|
Stealth in and of itself rarely takes an action, the only movement required is enough to be behind cover, at which point you can try to stealth (though if you're being watched, this might not be helpful).
Core states that stealth is only an action when sniping, otherwise it is part of movement (and 5-ft step is certainly movement) or a non-action if movement isn't needed.
|
Stealth in and of itself rarely takes an action, the only movement required is enough to be behind cover, at which point you can try to stealth (though if you're being watched, this might not be helpful).
Core states that stealth is only an action when sniping, otherwise it is part of movement (and 5-ft step is certainly movement) or a non-action if movement isn't needed.
So if you have blur cast on you, you can basically just stand still and stealth, even if people are looking at you?
|
|
Frowned upon when used by enemies. Though it was worse in 3.5 where it was -20 for attacking, not auto-failure. Now only sniping leaves you in stealth (which is possible without blur). Besides, blur can just be dispelled after the first attack (since a surprise action attack is only one hit, this isn't a big deal). I guess it's more of a "Yes." now then a "Technically, yes."
EDIT: Note that you can't stealth while attacking (other than sniping) and while people are still observing you after the initial strike you can no longer stealth.
I don't believe the concealment granted by Blur would ever come into play when attempting Stealth. The foremost reason that the concealment from Blur would never come into play for Stealth is the PF lighting rules:
Vision and Light:
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.
Normal light functions just like bright light, but characters with light sensitivity and light blindness do not take penalties. Areas of normal light include underneath a forest canopy during the day, within 20 feet of a torch, and inside the area of a light spell.
In an area of dim light, a character can see somewhat. Creatures within this area have concealment (20% miss chance in combat) from those without darkvision or the ability to see in darkness. A creature within an area of dim light can make a Stealth check to conceal itself. Areas of dim light include outside at night with a moon in the sky, bright starlight, and the area between 20 and 40 feet from a torch.
In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat (all opponents have total concealment), loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and takes a –4 penalty on Perception checks that rely on sight and most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. Areas of darkness include an unlit dungeon chamber, most caverns, and outside on a cloudy, moonless night.
So, the requirements for using Stealth depend greatly on the light conditions of the surrounding area. In bright light or normal light concealment alone is not enough to use Stealth. Instead you must have cover or be invisible by some means. While Blur does give you concealment (20%) it does not make you visually undetectable (virtually invisible), you are still quite visible, you are simply displaced to the point that you become difficult to target. On the other hand, in dim light and darkness concealment may be used to attempt Stealth. However, in those conditions you already have concealment and therefore don't need to use Blur to gain concealment.
Stealth in and of itself rarely takes an action, the only movement required is enough to be behind cover, at which point you can try to stealth (though if you're being watched, this might not be helpful).
Core states that stealth is only an action when sniping, otherwise it is part of movement (and 5-ft step is certainly movement) or a non-action if movement isn't needed.
Correct. Stealth is a non-action usually taken as part of some other movement, for instance: moving into cover or concealment.
So if you have blur cast on you, you can basically just stand still and stealth, even if people are looking at you?
No. You can't use Stealth while being observed. If you are being observed you must distract your opponent’s attention with a Bluff check then use your move action to get to an unobserved location and attempt Stealth. Rules are given for that in the Stealth and Bluff rules.
|
|
The lighting rules make sense, didn't know they had a stealth bit in them.
No. You can't use Stealth while being observed. If you are being observed you must distract your opponent’s attention with a Bluff check then use your move action to get to an unobserved location and attempt Stealth. Rules are given for that in the Stealth and Bluff rules.
Sorry I read that part wrong. I thought it said you cant stealth when people are looking at you unless you have cover or concealment.
Now I understand!
wait... so most leafy bushes provide concealment but not cover... so you are saying that a rogue standing on one side of some brush can't hide from a fighter on the other side of the bushes at noon on a sunny day?
Guys, not to open this can of worms again, but...
Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.
wait... so most leafy bushes provide concealment but not cover... so you are saying that a rogue standing on one side of some brush can't hide from a fighter on the other side of the bushes at noon on a sunny day?
I'm not saying anything. I am pointing out the rules that deal with Stealth. The lighting rules say that in conditions of normal or bright light Stealth cannot be attempted with concealment, you must have invisibility or cover.
…
If you want my opinion on your scenario: It depends on the type of leafy bushes and what level of concealment they provide. Invisibility isn't just an effect granted by a spell, it is the condition of not being able to see another person or creature for whatever reason. If you will notice the Invisibility spell and the effects of Blindness are the same, and they both give total concealment. My opinion is that if something grants you total concealment (50%) and makes you completely undetectable to vision, it makes you virtually invisible (IE: Visually Undetectable) and can qualify for using Stealth in conditions of light. So if you are talking about sparse foliage or wild bushes that can be seen through in places and only grant 20% concealment, I would say you can't use them for Stealth. On the other hand, if you are talking about hedge rows that are a solid wall of pruned bushes that cannot be seen through and grant 50% total concealment, my opinion is that would make you virtually invisible. Not because of the concealment itself, but by virtue of the fact that you cannot be spotted visually and are therefore virtually invisible. However, this is not to say that I think everything that grants 50% total concealment makes you virtually invisible. The Lightning Stance feat, for instance, grants 50% concealment, but it certainly doesn't make you visually undetectable so I would say it doesn't qualify for Stealth attempts in conditions of light.
Guys, not to open this can of worms again, but...
Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.
The lighting rules I posted above were not of my own fabrication, they are in the PRD, official Pathfinder rules. I generally use the PRD rather than PFSRD, because my understanding was that PRD was official and PFSRD was a fan based site; regardless I can use PFSRD for this.
I think everyone on this thread is aware of the rule you posted, what is often overlooked is the lightning rules. In the Stealth description it says you usually need cover or concealment to attempt Stealth. In your rule it says you can use concealment to make Stealth checks. Just above that rule in the section for cover it has an identical rule for cover: you can use cover to make Stealth checks. But there are always exceptions to the rule.
Exceptions to the rules:
1) In the Stealth description it says it is impossible to use Stealth while attacking. A few paragraphs down in that very same description it gives the rules for Sniping in which you remain hidden throughout a ranged attack.
2) The Rule for Cover and Stealth states that you can use cover to make a Stealth check. Then a few sentences down there is a description of "Soft Cover," granted by other people being between the attacker and the target, a human shield of sorts. In that description it says that Soft Cover can never be used to attempt Stealth. Now go to the Environment/Urban-Adventures section of the PFSRD and go down to the "Crowds" section. This describes crowded areas in an urban street and states that if you move into a crowded area you gain cover and can make Stealth checks. So, the Rule says: You can use cover to make Stealth checks. But human shields give you soft cover and can never be used to make Stealth checks. But if you go into a crowded square (IE: Lots of soft cover) you gain cover and can make Stealth checks. Like I said, there are always exceptions to the rule.
3) Now we get to your rule which says: Concealment can be used to make Stealth checks. That's all well and good but when you go to the Vision and Light section of PFSRD it plainly states that in conditions of bright light you must have cover or be invisible to make Stealth checks. In shadowy illumination any creature may make Stealth checks to conceal themselves. In darkness creatures without darkvision are blind (which allows Stealth checks against them). For some reason the PFSRD refers to dim light as shadowy illumination and doesn't list the normal light condition at all but the PRD does in it's Additional Rules section under Vision and Light. It says that normal light functions just like bright light except that creatures don't suffer from light blindness or sensitivity in normal light.
Stuff
I see, that's what I get for skimming and posting at work.
You have convinced me.
Me, i'm still unsure.
I've always interpretated the rules this way : the general case is explained in the section "Stealth", the exceptions in the relevant sections...
