Let's talk about Stealth and Perception


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 161 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
DM_Blake wrote:
Caineach wrote:
As for getting sneak attack while stealthed, the closest I can find to a rule on it would be in the combat section under suprize, right after initiative, where it says unaware opponents are flat footed, and you can be aware of some opponents and not others, but that is a real stretch.

I agree, this is definitely a very gray area in the rules. Without assigning some way for Sneak Attack from Stealth, then a rogue is required to find flanking or invisibility, or only use Sneak Attack when he wins initiative (usually too far away to get much use of it).

Consider this:
Before combat: Party finds a troll, rogue sneaks around to the other side of the troll's camp using Stealth successfully.
Round 1: Fighter charges the troll. Troll fights back and uses a 5' step to keep the fighter at "Reach". Rogue uses Stealth successfully to sneak up behind the troll. But now he cannot Sneak Attack because the troll is not Flatfooted and the there is no Flanking.

In that scenario, the completely hidden Stealthy rogue cannot Sneak Attack, but logic says, at least to me, that he should be able to.

Hence the notion that Stealth affords the same privileges as Invisibility with regards to denying DEX bonus to AC which, as I've demonstrated (my original post, "Sneak Attacks and Stealth", is well supported by RAW even though it is not explicitly stated.

Yes, I agree. I believe that they should be considered an unaware opponent, and thus be flat footted to you.


DM_Blake wrote:
Sniping was designed for what we have seen in every Cops-and-Robbers movie, or Cowboys-and-Indians, or every John Wayne movie ever made. People around a corner or behind a rock or behind a car or inside a doorway (off to the side). They "pop out" or "Pop up" and fire off a shot, then "duck back" to hide again. Over and over, until they kill the bad guys or get killed themselves.

Really? That is not how I've thought of sniping. What you describe is how I always described the simply use of cover.

For me, the sniping rules imply something like a guy up in a bell tower with a rifle. If you make the roll, no body has any clue where you are.


Caineach wrote:
DM Blake, I also contend with many of your points. Especially those concerning when you are observed. I contend that you are not observed until someone actively succeeds a perception check against you, and therefore you can make a stealth check out in the open when dashing from cover to cover.

That's fair, and I appreciate the contention. It is not my belief that I am aboslutely correct, and differing viewpoints are entirely welcome.

I do, however, find your first point to be very hard to reconcile with all the rules taken collectively.

For example, if you and I are standing on a flat open road, 10' apart, the DC for me to spot you is 0. It says so in the Perceptions rules ("Spot a visible creature: 0"). It does not say "Spot a visible creature: 0 or opposed Stealth roll".

At the same time, Stealth says you cannot use Stealth if you are being observed.

We cannot put the cart ahead of the horse and allow you to attempt a Stealth check (that you cannot attempt) to find out if I observe you, and then if I don't, then you can use Stealth to hide from me. So we must resolve whether I observe you before we resolve your Stealth check.

Now, we could propose that I have to make a Perception check to see you standing there against DC 0 (not opposed by Stealth). But then I have to make the same Perception check to see every monster in every battle, and I have to make that check every round (hey, some of them might try sneaky stuff so we need to know if I can see them). Does any DM do that?

What about Perception checks when I am in the blacksmith shop. How many of his wares for sale there on his weapon rack can I see, and how many are hidden from me due to a failed Perception check?

Going too far? Obviously. All of it is going too far; nobody would do any of that. And by any of that, I also mean the first part of it: rolling a Perception check to determine whether I see you standing 10' in front of me. Or 20'. Or 30'. Where do we draw the line? What's "going too far" and what isn't?

My point is, making a Perception check to determine whether I see obvious things right in front of me is extremely unnecessary. And if we open that floodgate, then we might have to open it all the way and roll Perception checks for every obvious thing. I prefer to leave the floodgate tightly shut. I allow my players (and the NPCs and monsters too) to see the obvious stuff right in front of them without having to roll anything.

So, if standing in front of me doesn't require a Perception check, then what about "dashing from cover to cover"?

I go back to the rule that you cannot use Stealth while observed; you need Cover or Concealment. Once you leave your Cover, then you are right there in front of me again. One you gain the new Cover, you have Cover and can try to Stealth - behind that cover but not before you reach it.

In between, while you are right out in the open, right there in front of me, you are not stealthed. You're merely moving fast.

Should I have a chance that I fail to see you there in front of me, moving fast from cover to cover? Maybe. That's a gray area that isn't covered by RAW at all. But what is evident is that you're not using Stealth there in front of me, in the open area, because the Stealth rules say you cannot do that, so my Perception DC, if there is one, would be 0 to "see a visible creature". Sure, distractions or poor conditions could make that harder. Either way, you're not stealthed while you're between the two Covers.

Caineach wrote:
I also disagree on your interpretation of distractions. I believe that anything the GM wants to define as a distraction can be used to make a stealth check at -10.

Actually at -5, but you're right. It's up to the DM to decide what constitutes a distraction. You and I agree on this point.

Caineach wrote:
I think that the +5DC for perception checks and the word used in stealth are the same thing. If loud music is playing and people are watching, you can make a stealth check to move through the room without cover. If 2 guards are busy playing cards, you can make a stealth check to go past them. If 2 people are fighting and you want ot quietly slink away, you can.

If any of your points here are true, then why do we have Bluff checks to create diversions?

If you are right that loud music impairs my vision enough that you can sneak past me in the same room without Cover, then we have violated some serious RAW here where it explicitly states you need Cover or Concealment to use Stealth.

Do you think that a card-playing gaurd in front of his boss's treasure vault door will let a big old 6' tall rogue sneak past him in a well-lit hallway just because he's holding a full house?

If two people are fighting and a third person walks up right in the open and starts swinging away at them, those guys are not impaired in any way. No surprises, no AoOs, no Sneak Attacks, nothing. They seem the new arrival and are in no way penalized against him. If that same third guy walks away, they see that too. So why is a rogue able to Stealth away when the rules clearly say he first needs Cover or Concealment to use Stealth?

We do have Bluff checks to "create a diversion to hide". That's in the RAW. Note that the RAW says "diversion" not "distraction" and that it requires a Bluff check to achieve. It uses the word "diversion" in the title of the rule and in the text of the rule.

Pathfinder SRD, Stealth, 'Creating a diversion to hide' wrote:

Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you. /QUOTE]

This is very much different than the Perception rules that say "distraction" causes a -5 penalty on Perception checks.

Yes, I know the Stealth RAW says "If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth." I discussed this extensively in my original post under "Distraction and Diversion" and I still believe the author accidentally used the wrong word in this sentence given that:
1. The rest of the Stealth rule uses the word "diversion".
2. "Distraction" means something else in the Perception rules and it's bad game design to use the same word for two things.

Both of those things, taken together, lead me to my belief that you need a diversion to attempt stealth, not merely a distraction.

Caineach wrote:
I think these things are beneficial to the game, and that this interpretation allows you to do things that you can in real life. I believe that yours prevents that.

I do too.

