The RAW is saying yes, though we should be clear that you would use Bluff to create a "diversion", not a distraction.I disagree. I reference here the Stealth rules, page 106.
"If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth."
To distract someone, you create a distraction. Such as with Bluff, but anything the GM rules a distraction qualifies.
That's the fluff. Continue reading just a bit lower on the page, and you'll find the specific rule for "Creating a diversion to hide". Where the rule is mechanically defined, the word "diversion" is used.
I deeply regret that the author carelessly used the word "distraction" higher on the page in the fluffy text. That was careless and clearly wrong, since the word "distraction" is used in a whole different way in the Perception skill.
I discussed this at greater length in this post. Read the "Distraction and Diversion" section.
|
That's the fluff.
Okay, if that's your opinion on RAW I'm out. RAW is RAW, and discounting something because it's "fluff" is RAI. That's fine, but it's a different discussion. The Rules As Written need to include everything written, or it's a useless concept.
The rules state you can make Stealth if a foe is distracted. You can distract them with a diversion, but the fact the rules say "such as" is intentionally inclusive language. If Bluff was the only option, "such as" would be incorrect. The use of "such as" is, in my opinion, intentionally designed to allow a GM to decide when someone is distracted enough to allow Stealth checks.
The Bluff rules are a specific example of what will work, but they aren't the only rule-inclusive distraction.
That's the fluff.Okay, if that's your opinion on RAW I'm out. RAW is RAW, and discounting something because it's "fluff" is RAI. That's fine, but it's a different discussion. The Rules As Written need to include everything written, or it's a useless concept.
The rules state you can make Stealth if a foe is distracted. You can distract them with a diversion, but the fact the rules say "such as" is intentionally inclusive language. If Bluff was the only option, "such as" would be incorrect. The use of "such as" is, in my opinion, intentionally designed to allow a GM to decide when someone is distracted enough to allow Stealth checks.
The Bluff rules are a specific example of what will work, but they aren't the only rule-inclusive distraction.
Fine, so I'll take the counterpoint then.
What does the RAW allow for a "distraction" that would enable you to use Stealth?
|
|
Fine, so I'll take the counterpoint then.
What does the RAW allow for a "distraction" that would enable you to use Stealth?
Something that is as distracting as a Bluff check. That makes it a GM call. Things being left to the GM are a common part of all open-ended RPG design. This is not a unique element of the Stealth rules.
For example, look at the spell fireball.
"If you attempt to to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must "hit" that opening with a ranged touch attack, or else bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely."
What qualifies as that narrow? There is no definition of the width of an arrow slit in the game. Heck, what's the AC of an arrow slit? We know an archer behind it has +8 AC, but not the AC of the slit itself. The "such as" serves as an example, for the GM to use when adjudicating a game, not the only possible use of the rule regarding fireballs.
"The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area."
What's a combustible? There is no "combustible" descriptor for gear. Is a wooden door combustible/ What about a character's clothes. Clothes certainly fit the OED definition of combustible. Does that mean fireball automatically sets on fire everyone wearing clothes in the area?
"It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze."
This line does not mention platinum, a metal used in the game. Does that mean despite having a melting point very close to gold, platinum doesn't melt in a fireball? And how much gold does a fireball melt?
In Pathfinder, as with most RPGs, there are going to be rules that give a GM information about how events in the world should work, without defining all the game mechanics that might cover those events.
The rule is "If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth."
As with any other rule without clearly defined circumstances (and fireball alone has 3 such), the GM decides when that applies. And that's the RAW on Stealth.
What does the RAW allow for a "distraction" that would enable you to use Stealth?Something that is as distracting as a Bluff check. That makes it a GM call. Things being left to the GM are a common part of all open-ended RPG design. This is not a unique element of the Stealth rules.
...Fireball stuff...
In Pathfinder, as with most RPGs, there are going to be rules that give a GM information about how events in the world should work, without defining all the game mechanics that might cover those events.
The rule is "If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth."
As with any other rule without clearly defined circumstances (and fireball alone has 3 such), the GM decides when that applies. And that's the RAW on Stealth.
OK, just so I can be clear here.
You assert that the RAW provides for a "distraction" to allow the use of Stealth, but that the RAW doesn't say what a "distraction" is, so the DM must interpret on his own how to handle that RAW - meaning the only way to handle the RAW is using RAI, by your own argument.
On the other hand, I demonstrate that, by RAW, Perception uses a specific meaning for "distraction" and that Stealth uses a specific meaning for "diversion", and that there are different RAW mechanics for each. I then assert that there is one careless misuse by the author where he says "distraction" but he meant "diversion" and you claim that that my assertion is RAI and that you "are out" of this discussion because of it.
I fail to see the difference.
How can you be perfectly fine with your assertion that the RAW is incomplete and requires all DMs to use RAI just to implement the RAW, but at the same time you consider my assertion, that the use of the word "distraction" was just careless fluff and that we should stick with the actual RAW mechanics, to be a deal-breaker on this discussion thread?
If nothing else, my POV requres a whole lot less RAI than yours does.
Rereading my last post, it looks a little aggressive. It wasn't meant to be, so I apologize for the fact that it comes across that way.
My point is, I've seen lots of posts by people saying crazy things like "my target is distracted by combat, so I can use Stealth and sneak attack him". If such an interpretation of "distraction" is valid, then rogues will never need flanking to get sneak attacks - all they would need is combat and once combat begins, every rogue attack is always a sneak attack.
I've seen other crazy ideas like "My observer is casting a spell so he is distracted, so I can use stealth." Or "My observer is riding a horse so he is distracted, so I can use stealth." The list goes on and on.
And I imagine that for every player that posts one of those crazy arguments here, there are probably lots of players sitting at Pathfinder tables somewhere having these same discussions with their DMs. They either bully their point until the DM caves and allows it, or the DM stands firm and the player ends up grumbling about unfair control-freak DMs. (hopefully there is a happy medium far from either of those extremes for most of the tableside debates).
All of this because of that one word, "distraction", that was used where the author clearly meant "diversion". He uses "diversion" everywhere else in that rule discussion, and the two words have different RAW mechanics in the rulebook.
And off it could be avoided by replacing the word "distraction" with the word "diversion" in that one sentence. Which is what I believe the author had actually meant to say in the first place, careless mis-wordings aside.
Yes, that's RAI, and I never claimed it wasn't. But it does seem to be very reasonable, and the alternative is a mountain of DM-fiat chaos, as Owen correctly pointed out.
|
|
OK, just so I can be clear here.
You assert that the RAW provides for a "distraction" to allow the use of Stealth, but that the RAW doesn't say what a "distraction" is, so the DM must interpret on his own how to handle that RAW - meaning the only way to handle the RAW is using RAI, by your own argument.
...
How can you be perfectly fine with your assertion that the RAW is incomplete and requires all DMs to use RAI just to implement the RAW, but at the same time you consider my assertion, that the use of the word "distraction" was just careless fluff and that we should stick with the actual RAW mechanics, to be a deal-breaker on this discussion thread?
In my opinion
A: It is perfectly possible for the RAW to be "The GM uses his best judgment." I provided examples of other cases where that is clearly so. That is different from RAI where the GM ignores what is written in favor of what he thinks ought to work.
B: Throwing out rules as "fluff" because they don't agree with your interpretation makes further discussion pointless.
Nor do I consider the amount of work a GM is asked to do by the rules a good litmus test. You have decided, based on your reading, that a word was used in error. I have decided it is indicative of a crucial rule that makes Stealth work, as written. When I make reference to that, you simply discount the sections of rules I am using as the basis of my argument.
From those two points of view, what further useful debate is there? I disagree with your position from the beginning of its assumptions, and oppose the claim they are not assumptions of interpretation. Further hairsplitting of where we disagree strikes me as a waste of bandwidth.
If you disagree, I am happy to continue the debate in the spirit of an open exchange if ideas. Do you have anything new to offer beyond your extensive, and impressive, discussion on this subject?
