Stealth in Combat: Sneaky Bugbear vs. Elf Rogue


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Cartigan wrote:
Caineach wrote:


The Bugbear is a -10 to his stealth check for sneaking in the open.
The distracted PC has a cumulative -5 penalty for being distracted and -7 penalty for distance, 1 per 10 feet. Both of these are listed clearly in the perception table.

Like I said, if combat distracts you such that anyone you are not specifically in combat with may stealth in regards to you, then it obviates the need for both hide in plain sight and flanking. Not only that, but it obviates the explicitly defined rules for hiding after sniping from cover.

Quote:
My understanding is that the bugbear who stealth started just at the edge of the road by the horses, not near the combat with the rogue. So he would not need to move 70 feet in the first round. He mearly stealths and moves towards the horses who are ~20 feet away. Rounds 2 and 3, no one notices him as he cuts the bonds and grabs the goblin. Aguably, this is only 1 round of actions since he can both cut the bonds(standard action) and pick up the goblin (move action). He is not drawing attention to himself and people are distracted, so he can stealth. Round 4, he scampers away with his loot back into the thick brush.

I will quote myself again.

Quote:
Rules are getting stretched razor thin to try and explain how a perfectly visible bugbear manages to spend half of combat wandering around in the open while being simultaneously stealthed. We presume he is an Aesthetic Monk and has learned to hide in the corner of everyone's eyes.
That is THREE ROUNDS without cover or concealment that he maintains stealth. Who needs Hide in Plain Sight? This is also assuming the dogs and horses are tame to the bugbear.

Cart I am with you, and I can't believe this is even being argued as a legit move rules-wise. If the DM tried to pass that off as a legit move. I would drop my guy, roll up a rogue, and have a lot of fun, at least until he decided to start going by the book.


Was everything covered by tall grass? (except the road) Yes? Then everything is ok, if you told that to players it is superb-ok.

Next time I would lie, you can't waste your time with childish players "He used an invisibility potion, but your character hasn't any evidence of that, so your character doesn't really know what happened" is everything you need. Remember: They play dirtier than you :p


0gre wrote:

I am a big fan of rolling in plain sight and having the players roll when possible. The challenge is some rolls it's appropriate the player doesn't see, if the player knows there was a perception check doesn't it follow that he knows there is something going on that he doesn't see? The other problem is if the player rolls good on his perception check but the bugbear aces his check as it was in this situation then it seems even more likely there is a perception of fudging.

Perception checks are one of the few checks I tend to roll behind the screen so it's a tough call for me.

I agree totally with this. When the PC has no way to know that something is happening, or about to happen, then telling him to roll to perceive the unknown thing backfires big time when he rolls poorly and I say "Oh, well, nevermind then." Suddenly every player at the table gets really cautions and starts searching for trouble.

However, in the case the OP outlined, the rogue already knew there was a sneaky bugbear out there, so the DM is not giving away any secrets here. The PC (and the player) know that there is an enemy who needs to be spotted, so why make this a secret roll?

If the player rolls well but the bugbear beats him, I would announce it outright:

Player: 18! sweet! + 9 = 27. Where's that bugbear?
Me: (rolls a 16 + 14 = 30). Nice try, but bugbears are sneaky and your 27 didn't beat his 30. Close though.

Which sometimes results in:

Player: A 30? Are you kidding? The best I could roll is 29, I'll never spot him. This is rigged! Unfair!
Me: You know, bugbears are sneaky but not that sneaky. Yeah, he got a 30 this time but it's because he rolled well too. Maybe even better than you. It happens.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:


Not having a hard rule for something does not equal anything goes. By that logic he could have tapdanced around the party for an hour, and they never would have known he was there. I know combats don't last an hour, but your statement supports such things.

That's the trouble with using hyperbolized pseudo-"logic". The logical conclusion of being able to successfully hide in the tall grass, move some distance away, and noodle about with something not related to the combat without being noticed isn't being able to tap dance around the party for an hour.


Bill Dunn wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Not having a hard rule for something does not equal anything goes. By that logic he could have tapdanced around the party for an hour, and they never would have known he was there. I know combats don't last an hour, but your statement supports such things.
That's the trouble with using hyperbolized pseudo-"logic". The logical conclusion of being able to successfully hide in the tall grass, move some distance away, and noodle about with something not related to the combat without being noticed isn't being able to tap dance around the party for an hour.

Isn't it? He ended his turn in the open (not stealthed). Walked up to a horse, cut loose a tied up goblin and picked him up (full round without cover or concealment). Screwed around for another round - probably petting the animals who neither attacked him or whom he apparently also hid from, even the dogs with scent. And THEN ran to cover (the only round in which he could be considered stealthed. And this is all ok because he was a noncombatant and everyone who could see him standing there in plain sight was in combat. Ie, ANYONE you are not in combat can stealth against your perception check and thus BECOME INVISIBLE TO YOU just because you aren't fighting them. And this can be done with, at most, a -10 to their Stealth. Which will be opposed by your -5+ to Perception. This not only makes Hide in Plain Sight a pointless class ability, but makes flanking unnecessary and completely overrides the sniping rules explicitly written out in the Stealth skill itself.

This is wrong, the end. I think people just refuse to condescend to admit they are wrong and are thus clinging to their previous opinion for dear life.


Quote:
That is THREE ROUNDS without cover or concealment that he maintains stealth. Who needs Hide in Plain Sight? This is also assuming the dogs and horses are tame to the bugbear.

This is plain wrong. The requirement to use stealth is:

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

The question arises, when is a character being observed? Let me show you the RAW:


  • to "notice a visible creature" all you need to do is make a DC 0 Perception Check
  • it follows that something is in "plain sight" if you can see it by still rolling a 1
  • the DC to spot increases by 1 for every 10 feet, so for the rogue its a DC 6 to have something 70 feet away be in plain sight (the first 10 ft have a +0 modifier)
  • additionally the rogue is distracted in combat and takes an additional penalty, increasing the DC by +5 to 11
  • you could argue that spotting something human-sized among a bunch of horses is an unfavorable condition (DC +2), but I'll not assume this for the sake of this discussion
  • the OP mentions that the rogue has +9 to his Perception, meaning he automatically makes a DC 10 check - but not a DC 11 check; so, a medium creature like a human or bugbear would not be in plain sight and thus would be allowed to make a stealth check opposed by perception
  • this part is extrapolating the RAW: the Stealth skill gives modifiers based on size; that I believe should apply to the DC as well, so for the rogue to spot a large creature at 70ft while fighting would be a DC 7 check (-4 to Stealth for large creatures)
  • also an extrapolation of the RAW: a bugbear, according to the bestiary, gains a +4 racial bonus to Stealth; I'd argue that this racial bonus/penalty applies (similar to the size bonus/penalty in the prior point) - this would make automatically observing the bugbear in the scenario a DC 15 check
  • note that this doesn't give the bugbear the right to move about as it pleases - it just has the right to move while attempting to stealth (which is of course opposed by perception)
  • finally, assuming the additional modifiers listed, the rogue would be able to automatically spot the bugbear should it be within 20ft of the rogue;
  • it the rogue were not distracted in combat, then his automatic spot would be at 70ft versus the bugbear, and 110ft versus a normal human


Cartigan wrote:
Walked up to a horse, cut loose a tied up goblin and picked him up (full round without cover or concealment).

