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".
I interpret this line from static point of view. If you are (initially) without cover and in bright light => surely no stealth.
But if you are initially totally hidden and then you do ..., this is a dynamic point of view.I meant I had never seen an official position about the subject from the dynamic point of view.
Probably to most people here this static, dynamic concept seems stupid/non existent...
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 much RAW/Core/Official ruling does everybody need?
Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you.
You will note, it says "might". It does not say "might if they are looking the right way" or "might if they are not in combat" or "might if the DM is feeling particularly plucky today" or "would have noticed you except that you're a super-deadly invisible ninja".
If someone might notice you, they get a perception check.
**************************
It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
You'll notice it says "impossible". It does not say "possible" or "allowed" or "makes you a super-deadly invisible ninja".
**************************
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.
You'll notice it says "can't use Stealth". It does not say "can use stealth" or "maybe can't use stealth" or "can still be a super-deadly invisible ninja".
**************************
Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.
You'll notice it says "finding cover or concealment". It does not say "sanding out in plain sight" or "dashing across open ground" or "leaving perfectly good cover or concealment and stepping into plain sight" or "being a super-deadly invisible ninja".
**************************
Perception DC to Notice a visible creature: 0
You'll notice it says "visible creature". It doesn't say "visible creature that was stealthy earlier in the round" or "creature who thinks he's sneaky even in plain sight" or "super-deadly invisible ninja".
**************************
Perception DC to Notice a creature using Stealth: Opposed by Stealth
You'll notice it says "using Stealth". It does not say "used stealth earlier in the round" or "wishes it could use stealth" or "is a super-deadly invisible ninja".
*********************************************************************
I dunno, gang, but that looks like a whole lot of RAW to me.
To recap: It is impossible to use stealth while you are running, charging, attacking, or observed. If anyone might notice you, they get a perception check no matter what they are doing - all they need is "might". You need cover or concealment to use stealth, and if you don't have cover or concealment, then you cannot use stealth and the DC to perceive you is 0.
That's all in the RAW, folks.
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".
As I posted above, this is (IMHO) the only error in the Stealth rules (and yes, I reiterate my belief... this is a error in the rules, which needs an errata or a FAQ). Which is also easy to explain:
'Find all: Hide' -> 'Replace all: use Stealth'
'Find all: Move Silently' -> 'Replace all: use Stealth'
The rules for cover and concealment were already included in the 3.5 SRD, but they were only referred to Hide checks.
3.5 SRD -> Carrying and Exploration:
"Dwarves and half-orcs have darkvision, but everyone else needs light to see by. See Table: Light Sources and Illumination for the radius that a light source illuminates and how long it lasts.
In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. A creature can’t hide in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover."
Now, let's compare it with the PRD:
PRD -> Additional Rules:
"Dwarves and half-orcs have darkvision, but the other races presented in Races need light to see by. See Table: Light Sources and Illumination for the radius that a light source illuminates and how long it lasts. The increased entry indicates an area outside the lit radius in which the light level is increased by one step (from darkness to dim light, for example).
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. Areas of bright light include outside in direct sunshine and inside the area of a daylight spell."
The sentence is verbatim - and it's a logical thing, we couldn't expect that Paizo rewrote word by word every single sentence of the SRD... in fact, some errors due to a complete copying of a sentence have already appeared in the Errata threads.
What amazes me is the fact that people don't want to even remotely think that a rule can be simply wrong, or written in a bad way, or subjected to an errata... no, 'what's RAW is RAW'. Cool, then (by RAW) my Gnome character cannot use his Defensive Training abilty ever. Yup, that's right, no Defensive Training at all. Give a look at the RAW on page 23 or on the PRD -> Races.
"Defensive Training: Gnomes get a +4 dodge bonus to AC against monsters of the giant type."
Cool, too bad the 'giant type' doesn't exist anymore. It's Giant subtype now. And Dwarves have it.
"Defensive Training: Dwarves get a +4 dodge bonus to AC against monsters of the giant subtype."
So, Dwarves can use their abilty, Gnomes don't. Or can they? This an obvious errata. Maybe Stealth has one of these, too...
...or maybe not. After all, how can I move silently (included in the Stealth Rules by RAW) while under the sun at noon ?...
"Stealth
(Dex; Armor Check Penalty)
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."
Sorry if I sounded too snarky. But really, I cannot believe how can people sometimes look only at the tree and not at the forest...
As I posted above, this is (IMHO) the only error in the Stealth rules (and yes, I reiterate my belief... this is a error in the rules, which needs an errata or a FAQ). [..etc..]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".
I completely agree that it should say "hide using the Stealth skill" (or something like that) instead of just "use Stealth". But what difference does that make with the scenario in question (a rogue trying to remain unseen)?
