Stealth in Combat: Sneaky Bugbear vs. Elf Rogue


Rules Questions

451 to 490 of 490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

AvalonXQ wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
"Why are the unobserved characters not observed if they do not meet any other requirements to use Stealth"
Because the condition that eliminates your ability to use Stealth -- being observed -- doesn't apply.

:facepalm:

You have again failed to answer the "why"


Cartigan wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
Ah! I see the problem! You believe that the Bluff action is designed to take you from cover to cover,

Considering that is not the position I am espousing at all, I gather you don't see the problem.

You're not? Sorry. My mistake. Oh, well, back to the sharpening, then. :-(


Cartigan wrote:
Considering that is not the position I am espousing at all, I gather you don't see the problem.

Then why quote a rule that does not support your position. He asked for a rules to support moving from cover to cover, and who gave him that rule. The only logical conclusion is that you think that rule allows you to move from cover to cover.


Cartigan wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:


No. My definition of "unobserved" is "hasn't yet been observed".

Therefore I may, because I have no been previously observed, walk out of a house, stroll around in an empty, barrne courtyard for an hour in broad daylight, and then walk up to you and sneak attack you in the face because the movement I take to exit the house is combined with a Stealth check in addition to every movement made thereafter.

Yes, you could, provided you continually made stealth checks and I failed every perception check to notice you, AND I was distracted by something else.

Liberty's Edge

Cartigan wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:


No. You've mis-read the rule. The starting location for the Bluff check is not a stealth-viable one.
When the bluff check is made successfully, you are now in a stealth-viable location. See "Creating a Diversion to Hide"

So a person who is in plain sight, being actively observed, can make a bluff check, and if successful can initiate a stealth check, but a person that is already hidden, has no one actively observing him, cannot make a stealth check to remain hidden while in plain sight?


Caineach wrote:


Yes, you could, provided you continually made stealth checks and I failed every perception check to notice you. AND I was distracted by something else.

Which is not what Avalon said.


Cartigan wrote:
Therefore I may, because I have no been previously observed, walk out of a house, stroll around in an empty, barrne courtyard for an hour in broad daylight, and then walk up to you and sneak attack you in the face because the movement I take to exit the house is combined with a Stealth check in addition to every movement made thereafter.

That depends. Am I distracted?

Because if not, as we've stated before, I'll see you the moment you're in line of sight without cover, unless you're a high-level ranger. Or invisible.
If so, then as long as you keep winning those difficult opposed checks, yes.


Cartigan wrote:
"Why are the unobserved characters not observed if they do not meet any other requirements to use Stealth"

A creature that does not meet the requirements to use Stealth, is by definition observed. So it is impossible for an unobserved creature not to meeting the requirements for Stealth, by definition.


Okugi wrote:


So a person who is in plain sight, being actively observed, can make a bluff check, and if successful can initiate a stealth check,

Considering that is explicitly listed in the Stealth rules as an action to take, yes.

Quote:
but a person that is already hidden, has no one actively observing him, cannot make a stealth check to remain hidden while in plain sight?

I point you to "Camouflage" the 12th level Ranger ability.


Cartigan wrote:
Caineach wrote:


Yes, you could, provided you continually made stealth checks and I failed every perception check to notice you. AND I was distracted by something else.
Which is not what Avalon said.

Yes it is.

It would be helpful if you actually addressed my explanation of the rules directly.


Cartigan wrote:
I point you to "Camouflage" the 12th level Ranger ability.

Right. With Camouflage, you can make the opposed roles even when the opponent is not distracted.

Without Camouflage, you can't.


AvalonXQ wrote:


Yes it is.
It would be helpful if you actually addressed my explanation of the rules directly.

I would love to if you stopped beating around the bush every time I asked for a clarification.


Cartigan wrote:
I would love to if you stopped beating around the bush every time I asked for a clarification.

I've tried my best to answer you as directly as possible every time. I will continue to do so. Ask for a clarification.


