Stealth in Combat: Sneaky Bugbear vs. Elf Rogue


Rules Questions

351 to 400 of 490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Cartigan wrote:
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?

According to perception, you can take a perception check in response to a stimulus at any time, or take a move action to actively locate something. In the rogues case, he's engaged in melee, to take a move action to locate someone, while in combat, would give his opponent an AoO, due to the rogue focusing his attention on something other then combat. It was due to this that I would rule the rogue having distraction when it comes to making a perception to spot the bugbear when he left the concealment of the grass.


In the bugbear situation, I would allow a character to affirmatively "keep an eye on" the distant horses by spending a move action to make an active Perception check.
What say you, Caineach -- would this automatically find the bugbear in plain sight, or would it still be an opposed Perception check?


Okugi wrote:
What is it about combat, mechanically, that prevents the rogue from being able to automatically spot someone 70+ feet away.

Mechanically nothing. That's why there's an argument. Some of us think that the mechanics should overrule the real world argument. I'm on the other side of that argument, as are a number of folks that I game with.

My common sense says that if someone's stabbing me, I'm going to pay MUCH more attention to them than anyone else. I would apply that to a group of PC's trying to fight their way away from some bugbears.

I would agree the number of stealth checks was low, but otherwise I would say it CAN be done. Heck, if the Rogue was using the Dodge Feat on the bugbear in question, then I wouldn't have even allowed the argument, as he would HAVE to focus on the bugbear to gain the benefits of dodge.

Just remember, any option open to your enemies is open to you, to keep the game consistent.

/d


Darkmeer wrote:

I would agree the number of stealth checks was low, but otherwise I would say it CAN be done. Heck, if the Rogue was using the Dodge Feat on the bugbear in question, then I wouldn't have even allowed the argument, as he would HAVE to focus on the bugbear to gain the benefits of dodge.

In Pathfinder, the Dodge feat now applies generally instead of against one target.


Cartigan wrote:
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.

Upper body is covered with the horse, mostly. I'm guessing that a 7-foot tall creature would have 3'5" or more of legs, which would probably be similar to the horse itself. Thus my leg check argument above. Still the head of the horse is how much higher off the head? He'd hunch over, thus a penalty, rather than a bonus, for hiding behind the horse.

Is the first thing you think of when you're fighting the number of legs below a horse? That's my question. A PC would have to be pretty specific to get something like that from me. And I make sure my players know this.


Okugi wrote:


According to perception, you can take a perception check in response to a stimulus at any time, or take a move action to actively locate something. In the rogues case, he's engaged in melee, to take a move action to locate someone, while in combat, would give his opponent an AoO, due to the rogue focusing his attention on something other then combat.

Maybe, maybe not as it doesn't say. But an AoO doesn't prevent something from being able to be done regardless.

Liberty's Edge

Darkmeer wrote:

Mechanically nothing. That's why there's an argument. Some of us think that the mechanics should overrule the real world argument. I'm on the other side of that argument, as are a number of folks that I game with.

/d

Which is why I bring it up. I agree with your position, but we're not going to get anywhere that way. So I'm trying to look at it from the other side, see what the mechanics are, if there's something RAW in there to support us. That's what Cartigan is looking for from us, not just logic.


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.

If you're too lazy to prove you're right, what makes you think I will?


AvalonXQ wrote:
Darkmeer wrote:

I would agree the number of stealth checks was low, but otherwise I would say it CAN be done. Heck, if the Rogue was using the Dodge Feat on the bugbear in question, then I wouldn't have even allowed the argument, as he would HAVE to focus on the bugbear to gain the benefits of dodge.

In Pathfinder, the Dodge feat now applies generally instead of against one target.

Crap... Gotta revisit that then. (I've not used the feat yet). Thank you for that.

What about a full defense action? It's general, but usually provoked by a specific foe (I usually declare full defense against who I'm fighting, even though it applies everywhere RAW).


Darkmeer wrote:


Mechanically nothing. That's why there's an argument. Some of us think that the mechanics should overrule the real world argument. I'm on the other side of that argument, as are a number of folks that I game with.

My common sense says that if someone's stabbing me, I'm going to pay MUCH more attention to them than anyone else. I would apply that to a group of PC's trying to fight their way away from some bugbears.

My problem with that is that that, mechanically, leads to people being able to stealth against any in combat that they themselves are not in melee combat with.

