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.
At no point does the OP state or even imply there was tall grass between the players and the horses. The players could not see each other effectively, but there was nothing stated as obstructing view of the horses.
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.
So you, as a person NOT INVOLVED IN THE GAME, are assuming the layout of the map in such a way not described by the OP but as you think it was laid out? Right.
I hope this helps:
Just because some one FROM THIS THREAD repeats their post on a blog, it doesn't make their interpretation of the rules any more correct.
Such as
additionally, when “distracted” the DC for perception increases by +5 – I think we can agree that when fighting for your life you are going to be distracted;
I didn't agree the first time he said it and I don't agree now that he has a blog.
Just because some one FROM THIS THREAD repeats their post on a blog, it doesn't make their interpretation of the rules any more correct.I hope this helps:
+1.
"I think it is time for a word of authority, and I’m here to deliver it." A word of authority, huh? Who does this guy think he is, the reincarnation of Gygax?Having I know they share some letters, but "blog" != "God".
Such as
additionally, when “distracted” the DC for perception increases by +5 – I think we can agree that when fighting for your life you are going to be distracted;I didn't agree the first time he said it and I don't agree now that he has a blog.
I just realized that I FURTHER disagree with the very position he is taking - that position being that because the character can't automatically beat the DC to see the bugbear, the bugbear may use stealth. But the bugbear still has no cover or concealment for the purposes of stealth as a matter of fact. I would put forward the position that the DC to spot a visible creature is the DC required to beat to see the bugbear because he is a visible creature, although in less than favorable conditions. If the Rogue can beat the set DC, the bugbear will be spotted regardless of his bonuses to stealth or his stealth check because it is impossible for him to stealth without cover or concealment. The abstraction of the game is that anything that isn't behind cover or under concealment can be seen assuming the flat DC ids beat. However, the inability to beat that flat DC does not grant the ability to use the Stealth skill without the limitations thereof. Mr Magoo the Rogue may not see the horseman charging toward him with a halbred, but that doesn't mean the horseman can disa-fracking-ppear.
At no point does the OP state or even imply there was tall grass between the players and the horses. The players could not see each other effectively, but there was nothing stated as obstructing view of the horses.So you, as a person NOT INVOLVED IN THE GAME, are assuming the layout of the map in such a way not described by the OP but as you think it was laid out? Right.
At no point does the OP state that the tall grass (which was in the map, as it is clearly mentioned in the post) wasn't between the players and the horses.
I'm assuming the layout of the map as i can understand from the way it is described by the OP, as YOU AS PERSON NOT INVOLVED IN THE GAME do :p. Rigth. Well, I'm not even asumming that, I just pointed out that if that's the case sneaking is possible -and it is a very important part of the rules about stealth that the OP has to be aware.
But forget it, there is enough information in this thread for the OP to self-evaluate if he did it rigth or wrong.
At no point does the OP state that the tall grass (which was in the map, as it is clearly mentioned in the post) wasn't between the players and the horses.
Nor does he say it is. Why are you assuming it? Is it not a clear beaten path? Does the curve of the road continue such that the grass somehow comes between the midpoint and the end point?
Such as
additionally, when “distracted” the DC for perception increases by +5 – I think we can agree that when fighting for your life you are going to be distracted;I didn't agree the first time he said it and I don't agree now that he has a blog.
Core rules, page 102. Are you suggesting that you are not distracted while fighting? If say, your character wanted to read the fine print on a contract while being attacked, this would not constitute distraction on the perception check?
I just realized that I FURTHER disagree with the very position he is taking - that position being that because the character can't automatically beat the DC to see the bugbear, the bugbear may use stealth. But the bugbear still has no cover or concealment for the purposes of stealth as a matter of fact. I would put forward the position that the DC to spot a visible creature is the DC required to beat to see the bugbear because he is a visible creature, although in less than favorable conditions. If the Rogue can beat the set DC, the bugbear will be spotted regardless of his bonuses to stealth or his stealth check because it is impossible for him to stealth without cover or concealment. The abstraction of the game is that anything that isn't behind cover or under concealment can be seen assuming the flat DC ids beat. However, the inability to beat that flat DC does not grant the ability to use the Stealth skill without the limitations thereof. Mr Magoo the Rogue may not see the horseman charging toward him with a halbred, but that doesn't mean the horseman can disa-fracking-ppear.
Are you suggesting that you are observing a creature that you failed to perceive in the first place?
The DC to perceive the visible bugbear at 70ft while in combat is DC 11. (If you disagree with the distraction penalty, suppose it is true for the sake of argument, or increase the distance to 120ft for the sake of the argument - as I'm sure you're point is not fixated on the 70ft range).
How does this play out: assuming the rogue actually made a check of DC 11 to spot a visible creature (95% chance, so pretty likely) then he spots the bugbear. If he somehow rolls a 1 and fails to see the bugbear, what does that mean? Is the bugbear allowed to make a stealth check under those circumstances? Why should it? It didn't get spotted just standing there, doing stealth would be overkill. It could literally do a tapdance, and it wouldn't matter if the rogue rolled a 1.
The stance you take is not more supported by RAW than the stance taken on 10letter - but the stance on 10letter has the advantage that a GM can determine with hard numbers in all situations when a stealth check is valid. No need for fumbling about or guessing what constitutes legal conditions and constitutes sufficient cover/concealment.
By RAW its a DC50 check to spot a visible human at 500ish feet away. Even on a featureless plain the rogue in OP could not possibly see that human, thereby obviating the need for stealth checks. As the human gets closer, there comes naturally a point in time where the rogue might see the human, or might not - depending on the perception role. The stance on 10letter is that if there is a chance to fail at perception, then there is a chance to succeed on stealth. This is reasonable by RAW.
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.
The Bugbear didn't HIPS though. He snuck past people who were already not paying attention to him. HIPS is the ability to disappear in front of people who are paying attention to you. These are 2 very different things with 2 very different power levels.