Owen K. C. Stephens... I love you...
|
|
It's the age-old argument that, since everything has to be applied in the context of personal interpretation that there is nothing that can be applied as is.
There are obviously sections where the rules come out and mention DM adjucation. And, of course, each dm has their own set of houserules for what they think the correct solution is.
The difference between RAW and RAI is, simply, inference. If you are inferring effects that are not clearly stated, you have entered RAI. If you are applying effects in a manner not specified by their entry, you're in RAI. If you're attempting to apply the rules as they are written, or at least to understand what the words as written mean so that you can either accept or alter them, you're in RAW.
An underlying assumption doesn't, by default, put you into RAI territory. Otherwise, everything is rai and nothing is raw, since everything we know and believe rests on a series of underlying assumptions.
For example, I assume that my post goes out into the world and other people view it and respond. I could assume that both my post and my responses are figments of my imagination. I may not act any differently, but my underlying assumptions are different.
In the case of applying rules to a game, I think a reasonable assumption is that in each situation, all rules apply.
When you move from simple games to more complex games, you add assumptions.
For pathfinder, another assumption would be that all rules apply, except where a particular rule temporarily or permanently negates another rule.
In a game like pathfinder, the game moves through altering previous rules. Your hitpoints are equal to the score you role using these dice, and adding this number, which is derived in this manner from previous recorded rolls.
Except when you take damage, at which point your actual hitpoints are equal to your previous total minus whatever damage has been allocated to your character.
In the exact same manner you can apply the rules to everything else. This is raw.
Extrapolating from written rules, whether for clarity, intent, or otherwise, is rai since you're interpreting the data instead of applying everything equally.
I'll reference the two elements under consideration again.
Rule One RAW: In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. Some creatures, such as those with light sensitivity and light blindness, take penalties while in areas of bright light. A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover.Rule Two RAW: If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight) you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth.
I made the slight alteration of labeling each entry rule one and rule two for clarity, as well as correcting a typo.
Rule one refers to bright light, and the inability to use stealth in an area of bright light.
Rule two refers to stealth while being observed. Rule two does not mention stealth while in bright light, stealth while flying, and so on.
Rule two mentions you can attempt to use stealth. At no point does it guarantee that you'll succeed, or that other negating factors don't come into play.
At no point does it mention negating anything contained in rule one.
Thus, if you assert that rule two implies using stealth while in bright light, you're attempting to interpret the rules.
If you assert that rule two doesn't mention anything about rule one, thus rule one is still in effect, then you're applying the rule as worded.
See the difference? Also, please note that this isn't an attempt to tell you or anyone else what to do in their games. However, it is important to understand the difference between RAW and RAI, especially in this section of the forums.
My point is, I've seen lots of posts by people saying crazy things like "my target is distracted by combat, so I can use Stealth and sneak attack him". If such an interpretation of "distraction" is valid, then rogues will never need flanking to get sneak attacks - all they would need is combat and once combat begins, every rogue attack is always a sneak attack.
So what is a valid diversion from a character RP perspective? If a character wants to make a bluff check to create a diversion, I would require them to describe the diversion they are creating and then roll it. Lets say they want to throw a bottle and smash it against a wall to divert the guards attention with the loud sound, would that work? Is that more likely to let a rogue cross a lit area unseen then if the guard is in combat? looking at what caused a loud crash makes it so I can attempt to sneak up, but having a big burly fighter trying to chop off his head doesn't? Such interpretation would not automatically allow rogues to get sneak attacks as you said, just allow them to make a stealth check. As the RAW says distraction and not diversion, I would allow this and yes I would adjudicate whether the situation was distracting enough. Even if it said diversion I would probably house rule it as I have done armored combat and I can tell you, it is easy to get blind sided when in combat, but fortunately, as written, I don't see that I have to. I do appreciate greatly your clarification of the RAW, it has cleared a lot up for me and even you say in this case you are applying RAI, I choose to stick with the word distraction. Whether its RAW or not is arguable and frankly, I am not sure I care, but for me a person in combat is much easier to sneak-up on then a person who is subject to a momentary diversion.
but for me a person in combat is much easier to sneak-up on then a person who is subject to a momentary diversion.
I get your point. Logically, everything you said makes sense.
Just be aware that ruling it this way opens up a whole world of pain once your rogues figure out that anybody in combat can be sneak attacked, round after round, automatically, without ever having to flank them.
It really can give rogues a huge damage increase. If you're OK with that, then you have no problems, and your ruling actually makes more sense than the RAW.
But if you're not OK with rogues gaining the extra damage, then you'll either have an argument on your hands when a "combat" distraction works sometimes and not other times (nobody likes game mechanics that have an "off/on" switch unless they can control the switch, and players rarely graciously accept "You can't" when they are givin no reason, especially if the same thing worked last time they tried it) or you'll find yourself, or your players, grumbling about flaky mechanics.
Me, I'm not OK with the rogue damage boost, so I stick to the (mechanical) RAW to avoid the whole situation.
Good points though I don't see the round after round thing, once the rogue sneaks up on and gets the first round of sneaks on the fighter in combat, now they have to flank to continue to get them as the person is now well aware of them unless they have a way to get back behind full cover and sneak back in again. I would not let a rogue hide in plain sight once seen. Basically you stealth up on an engaged opponent, get your sneaks in if successful and if your flanking great you can continue to sneak attack, if not, you can't. Really if we are talking about an opponent that is engaged which we are, moving into a flanking position allows the rogue sneaks anyway so I don't see it as appreciably more damage either way. Where it could make a difference is ranged rogues as they can stealth, shoot and duck back under cover and perhaps move and repeat. I am actually considering house ruling the no flanking with ranged weapons thing anyway, that makes no sense to me at all again from real life fighting experience, which means the rogues will be doing more damage with ranged weapons. Also remember what is good for the players is good for the monsters/NPCs so its not really unbalancing.
As for the adjudicating when an opponent is distracted, I doubt I will have any issue with my group at all, we are all adults and if I rule and they don't agree we talk it out, sometimes I capitulate sometimes I don't, if I don't they go with it and move on, we never fight over it.
I'm really relieved from seeing that MANY people reads things in this way (which is also mine) and realizes that it is logical, funny, and not unbalancing at all. We are so many to have come to the same conclusion (from different paths and contexts) overcoming great literal obstacles that sometimes I wonder if this were not what it really was meant to be by authors about Stealth&Co....
I have no problem at all with the ranged flanking sneak attack rogues. But after the second round (if the target lives that long) they'll figure out how to break the flanking.
And yes, it's possible to do in real life. Let's play paintball sometime.
Just to point out, however, that flanking is not possible if you are not threatening an area - and with ranged weapons, you do not threaten any area around you (since it's specific for melee attacks).
PRD -> Combat -> Combat Modifiers -> Flanking:
"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner."
PRD -> Combat -> Combat Statistics -> Attacks of Opportunity:
"Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
So, flanking is not effectively possible with ranged weapons (and by consequence, sneak attack with ranged weapons can only come from 'denied Dex bonus' situations).
|
Am I reading correctly here? Are people advocating the following position?
----------------------
As long as combat is going on (which "distracts" the target), a Rogue's first attack against any target, whether flat-footed, flanked, or otherwise denied dex or not, is a sneak attack. The Rogue can continue to gain sneak attack against the same target by simply moving away (not threatening the opponent) for one round, then moving back in on the next round and attacking again.
-----------------------
If I am in fact reading this, this position is ridiculous. Someone please tell me this isn't the position being espoused.
So, flanking is not effectively possible with ranged weapons (and by consequence, sneak attack with ranged weapons can only come from 'denied Dex bonus' situations).And stealth isn't possible against opponents when you move out into the open in clear vision of them.
Yet if people wish to ignore those rules or 'interpret' them away, why not this pesky ruling on what it means to flank?
