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.
Which doesn't magically make them "not visible."
You can't see the pyramids from where you are sitting right now but will you be willing to argue that they are not visible - ie, invisible.NOTE: I mean that they are not visible as an absolute characteristic, not "not visible" relative to you.
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.
Once you ignore that "observed" isn't defined in RAW and "paying attention to" isn't even written anywhere, sure that's RAW.
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... {snip}
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. {snip}
I'm relatively new here so this is a first time for me (or I happened to miss one of the other threads). If the designers purposefully left this type of thing vague, that's an 'interesting' choice. It would have caused far less acrimony to have put in clear rules and then caveated it with a sidebar that said, "feel free to change how this works in your own game if it feels to restrictive, etc." Leaving it vague leads to these kinds of arguments where folks are left to say "How does Method X or Method Y relate to HIPS/Sniping/etc.?"
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.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.
That depends on your game table. At mine (and this applies with the same groups and someone else as GM as well), the players are welcome to question rulings at the table, and we'll give it perhaps two or three minutes of back-and-forth and rules research before I'll make a call. If the players don't seem satisfied, that call is "provisional" -- which is to say, we agree (because I'm the GM) that it happened the way I call it this time but we'll discuss more between sessions to figure out the general ruling to use in future sessions.
If I try to stop a player from doing something, and he points out that a previous ruling implied that it should be allowed, I will pretty much always back down and let the player do it. Some other GMs in the group won't, but if not then they'll agree that the "new ruling" applies from then forward even to NPCs.We all try to be as consistent as we can, as at the end of the day we feel like it's more fun that way.
Allowing player issues and bickering to come into character actions is one of our biggest no-no's, though. If a player were to feel that strongly about the call, they would be expected to leave the table and be NPC'd until they felt they could return.
EDIT: BTW, I play stealth pretty much exactly like Caineach does.
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.
Then point out a single rule that contradicts me. The closest you have come is for distraction, which is intentionally left up to the DM for arbitrary interpretation.
The stealth rules never say you can't sneak in the middle of a field where no one is watching you. The whole point is "where no one is watching you." If no one is caring to tell what you are doing, or they didn't look into the middle of the field you can sneak past them.
As for snipeing, if I am explaining it wrong please tell me how it is supposed to be done. I have seen multiple other people on these boards explain it exactly that way. You have done nothing but tell me I am wrong, and have yet to provide annother interpretation.
Show us all where in the rules it says that moving out of concealment automatically negates maintaining stealth. If that was the case, rogues would never be able to get a sneak attack on anyone because they could never sneak up on anyone.
Which is why no one wanted to play Ninjas. Rogues get Sneak Attack on a Flank. And I said ending your turn out of concealment or cover ends Stealth. Why? Because that's what the rules say. Which I have repeated several times.
...and you apparently havn't read the stealth rules.
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.
Show us all where in the rules it says that moving out of concealment automatically negates maintaining stealth. If that was the case, rogues would never be able to get a sneak attack on anyone because they could never sneak up on anyone.Which is why no one wanted to play Ninjas. Rogues get Sneak Attack on a Flank. And I said ending your turn out of concealment or cover ends Stealth. Why? Because that's what the rules say. Which I have repeated several times.
...and you apparently havn't read the stealth rules.
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.
To quote that exact rule "an unobserved place" does not have to be cover or concealment. Its just a place where no one is looking at you. An open field can suit that just fine if no one is looking there, and you determine if people are looking there with, guess what, perception checks. The cover and concealment rules say they are usually the places, but intentionally leave room to define other instances.
And you are using the bluff to stealth in plain sight rules with a distraction. He is already stealthed, so he doesn't need to create a distraction to allow him to stealth, and people are already not looking for him. He is not being observed at the start, so he can continue to be unobserved as he moves elsewhere.
To quote that exact rule "an unobserved place" does not have to be cover or concealment. Its just a place where no one is looking at you.
Which is not "exactly" written anywhere.
An open field can suit that just fine if no one is looking there, and you determine if people are looking there with, guess what, perception checks. The cover and concealment rules say they are usually the places, but intentionally leave room to define other instances.
Great, the bugbear in the open field hides in the corner of the players' eyes. You can play like that, I won't play in your game. And if I do, I will be a Rogue.
Although, for the most part, I agree with Caineach - there is one point on which I side with Cartigan:
I used to agree that once in stealth, a character automatically stays in stealth unless detected. I have since then revised my opinion, based on this observation:
Ranger, Core rules, page 67.