Rule :
One can't make stealth checks while observed, and thus need cover or invisibility. A bluff check allow you to divert the attention of the observer and to move to an unobserved place, using stealth with a -10 penalty.
Exceptions :
Concealment allow stealth checks when observed.
Hide in plain sight allow stealth checks while observed, if within 10 feet from an area of dim light.
Hellcat stealth (Pathfinder Companion feat)
Benefit: You may make Stealth checks in normal or bright light even when observed, but at a -10 penalty.
Normal: You cannot make Stealth checks while observed.
The light rules, which adress only light conditions, and not stealth as a whole, precise that dim light and darkness provide concealment, making invisibility/cover unnecessary, and that bright and normal light don't, and those stay necessary. "A creature can’t hide in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover", ignore the exceptions irrelevant to light conditions: you can use bluff, hellcat stealth or hide in plain sight in an area of bright light... or magical and environmental effects (if they are present, so other than light conditions) that grant concealment.
So with a blur spell, or in undergrowth or smoke (see environmental rules), dim light or darkness (see light and vision rules), you can hide.
a lot of stuff
This is how I have always understood it to work.
|
I pretty much agree with Shadowlord. As for the example of 'so if I hide in a bush while it's daylight, the bush giving concealment, I can't stealth'? I would actually say you could, since unless the bush is very open to the light I would presume it was more 'dim light' inside of the bush. That, or you could argue that the bush is thick enough to provide cover instead of concealment.
In any event, I think it'd work fine there.
Rule :
One can't make stealth checks while observed, and thus need cover or invisibility. A bluff check allow you to divert the attention of the observer and to move to an unobserved place, using stealth with a -10 penalty.Exceptions :
Concealment allow stealth checks when observed.
Please quote the rules that lead you to believe Concealment allows you to use Stealth while being observed. Stealth talks about this and it says that you cannot use Stealth while observed, no exceptions. You must use Bluff to distract your opponent and then move to an unobserved location. HiPS also specifically states you can use Stealth while being observed. To my knowledge Concealment says no such thing.
Hellcat stealth (Pathfinder Companion feat)Benefit: You may make Stealth checks in normal or bright light even when observed, but at a -10 penalty.
Normal: You cannot make Stealth checks while observed.
Notice it doesn't say anything about being able to make a Stealth check without having something to hide behind.
In bright or normal light you need cover or invisibility to make Stealth checks, and you can't make a Stealth check while being observed.
With this feat you can make a Stealth check while being observed if you are in normal or bright light. But it never says anything about not still needing some cover to hide behind.
The light rules, which adress only light conditions, and not stealth as a whole, precise that dim light and darkness provide concealment, making invisibility/cover unnecessary, and that bright and normal light don't, and those stay necessary. "A creature can’t hide in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover", ignore the exceptions irrelevant to light conditions: you can use bluff, hellcat stealth or hide in plain sight in an area of bright light... or magical and environmental effects (if they are present, so other than light conditions) that grant concealment.
The rules are meant to be taken as a whole.
The logic of your argument is flawed. If what you are trying to say was the case there would be absolutely no need to mention Stealth in the lighting rules at all. Simply saying "bright and normal light don't give you concealment but dim light and darkness do" would be enough. From there a person could read Stealth and think "ok in bright or normal light I will need some alternate method of gaining concealment or cover, and in dim light or darkness I can use Stealth with no problem." But that isn't the case. The lighting rules specifically mention caveats about using Stealth. It doesn't say "normal and bright light don't grant concealment so you must have cover, invisibility, or find some other source of concealment" it plainly says "in normal or bright light you cannot attempt Stealth unless you have cover or are invisible."
So with a blur spell, or in undergrowth or smoke (see environmental rules), dim light or darkness (see light and vision rules), you can hide.
1)Blur should never come into play, as I explained above.
2)Undergrowth consists of roots, vines and small bushes it grants 20% concealment. I would say it cannot be used in bright or normal light to hide in. But the trees which provide cover would.
