Stealth in Combat: Sneaky Bugbear vs. Elf Rogue


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

wraithstrike wrote:
To build off of Cart's post what is the point of trying to find cover quickly if you can just stealth out in the open?

Because you can't just "stealth out in the open". Certain requirements must be met first. If they can not be met, it is best to find cover/concealment.

Quote:
For the distraction thing, what exactly are you distracted from? Is it noncombatants? Does it include obvious combatants? If the horse decides to walk away do you notice that? I think distraction needs to be better spelled out as far as how much leeway is given so it can't be applied at random.

It's called common sense. The rules are not comprehensive, they do not spell out every possible scenario (for example, many illusion and enchantment spells), so why single out the idea of distraction as being so special?


calvinNhobbes wrote:


It's called common sense. The rules are not comprehensive, they do not spell out every possible scenario (for example, many illusion and enchantment spells), so why single out the idea of distraction as being so special?

Probably because people keep making the argument that because it isn't explicitly spelled out in the Stealth rules, they can apply it however they want. And because "Distraction" is used willy-nilly throughout the rules in incongruous ways.


calvinNhobbes wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
To build off of Cart's post what is the point of trying to find cover quickly if you can just stealth out in the open?

Because you can't just "stealth out in the open". Certain requirements must be met first. If they can not be met, it is best to find cover/concealment.

Quote:
For the distraction thing, what exactly are you distracted from? Is it noncombatants? Does it include obvious combatants? If the horse decides to walk away do you notice that? I think distraction needs to be better spelled out as far as how much leeway is given so it can't be applied at random.
It's called common sense. The rules are not comprehensive, they do not spell out every possible scenario (for example, many illusion and enchantment spells), so why single out the idea of distraction as being so special?

I know you can't stealth out in the open, but others seem to think otherwise, and every question from this point on is trying to break that point down.

For the purpose of this debate distraction is used to allow a bugbear to stand out in the open and untie a goblin. It seems the bugbear was out in the open for an extended period of time, and for some reason people seem to think it was ok for it to happen without anyone know he was out in the open, even considering the fact this bugbear is an actual combatant, that was known to be in the area somewhere.

edit: So now I ask again what are the limits of distraction as asked in my previous post?


Cartigan wrote:
Probably because people keep making the argument that because it isn't explicitly spelled out in the Stealth rules, they can apply it however they want.

Which is true, they can! It's no different than judicating the rules for illusions or enchantments.

Quote:
And because "Distraction" is used willy-nilly throughout the rules in incongruous ways.

Hence why it is up to DM interpretation of the in game scenario, hopefully based on common sense.

You can either simply limit yourself to exactly what the rules say or do not say, or extrapolate them the best you can to the given situation based on your interpretation of intent and real life experience. I think the OP did an excellent job of the later. The former leads to frustration and boredom in my experience; players do not in general like being told they can't do something they would normally be able to do in real life simply because there is no explicit rule to cover that exact situation.


wraithstrike wrote:
I know you can't stealth out in the open, but others seem to think otherwise, and every question from this point on is trying to break that point down.

Well, you can stealth in open terrain if unobserved of course.

wraithstrike wrote:
I ask again what are the limits of distraction as asked in my previous post?

It is situation and DM dependent, just like so many many many many many many many many things in the game.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:


TOZ I was not counting flanking. I am speaking of distraction only. I want to see how far they think this distraction thing can be taken. For the purpose of this question I will see the person can't be flanked.

Very well then, my answer remains the same. I would allow an assassin to use Stealth to sneak behind a victim distracted by Street Fighter and stab him in the back, even in a normally lit room, without auto-spot.

wraithstrike wrote:


For the purpose of this debate distraction is used to allow a bugbear to stand out in the open and untie a goblin. It seems the bugbear was out in the open for an extended period of time, and for some reason people seem to think it was ok for it to happen without anyone know he was out in the open, even considering the fact this bugbear is an actual combatant, that was known to be in the area somewhere.

edit: So now I ask again what are the limits of distraction as asked in my previous post?

In this case, the rogue being distracted, and the rest of the party not having LOS, I think allowing the rogue Perception checks to notice is reasonable. If he does not beat the Stealth check, he doesn't notice the activity occurring. If there were someone else with LOS not distracted, then he would automatically notice the bugbear's actions.


calvinNhobbes wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I know you can't stealth out in the open, but others seem to think otherwise, and every question from this point on is trying to break that point down.

