|
There is this epic skill use of Hide:
Hide in Plain Sight (Source: Agility & Athleticism): You may attempt to Hide from other creatures when in plain sight - ignoring the restriction of needing concealment or a distraction to move into concealment before hiding. Doing so requires two checks, and you must succeed at both. Success with the first check (DC 75 if being observed, DC 50 if in plain sight but not being observed) allows you to make a standard Hide check opposed to any possible observers' Spot checks.
Conveniently, my group house rules that epic skills can be used at non-epic levels.
You both are interpretting the skill your own way. Get a faq on it or I will do it the way it is written.
I read using my eyes. Most of the time I use my glasses so I can see while reading.
See how the second sentence added to the first sentence to elaborate how I read.
Your interpretation is that the second statement is null and void because it goes without saying if they cant see you at all you can use stealth, why would you need concealment or cover at all?
You're correct that is my position that you need to not be observed in order to use stealth. Seeing as that's in the stealth rules I don't see that as being problematic.
Now, if a rogue has full concealment/cover say by being around a corner a square or two back we both agree that the rogue can use stealth against a guard down a lit empty 5' wide corridor. The rogue now moves around the corner and down to the guard.
Does the guard automatically see the rogue that doesn't have cover or concealment?
I say yes, because you need cover/concealment to maintain being unobserved via stealth.
You say no, because you think that cover/concealment is a special exception.
Is that a correct assessment?
-James
Sorry, but it's not a correct assessment. I'm not really even sure how on earth you arrived at the conclusion that I would have thought that. In your example the Rogue uses Stealth (I guess to not be heard, since the guard can't see him at all due to total cover/concealment). When he emerges from around the corner, he no longer has cover or concealment to Stealth and becomes observed by the guard, negating his Stealth. Having concealment would allow him to use Stealth against the guard in the hallway, because it says against most creatures gaining cover or concealment allows you use Stealth.
So if the rogue was to turn the corner, in a fully lit hallway, yeah, he Stealth check would be for naught. Now if he was wearing a minor cloak of displacement, under the effects of a blur spell, in dim light (concealment vs the human guard), or tossed a smoke-bomb down the hallway (creating concealment in the hallway), then the Rogue could continue to use Stealth against the guard - because the Stealth rules say gaining cover or concealment is good enough to use Stealth.
You both are interpretting the skill your own way. Get a faq on it or I will do it the way it is written.
I read using my eyes. Most of the time I use my glasses so I can see while reading.
See how the second sentence added to the first sentence to elaborate how I read.
Your interpretation is that the second statement is null and void because it goes without saying if they cant see you at all you can use stealth, why would you need concealment or cover at all?
Pretty much this. It's not rocket science, it's just the English language. :P
Sorry, but it's not a correct assessment. I'm not really even sure how on earth you arrived at the conclusion that I would have thought that. In your example the Rogue uses Stealth (I guess to not be heard, since the guard can't see him at all due to total cover/concealment). When he emerges from around the corner, he no longer has cover or concealment to Stealth and becomes observed by the guard, negating his Stealth.
So we agree that you need concealment/cover to remain stealthy.
Great, so why do we remove the requirement that you need to be unobserved in order to use stealth?
Cover/concealment is not an exception to this rule, rather it is another requirement.
If it were an exception to needing to be unobserved then the rogue could walk down that perfectly lit corridor unseen, which we both agree he cannot do.
You don't get to ignore the requirement that the person be unobserved in order to use stealth.
Stealth doesn't let you disappear, rather it lets you remain unseen.
-James
Agreed. The problem is, having cover/concealment makes you not observed. It's english my friend, english. The paragraph states it plain as day. You cannot use Stealth while being observed. Against most creatures, cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. The rogue cannot walk down a perfectly lit hallway after Stealthing from around the corner, because now he has no cover/concealment in which to allow him to hide, allowing the guard to plainly observe him. Now if the rogue has blur active, then he has concealment, he may Stealth, the guard can attempt to see him with a Perception check.
Simple, easy, and it ignores no rules at all.
Agreed. The problem is, having cover/concealment makes you not observed.
No, it does not.it makes it Possible TO not be observed. It will not help you if you are already observed.
If someone is standing behind a light screen of plants and makes their hide check you do not see them. If that same person attacks you and you see them then they are being observed. The concealment does not prevent them from being observed, which is why they need the bluff check to start hiding. You need to read the entire paragraph.