3)Heavy Undergrowth is much thicker, grants 30% concealment and +5 to Stealth checks. I would probably allow Stealth checks in this type of undergrowth even in normal or bright light.
4) Smoke is not unlike a darkness effect. Yes, I would say you can use this to hide in during conditions of normal light because I would say it drops the lighting level down one degree (even though it doesn't specifically state that, it does say it obscures vision). It would probably not be enough in my opinion to use Stealth in bright light, because the smoke would only take the conditions down to normal light, but it would still grant you the concealment. If the smoke was thick enough and black enough to drop the light level two degrees or drop it completely to darkness than it would certainly be acceptable to use Stealth with, but that would also likely grant you 50% concealment and all the other bonuses and drawbacks of the darkness light level.
5) Dim light specifically states that it grants concealment, obscures vision, and allows for Stealth checks.
6) Darkness renders everyone without darkvision blind, which basically grants you the invisibility condition against anyone unable to see you.
Here's something I would use for the argument that you can use Blur to go into stealth, even in bright light.
A creature can’t hide in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover.
In an area of shadowy illumination, a character can see dimly. Creatures within this area have concealment relative to that character. A creature in an area of shadowy illumination can make a Stealth check to conceal itself.
You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.
Anyone else see the problem here? If you take the first part of the vision and light rules word for word, you can't use concealment for stealth in bright light....ever. So, you can only hide behind a bush when you're in shadowy illumination. But wait....shadowy illumination already gives you the ability to go into stealth by default! That would make hiding behind anything which gives you concealment completely worthless, because you can only do it in areas which already give you concealment. Why even mention that you can use concealment to go into stealth when you can already go into stealth by default in low light AND you can only go into stealth in low light?
My opinion on this is that the stealth rules are simply too spread out to be taken as they are written. They don't make sense when you try to bring them together. The fact that so many people are confused about them shows that something isn't right. It would be best if we could get official word on how this is supposed to work, but for now it is just going to be every GM for himself.
Here's what I would do: Treat a character who has concealment as not being completely observable. This means that he can go into stealth without a bluff check.
I would say using stealth in combat while blurred is similar to being invisible in combat while the enemy knows you're around. The enemy knows you're there, but you've managed to confuse him enough that he has lost your immediate position and made him flat footed against you. Think of blur as a poor man's active camo: you can still see the guy, but it is easy for you to lose him when he's moving around.
Plus, 20% concealment is pretty close to the 50% that invisibility gives you, and invisibility gives you a +20 stealth bonus (+40 if you're standing still). It isn't that far fetched to say that it would be possible to try and hide with 20% concealment, but you just don't get the +20 bonus.
I would further argue that hide-in-plain sight works because the character either magically drags the shadows to him, or is simply so skilled that he doesn't need to be in the shadows to blend in with them. Low light grants about 20% concealment, right? How is that any different from being under the effects of a blur spell? Though, I guess the one flaw with this is that hide-in-plain sight doesn't actually give you 20% concealment when you fail your stealth checks.
At least, that's what I've been able to gather from this so far. I've been reading up on stealth for a week now that I've created an Arcane Trickster. Blur is the only way that I see for me to get consistent ranged sneak attacks in mid combat without invisibility, which just doesn't seem right. There should be a lower level option than a 4th level improved invisibility, or an almost worthless one shot 2nd level invisibility.
Dang, I typed more than I meant to. I'm sure there are logic flaws in this mess, but you should get the general idea. Stealth rules as they are right now simply don't make sense when you bring them together. It is as if they wrote each part without thinking about the implications of the other parts. You have to house rule them a bit.
Edit: Here's another problem with the stealth rules. "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. " But wait...Hellcat Stealth let's you make a stealth check when in bright light even while being observed. Are you telling me that a person with Hellcat Stealth has to run INTO a bright area if he wants to hide while being observed? Completely retarded. I think what the rules want to say is that if you have concealment (low light grants you concealment) you aren't being consistently observed by your opponents, so you can try and go into stealth.