PS. My sentence needs more "that"s

Liberty's Edge

Cartigan wrote:
Okugi wrote:


According to perception, you can take a perception check in response to a stimulus at any time, or take a move action to actively locate something. In the rogues case, he's engaged in melee, to take a move action to locate someone, while in combat, would give his opponent an AoO, due to the rogue focusing his attention on something other then combat.
Maybe, maybe not as it doesn't say. But an AoO doesn't prevent something from being able to be done regardless.

Which is why I would give the rogue a choice, take the AoO or take the -5 distraction penalty. If he takes the AoO, hell, he could take a 5 foot step, remove himself from the combat/distraction and the stupid bugbear would have been auto spotted.


Cartigan wrote:
My problem with that is that that, mechanically, leads to people being able to stealth against any in combat that they themselves are not in melee combat with.

Only if the Stealthers weren't already in the known combat to begin with, or manage to get out of sight to Stealth.

Remember that the version of the rules as I summarized only works on "unobserved" opponents.


AvalonXQ wrote:

In the bugbear situation, I would allow a character to affirmatively "keep an eye on" the distant horses by spending a move action to make an active Perception check.

What say you, Caineach -- would this automatically find the bugbear in plain sight, or would it still be an opposed Perception check?

If someone was actively looking for him, I would not consider that person distracted, and if the bugbear was still out in the open at the time I would instantly reveal his location. But I agree, this would be a move action that provokes an AoO to do.


AvalonXQ wrote:


Only if the Stealthers weren't already in the known combat to begin with, or manage to get out of sight to Stealth.
Remember that the version of the rules as I summarized only works on "unobserved" opponents.

But that's not the position being put forward. The argument being used, as a "real world" argument, is that melee combat causes those engaged in it to focus solely on each other and therefore be "distracted" against any other people they are not currently and actively engaging.

Quote:
Remember that the version of the rules as I summarized only works on "unobserved" opponents.

Then everyone is arguing at cross purposes.


I don't know that "everyone" is. Take a look at the 1 through 4 I wrote out earlier. This is the basic position, as I understand it, that Caineach and others are taking (myself included).


One way to think about Stealth is "taking your token off the table".
In a tactical situation, we care about when tokens are placed on the table, when tokens are moved, and when tokens are taken off.
The party is walking down the road; they're not currently distracted. A bugbear is in the middle of the road; the bugbear token is placed on the table as soon as the party is within range of seeing him.
Another bugbear is hiding in the concealment of the tall grass nearby; his token is placed on the table if he fails an opposed check, or if he moves into the open.
If the bugbears had Camouflage, though, even the bugbears in the middle of the road would still have to fail opposed checks before their tokens are placed on the table.
A bugbear can't take his token off the table until he moves off the road, unless he has Hide in Plain Sight.
Now, some of the bugbears enter combat with the party. The party is now distracted, and the rules change.
New creatures that move into the open at this point are not automatically put on the table; instead, there's an opposed check. Once they fail it, or make an action like an attack that negates Stealth, they're put on the table.
This is the only rule that changes. Tokens already on the table are moved as normal, and can only be taken off the table under the same rules as before -- by moving off into the grass, or having Hide in Plain Sight.


Then we are mincing rules. They are "distracted" so they can't "observe" new people entering the fray but they aren't "distracted" such that they can't "observe" people already in it? What.


Okugi wrote:
Which is why I bring it up. I agree with your position, but we're not going to get anywhere that way. So I'm trying to look at it from the other side, see what the mechanics are, if there's something RAW in there to support us. That's what Cartigan is looking for from us, not just logic.

Thank you. This is a hard one to go over RAW, even I admit to that.

Okay, this is mostly following the perception rules on P102 of the Pathfinder RPG, I'll work on stealth second.

Penalties and bonuses to Perception:
DC Modifier/Why?
RAW this is not in the PFRPG book, but it's the logic train I'm following, so bear with me, please.
-10 Hearing the sounds of Battle lowers the DC of a perception check. Would not trying to notice someone sneaking across a battle thus increase the DC by +10 to see them? Ignore this section for the rest below.

+7 to the perception DC: +1 to DC to spot someone or something per 10 feet. (70 feet away was given as an example above, so that's what I'll use, and that is RAW.).