As I posted above, this is (IMHO) the only error in the Stealth rules (and yes, I reiterate my belief... this is a error in the rules, which needs an errata or a FAQ). Which is also easy to explain:
'Find all: Hide' -> 'Replace all: use Stealth'
'Find all: Move Silently' -> 'Replace all: use Stealth'The rules for cover and concealment were already included in the 3.5 SRD, but they were only referred to Hide checks.
Sorry if I sounded too snarky. But really, I cannot believe how can people sometimes look only at the tree and not at the forest...
Last I checked, this is the "Rules" forum, and this thread was started by a player who wanted to know what happens as a rogue moves out of hiding toward a cleric who was aware of the rogue, knew where he was, and was watching for him.
It seems perfectly valid, given that pretext, to discuss the actual rules of the game.
It is also perfectly valid to discuss houserules and how each DM wants to handle this stuff in his campaign - although, since this is the "Rules" forum it would be proper, even expected, to clearly state that such posts are, in fact, houserules rather than simply choosing to misinterpret the RAW according to one's on preferences without labeling our posts as such.
I completely agree that it should say "hide using the Stealth skill" (or something like that) instead of just "use Stealth". But what difference does that make with the scenario in question (a rogue trying to remain unseen)?
The problem is, the scenario shows a Rogue who cannot cover the last 10 feet of open ground while staying unnoticed because, by RAW, this is open ground where he cannot have cover or concealment and so cannot use Stealth to move unnoticed towards his opponent to Sneak Attack him.
In 3.x, he could still use Move Silently and hoping for a gap in the Cleric's defenses in order to come in melee range. In Pathfinder, he cannot use Stealth (at least, this is the 50/50 debate occurring here) and so he can only rely on a Perception checks DC 0 (or DC 5) to crawl near the Cleric... although Stealth can also be used to 'move silently', and Perception is not meant to detect things with sight only.
Some perfectly valid points that "Stealth" is composed of hiding and moving silently (two separate skills in 3.x) and that "Perception" is composed of spotting and listening (also two separate skills in 3.x)
All that you said is valid. Paizo attempted to simplify a skill system by combining some skills into broader, but often sillier, groupings. There is no reason that bright light makes you noisier, or that invisibility makes you quieter. Etc., etc.
Me, I'm all for splitting Stealth back into Hide and Move Silently, and I'm all for splitting Perception back into Listen and Spot. I didn't find those rules all that cumbersome to begin with, back in 3.x, although it was a bit of a skill tax on PCs who wanted to be good a stealthy stuff or perceiving stuff.
But until that errata, we have what we have, and in a Rules forum, answering a post about a game scenario, we probably should discuss the rules. We can save our ideas for improving the stealth/perception mechanic for the Houserules forum.
I completely agree that it should say "hide using the Stealth skill" (or something like that) instead of just "use Stealth". But what difference does that make with the scenario in question (a rogue trying to remain unseen)?The problem is, the scenario shows a Rogue who cannot cover the last 10 feet of open ground while staying unnoticed because, by RAW, this is open ground where he cannot have cover or concealment and so cannot use Stealth to move unnoticed towards his opponent to Sneak Attack him.
In 3.x, he could still use Move Silently and hoping for a gap in the Cleric's defenses in order to come in melee range. In Pathfinder, he cannot use Stealth (at least, this is the 50/50 debate occurring here) and so he can only rely on a Perception checks DC 0 (or DC 5) to crawl near the Cleric... although Stealth can also be used to 'move silently', and Perception is not meant to detect things with sight only.
No, I don't believe this is true.
Given the same scenario in 3.x, that rogue must make two skill rolls, one for Hide and one for Move Silently, and he must succeed on BOTH of them to sneak up on the cleric. It would do him no good at all to silently move directly in front of the cleric who is watching him move the whole way. It's not like that 3.x cleric would say "wow, I really can't hear that rogue tiptoeing toward me right there, so I guess I'll let him sneak attack me."
Pathfinder actually made it easier for a rogue to pull off the maneuver that the OP wants, since at least in Pathfinder, he has a tiny chance. In 3.x, he had no chance. None at all.
"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".
Why did you add concealment ? And that's a rule about bright light, not about stealth. OP's example is in low light in the open, and that rule don't apply.
If someone might notice you, they get a perception check.
No one argued against that. Stealth is opposed to perception.
It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
That too is clear and beyond the point.
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.
And they don't observe you until they spot you.
Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.
Note that it doesn't say staying, or being. It says finding.
Perception DC to Notice a visible creature: 0
Which is separated from creatures using stealth.
Perception DC to Notice a creature using Stealth: Opposed by Stealth
Yep.
And The Wraith makes a good point about Move silently.
In 3.x, he could still use Move Silently and hoping for a gap in the Cleric's defenses in order to come in melee range.