I disagree on that, at least if I don't know the exact situation each round.

Creatures provide cover, if a player wants to use a neutral mount that has no special training (which is not the case afaik) as cover to hide (if the position of foes makes it possible) I would allow it, and any humanoid should be able to do the same.
An easy handle animal check would be necessary. If the horses don't flee from battle at full speed when the combat begins (and that's prolly what should happen) there's no sense on making them flee from someone who isn't hostile or call for a dificult check, one thing or another, that's why mounts can be trained. And I don't think fantasy horses are xenophobic or have some genetic hate against bugbears, but it is up to the DM.

Scent works usually in a range of 30', but wind increases or decreases that distance. From the description looks like the dogs were close enough to make perception checks and make the proper noise. That's the only strange thing I see here.


PathfinderEspañol wrote:


Creatures provide cover, if a player wants to use a neutral mount that has no special training (which is not the case afaik) as cover to hide (if the position of foes makes it possible) I would allow it, and any humanoid should be able to do the same.

Your house rules are not relevant to this discussion.


Wow!

I can't believe the amount of crazy-talk and ignoring the OP's set-up in here.

In as concise as possible attempt I'm going to try and lay out the scenario and rule points as described (at least the way I read the scenario). By Rounds:

Round 1) Bugbear is unengaged in combat and so moves into the trees. From his position the Rogue *may* have seen him move, and the ranger/cleric combo as well - all were given rolls - all were terribly low to notice this. All were engaged in combat and pretty far away. From the Rogue (as I saw this) the bugbear was facing his/her back, and it was engaged in combat - not a big deal to assume a low roll can't beat this stealth (ie: back turned and more or less otherwise dedicated to a "real" threat at the time). The other guys just roll low, and are likewise engaged in a real tough fight (as described), so against the bugbears rolls, it's kind of pointless. I *suppose* this is where the "hide in plain sight" stuff comes from, yes? I would point out this, however - all combatants were engaged in very threatening combats, and all were pretty far away from this unengaged bugbear. This isn't "plain sight" by a long shot - more like "at the fringe of the battle where everyone was distracted pretty good." This is the first set of rounds overall as the bugbear moves to the treeline/bushline/whatever and then uses his stealth from there. At best, everyone could have seen him go to the bushes, but from there, it's stealth vs. perception. I reject that everyone automatically "knows" where people are on the combat map if they can't maintain a full/clear "front" or "side" sort of facing to the target. Otherwise, everyone apparently is born with 360 degree vision ... and that's crap. So, maybe a move action (seemed to be *just* in front of the treeline as described, so 5' movement back in, and then another "move" action from there) is all that really took place.

Round 2) Now, bugbear build matters - w/no real reference anymore, 3/x's default was that Rogue was their favored class, so classing this bugbear to rogue is where I'd go. They're also Medium sized, not Large (no penalty to stealth checks), so keep that in mind. So a Rogue bugbear with talents. For this particular maneuver, Fast Stealth is key - the rest is irrelevant, but fast stealth is perfectly acceptable as a choice (going off of a "reasonable" build design here - gm didn't post full stats, but hey - many have already tried to crucify the guy, so I'm going to cut him some slack and "build it reasonably" for sake of argument). Now, with Fast Stealth, he can hang in his "stealth" role and just move the whole time. So, the 2nd wave of rolls - from all sides. Again, chance favors the bugbear - in the cover of "thick bushes" or what have you, and he's just moving around - AND everyone was given rolls to notice - they rolled low. Maybe it's thick bush in the 1st square, and then "trees" otherwise (ie: the initial 5' move into was enough to grant stealth, and the rest was free to move w/out penalty terrain). So, he moves, in the tree line, to where the horses and all that are - no one noticed him. Everyone's still engaged big-time, and he's sneakin' around in the woods (ie: with "reasonable" cover provided). Checks were made, checks were failed - we move on.

Round 3) Bugbear make a *dash* for it, from A - B locations. A = woods, B = grouped horses and dogs. Clearly, the horses and dogs would notice, but, seriously - what do you expect them to do? They're animals, and the ranger told his dogs to "stay put" basically. {know nothing of the dogs training abilities, but they might be expected treats and a pat on the head from the bugbear. And the horses might just expect a new rider ... nothing unreasonable to think they're just going to keep staying where they are. Also, keep in mind, this is a grouping of animals - dogs, and like 4 horses - that's a LOT of legs on the ground, and a LOT of cover to hide in. Noticing an additional pair of legs under the horses amongst the 16 already present, plus accounting for the additional legs of the dogs and fuzziness of the dogs outright is a LOT to grant as "Duh! Of course the Rogue would notice this in the middle of a combat where he was dropped to 1 hit point and is on the verge of death while looking behind him and still devoting his full attention to the bugbear about to wipe him out without breaking a sweat with his 360 degree arc of vision, bug-eyes that protrude from his head some 9" or more. Why do you think he's got a +9 in his spot check, dummy!?!??!" *rollseyes* Point being, this idea of a medium sized creature moving from a location where he's already gone unnoticed (with opposed rolls) to another one (with opposed rolls) is perfectly reasonable. So it moves and leaves from position A to B and maintains it's stealth, then uses another move action to cut the goblin free. Again - rolls were made, rolls were failed, and you move on to the next round.

