| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I would like to make sure I understand what's going on when you come out from Stealth.
Scenario (pardon my Paint skills):
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/3368/steathscenario1.jpg
A rogue is on the other side of the pillar from a cleric. Position A the Rogue clearly has full cover from the Cleric with Darkvision to 60 feet. There is no fog or anything, but is it low light. The Cleric knows that the Rogue is on the other side of the pillar somewhere.
I would assume that the Rogue could move to Position B and make a Stealth check since he still has cover to the Cleric.
1) What happens when the Rogue gets to Position C?
2) What about Position D?
3) My GM ruled that since the Rogue made his Stealth check at the start of his move he was able to get to Position D and make a Sneak attack against the Cleric who did not make his Perception check. Is that correct?
|
First, there is quite a bit of debate regarding this, and as far as I know there is not yet an official answer. The following is my interpretation of how the rules work.
1) What happens when the Rogue gets to Position C?
At this point the rogue no longer has concealment or cover; he cannot Stealth here. (Same with position D. And that means I think your GM made the wrong call.)
On a side note, it you should plug this question to the Sage, er... the Kobold.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32
|
I actually would rule the first way -- that is if the rogue hides at the start he can break cover/concealment and sneak to the cleric before tghe cleric can react.
Why? Well...
a) the cleric doesn't know when the rogue will move or even if the rogue will move.
b) the cleric doesn't know if the rogue will come from the left or the right side of the rock. perhaps the rogue moved while the cleric was looking the wrong way?
c) I would give the cleric a bonus on his Perception since he knows the rogues is "behind the pillar"
d) if the cleric did something else other than looking out for the rogue, that bonus would go away.
But that's me... YMMV
I was unable to open the picture from this computer. Also there are two things that I wasn't 100% sure on the meaning of.
1) Who has Darkvision, the Cleric or the Rogue?
2) Are you asking if the conditions are Low Light or saying that the conditions were in fact Low Light?
I am assuming that the Rogue has Darkvision and there are in fact conditions of Low Light.
If those two things are correct than the Rogue could sneak anywhere he wants and even hide out in the open when not behind cover. The lighting rules in PRG states that in Low Light conditions (which provede 20% concealment) anyone may make Stealth checks.
As long as the Cleric never spots the Rogue, than the Rogue may sneak around wherever he likes, within the Low Light areas. However, after the Rogue has been spotted he must Bluff and/or get to an area where he is not being actively perceived (IE: Back behind a pillar) before he will be able to use Stealth again.
Alternatively there are also rules provided in the Complete Adventurer that allow a Rogue to make a Stealth check to leave his hiding spot (cover/concealment) and sneak up on a target who is standing in the open, without being detected along the way.
|
Alternatively there are also rules provided in the Complete Adventurer that allow a Rogue to make a Stealth check to leave his hiding spot (cover/concealment) and sneak up on a target who is standing in the open, without being detected along the way.
Yup, namely it'd be -5 to the stealth check for every 5 feet of movement without cover or concealement...
This really depends on how you run your game and how much reality you factor in when making your rulings. Whichever way you want to play it be up front with the players as the rulings work for the players as much as the DM. Just need everyone to be on the same page and not surprised by the sudden change in ruling.
For me I think this is where you have to add reality in your adjudication and consider which way the cleric is facing. Rules as written don't factor in facing, which pretty much gives everyone full 360 degree vision. We've got our eyes in the front of head so this doesn't marry up to real life and I think it takes away an element from the game. So for me I'd be factoring in facing, because I like the cinematic feel of a deadly stalker moving in on its prey who is looking the wrong way. Its cool for players and encourages them to do approach situations with some thought and not just going with the attitude of roll dice and stuff happens. It adds to the fun and the tactical side of the game. So going off the example if the cleric is not expecting an attack or facing in the opposite direction of the pillar then I'd say just a stealth check and if the rogues check passes then its all good. I'd even ignore the penalty that midknight has posted unless there was some factors to take in, such as noisy floor or the cleric is on guard duty.
If the cleric knows or believes he's on the otherside of the pillar and is facing it then I'd rule that the cleric gets a perception check once the rogue breaks cover of the pillar. I'd factor in the penalty - see midknights post. The reason that I'd rule this way is because the Cleric doesn't know which side of the pillar that the rogue is going to come from and being so close to the pillar its difficult to see both sides fully at once. Actually I'd probably make a luck roll out in front of the player if it was an npc to see which side the cleric focuses on as the rogue makes his/her move and then apply penalties to the stealth check if the cleric was lucky. If the cleric was a PC then I'd give them option to predict which side and focus on that or take their chances and try to see both sides.