Likewise, someone fighting in the shadows has a 20% miss chance and concealment. you can still see them though.
It's english my friend, english. The paragraph states it plain as day. You cannot use Stealth while being observed. Against most creatures, cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. The rogue cannot walk down a perfectly lit hallway after Stealthing from around the corner, because now he has no cover/concealment in which to allow him to hide, allowing the guard to plainly observe him. Now if the rogue has blur active, then he has concealment, he may Stealth, the guard can attempt to see him with a Perception check.
Simple, easy, and it ignores no rules at all.
you two seem to be talking completely passed one another
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Oooookay, this is now going into the realm of the MANY MANY MANY disagreements over Stealth and Perception. And most ANYONE that has been on the forums for over a day, knows that this is a highly contested subject.
TO me, it looks like the heart of your disagreement is in the "Observed" definition. James seems to think it is a constant, until full concealment/cover, or a Bluff/distraction check. Ashiel seems to think by gaining ANY amount of concealment one may negate the "Observed" status.
Until, Paizo ever comes up with a FAQ for this, I do not see either of you coming to an agreement. Neither of you will be able to persuade the other to switch camps.
And it is a LARGE factor in the "mechanical" worth of the rogue, on how one's DM will interpret the rules.
So for the OP, depending on how your DM runs his campaign, that can affect the "worth" of your rogue.
But to continue back and forth on your well stated arguements, that does kind of go off topic, and lawd knows we have enough threads on stealth and perception.
Just sayin' with much respect to both sides. As it IS an issue that really should be addressed one day.
Greg
There is one thing I noticed while reading these 400+ posts. There is an assumption that every rogue has to be twf to be effective. In the Game that I DM, I had rogue (based on the character Link from Hyrule) that pretty much ran at people with a two-handed great sword. The player had good damage, and could keep up with the rest of the party. She treated sneak attack dice as a bonus when she could, but did not rely purely on the sneak attack damage. Now she did use a lot of APG stuff, so I'm not sure if that negates my argument. If I remember correctly, she had the scout variant and the sniper variant.
To me, the only problem with rogue is that the only option for combat is the stealthy, finesse based sneak attacking. If they made it possible for the non-magic based skill monkey to just straight up fight, by perhaps extending the combat styles of the ranger to the rogue and making the sneak attack option into a combat style,than I would be a lot happier. This would probably require some rebalancing of the number of rogue talents, but would have the advantage of being able to get things like extra bonus feats for the two weapon fighting line and weapon finesse. As it stands right now, there are a fair number of concepts that land somewhere between rogue and bard or rogue and ranger, even with the archetypes, that end up being unworkable because they just don't fit into either because the rogue is effectively limited in combat by his, and his parties, ability to setup very specific situations.
Edit: Making the sneak attack type of fighting a combat style would also give the rangers a reason to consider an animal companion, since they could setup the necessary flanking situations more or less on their own, which is something the rogue cannot do. That to me is the biggest weakness of the rogue in combat, his primary tactic is completely dependent on the actions of others.
On a slightly tangential note, while I think the in depth discussion on stealth is interesting, it deserves its own thread, as it affects everyone, not just rogues. Some discussion of stealth is certainly appropriate to this thread, as it is one of the rogue's strong points, but perhaps save the in depth rules lawyering on stealth for another thread, where those who really want to get that in depth can go at it without distracting from the main topic of this thread.
i don't see any rational argument for the "you are not being observed when you have concealment" or even a ghost of one. It is stated clear as day that you need to bluff in order to hide under concealment.
blasting is sub optimal for a sorcerer, but wouldn't a sorcerer doing nothing but putting out scorching rays do more damage than most rogues?
i don't see any rational argument for the "you are not being observed when you have concealment" or even a ghost of one. It is stated clear as day that you need to bluff in order to hide under concealment.
blasting is sub optimal for a sorcerer, but wouldn't a sorcerer doing nothing but putting out scorching rays do more damage than most rogues?