+2 to the perception DC: Unfavorable conditions. I would consider Battle unfavorable to terrible conditions. Depending on how the battle was going for the PC's (the rogue would have terrible conditions being at 1hp from the previous attacks, while the barbarian would probably have unfavorable for being in battle).

So, DC modifiers to the Perception check to notice the Bugbear RAW: +9.

Now let's modify out the Bugbear's stealth checks.
Fast stealth. If he's a rogue, ignore this, as he could have Fast Stealth. The indication above is that he's not a rogue, so that's what I'm going on here:

-5 Penalty: moving at greater than half but not full speed.
+/- O : Bugbears are size medium.

The bugbear had found cover or concealment in the grass, giving it an overall +5 to its stealth check (10-5, racial modifiers are always included in the skills, right?). So, if the bugbear had rolled a 10 on his stealth check, for argument's sake, the base DC would have been 24 for the PC to see him if it were the barbarian, or 27 for the rogue. (-1 DC per 10 feet closer than 70 feet but this gives a good baseline). And this would happen for a minimum of 3 rounds.

That gets the bugbear TO the road by the horses. Combat is a distraction.

Now, Cover: RAW in Combat Modifiers (p 195)
"To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack "(in this case they are determining your line of sight)," choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC). "

We determined that Cover is required for a stealth check by reading ths skill description itself. Cover is enough to warrant a stealth check, even soft cover. The horse isn't helping him, but it's not penalizing him either, so, having cover according to the RAW means that the Bugbear CAN use stealth near the horses. The question I have now, is the road.

That is handled with Hide in Plain sight, or, as it is, an opposed bluff check by the other Bugbears and the PC's. I would argue a single bluff check from the sneaking bugbear to be "innocuous" (the "distraction" being combat), with a -5 penalty probably (the lie is not really believable). Then the PC's get their sense motive checks. That would be the biggest thing going on.

It's all a matter of what you call a distraction, really. I would call pitched combat with open hostiles a distraction, but the RAW doesn't support that, so a bluff check by each of the bugbears covers the distraction of combat, and would allow the stealth check that's necessary.

DC 5 (base for moving more than half speed) + 7 (distance), +2 (unfavorable conditions), add 10, then you have DC 13 at minimum for noticing the bugbear moving towards the horses.

Bluff DC -6 (-1 Cha, -5 penalty from the lie), DC 4 with an average roll. Mind you, I would say that the bugbears may be using Intimidate as a distraction, in which case the DC starts at a base of 8, and probably adds 2 becaus they say they're trying to kill the PC's (perfectly believeable). Starting DC 10 (8 + 2 bonus), average DC 20. Stealth specifically notates that creatures that are momentarily distracted (via bluff) can be stealthed against, not delineating plain sight. So, that being said, I believe hiding in plain sight is viable RAW.

There, you can do it, it just alters the combat slightly.

So, sneaky bugbear sneaks down the road, succeeding 3 stealth checks.
One stealth check while the other bugbears are "distracting" the PC's via bluff or intimidate, and he gets to the horses in one round, and uses the horses for cover as he cuts the goblin free (probably taking a -4 circumstance penalty to his stealth check). Then he sneaks away from the horses, with the other bugbears still providing that distraction above, and tries to run as the PC's run the other bugbears through.

RAW: Stealth in the grass plus bluff checks, stealth with cover, stealth plus bluff checks, stealth in the grass and dead bugbears.

Cinematic: Stealth, stealth with cover, Stealth, combat being the distraction.

Cinematic, RAW blend: Stealth through grass. Stealth plus intimidate (makes more sense to me), stealth with cover (horses), stealth plus more intimidate checks, dead bugbears, and more stealth in the grass.

That's the arguments as I see it. So, yes it CAN be done, it just required more teamwork than was shown, and that was more than likely not done in this manner at the table.
/d


Clarifying the above: Unfavorable conditions would work both ways for the Bugbears and the PC's, so all perception checks in the combat are adding a +2 to the DC.

EDIT (last one, I promise!)
The intimidates would likely garner opposed Sense Motive checks from the PC's. Outside of that, the Cinematic/RAW blend would be exactly the same as the RAW way.


Cartigan wrote:
Then we are mincing rules. They are "distracted" so they can't "observe" new people entering the fray but they aren't "distracted" such that they can't "observe" people already in it? What.

They can observe new people; the observation is just not automatic -- the person can try to use Stealth to never become observed at all.