If the cleric was back say 10ft I'd rule that he/she could see both sides in the one facing. I'd apply the penalty for the stealth check. I have to say the stealth check seems way harsh at -5 for every 5ft of movement when you consider that 5ft is really just two steps. Might be something to house rule as a lesser penalty...dunno.
For me I think this is where you have to add reality in your adjudication and consider which way the cleric is facing.
I agree. If the cleric is alert, the thief will be in trouble as soon as he leaves cover/concealment (he might not have to leave concealment at all; it's not totally clear from the original post if the entire area is in shadow/dim light or not). But if the cleric is not alert, I'd just make a normal Stealth check even if there is line of sight. Maybe with a penalty as other folks have suggested.
This is a mechanic vs. how you could do it in real life. Ever snuck behind someone and covered their eyes or frightened them? If the answer is yes then you probably did it without the use of cover. This is a facing issue. If the cleric is looking the other way say if there is another opponent or is casting a spell in that direction then I would say cover would not even figure into the check. Why pathfinder assumes that you can see behind you I have never understood. If the attention is focused in the other direction then I would rule that you can make all the stealth checks you want. This is one of the reasons that I liked the Hide/Move Silent skills of 3.5. it assumed that being able to be quiet and being able to hide are two very different skill sets. It also allowed for the use of move silent not in conjunction with hide. I know it caused many a rogue to give away their position, but if they made their hide and failed their move silent then they were still hidden but the opponent had an idea of their location and was now aware that someone/thing is in their vicinity. Just a little more realism for a game.
The way we run stealth is to try and keep it fairly straightforward. If a rogue (for example) has stealth relative to its target (has won an opposed perception versus stealth check with the requirements for being stealthed allowing their stealth check in the first place) then it can move its normal stealth movement (half or full depending on feats) and still sneak attack the target.
The way for the cleric in the presented scenario to avoid a sneak attack in our game (since he knows there is a rogue behind the pillar as initially stated, just not where the rogue is) would be to ready an action to attack the rogue when it came within reach. In our game that would simulate the cleric is actively anticipating the rogue's sneak attack and is ready to counter it.
I know others will have different takes, but that is how we would run it.
This is a mechanic vs. how you could do it in real life. Ever snuck behind someone and covered their eyes or frightened them? If the answer is yes then you probably did it without the use of cover. This is a facing issue.
Good point ... maybe we should simply assume that facing for a token equals the direction he/she is travelling.
|
I assume that the perception check vs. stealth check covers it all well.
While it is true that the rules do not cover facing, it is bad to assume that it means 360° vision. Remember, perception checks are not just sight, they also cover hearing, touch, and all the other senses. A failed perception check could mean that the character thought something was behind them and turned to look at the wrong time. (and the rogue made a good use out of the distraction to move in, thus getting a good stealth check).
This is a case where I believe that the rules cover a large section of possibilities with minimal text, and leave the details to those telling the story. A good DM will add pluses and minuses to skills depending on the situation. In this case, if the cleric was stating that they where keeping an eye on the pillar, then I would grant them a bonus to their check (and possibly a minus to the rogues stealth check) to represent that. As I have told young players (and is in the beginning of every RPG book out there in one form or another), the rules are not the house, just the framework. You can do a lot of stuff that the rules do not cover, a good DM will figure out how to get it all to fit, and good players should be forcing the DM into these situations a lot.
I would be sad to see Pathfinder and such to go the way of Chart^h^h^hRolemaster. No game really needs a hit location table for a fish based off a longsword (since short-blades obviously need a different location table, along with axes... Etc, Ad nausium).
|
|
My two cents
It depends. I would say that the rogue would require more than one stealth check and the cleric more than one opposed check. The rogue wants to remain unseen and the cleric is actively wanting to see him.
Anymore thoughts on this? My gaming group has recently .. conflicted on this topic with nearly this setup. There were a few more baddies, and the enemy with darkvision was in combat.
I am exhausted on reading the different groups about stealth, perception, HiPS, etc., and there seems to be no agreement.
The rogue in question is designed to be a sniper.
This is how I would rule, please let me know if you agree:
A: The rogue has to have declared stealth the previous round.
B: The cleric would gain a perception vs the rogues stealth for cover.
C: Nothing
D: If the cleric did not perceive the rogue in spot B, the rogue has the stealthed condition on the Cleric and can effectively attack as "invisible" versus the cleric.