Well, you can stealth in open terrain if unobserved of course.

wraithstrike wrote:
I ask again what are the limits of distraction as asked in my previous post?
It is situation and DM dependent, just like so many many many many many many many many things in the game.

So basically there is no limit?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
calvinNhobbes wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I know you can't stealth out in the open, but others seem to think otherwise, and every question from this point on is trying to break that point down.

Well, you can stealth in open terrain if unobserved of course.

wraithstrike wrote:
I ask again what are the limits of distraction as asked in my previous post?
It is situation and DM dependent, just like so many many many many many many many many things in the game.
So basically there is no limit?

I think if the rogue had gotten out of combat for a round he could have spotted the bugbear automatically. Or if he had taken an action to assess the area, for certain.


wraithstrike wrote:
So basically there is no limit?

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

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


wraithstrike wrote:


To build off of Cart's post what is the point of trying to find cover quickly if you can just stealth out in the open?

You can't. Unless you have Hide in Plain Sight.

But now I think I know why we've been talking at cross-purposes.

You (wraithstrike, cartigan, some others) have been assuming that the Stealth check always happens after the move. Thus the move would generally have to end behind cover/concealment. This is indeed the scenario described by the distraction/Bluff portion of the Stealth description.

I, and possibly quite a few others, have been working under the assumption that the move begins behind cover/concealment and that the Steath check happens before the move.

The rules are silent about when the Stealth check happens, only that the check is made as part of the movement, so it could happen either way. Or in the middle of movement - 10' to get behind cover, successful Stealth check, and continue another 20' (yes, a penalty would apply for moving faster than half speed).

Problem solved.

Shadow Lodge

calvinNhobbes wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
So basically there is no limit?

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

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

Your thoughts are inherently flawed in that you presume there is a such thing as common sense, reason, or good judgment on the part of a GM. This is the age of WoW where people expect a rigid set of flawless rules that cover every situation in exacting detail. The mere suggestion that a GM might be an intelligent adult capable of such things is pure heresy.


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

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

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

Your thoughts are inherently flawed in that you presume there is a such thing as common sense, reason, or good judgment on the part of a GM. This is the age of WoW where people expect a rigid set of flawless rules that cover every situation in exacting detail. The mere suggestion that a GM might be an intelligent adult capable of such things is pure heresy.

LOL!!!

+1

*rolling on the floor*


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

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

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

Your thoughts are inherently flawed in that you presume there is a such thing as common sense, reason, or good judgment on the part of a GM. This is the age of WoW where people expect a rigid set of flawless rules that cover every situation in exacting detail. The mere suggestion that a GM might be an intelligent adult capable of such things is pure heresy.

It seems in the age of 1E and 2E reminiscence and old people yelling at the young kids playing D&D on their lawn, there can be no common sense, reason, or common ground with people disagreeing with them and pointing out the game has changed to become more rule dependent exactly because it is so bloody contradictory if you work it otherwise.

I know how to get around all this "observed/unobserved" crap. Cast Arcane Sight! You automatically see all magical auras in LoS. Since every-bloody-thing is in LoS unless it isn't, you automatically see anyone trying to stealth while "unobserved" if they are capable of casting magic or have any magic items on them! No stealthing away with Goblin Clerics while some one is equipped with Arcane Sight.


wraithstrike wrote:
LoreKeeper wrote:


Aside from that, I still feel that people are mixing up their distractions:

1. A distraction can exist where an observer is not paying attention to the target at all (such as created by a bluff check, or when in some other - often roleplay related - way preoccupied). This form of distraction allows for stealth checks to be made.

2. A "milder" form of distraction exists that doesn't preclude the possibility to observe everybody (listed as a +5 increase to perception DC in core) - just that the perception is hampered by factors (like the observer is engaged in combat). After all, in combat there is a need for the combatant to try and remain aware of everybody around him - but at the same time it is harder to do than in normal conditions due to the sword that is cutting you into pieces. This form of distraction doesn't allow stealth checks to be made if still in plain sight (...)

For the distraction thing, what exactly are you distracted from? Is it noncombatants? Does it include obvious combatants? If the horse decides to walk away do you notice that? I think distraction needs to be better spelled out as far as how much leeway is given so it can't be applied at random.