As the rules themselves make clear, once you are being observed you usually can't use stealth. So whether or not you'd already been spotted before combat started makes a big difference.


Darkmeer wrote:


Penalties and bonuses to Perception:
DC Modifier/Why?
RAW this is not in the PFRPG book, but it's the logic train I'm following, so bear with me, please.
-10 Hearing the sounds of Battle lowers the DC of a perception check. Would not trying to notice someone sneaking across a battle thus increase the DC by +10 to see them? Ignore this section for the rest below.

If you were a bat I suppose...

Quote:
+2 to the perception DC: Unfavorable conditions. I would consider Battle unfavorable to terrible conditions. Depending on how the battle was going for the PC's (the rogue would have terrible conditions being at 1hp from the previous attacks, while the barbarian would probably have unfavorable for being in battle).

Still, very poorly defined, but I suppose a battle could be unfavorable conditions.

Quote:
That gets the bugbear TO the road by the horses.

Let's just pretend you included the "moving 70 feet to the horses" in there somewhere. Actually, I have no idea where the stupid bugbear started because I don't think he ever told us, but I will presume he was with that group of bugbears 70ft away.

Quote:
We determined that Cover is required for a stealth check by reading ths skill description itself. Cover is enough to warrant a stealth check, even soft cover.

Yeah, no.

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

Starting on a house rule in the middle of an attempted RAW defense is not the way to go.

Quote:
That is handled with Hide in Plain sight, or, as it is, an opposed bluff check by the other Bugbears and the PC's. I would argue a single bluff check from the sneaking bugbear to be "innocuous" (the "distraction" being combat),

Now we are just getting silly. How is the bugbear bluffing? Did he put a saddle on and walk out on all fours to the horses?

Quote:
It's all a matter of what you call a distraction, really. I would call pitched combat with open hostiles a distraction, but the RAW doesn't support that, so a bluff check by each of the bugbears covers the distraction of combat, and would allow the stealth check that's necessary.

Oh I see what's happening here. You are trying to cover for bad design by supplementing rules that, while being rules, don't really make much more sense than the original no RAW basis interpretation.

Avalon wrote:


They can observe new people; the observation is just not automatic -- the person can try to use Stealth to never become observed at all.

Then they don't automatically observe anyone else in combat but their direct opponent(s).

Quote:
As the rules themselves make clear, once you are being observed you usually can't use stealth.

What the rules don't make clear is what the devil "observe" means.

Quote:
So whether or not you'd already been spotted before combat started makes a big difference.

Using your logic, I disagree. Unless they don't move. If they move, you would have to "observe" where they went, but you are "distracted" by combat.


How is that using my logic?
Some creatures are observed, some aren't. Once you're observed, you stay observed until you get in a situation like cover or concealment where you can use a Stealth check to become unobserved.
That's why I used the analogy of tokens on the table. You can move the token around, but it's still on the table. Picking up the token (successfully using Steath when you're already observed) is harder than leaving the token off (successfully using Stealth when you're unobserved).
The bugbear did what he had to do -- he moved off the road so he could Stealth, THEN being unobserved, he moved back on the road. Had he not become "unobserved", he would have needed Hide in Plain Sight to do what he did.


AvalonXQ wrote:


Some creatures are observed, some aren't. Once you're observed, you stay observed until you get in a situation like cover or concealment where you can use a Stealth check to become unobserved.

And why aren't the creatures entering the fray not observed once they walk out into the open?


Cartigan wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:


Some creatures are observed, some aren't. Once you're observed, you stay observed until you get in a situation like cover or concealment where you can use a Stealth check to become unobserved.

And why aren't the creatures entering the fray not observed once they walk out into the open?

If they are not stealthing, they are automatically observed. If they are stealthing, they are intentionally doing things to not draw attention to themseleves and there is a chance (opposed steatlh check) that they may not be observed.


Caineach wrote:


If they are not stealthing, they are automatically observed. If they are stealthing, they are intentionally doing things to not draw attention to themseleves and there is a chance (opposed steatlh check) that they may not be observed.

Once you end your movement outside cover or concealment, you can no longer stealth.


Cartigan wrote:
Caineach wrote:


If they are not stealthing, they are automatically observed. If they are stealthing, they are intentionally doing things to not draw attention to themseleves and there is a chance (opposed steatlh check) that they may not be observed.
Once you end your movement outside cover or concealment, you can no longer stealth.