The rules for stealth aren't really that hard. They are a bit muddled in pathfinder as they collapsed different skills into it in a more or less copy and paste version of the two together. Mind you it's nowhere near as bad as when TSR came out with 2nd edition, but it is lacking a coherent overview. Something akin to rewriting and rewriting a paper, sometimes you don't maintain overall clarity by doing so.
-James
Just to be clear (since it can be misunderstood from my positions on Stealth and Sneak Attack in various threads - and yes, I am one of those who are totally comfortable in allowing a 'Stealth in clear vision', let's be hyperbolic in this), I am not against RAW - provided that RAW is clear and unambiguous.
For example, rules for Flanking are clear: you cannot flank with ranged weapons, so a Sneak Attack with a ranged weapon is possible only when the target is denied its Dexterity bonus. Full stop.
Stealth, however, is not a clear cut. First of all, it derives from the fusion of Hide and Move Silently - two totally different mechanics from 3.x - and as such, its rules should include both mechanics for ease of use.
Sadly, some people continue to insist that Stealth rules can only be allowed when the person who tries to be 'stealthy' is into a 'black pool of darkness' which moves with him, otherwise the world would know that he is right there. Well, the rules do not say exactly that - they say that you have to be in a condition where people cannot detect you unerringly, and in this case you are allowed to try the Stealth check opposed to their Perception check.
I have already had a long debate with DM_Blake regarding this, and you know what ? Even with him, after a long debate in which we were (and in a sense, we still are) firmly on our positions, we reached a compromise in a specific situation where a person (Rick the Rogue) was allowed to try a Stealth check during combat in a situation where he would have been in a 'clear vision' with the enemy - of course, the 'clear vision' was not clear vision at all, thanks to a Bluff check.
And again (for the Nth time), James Jacobs already said that
Stealth and Perception do indeed work on things other than sight. What those rules are saying (although perhaps not as clearly as they can) is that you can't use Stealth in bright light when the target can see you.If you're sneaking up on someone who's looking away from you, you CAN use Stealth (and they can use Perception) since a visual element of the situation doesn't apply. But when that situation can work is up to the GM.
and
Stealth is a HIGHLY situational skill, and it's one that really requires the GM to make decisions and arbitrate at times. The other option: providing tables of situation what-if scenarios with rules for each, is not attractive at all.
which means (for me) that there is not simply an 'Universal cover' or 'Universal concealment' (in the sense that you are under cover or concealment in a situation where the ENTIRE Universe considers it so), but simply when you are in a situation of 'subjective cover' or 'subjective concealment' (in the sense that the creature from which you are trying to conceal from has not a clear cut possibility to perceive you).
Maybe he is reading a book, and so even his own feet have cover on him, let's not speak of the sneaky Rogue who is moving silently behind him trying to sneak past. But no, some people continue to insist 'hey, he is not hiding behind anything, there is bright light because it's a sunny day at noon, what matters if the old man is turning his back and reading a book, he should have a 360° field anyway'.Please, we are not even speaking of a combat situation here (which is messy, because Facing is not a RAW and so some people - like me - feel free to interpret situations on a one-by-one basis); we are speaking of a non-combat situation, where people are not forced to fill 5x5 ft. squares in order to be fully functional (yet), and adrenaline is not flowing into your brain in order to sharpen your senses (or you would be dead already, since adrenaline in high concentration is higly toxic - but I'm derailing). In such a situation, the old man is not looking in the direction where the rogue is moving. That portion of the world has total cover FOR HIM. And yet, some people look from the above (like a 'Big Metal Hand in the Sky' - Elven Cleric, Warcraft III) and say 'nooo, he is not under cover, the world can see him, so obviously the old man can, too.'
If you (the stealthy person) are in clear view of your target, this does not mean automatically that your target is in clear vision of you.
So, how can be compared RAW on threatened area (clear cut rule) and the confusion regarding RAW on Stealth - which again, derives most of its problems from this one single sentence?
page 172:
"In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. Some creatures, such as those with light sensitivity and light blindness, take penalties while in areas of bright light. A creature can’t use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover. Areas of bright light include outside in direct sunshine and inside the area of a daylight spell."
which was exactly the same in 3.5 (where it referred ONLY to Hide however)? Please note that there IS a contraddiction between this single sentence and the description of the Stealth skill:
"You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. This skill covers hiding and moving silently." (how can moving silently be influenced by bright light ? of course it is not, so if the sight portion of the detection of your victiom is out of the equation, you CAN use Stealth by moving silently - even if there is bright light all around the victim)
"If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can’t use Stealth." (you can be perfectly hidden into a pitch black hole, but if you are singing out loudy, there cannot be a Stealth check - you are being 'observed' through hearing by your enemy, so it's only a matter of Perception check against the intensity of your sound and its distance from the 'observer')
"Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth" (most is not ALL, and again, each situation should be determined on a one-by-one basis).
Am I reading correctly here? Are people advocating the following position?
----------------------
As long as combat is going on (which "distracts" the target), a Rogue's first attack against any target, whether flat-footed, flanked, or otherwise denied dex or not, is a sneak attack. The Rogue can continue to gain sneak attack against the same target by simply moving away (not threatening the opponent) for one round, then moving back in on the next round and attacking again.
-----------------------If I am in fact reading this, this position is ridiculous. Someone please tell me this isn't the position being espoused.
No, some people (like myself) are simply advocating that
-----------------------
As long as a sufficiently distracting situation (such as combat, but it really depends on the specific situation), a Rogue CAN TRY a Stealth check to come near his target in order to catch it in a 'Denied Dex' situation and so deal him a Sneak Attack (on his first attack only).
-----------------------
The Rogue could try the same trick twice ONLY if he leaves the area where he can be easily perceived by its enemy and tries to use Stealth again - however, in this case, the target would need a greater - and maybe even totally different - distracting factor in order to be fooled (highly unlikely) by the same trick again. However, any distracting situation should be determined as such by the GM only.
The problem is, since Facing rules are not codified at all during combat, some people would not allow (except by a Bluff check) a potential target to be so much distracted to have a 'black spot' on his 'field of perception' sufficient for a Rogue to TRY a Stealth check.
Nobody here is speaking of giving it for free, we are simply advocating the possibility (not specifically DENIED by the Rules) to try another specific mechanic allowed by the Rules. We are basically saying 'all right, a Bluff check is one situation where, even in combat, a Stealth check can be tried. Can we consider other situations basically akin to 'virtual Bluff checks', AKA 'momentary diversions' ?'
Unless subject to something that removes this, a creature sees everything within its line of sight.Stealth does allow something the chance to remain unobserved while it maintains cover or concealment. It does not allow something to remain unobserved when it does not.
You are, I guess, trying to confuse (or are confused by) rules for sniping, distractions to hide and/or feinting in combat to get the rules to go differently.
-James
No, we're only confused by common sense, thing that is not given to everybody
And again (for the Nth time), James Jacobs already said
Yes, I've read James Jacobs' quote. Let's read it again, for the N+1th time, but this time we'll dismantle it and see if it really adds any clarity to the RAW:
Stealth and Perception do indeed work on things other than sight.
I'm pretty sure we're all in agreement that this is a given. Nobody here doubted that observers might hear a stealthy rogue, right?
What those rules are saying (although perhaps not as clearly as they can) is that you can't use Stealth in bright light when the target can see you.
So, when a target CAN see you, you cannot use steatlh in bright light. No problem. This is just a restatement of the RAW - this exact rule appears in the description of the Stealth skill.
If you're sneaking up on someone who's looking away from you, you CAN use Stealth (and they can use Perception) since a visual element of the situation doesn't apply.
This directly contradicts what James said in his previous sentence. If the observer is looking away from you, he CAN still look your way. In an instant. He CAN turn his head much faster than you can move 5' or 10' or whatever. Therefore, he CAN see you. Which means, according to James's statement immediately preceding this one, you cannot use Stealth. Or you can. Or you can't.
It seems even James is unclear on this.
But when that situation can work is up to the GM.