What *I* am saying is that every combatant takes a -5 penalty to Perception checks (or equivalently, the Perception DC is increased by +5). This pre-occupation is *not* the same as the form of distraction mentioned explicitly for stealth purposes (which refers to the observer specifically not observing the stealthee at all long enough to make a stealth check).

However, I'm also saying that what constitutes "plain sight" must be linked to the perception of "noticing a visible creature" - as soon as this perception is not a given (i.e. it can fail), then the stealthee is not automatically considered observed.

It comes down to this:

1. The stealhee tries to get close to the observer in combat. Once he crosses the threshold to "plain sight", then he needs some legal way to hide (cover, concealment, other) - otherwise he is perceived automatically.

2. The stealthee is far away from the observer, stealth obviates itself as the observer cannot possibly see him.

3. The stealthee is inbetween - in the area that can possibly be perceived, but not automatically, by the observer. In this case multiple options are possible:

3.1 The stealthee is not stealthing, but wants to attempt stealth. The observer determines if he actually sees the stealthee using a normal "notice visible creature check". The stealthee doesn't know if the observer can see him (except maybe through a sense motive) but he can always attempt stealth (it just might fail automatically if he's actually being observed by the observer - who might look on incredulously as the stealthee tries to tiptoe about).

3.2 The stealthee started from cover or some other legal means to get into stealth. As he's outside the observer's "plain sight" radius he is not automatically seen by the observer, he can maintain stealth with appropriate stealth checks for each action he does. He can walk into the open - and the observer gets perception checks to see him - but unlike normal "noticing a visible creature", the perception check is based on "noticing a stealthed creature".


Cartigan wrote:
I know how to get around all this "observed/unobserved" crap. Cast Arcane Sight! You automatically see all magical auras in LoS. Since every-bloody-thing is in LoS unless it isn't, you automatically see anyone trying to stealth while "unobserved" if they are capable of casting magic or have any magic items on them! No stealthing away with Goblin Clerics while some one is equipped with Arcane Sight.

lol, that would work to some extent - though I'd expect that some enemy wizards or the like might be smart enough to pick-up on what you doing and creating magical auras moving about as a distraction.

Handily it also makes invisible creatures visible to you.

Pity about the short duration, but you can permanize it if you don't mind risking it being dispelled.


LoreKeeper wrote:

What *I* am saying is that every combatant takes a -5 penalty to Perception checks (or equivalently, the Perception DC is increased by +5). This pre-occupation is *not* the same as the form of distraction mentioned explicitly for stealth purposes (which refers to the observer specifically not observing the stealthee at all long enough to make a stealth check).

However, I'm also saying that what constitutes "plain sight" must be linked to the perception of "noticing a visible creature" - as soon as this perception is not a given (i.e. it can fail), then the stealthee is not automatically considered observed.

See, even you are handling a completely different argument than Caenich (or whatever) is. You are saying people can disappear in the middle of a barren field. Caenich is saying people in a fight that you aren't fighting directly can disappear. And both of you disagree with the other yet both of your positions would allow the bugbear to disappear from plain sight in this situation.

LoreKeeper wrote:


lol, that would work to some extent - though I'd expect that some enemy wizards or the like might be smart enough to pick-up on what you doing and creating magical auras moving about as a distraction.

It can't possibly be a distraction, you can see all of them!


calvinNhobbes wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
So basically there is no limit?

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

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

I am used to consistency, and by leaving such things at the DM's whim and common sense which is a terrible idea since common sense varies from person to person, the players don't know what to expect. I am sure if this were normal for the game the players would have kept a lookout for the bugbear. At least I know I would, but they probably assumed they would get a spot check at the least for someone/something out in the open.


coldkilla wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


To build off of Cart's post what is the point of trying to find cover quickly if you can just stealth out in the open?

You can't. Unless you have Hide in Plain Sight.

But now I think I know why we've been talking at cross-purposes.

You (wraithstrike, cartigan, some others) have been assuming that the Stealth check always happens after the move. Thus the move would generally have to end behind cover/concealment. This is indeed the scenario described by the distraction/Bluff portion of the Stealth description.

I, and possibly quite a few others, have been working under the assumption that the move begins behind cover/concealment and that the Steath check happens before the move.