Camouflage (Ex): A ranger of 12th level or higher can use the Stealth skill to hide in any of his favored terrains, even if the terrain doesn’t grant cover or concealment.
Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): While in any of his favored terrains, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use the Stealth skill even while being observed.
What is the point of this distinction? The only way I could make sense of it to myself, is as follows:
1. Camouflage allows a ranger to *maintain* stealth once successfully initiated. So provided he started from a legal stealth position, he could go out onto the open field and stay hidden without needing to reach cover or concealment by the end of his action.
2. Hide in Plain Sight would allow him to start stealth even without otherwise legal conditions.
This clearly would imply that without camouflage a stealthee needs by the end of his action be in a position that would allow him to start stealth, or otherwise become visible. The state of "being in stealth" is not enough to stay in hiding if you don't reach a suitable point. Note that getting cover or concealment isn't necessary - it is enough to get to a point where the stealthee is unobserved.
(Yes, I know, that nebulous term that means that the other guy is not seeing you, or putting it in hard terms: not visible to the guy making perception.)
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.Which doesn't magically make them "not visible."
You can't see the pyramids from where you are sitting right now but will you be willing to argue that they are not visible - ie, invisible.
Naturally the pyramids remain visible. But (from me at least) they are unobserved. And can thus make stealth checks against me.
It is important to realize that if you fail to make a perception check against a target, then they are not being observed by you and they could stealth against you.
1. The point where they don't need to make the stealth check is where you couldn't possibly see them anyway even by taking 20
2. The point where they cannot make a stealth check against you is where you automatically see them even by taking 1
3. The point where it is possible to make a stealth check lies in between those two extremes.
Naturally the pyramids remain visible. But (from me at least) they are unobserved. And can thus make stealth checks against me.
Which is still as patently absurd a suggestion as it was the first time it was made.
3. The point where it is possible to make a stealth check lies in between those two extremes.
If you can't be seen: there is no need to stealth
If you can be seen: you can't stealthIf you might be seen but might not: you automatically gain Hide in Plain Sight
Glad we cleared that up.
Although, for the most part, I agree with Caineach - there is one point on which I side with Cartigan:
I used to agree that once in stealth, a character automatically stays in stealth unless detected. I have since then revised my opinion, based on this observation:
Ranger, Core rules, page 67.
Camouflage (Ex): A ranger of 12th level or higher can use the Stealth skill to hide in any of his favored terrains, even if the terrain doesn’t grant cover or concealment.
Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): While in any of his favored terrains, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use the Stealth skill even while being observed.
What is the point of this distinction? The only way I could make sense of it to myself, is as follows:
1. Camouflage allows a ranger to *maintain* stealth once successfully initiated. So provided he started from a legal stealth position, he could go out onto the open field and stay hidden without needing to reach cover or concealment by the end of his action.
2. Hide in Plain Sight would allow him to start stealth even without otherwise legal conditions.
This clearly would imply that without camouflage a stealthee needs by the end of his action be in a position that would allow him to start stealth, or otherwise become visible. The state of "being in stealth" is not enough to stay in hiding if you don't reach a suitable point. Note that getting cover or concealment isn't necessary - it is enough to get to a point where the stealthee is unobserved.
(Yes, I know, that nebulous term that means that the other guy is not seeing you, or putting it in hard terms: not visible to the guy making perception.)
We actually don't disagree here. Camouflage would let them stealth against opponents who are not distracted. Since most opponents wont be distracted, its a really useful ability. If your opponents are still distracted at the end of your turn, you are still in a position where you could stealth, even if you don't have the ability. Bluff only distracts them for 1 turn, and thus lets you make a check and go to cover, but other things defined by the GM can distract them for more time, such as playing a game of chess, combat, or a mirriad of other things.
Naturally the pyramids remain visible. But (from me at least) they are unobserved. And can thus make stealth checks against me.Which is still as patently absurd a suggestion as it was the first time it was made.
3. The point where it is possible to make a stealth check lies in between those two extremes.If you can't be seen: there is no need to stealth
If you can be seen: you can't stealth
If you might be seen but might not: you automatically gain Hide in Plain SightGlad we cleared that up.
And here is where we disagree. If you can be seen, you can't stealth against an observant opponent. It specifically says in the rules you CAN stealth against a distracted one. Bluff can be used to make an opponent distracted for 1 round, but anything the GM wants to define distracting can distract for as long as he wants.