But when I think of those things you mentioned, and look for cinematic examples, I think of numerous examples where the sneaky guy throws a rock off into the darkenss so the guards turn and look toward the noise, or where the sneaky guy slaps a horse on the butt so it runs through the camp and the guards are busy for a moment dealing with that, or the sneaky guy makes a funny bird noise so the guards come invistigate while the sneaky guy circles around them.

Or a million other ways the sneaky guy creates a diversion before walking/sneaking directly into plain sight of the people he is trying to sneak past.

And if the sneaky guy doesn't create his own diversion, then something else creates a real diversion (not a mere distraction), like shouting in the street outside, or a bomb going off, or a scantily clad lady walking into camp, etc.

In my mind, all are diversions, not just distractions.

Liberty's Edge

Under perception, it lists when you can take a perception check:

Most perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stumulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.

I propose that one check to see if someone is distracted is to see if they can do the second half of that.

This mainly applies to when a stealthed person ends his turn not under concealment or cover, when trying to determine if he is under observation. Can the observer make a move action to see him? If so, then you are now in an observable place, kiss stealth good bye. If the observer cannot take a move action to see you, for whatever reason, then the rules of distraction apply.


Brodiggan Gale wrote:
Caineach wrote:
DM Blake, I also contend with many of your points. Especially those concerning when you are observed. I contend that you are not observed until someone actively succeeds a perception check against you, and therefore you can make a stealth check out in the open when dashing from cover to cover.

I'm siding with Caineach on this one. Really though, this is the big irreducible point of contention that almost all the stealth discussions come down to, "When is a creature/foe observing you? What is the definition of 'observe'? etc."

At my table I'd rule that the section in Stealth that talks about needing Cover and Concealment only applies while you are already being observed, not generally. If your foes are unaware of your presence, you should be able to move quickly from cover to cover and maintain stealth, albeit, probably at a penalty.

I completely agree. You and I are seeing things pretty much the same way, though we may differ on how we see the actual Perception checks.

You said "maintain stealth, albeit, probably at a penalty". Fortunately, the RAW already gives us that exact penalty. The penalty is that when you leave your Cover and sneak out into your opponents' field of vision, you now count as a "visible creature". Not that this doesn't automatically mean a "seen creature", it simply means you are visible, which means able to be seen.

So roll those Perception checks, but remember, the Perception rules state the DC to "see a visible creature" is 0. Adjust for distance and other conditions and make the checks. Which is exactly what I said in my original post.

If you're not spotted, then you reach your new Cover and make a new Stealth check to hide there. If you are spotted, you still reach your new Cover and make a Stealth check to hide there. In the first case, your opponents won't know where you went. In the second case, they will know where you went even though they might not see you now (if you made your Stealth check).

Either way, you move from cover to cover, just as you described.

If you can do that without ever stepping out in the open, you could sneak forever without being seen, and you'll always get normal Stealth rolls to keep yourself hidden. But if you're going to step out into plain sight, you become a visible creature and your DC becomes remarkly easy for their Perception rolls.

Shadow Lodge

DM_Blake wrote:
0gre wrote:

So some other odd effects of sneak attack from sniping/ spring attack.

The fighter gets sniped from over in the bushes. "I ready an action to shoot anyone who sticks their head up over there."

The rogue is clearly visible when he pops out to snipe, does the fighter get to shoot him or is he still under stealth? If he's not under stealth while then does he get to sneak attack when sniping? How does it make sense that the fighter can use a readied action to shoot someone but is flat footed against his attack?

Is there a special exception for when you are particularly alert for a recently de-stealthed enemy so you can ready an action? This seems counter to the distraction rules which seem to assume that you are alert unless distracted.

This is a good example of a collision of the rules. Sniping is designed to give a single ranged attack from Stealth, and Ready Action is designed to interrupt anything and change the order of combat turns. Logically, it's unrealistic to explain how a guy can shoot a sniper and then still be unprepared for the sniper's attack.

See I don't see a collision at all. The sniper exposes himself to shoot, the ready fighter shoots at him, the sniper shoots back. The sniper isn't under stealth when he takes the shot either normally or when the fighter has a readied action. He probably gains the benefit of cover though.

The problem only comes in to play when you introduce the assumed rule that you can maintain stealth in plain sight.

My feeling on this is that you have some pre-conceived ideas about how you think this works and all your long explanations and workarounds are to make the rules bend to fit the way you've used the rules in the past. The fact that you have to make encyclopedic posts to explain how some fairly simple rules works makes me less inclined to change my point of view.

Maybe I'm making the rules fit my preconceived notions about how I think they should play... the difference is there is a whole lot less encyclopedic posts that have to go into it.


Good summary of issues regarding this poorly worded part of the 3.5/PF rules.

A few observations:

You can fire an arrow from behind cover with no penalty and still remain behind cover. Why would you leave cover/concealment to snipe?

Visualize a real sniper. They're almost perfectly still before and after their shot is fired. They typically don't move at all. They still maintain cover/concealment after their shot is fired.

* * *

PRD wrote:
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth.

The "such as" doesn't necessarily imply that this is the only method to create a distraction. A group of adventurers all looking at a new piece of treasure would count as distracted for a moment. In this case, it is up to the GM to determine what counts as a distraction. The -10 penalty balances things out.

Oh, and this part:

PRD wrote:
This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.

This isn't referencing the penalty for moving greater than half speed on your movement while using stealth. These are two independent penalties. Just because you're moving fast doesn't necessarily mean you are covering more squares. A fast hiding job could involve great skill at making yourself unseen very quickly ("move fast" to hide). Moving a full movement while stealthed (30 ft. for humans typically) plus hiding during a distraction would be a -15 penalty on the stealth check.

Shadow Lodge

coldkilla wrote:
0gre wrote:

The fighter gets sniped from over in the bushes. "I ready an action to shoot anyone who sticks their head up over there."

If the sniper won the opposed Stealth vs. Perception check after the shot, then the fighter has no idea where the shot came from. Unrealistic perhaps, but it fits the game mechanic. If the sniper lost the opposed check to re-Stealth (very likely given the -20 penalty), the fighter would know where the shot came from.

So I'd rule he can't ready an action against something he can't see and when he doesn't even know from which direction the threat is coming.

When you combine "Unrealistic" with things which are not explicit or even implied in the rules then I don't see any reason why you would include it in your game. I tend to assume realism unless the rules say otherwise. In this case realism and rules are in sync and there is no need to bend either.

Quote:
I don't understand the assumption that the sniper has to move or "pop out" to take the shot. Dim lighting (which provides concealment of the 20% miss chance variety) allows you to Stealth, so that's no problem -- there's no actual obstruction.

I have no problem with using stealth to sneak attack from dim light or darkness (though you can't get sneak attack if your target has concealment so dim light only helps if you have low-light or dark and the target does not). It's when you use it from behind hard cover that I take issue. Basically visible in plain sight then you don't get the benefits of stealth (unless there is some kind of serious distraction or feint).