No, once you are observed you may no longer stealth. The only requirement in the stealth skill to use the ability is to be unobserved.


Cartigan wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:


Some creatures are observed, some aren't. Once you're observed, you stay observed until you get in a situation like cover or concealment where you can use a Stealth check to become unobserved.
And why aren't the creatures entering the fray not observed once they walk out into the open?

Because the creature is Stealthing, which is allowed if the observers are distracted by being in combat.

Again, this is the key point of disagreement: whether creatures in combat are distracted and therefore allow unobserved opponents to make Stealth checks to remain unobserved. We say yes; you say no.

1) Unobserved creatures remain unobserved until an opponent succeeds in observing them.
2) An undistracted opponent automatically observes a creature in plain sight unless that creature has Camouflage.
3) A distracted opponent must make an opposed check to observe an unobserved creature.
4) An opponent in combat is distracted.
5) An observed creature in plain sight can't use Stealth to become unobserved unless it has Hide in Plain Sight.


Cartigan wrote:
Once you end your movement outside cover or concealment, you can no longer stealth.

Well that is not supported by the RAW, but you can use any houserules you like.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Glad I didn't waste my time reading those hundred posts. I see we are have progressed no further than before.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Glad I didn't waste my time reading those hundred posts. I see we are have progressed no further than before.

Wait, progress? What is this 'progress' that you speak of?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Glad I didn't waste my time reading those hundred posts. I see we are have progressed no further than before.

Nor will we. We are, however, able to sharpen our explanation and understanding of the Stealth rules on the whetstone that is Cartigan.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
AvalonXQ wrote:
Nor will we. We are, however, able to sharpen our explanation and understanding of the Stealth rules on the whetstone that is Cartigan.

Somehow the image of scraping him against me is both amusing and disturbing.

Liberty's Edge

AvalonXQ wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Glad I didn't waste my time reading those hundred posts. I see we are have progressed no further than before.
Nor will we. We are, however, able to sharpen our explanation and understanding of the Stealth rules on the whetstone that is Cartigan.

I hope you wrapped that first. Don't know where this whetstone has been.


Cartigan wrote:
Darkmeer wrote:


Penalties and bonuses to Perception:
DC Modifier/Why?
RAW this is not in the PFRPG book, but it's the logic train I'm following, so bear with me, please.
-10 Hearing the sounds of Battle lowers the DC of a perception check. Would not trying to notice someone sneaking across a battle thus increase the DC by +10 to see them? Ignore this section for the rest below.

If you were a bat I suppose...

Quote:
+2 to the perception DC: Unfavorable conditions. I would consider Battle unfavorable to terrible conditions. Depending on how the battle was going for the PC's (the rogue would have terrible conditions being at 1hp from the previous attacks, while the barbarian would probably have unfavorable for being in battle).

Still, very poorly defined, but I suppose a battle could be unfavorable conditions.

Pitched battle for all sides here is unfavorable conditions at best for all involved.

Cartigan wrote:


Quote:
That gets the bugbear TO the road by the horses.

Let's just pretend you included the "moving 70 feet to the horses" in there somewhere. Actually, I have no idea where the stupid bugbear started because I don't think he ever told us, but I will presume he was with that group of bugbears 70ft away.

Absolutely, I did include that. The "And this would happen for a minimum of 3 rounds. " for the checks listed in the paragraph above this covers the 3 rounds getting to the side of the road.

Cartigan wrote:


Quote:
We determined that Cover is required for a stealth check by reading ths skill description itself. Cover is enough to warrant a stealth check, even soft cover.

Yeah, no.

Don't get rude. I missed something there.

Cartigan wrote:


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

Starting on a house rule in the middle of an attempted RAW defense is not the way to go.

NOT houseruling, trying for RAW.

Cartigan wrote:


Quote:
That is handled with Hide in Plain sight, or, as it is, an opposed bluff check by the other Bugbears and the PC's. I would argue a single bluff check from the sneaking bugbear to be "innocuous" (the "distraction" being combat),
Now we are just getting silly. How is the bugbear bluffing?...

The other Bugbears versus PC's providing the necessary Distraction needed for the Stealth Skill's "momentary" lack of perception. Same deal with while he's cutting the goblin for the horse then. Really the stealthy bugbear bluffing is rather silly, the other bugbears would be better distraction, thus ignoring that part of the argument.

So, clarifying how the bugbear does it as per the RAW.