Now, if the bugbear wanted to disappear in the grass and then attempt to sneak up behind the rogue and jig him, I would allow that too. The rogue loses track of him once he makes his stealth check in cover. The bugbear then gets to attempt to stealth up to the rogue who is focused on annother opponent. He has a pretty large penalty to his stealth checks, but if he succeeds he does not draw attention to himself while he is moving up to the rogue. Once again, I see no problem with this, since its not difficult to do in real life and does not violate any of the rules. You have cover to initiate the stealth check and are unobserved, and then people fail their perception check to observe you even once you are out in the open, so you are still unobserved, allowing you to continue to stealth.
Core rules, page 102. Are you suggesting that you are not distracted while fighting? If say, your character wanted to read the fine print on a contract while being attacked, this would not constitute distraction on the perception check?
Reading fine print is Concentration. You can't properly concentrate on something while in combat. Well, you can but it takes more effort. Hence why spells cast while being attacked require a Concentration check. Though that was lifted to spells only for some reason. Combat does not destroy your perception. Hence why a Bluff check is needed to distract some one in or out of combat. Your argument for combat distracting a character from noticing other characters is absurd on its face and completely counters multiple other rules.
Specifically, these among others:
Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.
Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.
Are you suggesting that you are observing a creature that you failed to perceive in the first place?
I am suggesting that observing a creature and a creature being visible without cover or concealment can be and are two exclusive items. Mr Magoo the Rogue may not be able to spot Waldo the Bugbear sitting on top of a horse 5' in front of him, but that doesn't mean Waldo can attempt a Stealth check to hide from Mr Magoo. The DC to spot a visible creature is 0, plus or minus relevant modifiers. A creature is visible unless there is cover or concealment, and a Stealth check cannot be attempted without one or the other. Those are two separate and exclusive rule sets.
The DC to perceive the visible bugbear at 70ft while in combat is DC 11.
Indeed it is. Which he made on his first roll.
If he somehow rolls a 1 and fails to see the bugbear, what does that mean?
The bugbear is visible but unseen. Since he is unseen, he may dash to cover in order to hide. However, if he does not do that, he cannot make a Stealth check because he is not attempting to hide - he is still standing in the middle of an open area surrounded by people who are terribly nearsighted.
By RAW its a DC50 check to spot a visible human at 500ish feet away. Even on a featureless plain the rogue in OP could not possibly see that human, thereby obviating the need for stealth checks.
Exactly my point.
As the human gets closer, there comes naturally a point in time where the rogue might see the human, or might not - depending on the perception role. The stance on 10letter is that if there is a chance to fail at perception, then there is a chance to succeed on stealth. This is reasonable by RAW.
Only if you ignore all points of RAW stating Stealth checks cannot be made without cover or concealment. Why is that? Because at some point, you end up with a creature standing in the middle of an open field actively Stealthing while some one is looking directly at it. That is Hide in Plain Sight.
Quote:
As the human gets closer, there comes naturally a point in time where the rogue might see the human, or might not - depending on the perception role. The stance on 10letter is that if there is a chance to fail at perception, then there is a chance to succeed on stealth. This is reasonable by RAW.Only if you ignore all points of RAW stating Stealth checks cannot be made without cover or concealment. Why is that? Because at some point, you end up with a creature standing in the middle of an open field actively Stealthing while some one is looking directly at it. That is Hide in Plain Sight.
Except no where in the rules does it say that you need cover or concealment to stealth. It does, however say that you must be unobserved, and that cover or concealment is the normal method for this. If you are unobserved, but out in the open, you can stealth.
Except no where in the rules does it say that you need cover or concealment to stealth. It does, however say that you must be unobserved, and that cover or concealment is the normal method for this. If you are unobserved, but out in the open, you can stealth.
Then what is a creature standing in the middle of a field if not "visible." Additionally, how could one not be observed there?
While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
Are you using Stealth to try and run in the other direction (still in a barren field) because after a certain point, it is impossible to spot you? Can you repeatedly use Stealth every round at a -10 even if you don't end in an "unobserved place" as long as the opponent couldn't make a "Spot a visible creature" check with a roll of a 1?
Razor. Thin.
I hope this helps:
I agree with most of this except that the bugbear wouldn't gain his size or racial bonus to the static DC to be spotted. These modifiers only apply when the bugbear is making a stealth check, not the static DC to be perceived (although I would think it is logical to assume that size is a factor). Also it's not explicitly mentioned what counts as being distracted (there are a few mentions in the rules, the bardic ability for instance), so this would be entirely up to the DM.
Then what is a creature standing in the middle of a field if not "visible."
Except no where in the rules does it say that you need cover or concealment to stealth. It does, however say that you must be unobserved, and that cover or concealment is the normal method for this. If you are unobserved, but out in the open, you can stealth.
He is unobserved. The only people who care are distracted and not looking his way, thus the failed perception checks. He stealthed to make sure that he did not draw their attention with an odd sound or with too much motion.The rogue may have looked that way, but didn't notice it, since he failed his perception checks.
He is unobserved.
But he is visible.
The only people who care are distracted and not looking his way, thus the failed perception checks. He stealthed to make sure that he did not draw their attention with an odd sound or with too much motion.The rogue may have looked that way, but didn't notice it, since he failed his perception checks.
Let's ignore the OP because I am convinced the OP did all sorts of stuff wrong. (Not enough stealth checks to clear at least 70 feet of terrain just to get to the horses. Then not enough action to remove the goblin and escape. And the extremely tame horses. And the very large open area where one can't cross and can't hide behind horses.
So let's stick to the perfectly visible creature in the middle of a field hiding from Mr Magoo.
He is unobserved.But he is visible.
The only people who care are distracted and not looking his way, thus the failed perception checks. He stealthed to make sure that he did not draw their attention with an odd sound or with too much motion.The rogue may have looked that way, but didn't notice it, since he failed his perception checks.Let's ignore the OP because I am convinced the OP did all sorts of stuff wrong. (Not enough stealth checks to clear at least 70 feet of terrain just to get to the horses. Then not enough action to remove the goblin and escape. And the extremely tame horses. And the very large open area where one can't cross and can't hide behind horses.