Well, James is pretty clear on this. It's up to the GM to make up his own Stealth rules on the fly. Which seems to be what just about everyone is doing anyway, since the book scattered these rules all over the place and since the book has rules in direct contradiction with other rules, and since James has statements in direct contradiction with other of his statements.
So it's every DM for himself, since neither the RAW nor the official response from James really adds any clarity.
Stealth is a HIGHLY situational skill,
This is quite true.
and it's one that really requires the GM to make decisions and arbitrate at times.
I totally agree.
However, I believe a clear RAW can eliminate some of the arbitration. Some of the argument. And some of the angst people feel sitting down at a table knowing that there are stealthy things they want to do but upset that their DM won't let them. Or vice-versa.
The other option: providing tables of situation what-if scenarios with rules for each, is not attractive at all.
There is a middle-ground option. Providing a clear set of Stealth/Perception rules. Minimal tables (no more than already in the book). Just a clear set of rules. In one place. Without contradictions.
That would be very attractive.
Until such time, I have done my best to scour the book for all the RAW regarding Stealth and Perception and the interaction of the two. I made a big post about it, and got some good feedback.
Despite having a lot of respect for James and his colleagues, and a great deal of gratitude that they've kept a gaming system that I love alive and well when the original owners of that system kicked it to the curb, I cannot simply take everything he says as gospel, especially when said gospel is just as self-contradictory and adds no value to the existing RAW.
So, in the end, it still boils down to this:
1. Everyone WANTS different things from Stealth.
2. Everyone arbitrates stealth according to their different wants.
Those who want Stealth to be a convenient tool for rogues to increase their damage output in combat will arbitrate Stealth accordingly, ignoring the parts of the RAW that are inconvenient to this point of view. On the other hand, those who feel that a simple skill should not be the be-all-and-end-all of combat deadliness will arbitrate the Stealth rules according to the letter of the RAW.
Obviously, I am in the latter camp.
Equally obviously, many people are in the former camp.
Neither camp is budging. Neither camp is being swayed to "join" the other camp. Everyone is standing firm on their interpretations. Which is too bad, for while we all have the right to our opinions, and to arbitrate however we want, and to live by Rule Zero whenever we want, I still think it's bad for the game in general when commonplace rules are handled differently from table to table, and when a player cannot simply join a new group of players and know, in advance, how the game will be run.
I can go to a chess tournament and sit down to play, knowing that my opponent will be using the same rules I will use. I can go to Vegas and join a poker game, knowing that everyone at the table will play by the rules I will be using. I can walk into a local game store and play a game of Monopoly and know that anyone who walks in the door and joins the game will play by the same rules I'm using.
But I cannot do that with Pathfinder. I know that if I join a new group of players and make a rogue, it is almost certain that I will have an argument or three with the DM about what I can and can't do with Stealth. Or maybe I'll get lucky and be in perfect sync with my new DM.
I just think that shouldn't take luck.
What those rules are saying (although perhaps not as clearly as they can) is that you can't use Stealth in bright light when the target can see you.So, when a target CAN see you, you cannot use steatlh in bright light. No problem. This is just a restatement of the RAW - this exact rule appears in the description of the Stealth skill.
If you're sneaking up on someone who's looking away from you, you CAN use Stealth (and they can use Perception) since a visual element of the situation doesn't apply.This directly contradicts what James said in his previous sentence. If the observer is looking away from you, he CAN still look your way. In an instant. He CAN turn his head much faster than you can move 5' or 10' or whatever. Therefore, he CAN see you. Which means, according to James's statement immediately preceding this one, you cannot use Stealth. Or you can. Or you can't.
It seems even James is unclear on this.
No no he's so clear.
(and they can use Perception)Use perception = use 1 of your 5 senses, 1 IS ENOUGH (here is hearing, not sight)
Use perception doesn't mean use ALL your 5 senses necessarily.
I can use perception just to smell.
If the super powerful rogue in invisible (no sight) and flying (no sound) I can even get the perception for his damned stink!
I mean, this seems so obvious, no? Am I saying something against RAW?
No no he's so clear.
(and they can use Perception)
Use perception = use 1 of your 5 senses, 1 IS ENOUGH (here is hearing, not sight)
Use perception doesn't mean use ALL your 5 senses necessarily.
I can use perception just to smell.
If the super powerful rogue in invisible (no sight) and flying (no sound) I can even get the perception for his damned stink!I mean, this seems so obvious, no? Am I saying something against RAW?
Ahh, I have finally discerned the root of our misunderstanding. You see, nowhere in my post did I say the observer cannot use PERCEPTION. I have never said that. What I said, what I have always said, and what the RAW says, is that the sneaker cannot use STEALTH. There is a big difference you know.
The RAW says that rogue out there in plain sight in bright light cannot use Stealth. Which means his attempt to hide in front of everyone, in plain sight, is useless. Which means everyone (particularly the cleric in the OP) only needs to get a DC 0 Perception check.
Even if he's momentarily looking at something else, he was aware of the rogue, he has no facing, and he's using all of his senses, including sight, to look all around. It's bright light, the rogue cannot use Stealth, and the cleric CAN look in the rogue's direction (he's not paralyzed, blinded, blindfolded, shrouded in darkness, or playing peek-a-boo with his hands over his eyes, so he CAN look in any direction he wants to).
Which according to RAW, and according to James, means the rogue cannot use Stealth in this situation.
So in this example (going back to the OP), the cleric will use hearing. And he will use sight. And he might use scent, if perhaps the rogue is unbathed and stinky. He might even feel the breeze of the rogue's approach, and he might even taste the rogue's fear wafting on the breeze. God knows, he might even use ESP so he can get a 6th sense going.
It doesn't matter.
What matters is the fact that the lighting is good, the observer CAN observe the rogue using at least one sense, so the RAW, and James Jacoms, say the rogue cannot use Stealth.
So, if the cleric makes his Perception check against DC 0, then he sees/hears/smells/feels/tastes/ESPs the rogue standing there in broad daylight.
No no he's so clear.
(and they can use Perception)
Use perception = use 1 of your 5 senses, 1 IS ENOUGH (here is hearing, not sight)
Use perception doesn't mean use ALL your 5 senses necessarily.
I can use perception just to smell.
If the super powerful rogue in invisible (no sight) and flying (no sound) I can even get the perception for his damned stink!I mean, this seems so obvious, no? Am I saying something against RAW?
Ahh, I have finally discerned the root of our misunderstanding. You see, nowhere in my post did I say the observer cannot use PERCEPTION. I have never said that. What I said, what I have always said, and what the RAW says, is that the sneaker cannot use STEALTH. There is a big difference you know.
Actually, no, this is not the root of misunderstanding.
In my post I was only trying to explain the 2 sentences of James Jacob, in which I hadn't seen any ambiguity, that's all.I told you before that I know BY HEART, REALLY, your posts; thus, even if I was not aware before of rules as intended by you and the others that follows your way (you can call it RAW if you wish, no problem), well now it's about 1 month that I've understood clearly your way. And the DC 0 Perception story was again well undestood since the beginning.
I started to post when my DM, just for joke, after 10 years that we were using happily our interpretation (to be clear RAW to us) of stealth, said to me in an occasion, "NO! you cannot keep Stealth when you go out in plain sight (even with the target distracted/unaware). That's the new!" It was just to provoke and to force me to go on the battlefield of this subject in many forums (you bastard DM).
I did it, in order to present what I interpreted from the rules about stealth since the beginning of 3.0, 3.5, pathfinder at the end, RAW in my mind. And I discovered that my interpretation was not accepted as RAW.
So I tried to read things carefully in the rules and following your posts to understand why mine was not RAW and your yes.
Now after some debate kept civil at the beginning I was still convinced that my interpretation could be the RAW. But things heated then. I don't know who was first, but I start to feel attacked and, wrongly, to attack others. You surely were one of the attacked. After then, when I could not see any opening even in front of what I considered to be obvious, I became to be sarcastic and sterile (sterile like answers that I got IMO)
Now, I'm sorry to say that I'm still not convinced of who is right (in terms of what was in the mind of the creators of the rules when they wrote them). I say it sincerely. Some answers by authors made me feel confortable and kept to be arrogant.