Round 4) Free goblin = pulled off and held over shoulder (I'm guessing - not sure) by bugbear and back to woods. Again (cover to cover) rolls are made and chances given. Failure results on the PC's end, bugbear's in the woods w/the goblin moving about a bit. Now, the description gets a bit fuzzy for me here as there were only 4 rolls made on both sides, so I'm guessing the GM did a "move" or something to load the goblin up, and the other move to get back to stealth. Rather than rolling 2 stealth/perceptions here (as that would just be foolish), I'm thinking he combined the effects of the load and the dash for the round into a single "is it sneaky enough to pull this off w/out notice" and just did the 1 roll.

Right about this time, the rogue finally notices (on a roll) that something's amiss, but with the other rounds of failure (not to mention damn near getting murdered) he can only note that the goblin is missing. This is good stuff! It *should* have been great and dramatic!

"Everyone! They took the goblin!!! Quick!! We have to get him back!!!" Run off, head for the woods, and start perception checks like a mo'fo!

Instead we get the petulant child routine w/pouty face and angry eyes glaring out from the corner of the table OOC. And IC you get a rogue that notes the key feature, plops down on the ground, and does nothing. At all. Comrades still fighting - he's no help. Goblin on the escape - he's not sounding the alarm. Total dink response!

So ... yeah, long story short, this stuff all is fine and doesn't even come close to "hide in plain sight" as the "cover" was always present and always something the bugbear was specifically heading for.

After reading some of the nays (not all mind you, some) with the RAW interpretations and invoking "hide in plain sight" nonsense, I'm pretty sure I'd NEVER want any part of the games you guys run. Or games run by anyone that inherently ready to smack rulebooks into people's heads for telling some cool, dramatically driven stories and encounters. I game for fun and enjoyment - not to be rules-lawyered to death by minutia of RAW/RAI.

Hide in plain sight is more along the lines of Batman's just up and disappearing when you're standing 5' (literally) away from him. He's got like "favored terrain: urban environment" or something. Point being, a guy sneaking to a point of cover (woods) and another one (massing of 4 horses and dogs) and being all sneak-like is not even close to Hide in Plain Sight. HiPS guy just drops his "smoke bomb" and waltzes along the road because he's THAT damn good! This bugbear, and the scenario is CLEARLY not even close to HiPS. Not by a long shot. Not at all.


PathfinderEspañol wrote:
Scent works usually in a range of 30', but wind increases or decreases that distance. From the description looks like the dogs were close enough to make perception checks and make the proper noise. That's the only strange thing I see here.

I appreciate everybody's commentary, and don't want to influence the great discussion either way. I would like to clarify on the dogs however:

For the past three session, the ranger has been explicitly training the dogs to not bark at "monsters" and to not make a commotion in strange situations.

Three sessions ago, the party was doing a standard dungeon crawl through a crypt. I decided that since the ranger wanted to have dogs, the dogs were going to act like untrained dogs and whine, bark, and growl when they heard and smelled strange things. The party was not too keen on giving away the advantage of surprise by having the dogs announce them before every room. So, the ranger began training the dogs, and had to make Handle Animal rolls to keep them quiet every so often.

By the time the party was ambushed by the bugbears, the dogs were trained enough to keep quiet, so long as they weren't being directly threatened or actually struck by an enemy.

However, it was exactly their strong sense of smell (and having gotten a really good whiff of that particular bugbear) that enabled the dogs to track him down in the grass without a roll. So, overall I think the dogs earned their keep.


Cartigan wrote:
PathfinderEspañol wrote:


Creatures provide cover, if a player wants to use a neutral mount that has no special training (which is not the case afaik) as cover to hide (if the position of foes makes it possible) I would allow it, and any humanoid should be able to do the same.

Your house rules are not relevant to this discussion.

It's not house rules - it's interpretation of the RAW vs. RAI as far as I can tell.

And of course such things matter (not as "house rules" per se), or else half of the discussion wouldn't have taken place. What the rule means and how the GM's interpret the rule is absolutely relevant - core of the post I think.

I get your rule-junk, I think you're just mis-reading the original scenario mostly.

As an aside, does anyone (not just Cartigan here) on the side attempting to crucify the OP actually condone the actions of the player?


The Speaker in Dreams wrote:
Round 3) Bugbear make a *dash* for it, from A - B locations. A = woods, B = grouped horses and dogs.

Location B: Not cover or concealment

Quote:
Clearly, the horses and dogs would notice, but, seriously - what do you expect them to do? They're animals, and the ranger told his dogs to "stay put" basically.

Attack or at the very least make it apparent a bugbear had charged into their midst pretending to be a horse to hide amongst them. One horse FREAKED OUT and ran off during the ambush but one comes charging out of the bush towards them and they just hang out? Did they suddenly gain combat training and learn to stand their ground against a giant thing charging them and trying to remove something from them? If so, why didn't they get AoO?

Quote:
Also, keep in mind, this is a grouping of animals - dogs, and like 4 horses - that's a LOT of legs on the ground, and a LOT of cover to hide in.

Sure, once we discount the rules saying creatures provide soft cover and soft cover explicitly can't be used for Stealth.

Quote:
It's not house rules - it's interpretation of the RAW vs. RAI as far as I can tell.

PFRD: Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.

Quote:
After reading some of the nays (not all mind you, some) with the RAW interpretations and invoking "hide in plain sight" nonsense, I'm pretty sure I'd NEVER want any part of the games you guys run. Or games run by anyone that inherently ready to smack rulebooks into people's heads for telling some cool, dramatically driven stories and encounters. I game for fun and enjoyment - not to be rules-lawyered to death by minutia of RAW/RAI.

Jumping on the horse who has the goblin on it and riding off is cool. Standing around in the open for two to three rounds screwing over everyone isn't.


Hmm ... well, put me in the "house rule" section right now because there's no WAY I'd not allow something like the above descriptions to hold in a game I was running (PC or NPC alike - of course, I'd let everyone know this the moment it was even relevant, or an option for PC's to use as well ... but that's just me).

If soft cover can't provide stealth checks, Odysseus could never escape from the cyclops cave, and plenty of raids and such couldn't have taken place (ie: blending in w/the herd to hide, etc). This, IMO, is one case where I simply prefer the real world over RAW.

As for RAI on that ruling, I think they intended (probably 3.x as well) for soft cover to be more of the "targeting stuff in combat" for most cases - easily extrapolated from the specifics used (+4 to AC), and what they do not get (ie: ref saves or stealth checks). But to me, this is likely tied to the conditions of combat that would have granted that +4 to AC (ie: say holding a hostage, or firing past a pal to hit an enemy in a scrum of combat or the like). Ref saves makes sense - anyone in that whole AoE is going to have trouble w/whatever ref save's coming at them. The AC makes sense - shooting past target A to hit target B. Stealth makes sense, too (how're you going to "hide" or "sneak" behind your hostage?) given the combat-orientation of where those "cover" rules are hanging out.