THink of sombody hiding behind a tree that doesnt grant them full cover, just partial. I am definitely not fully covered by that tree, yet I can still roll a stealth check to turn myself sideways or squish my body to remain unseen. How is that unrealistic or hard to imagine at all? that is definitely what the rules imply! Stealth is making yourself easier to not be seen, a very high level rogue could scrunch himself down behind partial cover to hide, or use the shadows to almost disappear. That is the definition of stealth, really there should be absolutely no rules when you can use stealth, you should always be able to try, but cover or concealment allows that to happen, it is a no brainer.
Its broad daylight (tree scenario) so based on DM's descretion I might get minuses to my roll, but I am allowed to hide by the rules. It does not say what you said that "plain as day".
Like I said get a faq, then we will talk. It reads quite clearly that I can use stealth after I find concealment/cover.
And the rest of the paragraph has very little to do with that, the bluff check is because you are attempting to move while in a place of NO COVER OR CONCEAlMENT to a place that has COVER OR CONCEALMENT and that requires a bluff check. That is why this is so difficult, you are attempting to emulate high level abilities, its not even possible unless cover is near by.
Would you say a leafy bush would provide full cover??? Most people wouldnt, but how is unrealistic to imagine someone hiding in one or behind one?
Its not, if you are stealthy.
Blur is a bad example, in a brightly lit hallway a stealth check would be near impossible even with blur, due to minuses not to being observed.
Now if we give this scenario. The torch lit hallway a blurred rogue runs to the guard, and he cant quite make out anything coming "Hello?"
By the way under the section light under dim light (which grants 20% concealment) it says you can use a stealth check... yeah.. there it is black and white clear as crystal.
I highlighted those points because it is clearly stated under the paragraph that that is the case.
Infact just to clear up, anymore of your examples with brightly lit anything isnt fair, because under bright light it says you cannot use stealth unless you find cover :)
There a happy medium, if it isnt "brightly lit" I can use cover with partial/full cover it says so right under light.
Normal lighting functions the same, so I would need cover, concealment wont do me any good at all. but with partial cover I can still hide, based on how stealth reads.
This is all the vision dependent part, which I now realize the smoke would affect.
In dimlight I am already granted concealment (20%) so I can hide.
Pathfinder, rule hunting is no fun.
Ignore my above post, it appears miscommunication was there. In 20% concealment I can perfectly hide, but the lighting has to be on my side! Cover still functions in all forms of lighting.
So I would say the rules are set with some leniency, because the amount of light in a given situation is really dependent upon some things a rogue could do (smoke bomb i suggested) to ruin the light problem.
Everyone think this sounds ok?
It reads quite clearly that I can use stealth after I find concealment/cover.
Right after it says that you cannot do so while being observed.
If you are being seen partially behind that tree then holding up a leaf isn't helping.
Getting fully behind the tree, however is.
Getting the observer to be distracted away from you also is.
But while they are watching you squish down they don't lose sight of you.
And the rest of the paragraph has very little to do with that, the bluff check is because you are attempting to move while in a place of NO COVER OR CONCEAlMENT to a place that has COVER OR CONCEALMENT and that requires a bluff check.
Why would they bother with a bluff check and stealth at penalty? Why not just move into the concealment then roll the stealth check without penalty?
You are completely ignoring the first requirement and saying that you have the second so that you are fine.
You need both. Its as simple as that. Go over to the stealth threads and read through them and you'll see what I (and a few others who have bothered to mention it to you) have been saying.
-James
read the next post I posted.
I was not wrong and you were not wrong. it doesnt come down to concealment at all, it is all about lighting (under the light section in the core) In 20% concealment which is granted by dim lighting I can hide. I can only use concealment to hide in Dim light, all other types of light it says I need cover.
Essentially we are both right because most of my examples included a different lighting setting, which allowed me to hide. It even tells you under dim lighting, which only grants 20% concealment that I can use stealth.
i don't see any rational argument for the "you are not being observed when you have concealment" or even a ghost of one. It is stated clear as day that you need to bluff in order to hide under concealment.
blasting is sub optimal for a sorcerer, but wouldn't a sorcerer doing nothing but putting out scorching rays do more damage than most rogues?
THink of sombody hiding behind a tree that doesnt grant them full cover, just partial. I am definitely not fully covered by that tree, yet I can still roll a stealth check to turn myself sideways or squish my body to remain unseen. How is that unrealistic or hard to imagine at all? that is definitely what the rules imply!i don't see anyone disagreeing with that.