Except, that you don't. HIPS and the interpretation of stealth provided by Caineach are not the same thing.
Of course you do. You are able to Stealth without cover, concealment or distraction.
|
I feel that this link would be helpful viewing for this thread to put things into perspective.
That's Sleight of Hand, not Stealth. :)
Have you been reading the same thread as the rest of us? Anything Caineach has said regarding a Stealth check requires one of those (cover, concealment or distraction). HIPS requires none of those. How are those the same????
The argument is that you can stealth if you only "might" be seen. If you could spot him rolling a 2, but not a 1, he can Stealth. And he can do it without cover, concealment or distraction.
The argument is that you can stealth if you only "might" be seen. If you could spot him rolling a 2, but not a 1, he can Stealth. And he can do it without cover, concealment or distraction.
Have you been reading the same thread as the rest of us? Anything Caineach has said regarding a Stealth check requires one of those (cover, concealment or distraction). HIPS requires none of those. How are those the same????
I never made that arguement. Someone else did, but I have not. Perhaps you should read the arguements I actually made.
I never made that arguement. Someone else did, but I have not. Perhaps you should read the arguements I actually made.
LoreKeeper has. Multiple times. And is who I was replying to. Perhaps it is you two who need to keep up with the thread.
LoreKeeper has. Multiple times. Perhaps it is you two who need to keep up with the thread.
I never made that arguement. Someone else did, but I have not. Perhaps you should read the arguements I actually made.
And I am not Lorekeeper. So please don't attribute his aregument, which I do not agree with, to me.
|
|
It's also an example of how something that is visible and in plain sight is not necessarily perceived.I feel that this link would be helpful viewing for this thread to put things into perspective.That's Sleight of Hand, not Stealth. :)
Real world examples hold no sway here, haven't you noticed?
And I am not Lorekeeper. So please don't attribute his aregument, which I do not agree with, to me.
Good luck proving I did that.
Statement:
"If someone has already spotted you, and you remain in line of sight of that person without either cover or concealment, then you are observed and cannot Stealth. However, Hide in Plain Sight would allow you to Stealth in this circumstance."
Does everyone agree with this statement?
If so, then Cartigan, please stop claiming that anyone in this thread is trying to give this bugbear Hide in Plain Sight. No one is saying that the bugbear could have made his Stealth checks while being 'observed'. The argument is about whether moving into the open while making Stealth checks automatically makes you 'observed' or not. The Hide in Plain Sight stuff is a red herring.
Statement:
"If someone has already spotted you, and you remain in line of sight of that person without either cover or concealment, then you are observed and cannot Stealth. However, Hide in Plain Sight would allow you to Stealth in this circumstance."
Does everyone agree with this statement?
If so, then Cartigan, please stop claiming that anyone in this thread is trying to give this bugbear Hide in Plain Sight. No one is saying that the bugbear could have made his Stealth checks while being 'observed'. The argument is about whether moving into the open while making Stealth checks automatically makes you 'observed' or not. The Hide in Plain Sight stuff is a red herring.
Oh sorry, the bugbear is only using a 12th level Ranger ability instead of a 17th level one.
Insert rolling eyes.
Also note, at NO POINT did I ever state moving into open 'automatically' makes you observed. I stated ending your turn without cover or concealment automatically makes you visible.
Also note, at NO POINT did I ever state moving into open 'automatically' makes you observed. I stated ending your turn without cover or concealment automatically makes you visible.
Would you also assert that ending your turn without cover or concealment, and in line of sight to any other creature, automatically makes you observed?
Would you also assert that ending your turn without cover or concealment, and in line of sight to any other creature, automatically makes you observed?
Considering "observed" isn't defined, I will default to "visible" which has its own specific DC.
Not defining "observed" is TERRIBLE design because it is referenced every time you turn around in reference to Stealth.
Considering "observed" isn't defined, I will default to "visible" which has its own specific DC.
Would you also assert that ending your turn without cover or concealment, and in line of sight to any other creature, automatically makes you observed?
But not observed?
But not observed?
I don't think you are listening.
Statement:
"If someone has already spotted you, and you remain in line of sight of that person without either cover or concealment, then you are observed and cannot Stealth. However, Hide in Plain Sight would allow you to Stealth in this circumstance."