If the rogue doesn't attack and continues to move, they do not qualify to restealth unless the somehow gain concealment (not dim-light within the darkvision radius) or cover.
Each enemy gets one perception opportunity to see the stealther whether they have darkvision or not, and each would oppose the rogue's original stealth check.
Thoughts?
Michael Grimm,
as a DM I'd rule exactly like that (and I do) with respect to the cleric (the target). The rogue stealth check becomes focused on the target in order to sneak attack it.
The only doubt is about other enemies who could have plain sight on the rogue. Probably for them I would apply a good -20 on the stealth check (just to give the rogue a small chance...). But I'm opened to discussion about this.
I'm quite firm on my position about the cleric, otherwise rogues would be... ehm... useless?
Michael Grimm,
as a DM I'd rule exactly like that (and I do) with respect to the cleric (the target). The rogue stealth check becomes focused on the target in order to sneak attack it.
The only doubt is about other enemies who could have plain sight on the rogue. Probably for them I would apply a good -20 on the stealth check (just to give the rogue a small chance...). But I'm opened to discussion about this.
I'm quite firm on my position about the cleric, otherwise rogues would be... ehm... useless?
Well, not useless, but seriously nerfed.
I'm quite firm on my position about the cleric, otherwise rogues would be... ehm... useless?Not useless at all... just not able to Hide in Plain Sight without the ability.
-James
So, a rogue is useless unless he goes shadowdancer 1? Got it.
Everybody realizes and agrees that we are discussing houserules here, right?
The RAW says that there is no facing. The RAW says the perception check to notice somebody (the rogue) standing in plain sight is against DC 0 (because there is no ordinary stealth check in plain sight).
So, at position B the rogue still has enough cover to try to use Stealth, but not at position C or D.
We can argue that the cleric might be distracted (say, he's fighting in combat, or reading a book, or whatever), in which case the DC gets a +5 (bringing it up to 5). Although, the OP suggested the cleric knew the rogue was there and was looking for him, so it seems distraction is not a factor. There might even be a +2 penalty for low light, though at such short range, maybe not (for example, moonlight would be yes, but candlelight would be no).
Also, we might apply a -2 penalty, or even a -5 penalty, for unfavorable/terrible conditions because the rogue is moving. It's much easier to be unobserved in plain sight if you stand perfectly still. Move quickly, and the cleric is much more likely to see him. That's sort of a DM's call since "ufavorable conditions" is wide open to each DM interpreting whatever he or she wants to.
So at worst the cleric needs to make a DC 7 perception check and the rogue's stealth skill has no bearing on this check. At best, the DC might even be in the negatives, depending on how the DM applies any penalty for the rogue moving.
That's the rules as written.
Go to this thread for a good discussion on stealth, perception, and sniping.
So, a rogue is useless unless he goes shadowdancer 1? Got it.
\
No, not useless.
However, a rogue is not "invisible" by simply using stealth. Shadowdancers can be (somewhat), but rogues cannot.
James, relatively useful is what you meant.
I suppose every one has some reasons to have a particular opinion on that question, partly from the role they want for the rogues, partly from the rules.
I think that the rogue is more fun to play with this ability, and do not overshadow the other classes nor deprive the shadowdancer of its dipworthyness. So I'd let him (and any other stealthy characters) hide behind the camera like in a good Leone movie.
After all, hide in plain sight is not called "be hidden in plain sight", and hiding behind a pillar does not seem to require much skill.
I wonder why the designers never made a comment on these threads.
So, a rogue is useless unless he goes shadowdancer 1? Got it.\
No, not useless.
However, a rogue is not "invisible" by simply using stealth. Shadowdancers can be (somewhat), but rogues cannot.
I do agree that they are not invisible. And I loved your thread about stealth. But seriously, unless it's dark or a rogue has cover he can never sneak on someone is preposterous.
I do agree that they are not invisible. And I loved your thread about stealth. But seriously, unless it's dark or a rogue has cover he can never sneak on someone is preposterous.So, a rogue is useless unless he goes shadowdancer 1? Got it.\
No, not useless.
However, a rogue is not "invisible" by simply using stealth. Shadowdancers can be (somewhat), but rogues cannot.
That may be true. In fact, it is true. But it's the rules.
One more thing to consider. If a PC rogue can sneak up and whammy an NPC guard, or whatever, then an NPC rogue can sneak up and whammy a PC. It works both ways.
Imagine this scene:
DM: OK, your party sets up camp, on the flat barren ground. You can see for miles. It's late, so everyone goes to sleep except Fred who stays on first watch, right?
