Stealth in Combat: Sneaky Bugbear vs. Elf Rogue


Rules Questions

301 to 350 of 490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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

Then I won't answer it, since it is irrelevant.


calvinNhobbes wrote:
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.

If you don't know what I am saying then you should ask me to clarify it, and talking down to people not ok whether you agree with them or not.

Leaving things as wide open as distraction is, is what I was referring to when I want to limit what a DM has to do. Yes I should have said that before.


calvinNhobbes wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
You run cinematic games don't you? This is just a question, and not part of the current debate
Then I won't answer it, since it is irrelevant.

I did not ask you that. I asked Caniach that, unless I quoted the wrong person.

<goes to check>

Edit: I see your quote was in there also. I meant to cut it out, oops


wraithstrike wrote:
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.

Agreed, but Catigan has been up in arms since the very beginning that the way the OP usign stealth is against RAW, when it is in fact not. It is merely one ruling regarding a less explicitly explained portion of the rules. Which as others quoted, the designers purposefully did so as not to limit creativity.


calvinNhobbes wrote:


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...

Your argument isn't consistent given the position you have been supporting. I was being sarcastic.

Caineach wrote:
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.

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

Quote:
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.

I will put forward the opinion that any movement action requires a Stealth check itself. If you double move, both uses of the move action should require a Stealth check.


wraithstrike wrote:
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.

This I can totally understand and agree with. I hate it when GMs pull something out that is different than my intrpretation of the rules. Especially when I don't do something I wanted to do because my interpretation of the rules would prevent it.

That said, I think this was not a case of the DM pulling something out of his ass so much as a case of the 2 of them not realizing that they had different interpretations of the rules. Honestly, until this thread I never realized how limitted some people thought the stealth skill was and was confused when I saw people saying stealth sucked. This is probably because of a rather loose interpretation of what constitutes distraction.


calvinNhobbes wrote:


Agreed, but Catigan has been up in arms since the very beginning that the way the OP usign stealth is against RAW, when it is in fact not.

Wrong. I am refusing to accept your, Caineach's, PoC's, and a couple of others' personal interpretation of "observed" and "distracted" as well as LoreKeeper's and any who are on his side. Considering neither "observed" nor "distracted" are defined by RAW, you cannot snobbishly claim the high-ground. Especially when Caineach's side's interpretation requires ignoring d20 uses 360 vision.


wraithstrike wrote:

If you don't know what I am saying then you should ask me to clarify it, and talking down to people not ok whether you agree with them or not.

....

Yes I should have said that before

I thought I understood your position, if you misposted then that is your fault, not mine, it is up to you to clarify.

However, if you felt offended by my comment, then I apologize.

Quote:
Leaving things as wide open as distraction is, is what I was referring to when I want to limit what a DM has to do. .

I would love more examples, not because I want limits, but because it gives me ideas on how to better utilize the rules in scenarios I may not have thought they would apply.


Cartigan wrote:


Quote:
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.
I will put forward the opinion that any movement action requires a Stealth check itself. If you double move, both uses of the move action should require a Stealth check.

The stealth skill says it as part of movement, not as part of the move action. If you double move, you are still only making 1 movement.


Cartigan wrote:
calvinNhobbes wrote:


Agreed, but Catigan has been up in arms since the very beginning that the way the OP usign stealth is against RAW, when it is in fact not.
Wrong. I am refusing to accept your, Caineach's, PoC's, and a couple of others' personal interpretation of "observed" and "distracted" as well as LoreKeeper's and any who are on his side. Considering neither "observed" nor "distracted" are defined by RAW, you cannot snobbishly claim the high-ground. Especially when Caineach's side's interpretation requires ignoring d20 uses 360 vision.

At no point did I ever say there was facing in d20. I have said that something can draw your attention, and thus give you a perception penalty and allow people to stealth arround you. I said that in the description of the game, this can be explained by people not noticing it because they are looking the other way. These are not the same things as facing, as I have said multiple times.


Cartigan wrote:
I was being sarcastic.

First lesson of the internet, sarcasm does not relate through text.

Quote:
Your argument isn't consistent given the position you have been supporting.

Really? I've been supporting Caineach's position, where have I been inconsistent?

Caineach wrote:
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

Perhaps an intelligent rebuttal inside of a tantrum would be more productive. Perhaps you should just go sit in the corner and pout instead of posting.