Stealth is making yourself easier to not be seen, a very high level rogue could scrunch himself down behind partial cover to hide, or use the shadows to almost disappear. That is the definition of stealth, really there should be absolutely no rules when you can use stealth, you should always be able to try, but cover or concealment allows that to happen, it is a no brainer.be careful with should claims in a rules discussion
Its broad daylight (tree scenario) so based on DM's descretion I might get minuses to my roll, but I am allowed to hide by the rules. It does not say what you said that "plain as day".you cannot hide while being observed. This is followed by the mechanism fr breaking that rule (the bluff check). There are high level abilities to break that rule which do NOTHING if our imagining of the rules is correct. it cannot possibly be plainer.
Like I said get a faq, then we will talk. It reads quite clearly that I can use stealth after I find concealment/cover.IF you bluff someone. Adventurers are not toddlers. they understand the idea of permanency. they are not going to loose track of you because they can't see you clearly. there is no need to faq blatant and deliberate misreadings of the rules because people want the rules to come out a certain way. no faq can possibly change your mind if you can somehow ignore "you cannot stealth while being observed"
Would you say a leafy bush would provide full cover??? Most people wouldnt, but how is unrealistic to imagine someone hiding in one or behind one?depends on how leafy. its realistic to hide behind it, its not realistic that someone looses track of someone once they see them back there.
I think Pathfinder just needs to outline when you are observed and when your not.
If what you say is true and that is the way it is, how then do I ever become unobserved? because by your definition even cover doesnt grant you the condition of unobserved. Therefor, if concealment doesnt grant unobserved, and cover doesnt grant unobserved once I am found once I am totally observed as long as the guy keeps his eyes where he thinks ive gone or believes me to be, and I cannot, not even try, to use stealth.
Please explain this aspect.
I have participated in other stealth forums, one with Farmer browns chicken and Johnny Rogue with the dog and a chicken coup, in that thread it definitely was used the way I described. The only tricky part was the dog with scent.
Your definition nerfs stealth alot. I would need alot of justification to make something that is very limited and good for stealth classes for me to nerf it because it seems to be interpretation.
Linking me to other threads is not giving me an official answer, on other threads I am going to be reading opinions, again. I want real concrete "this is observed, this is when you aren't, this is when it stops, here is how you can be observed, how to become unobserved"
Otherwise, its your opinion. The paragraph reads, once again, the way I say. Light is the section that put stealth into even greater perspective, and it still makes sense the way I describe. Yours just limits stealth and doesn't have any real world bases behind it.
I want you to explain these things or give me an official ruling by someone. It isn't that hard.
I read with my eyes. I frequently read while using my glasses.
Same easy concept to understand, second sentence builds on the first. not the other way around. ofcourse I can read with my eyes. Oh you read with your glasses? guess that is the way that you better read.
I think Pathfinder just needs to outline when you are observed and when your not.
If what you say is true and that is the way it is, how then do I ever become unobserved?
Observed is when someone can target you.. they see you.
If you block line of sight between the two of you (by getting full cover or full concealment) then you would become unobserved by them.
It's not that hard to obtain once you get used to it. Its also why hide in plain sight is so strong an ability.
-James
I dont know if that is accurate though. Technically What you state is I could hide behind someone else, because by definition the line of sight is blocked, I would have cover in combat.
So a person being in front of me constitutes blocked line of sight? but a bush that only provides concealment and you could technically shoot through doesnt...
sounds kinda wonky to me man.
If what you say is true and that is the way it is, how then do I ever become unobserved?
1) start stealthing before peoples see you. A dark spot behind a bush will go unnoticed when you have been looking at trees all day. it will not go unnoticed when the rogue threw a dagger at you and went behind said bush.
2) gain total concealment or total cover. run around a corner, go into complete blackness. a tree isn't going to cut it.
because by your definition even cover doesnt grant you the condition of unobserved.
no, but not being near the enemy when you hid there, or starting at opposite ends of the dungeon, does.
Please explain this aspect.
you start unobserved. cover/concealment + successful stealth check= maintaining the status quo of not observed.
once you are observed (because you attacked or lost a stealh v perception check) you need the bluff check for them to loose track of you again.
