Okay i never really liked the rogue to begin with but i see them as skill monkeys. Whatever you aren't that good at they probably have a rank or two in it. However I always see the problem with the rogue class has always been the player. I have seen a few people play really good rogues but lately they all play chaotic screw the party. It's appeal seems to appeal to the wrong people or at least around where I play.
You did it for me.
You are being observed by another creature so you can't use stealth.
To use stealth not only do you need to not be observed but you also need cover or concealment.
Cover or concealment doesn't remove the restriction that you can't be observed rather its an additional requirement.
-James
Negative. It says that you cannot use cover or concealment when creatures are observing you. It then states that you may use it against creatures if your have cover or concealment. The order is wrong, you see. If it said "you need cover or concealment to use stealth. If being observed you cannot use Stealth" then I would agree, but as it is written, against most creatures (IE - they're observing you), having cover or concealment allows you to use stealth. Hide in Plain Sight, by its wording, means you don't even need cover or concealment, you can just Stealth check (Hide in Plain Sight is amazing this way); and since Hide in Plain Sight is an Ex ability, truesight and similar cannot stop it (whereas a rogue with a minor cloak of displacement loses benefit if the magic doesn't function).
I say this here and not in the Stealth thread because it specifically pertains to a hit and run skirmisher rogue (one of the more effective and fun styles), which I posted earlier.
You did it for me.
You are being observed by another creature so you can't use stealth.
To use stealth not only do you need to not be observed but you also need cover or concealment.
Cover or concealment doesn't remove the restriction that you can't be observed rather its an additional requirement.
-James
Negative. It says that you cannot use cover or concealment when creatures are observing you. It then states that you may use it against creatures if your have cover or concealment. The order is wrong, you see. If it said "you need cover or concealment to use stealth. If being observed you cannot use Stealth" then I would agree, but as it is written, against most creatures (IE - they're observing you), having cover or concealment allows you to use stealth. Hide in Plain Sight, by its wording, means you don't even need cover or concealment, you can just Stealth check (Hide in Plain Sight is amazing this way); and since Hide in Plain Sight is an Ex ability, truesight and similar cannot stop it (whereas a rogue with a minor cloak of displacement loses benefit if the magic doesn't function).
I say this here and not in the Stealth thread because it specifically pertains to a hit and run skirmisher rogue (one of the more effective and fun styles), which I posted earlier.
My thoughts exactly.
Just trying to keep the trollers off your back, let the hit and run tactics be as they may, stealth is viable, usable, awesome, and mundane. You want to argue stealth take that somewhere else the build is based on the fact that stealth works.
Negative. It says that you cannot use cover or concealment when creatures are observing you. It then states that you may use it against creatures if your have cover or concealment.
What does this even mean to you?
What you are saying is essentially that the first sentence does not apply at all. This is wrong, I'm sorry.
Now, that said, stealth is very viable for a rogue.. it just doesn't work the way that you want it to work.
-James
She is implying concealment/cover means they are not by the wordings definition "observing you" they are observing where they THINK you are.
that is her point and I personally agree.
To yours your own.
Negative. It says that you cannot use cover or concealment when creatures are observing you. It then states that you may use it against creatures if your have cover or concealment.
What does this even mean to you?
What you are saying is essentially that the first sentence does not apply at all. This is wrong, I'm sorry.
Now, that said, stealth is very viable for a rogue.. it just doesn't work the way that you want it to work.
-James
Actually, it's a glaringly bad typo that I somehow missed while rushed to get the post up. It's supposed to say "stealth" instead of "cover and concealment". That should clear up misconceptions.
And no, it's not that the first sentence doesn't apply. You still have creatures that ignore concealment, such as with Blindsight. The first sentence is the default. The second is the exception (you have cover or concealment) which works versus most creatures (who rely on sight, as noted).
Against a human, standing in the middle of a field in broad daylight means you can't use Stealth vs that Human, unless you have cover or concealment. Meanwhile against a creature with Blindsight 60ft, you can't use Stealth within the 60 ft, even if you have concealment (you'd need to negate the blindsight somehow) unless you could get outside its blindsight radius.
