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.
I can't.
Anyway, flanking rules are a simplification of facing rules and moreso of the reality of facing in combat. Progressive penalties according to the position of the combatants would be cumbersome, as well as determining who's behind exactly, so the designers made it so that flanking bonuses are given entirely in one particular position, or not, and so that the bonuses are averaged among allies instead of one getting double that and the other nothing.What is this condition, "stealthed"?
The problem is that you don't really need a hiding check at all, in your view. You're either out of view, and just have to move silently to not be percieved, or not, and then you're noticed.
The strange mechanics of hiding in baldur's gate, or nwn, or maybe others I didn't play, are supposed to simulate, in absence of a DM or of a good AI, your characters creeping on people while they look the other way, read the newspaper, or some other things that sentinels and regular monsters do when they have nothing better to do.Note that it does not say the visible creature gets a Stealth check to oppose our perception check.
And note that there's another line for creatures using stealth.
If by "abstracted" you mean "not included in the game" then you're absolutely correct.
I think by abstracted, he meant "included as flanking rules, GM calls and other abilities", on which point he's absolutely correct.
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 you say, danger is everywhere. You bet that at some time the stealthy character can find a moment when the other has another thing to look at.
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'd say yes, if a game concept known as camouflage existed in the game. Oh hang on a sec.. yup there it is. 12th level Ranger. Allows them to use Stealth in his favored terrain even without cover or concealment.
So the Rogue, by RAW, is out of luck. For a 12th level Ranger it's a piece of cake as long as he's in favored terrain. Assuming he managed to start unobserved anyway, otherwise he'll have to wait until 17th for Hide in Plain Sight.
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.
You have made a mistake here.
The first rule simply states that any distraction "such as by a Bluff check" allows the use of Stealth.The second rule provides guidelines for how one individual can deliberately cause another to be distracted. They achieve this by creating a "diversion". But that specific method is just a subset of the deliberately open-ended "momentarily distracted" referenced in the first rule. The second rule does not cover everything included under the first and does not force added restriction into it.
As this is the rules section as DM_Blake reminded me in the last post, this will be my last post on this topic. The topic had regressed quite a bit into what makes sense and far afield from what is RAW. DM_Blake does an excellent job of laying out what he believes is RAW and those discussions have brought a lot good dialog. The rules on stealth are in my opinion scattered and badly written. DM_Blake has done a good job of pulling them together and made very logical arguments to what should be considered RAW. I don't agree with all the interpretations as logicality laid out as they are, but there is nothing to be gained by further discussion,. I will run my game of course my way and whether its Raw or house rule matters to me not at all. If another non Rules thread is started to discuss this, maybe I will join in, but I have no more interest in discussing which interpretation of the RAW is correct when to me, it really does not matter. In any event, thanks for the good discussion and game on
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.
His response seems clear to me.
All he's saying is:
1. You can't use Stealth in bright light if the target can see you.
2. If the target is looking away, then they can't see you, so you can use Stealth.
What the target could do isn't the point. It's what he is doing that matters. If he is looking away, he can't see you.
He is certainly capable of seeing you, simply by turning his head, but until he does, he cannot see you.
That's the problem with "can see": It means "is capable of seeing" but it is also used to refer only to what someone is currently observing.
I hope they take that into account and pick clearer language if they errata the Stealth rules.
|
The problem is that you don't really need a hiding check at all, in your view. You're either out of view, and just have to move silently to not be percieved, or not, and then you're noticed.
Actually, that almost (just almost, as I'll clarify) is my view, because it's almost the RAW's view, as well.
A more accurate statement of my (and, I think, the RAW's) view is, you're either:
- Out of view and just have to move silently (achieved by passing an opposed Stealth vs. Perception check) to not be perceived
- Partially obfuscated by cover or concealment and just have to pass an opposed Stealth vs. Perception to not be perceived
- Approaching a target that has been described as "distracted" by your DM and just have to pass an opposed Stealth vs Perception check to not be perceived (here, you have a +5 bonus to your Stealth check, and possibly more, given other various conditions including lighting and distance)
or
- You are standing right out in the open, not concealed or obfuscated in any way, with your...sword, yeah, that's it, sword...in your hand, and everybody in the world with line of sight to you and who's not way too busy paying a LOT of attention to something else to even think about the fact that you might be around can see you (assuming your DM doesn't actually roll the useless DC 0 Perception checks...I imagine it's possible that someone could fail one of those, but, meh).
There are some obvious exceptions to this, mostly around darkvision vs. normal/low light vision in completely dark rooms, but that, basically, is my view.
I do not buy in to combat being a "distraction" for the purposes of stealth, because the wording in the Core Rules is:
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth.