Liberty's Edge

Really, shouldn't this just be run as follows?:

Rogue: I want to Stealthily move from this tree to that one 15' away.

DM: When you move into the creature's line of sight, it's going to have a very good chance (modified by conditions) to see what you're doing. You'll then be able to try to hide again once you get behind the second tree. Do you want to go ahead with that action?

Rogue: Sure. (Moves his mini)

DM: (rolls a 15 Perception) You notice the monster's head swivel as you run to the second tree.

Rogue: (rolls a 35 Stealth)

DM: (rolls a 23 Perception) The beast sniffs the air loudly, and then turn his attention back to the screaming barbarian in from of you. He's clearly lost track of you.

Eh? Eh?


drsparnum wrote:
Great job Blake on bringing this all together...a few comments.

Thanks!

Judging by this thread, I've already made a couple edits for version two. I appreciate everyone's feedback.

drsparnum wrote:
1. Sniping: I agree with Coldkilla, there is no need to "pop out" when sniping in a tree with a 5 ft step or move action.

I agree. We don't even need sniping rules for cases like this. I should have been more clear on that in my initial post, and I have commented elsewhere in this thread on how this should work - no Sniping needed.

Sniping is only for the cases when you don't have line of sight to your target.

drsparnum wrote:
For example, if an archer shoots from around a hard corner in a dungeon, the archer can pick ANY corner of his square to begin his shot from when tracing to opposite corners of his opponents square (this is easier to visualize in a diagram). The target doesn't even receive a cover bonus to AC if the archer is standing just around the corner. Picture an archer in a tree that fills the archer's square. The archer can select a corner of his square closest to his opponents square and not grant his target a cover bonus to AC, without moving.

You're close, but missing a couple points.

Yes, an archer around the corner of a dungeon hallway can achieve LOS by picking any corner of his space and tracing a line to any corener of his target's space. In that situation, he doesn't have to pop out because he would be able to trace such a line. No sniping needed.

But his target will still have Cover because Cover exists if ANY corner, not just the favorable one, can trace a line to ANY corner and passes through the wall. There are 16 lines you can trace (4 lines from each corner to each corner). Clearly, there is at least one line you can trace from the archer's space to the target's space that passes through the wall, and all you need is one of those 16 lines and the target gets cover.

Not the point of the thread, but I thought you should know...

drsparnum wrote:
2. In 3.x I vaguely recall rules that let a target move between two hiding spots, if the spots were spaced a number of feet apart <= the stealthy guy's ranks in hide. Am I making that up? Is that gone in Pathfinder, Blake? I assume if it was still in, you would have found it in your comprehensive review.

I don't remember that rule, and in any case, no such rule exists in Pathfinder that I know of. Such a rule would completely eliminate the need for Bluff rolls to create a diversion.

drsparnum wrote:
3. I also agree with Coldkilla the default assumption should not necessarily be observed. This really needs to be adjudicated by the DM on a case-by-case basis. For example, in the 2nd round+ of a combat, when none of the combatants are making an effort to hide, I think it is fair to assume everyone sees everyone, to avoid a bunch of stealth and perception checks.

Exept if the rogue spends the first round or two sneaking into position for that awe-inspiring lethal shot at the enemy leader. Since that guy is no longer Flatfooted, any assumption that everyone sees everyone gets problematic, and the rogue may have no recourse for any kind of Sneak Attack.

drsparnum wrote:

But on the first round/surprise round of a combat that doesn't begin with an obvious event* I think it is fair to have everyone roll stealth and perception checks. I'm generally of the opinion that DMs don't give players the option to surprise monsters enough, and that surprise rounds where a portion of both sides act increase the excitement of the game and let players who upped their stealth and perception skills feel good about themselves.

*An obvious event could be a door opening. In this case the party is obviously on guard when they open the door, and all the bad guys are going to look at the just opened...

I completely agree. I love surprise rounds and do exactly what you describe all the time. Fully supported by RAW and a very fun part of the game.

Interestingly enough, we don't need Stealth rules to provide Sneak Attacks in these situations though, because the Flatfooted rules will work just as well.


calvinNhobbes wrote:
If the sniper does not have LOS from the square they are in, then they cannot attack.

I completely agree. This is supported by RAW:

Pathfinder SRD, Cover wrote:
Total Cover: If you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover.

and

Pathfinder SRD, Concealment wrote:
Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies.

So it seems we agree.

calvinNhobbes wrote:
In your example, I would not allow the attack to even happen, sniping or otherwise.

Now here's where we don't agree, because RAW gives us the Sniping rule. What in the world do we need that rule for if not for exactly this situation?


DM_Blake wrote:
lots of stuff in response to me

So, if I am not attempting to stealth and am in front of you, you see me without a perception check.

For my entire argument, I assume that distracted is not an accident and is intentional wording. I also assume that the GM can define distracted however he sees fit, though it should be applied consistently.

If I am attempting to stealth, and move out from behind cover, you do not automatically see me if you are distracted, as that also allows stealth checks. You get a perception check. If you fail this perception check, I can continue to stealth. While I am visible, my stealth check is at -10. You get a new check every round to attempt to see me. This can easily be explained from a non-mechanics standpoint of me running behind you while your back is turned. While D&D does not have facing, it does have perception. A failed check can be explained in many ways, including you not looking at me while I move. I contend that you can only do this past distracted opponents, otherwise they notice you immediately. So I contend that if you are distracted, I can in fact stealth right past your character, but this does not have to be "right in front of your face". This makes sense to me, since I have done it to many people in real life, and the rules should support things that can be done in real life IMO.

As for why there is bluff. 1. I am fighting an opponent and want to retreat. His attention is focused on me, he is not distracted. I can attempt a bluff check to make him distracted and then stealth away. This actually seems better than tumble in some regards to me, as once I stealth he cannot take an AoO, as he is flat footted (if we use the people you use stealth against are unaware of you)

As for my assertion that people paying attention to a performance (not the same as just loud music, they have to actually be listening and watching it) allows a stealth check, I will point to the part where it says you usually must have cover or concealment. It does not say you always must have them. The rules also allow you to stealth past distracted opponents, and I believe this is intentional.

As for the guy being able to stealth away after attacking, that is not what I said. I said if 2 people are fighting, and a 3rd wants to sneak away. In my example, I meant for the 3rd to not be a combatant. If the person is not a combatant, and is obviously not a combatant, I contend that unless they have a reason otherwise, the 2 people would not be paying him much attention. Likewise, if the 2 people started arguing, I would allow it as well. This is a classic scene in many films, and also something I have done before. The 2 people get done arguing and wonder where the 3rd person went, since they may have saw, but did not take note, of him going. Now, I have a problem with using a bluff check to do this because that implicitly implies that you are somehow acting to do something other than just quietly walking away.


Caineach wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Sniper suicide
A. 13-20 = -7. The fighter gets a significant bonus in this case to spot the rogue. Unless you rogue somehow has a +33 bonus when the fighter has a +5.