Your definition nerfs stealth alot. I would need alot of justification to make something that is very limited and good for stealth classes for me to nerf it because it seems to be interpretation.
if you want to go by strict raw, rogues can only use sneak attack in the first round of sniping. THAT's a nerf.
i do not need a lot of justification to go with "you cannot stealth while being observed." you're trying to twist that sentence out of existence. you have the burden for justification. your personal sense of how unbalanced rogues are vs everyone else assumes that the game is perfectly balanced. rules questions deal with is, not ought.
Otherwise, its your opinion. The paragraph reads, once again, the way I say.
when you ignore the first sentence, sure.
Light is the section that put stealth into even greater perspective, and it still makes sense the way I describe. Yours just limits stealth and doesn't have any real world bases behind it.
yes, it does and yes i explained it. it is much easier to keep track of something than to notice it in the firs place. you might not notice the toe of a rogues boot sticking out from under a tapestry when you walk into the throne room. you are not going to miss said boot or the rogues bulge after he leaps out. throws a dagger at the king and tries to go back to hiding in the same spot.
I want you to explain these things or give me an official ruling by someone. It isn't that hard.
you don't want an explanation you want to be right.
there isn't an official ruling for me to show you. they seem to have spent their time answering real confusing questions or actual contradictions rather than "that rule sucks for my class change it!"
I dont know if that is accurate though. Technically What you state is I could hide behind someone else, because by definition the line of sight is blocked, I would have cover in combat.
So a person being in front of me constitutes blocked line of sight? but a bush that only provides concealment and you could technically shoot through doesnt...
sounds kinda wonky to me man.
No. A person between you and a target does NOT block line of sight!
FULL Cover or FULL Concealment will work, a little bit of soft cover is NOT full cover.
Line of sight is blocked when you CANNOT BE SEEN by the other person.
-James
If that is the case, it definitely needs to be stated somewhere so arguements like this can not ensue.
still my smoke bomb is useless because while you are looking at me it has no effect on you.
that to me, I dont care what the rules say, is total crap. Smoke bombs do not grant total concealment or cover, yet they have been used for centuries to stealth away.
if that is the case, which it appears to be, lame.
Lots of valid points with an unappreciated Condescending attitude
Yeah I am listening, dont accuse me of trying to be right I am trying to see your point of view and argueing my point of view. Saying that I am twisting things for my benefit because I for some reason am upset about the rogue class (which I am not, even if this arguement made me never use stealth again).
That is a completely ridiculous thing to say to me, please take your bad attitude elsewhere because I was really not even speaking with you about this matter.
If you want to talk rules, fine. Leave the personal accusations elsewhere.
Good day sir.
I dont know if that is accurate though. Technically What you state is I could hide behind someone else, because by definition the line of sight is blocked, I would have cover in combat.
So a person being in front of me constitutes blocked line of sight? but a bush that only provides concealment and you could technically shoot through doesnt...
sounds kinda wonky to me man.
No. A person between you and a target does NOT block line of sight!
FULL Cover or FULL Concealment will work, a little bit of soft cover is NOT full cover.
Line of sight is blocked when you CANNOT BE SEEN by the other person.
-James
If that is the case, it definitely needs to be stated somewhere so arguements like this can not ensue.
still my smoke bomb is useless because while you are looking at me it has no effect on you.
that to me, I dont care what the rules say, is total crap. Smoke bombs do not grant total concealment or cover, yet they have been used for centuries to stealth away.
if that is the case, which it appears to be, lame.
Smokestick: This alchemically treated wooden stick instantly creates thick, opaque smoke when burned. The smoke fills a 10-foot cube (treat the effect as a fog cloud spell, ....
Fog Cloud: A bank of fog billows out from the point you designate. The fog obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet. A creature within 5 feet has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance). Creatures farther away have total concealment (50% miss chance, and the attacker can't use sight to locate the target).
--------------------------------------------------------
Even if you did not mean smoke bomb I use smoke sticks in my games to replace them so they should work. I would agree that if I am staring directly at you that a person can't hide though.
The game has never allowed you to hide behind another person. If they did rogues UMD'ing summon scrolls or wand would be more common.
edit:bolded the end of the smoke stick description
still my smoke bomb is useless because while you are looking at me it has no effect on you.that to me, I dont care what the rules say, is total crap. Smoke bombs do not grant total concealment or cover, yet they have been used for centuries to stealth away.
if that is the case, which it appears to be, lame.