Now, it's now clear that a solution could not be found, apart from the one: you Herr Malthus, you're interpreting the RAW and then house-ruling. Again I firmly don't agree, I keep to see a kind of closure to every opinion different from a certain one. I tried to explain it, but I probably couldn't as I wanted. Fine, I'll continue to do what I think is right. And you'll do the same.
To conclude, I want to apologize when I was harsh, and believe me, I respect you for your untameable devotion to this subject... even if I can't absolutely agree ;)
Am I reading correctly here? Are people advocating the following position?
----------------------
As long as combat is going on (which "distracts" the target), a Rogue's first attack against any target, whether flat-footed, flanked, or otherwise denied dex or not, is a sneak attack. The Rogue can continue to gain sneak attack against the same target by simply moving away (not threatening the opponent) for one round, then moving back in on the next round and attacking again.
-----------------------If I am in fact reading this, this position is ridiculous. Someone please tell me this isn't the position being espoused.
Actually, I think that is exactly how this will work in my game, and I don't think it ridiculous at all. I think a Rogue would be a little silly to try it though. I mean the enemy is in combat, the rogue is better off moving into a flanking position once they have closed. Taking a round to move back into cover of some sort and then have to re-stealth in again, you now have to use a whole round and when you get back you only get a single attack action, so you got no damage one round and only one attack the next as opposed to taking a 5 foot step into flanking position and getting a full round action of sneaks if you did not put yourself in flanking position already when you first stealthed up. How is your damage output more that way and in what way is it unbalancing? And remember each round the rogue does this, they would still have to make another stealth check and it would be harder because the target is expecting it.
To me there are four issues I see being discussed here.
1. Does allowing stealth in plain sight of a target that is distracted in combat unbalance things? Frankly I can't see how. At best you are giving one extra sneak attack per opponent then the rogue would get just through good movement. Additionally, this ruling effects the enemy as well, so NPC rogues will get the same benefits.
2. Is allowing stealth without cover or concealment against the RAW? As I said earlier, I don't really care, but as I read the rule on distraction as its written, it is vague and as such RAI needs to be applied because distraction is up to DM interpretation at least until Piazo decides to clarify it, if they ever do. Won't matter to me one way or another
3. Does it make sense? Ill tell you there are people in the military that can sneak up on someone in plain site using camouflage today. They could creep up on the ground and you would never see them coming. in Pathfinder, there is no facing, DM_Blake says that means within a six second round, folk are looking around in every direction. Fair enough but, you can't look in every direction at once and a good sneak would watch the target and freeze when the they were looking in their direction and then move when they were not. As the rules abstract this looking around, I see no issue with saying the reduced movement is an abstraction for doing as I described. Also this is a game of super human abilities as it is, and fantasy should stretch what we normally consider possible. A character with 25 strength can lift 800 lbs over their head and can walk around at 5' per round with 1600 lbs. Are we really saying that we can buy off on someone training their body to be able to lift 1600 lbs and move it, but not being able to train to hide from someone without cover especially when that person is engaged if very distracting activity like combat?
4. Does allowing my interpretation open me up for lots of ambiguity and argument. I do think that this interpretation has more potential for it as does anything that depends on RAI. I for one am not at all worried about it, my group discusses things like adults and we almost always come to a reasonable agreement. The few times we don't they just say "Your the DM, go with your ruling" and we move on without rancor. As for anyone else that decides on how to adjudicate this rule, you will of course all need to decide for yourselves.
When I've said I felt a rogue could sneak through well-lit occupied areas, I have never once intended to say that he could 'start' his stealth in such areas under observation (unless he happens to have special abilities that allow him to of course.)
Full support. That's exactly my main point in all the story.
1. Does allowing stealth in plain sight of a target that is distracted in combat unbalance things? Frankly I can't see how. At best you are giving one extra sneak attack per opponent then the rogue would get just through good movement. Additionally, this ruling effects the enemy as well, so NPC rogues will get the same benefits.2. Is allowing stealth without cover or concealment against the RAW? As I said earlier, I don't really care, but as I read the rule on distraction as its written, it is vague and as such RAI needs to be applied because distraction is up to DM interpretation at least until Piazo decides to clarify it, if they ever do. Won't matter to me one way or another
Again, total agreement with you too.
Unless subject to something that removes this, a creature sees everything within its line of sight.
You know. I scoured the book for this very assertion, and I can't find it anywhere. I understand that 2nd Ed had facing(mainly for the purpose of backstabbing and using a shield), now removing that element by saying there is no facing in 3rd edition does not necessarily mean that everyone has 360 vision all the time, or even that they are observing everything within line of sight. All of this is extrapolation(and in my opinion, false extrapolation) and not RAW since nowhere can I find it implied or directly spelled out in Pathfinder.
|
|
Unless subject to something that removes this, a creature sees everything within its line of sight.
You know. I scoured the book for this very assertion, and I can't find it anywhere. I understand that 2nd Ed had facing(mainly for the purpose of backstabbing and using a shield), now removing that element by saying there is no facing in 3rd edition does not necessarily mean that everyone has 360 vision all the time, or even that they are observing everything within line of sight.
That's right.
There's a difference between saying that everyone twists and turns several times during combat, so will effectively end up facing every direction at some point during the round;
and believing that everyone has a permanent view of all directions, simultaneously. If that were the case, there would be no reason to make specific rules cases for beholders, etc.
Even if their head were to constantly spin freely on it's socket, at any given moment, they would have a blind spot. A blind spot that could be taken advantage of (at a suitable penalty to the Stealth roll).
If you want to limit this to those who had a readied action, that's fine. The point is, the Stealth bonus already reflects how able someone is to time their approach at that specific moment.
The Perception bonus is meant to represent how alert someone is; a high value represents a person whose eyes are darting everywhere, who jumps at the slightest sound. A low value represents a person who ignores things, who has tunnel vision, or doesn't realise the implications of the background noise or the flashes in the corner of his eye.
The possibility of the Stealth vs Perception roll being open to success or failure takes this into account.
There is facing rules in 3.x. It's called flanking rules.
There's just no rule for a player to determine its character facing at one point in the round.
That's why flanking allows sneak attacks, and why creatures with all-around vision are immune to flanking.
There is facing rules in 3.x. It's called flanking rules.
There's just no rule for a player to determine its character facing at one point in the round.That's why flanking allows sneak attacks, and why creatures with all-around vision are immune to flanking.
REally, because then I'm flanked, I can still see both of my attackers. Neither one of them can freely use Stealth because of flanking. Neither one of them gets concealment from me because of flanking. Neither one of them gets the "unseen attacker" benefit of denying me my DEX bonus.
All they get is a small bonus to attack me since I cannot keep track of them perfectly.
But - I can still see both of them.
Which means I am not "facing" away from either one of them.
There is no facing in combat.
There is facing rules in 3.x. It's called flanking rules.
There's just no rule for a player to determine its character facing at one point in the round.That's why flanking allows sneak attacks, and why creatures with all-around vision are immune to flanking.
REally, because then I'm flanked, I can still see both of my attackers. Neither one of them can freely use Stealth because of flanking. Neither one of them gets concealment from me because of flanking. Neither one of them gets the "unseen attacker" benefit of denying me my DEX bonus.
All they get is a small bonus to attack me since I cannot keep track of them perfectly.
But - I can still see both of them.
Which means I am not "facing" away from either one of them.
There is no facing in combat.
This is not RAW to pathfinder though.
There is no text asserting that there is no facing, Full Stop.This appears to be a relic from 3.x. The mechanics for flanking and AoOs may remain the same as in 3.x but that is not the same as if 'no facing' were RAW to pathfinder. Find me anything in Pathfinder referencing facing, or even what a character sees in combat. I have searched, but perhaps your searchFu is greater than mine.