According to RAW, the -20 is to "return to cover", not to remain hidden while firing the shot or to avoid being seen before firing the shot. RAW has us only applying the -20 after the shot has been fired and the sniper is returning to cover.

Caineach wrote:
B. why should you be able to ready an action to shoot someone you never saw and get the shot? I ready actions for things that do not happen all the time. I miss a turn, big deal.

You wouldn't.

If that sniper is succesfully stealthed, there is no way to ready againt his first shot but after that arrow thumps you in the chest, you certainly can ready against his next shot. A simple "I ready my bow to shoot anyone who tries to shoot me" or any similar wording should suffice.


Caineach wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Hence the move-shoot-move scenario.
But with sniping, you fire from your location. You don't move at all. You "pop out" from behind cover that does not block LOS and then restealth. There is nothing in the sniping description that implies you move at all. What you are describing with cops & robers or cowboys is using your move action to stealth normally. The opponent figures out where you are firing from, but cannot see you currently. Sniping is for when you never reveal your location to the enemy, and they have no idea where the shot came from. You "maintain your obscured location," so they never notice you.

But in your example, you don't even need Sniping. You can do that with no special rule. You have Cover or Concealment, you have Line of Sight/Effect, so take your shot as a Standard action. After the shot, use your Move action to enter Stealth since you still have Cover or Concealment.

No problem. And you definitely don't need Sniping to do it, and you definitely don't need any -20 penalty to the Stealth Check since there is no -20 penalty for entering Stealth.

So don't Snipe in your example; it would only penalize you for no reason.

Sniping is for when you do NOT have Line of Sight/Effect. That's when you need it, and that's when it lets you do something that is not supported by the ordinary RAW of combat actions. That's why the author added the Sniping rule - to include something you should be able to do but is not supported by RAW without this rule.


DM_Blake wrote:


calvinNhobbes wrote:
In your example, I would not allow the attack to even happen, sniping or otherwise.
Now here's where we don't agree, because RAW gives us the Sniping rule. What in the world do we need that rule for if not for exactly this situation?

DM Blake, I have said it a couple times. I think that sniping allows you to never reveal your location, while just shooting and restealthing reveals your location when you shot. That is a huge advantage in some cases, like when they have readied actions or guys with AoEs, or you just don't want them to know your general location. I do not think I would allow you to fire through solid cover like a tree, where you normally have no LoS.


DM_Blake wrote:
Caineach wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Sniper suicide
A. 13-20 = -7. The fighter gets a significant bonus in this case to spot the rogue. Unless you rogue somehow has a +33 bonus when the fighter has a +5.

According to RAW, the -20 is to "return to cover", not to remain hidden while firing the shot or to avoid being seen before firing the shot. RAW has us only applying the -20 after the shot has been fired and the sniper is returning to cover.

Caineach wrote:
B. why should you be able to ready an action to shoot someone you never saw and get the shot? I ready actions for things that do not happen all the time. I miss a turn, big deal.

You wouldn't.

If that sniper is succesfully stealthed, there is no way to ready againt his first shot but after that arrow thumps you in the chest, you certainly can ready against his next shot. A simple "I ready my bow to shoot anyone who tries to shoot me" or any similar wording should suffice.

Yes, but my point is that if you are sniping, the person never sees you attempt to shoot them, but if you are not sniping and just using stealth they would catch a glimpse of you, be able to fire, and then would lose sight of you again. I believe the stealth check is made simultaneously with the attack. Normally, you are revealed when you are attacking. This would make it so you never get revealed.


DM_Blake wrote:
That's why the author added the Sniping rule - to include something you should be able to do but is not supported by RAW without this rule.

I really don't understand why you should be able to shoot through things like solid walls, when you have no LoS or LoE.


I'm quite interested in your interpretation of things here - particularly the intent behind sniping. I'm a little concerned, however, that you seem to have an incorrect view of how cover works.

DM_Blake wrote:

Yes, an archer around the corner of a dungeon hallway can achieve LOS by picking any corner of his space and tracing a line to any corener of his target's space. In that situation, he doesn't have to pop out because he would be able to trace such a line. No sniping needed.

But his target will still have Cover because Cover exists if ANY corner, not just the favorable one, can trace a line to ANY corner and passes through the wall. There are 16 lines you can trace (4 lines from each corner to each corner). Clearly, there is at least one line you can trace from the archer's space to the target's space that passes through the wall, and all you need is one of those 16 lines and the target gets cover.

Cover wrote:


To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, 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).

It would seem that you need to only consider the four lines which originate from the attackers corner (chosen by that attacker).

Shadow Lodge

Jeremiziah wrote:

Really, shouldn't this just be run as follows?:

Rogue: I want to Stealthily move from this tree to that one 15' away.

DM: When you move into the creature's line of sight, it's going to have a very good chance (modified by conditions) to see what you're doing. You'll then be able to try to hide again once you get behind the second tree. Do you want to go ahead with that action?

Rogue: Sure. (Moves his mini)

DM: (rolls a 15 Perception) You notice the monster's head swivel as you run to the second tree.

Rogue: (rolls a 35 Stealth)

DM: (rolls a 23 Perception) The beast sniffs the air loudly, and then turn his attention back to the screaming barbarian in from of you. He's clearly lost track of you.

Eh? Eh?

Yes, As the GM you use your judgment on whether it's appropriate and what the penalties should be. Some folks don't like this because it gives the GM too much arbitrary authority.

Liberty's Edge

0gre wrote:

The problem only comes in to play when you introduce the assumed rule that you can maintain stealth in plain sight.

My feeling on this is that you have some pre-conceived ideas about how you think this works and all your long explanations and workarounds are to make the rules bend to fit the way you've used the rules in the past. The fact that you have to make encyclopedic posts to explain how some fairly simple rules works makes me less inclined to change my point of view.

Ogre, with all due respect, you're way off-base with this. Blake is trying to initiate a discussion engineered to clarify some rules that are almost (note! almost) universally agreed to be too vague to be functional. The personal attack in that last paragraph is unwarranted and completely unnecessary, if I may say so as a non-RPG Superstar top 16 candidate or whatever. The books attempt to explain Stealth and how it relates to Sneak Attack in about three paragraphs, and it ends up being unclear and nonfunctional for most of us - you apparently being a notable exception. If the Stealth rules as written are clear to you, please by all means move on from the discussion.

Blake, I like your verbiage revisions, and will be directing players at my tables to this thread for more information about how to understand Stealth in my games going forward. Thanks for your diligence and hard work.


0gre wrote:
Jeremiziah wrote:

Really, shouldn't this just be run as follows?:

Rogue: I want to Stealthily move from this tree to that one 15' away.

DM: When you move into the creature's line of sight, it's going to have a very good chance (modified by conditions) to see what you're doing. You'll then be able to try to hide again once you get behind the second tree. Do you want to go ahead with that action?

Rogue: Sure. (Moves his mini)

DM: (rolls a 15 Perception) You notice the monster's head swivel as you run to the second tree.