Does everyone agree with this statement?
If so, then Cartigan, please stop claiming that anyone in this thread is trying to give this bugbear Hide in Plain Sight. No one is saying that the bugbear could have made his Stealth checks while being 'observed'. The argument is about whether moving into the open while making Stealth checks automatically makes you 'observed' or not. The Hide in Plain Sight stuff is a red herring.Oh sorry, the bugbear is only using a 12th level Ranger ability instead of a 17th level one.
Insert rolling eyes.
Also note, at NO POINT did I ever state moving into open 'automatically' makes you observed. I stated ending your turn without cover or concealment automatically makes you visible.
Except I specifically said what the difference is between what I am talking about and camouflaged. Specifically, without camouflaged your opponents need to be distracted for you to stealth. With it, they do not.
I don't think you are listening.
But not observed?
I'm listening. I'm also asking questions.
The rules for Stealth mention 'observed'. I'm asking you a question: is the person in our example automatically observed or not?
Good luck proving I did that.
And I am not Lorekeeper. So please don't attribute his aregument, which I do not agree with, to me.
Not hard. I just have to go back 30 minutes in the conversation
calvinNhobbes wrote:
Except, that you don't. HIPS and the interpretation of stealth provided by Caineach are not the same thing.
Of course you do. You are able to Stealth without cover, concealment or distraction.
Good luck proving I did that.
And I am not Lorekeeper. So please don't attribute his aregument, which I do not agree with, to me.Not hard. I just have to go back 30 minutes in the conversation
calvinNhobbes wrote:
Except, that you don't. HIPS and the interpretation of stealth provided by Caineach are not the same thing.
Of course you do. You are able to Stealth without cover, concealment or distraction.
1) He was confusing you and LoreKeeper and I didn't care
2) You were both proposing two separate methodologies for some one standing in the middle of a barren field to Stealth. The fact they were different does not mean that you didn't propose one. Your ability revolves around "not being observed" which you refined down to "distracted" which you then defined as "looking any direction but directly at the character that wants to stealth." Despite there being no facing rules. The "I gain Hide in Plain Sight between a roll of 1 and 20" is almost less silly.
Good luck proving I did that.
And I am not Lorekeeper. So please don't attribute his aregument, which I do not agree with, to me.Not hard. I just have to go back 30 minutes in the conversation
calvinNhobbes wrote:
Except, that you don't. HIPS and the interpretation of stealth provided by Caineach are not the same thing.
Of course you do. You are able to Stealth without cover, concealment or distraction.
1) He was confusing you and LoreKeeper and I didn't care
2) You were both proposing two separate methodologies for some one standing in the middle of a barren field to Stealth. The fact they were different does not mean that you didn't propose one.
1. He actually didn't confuse our arguements, you just completely failed to understand them.
2. No, but you then proceeded to attribute his method for determining the rule, which does not require the person to be distracted, to me. My method requires the person to be distracted, but counts combat with a 3rd party as a distraction.
The bugbear is starting out in concealment, is already using stealth. He steps out of concealment, but it does not say that you lose stealth if you lose concealment, either voluntarily or involuntarily.
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.
FYI, the definition of observed: To see, watch, perceive, or notice; to regard with attention, esp. so as to see or learn something.
The Oxford dictionary is a d20 ref doc now?
Indeed. So I ask this, what is an unobserved place? If being 70 feet away from the nearest PC's, who are distracted, and already failed their perception checks to notice you when you left concealment, is not unobserved, then what is?
Concealment or applicable cover.
Is the assassin hiding in the rafters suddenly no longer hidden because you now have line of sight to him?
If you flick on the overhead lights and the room lights up like a bloody Christmas tree, no, no he isn't.
Is the rogue standing in the shadows of an alley suddenly visible?
If you have Darkvision. See, that's what happens when you be facetious. You get facetious answers.
|
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.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.
Somehow I missed this when you originally posted it. Perhaps the phrase "called you on it" is a little more than I intended. Rules debates don't belong at the table, the best time to bring them up are after the fact. I try to live by this as a player since I know how frustrating it is as a GM.
Unfortunately, knowing you shouldn't doing something and refraining from doing it in the heat of the moment :(
That depends on your game table. At mine (and this applies with the same groups and someone else as GM as well), the players are welcome to question rulings at the table, and we'll give it perhaps two or three minutes of back-and-forth and rules research before I'll make a call. If the players don't seem satisfied, that call is "provisional" -- which is to say, we agree (because I'm the GM) that it happened the way I call it this time but we'll discuss more between sessions to figure out the general ruling to use in future sessions.