So let's stick to the perfectly visible creature in the middle of a field hiding from Mr Magoo.
I never said he couldn't be seen. He is perfectly visible. In real life you can stay perfectly visible and sneak up on or past someone. Its not even difficult. There are no rules that say visible creatures can't stealth. You are still visible with cover or concealment. There are rules that unobserved creatures can stealth, and that is what is going on in this situation.
And the person is not hiding in the middle of the field. He is moving accross the field while the person who could watch him has his back turned. Once again, its not hard in real life to do this, and the game rules do not prevent you from doing this. And he is not disappearing from in front of the person, he is moving from somewhere the watcher does not know.
I never said he couldn't be seen. He is perfectly visible. In real life you can stay perfectly visible and sneak up on or past someone. Its not even difficult. There are no rules that say visible creatures can't stealth.
But there are rules giving an explicit DC for a visible creature.
You are still visible with cover or concealment. There are rules that unobserved creatures can stealth, and that is what is going on in this situation.
And why does that overrule the "Notice a visible creature" rule and DC?
Once again, its not hard in real life to do this, and the game rules do not prevent you from doing this.
Other than the lack of facing and "visible creature" rules.
And he is not disappearing from in front of the person, he is moving from somewhere the watcher does not know.
He is moving from visible spot to visible spot. Apparently one can always take a -10 on a stealth check to wander around in the open.
I never said he couldn't be seen. He is perfectly visible. In real life you can stay perfectly visible and sneak up on or past someone. Its not even difficult. There are no rules that say visible creatures can't stealth.But there are rules giving an explicit DC for a visible creature.
You are still visible with cover or concealment. There are rules that unobserved creatures can stealth, and that is what is going on in this situation.And why does that overrule the "Notice a visible creature" rule and DC?
Once again, its not hard in real life to do this, and the game rules do not prevent you from doing this.Other than the lack of facing and "visible creature" rules.
And he is not disappearing from in front of the person, he is moving from somewhere the watcher does not know.He is moving from visible spot to visible spot. Apparently one can always take a -10 on a stealth check to wander around in the open.
The Visible DC is overridden by the stealth rules, which makes it an opposed check. There are rules in stealth for doing this, and it gives you a penalty to the stealth score. I really don't see the issue here.
As for facing, thats where distracted comes in. I have walked into people I was looking dirrectly at because I was distracted. Just because you are looking at something does not mean you are observing it. If you are quickly glancing arround a battlefield, its highly likely that you can miss someone standing a decent distance away.
And finally, you can only take the -10 and stealth when you are not being observed. Yes, in this instance he is moving from a visible spot to a visible spot. But he wasn't being watched at either spot, so he can still stealth. He was able to disappear thanks to cover. If the rogue spotted him by the horses, he would not have been able to re-stealth. If he had HIPS, he could though.
The Visible DC is overridden by the stealth rules,
On what grounds?
There are rules in stealth for doing this, and it gives you a penalty to the stealth score. I really don't see the issue here.
There are rules for stealthing in order to reach an unobserved place.
As for facing, thats where distracted comes in.
Except it doesn't. There is no facing and thusly facing the wrong way cannot possibly count as any sort of distraction.
Just because you are looking at something does not mean you are observing it.
That's bloody great and all, but there are no rules in the abstract game to mimic your non-abstract real world experiences.
If you are quickly glancing arround a battlefield, its highly likely that you can miss someone standing a decent distance away.
"Brb, making up rules to fit my ruling on them." I think you are doing it backwards.
And finally, you can only take the -10 and stealth when you are not being observed. Yes, in this instance he is moving from a visible spot to a visible spot. But he wasn't being watched at either spot, so he can still stealth. He was able to disappear thanks to cover. If the rogue spotted him by the horses, he would not have been able to re-stealth. If he had HIPS, he could though.
I already said we are not talking about the OPs scenario which I already consider wrong on multiple counts. We are discussing your imaginary scenarios where people hide in the corner of observing creatures' eyes.
But there are rules giving an explicit DC for a visible creature.
I never said he couldn't be seen. He is perfectly visible. In real life you can stay perfectly visible and sneak up on or past someone. Its not even difficult. There are no rules that say visible creatures can't stealth.
The explicit DC for visible creatures is for creatures that aren't actively making an attempt at hiding.
"Except no where in the rules does it say that you need cover or concealment to stealth. It does, however say that you must be unobserved, and that cover or concealment is the normal method for this. If you are unobserved, but out in the open, you can stealth." - Caineach
This is key. Being visible and being observed are NOT the same thing.
You are still visible with cover or concealment. There are rules that unobserved creatures can stealth, and that is what is going on in this situation.And why does that overrule the "Notice a visible creature" rule and DC?
It does not overrule or violate. It supplements the rule. A visible and stealthing creature is not spotted by a "notice visible creature check" it's spotted by opposed stealth/perception check. Obviously a stealthing creature is not actually invisible.
Once again, its not hard in real life to do this, and the game rules do not prevent you from doing this.Other than the lack of facing and "visible creature" rules.
The visible creature rule is supplementary - otherwise you wouldn't be able to stealth from cover to cover either. The most important thing about starting stealth is not being observed.
And he is not disappearing from in front of the person, he is moving from somewhere the watcher does not know.He is moving from visible spot to visible spot. Apparently one can always take a -10 on a stealth check to wander around in the open.
The bluff-for-distraction is a special skill use and its nature is such that it requires a stealth-penalty to pull it off. Since you essentially saying "look over there!" and then sneak of quickly.
A person that is distracted sufficiently due to other things (a couple of guards playing knucklebones for example instead of looking at the corridor) are good game to be stealthed passed.
That's bloody great and all, but there are no rules in the abstract game to mimic your non-abstract real world experiences.