EDIT: For clarity...
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.
I've gone through various builds and can't find a single thing that rogues do better than everyone else.
SpaceChomp meet Monk.
More specifically, you are correct to a point.
I was completely correct. I specifically mentioned using the bluff check to hide. also,
While you're attacking with the strike-vanish tactic, you are quite visible and everyone can see you. However, upon your move action you can become Stealthed again, and now people have to find you with Perception checks.
Or with a fireball, a summoned monster, holy word, a dispel magic or a daylight spell to ruin your concealment when people see the exact position you were they have a zip code for what position you're in. When you snipe they get the vaugest idea of where the heck you are at best.
Before your turn: Hidden
Your Turn (surprise action) : You use a standard action to attack. You are now found.
**initiative roll, if anyone beats you you are completely exposed. You can be farie fired, glitterdusted, tripped, grappled, polymorphed, walled off from escape or have sir clanks a lot sunder/disarm your bow.
Your Turn: You make a stealth check as part of your move action. You are now hidden. *what action is the bluff check?*
*** those who lost to your initiative hold an action until you reappear , and gliterdust fariefire or polymorph you.
She is implying concealment/cover means they are not by the wordings definition "observing you" they are observing where they THINK you are.that is her point and I personally agree.
To yours your own.
So in other words you are saying that the first sentence has NO meaning, right?
Deleting this sentence would not change anything by your reading, don't you find that a little suspicious?
And how would cover prevent you from 'observing' someone that's say not hiding? There's no miss chance.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't make sense.
Also what would the Ranger Hide in Plain Sight do? In your reading it would not do anything at all, being achieved simply by camouflage, correct?
-James
No the first statement is stating the obvious. You cant be using stealth while being observed.
Please explain to me how you would observe me while being blind?
it doesnt say under the blind condition you cant observe anywhere. that must therefore mean if you know I am there you can attack me as normal then.
No that is not the case, which is where concealment comes in. You get 50% concealment against blind creatures. That is because THEY CANT SEE YOU, that is how darkness works, deeper darkness, obscuring mist, and so on and so forth.
Concealment = not being observed because you THINK you know the GENERAL AREA the rogue is in, not the exact location. You cannot react to something you cant see.
Think of any movie/comic/show with batman where he was seen and then used some way to get cover or concealment and then NOT BE OBSERVED. Guess batman had it going on over there with hide in plain sight? not the case. Hide in plain sight is to say you dont even need concealment or cover, you can be within ten feet of those things and be totally in the open.
Hit and run tactics are possible because in real life they are possible, why would you want to interpret a rule so real life examples are impossible when it is equally easy to interpret it to where it makes sense?
I do like the above sneak attack a day idea, what if it was 3 +Dex Mod per day, that would be sweeeeeeeeet stuff and I dont even think the Rogue is broken, but it really bugs me when they cant sneak just because you cant flank or they arent sneaking... but that is just how it has always been. Should still be identical to a sneak attack in all other ways though in my opinion, otherwise it just becomes MIGHTY SWORD SWING ATTACK! which would worry me... decent thought though
You are welcome to your idea of 3 + Dex Mod/day. I was trying to address SpaceChomp's request for a reason to take more than a few levels in rogue.
Something else that would also help improve the rogue would be some clarification of the Stealth system. I've seen the same arguments for/against certain interpretations of the wording of Stealth for quite some time, even among my own gaming group. Either put forth a definitive FAQ or offer an alternative Stealth system that is clear.
Whatever is done with the Stealth system, I think the rogue should have a limited number of times per day he/she can use Stealth in combat. This would not break Hide in Plain Sight, but would increase the tactical ability of the rogue (who many see as one of the archtype Stealth classes). Depending on your group's interpretation of the existing Stealth rules, this may already be an option for you. I believe if it was RAW, this would make it alot more attractive to players whose GM has a different interpretation of the rules.
