meeaw!":D
Which way did the guard face? Sneaking up behind him is a different matter.
|
This is where things like Blur come in handy. It gives you 20% concealment, so you can attempt Stealth.
You can also Bluff to create a distraction, then attempt Stealth.
Finally, that whole +1/10' of distance is your friend, too. Even if it's a DC of 1, he's ought to make the check. Or as someone else pointed out, DC 6 if the guard is not paying attention.
Which way did the guard face? Sneaking up behind him is a different matter.
This is part of the issue with the way Stealth reads in 3.5 and PF. There is no such thing as facing. So unless you have cover, concealment, or invisibility you are in plain view.
This is where things like Blur come in handy. It gives you 20% concealment, so you can attempt Stealth.
I am not sure if Blur could be used to hide in 3.5 or not, I thought FAQ stated it could not be used for that but don't quote me. I do know that it won't work in PF though based on the lighting rules. In bright or normal light you need cover or invisibility to use Stealth, concealment isn't enough. In dim light or darkness you may use concealment to use Stealth but in that case you don't need the concealment from Blur because you already have concealment from the dim light or darkness.
You can also Bluff to create a distraction, then attempt Stealth.
This could work. Alternately you could use the rules out of the Complete Adventurer.
Finally, that whole +1/10' of distance is your friend, too. Even if it's a DC of 1, he's ought to make the check. Or as someone else pointed out, DC 6 if the guard is not paying attention.
This is a good idea. Distance makes you harder to see/hear then you combine that with the conditions which will add other penalties to the Perception check. You might not be able to use Stealth but there is still a chance you won't be spotted.
|
|
I am not sure if Blur could be used to hide in 3.5 or not, I thought FAQ stated it could not be used for that but don't quote me. I do know that it won't work in PF though based on the lighting rules. In bright or normal light you need cover or invisibility to use Stealth, concealment isn't enough. In dim light or darkness you may use concealment to use Stealth but in that case you don't need the concealment from Blur because you already have concealment from the dim light or darkness.
"Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth." - from the PRD
I know the lighting thing has come up before... "A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover." - also from the PRD.
Where does it say no Stealth in normal light? So according to the RAW, cover but not concealment works for Stealth in bright light? That would seem to negate other obvious things like camouflage. Seems a bit tough. I generally prefer massive penalties, anyway, to outright bans. At least let somebody make a heroic attempt and succeed on a natural 20!
Where does it say no Stealth in normal light?
You can use Stealth in normal light; you just need cover or invisibility to do it. It doesn't say it in black and white. What it says is that Normal Light functions exactly like Bright Light except for one difference: Creatures with light sensitivity don't suffer in Normal Light.
Normal light functions just like bright light, but characters with light sensitivity and light blindness do not take penalties. Areas of normal light include underneath a forest canopy during the day, within 20 feet of a torch, and inside the area of a light spell.
So according to the RAW, cover but not concealment works for Stealth in bright light? That would seem to negate other obvious things like camouflage.
I do maintain that most things which give you Total Concealment still allow Stealth checks. Why? Because invisibility allows a Stealth check in bright and normal light and that is Total Concealment 50%. So my thinking is that if something makes you virtually invisible (IE: Granting Total Concealment and making you physically impossible to visually identify) then you may still use it to roll for Stealth. Now does camouflage fall under that category? Some types probably do and others probably not. The Ranger ability Camouflage is a whole other thing and not what I am talking about here.
Seems a bit tough. I generally prefer massive penalties, anyway, to outright bans. At least let somebody make a heroic attempt and succeed on a natural 20!
That is between you and your DM, or you and your players, whichever the case may be. But by RAW you need cover or invisibility in bright or normal light.
|
|
"Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check." from the PRD.
So I guess the question is: Exactly how much concealment one needs to attempt Stealth? Shadowlord believes for logical reasons that it's total concealment (50% miss chance). However, the above quote is Combat>Concealment section and it comes before the part about total concealment, which would lead me to believe that only normal concealment (20% miss chance) is required. Also, from the following quote in the total concealment section - "A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment)." - makes it clear that when they want to mean total concealment, they say "total concealment," and when they just say "concealment," they mean plain old 20%-miss-chance concealment. So when they say "concealment" allows a Stealth check, I think regular concealment (and a Blur potion) are enough.
Also, from the Dim Lighting rules - "Creatures within this area have concealment (20% miss chance in combat) from those without darkvision or the ability to see in darkness. A creature within an area of dim light can make a Stealth check to conceal itself." Where lighting is concerned, 20% concealment seems to be enough to allow a Stealth check. Seems fair to extract that 20% concealment from Blur would also be enough, even in normal or bright light.
I will grant that the rules are less than clear. The description of the skill unfortunately doesn't fully define the conditions you need for Stealth, or when it is impossible. The lighting rules say you can't in bright/normal light without invisibility or cover, but don't mention concealment. And the concealment rules seem to say you can attempt Stealth with just regular concealment.
I know there were a couple of long, ugly debates about Stealth and sneaking up on chickens right after the rules came out, and maybe this has been officially answered before, but I'd love it if Jason or somebody would please weigh in on this with an official answer - Is regular concealment (20% miss chance), like you get from Blur, enough to attempt attempt a Stealth check in normal/bright light?
Thanks