As soon as you go to the "hide in the herd" thing, it's totally fine.

Regarding animal junk: 1) the bugbear came over using stealth ... how is that even close to a "charge"? 2) The horse that charged off did so because the one guy tried to use it normally and had NO real ride skill to control it (nor the Mounted Combat feat). The others dismounted and left them. Up comes a slower, cautiously moving bugbear ... why would they even think to attack? 3) There is no "charging" them - it was sneaking close, getting the goblin freed - in a sneaky fashion, and then moving away w/the goblin, again, "sneaky" in movements. The only way any of what you say works is if it's some nut-job who's clearly not sneakin' and is instead coming out like some sort of barbarian in a rage - huffin' and puffin'. They wouldn't get AoO's because they're not in a combat ... at all. They're passively standing around - as were the dogs that were specifically trained to hold still and keep silent (new info given by the OP), as the party ranger wanted them to, so - they also did as they were told.

There's a whole lot, scenario wise you're simply reading into the situation that's not there regarding these animals.


And Cartigan, this does not negate hide in plane sight in any way. Hide in plane sight lets you start stealthing while being observed. That is way better than this. The bugbear needed cover here to start stealthing. Then, since he was no longer being observed, and his opponents were distracted, he was able to move into the open at a -10. If either of those conditions were not true, he would have been unable to stealth. Someone with HIPS would have been able to, even if both were false.

As for the sniping rules, normally once you initiate an attack you are being observed. Sniping lets you not reveal your location at all. You can normally attack and then re-stealth if you have cover, without the -20. They just get to know where you are, but cannot currently see you. If you then move, they wont know where you are. But, if someone else is attacking them and distracting them, then yes, you would be able to attempt to stealth later, and sneak accross an open area.

Finally, combat is fluid. There is no in game time gap between turns where the person would magically be able to spot you instantly just because you stopped 1 arbitrary time segment there. If you are moving accross an area, you spend no more time at the point you end than any other point. I see no reason why the point you stop at should have any bearing on your stealth condition. The rules allow you to stealth through open areas if people are distracted. It says nothing about having to end your turn in cover, so you could sneak accross a football field if no one was paying attention.


So as far as I can see everyone is in agreement that by the rules the bugbear should have been spotted? The argument is now whether it is a sensible houserule to allow Stealth without cover or concealment if the spotter is in combat?

Just to clarify the last page or so of quote and counter-quote...

Anyway houseruling is always going to be a matter of opinion, so I'll give mine: I do not think it would be a good house rule. Allowing combat to count as an automatic distraction for Stealth purposes is quite consequential. Without hide in plain sight, cover or concealment should have been necessary.

Oh and I can't help this one, being a classicist it makes me bleed in the brain :P

The Speaker in Dreams wrote:
If soft cover can't provide stealth checks, Odysseus could never escape from the cyclops cave,

Seriously dude? Red hot stake in the eye? BLIND?

Quote:
As for the sniping rules, normally once you initiate an attack you are being observed. Sniping lets you not reveal your location at all. You can normally attack and then re-stealth if you have cover, without the -20.

As an aside, this is entirely incorrect. What makes you think this?


Also just as an aside, whether the house rule would be good or not it has been my experience as both player and DM that players tend to get cranky if the DM springs house rules on them without warning that act to their detriment. YMMV.

I can say that I would have been a bit nonplussed if I were in that player's situation, though perhaps not to the point of sulking over it. Yes, this sort of thing can be a bit annoying, but honestly even if mistakes were made it's a pretty minor thing and led to a cool outcome by all accounts.

Now if it had been the BBEG doing this to stealth in plain sight, steal the horse and escape or what not... then maybe I'd be simmering pretty severely, as a player. But in this situation, overreaction.


The Speaker in Dreams wrote:


I get your rule-junk, I think you're just mis-reading the original scenario mostly.

As an aside, does anyone (not just Cartigan here) on the side attempting to crucify the OP actually condone the actions of the player?

1) In the scenario the bugbear broke cover and made a stealth check - that's ok, as long as he only moves up to his movement (no double-move), he can't 'make a dash for it' whilst in stealth.

2) Horses don't provide cover for the purposes of stealth

3) The OP didn't say that the bugbear was a rogue, or had any talents. I think that's mis-reading the OP, actually.

4) Combat is not a 'distracting activity'. That's a house-rule.

5) If the bugbear's carrying the goblin, then he can only move 15ft. That's not enough to get to cover. Besides that, he can't make a stealth check at all unless he's got cover. Was there a clear line of sight between the bugbear and the rogue? If so, then no stealth check.

btw, i don't think anyone's trying to crucify the OP, just help interpret the rules.


The Speaker in Dreams wrote:
As an aside, does anyone (not just Cartigan here) on the side attempting to crucify the OP actually condone the actions of the player?

Me? I hardly think I crucified the OP. I offered advice about letting the players roll their own checks (at least in a situation like this) to avoid the inevitable appearance of DM railroading.

And I believe I clearly stated my derision of the childishly pouting player.


Tanis wrote:
The Speaker in Dreams wrote:


I get your rule-junk, I think you're just mis-reading the original scenario mostly.

As an aside, does anyone (not just Cartigan here) on the side attempting to crucify the OP actually condone the actions of the player?

1) In the scenario the bugbear broke cover and made a stealth check - that's ok, as long as he only moves up to his movement (no double-move), he can't 'make a dash for it' whilst in stealth.

2) Horses don't provide cover for the purposes of stealth

3) The OP didn't say that the bugbear was a rogue, or had any talents. I think that's mis-reading the OP, actually.

4) Combat is not a 'distracting activity'. That's a house-rule.

5) If the bugbear's carrying the goblin, then he can only move 15ft. That's not enough to get to cover. Besides that, he can't make a stealth check at all unless he's got cover. Was there a clear line of sight between the bugbear and the rogue? If so, then no stealth check.

btw, i don't think anyone's trying to crucify the OP, just help interpret the rules.

My interpretation as I am reading the rules for stealth and perception.

1) I see no problem with this as long as he takes the appropriate penalties to his stealth checks (-5 for moving at more than half speed) and ends his turn in cover or concealment. Since using Stealth is part of a move action I see no reason why he couldn't double move as long as he didn't move at full speed with either move action and rolled a separate stealth check for each move action.