Sneaky bugbear sneaks down the road, succeeding 3 stealth checks as shown above.
One stealth is made check while the other bugbears are "distracting" the PC's via bluff or intimidate, and he gets to the horses in one round
The COMBAT bugbears bluff the PC's while the other bugbear cuts the goblin free (taking two rounds, one for cutting him loose, and one for setting up the fireman's carry).
Then he sneaks away from the horses (two rounds), with the other bugbears still providing that distraction above, who are then slaughtered by the PC's.
Sneaky the bugbear then tries to stealth away as the PC's run the other bugbears through.

PC's then notice the goblin is missing. Encounter ends as listed above.

Mind you, the bluff and stealth check option has a -10 penalty to the stealth check. So, as above here are the modifiers:

PC's Perception Checks:
Base DC increased by +2 for the battle due to unfavorable conditions. Battle, regardless of your opinion, is a horrible condition for trying to spot anything.

Each 10 feet of movement the bugbear has adds +1 to the DC, so round 1 would likely be +4 DC (2 from battle, 2 from movement)

Now let's modify out the Bugbear's stealth checks.
-5 Penalty: moving at greater than half but not full speed (figuring 25 feet per round, which isn't full speed for a bugbear and the RAW states the penalty is only -5 if you don't move full speed.)
+/- O : Bugbears are size medium.

So, round one of stealth for the Bugbear moving down the road in the grass is at +5 stealth, with a bonus of +4 to the DC for the PC's to spot him. (net +9 stealth)
Round two of stealth for the bugbear moving down the road in the grass is +5 stealth, with a bonus of +7 to the DC for the PC's to spot him (he's 50 feet away, with +2 from the battle) (net +12 stealth)
Round three of stealth for the bugbear moving down the road in the grass is +5 stealt, with a bonus of +9 to the DC for the PC's to spot him (he's 70 feet away at this point, with +2 from the battle). (Net + 14 stealth)

Now, the tricky part comes in next. He stealthily goes across the road to the horses, where this comes in is the hardest part of doing this with the PC's likely noticing this, but for argument's sake.

The bugbears who are fighting the PC's know the plan, and begin to bluff the PC's. Their true intent was to free the goblin, so they're lying and saying they're going to eat the PC's over an open fire tonight. (believable bluff). This gives them a -1 overall penalty to their bluff skill. Average DC: 9. Each round of them trying to get the PC's to focus on them, the PC's are gaining another advantage from this.

The stealthy bugbear, while they are doing this is at a horrendous penalty to his stealth. He's +5 for the crossing of the road, +9 from the DC modifiers, and -10 to the DC (net +4 stealth) to get to the horses.
Then while doing the cutting down (2 rounds), he is at +10 (base) +9 modifiers, with -10 to the DC (net +9 stealth).
Then he sneaks off of the battlefield, again at the same net +4 stealth checks while he heads to the grass, although he's likely carrying a medium load at this point, bringing his speed down to 15 feet stealthing with only the -5 penalty, and he takes an additional -3 penalty for his stealth (net +1 to get off the road, probably taking 2 more rounds, we're at 5 rounds at the horses).

Once back in the grass, and moving at HALF speed to keep his penalties down, he's at a net +14 (+10 base, +7 for distance, -3 penalty for the encumberance).

Now, once in the grass, the stealthy bugbear, realizing he's outnumbered and outclassed on every level, drops the goblin and surrenders. Encounter ends as above.

Does that work for you? Sneaky isn't bluffing the PC's he's trying to keep the PC's distracted with the other bugbears, who are assisting with this.

/d

Edit: Added Net Stealth to the first section of stealth checks.


calvinNhobbes wrote:
{snip} If your position is unclear then it means you are a very poor communicator, not surprising given your predilication for using sarcasm and insults.

Dammit, blew my Will save...

The word is 'predilection' not 'predilication'. Normally, I'm not a grammar nazi... but when you make a high-handed attempt to claim someone else is a poor communicator and then botch a key word... well, I couldn't resist it.

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

I'm not sure if you are trying to be funny or not. But, on the off chance this was a serious response, I'll point out 3 things:

1) Having a perceived or actual 'majority' - in any subject - doesn't make anyone 'right'. The Geocentrists were not correct when they told Copernicus his Heliocentric model of the universe was wrong, despite their vast majority.
2) Cartigan doesn't seem to need any help holding his own, despite your 'majority'.
3) Cartigan is not alone in his 'more strict' interpretation of the rules regarding stealth. While I don't squarely fall into his camp, my adjudication of the rules would be closer to his version of stealth than to any of the others sides presented.