I think if the designers meant for combat to serve as a distraction, they would have worded it differently, since obviously at that point combat passes "scantily clad serving wenches" and "playing cards" as the absolute #1, the KING, of all reasons for distraction to take place in the game world. If they meant for combat to serve as a distraction, I think they'd have written something like this:
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check or by the press of combat around them), you can attempt to use Stealth.
...but since they didn't say that, then I don't think that.
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.
Okay, let’s look at an item that does just this. Let you clearly see what is in front of and behind you, or on opposing ends of your square, in addition to other goodies.
But most importantly, being capable of seeing all around you allows you to retain Dex, even while flat-footed and makes it so you cannot be flanked. This seems to directly contradict that you can always see clearly even while being flanked, because this item is intended to grant you that very ability, and a number of weaknesses to boot.
Another thing to ponder is that this also negates invisibilities 'Unseen Attacker' effect(i.e. being flat-footed) even though one would think it shouldn't. Oh, the inconsistencies of RAW, they are everywhere.
Robe of Eyes
Aura moderate divination; CL 11th
Slot body; Price 120,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.
DESCRIPTION
This valuable garment appears to be a normal robe until it is put on. Its wearer is able to see in all directions at the same moment due to scores of visible, magical eye-like patterns that adorn the robe. She also gains 120-foot darkvision.
The robe of eyes sees all forms of invisible or ethereal creatures or objects within 120 feet.
The wearer of a robe of eyes gains a +10 competence bonus on Perception checks. She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC even when flat-footed, and can't be flanked. She is not able to avert or close her eyes when confronted by a creature with a gaze attack.
A light or continual flame spell cast directly on a robe of eyes causes it to be blinded for 1d3 minutes. A daylight spell blinds it for 2d4 minutes.
CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, true seeing; Cost 60,000 gp
Also, nowhere in the book does it clearly define Line of Sight. It defines Line of Effect and states when Line of Effect is present but Line of Sight is denied your target has Total Concealment. So as far as any definition of Line of Sight you give being RAW by pathfinder I am skeptical, since I couldn’t find using the directions you gave.
I have to agree that this thread is futile, especially when video games are used as references. Video games operate very very differently than actual table-top games because they MUST codify EVERYTHING, even things that are not directly codified in the material they are given. Developers also have another concern in resource management so they are not going to be capable of applying every single book variable in every single situation or the game would be abusively resource dependent, and even more significant, prone to crashing (thus weakening end-user experience, and profitability).
|
|
I have to agree that this thread is futile, especially when video games are used as references. Video games operate very very differently than actual table-top games because they MUST codify EVERYTHING, even things that are not directly codified in the material they are given. Developers also have another concern in resource management so they are not going to be capable of applying every single book variable in every single situation or the game would be abusively resource dependent, and even more significant, prone to crashing (thus weakening end-user experience, and profitability).
Yeah, I know, that was exactly my point. Baldur's Gate's treatment of 3.0/3.5 Stealth mechanics are shoddy at best. My point is that, shoddy though they were, they are still influencing how people want to be able to play Rogues. I wasn't in any way using it as a reference, other than to say, "This is stupid."
Yeah, I know, that was exactly my point. Baldur's Gate's treatment of 3.0/3.5 Stealth mechanics are shoddy at best. My point is that, shoddy though they were, they are still influencing how people want to be able to play Rogues. I wasn't in any way using it as a reference, other than to say, "This is stupid."I have to agree that this thread is futile, especially when video games are used as references. Video games operate very very differently than actual table-top games because they MUST codify EVERYTHING, even things that are not directly codified in the material they are given. Developers also have another concern in resource management so they are not going to be capable of applying every single book variable in every single situation or the game would be abusively resource dependent, and even more significant, prone to crashing (thus weakening end-user experience, and profitability).
The only problem is, I think your example may be a bit misplaced, most people participating in this discussion are talking about sneaking up on an enemy from behind, be it in combat or not. Not sauntering up to their face and 'BAM!'. (I don't think anyone here is being influenced by BG rogues, I know I'm not.)
I understand and accept that RAW says in bright light Stealth is denied, but also I note:
the first line 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."
and the fourth line "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth."
So light is not the only element at play. It is not unreasonable to assume that if someone is on guard duty but facing the opposite way[negating sight] in broad daylight, a character could try and sneak up on the guard by moving silently. James even points this out with his "if the target is looking the other way comment". The idea that one rule can wholly negate another ignoring relevant context is my only beef with DM_Blake's interpretation. That and the idea of the default being everyone has all-round sight.
|
|
Honestly, I doubt anybody on this thread wants it to work that way though to be honest. We aren't asking to be magically invisible, but rather to be given the opportunity to sneak past somebody when they aren't looking in the right direction.