Ok the rogue is probably the weakest class out there. I mean if I'm wanting skills, damage and cool abilities I'll play a ranger. I'd go urban ranger to get trap finding. The rogues isn't needed anymore.
Now that being said the rogue is cool and fun to play even if they are sub par. Rogue talents make the difference.
Ok the rogue is probably the weakest class out there. I mean if I'm wanting skills, damage and cool abilities I'll play a ranger.
Guess you dont want rogue talents, more skills, UMD, sneak attack, Uncanny Dodge, ect.
They dont suck if you play them like a rogue. Playing them like a run into combat damage swinger with a bunch of skills points is like putting him in an awkward situation.
Style of the players play must accomadate the character in most cases not the other way around, you cant just have the fighter mindset for every character, or the wizard mindset for every character, or the rogue concept for every character, it just wont work that way.
Play the character the way the character would play not what you want to happen. You want to play a rogue that is a toe to toe damage dealer in combat, yes you should play a ranger variant because that isnt Pathfinder's Rogues forte.
This is just my personal opinion though.
Saying they suck is unfair IMO.
Hit and run tactics are possible because in real life they are possible, why would you want to interpret a rule so real life examples are impossible when it is equally easy to interpret it...Please read the ranger abilities camouflage and hide in plain sight. One of these special abilities, limited to a ranger's favored terrain do NOTHING under your interpretation of the rules.
You seem to believe that you can remain unseen while out in the open perhaps but that is not the case.
If you are seen then you are observed. This doesn't automatically change if you have cover/concealment. You can be observed when you have cover/concealment. Once you are observed you cannot hide until you can become unobserved first.
-James
How does that invalidate his skill?
He is in the bright sun in the middle of the desert with no concealment or cover yet the guy can still hide... sounds pretty damn good to me.
he doesnt have to have concealment or cover. please explain how that is unfair since everyone else needs that to hide?
Hit and run tactics are possible because in real life they are possible, why would you want to interpret a rule so real life examples are impossible when it is equally easy to interpret it...Please read the ranger abilities camouflage and hide in plain sight. One of these special abilities, limited to a ranger's favored terrain do NOTHING under your interpretation of the rules.
You seem to believe that you can remain unseen while out in the open perhaps but that is not the case.
If you are seen then you are observed. This doesn't automatically change if you have cover/concealment. You can be observed when you have cover/concealment. Once you are observed you cannot hide until you can become unobserved first.
-James
How does that invalidate his skill?
He is in the bright sun in the middle of the desert with no concealment or cover yet the guy can still hide... sounds pretty damn good to me.
camouflage says he can USE the stealth skill without cover or concealment.
What does HIPS do? makes him invisible to attackers or enemies with blindsight, tremor sense, blind sense, sense, ect.
That is what makes it good to have at 17th level. He can literally NOT EXIST in his own terrain.
"observed" indicates all kind sof observation as long as you have them down to a tangible KNOW of where the opponent is.
HIPS is very very good. You can hide against dragons. Sounds awesome to me. Bulletes? no problem in the desert. Werewolves? what smell.
he doesnt have to have concealment or cover. please explain how that is unfair since everyone else needs that to hide?
EDIT: This is what I read it as. What else does HIPS grant you if camouflage already does this then? even if you believe that it allows you hide while being observed why does any of that matter if by your interepretation stealth doesnt even work???
Ok the rogue is probably the weakest class out there. I mean if I'm wanting skills, damage and cool abilities I'll play a ranger.Guess you dont want rogue talents, more skills, UMD, sneak attack, Uncanny Dodge, ect.
They dont suck if you play them like a rogue. Playing them like a run into combat damage swinger with a bunch of skills points is like putting him in an awkward situation.
Style of the players play must accomadate the character in most cases not the other way around, you cant just have the fighter mindset for every character, or the wizard mindset for every character, or the rogue concept for every character, it just wont work that way.