Sure, but being silent but perfectly visible doesn't give you any particular advantage in 3.5 combat (as far as I know).
Why did you add concealment ? And that's a rule about bright light, not about stealth. OP's example is in low light in the open, and that rule don't apply.
I beg your pardon; you're absolutely correct. The cleric has Darkvision, so this line applies:
"A creature can't hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover."
Last I checked, this is the "Rules" forum, and this thread was started by a player who wanted to know what happens as a rogue moves out of hiding toward a cleric who was aware of the rogue, knew where he was, and was watching for him.
It seems perfectly valid, given that pretext, to discuss the actual rules of the game.
It is also perfectly valid to discuss houserules and how each DM wants to handle this stuff in his campaign - although, since this is the "Rules" forum it would be proper, even expected, to clearly state that such posts are, in fact, houserules rather than simply choosing to misinterpret the RAW according to one's on preferences without labeling our posts as such.
I already stated that my POW is that the rules are wrong, or at least contain an undesired error which completely invalid a tactic which was possible in 3.x. And I am not the only one thinking that the rules, indeed, do create a lot of heated debates around these situations.
My reasoning is, the new Skill System in Pathfinder was made to simplify action management of things which were already possible to do in 3.x, but without the terrible 'skill tax' which was mandatory to do even elementary things. However, Stealth as written now specifically doesn't permit a (previously) completely allowed tactic (and sorry DM_Blake, but your previous example of the Rogue and the Fighter would have been a TOTAL slaughter in 3.x, since the Fighter would not even have remotly a chance to detect the Rogue, with the silly 3.x 'Cross-Class' Listen AND 'Cross-Class' Spot skill thing... the Rogue would have slaughtered the entire party more easily back then...)
Of course, most people would not agree with my reading, and other would object this is a house rule. Well, obviously this 'Stealth' thing has already done so much debates that I feel the need to point out this fact in the Errata thread (where is more indicated), but I also wanted to discuss it here (in the Rules section) because I currently believe that the rules are, indeed, wrong.
Peace to all, however, this is just a game !
Sure, but being silent but perfectly visible doesn't give you any particular advantage in 3.5 combat (as far as I know).
This, I believe, is were people have a split opinion. Combat Rules have no facing, yet there are creatures that possess a specific ability (All-around vision) which allow them to have a complete field vision - which allow them among other things to ignore the Flanked condition.
So, what can this mean ? Is the All-around vision simply a name for those cratures which have, effectively, eyes all around their head (Beholders, Medusae thanks to their snake-hair, and so on) or it means that effectively they have a 360 degrees field of vision ? The description of the All-around vision of the Medusa specifically says 'A medusa's snake-hair allows her to see in all directions', so this hould not be only 'fluff'...
If you have a creature on one side of your space, can it be possible that this somehow forces you to look more accurately in that direction and this (along with the +2 to hit to the creatures flanking you) gives another creature on the opposite side of your space the necessary diversion to try a 'Hide' check (Stealth in Pathfinder, Hide in 3.x) ?
One of the crucial readings of the rules is here, IMHO; even without effective Facing in Combat, can you somehow 'simulate' Facing in Combat (albeit for fractions of the round itself) and so allow for having a creature looking exactly on the opposite direction to where another creature is passing by ? After all, it's implied that during combat a creature constantly looks all around itself, not that it looks all around itself CONTEMPORANEOUSLY in every direction (that would be Naruto with his Kage Bunshin no Jutsu ;D )...
If your answer is 'NO' obviously you cannot allow a creature to sneak by with a 'move silently' check alone; if you answer is 'YES', then even in 3.x you could allow somebody to Sneak Attack in virtue of Move Silently alone even in combat.
Me, I personally like dynamic and realistic fights whenever possible, and so my personal answer is 'YES'. I admit that this could be intended as a house-rule, however.
After pointing out the (in)famous question regarding the 'No Stealth in bright light without cover' on the errata thread, this is what James Jacobs said regarding this:
Stealth and Perception do indeed work on things other than sight. What those rules are saying (although perhaps not as clearly as they can) is that you can't use Stealth in bright light when the target can see you.
If you're sneaking up on someone who's looking away from you, you CAN use Stealth (and they can use Perception) since a visual element of the situation doesn't apply. But when that situation can work is up to the GM.
So, basically, this shows that it would be legitimate to allow a character to use the Stealth skill even in plain sight, provided the potential victim is not using sight to detect you in the first place.
And again, the RAW can provide only a guideline for the GM, who has to determine on the spot if a situation is allowable or not.
After said that, let the fight... uh, I mean debate start again :D !
There is no stealth 'button' that when pushed has the creature disappear. Rather the skill allows an unseen creature to remain unseen if it continues to satisfy certain conditions.