Rogue: (rolls a 35 Stealth)

DM: (rolls a 23 Perception) The beast sniffs the air loudly, and then turn his attention back to the screaming barbarian in from of you. He's clearly lost track of you.

Eh? Eh?

Yes, As the GM you use your judgment on whether it's appropriate and what the penalties should be. Some folks don't like this because it gives the GM too much arbitrary authority.

You see, I do not like this method because it means no matter how good you are at stealthing, you always have a set DC to he noticed. I believe this should not be the case, since people who know what they are doing know how to not attract attention and how to move when people's backs are turned.

Shadow Lodge

Caineach wrote:
Yes, but my point is that if you are sniping, the person never sees you attempt to shoot them, but if you are not sniping and just using stealth they would catch a glimpse of you, be able to fire, and then would lose sight of you again. I believe the stealth check is made simultaneously with the attack. Normally, you are revealed when you are attacking. This would make it so you never get revealed.

You are in an open field, surrounded by boulders. Someone shoots you in the side and disappears, that's a surprise round and it all works.

Now you turn, you are aware there is someone there but not exactly sure where so you ready an action to charge as soon as your attacker pops up to fire at you.

Sniper shoots from behind the boulder HOW without becoming visible?

Sniping wrote:
If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.

Where in this little blurb do you get the idea that the sniper can fire through solid stone or is essentially invisible when he makes his shot?

Consider for a moment how many movie scenes involve people sniping and the sniper getting shot when he pops up to take his shot. That is common observation, common sense, your interpretation contradicts that.

The rules don't explicitly or even implicitly support it, nor does common sense. When common sense and your interpretation of the rules conflict then your interpretation is almost certainly wrong.


0gre wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Yes, but my point is that if you are sniping, the person never sees you attempt to shoot them, but if you are not sniping and just using stealth they would catch a glimpse of you, be able to fire, and then would lose sight of you again. I believe the stealth check is made simultaneously with the attack. Normally, you are revealed when you are attacking. This would make it so you never get revealed.

You are in an open field, surrounded by boulders. Someone shoots you in the side and disappears, that's a surprise round and it all works.

Now you turn, you are aware there is someone there but not exactly sure where so you ready an action to charge as soon as your attacker pops up to fire at you.

Sniper shoots from behind the boulder HOW without becoming visible?

Sniping wrote:
If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.

Where in this little blurb do you get the idea that the sniper can fire through solid stone or is essentially invisible when he makes his shot?

Consider for a moment how many movie scenes involve people sniping and the sniper getting shot when he pops up to take his shot. That is common observation, common sense, your interpretation contradicts that.

The rules don't explicitly or even implicitly support it, nor does common sense. When common sense and your interpretation of the rules conflict then your interpretation is almost certainly wrong.

By succeeding a stealth check at -20 vs your perception, he stays in an unkown location. If you fail that perception check, you never see where the shot came from. That does not mean he didn't pop his head out. It means you didn't see it.

Edit: The sniper could not take the -20, and then you would see where the shot came from, but not see his current location because he hid again.


Jeremiziah wrote:

Really, shouldn't this just be run as follows?:

Rogue: I want to Stealthily move from this tree to that one 15' away.

DM: When you move into the creature's line of sight, it's going to have a very good chance (modified by conditions) to see what you're doing. You'll then be able to try to hide again once you get behind the second tree. Do you want to go ahead with that action?

Rogue: Sure. (Moves his mini)

DM: (rolls a 15 Perception) You notice the monster's head swivel as you run to the second tree.

Rogue: (rolls a 35 Stealth)

DM: (rolls a 23 Perception) The beast sniffs the air loudly, and then turn his attention back to the screaming barbarian in from of you. He's clearly lost track of you.

Eh? Eh?

Mostly true, but I don't think any but the most stupid of monsters would forget that it saw the rogue over there. Sure, it can't see him now, but it has to know that there is something there because it saw him there. Anything as smart as an orc, maybe even a little less intelligent than that, will not just ignore that fact and lose track of the danger.

Yeah, sure, maybe if you're fighting a giant beetle or a zombie, then no problem.

Otherwise, in your scenario, the RAW would support this:

Rogue: I want to Stealthily move from this tree to that one 15' away.

DM: When you move into the orc's line of sight you will only be 30' away from the orc, it's going to have a very good chance (modified by conditions) to see what you're doing. You'll then be able to try to hide again once you get behind the second tree. Do you want to go ahead with that action?

Rogue: Sure. (Moves his mini)

DM: (rolls a 15 Perception against a DC of 8 (0 for being visible, +5 for distraction, + 2 because you are 30' feet from the orc) You notice the monster's head swivel as you run to the second tree. It has spotted you. Now you reach the tree.

Rogue: (rolls a 35 Stealth)

DM: (rolls a 23 Perception) The orc sniffs the air loudly, and then turn his attention back to the screaming barbarian in from of him, but he checks over his shoulder periodically to keep an eye on your hiding place. He's clearly aware that you are behind that tree.

On the other hand, if the orc blew the Perception check against that DC 8 and actually failed, then he never sees the rogue and doesn't even know he's there.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Blake I agree with Tem: The attacker chooses the most advantageous corner. So, if just around a bend in a dungeon, the attacker may not face any cover bonus to the target's AC. Anyway, that's not really related to stealth per se.

I also agree that you CANNOT snipe if you do not have line of sight. Aren't we all in agreement on this? I can't snipe from the kitchen to the garage, for example (assuming the door to the garage is closed). A rogue can't snipe someone standing on the complete opposite side of a wall of stone spell. (So really for most sniping around corners, the stealthy shooter will be at the corner)

Blake I see your point about why you think no one would snipe (e.g., why not just shoot, then move, and use your move action to restealth?). Sniping exists, despite it's unfavorable (from the perspective of the sniper) -20 stealth penalty because of this:

"It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging."

My interpertation of that rule is that (other than when sniping) if the rogue attacks during a given round, he will be seen.

The sniping rules exist as the one exception where the rogue can attack and stay stealthed so the rogue is NEVER EVER seen and the attacker has NO IDEA where the rogue is. If the rogue attacks, is seen, moves, and hides again, the wizard enemy still has a reasonable chance of guessing and dropping a glitterdust on the offending rogue who probably moved at most 30 feet. If the rogue snipes, then the wizard has NO IDEA where the rogue is (although, I'd let the party eventually guess at the direction from how the arrow is sticking in the body of whoever got hit, and start zeroing in ... but I suppose that's a houserule).

Shadow Lodge

Jeremiziah wrote:
0gre wrote:

The problem only comes in to play when you introduce the assumed rule that you can maintain stealth in plain sight.

My feeling on this is that you have some pre-conceived ideas about how you think this works and all your long explanations and workarounds are to make the rules bend to fit the way you've used the rules in the past. The fact that you have to make encyclopedic posts to explain how some fairly simple rules works makes me less inclined to change my point of view.

Ogre, with all due respect, you're way off-base with this. Blake is trying to initiate a discussion engineered to clarify some rules that are almost (note! almost) universally agreed to be too vague to be functional. The personal attack in that last paragraph is unwarranted and completely unnecessary, if I may say so as a non-RPG Superstar top 16 candidate or whatever.