I think you're wrong here as well.
Doesn't having 5' of smoke between you and someone else grant full concealment?
Standing within 5' of smoke only grants concealment, but your vision is limited to 5' through smoke (like an obscuring mist spell) right?
-James
?
Does it? I was totally certain that smoke never did but if it is fairly easy to manipulate the Full concealment category with a smoke bomb I am wholeheartedly on board.
Sorry it took so long but if it makes you feel better I will probably see it this way in the future.
If that is the case, it definitely needs to be stated somewhere so arguements like this can not ensue.
An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell's line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell's line of effect.
- a character has at least that much empty space, even if you consider them a solid barrier.
Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check
stated flat out
-if you don't want snark, don't make comments about other people having to read with their glasses.
WOW the glasses comment was to state how the statement stealth was being read
As in:
You cannot use stealth while being observed. Against most creatures cover or concealment allows you to make a stealth check.
I read with my eyes. I sometimes use my glasses when I read.
You were a snark jerk because of the above example of sentence structure? I was merely explaining the second sentence (like I say everytime I bring the above example up) builds on the first.
Secondly what about tower shields. They say they can grant you full cover if you so choose. great, now by both of your definitions I can make a stealth check behind my tower shield?
BigNorseWolf do not answer my above question, you obviously did not read my entire posts when I was posting earlier otherwise the comment about the glasses sentence wouldnt have even come into play.
If you aren't going to atleast be open minded enough to read someone's entire opinion I dont want yours.
Good day sir, again.
Also, I am curious why concealment just doesnt go away while being observed then?
If you are "observing" me perfectly why is there a 20% miss chance? it has nothing to do with AC or you missing me because I dodge, so what is it by your definition?
I am just trying to flesh the whole concept since this means a big difference for me.
What exactly is the miss chance there for if you can observe me easily?
Also, I am curious why concealment just doesnt go away while being observed then?
If you are "observing" me perfectly why is there a 20% miss chance? it has nothing to do with AC or you missing me because I dodge, so what is it by your definition?
I am just trying to flesh the whole concept since this means a big difference for me.
What exactly is the miss chance there for if you can observe me easily?
I never said that someone with concealment is seen perfectly only that if they are seen then they can't hide without a distraction.
You're adding words and extremes here, why is that? Where are the words 'perfectly' and 'easily' coming from? Why did you feel that they needed to be added here?
If someone is NOT hiding but is in dim light, does your PC see them when they are in his line of sight? Yes. Does your PC have a miss chance against them, also yes.
Likewise the same is true for cover, except rather than miss chance there is a penalty to hit (or bonus to AC if you prefer.. I forget which one it technically is).
-James
its broad daylight, I have blur on. I am observed by you, and by definition being observed means that I cannot use stealth at all. Makes sense so far.
So why are you missing if you can observe me? if you have no trouble seeing where I am so that I cannot even attempt to use stealth, why do your blows have a 20% miss chance on top of you having to hit my AC?
I cannot attempt to hide at all, yet your attacks miss 20% of the time due to observation error?
WOW the glasses comment was to state how the statement stealth was being read
As in:
You cannot use stealth while being observed. Against most creatures cover or concealment allows you to make a stealth check.
I read with my eyes. I sometimes use my glasses when I read.
then the next sentence is the bluff check. you want to tie sentence 1 to sentence 2 but not sentence 3 to sentence 2. its arbitrary.
i really can't see your point with the glasses analogy. its .. kind of broken up.
You were a snark jerk because of the above example of sentence structure? I was merely explaining the second sentence (like I say everytime I bring the above example up) builds on the first.
i was less than diplomatic because you keep asking for things i've already given you and you are denying that they have already been given. when someone can' put out an argument for their position and has to deny everything that I've said i have to wonder whats holding it up.
Secondly what about tower shields. They say they can grant you full cover if you so choose. great, now by both of your definitions I can make a stealth check behind my tower shield?
no. you need to hold onto the shield to get the benefit, and you can't get anywhere unnoticed with a 5 foot by 4 foot chunk of wood
WOW the glasses comment was to state how the statement stealth was being readAs in:
You cannot use stealth while being observed. Against most creatures cover or concealment allows you to make a stealth check.