The rules state:
"If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth."
It does NOT state: You can distract an observer with a bluff check to attempt to go into stealth.
It DOES state: If an observer is distracted you can attempt stealth. One way to get them distracted is by making use of a bluff check.
You might think of the rules as very abstract - but they encapsulate the real world better than you apparently believe.
The Visible DC is overridden by the stealth rules,On what grounds?
There are rules in stealth for doing this, and it gives you a penalty to the stealth score. I really don't see the issue here.There are rules for stealthing in order to reach an unobserved place.
There is nothing to say that you must end your turn in cover. An open spot where no one is looking is still unobserved.
As for facing, thats where distracted comes in.Except it doesn't. There is no facing and thusly facing the wrong way cannot possibly count as any sort of distraction.
I never said there was facing in the game. I said that the person was distracted, and therefore you can sneak past him, as the rules say you can do. This translates from the abstract game into a more concreate world as you sneaking behind him, but it can also be explained in other ways. I know its not the first time I have said it to you, but you really need to work on your reading comprehension.
Just because you are looking at something does not mean you are observing it.That's bloody great and all, but there are no rules in the abstract game to mimic your non-abstract real world experiences.
except there are. There are rules in both stealth and perception for exactly this. +5 perception DC for being distracted, and rules for stealthing past distracted people.
If you are quickly glancing arround a battlefield, its highly likely that you can miss someone standing a decent distance away."Brb, making up rules to fit my ruling on them." I think you are doing it backwards.I am not making up a single rule. I am only applying what is written in the book. And you have yet to provide a single rule to counter me.
And finally, you can only take the -10 and stealth when you are not being observed. Yes, in this instance he is moving from a visible spot to a visible spot. But he wasn't being watched at either spot, so he can still stealth. He was able to disappear thanks to cover. If the rogue spotted him by the horses, he would not have been able to re-stealth. If he had HIPS, he could though.I already said we are not talking about the OPs scenario which I already consider wrong on multiple counts. We are discussing your imaginary scenarios where people hide in the corner of observing creatures' eyes.But your new scenario is completely different from what I am talking about. First, it assumes the person is starting to stealth out in the open while being observed, but he would need HIPS for that. Second, it has an observer who is not distracted. As I have said multiple times, both the conditions of needing to start stealth in an unobserved location (in the OP's case cover) and having a distracted opponent, the rogue engaged in combat, need to be met. If those conditions are not met, he can't pull this off. The -10 stealth check is for moving out of an unobserved area to a potentially observed area and not drawing attention to yourself, thus staying unobserved.
The explicit DC for visible creatures is for creatures that aren't actively making an attempt at hiding.
What.
This is key. Being visible and being observed are NOT the same thing.
"Observed" being a nebulous, undefined term.
And you all keep ignoring me when I point out these sets of rules, which would be overridden using your logic.Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.
Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.
It does not overrule or violate. It supplements the rule. A visible and stealthing creature is not spotted by a "notice visible creature check"
Why not? It's visible.
it's spotted by opposed stealth/perception check. Obviously a stealthing creature is not actually invisible.
If a stealthing character in the middle of a barren field beats the perception check of an opponent, they are in effect invisible to said opponent. The problem is, why is are there opposed checks? It is a visible creature in an open field. All you have to beat is the "notice a visible creature" DC.
The visible creature rule is supplementary
"Visible" is a binary value and thus easily definable. Combine that with the fact everything in line of sight is technically visible to the character because of NO FACING in the rules, then "visible" is a hard rule, not supplementary.
- otherwise you wouldn't be able to stealth from cover to cover either.
Which is why dodging from hiding place to hiding place is explicitly defined in the rules. And in said explicit update, it states in order to perform it, it must be performed while moving towards an unobserved location. Unobserved again being nebulous and undefined, I will say relevant cover or concealment.
The most important thing about starting stealth is not being observed.
Or rather, "not being visible" because there is explicitly a DC for that.
A person that is distracted sufficiently due to other things (a couple of guards playing knucklebones for example instead of looking at the corridor) are good game to be stealthed passed.
Provided you can do it within the rules - sneak through the shadows. Dodge from cover to cover. Etc.
Second, it has an observer who is not distracted.
"Distraction" is only slightly less nebulous than "observed." However, since there are places where "distraction" is employed as a side-effect of a skill use, we can assume that it does not occur in instances where it is not listed as a side-effect. Such as combat.
The -10 stealth check is for moving out of an unobserved area to a potentially observed area and not drawing attention to yourself, thus staying unobserved.
At worst, that is laughably wrong. At best, it is exceedingly incorrect. The -10 is for dodging through a location where you are visible to a place where you are no longer visible.
LoreKeeper wrote:
The explicit DC for visible creatures is for creatures that aren't actively making an attempt at hiding.
What.
There are rules for spotting a visible creature and for spotting someone using stealth. They are different, and the ones for stealth override spotting a visible creature. Otherwise, you could never hide.
This is key. Being visible and being observed are NOT the same thing."Observed" being a nebulous, undefined term.
And you all keep ignoring me when I point out these sets of rules, which would be overridden using your logic.
There are no rules for what observed means, but it is the term that the stealth rules use.
Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.
Niether of these rules would change at all with our interpretation. They do things that are completely different. Bluff allows you to actively create the diversion that the bugbear's ally is already providing. The bugbear was able to make the first stealth check thanks to cover. Sniping allows you to never reveal your location, so the bugbear that stayed in the brush could have made a check at -20 on his initial attack to never have even been put on the board. Totally different from being put on the board and then removed.
It does not overrule or violate. It supplements the rule. A visible and stealthing creature is not spotted by a "notice visible creature check"
Why not? It's visible.
Its also stealthing.
it's spotted by opposed stealth/perception check. Obviously a stealthing creature is not actually invisible.If a stealthing character in the middle of a barren field beats the perception check of an opponent, they are in effect invisible to said opponent. The problem is, why is are there opposed checks? It is a visible creature in an open field. All you have to beat is the "notice a visible creature" DC.