Fred: Yep, I'm on watch. Remember, I have darkvision so I can see anyone coming.
DM: OK, Fred, an hour goes by. Roll a perception check.
Fred: Sweet! I got an 18. +8 so my roll is a 26.
DM: *rolls dice* OK, Fred, you take 35 damage.
Fred: From what!?!?!
DM: How many HP do you have left?
Fred: I'm at -2, I'm unconscious.
DM: Oh, well, then you don't know what. You never saw it. OK, Fred, roll 8 stabilization rolls, let's see if you die during the night. Either way, when morning comes, everyone else wakes up to find that you have a nasty head wound and all your stuff was stolen during the night. After the rogue Sneak-Attacked Fred, he took all your stuff. In fact, the took the whole group's stuff.
Fred: I failed 8 times. I guess I bled out.
DM: Too bad the rogue didn't leave you a diamond for the resurrection spell.
Fred: The land is flat, there's no place to hide, and I have darkvision. How could anyone get close enough to sneak attack me?
DM: Oh, well, he came up behind you.
Fred: Behind me? I'm on watch, I'm looking around!
DM: Well, he made his stealth check and beat your perception roll. Here, want a new character sheet?
What the PCs can do to the monsters is fairly inconsequential. Monsters are supposed to die. The DM is supposed to make new monsters each week.
But PCs are not supposed to die, and players are certainly not supposed to make new characters each week. Rules that let ordinary skills turn ordinary people and ordinary monsters into super-ninjas that cannot be seen by their victims will just be a PC-killer. It only takes once.
And every group of PCs has some people who are not optimized for Perception checks. Which means that any bad guy who is optimized for stealth will almost always succeed, and will almost always kill PCs.
It's really just not worth it. Keep the two-way-street scenario safer rather than deadlier; all good gaming theory has proven time and again that deadly always hurts the players more than it hurts the monsters.
|
|
Huh. All the other players still get their perception checks too :P Albeit at a -10 penalty.
Plus, you know, the favorable conditions bonuses.
Oh, but I forgot about the rogues torch of darkness *opposite of the ever popular everburning torch*, the boots of levitation to avoid the rubble, and the armor of shadow.
Sorry Fred. You're Toast.
:p
Thing as, as a dm, you can *always* guarantee a bad guy sneaking into camp and robbing everyone blind if you want. It's a plot hook on a silver-plated platter.
And you can guarantee that no one will try to steal from them if you don't want it to happen.
But totally, just give your rogue a torch of darkness and everything is ok again :)
A sixth level rogue (at least) is not an ordinary threat for a party whose watch guy has only +8 on perception. And if they put the guy who did not max the skill on watch duty, nor gave him some items to raise his bonus, then it's deserved.
Though, on open terrain, he should have had more than one check, and a random but level-appropriate (or more) thief would have used a sap. Sounds like the DM had something against fred.
If it's not that, and there was a hiding place in the next 30 feet, then finding 6 seconds when fred looked elsewhere is possible...
Also you make several assumptions and speculations in the first post of the thread you linked. Complete Adventurer gives a clear and definite rule.
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.
According to me, the round in which a hidden rogue goes against its target to strike, even if he makes 2 or 3 squares of movement in plain sight, remains in a stealth condition: in a stealth check it's embedded the fact that he pauses, stops, waits the right nanosecond to move without being seen by his target (only). I'm not telling that he's hidden to anybody and I'm not telling that he will remain hidden the next round.
Someone elso could say that plain sight is just plain sight from the first second, I must agree of course...
Now, since I think that interpretation could be taken still into account about this subject, personally I prefer to go for the first hypothesis. IMO, it adds flavour, gives a little bit more role to the rogue or whoever goes for stealth and, at the end of the day, it is just one attack, cannot be done every round... I mean a rogue, to reiterate the story, must loose 3 rounds...
By the way, I think that there is not a really really strict official position about this subject.
|
We can argue that the cleric might be distracted (say, he's fighting in combat, or reading a book, or whatever), in which case the DC gets a +5 (bringing it up to 5). Although, the OP suggested the cleric knew the rogue was there and was looking for him, so it seems distraction is not a factor. There might even be a +2 penalty for low light, though at such short range, maybe not (for example, moonlight would be yes, but candlelight would be no).