It's not all that hard.
-James
Change the sentence to 'the skill allows an unperceived creature to remain unperceived if it continues to satisfy certain conditions' and I agree with you.
Never believed in the 'Stealth Button' myself, but sometimes Stealth can simply mean 'I sneak past him like Sylvester the Cat'...And it seems that the Stealth rules are effectively a bit hard with their current writing, or they would not generate so much threads about them...
I beg your pardon; you're absolutely correct. The cleric has Darkvision, so this line applies:
"A creature can't hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover."
I grant you my pardon. But this is still a particular case.
Can I stealth in plain sight with blur? Or with a tower shield in front of me? That would be awesome ;)
I challenge you to simultaneously observe everything you have line of sight to (or even to observe everything you have line of sight to over the course of the next 6 seconds). But leaving this misdefinition of the word aside, let's just accept it for the moment and see if we arrive at a contradiction.
If you give me six seconds to observe a 6' tall human standing 10' away from me in plain sight in good lighting, I am fairly sure I'll find him. I might even go so far as to say I'm positive I'll find him.
That is, after all, exactly what the poster presented in the original post on this thread.
A bunch of 3.x SRD stuff
What's with all the SRD stuff? This is the Pathfinder forum, where we discuss the Pathfinder rules.
You do know, don't you, that the SRD references a different set of rules, right?
I quoted the rules from this game, Pathfinder, the one we're playing, and the one we're here to discuss on this forum. I would ask that you do the same, since it really is hard to discuss rules of two different game systems.
If I were teaching you chess, and you insisted on collecting $200.00 every time you passed Go, well, we wouldn't get very far in our chess game, would we?
It's fine if you want to use houserules to reintroduce 3.x stuff into your game, but stipulating that we should all do so, or that we should use those rules to resolve Pathfinder rules questions, is definitly not constructive to this forum or to the original poster.
Can I stealth in plain sight with blur? Or with a tower shield in front of me? That would be awesome ;)
LOL
"What if that same human were hiding behind a pillar. With two sides? And you were trying to watch both sides? And you thought you saw movement on the other side! But no, it was only a mouse. And what if that shadow just moved? Oh, wait, it was a curtain blowing in the wind. Was that footsteps? No, those were my comrades in the other room. I wonder if they found anything? Wait! No, just the mouse. Where is that rogue? And why does my back hurt. That's weird, I should go lie down."I challenge you to simultaneously observe everything you have line of sight to (or even to observe everything you have line of sight to over the course of the next 6 seconds). But leaving this misdefinition of the word aside, let's just accept it for the moment and see if we arrive at a contradiction.If you give me six seconds to observe a 6' tall human standing 10' away from me in plain sight in good lighting, I am fairly sure I'll find him. I might even go so far as to say I'm positive I'll find him.
That is, after all, exactly what the poster presented in the original post on this thread.
And just remember that to cover 2 squares = 10 ft in "plain sight" can take what... half a second?
Can I stealth in plain sight with blur? Or with a tower shield in front of me? That would be awesome ;)
Technically you can--though it would most often be moot as everyone would know you were in the "blur cloud" or behind the tower shield. They won't be able to see you, but that doesn't mean they don't know where you're at.
Can I stealth in plain sight with blur? Or with a tower shield in front of me? That would be awesome ;)Technically you can--though it would most often be moot as everyone would know you were in the "blur cloud" or behind the tower shield. They won't be able to see you, but that doesn't mean they don't know where you're at.
except for this line in the spell description :
'Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell’s effect'
so yea hiding is kinda self-defeating ;)
I am all for the 'moving betweeen cover' rules to apply coupled with the half movement penalty for using stealth it will be tricky to sneak up to an opponent not directly near cover.
However in the case of people knowing where the rogue is makes it impossible to use stealth, so you will have to shift position somehow to retry stealthing the cleric, maybe climb up the pillar, or using a smoke bomb to provide concealment.
To recap: It is impossible to use stealth while you are running, charging, attacking, or observed. If anyone might notice you, they get a perception check no matter what they are doing - all they need is "might". You need cover or concealment to use stealth, and if you don't have cover or concealment, then you cannot use stealth and the DC to perceive you is 0.
What about if you are hiding at a distance, having cover or concealment, and you attack using a ranged weapon?
To recap: It is impossible to use stealth while you are running, charging, attacking, or observed. If anyone might notice you, they get a perception check no matter what they are doing - all they need is "might". You need cover or concealment to use stealth, and if you don't have cover or concealment, then you cannot use stealth and the DC to perceive you is 0.What about if you are hiding at a distance, having cover or concealment, and you attack using a ranged weapon?
Perfectly valid. What you're looking for is the "Sniping" rules.
I touched on that subject in this thread
Though you might need to go to this post for the specifics.