AvalonXQ wrote:


I've tried my best to answer you as directly as possible every time. I will continue to do so. Ask for a clarification.
Quote:
Because the condition that eliminates your ability to use Stealth -- being observed -- doesn't apply.

Why?


I thought I'd reproduce my earlier explanation here. This should help in putting together clarifications or calling out inconsistencies.

AvalonXQ wrote:

Here are the points which I believe are disputed and which cause the different interpretations.

1) The Sneaker is 'unobserved' until a Perceiver observes it.
2) If the Sneaker ends its turn in plain sight (meaning no cover or concealment) and does not have Camouflage, an undistracted Perceiver automatically observes the Sneaker. If the Perceiver is distracted or the Sneaker has Camouflage, Perception vs. Stealth to observe the Sneaker.
3) Creatures in combat are distracted.
4) Once a creature is observed in plain sight, it cannot Steath until it finds cover or concealment (unless it has Hide in Plain Sight).
If we accept #1-#4, the bugbear scenario works, and it doesn't imply the bugbear has either Ranger ability. I believe this is more-or-less Caineach's position.
Scenario B: Bugbear Stealths out of bushes and ends its turn in plain sight. Rogue is not in combat. Rogue observes bugbear without opposed check, unless bugbear has Camouflage. If rogue observes bugbear, bugbear cannot Stealth until he moves back into the grass unless bugbear has Hide in Plain Sight.
Scenario C: Bugbear Stealths out of bushes and ends its turn in plain sight. Rogue is in combat. Rogue succeeds opposed check and is now observing bugbear. Even though rogue remains distracted, bugbear is observed and cannot Stealth until he moves back into the grass, unless bugbear has Hide in Plain Sight.

Shadow Lodge

Cartigan wrote:
0gre wrote:
calvinNhobbes wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
So basically there is no limit?

Only if you consider reason and common sense to imply limitless absurdity.

Like I said, it is no different than judicating enchantments and illusions; do you consider them limitless?

Your thoughts are inherently flawed in that you presume there is a such thing as common sense, reason, or good judgment on the part of a GM. This is the age of WoW where people expect a rigid set of flawless rules that cover every situation in exacting detail. The mere suggestion that a GM might be an intelligent adult capable of such things is pure heresy.
It seems in the age of 1E and 2E reminiscence and old people yelling at the young kids playing D&D on their lawn, there can be no common sense, reason, or common ground with people disagreeing with them and pointing out the game has changed to become more rule dependent exactly because it is so bloody contradictory if you work it otherwise.

It's not about "get off my lawn".

Quite simply there are some situations which are not well suited to simple rules. "Distraction" is a perfect example of this. There are some hard/ fast situations where distraction is coded in the rules but that doesn't presuppose other forms of distractions. Should the rules list EVERY form of possible distraction? This game system expects mature GMs who are capable of judgment and common sense and players who are willing to accept that judgment.

If you are uncomfortable with this then get used to disappointment. This is how the Paizo game designers feel about the game, poke around and look at some of James' posts where he criticizes people for being slavish to RAW. Also, I can't speak for the rest of the 3.5 designers Monte Cook has some articles where he speaks similarly about GM discretion. This sort of thing is likely NEVER going to be clarified by the rules because the designers feel this is the domain of the GM to decide.


Okugi wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:


No. You've mis-read the rule. The starting location for the Bluff check is not a stealth-viable one.
When the bluff check is made successfully, you are now in a stealth-viable location. See "Creating a Diversion to Hide"
So a person who is in plain sight, being actively observed, can make a bluff check, and if successful can initiate a stealth check, but a person that is already hidden, has no one actively observing him, cannot make a stealth check to remain hidden while in plain sight?

You've grasped it in one. His position is slightly untenable.

But I think it comes down to a basic difference in definition of basic terms. Cartigan insists that something is in plain sight of him, even if he cannot see it. Because it is in the open.

...

I'm still wondering whether the bugbear could've used a tower shield to create cover.


Cartigan wrote:
Why?

A creature begins play unobserved. It remains unobserved until it fits the conditions to become observed. It then remains observed until it fits the conditions to become unobserved.