The rules are silent about when the Stealth check happens, only that the check is made as part of the movement, so it could happen either way. Or in the middle of movement - 10' to get behind cover, successful Stealth check, and continue another 20' (yes, a penalty would apply for moving faster than half speed).

Problem solved.

Nope. My assumption is that if you end your movement in the middle of an open area everyone knows where you are, and even with the idea that a perception check should be made, I should get a perception check which the rogue did not get. If our group ever adopted this rule I would have one PC start an argument with a PC to distract, and I would walk up behind him and stab him if I need to kill him. If I get any DM to agree to this I am definitely playing a rogue.


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

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

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

Your thoughts are inherently flawed in that you presume there is a such thing as common sense, reason, or good judgment on the part of a GM. This is the age of WoW where people expect a rigid set of flawless rules that cover every situation in exacting detail. The mere suggestion that a GM might be an intelligent adult capable of such things is pure heresy.

Ogre stop reading my mind. I told you about that.


0gre wrote:
Like I said, it is no different than judicating enchantments and illusions; do you consider them limitless?
Your thoughts are inherently flawed in that you presume there is a such thing as common sense, reason, or good judgment on the part of a GM. This is the age of WoW where people expect a rigid set of flawless rules that cover every situation in exacting detail. The mere suggestion that a GM might be an intelligent adult capable of such things is pure heresy.

Touche, ;P

Of course, being lazy is but an excuse, not reason.


Cartigan wrote:
You are saying people can disappear in the middle of a barren field.

Actually, we are not saying that at all.


wraithstrike wrote:
coldkilla wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


To build off of Cart's post what is the point of trying to find cover quickly if you can just stealth out in the open?

You can't. Unless you have Hide in Plain Sight.

But now I think I know why we've been talking at cross-purposes.

You (wraithstrike, cartigan, some others) have been assuming that the Stealth check always happens after the move. Thus the move would generally have to end behind cover/concealment. This is indeed the scenario described by the distraction/Bluff portion of the Stealth description.

I, and possibly quite a few others, have been working under the assumption that the move begins behind cover/concealment and that the Steath check happens before the move.

The rules are silent about when the Stealth check happens, only that the check is made as part of the movement, so it could happen either way. Or in the middle of movement - 10' to get behind cover, successful Stealth check, and continue another 20' (yes, a penalty would apply for moving faster than half speed).

Problem solved.

Nope. My assumption is that if you end your movement in the middle of an open area everyone knows where you are, and even with the idea that a perception check should be made, I should get a perception check which the rogue did not get. If our group ever adopted this rule I would have one PC start an argument with a PC to distract, and I would walk up behind him and stab him if I need to kill him. If I get any DM to agree to this I am definitely playing a rogue.

The rogue got a perception check... Each round... The GM rolled them, as he should, and the rogue failed.


Cartigan wrote:
LoreKeeper wrote:

What *I* am saying is that every combatant takes a -5 penalty to Perception checks (or equivalently, the Perception DC is increased by +5). This pre-occupation is *not* the same as the form of distraction mentioned explicitly for stealth purposes (which refers to the observer specifically not observing the stealthee at all long enough to make a stealth check).

However, I'm also saying that what constitutes "plain sight" must be linked to the perception of "noticing a visible creature" - as soon as this perception is not a given (i.e. it can fail), then the stealthee is not automatically considered observed.

See, even you are handling a completely different argument than Caenich (or whatever) is. You are saying people can disappear in the middle of a barren field. Caenich is saying people in a fight that you aren't fighting directly can disappear. And both of you disagree with the other yet both of your positions would allow the bugbear to disappear from plain sight in this situation.

No, my definitions specifically forbid disappearing from plain sight. Your argument rests on the assumption that the pyramids are in plain sight. In my argument the pyramids are not in plain sight as soon as I can fail a perception check to spot the pyramids. I dare say my definition is more consistent.

Your definition is of course correct in that the pyramids are "visible", but they are not (with respect to either of us) in "plain sight".

Quote:


LoreKeeper wrote:


lol, that would work to some extent - though I'd expect that some enemy wizards or the like might be smart enough to pick-up on what you doing and creating magical auras moving about as a distraction.
It can't possibly be a distraction, you can see all of them!