2) It is true that creatures don't provide cover, although crowds do. However the horses could be standing in an area of cover or concealment.

3) I agree, just a misunderstanding of the OP.

4) Actually what counts as a distracting activity isn't clearly defined anywhere in the rules and I would certainly think combat would be a distracting activity.

5) Grabbing the goblin in the first place would be a grapple maneuver unless the goblin was unconscious in which case it would be a move action to pick him up. Grappling is considered a combat action and would automatically break any stealth attempts, although the bugbear could still go unnoticed at the base DC (0, +5 for distraction+distance). If the goblin was unconscious and the horses didn't make any ruckus the bugbear could attempt a stealth check as part of the move action to pick up the goblin as long as he was still in cover or concealment.

Even if the bugbear did end his movement outside of cover or concealment the PC's still had to make a perception check at the base DC (0, +5 for distraction+distance) as long as the bugbear had been unnoticed thus far, although he would not have been able to make any stealth checks while STARTING or ENDING his movement out in plain view.

Sovereign Court

Tanis you're simply being obtuse if you think Melee Combat cannot qualify for the "Creature making check is Distracted" modifier. No caster would ever have to make a Concentration check if Combat isn't a "distraction."

As for the Horses not being cover, they weren't directly involved in the encounter and they were grouped together it seems. Four large creatures in close proximity could qualify as an area of "Crowd." Granted that rule is in the Urban encounters section, but the mechanic is clearly usable in this situation and Crowds do allow for Stealth checks. Dang ninja'd by Mortagon!

Now the bugbear would have to burn a lot of actions to pull this off, but at 70 feet from a deadly combat it's not completely out of the question.

This is also a classic scene in cinema, where soldiers are distracted and their mounts are then stolen or something is rifled from their packs.

Now I would have definitely had the PC make his own Perception checks which seems to be the popular method in the discussion. The RAW provides us a Baseline to make compelling encounters, adventures, and campaigns but it shouldn't straight-jacket you into binary decision making. I'm a by the book GM and I find this encounter feasible, though not played out as well as could be... but nothing runs perfectly when you're slinging dice and trying to run multiple monsters. We're human, not robots.

--Paper, Vrock, Scissors

Shadow Lodge

DM_Blake wrote:

I agree totally with this. When the PC has no way to know that something is happening, or about to happen, then telling him to roll to perceive the unknown thing backfires big time when he rolls poorly and I say "Oh, well, nevermind then." Suddenly every player at the table gets really cautions and starts searching for trouble.

However, in the case the OP outlined, the rogue already knew there was a sneaky bugbear out there, so the DM is not giving away any secrets here. The PC (and the player) know that there is an enemy who needs to be spotted, so why make this a secret roll?

If the player rolls well but the bugbear beats him, I would announce it outright:

Player: 18! sweet! + 9 = 27. Where's that bugbear?
Me: (rolls a 16 + 14 = 30). Nice try, but bugbears are sneaky and your 27 didn't beat his 30. Close though.

This is a really good point.


DM_Blake wrote:
The Speaker in Dreams wrote:
As an aside, does anyone (not just Cartigan here) on the side attempting to crucify the OP actually condone the actions of the player?

Me? I hardly think I crucified the OP. I offered advice about letting the players roll their own checks (at least in a situation like this) to avoid the inevitable appearance of DM railroading.

And I believe I clearly stated my derision of the childishly pouting player.

Nah - I wouldn't toss you in that camp anyway, Blake. Totally reasonable and helpful is where I'd put your stuff.

There's been a few slingin' nothin' but venom, though. All hate on the GM, but I'm wondering where the PC's response thing weighs in on 'em was all.

On the Odyssey reference *smacks forehead* Yup! totally forgot that bit, BUT I'd still argue stealth mattered in the escape for positioning under the sheep, and keeping quiet on the way out.

I *think* this has been mentioned in the DC business, but since Abraham mentioned it to me, I'll post it up:
1) There aren't penalties on the perception check, the various things just raise the DC
2) Even if no stealth check is made you can miss a visible person since it has a starting DC of 0. All you have to do is roll
under the adjusted DC and you won't see someone even if they are just standing there

So, I guess this would be the bumping into someone on the street sort of thing - literally *bumping* the person you didn't see/notice even though right in front of your face.

Light/darkness would matter in the modifiers as well (couldn't tell what time of day it was originally).

:shrugs:

Toss me down for the "good idea to let PC's roll even w/no info as a result" just to avoid the temper tantrums in general, IMO.


@Mortagen - 1) If the bugbear has a 30ft. movement it simply cannot move that distance in 1 rnd with running. You cannot run while attempting a stealth check.

2) I'll concede that the horses could be interpreted as providing cover. I wouldn't, but that's a valid RAI.

4) see pt 2.

5) This is all dependant on pt 2. However, it's a moot point if he cannot move the distance to the gobo to begin with.

@KoV - casters don't have to make concentration checks in combat - only if threatened.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tanis wrote:
@Mortagen - 1) If the bugbear has a 30ft. movement it simply cannot move that distance in 1 rnd with running. You cannot run while attempting a stealth check.

I guess I missed something. The bb rolled four separate stealth checks. The OP said the road was about 30 feet wide. So if the horses were in the middle, that's only 15 feet that has to be covered. I'd say 1 check to get to the horses, two checks to untie the prisoner without being spotted, and 1 more to get away. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Quote:
2) I'll concede that the horses could be interpreted as providing cover. I wouldn't, but that's a valid RAI.

I definitely would. After all, with a Ride check you can hang down and use your mount as AC! They must be blocking something!

I'm perfectly fine with the GM's actions. I think the player is being if a baby if they can't realize that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." They now know how Stealth can be used by a real expert!


King of Vrock wrote:
Tanis you're simply being obtuse if you think Melee Combat cannot qualify for the "Creature making check is Distracted" modifier. No caster would ever have to make a Concentration check if Combat isn't a "distraction."

I have to disagree.

Point One (realist): There's a big difference between looking over your shoulder for danger - we all do it every time we change lanes while we're driving, right - and standing still for several seconds chanting difficult arcane formulae from memory while simultaneously making ritual gestures and pulling some odd fluff out of our belt pouch (and getting the right fluff amidst dozens of different kinds of fluff).