There is no RAW statement that "observing" is equivalent to "having line of sight." Furthermore, there is no RAW statement that having line of sight IMPLIES observing.
Your "RAW" interpretation REQUIRES that having line of sight implies observing; simply assuming that to be true no longer makes it RAW. I gave a different interpretation that does not conflict with RAW, nor does it require making that assumption.
Actually, your definition is in conflict.
The RAW says:
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.
Read that second sentence. You must find cover or concealmentbefore you are allowed to use stealth. You'll notice that it does not say "you must find cover or concealment unless the creature fails a perception check" or anything else like that.
Which means that finding cover or concealment is required independently of whether any observers actually see you or not. They could attempt to make perception checks, they might succeed, they might fail, but all that is irrelevent if you don't have cover or concealment, since you cannot use Stealth without it.
So if you don't have cover or concealment, they the observer is guaranteed to have line of sight. If not, then you must have either cover or concealment, right? So the simple fact that there is an opponent who has line of sight (thanks to your lack of cover or concealment) means that you are being observed. By RAW.
Your circular reasoning says "My observer doesn't observe me until he makes a check that he doesn't need to make to observe me." which is clearly wrong per the RAW.
Why did I cite the SRD?
I dunno, why did you? It's not germaine to the discussion of Pathfinder rules.
Simply put, a logically valid argument will remain valid even if you switch around the subjects involved. If switching around the subjects involved can result in an incorrect conclusion, then even if you arrived at a correct conclusion with the original subjects, the line of reasoning you used to arrive there is necessarily flawed.
I'm afraid you lost me here.
So, logically, if an airplane runs out of gas in mid-flight it will probably crash. So I can switch around the subjects and say "If a banana runs out of carpet in mid-song, it will probably crash"? OK, maybe I changed one subject and two objects there, but I just don't see your point about changing subjects.
Even ignoring that, I can simply say this: The PRD is clearly a descendant of the SRD. The PRD made its changes, and those changes are certainly to be observed in the rules. Whatever they did NOT change, however, remains the same. Now, where did the PRD redefine the word "observe" to mean something different from what it meant in the SRD?
And Texas Holdem rules are a descendant of Five Card Stud which is a descendant of Draw Poker. But if you're playing Texas Holdem and you tell the dealer that you'll draw four cards, you'll get laughed out of the casino. Or shot.
It's still probably best if we stick to the rules Pathfinder rules we've been given, especially in a forum where we are here to discuss the Pathfinder rules. That would be the logical thing to do.
Your circular reasoning says "My observer doesn't observe me until he makes a check that he doesn't need to make to observe me."
Why are you convinced that those who disagree with you on this topic want to disallow perception checks ?
Goodbye guys, I give up this story...
Actually, your definition is in conflict.
The RAW says:
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.Read that second sentence. You must find cover or concealmentbefore you are allowed to use stealth. You'll notice that it does not say "you must find cover or concealment unless the creature fails a perception check" or anything else like that.
Which means that finding cover or concealment is required independently of whether any observers actually see you or not. They could attempt to make perception checks, they might succeed, they might fail, but all that is irrelevent if you don't have cover or concealment, since you cannot use Stealth without it.
So if you don't have cover or concealment, they the observer is guaranteed to have line of sight. If not, then you must have either cover or concealment, right? So the simple fact that there is an opponent who has line of sight (thanks to your lack of cover or concealment) means that you are being observed. By RAW.
Sorry DM_Blake, but no. Your reasonment goes totally against what James Jacobs said regarding this specific matter right here.
Stealth and Perception do indeed work on things other than sight. What those rules are saying (although perhaps not as clearly as they can) is that you can't use Stealth in bright light when the target can see you.If you're sneaking up on someone who's looking away from you, you CAN use Stealth (and they can use Perception) since a visual element of the situation doesn't apply. But when that situation can work is up to the GM.
And your reading of the sentence regarding "You must find cover or concealment before you are allowed to use stealth." is not what it's effectively written in the rules.
"Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth." is not the same as 'Against ALL creatures, regardless of the senses they are using to detect you, you HAVE TO find cover or concealment in order to use Stealth.". It simply shows the most common situation where Stealth can be applied, not the ONLY situation where Stealth can work.
Sorry DM_Blake, but no. Your reasonment goes totally against what James Jacobs said regarding this specific matter right here.
Stealth and Perception do indeed work on things other than sight. What those rules are saying (although perhaps not as clearly as they can) is that you can't use Stealth in bright light when the target can see you.If you're sneaking up on someone who's looking away from you, you CAN use Stealth (and they can use Perception) since a visual element of the situation doesn't apply. But when that situation can work is up to the GM.
Hmm, very interesting. I didn't know he said that.
Reading that thread, I think he was talking about non-combat situations, but that isn't really clear.