There are opposed stealth checks because you can hide in the middle of a field, albeit at massive penalties. The person doesn't notice as he is scanning over the field. Just like a quarterback can not see a totally open reciever.
[uote]
The visible creature rule is supplementary
"Visible" is a binary value and thus easily definable. Combine that with the fact everything in line of sight is technically visible to the character because of NO FACING in the rules, then "visible" is a hard rule, not supplementary.
Obviously you have a different deffinition of visible. Someone in cover is still visible, but they can stealth. Once they are stealthing, they are unobserved, and they can stay that way so long as no one is dirrectly looking
- otherwise you wouldn't be able to stealth from cover to cover either.Which is why dodging from hiding place to hiding place is explicitly defined in the rules. And in said explicit update, it states in order to perform it, it must be performed while moving towards an unobserved location. Unobserved again being nebulous and undefined, I will say relevant cover or concealment.
I would like to see the area in the rules where it says you must go from hiding place to hiding place. It says you must stay unobserved. No where does it say you must stay in cover.
The most important thing about starting stealth is not being observed.Or rather, "not being visible" because there is explicitly a DC for that.
apparently a bluff check makes me invisible then, since I can stealth after using one on an opponent
A person that is distracted sufficiently due to other things (a couple of guards playing knucklebones for example instead of looking at the corridor) are good game to be stealthed passed.Provided you can do it within the rules - sneak through the shadows. Dodge from cover to cover. Etc.
You can sneak past people who are distracted without needing shadows. If they don't look at you, and don't hear you, they are not observing you. That is why there is a rule for stealthing past distracted people. What is a shadow going to do to hide you if the person isn't even looking at you?
There are rules for spotting a visible creature and for spotting someone using stealth. They are different, and the ones for stealth override spotting a visible creature. Otherwise, you could never hide.
Unless, you know, you were in applicable cover, concealment, or explicitly distracted the opponent. Or had Hide in Plain Sight. Under your interpretation, the "Notice a visible creature" DC is moot because Stealth is not a "trained only" skill and it will almost always exceed the "notice a visible creature" DC.
There are no rules for what observed means, but it is the term that the stealth rules use.
Which is (a) bad design and (b) not basis for rule setting. I could much more easily put forward the position that "observed" is a fluff term.
Niether of these rules would change at all with our interpretation.
Wouldn't they? Sniping would be overridden entirely. And creating a diversion to hide would be all but unnecessary.
Bluff allows you to actively create the diversion that the bugbear's ally is already providing.
Again, who needs flanking in combat? Anyone engaged in combat is "distracted" thus I hide against them and ta-da, I can attack their flat-footed AC every other round!
The bugbear was able to make the first stealth check thanks to cover. Sniping allows you to never reveal your location, so the bugbear that stayed in the brush could have made a check at -20 on his initial attack to never have even been put on the board. Totally different from being put on the board and then removed.
Actually, using your interpretation, his penalty after sniping is at most -10. If any penalty at all. The opponent he is sniping is distracted and thus he can shoot and hide without penalty. Hell, he can probably do it with a collective bonus!
Obviously you have a different deffinition of visible. Someone in cover is still visible, but they can stealth. Once they are stealthing, they are unobserved, and they can stay that way so long as no one is dirrectly looking
Concealment means you are not visible or are barely visible. Cover means LoS is obstructed, ie not visible. Being visible while behind cover (ie, soft cover) does not allow you to stealth.
I would like to see the area in the rules where it says you must go from hiding place to hiding place. It says you must stay unobserved. No where does it say you must stay in cover.
It says you must most to an unobserved location. Moving from open location to open location does not count because you are, drum roll, observable. If you can't end your move in an unobserved location, you can't take advantage of those rules.
apparently a bluff check makes me invisible then, since I can stealth after using one on an opponent
Bluff distracts the opponent. Explicitly. Unlike your "combat distracts everyone in combat from everyone they are not fighting" argument.
You can sneak past people who are distracted without needing shadows.
Again, distraction is nebulous, but has certain ways to be given explicitly and thus you can't just pull it our of a hat and say "they are distracted!"
What is a shadow going to do to hide you if the person isn't even looking at you?
1) And let me emphasize this, THERE ARE NO FACING RULES. YOU ARE LOOKING AT EVERYTHING IN LOS
2) The shadow is going to let you hide in a game where you are playing by the rules instead of fast, loose, and by the seat of your pants.
Caineach wrote:
There are rules for spotting a visible creature and for spotting someone using stealth. They are different, and the ones for stealth override spotting a visible creature. Otherwise, you could never hide.
Unless, you know, you were in applicable cover, concealment, or explicitly distracted the opponent. Or had Hide in Plain Sight. Under your interpretation, the "Notice a visible creature" DC is moot because Stealth is not a "trained only" skill and it will almost always exceed the "notice a visible creature" DC.
The rules for stealth do not say you need any of these things. They just say you must be unobserved, and then say that these are the normal methods to be unobserved. Its not an exclusive list. As for stealth being better than spot and overriding it, only if they are actively stealthing before the person attempts to notice them.
There are no rules for what observed means, but it is the term that the stealth rules use.
Which is (a) bad design and (b) not basis for rule setting. I could much more easily put forward the position that "observed" is a fluff term.
except if it was rules fluf you wouldn't have a stealth skill, as it is the only term used to say when you can stealth.
Niether of these rules would change at all with our interpretation.Wouldn't they? Sniping would be overridden entirely. And creating a diversion to hide would be all but unnecessary.
Snipe would not reveal your location. That is huge. Currently, by the rules, you can spend your move action to stealth after attacking, if you have cover, and restealth without taking the -20. You just reveal your location that you attacked from to your opponent, who can then use an AOE on you since he knows about where you are. Sniping, he doesn't get your bearing.