Caineach wrote:
Cartigan wrote:


Quote:
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.
I will put forward the opinion that any movement action requires a Stealth check itself. If you double move, both uses of the move action should require a Stealth check.
The stealth skill says it as part of movement, not as part of the move action. If you double move, you are still only making 1 movement.

A double move is explicitly two movements. You move, then you move again.

Quote:
Really? I've been supporting Caineach's position, where have I been inconsistent?

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinde r/pathfinderRPG/rules/stealthInCombatSneakyBugbearVsElfRogue&page=6#283

Quote:
Perhaps an intelligent rebuttal inside of a tantrum would be more productive.

I'm sure some one has already said "there are none so blind as those who refuse to see."


wraithstrike wrote:

1. Such as..?

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

If you're in one of my games and you think attacking a fellow PC is a good strategy, you're not paying attention to the story.


Cartigan wrote:
calvinNhobbes wrote:


Agreed, but Catigan has been up in arms since the very beginning that the way the OP usign stealth is against RAW, when it is in fact not.
Wrong. I am refusing to accept your, Caineach's, PoC's, and a couple of others' personal interpretation of "observed" and "distracted" as well as LoreKeeper's and any who are on his side. Considering neither "observed" nor "distracted" are defined by RAW, you cannot snobbishly claim the high-ground. Especially when Caineach's side's interpretation requires ignoring d20 uses 360 vision.

How am I wrong?

calvinnhobbes wrote:
Catigan has been up in arms since the very beginning that the way the OP using stealth is against RAW
catigan wrote:
neither "observed" nor "distracted" are defined by RAW

We have presented an interpretation of the rules that supports the OPs handling of the scenario that is fully within the scope of RAW. You say it is not RAW. How is that assessment wrong?

Are we agruing something else I am not aware of?
Do you in fact support the OPs handling of the scenario as RAW? My impression was you did not. Please clarify instead of throwing insults and tantrums like a child.


Cartigan wrote:
A double move is explicitly two movements. You move, then you move again.

Right, so use the withdraw action instead.


AvalonXQ wrote:


If you're in one of my games and you think attacking a fellow PC is a good strategy, you're not paying attention to the story.

I think some one missed the point entirely.


lol. Watching this evolve has made me chuckle. I really want to help. This, however, is devolving into a play style argument, which I hate to get into. I want to point out some things, here.

Case study: Cinematic Gameplay.

Combat: Huge Giant, several drow and gauth minions.

The PC's numbered 12 at the time.

The huge Giant's legs (soft cover by the RAW) were part of the battlefield tactics for the Drow, who were trying to sneak attack the PC's.

The Giant was being a very good distraction for the PC's, and they were spending more of their time being clubbed by the Giant. The first Drow made his stealth check, and succeeded (he was the only one to get a sneak attack with this method, as the PC's had a tactic once it happened once). The others did not.

Now, as a DM, I described what was going on, and the Drow trying to use the Giant's legs as cover. Our resident Druid/Ranger stepped back and got out his bow and declared "I'm holding my action, so if any drow step out to fire, I will shoot them." This negated the distraction factor of the hiding. The giant couldn't reach the druid/ranger, and soon the wizard joined him (after getting the sneak attack). The two took care of the drow trying to hide and combat with the giant, while the rest of the PC's beat the giant senseless.

The PC's were distracted, and a freaking huge leg as large around as some of the columns in the temple they were in should count as cover.

Now, case study: Bugbears and horses.

The Rogue, given the situation, likely had his back turned on the horses, and was probably busy trying not to get squished. This means that he's very focused on the combat. Same goes for every other PC.

If there hadn't been a combat going on, absolutely the PC's would've seen the last bugbear. The combat was the distraction, and FOUR perception checks later, opposed by the Bugbear's Sneak check (trying to move unnoticed across a battlefield... which would count as trying to blend into a crowd as far as I'm concerned).

Now, I'm about 5'6" and I have been around people and horses. I don't care what you say, I've lost track of someone not trying to hide behind a horse while they were cleaning a hoof, and I was paying attention! I didn't do an immediate leg count, which I wouldn't think in combat you'd be able to do either (short of an intelligence of 20 or higher, which would be an INT based perception check at that point).

So, why in 6 seconds or less would it matter. The PC's got the bad guy, they had a Ranger if they hadn't, so they just get distracted for 20 minutes on a long haul to get to a city to turn in the goblin. It's good for the story, and shows the PC's they can do something like this in your games as well (at least that would be fair).