In any case, unless Paizo is prepared to rewrite rules in the Stealth, Perception, Cover, Concealment, Sneak Attack, and the Hide In Plain Sight class ability sections of the book, as well as add "Facing" to the combat section, James' quote in that thread is directly in contradiction to the a great many parts of the RAW.
Maybe that's what Errata threads are for. Maybe he intended to clarify these exact rules. But, that one little sentence falls awfully far short of true clarification, and without just a little more explanation, or some actual printed rules, I have a hard time believing that this one statement gives us enough context to rewrite dozens of rules in the RAW.
And your reading of the sentence regarding "You must find cover or concealment before you are allowed to use stealth." is not what it's effectively written in the rules.
"Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth." is not the same as 'Against ALL creatures, regardless of the senses they are using to detect you, you HAVE TO find cover or concealment in order to use Stealth.". It simply shows the most common situation where Stealth can be applied, not the ONLY situation where Stealth can work.
So which part to you have a problem with?
Is it the word "most"? Surely you don't believe they put the word "most" in there to imply "Against some creatures, if you wnat to, or maybe not, oh heck watever you decide is fine". That's not why the word "most" is in there.
It's there because some creatures have special senses that exclude them. You can't use stealth against a Gelatinous Cube, for example. It can sense you up to 60' no matter how sneaky you are. The creatures who have special senses are excluded. Everything else is what's left: "most".
To restate:
"Against most creatures" means this: "Against every creature that doesn't have a specific exclusion". In other words, if a creature relies on sight and sound to pinpoint its enemies, then you need cover or concealment. If a creature has other options, such as blindsight, then it is an exception to this rule (and consequently, you won't get to use stealth against it at all).
Or maybe you don't like the word "allows". To me, that's pretty clear. If you meet the first requirement, meaning you're trying to use stealth against a creature that stealth will work on, then you are either allowed to use stealth or not, based on the second requirement. If you are allowed, then go for it. If you are not allowed, then it is prohibited. Impossible. Illegal. You can't do it.
Since the second condition is finding cover or concealment, then meeting that condition allows you to use stealth. Failing to meet that condition prohibits you from using stealth.
Note also that it says "you must find cover or concealment". It doesn't say "should" or "might want to" or "it's really up to you whether you do" or "only on every other tuesday" or leave any ambiguity at all. You must find cover or concealment. Period. You have to do find cover or concealment if you wish to be allowed to use stealth. Don't wanna do it? Then you won't be allowed to use stealth.
Restated:
"you must find cover or concealment before you can use stealth" means this "if you want to use stealth, and the creatures you wish to hide from are not excluded by having special senses, then before you can attempt a stealth check, you HAVE TO find cover or concealment".
Putting it all together:
"Against all normal creatures who rely on sight and sound because they have no exclusitory special senses, you must first find cover or concealment before you can attempt to use stealth. All creatures who have exclusatory senses, such as Blindsight, can still pinpoint you even if you have cover or concealment, so Stealth won't work against these creatures. If you have not found cover or concealment before attempting to use Stealth, you may not attempt to use Stealth."
That's the exact same sentence, just restated to clarify the sections that might have been resulting in your misinterpretations.
However, the one-liner you quoted from James threatens to throw this whole rule right out the window. If he doesn't retract that sentence or clarify it some other way, then our new Stealth rule will look something like this:
"Against all normal creatures who rely on sight and sound because they have no exclusitory special senses, you must first find cover or concealment before you can attempt to use stealth, unless you can get behind them or catch them when they're looking the wrong way. All creatures who have exclusatory senses, such as Blindsight, can still pinpoint you even if you have cover or concealment, so Stealth won't work against these creatures. If you have not found cover or concealment before attempting to use Stealth, or gotten behind them, or caught them when they're looking the wrong way, you may not attempt to use Stealth."
Again, sorry DM_Blake, but why do you insist on the 'Cover or Concealment' for creatures that try to use Stealth against sound-based Perceptions, while it's already stated in the Stealth Skill that it includes both Hide and Move Silently (for ease of use)? You are indeed mixing two different uses of Stealth (and two different uses of Perception, as well) in one same.
And we have James telling us specifically that without a visual element, Cover and Concealment do not matter at all. So, why do you insist on saying 'To move silently like Sylvester the Cat, you need not to be seen at all' ?
We already have Acrobatics that allow for different kind of actions, with different kind of conditional modifiers. Surely you would not force somebody making a long jump to suffer the penalties for 'Moving on Surface 1-3 feet wide', since it's specifically stated only for 'balancing' checks (the only 'universal' penalties for Acrobatics are shown on the bottom of the description of the skill).