One of those requires dropping your guard, or concentrating very hard not to. The other simply doesn't.

Point Two (gamist): Since a rogue can *always* use a stealth check as a move action, and since stealth can be used against "distracted" foes, your interpretation that "Melee Combat [quailfies] for the 'Creature making check is Distracted' modifier" means that a rogue can sneak attack every single round. He doesn't need to flank. He doesn't need to catcy his foe flatfooted or DEX-denied. He doesn't need to use a Feint maneuver (why do they have this rule if nobody ever needs it?). He can just Stealth (because his foe is "distracted") and then Sneak Attack because he is Stealthed.

I think both the "realist" and the "gamist" POV suggest that claiming "Melee Combat [quailfies] for the 'Creature making check is Distracted' modifier" would be impractical.


azhrei_fje wrote:

I definitely would. After all, with a Ride check you can hang down and use your mount as AC! They must be blocking something!

I'm perfectly fine with the GM's actions. I think the player is being if a baby if they can't realize that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." They now know how Stealth can be used by a real expert!

1) Yes you can use your horse for cover. Soft cover. That doesn't apply to stealth checks. Now either they aren't involved in combat and count as a crowd, or they are and count as soft cover - can't be both.

2) The person playing the rogue definitely acted childishly. I don't think anyone disagreed with that. What i do have a problem with is the idea that an 'expert' rogue can sneak attack opponents merely because they're 'distracted' by combat. That's BS.


Holy crap, I'm so pissed. I just wrote a novel-length post with different cases/circumstances broken out to demonstrate how Stealth, Sniping, Hide in Plain Sight work, but the Preview button took me to some random product page and ate my post.

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!

Well, once I swallow down all this bile, I'll come back and try to reconstruct my post. It really does make sense, I promise you.

Sovereign Court

DM_Blake wrote:

I have to disagree.

Point One (realist): There's a big difference between looking over your shoulder for danger - we all do it every time we change lanes while we're driving, right - and standing still for several seconds chanting difficult arcane formulae from memory while simultaneously making ritual gestures and pulling some odd fluff out of our belt pouch (and getting the right fluff amidst dozens of different kinds of fluff).

One of those requires dropping your guard, or concentrating very hard not to. The other simply doesn't.

Point Two (gamist): Since a rogue can *always* use a stealth check as a move action, and since stealth can be used against "distracted" foes, your interpretation that "Melee Combat [quailfies] for the 'Creature making check is Distracted' modifier" means that a rogue can sneak attack every single round. He doesn't need to flank. He doesn't need to catcy his foe flatfooted or DEX-denied. He doesn't need to use a Feint maneuver (why do they have this rule if nobody ever needs it?). He can just Stealth (because his foe is "distracted") and then Sneak Attack because he is Stealthed.

I think both the "realist" and the "gamist" POV suggest that claiming "Melee Combat [quailfies] for the 'Creature making check is Distracted' modifier" would be impractical.

You are reading WAY too much into the argument. Combat most certainly can be distracting, but if the rogue in question is actually participating in the encounter than you don't apply that modifier AND they'd still need some manner of cover or concealment to make stealth check and/or flank. Besides distracted isn't some defined term that means you lose your dex to ac automatically, its just a modifier. I mean you do have to use common sense. Your example and the OP example aren't even close to being similar.

And your realist example is all kinds of flawed. Driving and checking your mirrors is nothing like melee combat, not even remotely... unless your in a demolition derby!

You can easily lose track of people while fighting, it's called the fog of war. You mean to tell me that you would automatically notice a rogue sneaking up on your horses 70 feet away while you're eating an axe sandwich? Without even a check?

--School House Vrock!


Tanis wrote:

@Mortagen - 1) If the bugbear has a 30ft. movement it simply cannot move that distance in 1 rnd with running. You cannot run while attempting a stealth check.

2) I'll concede that the horses could be interpreted as providing cover. I wouldn't, but that's a valid RAI.

4) see pt 2.

5) This is all dependant on pt 2. However, it's a moot point if he cannot move the distance to the gobo to begin with.

@KoV - casters don't have to make concentration checks in combat - only if threatened.

I was speaking in a more general term and not of the example written in the OP. As you can see in my other post I gave good examples of how I would interpret the rules should a character be caught in the open.

I also mentioned that you can double move in one round, although both movements have to start and end with cover or concealment and neither move action can be at full speed. Furthermore each move action would require a separate stealth check each with a -15 penalty (-5 for moving at more than half speed and -10 for using distraction to hide). This is because the stealth skill is used as part of movement according to the Pfsrd. I guess you could interpret the rules as part of all movement in any one given round in which case you would only need to roll one stealth check and could move even further. The only limitation of movement while using Stealth that I could find was that you couldn't run or charge, there's no mention of double move.

Shadow Lodge

coldkilla wrote:
Holy crap, I'm so pissed. I just wrote a novel-length post with different cases/circumstances broken out to demonstrate how Stealth, Sniping, Hide in Plain Sight work, but the Preview button took me to some random product page and ate my post.

On the Paizo boards if you use Firefox the Lazarus extension is invaluable. You can make a habit of copying all your posts before you hit submit but lazarus takes care of you.

If you use Chrome then you don't need Lazarus, it remembers your un-submitted posts automatically, just use the back button.

I believe Safari acts the same as chrome but I'm to lazy to go on my Mac right now.

There are other browsers but I'm not sure why people would use them.

Shadow Lodge

DM_Blake wrote:

Point Two (gamist): Since a rogue can *always* use a stealth check as a move action, and since stealth can be used against "distracted" foes, your interpretation that "Melee Combat [quailfies] for the 'Creature making check is Distracted' modifier" means that a rogue can sneak attack every single round. He doesn't need to flank. He doesn't need to catcy his foe flatfooted or DEX-denied. He doesn't need to use a Feint maneuver (why do they have this rule if nobody ever needs it?). He can just Stealth (because his foe is "distracted") and then Sneak Attack because he is Stealthed.

I think both the "realist" and the "gamist" POV suggest that claiming "Melee Combat [quailfies] for the 'Creature making check is Distracted' modifier" would be impractical.

See here's the thing, a GM can and should make judgement calls that are outside RAW if it helps the story and makes sense. Between the dust and chaos and 70' of separation that the bugbear could use stealth to sneak past unnoticed, not 'da Rulez' but a judgment call. It should be an exception, not a change in the rules and the catch is it has to work both ways. If you allow enemies to bend the rules on occasion then need to allow the players to bend them on occasion also. Here is where the whole trust thing comes in. If you as a GM have a good relationship with your players they will trust that you would have let them do the same thing in that situation. Clearly this trust does not exist between the rogue player and the GM which IMO is the bigger issue here.