Wahhh! That was not meant to be a personal attack AT ALL. I totally respect Blakes POV on this and respect his efforts.

My feeling here is that a large amount of the confusion around the stealth rules is that some players have added a bunch of assumed functionality to the skill. Whether that group of players is 1% or 100% it is still not clarifying the rules so much as extending them to encompass that additional functionality.

Blake if you saw that as a personal attack I apologize. I'm not trying to rip into you or drag this into a big debate.

Quote:
The books attempt to explain Stealth and how it relates to Sneak Attack in about three paragraphs, and it ends up being unclear and nonfunctional for most of us - you apparently being a notable exception. If the Stealth rules as written are clear to you, please by all means move on from the discussion.

See I don't think I am that notable an exception. Nor do I think it's relevant whether I'm a small percentage or not. If you are uninterested in my opinions feel free to ignore me.


0gre wrote:
Jeremiziah wrote:
0gre wrote:

The problem only comes in to play when you introduce the assumed rule that you can maintain stealth in plain sight.

My feeling on this is that you have some pre-conceived ideas about how you think this works and all your long explanations and workarounds are to make the rules bend to fit the way you've used the rules in the past. The fact that you have to make encyclopedic posts to explain how some fairly simple rules works makes me less inclined to change my point of view.

Ogre, with all due respect, you're way off-base with this. Blake is trying to initiate a discussion engineered to clarify some rules that are almost (note! almost) universally agreed to be too vague to be functional. The personal attack in that last paragraph is unwarranted and completely unnecessary, if I may say so as a non-RPG Superstar top 16 candidate or whatever.

Wahhh! That was not meant to be a personal attack AT ALL. I totally respect Blakes POV on this and respect his efforts.

My feeling here is that a large amount of the confusion around the stealth rules is that some players have added a bunch of assumed functionality to the skill. Whether that group of players is 1% or 100% it is still not clarifying the rules so much as extending them to encompass that additional functionality.

Ogre, I find this amusing because IMO I think people are nerfing stealth more than it should be, and removed functionality that is there.


Caineach wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:


calvinNhobbes wrote:
In your example, I would not allow the attack to even happen, sniping or otherwise.
Now here's where we don't agree, because RAW gives us the Sniping rule. What in the world do we need that rule for if not for exactly this situation?
DM Blake, I have said it a couple times. I think that sniping allows you to never reveal your location, while just shooting and restealthing reveals your location when you shot. That is a huge advantage in some cases, like when they have readied actions or guys with AoEs, or you just don't want them to know your general location. I do not think I would allow you to fire through solid cover like a tree, where you normally have no LoS.

That's great. I accept that as a valid interpretation of the RAW and I'll update my post for version two. I believe both interpretations are correct.

Note that there are some interesting points to consider.

Imagine a modern day sniper with a rifle. That rifle is very noisy (some have silencers, some don't - look at Enemy at the Gates for an excellent portrayal of unsilenced sniping). And yet modern snipers fire noisy rifles from Stealth and get away with it, without even moving.

Now replace that mental image with a nearly silent bow or crossbow, or a completely silent thrown dagger or javelin (well, throwing it is completely silent anyway, unless the sniper is clueless enough to grunt).

If you have concealment, and a good Stealth score, and a silent weapon, you still don't need to snipe at all. Just fire and use a move action to hide without any penalties. How would your enemy know where you are?

Also consider sniping from cover using a throwing axe. Or throwing a net. You can't throw that through a small hole or arrow slit, or from inside a bush or the canopy of a tree. Sniping rules don't care about such things. They are simple rules meant to cover all situations.

I agree that your interpretation is valid, but it can become strange with the corner cases such as those I've mentioned here - I guess that's where DM veto comes into play.

I also believe the pop-n-shoot interpretation is equally valid, and that interpretation works with Total Cover, Total Concealment, and with these corner cases too.

Not saying one is better or more valid. I'll count them as two different valid ways to use Sniping.

Shadow Lodge

Caineach wrote:
You see, I do not like this method because it means no matter how good you are at stealthing, you always have a set DC to he noticed. I believe this should not be the case, since people who know what they are doing know how to not attract attention and how to move when people's backs are turned.

So dragons which are notorious for having keen senses, are extremely intelligent and have heightened perceptions wouldn't get a chance to notice you? Stealth isn't the only skill at the table; if a creature or character has a lot of effort invested in perception shouldn't it provide a benefit also?


Caineach wrote:

DM Blake, I have said it a couple times. I think that sniping allows you to never reveal your location, while just shooting and restealthing reveals your location when you shot. That is a huge advantage in some cases, like when they have readied actions or guys with AoEs, or you just don't want them to know your general location. I do not think I would allow you to fire through solid cover like a tree, where you normally have no LoS.

Yes, but my point is that if you are sniping, the person never sees you attempt to shoot them, but if you are not sniping and just using stealth they would catch a glimpse of you, be able to fire, and then would lose sight of you again. I believe the stealth check is made simultaneously with the attack. Normally, you are revealed when you are attacking. This would make it so you never get revealed.

I agree with Caineach's interpretation of sniping. You don't move and you always take the -20 penalty to re-Stealth after the shot, because by winning that check, you effectively never de-Stealth like you normally would after an attack.

I disagree with DM_Blake's interpretation that Sniping is a special full-round action that allows you to move out of cover/concealment, take a shot (at which point you are de-Stealthed), and then move back to the starting position behind cover/concealment and re-Stealth. Only the Shot on the Run feat should allow something like this in a single turn.

I also disagree with DM_Blake's interpretation that you can make a Stealth check at no penalty after a ranged shot made while standing still (no movement) behind cover/concealment. I assert that unless you started out Stealthed (unobserved), you would be unable to make the post-shot Stealth check because your attack automatically makes you observed by at least the target of the attack.

I assert that THIS scenario is the true definition of Sniping per the RAW: You have to start the turn already Stealthed at least 10' away from the target. You make a single ranged attack as your standard action, then a Stealth check at a -20 penalty after the shot as your move action. Winning the Stealth check prevents anyone from noticing where you are during and after the attack, and you begin your next turn Stealthed (assuming other creatures haven't changed position and gained observance of you), thus they cannot counter-attack, which is the real benefit over and above simply making a non-Stealthed ranged attack from cover/concealment.

Also, determining an enemy's cover relative to your ranged attack only uses your selected (favorable) corner of your square and all 4 corners of the enemy's space, thus 4 lines must be evaluated, not 16. (Edit: ninja'd by Tem on this point, although given how slow I am to read and post, a Galapogos tortoise could ninja me.)


Caineach wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
That's why the author added the Sniping rule - to include something you should be able to do but is not supported by RAW without this rule.
I really don't understand why you should be able to shoot through things like solid walls, when you have no LoS or LoE.

I never said shoot through them. Where did you infer that?