Ofcourse it is not a distraction, you do see all of them - but if you decide to fireball the "fake" auras (those that are just there to mess with your arcane sight), then that is your problem. What the information that arcane sight gives you means to you, and how you respond to it - is up to you.


wraithstrike wrote:
I am used to consistency, and by leaving such things at the DM's whim and common sense which is a terrible idea since common sense varies from person to person, the players don't know what to expect.

Well then I guess you should go play WoW because every RPG requires DMs to make rulings that the rules do not cover. No RPG rules are comprehensive.

All that matters is the DM is consistent within that campaign, not that every DM is consistent with each other. Hopefully a veteran player such as yourself knows the areas of the rules that lack explicit elaboration, and therefore asks the DM before the campaign starts about how they would judicate such scenarios.

The fact is, your interpretation of the rules is based on your learning experience when you were new to the game, and is therefore biased by your own "whims and common sense" and those of your first DMs, whether you like to admit it or not.


Cartigan wrote:
LoreKeeper wrote:

What *I* am saying is that every combatant takes a -5 penalty to Perception checks (or equivalently, the Perception DC is increased by +5). This pre-occupation is *not* the same as the form of distraction mentioned explicitly for stealth purposes (which refers to the observer specifically not observing the stealthee at all long enough to make a stealth check).

However, I'm also saying that what constitutes "plain sight" must be linked to the perception of "noticing a visible creature" - as soon as this perception is not a given (i.e. it can fail), then the stealthee is not automatically considered observed.

See, even you are handling a completely different argument than Caenich (or whatever) is. You are saying people can disappear in the middle of a barren field. Caenich is saying people in a fight that you aren't fighting directly can disappear. And both of you disagree with the other yet both of your positions would allow the bugbear to disappear from plain sight in this situation.

First, if you can't be bothered to spell my name, which is in this threads dozens of times, I don't know why I am bothering to respond.

I never said that the bugbear could hide in plain sight, or that he could "disappear" while plainly visible. I said that if he has cover, he can hide, which as far as I can tell you don' disagree with. If he is hidden, he can move through an area where he does not have cover and remain stealthed with a -10 penalty, IF the opponent is distracted AND fails a perception check.

As for the magic aura, just because you can see something does not mean you know it is there. The spell lets you see the auras of the items, it does not instantly grant you knowledge that they are there. You still need perception checks for that. Otherwise, mundane stealth would be entirely worthless if the person had any magic item on them, as even if someone is behind cover or concealment, you will still have LOS on them if they can attack you.


calvinNhobbes wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
You are saying people can disappear in the middle of a barren field.
Actually, we are not saying that at all.

Some one is. I don't know which side you are on and I fail to care. LoreKeeper is putting forth the argument that one may stealth at any point after "automatically spot visible person" including "roll a 2 to spot a person."


Caineach wrote:


The rogue got a perception check... Each round... The GM rolled them, as he should, and the rogue failed.

Actually he didn't because it would have taken 4 perception checks just to reach the horses.


calvinNhobbes wrote:
0gre wrote:
Like I said, it is no different than judicating enchantments and illusions; do you consider them limitless?
Your thoughts are inherently flawed in that you presume there is a such thing as common sense, reason, or good judgment on the part of a GM. This is the age of WoW where people expect a rigid set of flawless rules that cover every situation in exacting detail. The mere suggestion that a GM might be an intelligent adult capable of such things is pure heresy.

As long as things are consistent I don't mind, even if its a houserule. If the DM allows me to stealth in the open, that is fair also. I just don't think the rogue knew that was possible. I would like to hear if the OP will allow this across the board though.

Edit: The quote tags messed the post before the edit.


wraithstrike wrote:
If our group ever adopted this rule I would have one PC start an argument with a PC to distract, and I would walk up behind him and stab him if I need to kill him.

Which as a DM, I would laugh at you, and simply state that is not enough of a distraction for you to be unobserved and disallow the stealth check.

Just because you find a loop hole in the rules (ex. bag o' rats in 3.X) does not mean the DM will allow such absurd foolishness. To judicate is one of the main duties of the DM.


Panish Valimer wrote:


No, my definitions specifically forbid disappearing from plain sight. Your argument rests on the assumption that the pyramids are in plain sight. In my argument the pyramids are not in plain sight as soon as I can fail a perception check to spot the pyramids. I dare say my definition is more consistent.

Consistency does not dismiss absurdity.