The bluff rule would still be needed because you can't normally stealth while being observed. This allows you to use bluff to become unobserved. This is in no way negated by someone already unobserved moving into an area where he could potentially be spotted, but being able to avoid it.Quote:
Bluff allows you to actively create the diversion that the bugbear's ally is already providing.
Again, who needs flanking in combat? Anyone engaged in combat is "distracted" thus I hide against them and ta-da, I can attack their flat-footed AC every other round!
They are distracted, yes, but they are also observing you since they are fighting you. The bugbear used stealth in cover, which overrides the observation explicitly in the rules.
The bugbear was able to make the first stealth check thanks to cover. Sniping allows you to never reveal your location, so the bugbear that stayed in the brush could have made a check at -20 on his initial attack to never have even been put on the board. Totally different from being put on the board and then removed.Actually, using your interpretation, his penalty after sniping is at most -10. If any penalty at all. The opponent he is sniping is distracted and thus he can shoot and hide without penalty. Hell, he can probably do it with a collective bonus!
No, my interpretation would have put him at a -15. -20 for attempting to never reveal his location, but +5 for the opponent being distracted by the bugbear's ally. He would then get standard distance bonuses though. If he wanted to reveal his attact location, he could not use the sniping and just restealth and move up to half his movement using a standard stealth check. Then I wouldn't give the +5 for distraction though, since the PC knows what is shooting him and roughly where to look for it from.
Obviously you have a different deffinition of visible. Someone in cover is still visible, but they can stealth. Once they are stealthing, they are unobserved, and they can stay that way so long as no one is dirrectly lookingConcealment means you are not visible or are barely visible. Cover means LoS is obstructed, ie not visible. Being visible while behind cover (ie, soft cover) does not allow you to stealth.
But they are still visible. Even if you have perfect concealment, you are still visible. They just may not be able to tell what they are looking at.
I would like to see the area in the rules where it says you must go from hiding place to hiding place. It says you must stay unobserved. No where does it say you must stay in cover.
It says you must most to an unobserved location. Moving from open location to open location does not count because you are, drum roll, observable. If you can't end your move in an unobserved location, you can't take advantage of those rules.
Just because you are observable does not mean that you are not unobserved. You can be observed while you have concealment or cover, but you can still stealth. If the middle of the field is not observed, you can stealth there, and someone would need to succeed a perception check to see you.
apparently a bluff check makes me invisible then, since I can stealth after using one on an opponentBluff distracts the opponent. Explicitly. Unlike your "combat distracts everyone in combat from everyone they are not fighting" argument.
Well, you finally have your first leg to stand on. They don't define what is distracting anywhere in the book, except to say bluff can be used to do it. Its a matter of interpretation here, and it is much more believable to me to say people in combat are not paying as much attention to the things not dirrectly effecting their survival. It fits my exprience and makes sense. You can disagree and rule it a different way, but IMO it makes far less sense.
You can sneak past people who are distracted without needing shadows.Again, distraction is nebulous, but has certain ways to be given explicitly and thus you can't just pull it our of a hat and say "they are distracted!"
It has 1 way that is not exclusive to be able to do it. Otherwise, it is defined by the GM. As long as he does it fairly consistently, I see no problem.
What is a shadow going to do to hide you if the person isn't even looking at you?1) And let me emphasize this, THERE ARE NO FACING RULES. YOU ARE LOOKING AT EVERYTHING IN LOS
2) The shadow is going to let you hide in a game where you are playing by the rules instead of fast, loose, and by the seat of your pants.
And once again, the rules are intentionally vague on this. Distractions allow for stealth checks. How that distraction is defined is irrelevant. You don't need shadows to sneak past someone who is distracted.
There are no rules for facing, but if you fail a perception check because you were distracted, you roleplay it and say something like "you weren't looking that way at the time." Thus, arbitrary facing comes in on the roleplay side, supported by mechanics that are included in the game.
The rules for stealth do not say you need any of these things. They just say you must be unobserved, and then say that these are the normal methods to be unobserved. Its not an exclusive list.
Of course not, but since unobserved is an undefined term, any expansion of the list is house rules.
As for stealth being better than spot and overriding it, only if they are actively stealthing before the person attempts to notice them.
You mean while perfectly visible?
except if it was rules fluf you wouldn't have a stealth skill, as it is the only term used to say when you can stealth.
You are expanding the term "unobserved" to be the real world, dictionary definition (and then some really), not the defined methods for going unobserved. Unobserved is effectively fluff in order to not have to list out every defined type of "how not to be seen" every time they talk about stealth.
Snipe would not reveal your location. That is huge. Currently, by the rules, you can spend your move action to stealth after attacking, if you have cover, and restealth without taking the -20. You just reveal your location that you attacked from to your opponent, who can then use an AOE on you since he knows about where you are. Sniping, he doesn't get your bearing.
It would be less typing if you just bothered to admit you are saying "I am making this up and it is not RAW and is in fact often contrary to RAW." and we could also end this back and forth.
There are no rules for facing, but if you fail a perception check because you were distracted, you roleplay it and say something like "you weren't looking that way at the time."
Which was my original point. Not being noticed and being able to stealth are two different rule sets.
Thus, arbitrary facing comes in on the roleplay side, supported by mechanics that are included in the game.
The actual ones in the game or the ones you are making up in this thread?
Don't know if this bit has been quoted yet:
"Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check." p197
I think that statement supports Cartigan's reading of the rules. Barring 'unusual' circumstances, you need either concealment or cover to stealth... and soft cover (as has been quoted by others) won't do.
|
Don't know if this bit has been quoted yet:
"Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check." p197
I think that statement supports Cartigan's reading of the rules. Barring 'unusual' circumstances, you need either concealment or cover to stealth... and soft cover (as has been quoted by others) won't do.
The important question that needs be answered is 'how long does that Stealth check last'?