Cartigan - my apologies if I've offended by calling your view 'more strict', I simply couldn't think of another phrase that broadly outlined the differences without being inflammatory to someone.


Caineach wrote:


No, once you are observed you may no longer stealth. The only requirement in the stealth skill to use the ability is to be unobserved.

And what I was getting at, what is the condition for observed.


stormraven wrote:
The word is 'predilection' not 'predilication'.

Eh, normally I spell check, but I knew he wouldn't bother to read it anyway, I was actually trying to spell it 'prediliction' not sure how the 'a' got in there. But the fact is you knew exactly what I meant, spelling error or not. Therefore I actually communicated effectively despite your statement to the contrary.

Quote:
I'm not sure if you are trying to be funny or not.

Of course I was; I was merely giving Cartigan a taste of his own medicine. He didn't seem to care who he was arguing against or what their stance was, or that he lumped people together he shouldn't. It was merely an attempt to make him actually think about who he thought he was arguing against and why.

Quote:
1) Having a perceived or actual 'majority' - in any subject - doesn't make anyone 'right'. The Geocentrists were not correct when they told Copernicus his Heliocentric model of the universe was wrong, despite their vast majority.

Uhhhh, duh?

Quote:
2) Cartigan doesn't seem to need any help holding his own, despite your 'majority'.

Stubbornly repeating your position over and over again without providing any proof is not "holding your own" in a debate.

Quote:
3) Cartigan is not alone in his 'more strict' interpretation of the rules regarding stealth. While I don't squarely fall into his camp, my adjudication of the rules would be closer to his version of stealth than to any of the others sides presented.

But that is exactly the point. Cartigan beleives there is ONLY one way to interpret the stealth rules. The rest of us, say otherwise. Cartigan's interpretation is fine and dandy, but no more RAW than mine.


AvalonXQ wrote:


Because the creature is Stealthing, which is allowed if the observers are distracted by being in combat.

Then why aren't the 'observers' distracted by combat against any creatures they themselves are not in combat with?

Quote:
Again, this is the key point of disagreement: whether creatures in combat are distracted and therefore allow unobserved opponents to make Stealth checks to remain unobserved. We say yes; you say no.

I say not only because the RAW is unclear but because your position seems inconsistent.

Quote:
1) Unobserved creatures remain unobserved until an opponent succeeds in observing them.

What is the defined condition for "observed" or "unobserved"

Quote:


3) A distracted opponent must make an opposed check to observe an unobserved creature.
4) An opponent in combat is distracted.

OK, if I accept an opponent in combat is distracted, then any creature that opponent is not in direct combat against is "unobserved." You are making up an inconsistent scenario. An unobserved creature may stay unobserved because the opponent is distracted by combat. That is your argument. Therefore, an opponent distracted does not observe creature that are not distracting it, such as creatures it is not directly in combat with. Thusly, any creature it is not in combat with, regardless of whether or not it was previously observed, becomes unobserved by the in combat creatures. That means that a creature that was previously observed may stealth against any creature that is not in combat against it. That is using your logic in a consistent and "realistic" manner.


stormraven wrote:


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

I'm not sure if you are trying to be funny or not. But, on the off chance this was a serious response, I'll point out 3 things:

1) Having a perceived or actual 'majority' - in any subject - doesn't make anyone 'right'. The Geocentrists were not correct when they told Copernicus his Heliocentric model of the universe was wrong, despite their vast majority.
2) Cartigan doesn't seem to need any help holding his own, despite your 'majority'.
3) Cartigan is not alone in his 'more strict' interpretation of the rules regarding stealth. While I don't squarely fall into his camp, my adjudication of the rules would be closer to his version of stealth than to any of the others sides presented.

Cartigan - my apologies if I've offended by calling your view 'more strict', I simply couldn't think of another phrase that broadly outlined the differences without being inflammatory to someone.

Raven, can you provide any rules that disprove our interpretations as valid ones? The only things I have found so far are GM arbitrations on distraction, and therefore leave the issue squarely up for debate. As long as a GM acts consistently, I don't see a problem with it any way, but feel my interpretation allows for people to do things that they are able to do in real life, while Cartigan's strict interpretation prevents me from doing things I personally have done before.