I think your posts are great but you continually point out that combat is not distracting. To this I disagree greatly, the mere idea of being threatened by an opponent means that that opponent is drawing the attention of the observer. And though via RAW it doesn't explicitly say that combat is distracting the whole idea of Flanking is based on the idea that the person in combat can not devote his attention to both opponents at the same time (thus allowing for a person observed to gain the benefit of targeting a vital area).
All opportunity attack actions are also based on the idea that you can not divert your attention away from your attacker without taking a risk.
So unless there is no one adjacent to the observer I would think that distraction should be greatly considered.
. . . it was just gnawing at me. Otherwise I think you are on the nose.
Rogues got a minor bump, as a melee rogue I'm not bothered too much by these rulings, fitting myself into flank w/ reach is making it work (greater risk true but tons more satisfying). However for a sniper to make it work seems as arbitrary as ruling illusions. . . or just be happy with a single d6 damage till 8th level or so, (when rings of invis or greater invis is avaliable). Maybe they will get a bump in Advanced Players Guide.
So, a rogue is useless unless he goes shadowdancer 1? Got it.
I'm quite firm on my position about the cleric, otherwise rogues would be... ehm... useless?Not useless at all... just not able to Hide in Plain Sight without the ability.
-James
Not at all; a rogue can certainly still hide if he moves into an area with concealment (e.g. shadowy light instead of bright light). But if there's no cover and no concealment and the cleric is paying attention, he's out of luck.
A sixth level rogue (at least) is not an ordinary threat for a party whose watch guy has only +8 on perception. And if they put the guy who did not max the skill on watch duty, nor gave him some items to raise his bonus, then it's deserved.
Though, on open terrain, he should have had more than one check, and a random but level-appropriate (or more) thief would have used a sap. Sounds like the DM had something against fred.
If it's not that, and there was a hiding place in the next 30 feet, then finding 6 seconds when fred looked elsewhere is possible...Also you make several assumptions and speculations in the first post of the thread you linked. Complete Adventurer gives a clear and definite rule.
+8 on perception might be pretty good even for a 10th level fighter. He only gets 2 skill points per level, less if INT is a dump stat, and might want a few points in climb, acrobatics, swim, etc.
I hope you're not suggesting that a 6th level rogue is overpowered for a 10th level group?
And why wouldn't the fighter take a turn at watch? Does the poor rogue have to stay up all night, every night, while the low-Perception wizard, cleric, and fighter all sleep through the night?
And saps don't work against foes wearing helmets (or maybe that's just a houserule - but either way, they probably shouldn't work, since whips are similarly limited). Anyway, not all rogues sneaking around the woods at night, poaching from adventurer groups, prefer to carry a sap ready in hand when they could use a sword instead. So sap is an option, not a "should".
And while the Complete Adventurer is a good book, with some good rules in it, it is certainly not Pathfinder, nor is it legal in PFS games, so while it's a handy guideline, it's not terribly relevant to discussing Pathfinder stealth rules.
We can argue that the cleric might be distracted (say, he's fighting in combat, or reading a book, or whatever), in which case the DC gets a +5 (bringing it up to 5). Although, the OP suggested the cleric knew the rogue was there and was looking for him, so it seems distraction is not a factor. There might even be a +2 penalty for low light, though at such short range, maybe not (for example, moonlight would be yes, but candlelight would be no).I think your posts are great but you continually point out that combat is not distracting. To this I disagree greatly, the mere idea of being threatened by an opponent means that that opponent is drawing the attention of the observer.
I have never said combat is not distracting. Quite the opposite; I have agreed with everyone and sundry that combat is, in fact, distracting.
Now, what I have said is that combat is not a sufficient distraction to allow automatic sneak attacks, or automatic failure on perception checks.
I discussed this at some length on the thread I linked, but the short version is that if Combat were that distracting, then we wouldn't need a "Feint" action, rogues could sneak attack all time without even flanking, and nobody could see anybody during combat if all perception checks automatically fail.
Obviously the rules don't work that way.
So combat is distracting. It qualifies for a +5 modifier on the DC for any perception check you make while you're fighting (although even this is up to the DM's discretion).
None of that changes the fact that when the rogue steps out of his cover, he is in plain sight, and the DC to perceive him is 0. He cannot use stealth in plain sight, so he gets no stealth check. If the cleric in the example is fighting, raise that DC to 5 because he is distracted. If he misses that perception check, then the rogue can sneak attack/snipe the cleric as an unseen attacker.
And though via RAW it doesn't explicitly say that combat is distracting the whole idea of Flanking is based on the idea that the person in combat can not devote his attention to both opponents at the same time (thus allowing for a person observed to gain the benefit of targeting a vital area).