Quote:
Your definition is of course correct in that the pyramids are "visible", but they are not (with respect to either of us) in "plain sight".

If they are visible without obstruction, they are in "plain sight." Whether or not I have the physical capability to see that far is irrelevant because I have the physical capability to see and there are no other conditions allowing them to "hide." Being half a world away, I'm sure they are technically behind something to make them out of my LoS, or it is night time, but that's beside the point.

Quote:
Ofcourse it is not a distraction, you do see all of them - but if you decide to fireball the "fake" auras (those that are just there to mess with your arcane sight), then that is your problem.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.


Cartigan wrote:
I don't know which side you are on and I fail to care.

If you don't care, then why post? Just to be obtuse?


Caineach wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
coldkilla wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


To build off of Cart's post what is the point of trying to find cover quickly if you can just stealth out in the open?

You can't. Unless you have Hide in Plain Sight.

But now I think I know why we've been talking at cross-purposes.

You (wraithstrike, cartigan, some others) have been assuming that the Stealth check always happens after the move. Thus the move would generally have to end behind cover/concealment. This is indeed the scenario described by the distraction/Bluff portion of the Stealth description.

I, and possibly quite a few others, have been working under the assumption that the move begins behind cover/concealment and that the Steath check happens before the move.

The rules are silent about when the Stealth check happens, only that the check is made as part of the movement, so it could happen either way. Or in the middle of movement - 10' to get behind cover, successful Stealth check, and continue another 20' (yes, a penalty would apply for moving faster than half speed).

Problem solved.

Nope. My assumption is that if you end your movement in the middle of an open area everyone knows where you are, and even with the idea that a perception check should be made, I should get a perception check which the rogue did not get. If our group ever adopted this rule I would have one PC start an argument with a PC to distract, and I would walk up behind him and stab him if I need to kill him. If I get any DM to agree to this I am definitely playing a rogue.
The rogue got a perception check... Each round... The GM rolled them, as he should, and the rogue failed.

It seems I misread the OP, but I still think he was wrong for deciding damage equals distracted, but that is a DM call, not really a rules thing. If I were a player I would ask for a list of what counts as distracted so I could do the same thing though.


calvinNhobbes wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If our group ever adopted this rule I would have one PC start an argument with a PC to distract, and I would walk up behind him and stab him if I need to kill him.

Which as a DM, I would laugh at you, and simply state that is not enough of a distraction for you to be unobserved and disallow the stealth check.

Just because you find a loop hole in the rules (ex. bag o' rats in 3.X) does not mean the DM will allow such absurd foolishness. To judicate is one of the main duties of the DM.

Are you kidding. I would totally allow it. I would allow it with random guards, and I would allow it with PCs, if they wanted to do it against eachother. This is exactly the type of thing you should be able to do.


calvinNhobbes wrote:


Which as a DM, I would laugh at you, and simply state that is not enough of a distraction for you to be unobserved and disallow the stealth check.

Absurd. An intent conversation is distracting. And I'm pretty sure some one has put up such an argument before.

Quote:
Just because you find a loop hole in the rules (ex. bag o' rats in 3.X) does not mean the DM will allow such absurd foolishness. To judicate is one of the main duties of the DM.

The pot doth protest too much.


wraithstrike wrote:
It seems I misread the OP, but I still think he was wrong for deciding damage equals distracted, but that is a DM call, not really a rules thing.

Exactly, although I would say a DM making calls IS a rules thing, the very heart of the rules really.

Quote:
If I were a player I would ask for a list of what counts as distracted so I could do the same thing though.

Which is a completely mature and reasonable thing to do.


calvinNhobbes wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I am used to consistency, and by leaving such things at the DM's whim and common sense which is a terrible idea since common sense varies from person to person, the players don't know what to expect.

Well then I guess you should go play WoW because every RPG requires DMs to make rulings that the rules do not cover. No RPG rules are comprehensive.

All that matters is the DM is consistent within that campaign, not that every DM is consistent with each other. Hopefully a veteran player such as yourself knows the areas of the rules that lack explicit elaboration, and therefore asks the DM before the campaign starts about how they would judicate such scenarios.

The fact is, your interpretation of the rules is based on your learning experience when you were new to the game, and is therefore biased by your own "whims and common sense" and those of your first DMs, whether you like to admit it or not.