Play the character the way the character would play not what you want to happen. You want to play a rogue that is a toe to toe damage dealer in combat, yes you should play a ranger variant because that isnt Pathfinder's Rogues forte.
This is just my personal opinion though.
Saying they suck is unfair IMO.
Rogues don't suck they are a little weaker though than practically any class. That doesn't mean the rogue is not fun to play, I love the rogue class. I have blast playing them.
Rogues don't suck they are a little weaker though than practically any class. That doesn't mean the rogue is not fun to play, I love the rogue class. I have blast playing them.Ok the rogue is probably the weakest class out there. I mean if I'm wanting skills, damage and cool abilities I'll play a ranger.Guess you dont want rogue talents, more skills, UMD, sneak attack, Uncanny Dodge, ect.
They dont suck if you play them like a rogue. Playing them like a run into combat damage swinger with a bunch of skills points is like putting him in an awkward situation.
Style of the players play must accomadate the character in most cases not the other way around, you cant just have the fighter mindset for every character, or the wizard mindset for every character, or the rogue concept for every character, it just wont work that way.
Play the character the way the character would play not what you want to happen. You want to play a rogue that is a toe to toe damage dealer in combat, yes you should play a ranger variant because that isnt Pathfinder's Rogues forte.
This is just my personal opinion though.
Saying they suck is unfair IMO.
:) I am sorry I was little bit brash.
Its just I played rogues often and I used to optimize the hell out of them back in the day (I just DM now), and I was never even close to bad and I was not coddled.
EDIT: This is what I read it as. What else does HIPS grant you if camouflage already does this then? even if you believe that it allows you hide while being observed why does any of that matter if by your interepretation stealth doesnt even work???Oh I believe stealth works, in fact it works quite well. It just doesn't work the way you think that it does.
Camouflage lets the ranger hide when he's unobserved without ALSO needing cover/concealment.
Hide in plain sight (ranger version) allows the ranger to hide when he's being observed.
Observed does not mean a lack of cover/concealment, but rather it means observed.. aka seen in the terms of vision.
-James
Oh you mean with the spot skill?
EDIT: This is what I read it as. What else does HIPS grant you if camouflage already does this then? even if you believe that it allows you hide while being observed why does any of that matter if by your interepretation stealth doesnt even work???Oh I believe stealth works, in fact it works quite well. It just doesn't work the way you think that it does.
Camouflage lets the ranger hide when he's unobserved without ALSO needing cover/concealment.
Hide in plain sight (ranger version) allows the ranger to hide when he's being observed.
Observed does not mean a lack of cover/concealment, but rather it means observed.. aka seen in the terms of vision.
-James
Negative.
1) "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth."
The first sentence explains you cannot hide from a creature if they can observe you using any of their senses, and notes sight as the typical sense (most creatures don't have tremorsense, blindsight, etc).
2) "Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth."
This sentence is the condition in which you may use Stealth against creatures by gaining cover or concealment, both of which make it difficult to see you, but it serves no purpose against creatures not using sight to detect you.
3) Hide in plain sight allows you to use Stealth while being observed, and thus need neither cover or concealment to hide. For example, a ranger standing in the desert with favored terrain: desert can attempt a Stealth check in the middle of broad daylight in the middle of a dune sea, with a dozen people watching him at the time.
Otherwise, the way you are describing it is that cover and concealment do nothing. Essentially, you are saying that if you're not being observed when you first make your Stealth check, then you can be invisible until you do something to break Stealth, since cover and concealment have no actual use by your definition.
I really don't see the problem here. It's pretty clear. You can't hide while being observed. Finding cover or concealment allows you to hide. Thus if you have concealment, you're not counted as being observed (for most creatures) and you may hide.
A Rogue with blur active can in fact use Stealth every round while in combat.
1) "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth."
The first sentence explains you cannot hide from a creature if they can observe you using any of their senses, and notes sight as the typical sense (most creatures don't have tremorsense, blindsight, etc).2) "Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth."