All opportunity attack actions are also based on the idea that you can not divert your attention away from your attacker without taking a risk.
So unless there is no one adjacent to the observer I would think that distraction should be greatly considered.
. . . it was just gnawing at me. Otherwise I think you are on the nose.
I think you might have misread my post. I didn't say the cleric is NOT distracted. I said he might be, and listed "fighting in combat" as one reason that he might be. The original poster didn't make it clear whether the cleric was fighting or not.
So given that clarification, are we seeing more eye-to-eye?
Rogues got a minor bump, as a melee rogue I'm not bothered too much by these rulings, fitting myself into flank w/ reach is making it work (greater risk true but tons more satisfying). However for a sniper to make it work seems as arbitrary as ruling illusions. . . or just be happy with a single d6 damage till 8th level or so, (when rings of invis or greater invis is avaliable). Maybe they will get a bump in Advanced Players Guide.
You might find my clarifications on sniping to be useful for you then, even before 8th level. Although that -20 on the Stealth checks is a real pain in the butt for low-level snipers.
I hope you're not suggesting that a 6th level rogue is overpowered for a 10th level group?
A 10th level fighter with 35 hp and no int bonus, not enough ranks and no equipment to boost perception ?
Yeah, even though I said "not an ordinary threat", a 6th level rogue just might be overpowered for a group that put a guy like this on watch.Why wouldn't that fighter take a turn on watch ? Because he can't see a sixth level rogue approaching, that's why. If the party has no use for watch turns, they might as well take none. Or let the rogue on watch and put him to sleep in a cart during the day. Or tell the wizard to prepare one Alarm spell. Or plan their skills as a group to have two characters able to use it. Or sleep at inns.
I mean, I'm not against unbalanced parties, but they should not act as if they had no gap when they do.
I mean, I understand that your example was made on the fly and a little stretched, but even in such a case there's efficient ways to avoid roaming assassins and no reason to stick to unefficient ones.
For the sap, that's the dm's choice. So yeah, if the rogue is just his version of "rock falls", he should stop doing that.
For complete adventurer, I admit that I don't know what is legal in PFS, and I'll admit that I don't really care - after all, rules are only rules. But you said "that's RAW" and pointed to a thread that discussed guesses of what the rules mean, and since pathfinder is still supposed to be compatible with 3.5, I found logical to refer to 3.5 when pathfinder don't say enough. That is, should we care about what's RAW.
After all, the rule for scorching rays and sneak attack is from complete arcane (or mage ?), not reprinted in pathfinder, and still valid.
automatic failure on perception checks.
Where is that coming from ?
For what it is worth, I firmly believe that, in a 6-second long round, if somebody perfectly hidden (a.k.a. Stealth check succeds while still hidden by cover or concealment) pops out of his hiding place and reaches me with his blade - well, I am Flat-Footed (just like in a Surprise Round), and nothing (except special abilities like Uncanny Dodge) would prevent me to take a Sneak Attack between my eyes.
Now, call it house-rule, common sense, RAI... this is how I would personally handle the situation.
Thing is, 3.x/Pathfinder have no Facing Rules while combat is on, yet I dare any GM to forbid out of combat a situation where a Rogue comes to the back of his victim (even in a limitless plain) if he succeeds in a Stealth check.* Oh, of course PF rules state that Stealth is not allowed in bright light without cover or concealment and so on. But the fact is, this very same rule was present in 3.5 as well, only it was relegated to HIDE CHECKS only. In a situation where a potential victim is staring at the ocean from a cliff, for example, 3.x would have only asked for a Move Silently check (the victim was NOT looking at his back by his own very admission), and only if the M.S. would have failed the Sneak Attack would have been foiled.
*I would even say that in some specific situations, Facing Rules 'sneak' (pun intended) into Combat; for example, usually creatures fight with a front-side-back view (yet, not simultaneously... but for that, see following example), but it's hard to assume that they even look up their heads or under their waist in every single round of combat, unless they have a reason to do it. They are not 3.x Beholders or PF Medusae, after all (with the All-around vision special quality), so it's alluded that - sometimes - they are not looking at the specific right direction while somebody passes by. Of course, this is GM's adjudication, but wouldn't you allow a creeping creature (like a Spider) to crawl on the ceiling and drop on his victim (Stealth check) while he is fighting against a group of Orcs, for example ? After all, combat is still 3d-based...