Perception has a long list of penalties, and some of them are specific to the sense involved. The table for example says:
"1 Favorable and unfavorable conditions depend upon the sense being used to make the check. For example, bright light might increase the DC of checks involving sight, while torchlight or moonlight might give a penalty. Background noise might reduce a DC involving hearing, while competing odors might penalize any DC involving scent.
2 As for unfavorable conditions, but more extreme. For example, candlelight for DCs involving sight, a roaring dragon for DCs involving hearing, and an overpowering stench covering the area for DCs involving scent."
So, except for the Invisibility thing (which, I admit, is too much of a semplification), why would a Stealth (sound-based) skill would be infuenced by Perception (sight-based) modifiers, such as Cover and Concealment ?
Wouldn't it be easier to just say, "buy the Hellcat Stealth feat and be done with it?"
Again, sorry DM_Blake, but why do you insist on the 'Cover or Concealment' for creatures that try to use Stealth against sound-based Perceptions, while it's already stated in the Stealth Skill that it includes both Hide and Move Silently (for ease of use)? You are indeed mixing two different uses of Stealth (and two different uses of Perception, as well) in one same.
And we have James telling us specifically that without a visual element, Cover and Concealment do not matter at all. So, why do you insist on saying 'To move silently like Sylvester the Cat, you need not to be seen at all' ?
We already have Acrobatics that allow for different kind of actions, with different kind of conditional modifiers. Surely you would not force somebody making a long jump to suffer the penalties for 'Moving on Surface 1-3 feet wide', since it's specifically stated only for 'balancing' checks (the only 'universal' penalties for Acrobatics are shown on the bottom of the description of the skill).
Perception has a long list of penalties, and some of them are specific to the sense involved. The table for example says:
"1 Favorable and unfavorable conditions depend upon the sense being used to make the check. For example, bright light might increase the DC of checks involving sight, while torchlight or moonlight might give a penalty. Background noise might reduce a DC involving hearing, while competing odors might penalize any DC involving scent.
2 As for unfavorable conditions, but more extreme. For example, candlelight for DCs involving sight, a roaring dragon for DCs involving hearing, and an overpowering stench covering the area for DCs involving scent."
I haven't been talking about "without a sound-based element" in this entire thread. Nor was the OP, who specifically had a cleric "looking for" a rogue and knowing where the rogue was to begin with.
Nor was anyone else, as far as I could tell, until your last post.
Yes, it's obvious, in some situations we will use our ears instead of our eyes to make perception checks to try to overcome stealth. In some situations (probably most) we will use both our ears and our eyes. None of which has any bearing on this thread.
There is a reason why being blinded hurts a normal creature's combat ability, creates miss chances, etc. Because for nearly all creatures, even in the the bestiary full of fantastic creatures, nearly all of them rely on eyes first, ears second, other stuff after that. Losing their primary sensory input screws up their combat - for those "most" creatures.
And for the cleric in the OP on this thread, too.
So what exactly are you arguing here? That in the OP the rogue cannot ever use stealth, because his Cover only grants him cover vs. sight? That the cleric can hear him because the Cover doesn't block sound, therefore the cleric knows exactly where the rogue is? That the rogue is not allowed to use stealth because he is "being observed", audibly? That the rogue has not actually found Cover or Concealment vs. sound so he is not allowed to use Stealth?
Interestingly enough, the Stealth rules could be read to mean exactly that, since they say "if a creature is observing you using any of their senses, you cannot use Stealth". Hearing counts as "any sense" so the rules explicitly say the rogue behind the rock cannot use stealth since the cleric is audibly observing him, right?
Well, maybe not.
I would still maintain that the Perception check must be made and, if the rogue behind the rock is not being noisy (call "being noisy" the auditory equivalent of "in plain sight"), then the DC is the opposed stealth check, plus conditional modifiers. If the rogue is being noisy behind the rock, then there is no steatlh check (he is audibly "in plain sight" - or "in plain hearing" as it were), and the perception check is against whatever the Perception chart deems appropriate for the noisy rogue (is he conversing, is he walking, is he whispering, is he drawing a bow? each of these things has their own DC).
All of that is the auditory equivalent of visually hiding behind a pillar or visually stepping out into plain sight, and the rolls I propose there are the auditory equivalent of the rolls I proposed earlier in this thread when discussing a rogue visibly leaving stealth.
So, except for the Invisibility thing (which, I admit, is too much of a semplification), why would a Stealth (sound-based) skill would be infuenced by Perception (sight-based) modifiers, such as Cover and Concealment ?
It wouldn't. When did anybody say it would?
Once again, I've been talking about Stealth (vision-based skill) opposed by Perception (vision-based skill) throughout this entire thread.
Except in this post, of course.
And, why did you drag Acrobatics into the discussion? What does that have to do with the OP or with any posts in the 86 other posts in this thread?