The creature in question was unobserved, and did not fit the conditions to become observed, and so remained unobserved.


Look at the rules for perception...

There is no AUTO detect, even detecting a person standing 5 feet from you requires a check.

360 degree perception does not equal 360 degree VISION.

Detecting a normal person WALKING 20 feet from you while you're distracted requires a DC7 check. (+5 for distraction, +1/10' distance.)

Stealth SHOULD add to this check...You can't go poof in the middle of a fight unless you have HIPS, but you can certainly start out of site and then move afterward, it's more difficult to move undetected in bright light, but if they didn't SEE you at the beginning, maybe they can hear your footfall, or smell you downwind...

Bright light/Clear space is not a magical barrier that automatically destroys stealth. It merely prevents stealth from starting.

Stealth does not have to be part of movement, because you can stand perfectly still and initiate a stealth roll.


AvalonXQ wrote:
*repeat*

Why are combatants distracted by combat against creatures they havn't previously observed but aren't distracted by combat against creatures they have previously observed?

Quote:

A creature begins play unobserved. It remains unobserved until it fits the conditions to become observed. It then remains observed until it fits the conditions to become unobserved.

The creature in question was unobserved, and did not fit the conditions to become observed, and so remained unobserved.

And I have repeatedly made the argument that you are applying the "rules to become observed/unobserved" inconsistently.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I keep hearing about how DISTRACTED and OBSERVED are poorly defined terms.

They really aren't:

DISTRACTED
–adjective
1. having the attention diverted: She tossed several rocks to the far left and slipped past the distracted sentry.
2. rendered incapable of behaving, reacting, etc., in a normal manner, as by worry, remorse, or the like; irrational; disturbed.

OBSERVE
–verb (used with object)
1. to see, watch, perceive, or notice: He observed the passersby in the street.
2. to regard with attention, esp. so as to see or learn something: I want you to observe her reaction to the judge's question.
3. to watch, view, or note for a scientific, official, or other special purpose: to observe an eclipse.
4. to state by way of comment; remark: He observed frequently that clerks were not as courteous as they used to be.
5. to keep or maintain in one's action, conduct, etc.: You must observe quiet.
6. to obey, comply with, or conform to: to observe laws.
7. to show regard for by some appropriate procedure, ceremony, etc.: to observe Palm Sunday.
8. to perform duly or solemnize (ceremonies, rites, etc.).
9. to note or inspect closely for an omen or sign of future events.

The rules did not NEED to define these two terms because the English language explains their meaning quite well already. The game designers likely assumed that their primary consumers would be English-speakers with common sense after all. It surprises me that there are so many of you who hint that, that is not the case.


LoreKeeper wrote:


But I think it comes down to a basic difference in definition of basic terms. Cartigan insists that something is in plain sight of him, even if he cannot see it. Because it is in the open.

Without relative cover or concealment. And because that is how d20 sight works.


Ravingdork wrote:

I keep hearing about how DISTRACTED and OBSERVED are poorly defined terms.

They really aren't:

*dictionary definitions*

I'm not going to justify that absurdity with a rebuttal argument.


Cartigan wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
*repeat*
Why are combatants distracted by combat against creatures they havn't previously observed but aren't distracted by combat against creatures they have previously observed?

Your premise here is incorrect.

Unobserved opponents in plain sight can remain unobserved with a Stealth check against distracted opponents, but observed opponents in plain sight cannot become unobserved with a Stealth check against distracted opponents. Again, it's easier to remain unobserved when you already are unobserved then it is to become unobserved when you're currently observed. It's easier to stay hidden than to begin hiding.


Xaaon of Korvosa wrote:

Look at the rules for perception...

There is no AUTO detect, even detecting a person standing 5 feet from you requires a check.

Yes it does. Against the "detect a visible creature" DC. An argument I have made multiple times.

Shadow Lodge

.
.
.
.
.