So I have to ask, why doesn't the player trust you (Speaking to the OP here)? Maybe the answer is simply that he's a bit immature, but you might also look at your actions also.


Cartigan wrote:
PathfinderEspañol wrote:


Creatures provide cover, if a player wants to use a neutral mount that has no special training (which is not the case afaik) as cover to hide (if the position of foes makes it possible) I would allow it, and any humanoid should be able to do the same.

Your house rules are not relevant to this discussion.

Neither your house rules ;) You won't see much stuff in the book that supports the idea of that DM doing things wrong.

Well, I missunderstood a bit the soft cover rules, but yet you have the horses (that hide the upper part of the body) and tall grass (that hide the lower part of the body) blocking the line of sigth of the PCs:

concealment wrote:


To determine whether your target has concealment from
your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If
any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s
square passes through a square or border that provides
concealment, the target has concealment.

Even if the horses aren't in the grass, the tall grass between them and the players provides concealment and allow the stealth check.


The Speaker in Dreams wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
PathfinderEspañol wrote:


Creatures provide cover, if a player wants to use a neutral mount that has no special training (which is not the case afaik) as cover to hide (if the position of foes makes it possible) I would allow it, and any humanoid should be able to do the same.

Your house rules are not relevant to this discussion.

It's not house rules - it's interpretation of the RAW vs. RAI as far as I can tell.

And of course such things matter (not as "house rules" per se), or else half of the discussion wouldn't have taken place. What the rule means and how the GM's interpret the rule is absolutely relevant - core of the post I think.

I get your rule-junk, I think you're just mis-reading the original scenario mostly.

As an aside, does anyone (not just Cartigan here) on the side attempting to crucify the OP actually condone the actions of the player?

I dont recall the OP asking about the player's behavior. I recall him asking was the activity rules legal.


The Speaker in Dreams wrote:
Hide in plain sight is more along the lines of Batman's just up and disappearing when you're standing 5' (literally) away from him. He's got like "favored terrain: urban environment" or something. Point being, a guy sneaking to a point of cover (woods) and another one (massing of 4 horses and dogs) and being all sneak-like is not even close to Hide in Plain Sight. HiPS guy just drops his "smoke bomb" and waltzes along the road because he's THAT damn good! This bugbear, and the scenario is CLEARLY not even close to HiPS. Not by a long shot. Not at all

'

Mechanically Hide in Plain Sight is being able to hide in plain view of everyone. That is exactly what the bugbear did. You can label it what you want, but all that matters is the mechanical affect. Being treated like you have an ability is no different than actually having it.


PathfinderEspañol wrote:
Even if the horses aren't in the grass, the tall grass between them and the players provides concealment and allow the stealth check.

There was no concealment or cover between the rogue and the bugbear.

+1 HiPS


King of Vrock wrote:

Tanis you're simply being obtuse if you think Melee Combat cannot qualify for the "Creature making check is Distracted" modifier. No caster would ever have to make a Concentration check if Combat isn't a "distraction."

As for the Horses not being cover, they weren't directly involved in the encounter and they were grouped together it seems. Four large creatures in close proximity could qualify as an area of "Crowd." Granted that rule is in the Urban encounters section, but the mechanic is clearly usable in this situation and Crowds do allow for Stealth checks. Dang ninja'd by Mortagon!

Now the bugbear would have to burn a lot of actions to pull this off, but at 70 feet from a deadly combat it's not completely out of the question.

This is also a classic scene in cinema, where soldiers are distracted and their mounts are then stolen or something is rifled from their packs.

Now I would have definitely had the PC make his own Perception checks which seems to be the popular method in the discussion. The RAW provides us a Baseline to make compelling encounters, adventures, and campaigns but it shouldn't straight-jacket you into binary decision making. I'm a by the book GM and I find this encounter feasible, though not played out as well as could be... but nothing runs perfectly when you're slinging dice and trying to run multiple monsters. We're human, not robots.

--Paper, Vrock, Scissors

The concentration check for a caster is because he is trying to focus on casting a spell while someone is trying to stab him in the face. If the combat caused the concentration check he would have to make them whether he was in someone threat range or not.

What works in cinema, and what works by the rules are two different things.


0gre wrote:
coldkilla wrote:
Holy crap, I'm so pissed. I just wrote a novel-length post with different cases/circumstances broken out to demonstrate how Stealth, Sniping, Hide in Plain Sight work, but the Preview button took me to some random product page and ate my post.

On the Paizo boards if you use Firefox the Lazarus extension is invaluable. You can make a habit of copying all your posts before you hit submit but lazarus takes care of you.

If you use Chrome then you don't need Lazarus, it remembers your un-submitted posts automatically, just use the back button.

I believe Safari acts the same as chrome but I'm to lazy to go on my Mac right now.

There are other browsers but I'm not sure why people would use them.

Thanks.


PathfinderEspañol wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
PathfinderEspañol wrote:


Creatures provide cover, if a player wants to use a neutral mount that has no special training (which is not the case afaik) as cover to hide (if the position of foes makes it possible) I would allow it, and any humanoid should be able to do the same.

Your house rules are not relevant to this discussion.

Neither your house rules ;) You won't see much stuff in the book that supports the idea of that DM doing things wrong.

Well, I missunderstood a bit the soft cover rules, but yet you have the horses (that hide the upper part of the body) and tall grass (that hide the lower part of the body) blocking the line of sigth of the PCs:

concealment wrote:


To determine whether your target has concealment from
your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If
any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s
square passes through a square or border that provides
concealment, the target has concealment.
Even if the horses aren't in the grass, the tall grass between them and the players provides concealment and allow the stealth check.

Negative. Concealment refers to conditions that give miss chances in D&D/pathfinder terms, not the RL version of concealment. Horses and grass dont provide the game versions of concealment.


Tanis wrote:
PathfinderEspañol wrote:
Even if the horses aren't in the grass, the tall grass between them and the players provides concealment and allow the stealth check.

There was no concealment or cover between the rogue and the bugbear.

+1 HiPS

Uhmm, did I miss something? The OP said that the goblin was hiding in the grass, without more information I can only suposse that the grass is tall enough to provide concealment, I can't see anything in the core rulebook that prevents tall grass from providing 20% concealment[if the DM thinks that it would make sense].