There are several movies where there's a combat going on, and someone traipses across a battlefield in the OPEN to get the item that the protagonist wants, and they do it unnoticed. The Protagonist finishes the mook off, and then sees the villain, and goes "NOOOOO!" And that sets up the next chain of events for the movie. I like my games like my movies in that respect. This has been done to me in games and I've done it to PC's in games. It works with our play style, and our common sense. I run a much more RAW game in my PbP games than I do flesh-side due to this type of confusion.

Now, back to studying for me. I hope that this has helped the conversation.

/d


calvinNhobbes wrote:
Please clarify instead of throwing insults and tantrums like a child.

If you're wanting an adult discussion, you're asking the wrong poster.


calvinNhobbes wrote:


Are we agruing something else I am not aware of?
Do you in fact support the OPs handling of the scenario as RAW? My impression was you did not. Please clarify instead of throwing insults and tantrums like a child.

Pot. Kettle. Etc.

I will humor your attempts at "debating" your position when you bother to read my posts. You can start at my first one in the thread and move on from there.


AvalonXQ wrote:
calvinNhobbes wrote:
Please clarify instead of throwing insults and tantrums like a child.
If you're wanting an adult discussion, you're asking the wrong poster.

Apparently he should be asking the other hypocrite. Ie, you.

AvalonXQ wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
A double move is explicitly two movements. You move, then you move again.
Right, so use the withdraw action instead.

This sounds like rules abuse.


Cartigan wrote:
Apparently he should be asking the other hypocrite. Ie, you.

:-D

Wait, did you really use "Nuh uh, you are!" against an accusation of childishness?
Very well-done, Cartigan. Way to keep your level of discourse at par. ;-)


Darkmeer wrote:


The PC's were distracted, and a freaking huge leg as large around as some of the columns in the temple they were in should count as cover.

That's a fair argument I would be willing to accept. Saying Andre the Giant can hide behind a horse is not.

Quote:
The combat was the distraction, and FOUR perception checks later, opposed by the Bugbear's Sneak check (trying to move unnoticed across a battlefield... which would count as trying to blend into a crowd as far as I'm concerned).

Which wasn't what he was doing at all. He was sneaking through tall grass.

Quote:
There are several movies where there's a combat going on

I am not accepting movie "plot defense" as a counter to the game itself's rules.


Cartigan wrote:
calvinNhobbes wrote:


Are we agruing something else I am not aware of?
Do you in fact support the OPs handling of the scenario as RAW? My impression was you did not. Please clarify instead of throwing insults and tantrums like a child.

Pot. Kettle. Etc.

I will humor your attempts at "debating" your position when you bother to read my posts. You can start at my first one in the thread and move on from there.

I should say the same thing to you, as at least 3 times you have attributed to me an arguement that I have not made, and dozens of times have misrepresented my arguement.


AvalonXQ wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Apparently he should be asking the other hypocrite. Ie, you.

:-D

Wait, did you really use "Nuh uh, you are!" against an accusation of childishness?

Considering two people called me childish while demanding I stop throwing insults, which I had yet to do. Yes, yes I did.


Cartigan wrote:
Pot. Kettle. Etc.

Once again, what are you talking about?

Quote:
I will humor your attempts at "debating" your position when you bother to read my posts. You can start at my first one in the thread and move on from there.

I have read every post in this thread. If your position is unclear then it means you are a very poor communicator, not surprising given your predilication for using sarcasm and insults.

I will simply state, you are wrong and I am right, PROVE otherwise. I have the majority, you are but alone.


Caineach wrote:


I should say the same thing to you, as at least 3 times you have attributed to me an arguement that I have not made, and dozens of times have misrepresented my arguement.

You people being unable to keep up with whom I'm talking about because I am not calling you out by name, is not my fault. One would think you could recognize your own and LoreKeeper's arguments.

And I will admit I have deconstructed your arguments in such a way as to make them look absurd. Which was my point.


Caineach wrote:
I should say the same thing to you, as at least 3 times you have attributed to me an arguement that I have not made, and dozens of times have misrepresented my arguement.

I really think trying to pay attention to all the ways that Cartigan has been rude, uncivil, and flat-out wrong in this discussion isn't worth our time. Address his substantive points and ignore the rest.

Meta-arguments don't get you anywhere.

(BTW, it's spelled "argument", no "E" in the middle.)


calvinNhobbes wrote:


I will simply state, you are wrong and I am right, PROVE otherwise. I have the majority, you are but alone.