This sentence is the condition in which you may use Stealth against creatures by gaining cover or concealment, both of which make it difficult to see you, but it serves no purpose against creatures not using sight to detect you.3) Hide in plain sight allows you to use Stealth while being observed, and thus need neither cover or concealment to hide. For example, a ranger standing in the desert with favored terrain: desert can attempt a Stealth check in the middle of broad daylight in the middle of a dune sea, with a dozen people watching him at the time.
Otherwise, the way you are describing it is that cover and concealment do nothing. Essentially, you are saying that if you're not being observed when you first make your Stealth check, then you can be invisible until you do something to break Stealth, since cover and concealment have no actual use by your definition.
1) +1
2) +13) +1
+3?
And if you notice, the ranger's Camouflage ability negates the need for cover or concealment (it's called Camouflage, think about it, it's sight based). Hide In Plain Sight means even if they're observing you through some non-visual means, you can still hide, so it's like Camouflage on the 'roids.
EDIT: To be even clearer, the Stealth skill explains that you cannot use Stealth while being observed. It goes on to say that against most creatures, gaining cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. A ranger's Hide In Plain Sight covers those creatures, and all those other creatures, 'cause now it doesn't matter how they're observing you.
I think james is reading too much into the name of the ability than the actual use.
It should be called: Fool the Senses or some such nature because he is fooling more than just sight.
Camouflage lets you basically make your own concealment for terms of hiding thus the name camouflage.
In terms of what you are saying concealment and cover serve no purpose for stealth at all because once someone has seen you, you basically can never hide again, no matter what. Because If i take cover from you after you see me as long as you are "observing me" (quotations because you are observing an area that you suspect I am in).
I duck around the alley way, you know im back there so you approach with common sense slowly. Somehow I got behind you using a stealth check because you couldnt see me, perhaps I throw down a smoke bomb which grants concealment. you are basically saying despite the smoke bomb I am not able to use stealth because I am "being observed" somehow.
that sir is not only a bad arguement it is not even closely based on reality, I understand this is fantasy but dang man thats a little wonky.
Please explain how the above example is valid if concealment doesnt mean you can hide?
Please explain how the above example is valid if concealment doesnt mean you can hide?Let's focus on sight for right now.
If you are seen then you are observed (by sight).. that's what it means. In order to hide from them you need to become unobserved by gaining full cover/concealment or creating a distraction then moving to a place with some cover/concealment.
If you are not observed (by sight) then you can use stealth to remain unobserved as long as you maintain cover/concealment relative to potential observers.
What about this is hard to follow?
If you duck behind that alley then you have full cover and are not observed. Meanwhile if you attack from partial cover then you become observed and cannot just 'stealth' to become invisible. There is a difference there.
-James
Please show me where in the rules you cited that it makes a distinction for stealth use between full cover/concealment and partial.
It doesnt.
You can't just make up stuff man, it doesnt say "partial does this and full does that" it just says Concealment and cover allows you to use stealth.
there you go. You said it yourself.
Please show me where in the rules you cited that it makes a distinction for stealth use between full cover/concealment and partial.It doesnt.
If you have full concealment or cover relative to another then you are not seen by them.
When you are unobserved you can attempt to use stealth to remain unobserved. In order to do this you need to maintain cover/concealment relative to potential observers.
-James
Once again show me where in the rules it distinguishes Full and partial, Please do.
If not your arguement is pretty null and void because you are the one drawing a false conclusion, and we are the ones interpretting the rules as written.
Once again show me where in the rules it distinguishes Full and partial, Please do.If not your arguement is pretty null and void because you are the one drawing a false conclusion, and we are the ones interpretting the rules as written.
You don't know the difference between them?
Why not look up concealment?
Or if you want go to the stealth threads where all this was hashed out for other confused players such as yourselves.
-James
Oh I know perfectly well the distinction sir, but you are failing to argue your point.
You said Full concealment means you can hide and partial doesnt.
Why? it doesnt say that under the use of stealth. It just refernces concealement/cover, please explain why you made a distinction of a difference in the case of using stealth when the rules clearly imply both are usable for the given situation.