I know people in real life who can just slip up on you. Your standing there, doing whatever (and I myself tend towards a near-paranoid level of surroundings observation and perception precautions) and then all of a sudden they are behind you, even though there's no cover in any direction for 10 or 15 yards and you've been looking in every direction.
And this is without camouflage.
People who want to count combat as sufficient distraction to enable a Stealth check sort of do want to be magically invisible, though. I say this because they're drawing the inference that things should be that way when there's no language in the book suggesting that such a thing should be possible, even though there certainly would be such language if such a thing was even remotely intended by the designers. And I know there's at least one person in this thread who wants that rule, although I'm too lazy to scroll and quote. I digress.
I know people like you are describing, too, and I've been snuck up on when I shouldn't have been as well. This is less a conversation about what happens (or can happen) in real life than it is a conversation about what is possible to simulate using the PFRPG ruleset, but, I'll play along...
I totally conceed that someone can be snuck up on outside of combat, that's my third bullet point in my post a few posts up. And yeah, a lot of that demands DM adjudication. But rationalize with me, here... if facing was intended to play any role in combat whatsoever (aside from the obscure and singular way it is "abstracted" by the flanking rules), wouldn't there be a phase of combat in which each player established which direction they were facing? I mean, really, wouldn't that exist? You'd get Standard actions, Move actions, Full-Round Actions, and Facing actions, wouldn't you? In this way you could be clear as to what direction you were facing, and you'd know precisely what direction NPCs were facing. Seems like a pretty Intelligence Check DC 0 way of incorporating facing into the game, right? But it's not there.
Really, how would you feel if there wasn't any Cover particularly close to you, and your DM just snuck an enemy Rogue right up next to your Wizard in combat and Sneak Attacked? Wouldn't you be prone to say, "But how do you know I wasn't looking in that direction?" I know I would, because we don't make it a habit to tell our DMs where we're looking (edit: in combat, obviously much of D&D is about telling your DM where you are looking outside of combat) or what direction we're facing. The game gives us an amount of wiggle room where combat awareness is concerned, probably to keep us from being bogged down by minutae. It's a selling point, a good feature in my estimation. But why it's OK to take that benefit away from the monsters/NPC's, I can't understand.
|
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.
So, the end result is, a character can only attempt Stealth, in situations where the opposing character has no possible means of detecting him?
In which case, what is the point of the skill?
|
|
A more accurate statement of my (and, I think, the RAW's) view is, you're either:
Out of view and just have to move silently (achieved by passing an opposed Stealth vs. Perception check) to not be perceived.
Make sure there's no light nearby, even if you are out of sight, since the presence of light (apparently) means everyone can automatically hear you.
That's what happens, when you print sentences saying 'no Stealth in bright light', and why Hide and Move Silently (and conversely, Spot and Listen) should never have been rolled together.
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.So, the end result is, a character can only attempt Stealth, in situations where the opposing character has no possible means of detecting him?
In which case, what is the point of the skill?
1. Stealth as a non-combat skill is massively useful. All the stuff about "no facing" and "360-degree" awareness really only applies to combat. Nothing in RAW offers any complication to a rogue (or anyone else since this is an 'untrained' skill) sneaking past vigilant guards, or sneaking up on people and bopping them on the head - out of combat.
2. Stealth as a combat skill is limited. As are all skills. We have feats, and maneuvers, for getting combat stuff done. We have skills that can, sometimes, have a combat application to allow or enhance our main combat objectives. But what we don't have are "combat skills". So, to use Stealth in combat, you need something extra. Like cover, total cover, concealment, total concealment, a Diversion, or a little magic (which usually just gives you one of those five things anyway).
As a side note, you exaggerate when you say "where the opposing character has no possible means of detecting him".
That might almost be true with Total Concealment or Total Cover, but it is not true with ordinary Concealment or ordinary Cover, nor is it true with Diversions. And even with Total Concealment/Cover, there are other senses that still allow a Perception check, opposed by your Stealth check.
For example, an Invisible combatant is granted Total Concealment by his invisibility, but he can still be heard. If he stands still, he gets +40 to his Stealth check, and if he's moving, he only gets +20. But any observer still gets a Perception check to notice the invisible combatant. Which means that even with any of the main 5 methods for achieving Stealth during combat, observers still have a chance to notice you, so you still need the Stealth skill if you want to be sneaky.
However, what you said is true given the bit of my post you quoted: when you stand in plain sight, in good lighting, where your opponents in combat can easily see you, then you cannot make a stealth roll. In that case, you're right, Stealth is useless, but it is clearly not the fact that this case is so all-inclusive that it precludes using Stealth in all other cases except those "where the opposing character has no possible means of detecting him".
dude, thread necro. Look at the date of the post above yours
The rules got clarified so that you can attack from stealth and get sneak attacks.