Consistency means in the same situations the same things happen. A DM having to make a ruling does not mean inconsistent.

The DM being consistent with himself is what I was referring to. Thanks for asking before talking down to me though.


calvinNhobbes wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If our group ever adopted this rule I would have one PC start an argument with a PC to distract, and I would walk up behind him and stab him if I need to kill him.

Which as a DM, I would laugh at you, and simply state that is not enough of a distraction for you to be unobserved and disallow the stealth check.

Just because you find a loop hole in the rules (ex. bag o' rats in 3.X) does not mean the DM will allow such absurd foolishness. To judicate is one of the main duties of the DM.

What would count as enough of a distraction? How close is close enough that I can see you in the open even when I am distracted?


wraithstrike wrote:
If our group ever adopted this rule I would have one PC start an argument with a PC to distract, and I would walk up behind him and stab him if I need to kill him. If I get any DM to agree to this I am definitely playing a rogue.

I would agree that you could do this within the rules.

In most of my games, however, there would be some pretty severe in-game consequences for a character that did this.


Caineach wrote:
calvinNhobbes wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If our group ever adopted this rule I would have one PC start an argument with a PC to distract, and I would walk up behind him and stab him if I need to kill him.

Which as a DM, I would laugh at you, and simply state that is not enough of a distraction for you to be unobserved and disallow the stealth check.

Just because you find a loop hole in the rules (ex. bag o' rats in 3.X) does not mean the DM will allow such absurd foolishness. To judicate is one of the main duties of the DM.

Are you kidding. I would totally allow it. I would allow it with random guards, and I would allow it with PCs, if they wanted to do it against each other. This is exactly the type of thing you should be able to do.

You run cinematic games don't you? This is just a question, and not part of the current debate


wraithstrike wrote:
What would count as enough of a distraction? How close is close enough that I can see you in the open even when I am distracted?

See, this is why we make an opposed check.


wraithstrike wrote:
Caineach wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
coldkilla wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


To build off of Cart's post what is the point of trying to find cover quickly if you can just stealth out in the open?

You can't. Unless you have Hide in Plain Sight.

But now I think I know why we've been talking at cross-purposes.

You (wraithstrike, cartigan, some others) have been assuming that the Stealth check always happens after the move. Thus the move would generally have to end behind cover/concealment. This is indeed the scenario described by the distraction/Bluff portion of the Stealth description.

I, and possibly quite a few others, have been working under the assumption that the move begins behind cover/concealment and that the Steath check happens before the move.

The rules are silent about when the Stealth check happens, only that the check is made as part of the movement, so it could happen either way. Or in the middle of movement - 10' to get behind cover, successful Stealth check, and continue another 20' (yes, a penalty would apply for moving faster than half speed).

Problem solved.

Nope. My assumption is that if you end your movement in the middle of an open area everyone knows where you are, and even with the idea that a perception check should be made, I should get a perception check which the rogue did not get. If our group ever adopted this rule I would have one PC start an argument with a PC to distract, and I would walk up behind him and stab him if I need to kill him. If I get any DM to agree to this I am definitely playing a rogue.
The rogue got a perception check... Each round... The GM rolled them, as he should, and the rogue failed.
It seems I misread the OP, but I still think he was wrong for deciding damage equals distracted, but that is a DM call, not really a rules thing. If I were a player I would ask for a list of what counts as distracted so I could do the same thing though.

There is a question as to how many rounds the bugbear should have taken, as it is not clear how far he started from the horses, but I believe 3 would be enough if he started within 30 feet of side of the road where the horses are. 1 to move to the edge of the road by the horses, still in cover. 1 to move to the horses and cut the bonds. 1 to pick up the goblin and move to the other side of the road, in cover again. He would only spend 1 round actually in the open, for which he should have gotten a penalty, but he succeeded by so much it would not have mattered. Arguably, he may have needed to cut more bonds and spend an extra round out there.

Catigan, I have no idea how you think it would take 4 rounds to get there, even if he was 70 feet out. 3 double moves would not only get him that distance, but would also get him to the horses 15 feet into the road. You might even be able to do it with 2 double and a single, depending on how the diagonals worked out.


wraithstrike wrote:
You run cinematic games don't you? This is just a question, and not part of the current debate

I think "cinematic" is really your only option for a game that runs Pathfinder rules -- or any set of rules where a PC can easily take a dozen arrows with no effects on their fighting prowess at all.