I am still waiting for your rules citation that contridicts "Most creatures require concealment/cover for stealth". You just said Full concealment/cover made it possible, why? why not partial? it definitely doesnt say full in the rules anywhere.
Why dont you take this arguement to another thread, we were describing a build. You said "that wont work because of x" which was wrong as I have pointed out, which made anyone trying to read this forum about making a good build for a rogue second guess that choice.
You made an accusation of how the rules are run based on 0 evidence in the rules and no common sense in real life. A smoke bomb doesnt grant full concealment, so by your standards they exist for no reason because I cannot use one to hide.
having magical concealment and having concealment are completely two different things, even before anyone takes into account the rules on observation.
to the people saying 50% concealment is like being blind, i'd have to agree. however any spell (memory serves) besides invisibility doesn't give 50% concealment, which means you're 'blind' to the invisible person. a person with the blur spell on him looks exactly as it sounds, they look like a blurry person.
a blurry person sitting in the middle of the street isn't going to be able to vanish from sight, just how like if you stare at someone standing in a lone bush and they duck down, you know where they are.
think "how not to be seen" from monty python.
with (when i last read the thread) the last post, running around the corner gives total cover, which just like 50% concealment is basically blinded from the target, which allows the sneak to do his thing.
But that's not how it works. Likewise, it's a huge nerf to the rogue (and Stealth in general, but especially the rogue because the rogue has talents to use Stealth while moving at full speed, and also Stealth and strike-vanishing is one of the easiest methods to set up a steady use of Sneak Attack (which still doesn't match a warrior's DPR, but it's now mobile DPR and also harder to retaliate against, so it balances out nicely).
EDIT: Think of it more like the cloaking devices you see in movies like Predator. Even the cloak of displacement says it twists and bends light rays, granting concealment. Sure you can "see" them, but not very well, and a good Stealth check makes them practically invisible.
EDIT: Think of it more like the cloaking devices you see in movies like Predator. Even the cloak of displacement says it twists and bends light rays, granting concealment. Sure you can "see" them, but not very well, and a good Stealth check makes them practically invisible.
My thoughts exactly. You see a blurry person? well what if the blurry person isnt just standing there? what if he is trying to be stealthy and hide so that he blends in with his surroundings?
Once again, dont make claims cite rules. Rules state as me and Ashiel believe not the way you suggest. Thats your prerogative to do it your way but its a house rule not RAW.
I've gone through various builds and can't find a single thing that rogues do better than everyone else. I understand that flavor wise this might be a popular concept for a class, I just don't see it working out mechanically.(They do mediocre damage, wizards are sneakier past about level 5, rangers are a better mix of the two). More interesting to me, the barbarian was fixed in the APG. While the rogue got new talents they really didn't add anything that dramatic (like a tree chain such as the barbarian totems).
I'm just curious. Seriously, does anyone have a way to make rogues useful?
How many have you played?
Stealth as written in the core rule book:
If people are observing you (usually by sight), you can't use stealth.(note this is a stand alone statement)
followed by this sentence, a sentence following a prior sentence builds on the idea of the prior sentence in the english language to conform to what is called a paragraph of text:
Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use stealth.
these are the rules as written.
Camouflage as written in the core rule book:
A ranger of 12th level or higher can use stealth in any of his favored terrains, even if the terrain doesn't grant cover or concealment.
Essentially he is making his own cover or concealment, like an army ranger with shrubbery all over him.
Hope your following.
This means he can use stealth at all times when he is not detected by anyone else through a variety of means. However, monsters with blindsight, tremorsense, scent, ect. can all see him.
Hide in Plain Sight: While in any of his favored terrains, a ranger of 17TH LEVEL OR HIGHER can use the stealth skill even while being observed.