I have said "pop out of cover, shoot, then pop back into cover" and I have said "move to a position where you have LOS, take a shot, the pop back into cover."

That's the idea behind Sniping, and that's the idea behind all those movies I've mentioned where people pop up, shoot, then duck back down behind the log/rock/wall/couch/whatever.


0gre wrote:
Caineach wrote:
You see, I do not like this method because it means no matter how good you are at stealthing, you always have a set DC to he noticed. I believe this should not be the case, since people who know what they are doing know how to not attract attention and how to move when people's backs are turned.
So dragons which are notorious for having keen senses, are extremely intelligent and have heightened perceptions wouldn't get a chance to notice you? Stealth isn't the only skill at the table; if a creature or character has a lot of effort invested in perception shouldn't it provide a benefit also?

No, They would get an opposed perception check against your stealth, which is a -10. It would not be a check against the "visible" DC 0 +5 for distraction + distance modifiers, so effectively being an 7.

Edit: also you would need to stealth past all the dragon's senses, and blindsense is nasty to stealthy guys.

Shadow Lodge

Caineach wrote:
Ogre, I find this amusing because IMO I think people are nerfing stealth more than it should be, and removed functionality that is there.

I understand that, ultimately it can run either way and provided there is an understanding between the GM and the players.

My biggest reason for poking in here is because I'm doing more and more organized play and I want to see what sort of expectations people have about the system.

I find it curious though that I have been repeatedly banged on here about my opinion being a minority opinion yet I've never had a conflict with a player either in my home games (as a player or a GM) or at conventions where I've GMed. Are people just gunshy about using these rules at cons because there are a lot of gray areas?


Tem wrote:

I'm quite interested in your interpretation of things here - particularly the intent behind sniping. I'm a little concerned, however, that you seem to have an incorrect view of how cover works.

DM_Blake wrote:

Yes, an archer around the corner of a dungeon hallway can achieve LOS by picking any corner of his space and tracing a line to any corener of his target's space. In that situation, he doesn't have to pop out because he would be able to trace such a line. No sniping needed.

But his target will still have Cover because Cover exists if ANY corner, not just the favorable one, can trace a line to ANY corner and passes through the wall. There are 16 lines you can trace (4 lines from each corner to each corner). Clearly, there is at least one line you can trace from the archer's space to the target's space that passes through the wall, and all you need is one of those 16 lines and the target gets cover.

Cover wrote:


To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, 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).
It would seem that you need to only consider the four lines which originate from the attackers corner (chosen by that attacker).

Quite correct. Good catch. I was thinking of the Melee rules for cover, which do use any corner of the attacker's square and any corner of the defender's square.

Nevertheless, even the most favorable corner of your square will clip the wall of a dungeon corner when drawn to the least favorable enemy square (unless he is adjacent to you - a bad time for ranged combat), and you mus draw all four, so one will fail.

Shadow Lodge

Caineach wrote:

By succeeding a stealth check at -20 vs your perception, he stays in an unkown location. If you fail that perception check, you never see where the shot came from. That does not mean he didn't pop his head out. It means you didn't see it.

Edit: The sniper could not take the -20, and then you would see where the shot came from, but not see his current location because he hid again.

The -20 check is after the shot, I am referring to a readied action which takes place when you are talking your shot.

Also, I apologize for the tone of the end of that last post... :(


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

DM Blake one will not fail. There are direct diagrams of how this will not fail in multiple WOTC books. I don't have them now, but I think it's been in PHB, CW, and the mini handbook.

XXXXXXXXXXT
SWWWWWWWWWW

X=empty squares
T=target
S=shooter
W=Wall

in that example, the target gets NO cover bonus to AC against the shooter. If T 5' adjusted downright (by the persepective of the page, moving towards the bottom right) effectively behing the wall, then S would have NO shot at T.


drsparnum wrote:

Blake I see your point about why you think no one would snipe (e.g., why not just shoot, then move, and use your move action to restealth?). Sniping exists, despite it's unfavorable (from the perspective of the sniper) -20 stealth penalty because of this:

"It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging."

My interpertation of that rule is that (other than when sniping) if the rogue attacks during a given round, he will be seen.

The sniping rules exist as the one exception where the rogue can attack and stay stealthed so the rogue is NEVER EVER seen and the attacker has NO IDEA where the rogue is. If the rogue attacks, is seen, moves, and hides again, the wizard enemy still has a reasonable chance of guessing and dropping a glitterdust on the offending rogue who probably moved at most 30 feet. If the rogue snipes, then the wizard has NO IDEA where the rogue is (although, I'd let the party eventually guess at the direction from how the arrow is sticking in the body of whoever got hit, and start zeroing in ... but I suppose that's a houserule).

Bingo! +1


0gre wrote:
Caineach wrote:

By succeeding a stealth check at -20 vs your perception, he stays in an unkown location. If you fail that perception check, you never see where the shot came from. That does not mean he didn't pop his head out. It means you didn't see it.

Edit: The sniper could not take the -20, and then you would see where the shot came from, but not see his current location because he hid again.

The -20 check is after the shot, I am referring to a readied action which takes place when you are talking your shot.

Also, I apologize for the tone of the end of that last post... :(

Personally, I think the sniper check should be made simultaneously to the shot. Also, you don't appear until after you attack from stealth, so your readied action wont trigger until you see me after I attack, even if I'm not using stealth.


0gre wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Ogre, I find this amusing because IMO I think people are nerfing stealth more than it should be, and removed functionality that is there.

I understand that, ultimately it can run either way and provided there is an understanding between the GM and the players.

My biggest reason for poking in here is because I'm doing more and more organized play and I want to see what sort of expectations people have about the system.

I find it curious though that I have been repeatedly banged on here about my opinion being a minority opinion yet I've never had a conflict with a player either in my home games (as a player or a GM) or at conventions where I've GMed. Are people just gunshy about using these rules at cons because there are a lot of gray areas?

I think most of these gray areas never come up until a player wants to specifically create a character or situation that uses them. Even then, RAW is often put aside for something fast and loose, and these gray areas become judgement calls. Then, people come to these boards to argue out exactly how the rule should have been interpreted.

Also, people are bored at work.


Caineach wrote:
You see, I do not like this method because it means no matter how good you are at stealthing, you always have a set DC to he noticed. I believe this should not be the case, since people who know what they are doing know how to not attract attention and how to move when people's backs are turned.

That's all well and good, but in this game, backs are never turned. There is no facing. Neither in nor out of combat. There is not one rule under Perception or Stealth or anywhere else that gives you a bonus or a penalty to any roll of any kind when a foe has his back to you or when he is facing you - because "Facing" doesn't exist in this game.

Adding Facing to the rules would be wonderful. I would totally support that. But until then, saying thinkgs like "knowing how to move when people's backs are turned" requires houserules to interpret.

As always (in this thread) I'm trying to use RAW to interpret this stuff, not houserules.