Here's something I would use for the argument that you can use Blur to go into stealth, even in bright light.
... whole bunch of stuff ...
Again the problem that I (and most others it seems) would have here is that you're using a mere 2nd level spell to become a 17th level class ability, or more. What you're describing is essentially the Ranger's HiPS, with no restriction whatsoever. I'm sorry, but if you want to make ranged sneak attacks, you need something to hide behind. You need to make bluff checks to distract your opponent. You need to use the tools already given to you, rather than trying to find a shortcut.
Also, I'll point out some wording in the spell itself.
Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell's effect (though fighting an unseen opponent carries penalties of its own).
Therefore, for Blur to have any affect on an opponent they must be able to see you. Therefore you are being observed, and so cannot use Stealth.
Blur does not make it easier for you to hide. Blur makes you harder to hit and impossible to sneak attack. And that's pretty much it. It's a second level spell, what more do you want?
Here's something I would use for the argument that you can use Blur to go into stealth, even in bright light.
... whole bunch of stuff ...
Again the problem that I (and most others it seems) would have here is that you're using a mere 2nd level spell to become a 17th level class ability, or more. What you're describing is essentially the Ranger's HiPS, with no restriction whatsoever. I'm sorry, but if you want to make ranged sneak attacks, you need something to hide behind. You need to make bluff checks to distract your opponent. You need to use the tools already given to you, rather than trying to find a shortcut.
Personally, I think of blur as just a very watered down version of improved invisibility (aside from the longer duration). Improved invisibility gives automatic sneak attack, 50% concealment, a +20 hide bonus, a bonus to hit, and opponents have to guess at where you are even if they detect you. Blur is only two levels lower and gives just 20% concealment. I don't think it is too far fetched to say that it will let you make hide checks without Improved Invisibility's +20 bonus.
I would also like to point out that a determined player could take a level in shadowdancer and get hide in plain sight at 6th level. A wizard/rogue would have to be level wizard 3, rogue 1 to do pretty much the same thing for 3 minutes and he has to spend a standard action to start the spell. He would also only be able to cast it twice a day. It doesn't seem that overpowered to me. I suppose you can argue that it would get better if you had a level 3 wizard and a level 3 rogue, but the wizard is still giving up only one of his few level 2 spells for the day.
As for finding shortcuts....I'm making an arcane trickster. At level 4-5, I can't flank or feint to get ranged sneak attacks in. Blur is my only option, there are no other 'tools' to get sneak attacks in consistently until I get Improved Invisibility at character level 11, lol. Well, I suppose there are spells for blinding opponents, but it would kind of stink if whether or not I could do anything in a fight depended on a guy failing a saving throw. If you know of something else that I can do though, I would love to hear it :D
Also, I'll point out some wording in the spell itself.
Blur, PRD wrote:
Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell's effect (though fighting an unseen opponent carries penalties of its own).
Therefore, for Blur to have any affect on an opponent they must be able to see you. Therefore you are being observed, and so cannot use Stealth.
Hmm, I disagree. It is just saying that so that people don't try to stack the effects of blur with invisibility. Mirror Image has similar text in it. Besides, an opponent can see you in low light, but you can still go into stealth in it.
If you guys don't like having blur work this well, maybe you could offer players a spell which grants something similar to what I'm describing as a 3rd level spell? That's one level below improved invisibility.
My opinion on this is that the stealth rules are simply too spread out to be taken as they are written. They don't make sense when you try to bring them together. The fact that so many people are confused about them shows that something isn't right. It would be best if we could get official word on how this is supposed to work, but for now it is just going to be every GM for himself.