I read with my eyes. I sometimes use my glasses when I read.
then the next sentence is the bluff check. you want to tie sentence 1 to sentence 2 but not sentence 3 to sentence 2. its arbitrary.
i really can't see your point with the glasses analogy. its .. kind of broken up.
You were a snark jerk because of the above example of sentence structure? I was merely explaining the second sentence (like I say everytime I bring the above example up) builds on the first.
i was less than diplomatic because you keep asking for things i've already given you and denying that they exist. when someone can' put out an argument for their position and has to deny everything that I've said i have to wonder whats holding it up.
Secondly what about tower shields. They say they can grant you full cover if you so choose. great, now by both of your definitions I can make a stealth check behind my tower shield?
no. you need to hold onto the shield to get the benefit, and you can't get anywhere unnoticed with a 5 foot by 4 foot chunk of wood
One: Justifications for you being a jerk when I never asked you for anything is ridiculous.
Two: You once again failed to read because I said don't answer my question. I do not want your opinion, nor do I value it anymore because you do not have an open enough mind to read an entire post. When I countless times (despite how long they seem to be getting) read yours.
GOOD DAY SIR!
One: Justifications for you being a jerk when I never asked you for anything is ridiculous.
you asked for explanations. you were given them. you denied them.
Two: You once again failed to read because I said don't answer my question. I do not want your opinion, nor do I value it anymore because you do not have an open enough mind to read an entire post.
misreading something that's rather...oddly written isn't the same as not reading it.
When I countless times (despite how long they seem to be getting) read yours.
darn all that space being taken up by quoting the rules you say don't exist.
One: Justifications for you being a jerk when I never asked you for anything is ridiculous.you asked for explanations. you were given them. you denied them.
Two: You once again failed to read because I said don't answer my question. I do not want your opinion, nor do I value it anymore because you do not have an open enough mind to read an entire post.misreading something that's rather...oddly written isn't the same as not reading it.
When I countless times (despite how long they seem to be getting) read yours.darn all that space being taken up by quoting the rules you say don't exist.
I asked for explanations and quoted James, many times actually. I dont remember ever asking for YOUR advice on the matter, nor did I quote you until recently.
You were the only one that misread it, james and ashiel both seemed to understand it quite easily. You obviously didn't read when I said dont respond to the tower shield question, because you answered it anyways, so the you not reading my post statement stands.
Lastly, I did acknowledge your point of view, I was merely trying to illustrate my own and how they differed based on rule interpretation.
I still think clarification is needed, because obviously I was not the only one to interpret it this way, nor would people (many have said that me and Ashiel were either right or they could see our point) say that our interpretation was outlandish. You and James and a few people on some stealth forums (I have been to my fair share and seen people on both sides) makes the entire opposite side outlandish, which you made apparent saying that my inquiries for a FAQ or ruling was not only not needed that it was unimportant and ridiculous to ask for.
Oh and my favorite part that you keep forgetting to read, and please do not miss it this time BigNorseWolf:
Good Day Sir (which translates to goodbye, adios, good day, so long, conversation/commenting over)
Two: You once again failed to read because I said don't answer my question. I do not want your opinion, nor do I value it anymore because you do not have an open enough mind to read an entire post.
If you don't want an answer don't ask a question. If you don't want a conversation with me then stop. I'm not forcing you to continue.
I asked for explanations and quoted James, many times actually. I dont remember ever asking for YOUR advice on the matter, nor did I quote you until recently.
you didn't quote anyone and asks for explanations. since james and i were saying the exact same thing, it looked like you were asking me.
You were the only one that misread it, james and ashiel both seemed to understand it quite easily. You obviously didn't read when I said dont respond to the tower shield question, because you answered it anyways, so the you not reading my post statement stands.
i read it. i ignored your demand.
Also, I am curious why concealment just doesnt go away while being observed then?
If you are "observing" me perfectly why is there a 20% miss chance? it has nothing to do with AC or you missing me because I dodge, so what is it by your definition?
I am just trying to flesh the whole concept since this means a big difference for me.
What exactly is the miss chance there for if you can observe me easily?
I don't know if you ever looked through someone eye glasses that were not made for you, but it can create an affect that makes things seems blurry, and sometimes more than one of the viewed object will appear. That is kind of what the spell does. The blurred person can try to duck down or take other actions but they are not hidden. It may however be hard to tell which target is the real one, and the exact location of the target.