Although, more importantly than 'no facing', I have found no instances indicating that line of sight means automatic observation, which is what I feel this whole argument boils down to. If you talk about determining line of sight to a target, the target must first be observed before being targeted and the line of sight determined.
REally, because then I'm flanked, I can still see both of my attackers.
No you can't. Not at the same time. You don't get eyes on the back of your head when you're flanked.
Neither one of them can freely use Stealth because of flanking. Neither one of them gets concealment from me because of flanking. Neither one of them gets the "unseen attacker" benefit of denying me my DEX bonus.
Yep.
All they get is a small bonus to attack me since I cannot keep track of them perfectly.
You mean because you can't keep track of them simultaneously. And in addition to the small bonus, they get the chance to sneak attack, because you can't defend effectively from attacks on opposite sides of you. If they were both in the same general direction from you you wouldn't be flanked.
But - I can still see both of them.
Not at the same moment.
Which means I am not "facing" away from either one of them.
Yes you are. You don't get all around vision when you're flanked.
There is no facing in combat.
Yes there is. It's simulated according to the position of the opponents and not of the character, though.
You know, the more I study the rules, the less convinced I am that Stealth is not a combat skill, I mean under the perception skill, it says:
Check: Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.
That seems fairly clear to me "including sneaking past you and attacking you". Also, the table says the DC of seeing someone is Zero, but it also says the DC of seeing a stealthed person is opposed by their stealth. So the argument comes back to the you can't use stealth when being observed, but all I see under stealth is:
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.
Well that makes sense, but it leads me to believe that means you can't vanish while they are looking at you, if you enter the area stealthed, they are not observing you, they are not observing you unless they can make a perception check the beats your Stealth check. lastly there is the wording under cover and concealment:
Cover and Stealth Checks: You can use cover to make a Stealth check. Without cover, you usually need concealment (see below) to make a Stealth check.
I dislike the use of the word probably here and I think these statements under cover and concealment are the crux of the argument. I can see the logic of this argument, once you come out from cover or concealment you can't make a check, or can you? What does usually mean? It could mean unless they are distracted, or unless someone creates a diversion, or unless any number of things.
In general intended or not, I think the no stealth without cover or concealment concept is lame so in my game, it won't work that way regardless. I mean a lot of spells like blur grant concealment, so now just because a Rogue is blurred while sneaking across an open space they can stealth? How does that make sense?
|
|
Yes there is. It's simulated according to the position of the opponents and not of the character, though.
Hi.
So, according to what you're saying, in the following example I can see both of my opponents, right? Because here I'm not flanked.
X00
0M0
0X0
x= Opponent 0=Open Square M=Me
But when we move to this position, I can't see them both, right?
0X0
0M0
0X0
Please explain logically/rationally how this makes any sense whatsoever.
This is not RAW to pathfinder though.
There is no text asserting that there is no facing, Full Stop.
This appears to be a relic from 3.x. The mechanics for flanking and AoOs may remain the same as in 3.x but that is not the same as if 'no facing' were RAW to pathfinder. Find me anything in Pathfinder referencing facing, or even what a character sees in combat. I have searched, but perhaps your searchFu is greater than mine.
How right you are.
But there are lots of things that are not RAW to pathfinder. There are millions, billions, probably trillions of things that have no text "asserting" that these things are not true.
For example, there is no text "asserting" that humans aren't purple. And no text "asserting" that gnomes don't have giant bat wings. There is no text "asserting" that dwarves don't have three heads. Gazillions of things are not "asserted" in Pathfinder.
Incidentally, you know what else is not "asserted" in Pathfinder? Facing. Nowhere in Pathfinder will you find any rules at all for combat facing.
So maybe we should stick to what is actually "asserted":
1. We have RAW for line of sight. If you can draw a line from your square to any square containing an enemy, you can see that enemy. That's simplifed, but that's the gist of it - if you want the exact rules, read them in the Combat chapter under Cover and also under Concealment. Edit: note that I am not saying you do see him; just that you can see him - a perception check might be needed to establish your awareness of this opponent, but no perception check is needed to establish line of sight. If you can draw the line, then you have line of sight.
2. We have RAW for invisible. It's clearly presented in the rulebook. They get all kinds of benefits, including denying their targets their DEX bonus to AC. Any unseen attacker gets this benefit.
3. We have RAW for flanking. It gives a little bonus to attack rolls. Additional rules under Sneak Attack allow combatants with this class ability to do extra damage if they can get into a position that grants them flanking.
4. You'll note that the RAW for being unseen is very different than the RAW for flanking, which makes them very different mechanics. By RAW. Which means that a defender who is flanked can clearly see both of his flanking opponents. If he couldn't, then at least one, maybe both, of those flankers would be unseen and would get those benefits. This is not the case, so clearly, those flankers are visible - which they should be, given that we have clearly stated RAW for determining line of sight.
5. And finally, nowhere in all that RAW, or any other RAW in the Pathfinder system, does it ever talk about "facing". Since facing is not in the RAW, there is no facing - it is not necessary for the RAW to explicitly "assert" the lack of something; the actual lack of "asserting" the existence of it is sufficient to make it RAW.
|
|
[...]a stealthed person [...] if you enter the area stealthed[...]
What is this condition, "stealthed"?
This is a part of the problem that we're encountering on all these stealth threads. There is no condition, "stealthed". I'm not being overly critical of you, Theo, or attacking you directly in any way, so let me first be clear about that. I see this all the time, from a number of different people.
I understand where it comes from, I think, too. In the Bioware Baldur's Gate games, a Rogue could enter "Stealth Mode" as long as no enemy had line of sight to them. The Rogue could then proceed to walk around, "Stealthed" until (if I remember the game mechanics right) an enemy made their Opposed Spot check to see them, or they attacked, whichever came first. This resulted in a lot of really silly situations where a Rogue would be walking down the middle of a hallway in "stealth" mode, and a monster rounded the bend, unable to see the Rogue walking directly down the middle of the well-lit hall right in front of their face. Sneak attack city, bay-bee!. Man, Baldur's Gate games were fun.
But that situation really doesn't make any sense. It's laughable. Imagine if you were roleplaying the monster, and the name of the game was called "Eat Stupid Dumb Heroes". Wouldn't you be peeved that you couldn't see a guy who was right in front of you? Imagine how that conversation would go with the DM.
Bill the Bugbear: "What do I see?"
DM: "OK, you see a long open hallway, lit by wall sconces. You know this hallway well, you live in this dungeon and walk this way at least 20 times a day. Make a Perception check, though."
Bill: "I roll a 14."
DM: "You take 35 points of damage as a Rogue appears directly in front of you and stabs you in the kidney."
Bill: "Whoa!! Was he invisible or something?"
DM: "No, just hidden."
Bill: "Hidden WHERE?!?!"
...and so forth. It's just not mechanically sound to let someone who's not concealed or under cover of some sort be "Stealthed", by which I guess is meant "unseen/unheard/a super-deadly invisible ninja". It opens up too many Pandora's Boxes. At the very least, an opposed roll is entirely appropriate in such cases, and it's logical that such a roll be severely penalized for the person attempting the Stealth check, because, well, you're standing right where the guy can see you, whether or not he currently does see you being beside the point. This is his chance to see you.
But yes, the ideaological differences on this subject have been very well described above, and that description was also very accurate. Nobody is ever going to change my mind on this, and I don't expect to change anybody's mind. Stealth forum threads are, in short, an excercise in futility.
|
|
Angled view. In the example I quoted, you would be facing about half-way between the middle-left open square and the bottom left one, dividing your attention between the two opponents, and backed a bit further into the top right of your 5 foot space than normal.
In the other example trying to do that is MUCH harder, to the point your enemies have a notably easier time hitting you or stabbing you in your blind spot while trying to defend against both sides.