Cartigan wrote:
Absurd. An intent conversation is distracting. And I'm pretty sure some one has put up such an argument before.

A PC trying to fake an argument to distract someone in combat so another PC can back stab them is not absurd? Really? Now I can see other scenarios where I would allow it. Ex, two PCs decided to fake an argument outside of combat to distract a guard so a third PC who is already hidden can stealth behind the guard and disable the them. In such a scenario I would probably require Bluff and/or Perform checks by the PC faking the argument, opposed by the guards Sense Motive. The third PC however would not know if the guard was truly distracted, I would have them roll a Sense Motive check to see if the guard was really distracted or just faking. If the PC succeeded then they would know if it was safe to try and stealth out into the open behind the distracted guard, if they failed, then they would have to abort the plan or take the risk of the guard.

Quote:
The pot doth protest too much.

What the hell are you talking about? Protest too much about what? That common sense and consistency are important? Oh no, bad me... rolls eyes...


calvinNhobbes wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
It seems I misread the OP, but I still think he was wrong for deciding damage equals distracted, but that is a DM call, not really a rules thing.

Exactly, although I would say a DM making calls IS a rules thing, the very heart of the rules really.

Quote:
If I were a player I would ask for a list of what counts as distracted so I could do the same thing though.
Which is a completely mature and reasonable thing to do.

What I mean is the book rules, when they say you can't do X. He took a book rule which is not defined(distraction), and I can't tell him how to use such a rule. I can say I don't agree with people standing in the open being able to hide in a game that has no facing, but that if he does not really care for that, it is not my place to tell him he has to use it.


AvalonXQ wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If our group ever adopted this rule I would have one PC start an argument with a PC to distract, and I would walk up behind him and stab him if I need to kill him. If I get any DM to agree to this I am definitely playing a rogue.

I would agree that you could do this within the rules.

In most of my games, however, there would be some pretty severe in-game consequences for a character that did this.

1. Such as..?

2. Why? If it is allowed in your game then it seems like good strategy to me.


calvinNhobbes wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Absurd. An intent conversation is distracting. And I'm pretty sure some one has put up such an argument before.

A PC trying to fake an argument to distract someone in combat so another PC can back stab them is not absurd? Really? Now I can see other scenarios where I would allow it. Ex, two PCs decided to fake an argument outside of combat to distract a guard so a third PC who is already hidden can stealth behind the guard and disable the them. In such a scenario I would probably require Bluff and/or Perform checks by the PC faking the argument, opposed by the guards Sense Motive. The third PC however would not know if the guard was truly distracted, I would have them roll a Sense Motive check to see if the guard was really distracted or just faking. If the PC succeeded then they would know if it was safe to try and stealth out into the open behind the distracted guard, if they failed, then they would have to abort the plan or take the risk of the guard.

I totally agree, I would force other skill checks. I would probably default to bluff, unless the players had perform. And you can never really know when someone is distracted that much. These are exactly the types of things that you should be doing with skills IMO.


wraithstrike wrote:
Thanks for asking before talking down to me though.

I can't read your mind, only what you post, be clear and concise and you won't have that problem.

When you make statements like:

Quote:
I am used to consistency, and by leaving such things at the DM's whim and common sense which is a terrible idea since common sense varies from person to person, the players don't know what to expect.

All I know of your position is by what you post. How am I to know you are ok with DMs making rulings, when you say leaving things up to the DM is a "terrible idea"? Seems like a hypocritical stance to take.


AvalonXQ wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
What would count as enough of a distraction? How close is close enough that I can see you in the open even when I am distracted?
See, this is why we make an opposed check.

This is also why I don't pull new things in the middle of a game. If my bad guys can do it then my players should have known they can do it also. I am now realizing that my gripe is more with the sudden introduction of strategy X, than whether or not the move was rules legal. In my games everyone plays by the same rules in my world, and I expect the same thing as a player. I think the rogue was upset for the same reason, even though after rereading the original post I think he got a carried away.


wraithstrike wrote:
What would count as enough of a distraction?

Depends on the scenario

Quote:
How close is close enough that I can see you in the open even when I am distracted?

Depends on the scenario

251 to 300 of 490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Stealth in Combat: Sneaky Bugbear vs. Elf Rogue All Messageboards