Cartigan wrote:
Thusly, any creature it is not in combat with, regardless of whether or not it was previously observed, becomes unobserved by the in combat creatures.

This is incorrect. Once you're observed, you cannot become unobserved without Hide in Plain Sight, cover, or concealment. That doesn't mean that you suddenly and automatically become observed any time you lose those assets.

It is easier to stay hidden than it is to become hidden.
If you accept that (and we do), then there is no inconsistency in allowing an unobserved character to continue to Stealth to remain unobserved even where an observed character would not be allowed to do so without a high-level ability.
Again, using the analogy, there are fewer conditions where a token is picked up from the table or placed on the table than conditions where the token stays on or off the table.


Cartigan wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:


Because the creature is Stealthing, which is allowed if the observers are distracted by being in combat.

Then why aren't the 'observers' distracted by combat against any creatures they themselves are not in combat with?

Quote:
Again, this is the key point of disagreement: whether creatures in combat are distracted and therefore allow unobserved opponents to make Stealth checks to remain unobserved. We say yes; you say no.

I say not only because the RAW is unclear but because your position seems inconsistent.

Quote:
1) Unobserved creatures remain unobserved until an opponent succeeds in observing them.

What is the defined condition for "observed" or "unobserved"

Quote:


3) A distracted opponent must make an opposed check to observe an unobserved creature.
4) An opponent in combat is distracted.
OK, if I accept an opponent in combat is distracted, then any creature that opponent is not in direct combat against is "unobserved." You are making up an inconsistent scenario. An unobserved creature may stay unobserved because the opponent is distracted by combat. That is your argument. Therefore, an opponent distracted does not observe creature that are not distracting it, such as creatures it is not directly in combat with. Thusly, any creature it is not in combat with, regardless of whether or not it was previously observed, becomes unobserved by the in combat creatures. That means that a creature that was previously observed may stealth against any creature that is not in combat against it. That is using your logic in a consistent and "realistic" manner.
Quote:

) A distracted opponent must make an opposed check to observe an unobserved creature.

A distracted opponent does not need to make a check to observe an observed creature. Only an unobserved one. We have never made any arguement that an observed creature can become unobserved except by actively taking a stealth action. Please stop making stuff up. Just because you are distracted does not mean they instantly become unobserved.


Cartigan wrote:
Thusly, any creature it is not in combat with, regardless of whether or not it was previously observed, becomes unobserved by the in combat creatures.

No

Quote:
That means that a creature that was previously observed may stealth against any creature that is not in combat against it.

No


Cartigan wrote:
And what I was getting at, what is the condition for observed.

If you are aware of a threat and it's location, then you are observing it. If you are not aware of it and it's location, then it is unobserved.


AvalonXQ wrote:


This is incorrect. Once you're observed, you cannot become unobserved without Hide in Plain Sight, cover, or concealment.

Or distraction. Which you are arguing is keeping the unobserved people from being observed by the combatants.

Quote:
That doesn't mean that you suddenly and automatically become observed any time you lose those assets.

So everyone automatically has the 12th level Ranger ability Camouflage?


Cartigan wrote:
Or distraction.

Wrong.

Quote:
So everyone automatically has the 12th level Ranger ability Camouflage?

No


Caineach wrote:


A distracted opponent does not need to make a check to observe an observed creature. Only an unobserved one.

Then Feinting to hide doesn't work.

Also, I'm not even bothering to respond to you for a reason, calvinNHobbes


Cartigan wrote:
Also, I'm not even bothering to respond to you for a reason, calvinNHobbes

Your total surrender it noted.

I, however, will continue to correct your mistakes.

Quote:
Then Feinting to hide doesn't work.

Wrong.


Cartigan wrote:
Caineach wrote:


A distracted opponent does not need to make a check to observe an observed creature. Only an unobserved one.

Then Feinting to hide doesn't work.

Also, I'm not even bothering to respond to you for a reason, calvinNHobbes

No, you use the bluff to become temporarily unobserved so that you can make the stealth check. If your stealth check succeeds, you are now unobserved while you move to a place you can stay unobserved


Cartigan wrote:
So everyone automatically has the 12th level Ranger ability Camouflage?

No. As I have explained about five times now, Camouflage would allow you to do it even if observers were not distracted by combat.

351 to 400 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