Pathfinder has made only one big mistake regarding Stealth checks IMHO, and it's all in this simple sentence:
"In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. Some creatures, such as those with light sensitivity and light blindness, take penalties while in areas of bright light. A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover."
where the sentence would be completely correct (IMHO) if it would be
"In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. Some creatures, such as those with light sensitivity and light blindness, take penalties while in areas of bright light. A creature can't use Stealth BASED ON HIDING in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover. Any Perception checks based on sight are automatically successful by your opponent"
After all, the Stealth skill specifically says:
"You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. This skill covers hiding and moving silently."
and the Perception skill says:
"Your senses allow you to notice fine details and alert you to danger. Perception covers all five senses, including sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell."
...yet people often seem to believe that a Perception check involves only SEEING your enemy (and by converse, Stealth checks involve only NOT be SEEN by the enemy).
Pathfinder made a great job reducing the number of skills, but this doesn't mean to me that we are reduced ONLY to play in a 'binary way' ('Stealth checks ? Nah, it's high noon. What, you crawl silently behind him while he is reading a book under the porch? Well, BY RAW YOU CANNOT...'). Rules are a mean to an end (...like in Alignment debates... heh, sorry, I couldn't resist XD ), but there are still people, in the end, who have to adjudicate such rules 'out of the vacuum', so to speak. If we cannot play sneaky thieves anymore (the silent ones, I mean) only because a rule - made for ease of use - seems to tell that you cannot do it, well, for me it's plain wrong.
Just my 2 sneaky cents.
OK, point one: my example did not say the fighter must be 10th level. Later, I did say that a +8 perception check might be a decent perception check, even for a 10th level fighter. By that, I did not mean to imply that my example fighter had to be 10th level. But if a +8 Perception check is good at 10th level, it's surely good at 1st level, and everywhere in between. Sorry I didn't make that point clear since it seems to have become a focus point for the discussion. So please assume that my example used a fighter for whom 35 HP damage would be deadly (or at least assume he was wounded earlier and the party was out of healing magic).
Point two: a level 2 rogue can take Fast Stealth and move 60' in a single round (two move actions requiring two stealth checks). Of course, he would only need to move 30' in the surprise round, then on the first round he would move 30' and then attack the flat-footed and unobservant Fred.
And finally, point three: Jeeeeez! It was just an example of how stupendously awful it would be to use this tactic against the PCs. Every rogue player on these forums seems to want to be some super-deadly-manga-ninja until the shoe ends up on the other foot, then no player wants their character taking a dirt nap because they argued for some unbalanced rule that lets a simple skill become the super-ninja-skill-of-death.
OK, point one: my example did not say the fighter must be 10th level. Later, I did say that a +8 perception check might be a decent perception check, even for a 10th level fighter. By that, I did not mean to imply that my example fighter had to be 10th level. But if a +8 Perception check is good at 10th level, it's surely good at 1st level, and everywhere in between. Sorry I didn't make that point clear since it seems to have become a focus point for the discussion. So please assume that my example used a fighter for whom 35 HP damage would be deadly (or at least assume he was wounded earlier and the party was out of healing magic).
Point two: a level 2 rogue can take Fast Stealth and move 60' in a single round (two move actions requiring two stealth checks). Of course, he would only need to move 30' in the surprise round, then on the first round he would move 30' and then attack the flat-footed and unobservant Fred.
And finally, point three: Jeeeeez! It was just an example of how stupendously awful it would be to use this tactic against the PCs. Every rogue player on these forums seems to want to be some super-deadly-manga-ninja until the shoe ends up on the other foot, then no player wants their character taking a dirt nap because they argued for some unbalanced rule that lets a simple skill become the super-ninja-skill-of-death.
Hehe, I don't want super ninja, believe me. But it's ridiculous to assume that even if the guy u want to sneak is 5 feet away from you and your cover you can't, cause you enter "plain sight". That's my beef with it. Sure, if it's day and you are in a plain it's nigh impossible to hide. But the way rules are now, you can NEVER come out of cover to attack, and that's preposterous (yes, I like that word :))
I would be fine with a -1 to -5 per 5 feet moved, that would be neat.
A PC fighter 10 has a CON of at least 14 (since NPC fighters have at least that much), for an average of 79 HP (assuming he used his favored class bonuses for skills). He has a wealth of 62000, which means he can easily afford +2 full plate, a +2 heavy shield, and a ring of protection +2, for a flat-footed AC of 26 (10 + 10 armor + 4 shield + 2 deflection). That means the rogue has a roughly 1 in 3 chance of hitting the fighter.