Now, the guy you described, the guy who knows what he is doing and how not to attract attention, will either use Cover or Concealment to sneak successfully, or will use a Diversion to give him his chance to get where he is going. If he chooses not to stay hidden and he chooses not to create a diversin, then basically he's trying to sneak in plain sight of his enemies - a crazy thing to do, but the RAW lets you do it as long as you're willing to have a very low DC to be seen.

Shadow Lodge

Caineach wrote:

Personally, I think the sniper check should be made simultaneously to the shot. Also, you don't appear until after you attack from stealth, so your readied action wont trigger until you see me after I attack, even if I'm not using stealth.

The rule would make much more sense if it were written this way. Satisfies the best of both worlds. It would also resolve the issue with whether there is a sneak attack or not.

I don't see why you wouldn't 'appear' until after the shot, I would move the stealth check to before the shot. If you make the stealth check you manage to make the whole action unobserved. If you fail it then the fighters readied action triggers when you appear (before the shot).

The exact timing doesn't really matter though, I'm ok with your timing also.

Shadow Lodge

Caineach wrote:
I think most of these gray areas never come up until a player wants to specifically create a character or situation that uses them. Even then, RAW is often put aside for something fast and loose, and these gray areas become judgement calls.

When I made my previous character I made an Arcane Trickster. Sneak Attack with spells is sadly NOT covered well in Pathfinder core :( so I talked to my GM and made sure we had a common understanding well when I initially made my character. I expect most players would likewise come to common grounds with their GM before going there on this sort of character. Since con GMs are all different it's impossible to do that so that's likely why I've never seen it.

Quote:
Then, people come to these boards to argue out exactly how the rule should have been interpreted.

Which is why arguments are more common on the boards than in real games :)


DM_Blake wrote:

Adding Facing to the rules would be wonderful. I would totally support that. But until then, saying thinkgs like "knowing how to move when people's backs are turned" requires houserules to interpret.

As always (in this thread) I'm trying to use RAW to interpret this stuff, not houserules.

Perhaps it's simply a matter of different terminology.

While "backs are turned" could reference facing, it could also be a momentary distraction. Those are clearly allowed by the skill description -- and are not limited to bluff checks.


DM_Blake wrote:
Caineach wrote:
You see, I do not like this method because it means no matter how good you are at stealthing, you always have a set DC to he noticed. I believe this should not be the case, since people who know what they are doing know how to not attract attention and how to move when people's backs are turned.

That's all well and good, but in this game, backs are never turned. There is no facing. Neither in nor out of combat. There is not one rule under Perception or Stealth or anywhere else that gives you a bonus or a penalty to any roll of any kind when a foe has his back to you or when he is facing you - because "Facing" doesn't exist in this game.

Adding Facing to the rules would be wonderful. I would totally support that. But until then, saying thinkgs like "knowing how to move when people's backs are turned" requires houserules to interpret.

As always (in this thread) I'm trying to use RAW to interpret this stuff, not houserules.

Now, the guy you described, the guy who knows what he is doing and how not to attract attention, will either use Cover or Concealment to sneak successfully, or will use a Diversion to give him his chance to get where he is going. If he chooses not to stay hidden and he chooses not to create a diversin, then basically he's trying to sneak in plain sight of his enemies - a crazy thing to do, but the RAW lets you do it as long as you're willing to have a very low DC to be seen.

Why do people keep insting that I am somehow using facing? I am using opposed perception checks while someone is distracted to move through plain sight at -10. I am then using fluf to say "his back was turned when you snuck by"


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Coming out of hiding doesn't require a move action like Blake mentioned earlier up thread. All you have to do is take an action to reveal your location--doesn't matter which action you take.

When sniping, for example, you don't spend a move action to pop out, a standard action to shoot, and another move to hide/snipe (which is impossible for lack of actions).

Instead, you are generally already hidden. You then spend a standard action to shoot (which normally reveals your location), but then take a -20 penalty on a Stealth check as a move action to remain concealed. All you've done is spent a single move action and a standard action.

You could just as easily reveal your location to all by yelling out as a free action.

Coming out of stealth has never required a specific action, nor should it, such a thing would never make sense.

I think Caineach's logic is sound. Everyone else seems to be over complicating matters.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Your retroactive use of facing to explain something was clear to me Cain.

The same way a blow to a fighter at L1 hit for 10 points of damage might be described as a vicious stab to the gut (retroactively), and at L20 a 10 hit point blow to a fighter might be described as a cut on the forearm (retroactively).

Run the rules, then make up a reasonable explanation, if a reasonable explanation is even needed to satisfy people.


DM_Blake wrote:
Caineach wrote:
You see, I do not like this method because it means no matter how good you are at stealthing, you always have a set DC to he noticed. I believe this should not be the case, since people who know what they are doing know how to not attract attention and how to move when people's backs are turned.

That's all well and good, but in this game, backs are never turned. There is no facing. Neither in nor out of combat. There is not one rule under Perception or Stealth or anywhere else that gives you a bonus or a penalty to any roll of any kind when a foe has his back to you or when he is facing you - because "Facing" doesn't exist in this game.

Adding Facing to the rules would be wonderful. I would totally support that. But until then, saying thinkgs like "knowing how to move when people's backs are turned" requires houserules to interpret.

As always (in this thread) I'm trying to use RAW to interpret this stuff, not houserules.

Now, the guy you described, the guy who knows what he is doing and how not to attract attention, will either use Cover or Concealment to sneak successfully, or will use a Diversion to give him his chance to get where he is going. If he chooses not to stay hidden and he chooses not to create a diversin, then basically he's trying to sneak in plain sight of his enemies - a crazy thing to do, but the RAW lets you do it as long as you're willing to have a very low DC to be seen.

I made my saves to not post in the now-locked thread, and I'm glad to see this one is going a lot better than the last.

First off, GREAT WORK, BLAKE. You are in inspiration to DMs everywhere, those who just have it in their name, and those who want clearer rules and more options for their players in combat.

In terms of this specific post, my houserule is that someone WILL BE SPOTTED if they move out from cover into an open area unless they make their own Perception checks to see when targets(at least the ones they are aware of) are not paying attention to the path they want to take. If they fail the Perception roll, they fail to account for someone and that person is aware of their presence. It sounds stupid, but it actually works pretty well(at least it has in my games) when the player knows that people in the area are passively alert and not looking for them specificallly.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

If I was hidden, and coming out of stealth required a specific action, I would never take the come out of stealth action.

;)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
First off, GREAT WORK, BLAKE. You are in inspiration to DMs everywhere, those who just have it in their name, and those who want clearer rules and more options for their players in combat.

Yes, he is indeed quite skilled at organizing and presenting information in an easy to understand manner, but that doesn't change the fact that he is wrong on a few points, as mentioned by a few posters up thread. As such, I would recommend everyone to take his interpretations (or anyone else's advice/interpretations) with a grain of salt.

Shadow Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
I think Caineach's logic is sound. Everyone else seems to be over complicating matters.

Maybe so. It would be easier if the sniping rule was written as Caineach suggested with the stealth check before or simultaneous to the attack.

51 to 100 of 161 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Let's talk about Stealth and Perception All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.