Cartigan wrote:

*repeat*

AvalonXQ wrote:

*repeat*

Cartigan wrote:

*repeat*

AvalonXQ wrote:

*repeat*

Cartigan wrote:

*repeat*

AvalonXQ wrote:

*repeat*

Cartigan wrote:

*repeat*

AvalonXQ wrote:

*repeat*

Cartigan wrote:

*repeat*

AvalonXQ wrote:
*repeat*

SCRRRTITTCCHH damn broken records

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Cartigan wrote:
Xaaon of Korvosa wrote:

Look at the rules for perception...

There is no AUTO detect, even detecting a person standing 5 feet from you requires a check.

Yes it does. Against the "detect a visible creature" DC. An argument I have made multiple times.

And the rogue in the original example failed the detect check.


AvalonXQ wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
*repeat*
Why are combatants distracted by combat against creatures they havn't previously observed but aren't distracted by combat against creatures they have previously observed?
Your premise here is incorrect.

Considering that that is your premise...

Quote:
Unobserved opponents in plain sight can remain unobserved with a Stealth check against distracted opponents, but observed opponents in plain sight cannot become unobserved with a Stealth check against distracted opponents.

Yes, they can.

Quote:
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth.


Ravingdork wrote:
The rules did not NEED to define these two terms because the English language explains their meaning quite well already. The game designers likely assumed that their primary consumers would be English-speakers with common sense after all. It surprises me that there are so many of you who hint that, that is not the case.

You really believe that the dictionary definition of "distracted" is enough to know whether being in combat is enough to qualify, without any possibility of disagreement among reasonable readers?

If not, then they should have specified it.


Cartigan wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
*repeat*
Why are combatants distracted by combat against creatures they havn't previously observed but aren't distracted by combat against creatures they have previously observed?

Who says that they aren't. If 2 people get into a fight, and a 3rd wants to sneak away, I would let him. He would be at a penalty though.

Quote:


Quote:

A creature begins play unobserved. It remains unobserved until it fits the conditions to become observed. It then remains observed until it fits the conditions to become unobserved.

The creature in question was unobserved, and did not fit the conditions to become observed, and so remained unobserved.
And I have repeatedly made the argument that you are applying the "rules to become observed/unobserved" inconsistently.

And yet you have repeatedly not actually provided an example of how we are applying it inconsistently.


TriOmegaZero wrote:


And the rogue in the original example failed the detect check.

The "detect a visible creature" DC at 70 ft in the worst of conditions is between a 7 and 12 DC. He made that with any given roll.

Caineach wrote:


Who says that they aren't.

Avalon for one.

Quote:
If 2 people get into a fight, and a 3rd wants to sneak away, I would let him. He would be at a penalty though.

I'm only playing Rogues in your game.

Quote:
And yet you have repeatedly not actually provided an example of how we are applying it inconsistently.

You may not be, but he is.


Cartigan wrote:
And I have repeatedly made the argument that you are applying the "rules to become observed/unobserved" inconsistently.

My application is quite consistent. You just don't like it.


Caineach wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
*repeat*
Why are combatants distracted by combat against creatures they havn't previously observed but aren't distracted by combat against creatures they have previously observed?
Who says that they aren't.

I do, actually.

If the third guy starts observed, he has to get to cover or concealment before I'd let him use Stealth.


Cartigan wrote:


I'm only playing Rogues in your game.

You obviously don't know my interpretation of illusions.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Cartigan wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:


And the rogue in the original example failed the detect check.
The "detect a visible creature" DC at 70 ft in the worst of conditions is between a 7 and 11 DC. He made that with any given roll.

I apologize for not reading most of the posts, but did we determine the bugbear could or could not use Stealth? This is the rogue making a check to notice a previously unobserved bugbear, correct? And while unobserved, you can use Stealth, yes? So the Perception check of the rogue was opposed by the bugbear's Stealth check, rather than the flat DC of detect visible creature, right?


Test

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Alrighty folks. I think this thread has gone long past the point of being a useful answer or insight into a rules question.

It is now locked. If you would like to continue to discuss the topic, please create a new thread in the General Discussion section.

451 to 490 of 490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Stealth in Combat: Sneaky Bugbear vs. Elf Rogue All Messageboards