I'm sorry, but if a rogue sneaks up to a fighter on his shield side he deserves to die. Take 4 off the fighter's AC and he has a much better chance to hit.
The way my group normally plays it is if you win a stealth check in a round then you have stealth for that round. A round is only 6 seconds, give a guy a break. One player argued that he wouldn't fall 120' off a dragon's back and splat on the ground in a single round until we actually did the math.
All that being said, stealth is not meant to be the all powerful Erik the Viking cloak of invisibility. One thing it will always beat: True Seeing.
It was just an example of how stupendously awful it would be to use this tactic against the PCs. Every rogue player on these forums seems to want to be some super-deadly-manga-ninja until the shoe ends up on the other foot, then no player wants their character taking a dirt nap because they argued for some unbalanced rule that lets a simple skill become the super-ninja-skill-of-death.
Yeah, but it was a bad one. Stealth does not make one a super-deadly-ninja (eh, ghost step is level 2)or not even a super-deadly-rogue. It only allows a character to move stealthily.
Stealth does not make one a super-deadly-ninja (eh, ghost step is level 2)or not even a super-deadly-rogue. It only allows a character to move stealthily.
Exactly my point.
Stealthy.
Visible but stealthy.
And since the rogue is visible, the cleric would almost certainly see him, given the OP that the cleric knew where he was and was looking for him. And even if we weren't given that, the rules don't have any RAW accounting for the cleric looking the wrong way, or not knowing the rogue is there.
Roge steps out. Becomes visible. Stealth is gone. Cleric gets to roll perception no matter what else he is doing. DC is 0 to observe the visible rogue. If the cleric is distracted, bump that up to DC 5.
That's it. That's the RAW.
Everything else is houserule.
Roge steps out. Becomes visible. Stealth is gone.
That's not RAW.
Perception rules account for the character looking in the wrong direction.
Roge steps out. Becomes visible. Stealth is gone.That's not RAW.
Perception rules account for the character looking in the wrong direction.
Which doesn't make what I said untrue. Nor does it make it "not RAW".
Yes, the cleric could fail his DC 0 perception check, particularly if he's distracted (making it a DC 5 check). We could say, fluff-wise, that the cleric must have been looking the wrong way (or else how could he miss that perfectly visible rogue only 10' away). But, if we do say that, we're just putting fluff on the failed check.
Which is probably what you're trying to say: the perception check having failed gives us justification to say the clierc looked the wrong direction.
But, still, the rogue stepped out, became visible, and lost his Stealth.
Had the cleric made his DC 0 perception check, we would have used totally different fluff, something like this "The rogue steps out of cover and the cleric, looking right at him, sees him standing there in plain sight."
I agree with The Wraith and Fred Ohm.
I think we have 3 position up to this point in this forum:
1) hidden characters remain hidden (if they succeed check) for the round in which they leave plain sight (at least against their target);
2) hidden characters remain hidden (if they succeed check WITH PENALTIES) for the round in which they leave plain sight;
3) plain sight is plain sight, comma.
Now, I think that we will never find a solution to that and could debate forever.
I'll go for 1 personally as DM, I hope my DM would agree when I'm player.
Someone is arguing that a monster with this rule could kill a character in one round, well in my 20+ years of gaming I've never faced a so helpless situation, probably because I've always found reasonable DM or probably because this attack is not so unbearably powerful...
=
I think we have 3 position up to this point in this forum:
1) hidden characters remain hidden (if they succeed check) for the round in which they leave plain sight (at least against their target);
2) hidden characters remain hidden (if they succeed check WITH PENALTIES) for the round in which they leave plain sight;
3) plain sight is plain sight, comma.
I would add #4:
4) it depends on whether the target is alert and looking for threats (for instance, if you're in combat and you just saw your opponent run around a corner) or not
the rogue stepped out, became visible, and lost his Stealth.
And that's what isn't the rule as written. The only explicit mention of what happens when a character walks into open terrain from a place of hiding is the rule from complete adventurer.
the rogue stepped out, became visible, and lost his Stealth.And that's what isn't the rule as written. The only explicit mention of what happens when a character walks into open terrain from a place of hiding is the rule from complete adventurer.
Correct, again I've never seen an official (I mean core) position about the subject...
the rogue stepped out, became visible, and lost his Stealth.And that's what isn't the rule as written. The only explicit mention of what happens when a character walks into open terrain from a place of hiding is the rule from complete adventurer.
How about this sentence?
"A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover."
That seems pretty clear to me: "no cover" (or concealment) + "bright light" = "visible".