From the description looks like the rogue was also in the grass north of the road figthing against bugbears most of the time.


wraithstrike wrote:


Negative. Concealment refers to conditions that give miss chances in D&D/pathfinder terms, not the RL version of concealment. Horses and grass dont provide the game versions of concealment.

Reference to the rules or house rule?

Edit:
Chapther 13 contains many sugestions about outdoor objects, vegetation usually grants a bit of concealment, with different rules in different terrains.

Hill terrain example wrote:


Light Undergrowth: Sagebrush and other scrubby
bushes
grow on hills, although they rarely cover the
landscape.
Light undergrowth
provides
concealment and
increases the DC of Acrobatics and Stealth checks by 2.

Other terrains mention tall grass as a source of concealment


PathfinderEspañol wrote:

Uhmm, did I miss something? The OP said that the goblin was hiding in the grass, without more information I can only suposse that the grass is tall enough to provide concealment, I can't see anything in the core rulebook that prevents tall grass from providing 20% concealment.

From the description looks like the rogue was also in the grass north of the road figthing against bugbears most of the time.

The bugbear left the grass stealthily to get to the gobo (who was tied to the horse), hiding behind the horses. Unless he could make that movement in 1 rnd without running, he's not gonna have cover or concealment to run off. That was one (and the only valid) argument that the rogue made. Horses are not cover.

Yes he only crossed 6 squares of open terrain. But did he make any actions in that time. Yes, at least a standard to cut the ropes and a move to pick up gobo. The rogue should've got a Perception DC of 0 if bugbear doesn't have cover. Of course this is modified by bonuses or penalties.


btw, grass interrupts the line of effect as it's actually there, not just affecting vision. It's something that can deflect attacks.


Tanis wrote:


The bugbear left the grass stealthily to get to the gobo (who was tied to the horse), hiding behind the horses. Unless he could make that movement in 1 rnd without running, he's not gonna have cover or concealment to run off. That was one (and the only valid) argument that the rogue made. Horses are not cover.

Yes he only crossed 6 squares of open terrain. But did he make any actions in that time. Yes, at least a standard to cut the ropes and a move to pick up gobo. The rogue should've got a Perception DC of 0 if bugbear doesn't have cover. Of course this is modified by bonuses or penalties.

However, if that grass betweem them was giving concealment, by the rules the bugbear would benefit from concealment.

But I have a doubt, should the bugbear move crouching or prone to benefit from that concealment -thus moving slowly-? The rules aren't clear, but would make sense.


PathfinderEspañol wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Negative. Concealment refers to conditions that give miss chances in D&D/pathfinder terms, not the RL version of concealment. Horses and grass dont provide the game versions of concealment.
Reference to the rules or house rule?

Concealment

To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.

When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has concealment if his space is entirely within an effect that grants concealment. When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you, use the rules for determining concealment from ranged attacks.

In addition, some magical effects provide concealment against all attacks, regardless of whether any intervening concealment exists.

Concealment Miss Chance: Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. Make the attack normally—if the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being struck. Multiple concealment conditions do not stack.

Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.

Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
------------------------------------------------------------

I guess it's up to the DM what counts as cover.

From the OP

Was it unfair to let the bugbear sneak through the middle and snatch the goblin "in plain sight" without informing the players?

The rogue arguably had a clear LOS, but his perception rolls were pretty lousy against the bugbear's good stealth rolls.

You dont even get a stealth check with clear Line of Sight. As someone else said, if the bugbear was not know to be around it might work, but even in combat if one enemy disappears you will be looking for him even while fighting the other enemies.

clear LOS means on cover or concealment.


PathfinderEspañol wrote:


But I have a doubt, should the bugbear move crouching or prone to benefit from that concealment -thus moving slowly-? The rules aren't clear, but would make sense.

That's a perfectly valid houserule. We used to do the same thing in 2nd ed. where if you moved at a quarter of your speed, rather than half, you'd get a bonus (+2 i think).

So the main questions are:

1) Does the bugbear have cover or concealment in relation to the rogue after moving?

2) Do horses provide cover?

If the answer to either of those is no, then there's a problem.


The Speaker in Dreams wrote:


If soft cover can't provide stealth checks, Odysseus could never escape from the cyclops cave,

Check your greek mythology - he had already blinded the Cyclops before he escaped.

Quote:
The horse that charged off did so because the one guy tried to use it normally and had NO real ride skill to control it (nor the Mounted Combat feat).

Because they were attacked by bugbears. The horses had no combat training.

PathfinderEspañol wrote:


Neither your house rules ;) You won't see much stuff in the book that supports the idea of that DM doing things wrong.

Except everything I have been repeatedly citing.

PathfinderEspañol wrote:


Uhmm, did I miss something? The OP said that the goblin was hiding in the grass, without more information I can only suposse that the grass is tall enough to provide concealment, I can't see anything in the core rulebook that prevents tall grass from providing 20% concealment[if the DM thinks that it would make sense].

From the description looks like the rogue was also in the grass north of the road figthing against bugbears most of the time.

:facepalm:

The OP STATES that the bugbear was in the open for 6 squares. Even if we PRETEND that the horse grouping is cover, that is still going to be several squares of open terrain.

Quote:


However, if that grass betweem them was giving concealment, by the rules the bugbear would benefit from concealment.

Apparently PathfinderEspañol has decided to skip the stretching the rules and just plain disagree with the OP in order to keep making the argument he wants to make.


I hope this helps:

Stealth, what is overlooked


Cartigan wrote:


The OP STATES that the bugbear was in the open for 6 squares. Even if we PRETEND that the horse grouping is cover, that is still going to be several squares of open terrain.

Apparently PathfinderEspañol has decided to skip the stretching the rules and just plain disagree with the OP in order to keep making the argument he wants to make.

Read the rules and the original post, it doesn't matter if the bugbear is IN the open or IN plain sigth if there is a source of concealment BETWEEN the bugbear and their foes, the OP hasn't said it wasn't the case, and for the description of the situation (grass long enough to have a creature hiding on it once the combat ended, everyone out of the road) it was the case.

I'm not paying attention about what the OP calls LOS because he is saying that LOS is blocked by creatures and distance, which is not the case, I wonder if he even remembers that LOS is blocked by concealment.

You are asumming some things that you don't really now and that's not fair for that DM (as the dog behavour before, that has been clarified by the original poster)

51 to 100 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