I agree, the wording here could be cleaned up, and getting some clarification one way or the other would be nice as well. I hear an Errata/Update is in the works, so hopefully this can be fit into it...
|
|
"...For some reason the PFSRD refers to dim light as shadowy illumination and doesn't list the normal light condition at all but the PRD does in it's Additional Rules section under Vision and Light.
Since we copied and pasted the content directly from the PRD apparently the PRD has changed at some point. We've tried to stay up to date with the PRD but its been difficult knowing precisely when exactly what has changed in the PRD over time.
I have updated the section discussed above on d20pfsrd.com now to match the PRD.
In the future if anyone notices any discrepancies in actual content between d20pfsrd.com and the PRD, as opposed to just the information being in different places, please do not hesitate to let us know.
"...For some reason the PFSRD refers to dim light as shadowy illumination and doesn't list the normal light condition at all but the PRD does in it's Additional Rules section under Vision and Light.Since we copied and pasted the content directly from the PRD apparently the PRD has changed at some point. We've tried to stay up to date with the PRD but its been difficult knowing precisely when exactly what has changed in the PRD over time.
I have updated the section discussed above on d20pfsrd.com now to match the PRD.
In the future if anyone notices any discrepancies in actual content between d20pfsrd.com and the PRD, as opposed to just the information being in different places, please do not hesitate to let us know.
Really? Maybe I made a mistake then, because I quoted the pfsrd, lol. I'll have to take a look at the corrected version and see if it affects my argument at all.
Edit: No, I don't think it has changed anything important, low light still gives concealment and the ability to make stealth checks. Whew ;)
Again the problem that I (and most others it seems) would have here is that you're using a mere 2nd level spell to become a 17th level class ability, or more. What you're describing is essentially the Ranger's HiPS, with no restriction whatsoever.Here's something I would use for the argument that you can use Blur to go into stealth, even in bright light.
... whole bunch of stuff ...
Well, no other restriction than (1) being able to cast 2nd level spells and (2) the number of 2nd level spells you can cast.
Now really people, stop saying patently silly things.
I can't believe I didn't realize this before, there's already a level 2 spell that does something pretty similar to what I've been arguing that blur can do.
This spell causes an object to radiate darkness out to a 20-foot radius. This darkness causes the illumination level in the area to drop one step, from bright light to normal light, from normal light to dim light, or from dim light to darkness. This spell has no effect in an area that is already dark. Creatures with light vulnerability or sensitivity take no penalties in normal light. All creatures gain concealment (20% miss chance) in dim light. All creatures gain total concealment (50% miss chance) in darkness. Creatures with darkvision can see in an area of dim light or darkness without penalty. Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness. Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness.
If darkness is cast on a small object that is then placed inside or under a lightproof covering, the spell's effect is blocked until the covering is removed.
This spell does not stack with itself. Darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level.
There we go. Even without blur, a rogue with levels in bard, cleric, or wizard could cast darkness in a very bright area, and reduce it to dim light. Then he would have a small area that he has 20% concealment and the ability to hide in without a bluff check. Granted, even if he did hide in it his enemies would know that he's in that 20ft radius unless he used Enlarge Metamagic, but it can also be used to hide several other rogues or objects or to extend existing darkness. It is also immune to True Seeing, but beaten by darkvision, has the same duration as blur, is mobile if you place it on an object.
I'm just pointing this spell out as an example of another level 2 spell that would greatly aid a rogue in his stealth if he doesn't have hide in plain sight. I'm going to keep it on hand just incase my GM ever uses True Seeing on my character, lol.
Edit: No, I don't think it has changed anything important, low light still gives concealment and the ability to make stealth checks. Whew ;)People always seem to confuse making Stealth checks to *remain* unseen, and making a Stealth check to *become* unseen.
The former allows one to remain unseen when coming into view, but requires that the skulker maintain concealment or cover to the viewer lest they be seen.
The later is not normally allowed, except by special exceptions (such as hide in plain sight).
In general, one cannot make a stealth check to go from being observed to being unseen.