This is likely the best way to go. I need to work on my GM angst, I don't like being questioned at the table. It's easy to forget that it's often just as easy for the GM to give on an issue then point it out to the player later as it the reverse.
Here are the points which I believe are disputed and which cause the different interpretations.
1) The Sneaker is 'unobserved' until a Perceiver observes it.
2) If the Sneaker ends its turn in plain sight (meaning no cover or concealment) and does not have Camouflage, an undistracted Perceiver automatically observes the Sneaker. If the Perceiver is distracted or the Sneaker has Camouflage, Perception vs. Stealth to observe the Sneaker.
3) Creatures in combat are distracted.
4) Once a creature is observed in plain sight, it cannot Steath until it finds cover or concealment (unless it has Hide in Plain Sight).
If we accept #1-#4, the bugbear scenario works, and it doesn't imply the bugbear has either Ranger ability. I believe this is more-or-less Caineach's position.
Scenario B: Bugbear Stealths out of bushes and ends its turn in plain sight. Rogue is not in combat. Rogue observes bugbear without opposed check, unless bugbear has Camouflage. If rogue observes bugbear, bugbear cannot Stealth until he moves back into the grass unless bugbear has Hide in Plain Sight.
Scenario C: Bugbear Stealths out of bushes and ends its turn in plain sight. Rogue is in combat. Rogue succeeds opposed check and is now observing bugbear. Even though rogue remains distracted, bugbear is observed and cannot Stealth until he moves back into the grass, unless bugbear has Hide in Plain Sight.
Here are the points which I believe are disputed and which cause the different interpretations.
1) The Sneaker is 'unobserved' until a Perceiver observes it.
2) If the Sneaker ends its turn in plain sight (meaning no cover or concealment) and does not have Camouflage, an undistracted Perceiver automatically observes the Sneaker. If the Perceiver is distracted or the Sneaker has Camouflage, Perception vs. Stealth to observe the Sneaker.
3) Creatures in combat are distracted.
4) Once a creature is observed in plain sight, it cannot Steath until it finds cover or concealment (unless it has Hide in Plain Sight).
If we accept #1-#4, the bugbear scenario works, and it doesn't imply the bugbear has either Ranger ability. I believe this is more-or-less Caineach's position.
Scenario B: Bugbear Stealths out of bushes and ends its turn in plain sight. Rogue is not in combat. Rogue observes bugbear without opposed check, unless bugbear has Camouflage. If rogue observes bugbear, bugbear cannot Stealth until he moves back into the grass unless bugbear has Hide in Plain Sight.
Scenario C: Bugbear Stealths out of bushes and ends its turn in plain sight. Rogue is in combat. Rogue succeeds opposed check and is now observing bugbear. Even though rogue remains distracted, bugbear is observed and cannot Stealth until he moves back into the grass, unless bugbear has Hide in Plain Sight.
You pretty much summed up my argument right there.
So in your games, how does anything sneak up on anything else? Or is that solely the province if high level rangers?
They stand quietly in the corner then we walk right into them. Or they jump on us from the trees. Then they arn't stealthed any more because they attacked!
|
|
Is the assassin hiding in the rafters suddenly no longer hidden because you now have line of sight to him?If you flick on the overhead lights and the room lights up like a bloody Christmas tree, no, no he isn't.
Wait, you mean all I have to do in your games to automatically spot hidden enemies without a Perception check is shine light on them?
|
|
So in your games, how does anything sneak up on anything else? Or is that solely the province if high level rangers?Concealment or applicable cover.
Indeed. So I ask this, what is an unobserved place? If being 70 feet away from the nearest PC's, who are distracted, and already failed their perception checks to notice you when you left concealment, is not unobserved, then what is?
You didn't post this one at me but I'll answer. It is difficult to 'sneak up' on someone and stab them IRL ridiculously so when it's more than one person. The fact that it's tough in game is Ok with me.
There are three ways for rogues to get sneak attack when you have to cover open ground.
#1 Get 30' away and charge in the surprise round
#2 Missile weapons
#3 Concealment from low light, invisibility, fog, etc.
Many GMs hand wave the plain sight thing, I'm not very comfortable with that because then sniping or spring attacking from cover is trivially easy.