Right, but in neither case is it impossible to see both enemies at the same time. If you're flanked, you turn sideways, and you let peripheral vision work it's magic. I absolutely assure you that if I stretch out my arms to both sides of me and look straight ahead and wiggle my fingers on both hands, I can see the movement of the fingers wiggling.
We have RAW for line of sight. If you can draw a line from your square to any square containing an enemy, you can see that enemy. That's simplified, but that's the gist of it - if you want the exact rules, read them in the Combat chapter under Cover and also under Concealment. Edit: note that I am not saying you do see him; just that you can see him - a perception check might be needed to establish your awareness of this opponent, but no perception check is needed to establish line of sight. If you can draw the line, then you have line of sight.
And that is my whole contention, just because you can see him doesn't mean you do see him that's what the perception check is for and until you do see him, he is still entitled to a stealth check which is what your perception check opposes. Once he is seen either because you made your roll or he was not hiding in the first place, then he can not use stealth because you are looking at him. I have read the cover and concealment rules and they say that USUALLY you need one or the other to use stealth, well that word leaves a world of room for you guessed it interpretation.And of course, I wouldn't care if it said always need.
Honestly the whole idea of the backstabbing thief is iconic in dungeons and dragons and fantasy in general, to remove it is like removing dragons. We don't have facing you say, I disagree, I would say its more accurately described as facing has been abstracted to simplify the game.That being said to pretend that people have eyes in the back of their heads is dumb. To say they are looking all around is not the same as looking everywhere at once. As I said, the decreased movement does an admirable job of simulating someone freezing when someone is looking and moving when they are not, abstraction for abstraction. Anyway, I suspect this will never get resolved, because the RAW is nebulous and even if it does, the backstabbing thief will always have a place in my campaign, after all this is an RPG.
And that is my whole contention, just because you can see him doesn't mean you do see him that's what the perception check is for
Quite correct.
and until you do see him, he is still entitled to a stealth check which is what your perception check opposes.
That is where you're mistaken. Per RAW, that is.
Look at the Perception chart on page 102 of the Core rulebook. It says the DC to notice a Visible creature is 0. This says "visible", not "seen" (note, if the creature were "seen", then we wouldn't need a perception check, right?). Note that it does not say the visible creature gets a Stealth check to oppose our perception check.
So, if the creature is visible (good lighting, no invisibility spell) then the DC to see him is 0. We know that he cannot use Stealth in bright light or when the observer is capable of observing him with any sense because the Stealth rules tell us this.
Which makes the your sentence that I just quoted incorrect, according to the RAW.
So to fix what you just said: "and regardless of whether you see him or not, he is not entitled to a stealth check, so your perception check requires a DC of 0."
Once he is seen either because you made your roll or he was not hiding in the first place, then he can not use stealth because you are looking at him.
This is correct. But it would also be correct if you had said "Once he steps into plain sight".
I have read the cover and concealment rules and they say that USUALLY you need one or the other to use stealth, well that word leaves a world of room for you guessed it interpretation.And of course, I wouldn't care if it said always need.
You could say that "usually" means that all the other possibilities are valid. So: "usually you need cover or concealment except when you don't." If you want to read it that way, you certainly can, but then it's not even a rule. It might as well not take up any space in the book if that's how you want to read it.
Me, I'm quite certain the "usually" is there because some creatures, and at least one class ability, break the cover/concealment rule. So I read it like this: "usually you need cover or concealment unless you have a specific ability that lets you break this rule."
So, if you have the Shadowdancer class ability to Hide in Plain Sight, then you can break the cover/concealment rule. There are a few spells that let you break the cover/concealment rule. A few monsters can do it naturally. For everyone else, the cover/concealment rule is ironclad because they don't have something that qualifies them to ignore the rule - they are the "usual" group that must follow the rule.
Honestly the whole idea of the backstabbing thief is iconic in dungeons and dragons and fantasy in general, to remove it is like removing dragons.
Who is removing it?
Want to back-stab (Sneak Attack)? Then sneak up on someone, out of combat. Perfectly allowed.
Want to back-stab in combat? Get flanking. Go invisible. Create a Diversion to use stealth. Feint.
You have options. But one option you don't have is to stand there, in plain sight, running willy-nilly around the battlefield like the Emporer in his New Clothes, using a common, ordinary, everyman skill to be invisible on the field of battle.
We don't have facing you say, I disagree, I would say its more accurately described as facing has been abstracted to simplify the game.
If by "abstracted" you mean "not included in the game" then you're absolutely correct.
That being said to pretend that people have eyes in the back of their heads is dumb.
It's equally dumb to pretend that people cannot turn their heads, or that a rogue can move 10' feet and make an attack faster than his victim can glance over his shoulder - doubly so in the OP's scenario when that victim knew exactly where the rogue was and was watching for him.
To say they are looking all around is not the same as looking everywhere at once.
It's a six-second melee round. Danger is everywhere. You bet that, at some time in those 6 seconds, he has time to look for danger.
In today's world, cops are taught to "check the corners" when they enter a room. it takes them considerably less than 6 seconds to do it. I see no reason to take it away from D&D adventurers - especially since doing so is contrary to RAW.
As I said, the decreased movement does an admirable job of simulating someone freezing when someone is looking and moving when they are not, abstraction for abstraction.
Except a 2nd level rogue can take a rogue talent and ignore that abstraction. And everyone else can simply subtract 5 from the DC to move normal speed.
Anyway, I suspect this will never get resolved, because the RAW is nebulous and even if it does, the backstabbing thief will always have a place in my campaign, after all this is an RPG.
No, the RAW is not nebulous. I've laid it out in clear, precise detail. What's nebulous is the people who don't want it to work the way the RAW says it works.
It's perfectly fair to say "Honestly the whole idea of the backstabbing thief is iconic in dungeons and dragons and fantasy in general, to remove it is like removing dragons." In fact, I think YOU said that. And I totally agree with you.
So fine. You WANT backstabbing. You deliberately create houserules to allow backstabbing, or to make it easier anyway. That's wonderful. More power to you.
I have never said you can't, or anyone else can't, do exactly that. I have lots of houserules too. I love houserules. But to pretend, contend, or argue that the houserules we make are actually RAW is just a bit over the top.
All I have advocated for in this or any other Rules thread is that we should have a clear understanding of what the RAW says, and what we're houseruling, and not blur the line between the two. RAW is RAW; houserules are not RAW.
If you want to suggest houserules, there is a forum on this website for exactly that. But there is less of a justification for it in the Rules Questions forum. When someone asks a question about the RAW, in this forum, they should get RAW answers, not houserules. That's what the OP did - he should get RAW. Instead, some poeple gave him housrules disguised as RAW. At the very least, we should give him the RAW answer and then add our own, clearly labled, houserules as footnotes.
What is this condition, "stealthed"?
This is a part of the problem that we're encountering on all these stealth threads. There is no condition, "stealthed". I'm not being overly critical of you, Theo, or attacking you directly in any way, so let me first be clear about that. I see this all the time, from a number of different people.
OK I see your point and I know its not a state, but its useful for discussion. A character moves slower when stealthily, so if its not a state it has to be referred to somehow. If I character is moving down a hall at half speed using stealth they are actively using the skill no matter what you call it.
I understand where it comes from, I think, too. In the Bioware Baldur's Gate games, a Rogue could enter "Stealth Mode" as long as no enemy had line of sight to them. The Rogue could then proceed to walk around, "Stealthed" until (if I remember the game mechanics right) an enemy made their Opposed Spot check to see them, or they attacked, whichever came first. This resulted in a lot of really silly situations where a Rogue would be walking down the middle of a hallway in "stealth" mode, and a monster rounded the bend, unable to see the Rogue walking directly down the middle of the well-lit hall right in front of their face. Sneak attack city, bay-bee!. Man, Baldur's Gate games were fun.
Fun game, but that's not where this comes from
But that situation really doesn't make any sense. It's laughable. Imagine if you were roleplaying the monster, and the name of the game was called "Eat Stupid Dumb Heroes". Wouldn't you be peeved that you couldn't see a guy who was right in front of you? Imagine how that conversation would go with the DM.