That very assertion proves you haven't even read this page much less the entire thread.

I can list, not by name but by average, the amount of people agreeing with each of the three sides in this discussion.

Including the 1 person who looks to just be trolling (and I don't mean ObviousTroll) regardless of his actual position in the argument.


Cartigan wrote:
Caineach wrote:


I should say the same thing to you, as at least 3 times you have attributed to me an arguement that I have not made, and dozens of times have misrepresented my arguement.

You people being unable to keep up with whom I'm talking about because I am not calling you out by name, is not my fault. One would think you could recognize your own and LoreKeeper's arguments.

And I will admit I have deconstructed your arguments in such a way as to make them look absurd. Which was my point.

Yes, I can recognize all the arguements going on in this thread, and will take the time to attribute them to the right people if I have to.

And you have at no point made my arguement look absurd. You have blatantly lied about what I have said, and completely misrepresented me, but have yet to actually respond to any of my actual arguements with something substantial.


Cartigan wrote:
Considering two people called me childish while demanding I stop throwing insults, which I had yet to do.

Calling someone "snobbish" is indeed an insult. Doing repetitive "facepalms" in response to someone's comments is also in insult. So, we can add liar to your repertoire of character flaws.


Caineach wrote:


And you have at no point made my arguement look absurd. You have blatantly lied about what I have said, and completely misrepresented me, but have yet to actually respond to any of my actual arguements with something substantial.

Your argument is combat itself is a distraction capable of allowing people not engaged in combat with a specific person able to Stealth in regards to that specific person.

I disagree. End.


calvinNhobbes wrote:


Calling someone "snobbish" is indeed an insult.

"Snob" is an insult. "Snobbishly" is an adverb used to describe the way you utterly dismissed the people making an argument you don't agree with.

Quote:
Doing repetitive "facepalms" in response to someone's comments is also in insult.

Asinine.

Quote:
So, we can add liar to your repertoire of character flaws.

The only insult aimed at you is "hypocrite."


Cartigan wrote:
I can list, not by name but by average, the amount of people agreeing with each of the three sides in this discussion.

Yes, subjective estimation is always more useful than objective analysis.

Oh, and that was sarcasm, just in case you weren't sure.


calvinNhobbes wrote:
Calling someone "snobbish" is indeed an insult. Doing repetitive "facepalms" in response to someone's comments is also in insult. So, we can add liar to your repertoire of character flaws.

Again, arguing about the form of someone's arguments is a meta-argument, and zero help. I'd recommend just entirely ignoring this person as a person, addressing his points, and moving on.


Cartigan wrote:
"Snob" is an insult. "Snobbish" is an adjective used to describe the way you utterly dismissed the people making an argument you don't agree with.

So you are snobbish, good to know.

Quote:
Asinine

Uh ok, another time out for you, you bad little boy.

Quote:
The only insult aimed at you is "hypocrite."

So, you did insult me by your own definition, but you said earlier you have not insulted anyone. Therefore, you lied, making you a liar. So you are in fact a liar.


calvinNhobbes wrote:


Oh, and that was sarcasm, just in case you weren't sure.

"Objectively" WraithStrike and one other person agree with me.

"Subjectively" I add "at least"


Cartigan wrote:
"Objectively" WraithStrike and one other person agree with me.

Actually, Wraithstrike does not agree with you. He stated the RAW can be interpreted in the way the OP handled the scenario.


It's been 15 posts since a post has had any actual substantive discussion of the thread topic in it.


calvinNhobbes wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
"Objectively" WraithStrike and one other person agree with me.
Actually, Wraithstrike does not agree with you. He stated the RAW can be interpreted in the way the OP handled the scenario.

I would go over every one of his posts in this thread and look for it, but that seems time consuming and I don't have that amount of time. So, if you would be so kind, provide a link to the post.


Cartigan wrote:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathf inderRPG/rules/stealthInCombatSneakyBugbearVsElfRogue&page=6#283

And this is inconsistent how?


calvinNhobbes wrote:


And this is inconsistent how?

In such that you and he disagree with the application of "distraction." Therefore you cannot both agree with opinion and be consistent with the one you espoused.

Liberty's Edge

This thread makes me proud to be alive in these times. The fact that we are STILL arguing about this just made my morning. On another note, really Avalon, resorting to speller nazi? Come on, we were all being pretty civil here, let's get back to it and stop the bashing.