The important question that needs be answered is 'how long does that Stealth check last'?Don't know if this bit has been quoted yet:
"Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check." p197
I think that statement supports Cartigan's reading of the rules. Barring 'unusual' circumstances, you need either concealment or cover to stealth... and soft cover (as has been quoted by others) won't do.
Until you are spotted or end your turn in a location that stealth checks cannot be made in, I would say.
The important question that needs be answered is 'how long does that Stealth check last'?Don't know if this bit has been quoted yet:
"Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check." p197
I think that statement supports Cartigan's reading of the rules. Barring 'unusual' circumstances, you need either concealment or cover to stealth... and soft cover (as has been quoted by others) won't do.
I agrue you are unobserved and can continue to make stealth checks until someone succeeds the perception check to notice and begin observing you, but only distracted opponents would not pass the perception check automatically for you moving out into the open, since it only says you can stealth in the open past distracted opponents.
Until you are spotted or end your turn in a location that stealth checks cannot be made in, I would say.The important question that needs be answered is 'how long does that Stealth check last'?Don't know if this bit has been quoted yet:
"Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check." p197
I think that statement supports Cartigan's reading of the rules. Barring 'unusual' circumstances, you need either concealment or cover to stealth... and soft cover (as has been quoted by others) won't do.
That seems reasonable to me. If the usual methods of achieving stealth 'status' are being behind cover or concealment, to maintain stealth you need to end your stealthy move in a spot that gives one or the other... otherwise you are 'in plain sight'. Given that Hide in Plain Sight is a 17th level Ranger ability, I think the designers didn't envision every tom, dick, and Snafu the Rogue stopping in the middle of a field and claiming to be cloaked just because they started the round in stealth.
Until you are spotted or end your turn in a location that stealth checks cannot be made in, I would say.So those scenes where Ghostface was in plain view in Scream weren't following RAW? :)
You are going to have to use a better example as I have no idea what you are specifically referencing.
And Ghostface probably had a level of Shadowdancer.
|
|
And Ghostface probably had a level of Shadowdancer.
Sorry, it was mostly a joke about how the killer in the Scream movies (all black with a white ghost mask, you've probably seen it at costume parties) would be standing in an open space watching the other characters while they were completely oblivious, just long enough for the audience to get the sting. Wiki on it.
I just don't think that campaign was high enough for a Shadowdancer. The PCs went down in like, one hit. :3
You are expanding the term "unobserved" to be the real world, dictionary definition (and then some really), not the defined methods for going unobserved. Unobserved is effectively fluff in order to not have to list out every defined type of "how not to be seen" every time they talk about stealth.
except if it was rules fluf you wouldn't have a stealth skill, as it is the only term used to say when you can stealth.
They also leave room for undefined exceptions explicitly in those lists of how not to be seen. That is why they use language like "usually"
It would be less typing if you just bothered to admit you are saying "I am making this up and it is not RAW and is in fact often contrary to RAW." and we could also end this back and forth.
Snipe would not reveal your location. That is huge. Currently, by the rules, you can spend your move action to stealth after attacking, if you have cover, and restealth without taking the -20. You just reveal your location that you attacked from to your opponent, who can then use an AOE on you since he knows about where you are. Sniping, he doesn't get your bearing.
I have no idea what you are think I am making up. If you want to call me out on something, or think I am doin it wrong, provide how you think it is supposed to work. Put up or shut up, because there is not a single house rule or rules exploit in that pargragph, and I have seen sniping explained exactly that way multiple times on these boards by others.
There are no rules for facing, but if you fail a perception check because you were distracted, you roleplay it and say something like "you weren't looking that way at the time."Which was my original point. Not being noticed and being able to stealth are two different rule sets.
They are not 2 rule sets. Not being noticed has rules for when the person is stealthing, so you then default to those rules. They interact a lot.
I just don't think that campaign was high enough for a Shadowdancer. The PCs went down in like, one hit. :3
He also had 1 level of Assassin.
And Ghostface probably had a level of Shadowdancer.Sorry, it was mostly a joke about how the killer in the Scream movies (all black with a white ghost mask, you've probably seen it at costume parties) would be standing in an open space watching the other characters while they were completely oblivious, just long enough for the audience to get the sting. Wiki on it.
I just don't think that campaign was high enough for a Shadowdancer. The PCs went down in like, one hit. :3
I had a friend in an Assassins game put a lampshade on his head and wait in a room with a boffer sword. 6 people came in and talked for like 15 minutes, and he just stood there with no one noticing until after he had killed a couple of them.
I have no idea what you are think I am making up. If you want to call me out on something, or think I am doin it wrong, provide how you think it is supposed to work. Put up or shut up, because there is not a single house rule or rules exploit in that pargragph, and I have seen sniping explained exactly that way multiple times on these boards by others.
Other than your continued insistence on changing the way stealth works such that combat provides a distraction where one can stealth against some one they arn't fighting, stealth rules for sniping don't work how they are explicitly written, and people in the middle of an open field can actively Stealth indefinitely.
Obvious Troll Is Obvious, your reporter on the scene, here.
I'm observing the 1,452,845th dispute about Stealth Rules to take place on a web forum, and I can tell you for sure: things aren't any more obvious now than they were 3 years ago.
What seems obvious to Obvious Troll is that an expansion/clarification/revision of the Stealth Rules are in order.
The current rules, while clear, do not make any sense in the context of reasonable suspension of disbelief. Every Troll on a battlefield who's engaged in furious hand to hand combat with smelly human barbarians is instantly aware of a hidden rogue who moves into the open 50 feet away? C'mon, says Obvious Troll. Obvious Troll has battled (which is to say, eaten) barbarians before, and can tell you that, while insignificant and puny, barbarians demand a Troll's full attention while engaged. It's hard enough to be aware of a stupid wizard casting a fireball (hateful, spiteful fire!) from 60 feet away, let alone pay attention to the sneakthief that just slunk out of the bushes and is positioned behind a snack, er, um, I mean horse. Obvious Troll does not have eyes in the back of his head, regardless of what the Rules may indicate. It is one of the few failings of the mighty Troll race.