The situation you describe is laughable because it was the best a video game engine could do to portray it. Walking down a hall in a mode in a video game is not the same as sneaking down a hall wearing wall colored cloak and face paint hugging the wall trying to blend in. Let me give you an alternative scenario. A guard stands in front of a castle gate, our rogue wearing camouflage crawls up slowly through the grass, not high enough for concealment, but he only moves when the guard glances away and takes his time. Possible to sneak up on him? I am telling you there are people in the military that can do it now and they are not super heroes, how come you find this laughable, but not someone walking 5' per round carrying 1600 lbs or someone with a 25 acrobatics having a 50% to jump clear over an 8ft tall ogre while wearing full armor?
.At the very least, an opposed roll is entirely appropriate in such cases, and it's logical that such a roll be severely penalized for the person attempting the Stealth check, because, well, you're standing right where the guy can see you, whether or not he currently does see you being beside the point. This is his chance to see you.
I agree here if rogue was standing in front of someone who was not distracted and they had no cover I would apply a severe penalty to their stealth check, that's where the DM comes in, if they snuck up crawling and were camouflaged, I would probably give them a better chance depending on the situation, reward for good RP and all that.
But yes, the ideaological differences on this subject have been very well described above, and that description was also very accurate. Nobody is ever going to change my mind on this, and I don't expect to change anybody's mind. Stealth forum threads are, in short, an excercise in futility.
Maybe so, but I enjoy a good debate and no offense was taken
The sticking point here is when stealth fails. A rogue could start from a place of shadowy concealment and then move stealthily into an area of bright light, but at what point do the other characters perceive the rogue? Is it immediate? is it based on when the observers get their actions?
I am thinking that if the rogue starts from concealment, then his movement has a chance to remain stealthy, even if moving into bright light, until someone beats his stealth roll or until his next move action. On the next action, he is now in bright light and cannot use stealth. If the rogue moves through bright light and makes it to cover/concealment again, then he remains stealthed on his next action.
If the rogue moves up to a target, who does not beat his stealth, and shanks him, he starts a surprise round, and the target is treated as unaware that combat started. Rogue gets a standard action to sneak attack. If he beat the target in initiative he can take a full attack actions worth of sneak attacks after the surprise round, as the target is still flat footed.
If the target is further away than 1/2 the rogue's speed, the rogue can try to move at full speed with the penalty, but he cannot run, or charge without breaking stealth at the beginning of his round since you cannot stealth and use those actions. He cannot use a second move action with stealth if his second move action starts in bright light without cover.
If there are multiple observers, the DM could and probably should levy penalties on the rogues stealth. although the rogue can choose to ignore observers (and the penalties associated with them) if he doesn't care about remaining hidden from them. If he is discovered by someone other than the target, that person can attempt to warn the target if they beat the rogue on initiative, during the surprise round. If they warn the target the target is not treated as unaware, should the rogue start a fight, however they remain flatfooted until their action comes up.
Guards often use move actions to actively search for stimulus, i.e. they are actively being aware of their surroundings. The move action suggests that they are changing facing, moving to see all around them. A rogue who moves from concealment here drops to DC 0 to detect, + situational mods, such as distance.
Mind you, guarding all day is wearisome, and there aught to be chances to catch the guard distracted, or when he does something like move twice in the round, pick at the fire, start having a conversation with his friend guard, etc. As a rogue player, I would just tell the DM, I wait for a suitable distraction before making my move. If there is a time limit or other factors reduce my time, I might attempt to create a diversion. Either way, I could sneak up to the guards and sneak attack, or try to sneak past them. The trick is just finding the "distracted" moment, or the moment when they don't spend a move action to guard.
Anyway, that's my take on the RAW.
Edit - how does one know when a guard is distracted? sense motive ...
That is where you're mistaken. Per RAW, that is.
Look at the Perception chart on page 102 of the Core rulebook. It says the DC to notice a Visible creature is 0. This says "visible", not "seen" (note, if the creature were "seen", then we wouldn't need a perception check, right?). Note that it does not say the visible creature gets a Stealth check to oppose our perception check.
So, if the creature is visible (good lighting, no invisibility spell) then the DC to see him is 0. We know that he cannot use Stealth in bright light or when the observer is capable of observing him with any sense because the Stealth rules tell us this.
Which makes the your sentence that I just quoted incorrect, according to the RAW.
Except I would maintain that I am not visible until you see me I.E. make your perception check and beat my stealth.
Want to back-stab (Sneak Attack)? Then sneak up on someone, out of combat. Perfectly allowed.
As long as there is cover or concealment handy otherwise your out of luck, I think I can adjudicate the situation and say "There is no cover or concealment so it is much harder, but go ahead and try". Guys is a god of stealth maybe he succeeds even if its really hard, its a heroic game.
Want to back-stab in combat? Get flanking. Go invisible. Create a Diversion to use stealth. Feint.
You have options. But one option you don't have is to stand there, in plain sight, running willy-nilly around the battlefield like the Emporer in his New Clothes, using a common, ordinary, everyman skill to be invisible on the field of battle.
I certainly was not advocating that. I consider combat enough of a diversion to sneak up and get one sneak attack, after that, if you want to get out of site and try it again then feel free, but that's just stupid mechanically. Once you in it makes far more sense to flank if at all possibile then running back and forth to and from cover.
If by "abstracted" you mean "not included in the game" then you're absolutely correct.
Removed as a game mechanic, not removed as a concept
It's equally dumb to pretend that people cannot turn their heads, or that a rogue can move 10' feet and make an attack faster than his victim can glance over his shoulder - doubly so in the OP's scenario when that victim knew exactly where the rogue was and was watching for him.
Actually no its not, I do medieval reenactments and I can't tell you the number of times I have successful snuck up behind someone in a battle and crossed a much larger distance then 10' without them knowing. In the heat of battle it happens all the time, its loud, your wearing helmets, your worried about the guy in front of you and you get blind sided, it is very very common.
It's a six-second melee round. Danger is everywhere. You bet that, at some time in those 6 seconds, he has time to look for danger.
As I said before, you are free to assume that for the purpose of the game, but it is not reality
No, the RAW is not nebulous. I've laid it out in clear, precise detail. What's nebulous is the people who don't want it to work the way the RAW says it works.
The word Visible is in my opinion up to interpretation, the word Distraction you yourself called unfortunate. The word usually in the concealment section. The RAW is full of areas that are worded in such a way as to be open to interpretation when it comes to Stealth, you yourself has said so about the distraction.
It's perfectly fair to say "Honestly the whole idea of the backstabbing thief is iconic in dungeons and dragons and fantasy in general, to remove it is like removing dragons." In fact, I think YOU said that. And I totally agree with you.
So fine. You WANT backstabbing. You deliberately create houserules to allow backstabbing, or to make it easier anyway. That's wonderful. More power to you.
I have never said you can't, or anyone else can't, do exactly that. I have lots of houserules too. I love houserules. But to pretend, contend, or argue that the houserules we make are actually RAW is just a bit over the top.
All I have advocated for in this or any other Rules thread is that we should have a clear understanding of what the RAW says, and what we're houseruling, and not blur the line between the two. RAW is RAW; houserules are not RAW.
If you want to suggest houserules, there is a forum on this website for exactly that. But there is less of a justification for it in the Rules Questions forum. When someone asks a question about the RAW, in this forum, they should get RAW answers, not houserules. That's what the OP did - he should get RAW. Instead, some poeple gave him housrules disguised as RAW. At the very least, we should give him the RAW answer and then add our own, clearly labled, houserules as footnotes.
I get that I would love an official ruling from Piazo on it. I would indeed house rule at that point. I also admit I was not paying much attention to which forum I was posting in and just getting into the heat of the debate. No need to get defensive, I actually find your arguments logical and well laid out, I just don't agree in every case