Is that really that hard a concept?
-James
PS: I'm not saying that the poster I quoted has this problem, but I just don't see the confusion people have with this.
In real life maybe ;)
The reason why I don't think that's what the rules mean is because if you can only use stealth while being 'observed' if you have an ability like hide in plain sight, then why is there no 'hide in plain darkness'?
Both Shadowdancer "Hide in Plain Sight" and the 'Hellcat Stealth' feat are specifically meant to allow the character to make a bluffless stealth check while they are in bright areas with no cover. If a rogue can't use a stealth check in mid combat even while he's in the shadows, why has there never been a 3.5 or pathfinder ability which simply allows them to? They always skip right to the 'you can stealth in bright areas even while being observed'.
That suggests to me that they already have the ability to *become* unseen if they are in a low light area. 'Hellcat Stealth' and 'Hide in Plain Sight' simply allow them to use stealth to become unseen in other situations as well. In fact, 'Hellcat Stealth' says specifically says "You may make Stealth checks in normal or bright light even when observed, but at a -10 penalty", it says nothing about low light. Wouldn't it seem odd to you to take that feat, and to have to run from a dark area to a much brighter one to make a stealth check while being observed?
I can't believe I didn't realize this before, there's already a level 2 spell that does something pretty similar to what I've been arguing that blur can do.
** spoiler omitted **
There we go. Even without blur, a rogue with levels in bard, cleric, or wizard could cast darkness in a very bright area, and reduce it to dim light. Then he would have a small area that he has 20% concealment and the ability to hide in without a bluff check. Granted, even if he did hide in it his enemies would know that he's in that 20ft radius unless he used Enlarge Metamagic, but it can also be used to hide several other rogues or objects or to extend existing darkness. It is also immune to True Seeing, but beaten by darkvision, has the same duration as blur, is mobile if you place it on an object.
I'm just pointing this spell out as an example of another level 2 spell that would greatly aid a rogue in his...
The problem with using Darkness to hide in, is that while it grants the Rogue concealment, it does the same to anyone else within the area. Unless the Rogue has a method to see in that darkness (Darkvision perhaps), their target has concealment and thus can't be sneak attacked.
Hmm, I disagree. It is just saying that so that people don't try to stack the effects of blur with invisibility. Mirror Image has similar text in it. Besides, an opponent can see you in low light, but you can still go into stealth in it.
Also, I'll point out some wording in the spell itself.Blur, PRD wrote:
Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell's effect (though fighting an unseen opponent carries penalties of its own).
Therefore, for Blur to have any affect on an opponent they must be able to see you. Therefore you are being observed, and so cannot use Stealth.
You may disagree with the intent, but the rules are quite clear. Unless you can see the person with Blur, they don't get it's effect. If you can see them, they can't be hidden, can they?
|
|
You may disagree with the intent, but the rules are quite clear. Unless you can see the person with Blur, they don't get it's effect. If you can see them, they can't be hidden, can they?Hmm, I disagree. It is just saying that so that people don't try to stack the effects of blur with invisibility. Mirror Image has similar text in it. Besides, an opponent can see you in low light, but you can still go into stealth in it.
Also, I'll point out some wording in the spell itself.Blur, PRD wrote:
Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell's effect (though fighting an unseen opponent carries penalties of its own).
Therefore, for Blur to have any affect on an opponent they must be able to see you. Therefore you are being observed, and so cannot use Stealth.
I think that line is more to the point of "if they're blind, it doesn't stack with the 50% miss chance" or "if they're also invisible, it doesn't stack."
Concealment is concealment. If they didn't want it to be usable for rogue stealthing, they would have ONLY made it a 20% miss chance, which does NOT allow a rogue to stealth. Since it specifically says "concealment" they can stealth.Also, the "can't be seen" question is rather moot since if they couldn't see, the rogue wouldn't need to stealth (unless they had blindsense/sight, in which case it wouldn't help).