In this case, I do believe that the rogue in combat can be considered to be distracted because he no longer knows where the bugbear is. He lost track of him, and can not take the required move action to locate him, as per the rules. If you can not devote your attention to an action, then you are therefore distracted. That one's pretty cut and dry. I do agree with Cartigan that not nearly enough sneak/perception checks were taken. The rolls the OP gave were enough to get the bugbear to where the horses were, but still in the grass; he needed at least three more to finish the actions that were described.

It comes down to distraction. What is it? Some maintain that combat is a distraction, but why? Let's narrow this down. What is it about combat, mechanically, that prevents the rogue from being able to automatically spot someone 70+ feet away.


Cartigan wrote:
Darkmeer wrote:


The PC's were distracted, and a freaking huge leg as large around as some of the columns in the temple they were in should count as cover.

That's a fair argument I would be willing to accept. Saying Andre the Giant can hide behind a horse is not.

Quote:
The combat was the distraction, and FOUR perception checks later, opposed by the Bugbear's Sneak check (trying to move unnoticed across a battlefield... which would count as trying to blend into a crowd as far as I'm concerned).

Which wasn't what he was doing at all. He was sneaking through tall grass.

Quote:
There are several movies where there's a combat going on
I am not accepting movie "plot defense" as a counter to the game itself's rules.

As I said, cinematic gameplay style. That's how we roll. And I don't expect plot defense to be the main argument here. Just a thought as far as combat goes, trying to give you an example of some sort here. So whether it's plot or not, the sneaking across a battle can and does happen, that's the argument here. It happened in movies, video games, and Real Life (i.e. WWII). That's all I was trying to point out, not just plot defense.

The bugbear is what, 7 feet tall? A horse is 5 to six feet tall at the shoulder, and the head adds about another several inches to a foot (depends on breed). So, a 7-foot tall guy hides behind the horse in such a way the head of the horse is out helping him stealth.

The horses were the "Crowd" when he was freeing the Goblin. The small open area across the road would be the hardest part about the situation. The grass is covered by another type of stealth check (actually HIDING), rather than "blending in."

Now, given that he is as tall as a horse, perhaps taller, there would likely be penalties to the stealth check, but not anything that would make this un-doable (-4 or so).

/d


Okugi wrote:
On another note, really Avalon, resorting to speller nazi? Come on, we were all being pretty civil here, let's get back to it and stop the bashing.

Not trying to be a Nazi about it -- just a gentle correction to something that became jarring each and every one of the many times the same person misspelled the same word in the same way.


Caineach wrote:
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.

I think I misunderstood his example, I assume he meant trying to distract someone while in combat by trying to talk to them, so that you could then hide and sneak attack them. By later guard example shows I am cool with this out of combat.


Okugi wrote:


In this case, I do believe that the rogue in combat can be considered to be distracted because he no longer knows where the bugbear is. He lost track of him, and can not take the required move action to locate him, as per the rules. If you can not devote your attention to an action, then you are therefore distracted. That one's pretty cut and dry.

That's an interesting position. Why can't he take the move action? Can you not take move actions toward that particular purpose while in combat? Did he use a full-round action? Is he limited to a single action and decided to do something else?

This is of course assuming "rustling grass" and "a bugbear running into the open" don't constitute "observable stimulus."


Darkmeer wrote:


The bugbear is what, 7 feet tall? A horse is 5 to six feet tall at the shoulder, and the head adds about another several inches to a foot (depends on breed). So, a 7-foot tall guy hides behind the horse in such a way the head of the horse is out helping him stealth.

As I said before, it's not the 1 and a half feet of bugbear upper body above the horse, it's the several feet of bugbear lower body below it.


Cartigan wrote:
In such that you and he disagree with the application of "distraction." Therefore you cannot both agree with opinion and be consistent with the one you espoused.

Except, that I don't disagree with the "application of distraction". I may rule what is and is not a sufficient distraction to allow a stealth check in comparison to Caineach, but that is scenario dependent, just like judicating what is and is not interaction with an illusion and whether said interaction allows a save or not, or whether the illusion is automatically disbelieved.


Cartigan wrote:
I would go over every one of his posts in this thread and look for it, but that seems time consuming and I don't have that amount of time. So, if you would be so kind, provide a link to the post.

You're the one trying to prove someone agrees with you, you do the leg work.

301 to 350 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