Obvious Troll wistfully wishes for a three or four page web enhancement that offers detailed and even mildly realistic rules regarding stealth, emerging from stealth, sneak attacks, and all things Stealth.
Obviously,
Obvious Troll Is Obvious
I disagree with "mildly realistic" stealth rules in a highly arbitrated game. "Mildly realistic" stealth rules would require a complete game redesign.
The important question that needs be answered is 'how long does that Stealth check last'?I agrue you are unobserved and can continue to make stealth checks until someone succeeds the perception check to notice and begin observing you, but only distracted opponents would not pass the perception check automatically for you moving out into the open, since it only says you can stealth in the open past distracted opponents.
I hear what you are saying but from my (admittedly) quick perusal of RAW, they talk about stealth as part of movement - which dovetails with your 'moving past' comment. But what happens when the round ends? That is where stealth seems to default to 'usually' needing cover or concealment as evidenced by p106 "While the others turn their attention from you, [ed: after a Bluff] you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a -10 penalty because you have to move fast." From the way that bit is written, it sounds like the classic "HEY what is THAT!" and then, while the guards are distracted, the rogue hotfoots it around the corner - gaining cover. I think in a city scene, this works. In an open field, this becomes a sketchy possibility. However, I think it's interesting that the designers threw in the word 'usually' which leaves it up to individual DMs, situationally, to define what else may count as valid (outside of RAW) cover.
For instance, in the OPs scenario, if there was tall grass and a fair number of hillocks, I would be tempted to say that if the bugbear ran a bit, dropped prone and then crawled using both the grass and hillocks for cover, I would probably give him a shot to get somewhat close to the horses unobserved by the rogue. Although, I would have adjudicated the encounter with the horses and dogs entirely differently. Having been around riding horses, they startle easily even from 'regular' encounters such as humans, rabbits, etc. There ain't no way a group of horses is going react passively to a bugbear crawling out of the weeds towards them. I know that is 'real world' and this is a game - but as a player THAT would be the one thing that really pissed me off about the scenario.Edited to correct missing quotation
He also had 1 level of Assassin.
I just don't think that campaign was high enough for a Shadowdancer. The PCs went down in like, one hit. :3
1E Assassin - not the wussy current version. 50% auto-kill against a 1st level high schooler.
This thread makes me proud.
Has anyone decided to make another thread to get an official ruling from a designer on this yet?
This is not the first time this argument has come up. Different players, but same argument. And as always, there are two (or more) sides who never can see eye to eye.
Maybe some of those eyes are missing their perception checks?
In any case, I've never seen an official source make any kind of ruling on any of the dozens of previous stealth/perception threads that was taken any more seriously than any of the unoffical debaters.
IMO, it's a failing of Pathfinder that (per admission by the designers themselves) they deliberately left some rules vague because they felt that each DM should have the freedom to interpret the rules in the way that makes their game the most fun. Not sure if that is the exact quote, but that is how I remember it.
The drawback is twofold:
1. We get these arguments because the rules are so vague on this point. Example: how do the rules define "observed"?
2. Officials are unwilling to put their foot down and make a hard fast ruling/errata since that violates their initial intent.
So the debates rage on.
This won't be the last time this comes up.
Core Book, Page 102, Perception Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
Rustling grass is observable stimulus.
The road is 30 feet across, so moving at half speed with his move action he reaches the animals. [...] The bugbear makes a stealth check
By hiding in a pocket dimension he carries with him to hide when he had neither cover nor concealment.
everyone else gets a free perception check to see if they notice him when he left concealment, with a -7 modifier for distance.
-10, at least.
Once again, everyone receives a free perception at -7 to notice him, the bugbear makes a stealth check at a -2 due to what we’ll call unfavorable conditions, (him carrying a goblin)
And another -10, at least.
It would be less typing if you just bothered to admit you are saying "I am making this up and it is not RAW and is in fact often contrary to RAW." and we could also end this back and forth.
I disagree - his reading is perfectly RAW as far as I'm concerned.
Other than your continued insistence on changing the way stealth works such that combat provides a distraction where one can stealth against some one they arn't fighting, stealth rules for sniping don't work how they are explicitly written, and people in the middle of an open field can actively Stealth indefinitely.
I think we've run onto an issue here. There are two forms of "distraction" that has been used interchangeably in this thread that needs to be distinguished.
1. Being able to stealth when the observer is distracted is referring to to a form of distraction that makes the stealthee(?) unobserved for a moment or two. For example, misdirecting a foe or throwing sand in the eye of your foe to blind him for a moment is enough to give the stealthee the moment of unobservedness he needs (he is still, of course, perfectly visible - just not to his foe).
2. The perception skill lists an increase to perception DC when "distracted" - this is a form of distraction that does not preclude observations; just that there are mitigating circumstances that make perception harder to achieve than normal. Noticing that there are 15 candles on the chandelier swinging above you while facing 14 ambidextrous succubi with flaming pikes trying to eviscerate you would count as being distracted for the purposes of making perception checks BUT YOU STILL OBSERVE EVERYBODY.
...
Saying that "being observed" is nebulous, but being "visible" is a hard fact is wrong. The DC increase for perception over distance means there is a range of about 200ft where you don't necessarily see everybody that is perfectly visible - just because they escaped your perception.
Being observed is hard; either he's paying attention to you, or he isn't. If he isn't, you can stealth. Those are the RAW rules.
I wouldn't have acted like a petulant child after the initial comment but I would have certainly called you on it. More important I would expect later in the game that my rogue character could get away with similar feats and if you denied it then my confidence in your ability to rule consistently would be destroyed.
Uh...ouch. That 'tude is a bit severe in my neck of the woods.
We're talking about an RPG - not Heroscape or Warmachine.
And "calling out" _during_ the game session is a big no-no in my woods, too. Anything beyond a mere "Are you sure?" if life-and-death isn't in the boughs is over the line, IMHO.