And, why did you drag Acrobatics into the discussion? What does that have to do with the OP or with any posts in the 86 other posts in this thread?
I will start answering this question. My example was merely to show that we have other Skills than Stealth and Perception which cover many kind of actions and follow different mechanincs depending on the situation. And my example of some modifiers for Acrobatics which do not apply to all Acrobatics actions was merely a comparison with Stealth and Perception, which cover different kind of actions (Stealth = move silently and hide, Perception = hearing, seeing, touching, and so on) and whose skill modifiers (due to different situations) do not apply to all of them indiscriminately.
After having said this,
I haven't been talking about "without a sound-based element" in this entire thread. Nor was the OP, who specifically had a cleric "looking for" a rogue and knowing where the rogue was to begin with.Nor was anyone else, as far as I could tell, until your last post.
Because this is exactly what I was trying to explain from the beginning. In my opinion, the Cleric cannot miss to see the Rogue if he is actively looking in that direction and doing nothing else at all. 10 ft. of plain sight is 10 ft. of plain sight, even for me - and so the Rogue cannot use Stealth to cover that space relying on hiding skills (unless we use the 3.5 Complete Adventurer's rules, but this is not the point for the discussion of strict Pathfinder Rules - although I admit that they are interesting). Having said that, however, for me there are two ways the Rogue can effectively reach the Cleric in a 'denied Dex bonus' situation:
1) Rogue stays behind the pillar and doesn't move. At all. For a LOONG time. Basically, until the fight is over and characters are no more into Initiative Count (GM decision). Then, after being motionless for a while, basically tries to gain Initiative against the Cleric in order to catch him flat-footed. This is the most annoying situation - if the Cleric is ABSOLUTELY sure somebody is behind the pillar, it would be silly for him to stay motionless and not moving on to look behind the pillar. This method is, of course, irrilevant to the Stealth discussion.
2) Rogue stays behind the pillar and tries to use Stealth based on move silently skills to move near the Cleric WHEN the Cleric is not looking in that specific direction (of course, he has to move carefully - he cannot try to move silently while whistling, speaking or singing, the equivalent of 'plain hearing' as you stated above). Now, when this would be possible - especially during a fight ? Well, I believe that this is exactly the work of the GM.
- Is the fight so heated that the Cleric has to turn his attention in a different direction than that of the pillar (and the Rogue) ?
- Are there more impeding dangers that forces him to 'turn around' (again, Facing is not technically included in combat, but a creature without All-around vision CANNOT look contemporaneously in all directions)?
- Maybe the Cleric is casting in a specific direction turning his back away from the Rogue's position - and the Rogue readied an action to 'partial charge' against the Cleric (if you allow for Partial Charge to be used as a Readied action).
- Maybe the Cleric is flanked by two other creatures, so having already to pay attention towards two different opponents he is suffering a major distraction towards his side, and now the Rogue can reach him in a straight line to attack him
OOOROOO
OOOOOOO
OOOOOOO
OOECEOO
(please do not kill me for the horrible graphic... R is the Rogue, C the Cleric, E the new enemies flanking the Cleric, O is an empty 5 ft. square)
What I'm trying to say, a GM could possibly allow the Rogue to use Stealth to move silently towards the Cleric and catch him in a 'denied Dex bonus' situation (maybe with some penalties, if the Cleric turns away his attention only for a brief moment), because the Cleric cannot use sight to pinpoint him anymore (since he is looking in another direction).
These are the reasons I started talking about 'sound-based' Stealth and Perception checks.
|
<Stuff about sound and moving silently>
But there is no facing in the rules. There is no looking the other way. Maybe it will help to envision the cleric as a circle with a "C" in it. This icon is not pointed in any specific direction whatsoever, or (depending on how you want to phrase it) he can also be said to be looking in all directions at the same time.
Per the RAW, If we're in a combat situation, the Rogue in the OP's example CANNOT sneak attack the Cleric. If you're doing it differently, you're house-ruling, regardless of what James says or (more to the point in this case) doesn't say. If we're in a non-combat situation, the Rogue CAN sneak attack the cleric, assuming the DM has just read some flavor text to the effect of:
"As you round the corner, you see a tall, heavily armored man. He is facing East, and is picking his nose intently while rivoted on what appears to be a Svirfneblin Go-Go-girl dancing against the far wall."
...and the rogue makes a stealth check opposed by a perception check on the past of the Cleric - which he would still get, even while distracted, albeit at a penalty.
Them's the rules. The community, by and large, seems to dislike those rules - an observation based on Blake putting them out there time and again and getting bi***ed at for it. That's great - we basically all don't like this particular facet of the rules. BUT THEY'RE STILL THE RULES. Stealth is for reconnaisance. Invisibility is for being invisible. Pretty cut and dried, really.