Please explain to me how it is complicated to read this as it is written in the book. Hide in plain sight allows you to hide while being observed. Ignore the name of the ability because in pathfinder being "observed" stems to all forms of observing (hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, echolocation, ect.). Hide in plain sight is better than you make it out to be, you make it useless! At seventeenth level most creatures you face can totally negate stealth with blindsight or some other such nature! even casters can! and that is a very limited ability that only works in your favored terrain.
To yours your own sir but stealth doesn't need a nerf, it makes sense as it is written like it is.
If I am in a smoke cloud of 20% concealment and as a move action coupled with stealth I move through this cloud (which by your definition I couldnt even use stealth) you would know exactly where I am at all times, in a cloud of smoke.
Not logical in my opinion.
i agree with you about beingin the smoke cloud, but without clear and precise "it works this way, and not that way" from paizo a little thought experiment is needed.
ie, follow me here.
real life natural fog has varying degrees of visibility. something that would incur a 20% miss chance is, imo, a fog where you can only see outlines of people / things but you know they're there. thats why its a miss chance instead of "you can't find s%~~"
now, if i'm sitting in a cloud of smoke, how hard is it to see the cloud? taking the full description of the blur spell, it is *you* that looks blurry, so essentially you are the cloud of smoke, you're making your own concealment.
Ok, now let's do another thought experiment. You're a human. You're walking in an area of dim illumination, which grants concealment against anything without low-light vision. Prior to being attacked, you have a group of assassins literally walking circles around you in the dark. Now technically, it's not pitch black, and you could see them if it weren't for their mad Stealth skills. Does it make a whole lot of sense? Well you could see them but you need to make a Perception check. Now if you couldn't see them at all, such as human vs orcs in pitch darkness, then you have no hope of spotting them, and the best you can do is hope that your Perception check beats their heavily buffed Stealth check (+20 if they're invisible) to locate them through hearing - and even then you're blind.
According to James Maisson, after one of the rogues attacks the human, he must then succeed at a bluff check before he can hide from the human again, even though he's got the exact same level of concealment as he had when he punched the human in the face by surprise. Likewise, according to what James is proclaiming, moving completely out of sight (such as from concealment to total concealment) still won't allow the assassin to Stealth against you until he makes a bluff check, which makes no sense at all.
Now, according to the correct reading - as we've noted, based on the english language - the assassins could keep playing hit and run with the human in the darkness. They don't get sneak attack on the human (if they too are human, since the human has concealment as well), but they can fade in and out of the human's awareness due to their skills, and the human could likewise attempt to Stealth in the darkness to fool the assassins (unless the assassins were elves, with low-light vision, allowing them to see him without concealment - now he's observed).
EDIT: The thing is, in both cases it's concealment. All you need is cover or concealment to attempt a Stealth check. It doesn't matter how you get that cover or concealment, just that you have it. In the case of blur spell, you're hard to see normally, but you can completely disappear with a successful Stealth check (opposed by their Perception check). Anything else is a house rule.
What you claim is that the assassin could stand still and attack round after round from 'hiding' simply because they're in dim light. They could then elect to use stealth after their attacks because even though they are observed they have concealment.
The bluff check to create a distraction, the rules for sniping and the hide in plain sight ability are evidently only for use against creatures with blindsight... which I'm not sure why it entered into the conversation, but there you go.
Already covered sniping. The benefit of sniping is they never get to be aware of you. They know they were attacked, but they have no idea where their attacker is, was, or whatever. You never break Stealth when sniping, which is a very nice advantage (it prevents people from readying actions against you).
Hide in Plain Sight means you can hide even if being observed. The rules clearly state that having cover or concealment allows you to hide from most creatures (IE - you're not observed anymore), but some creatures can observe you with non-sight based senses. Hide in Plain Sight is Camouflage on the 'roids, as mentioned earlier.
The assasin CAN stealth in that case because the human is effectively Blind- he can't see $hi+!
Incorrect. In the example given, the assassin is in the same room and merely has concealment (20% miss chance) due to lighting. According to Maisson, he can be walking all around the human. Keep in mind, it's still the same 20% concealment that being blured grants, and according to Maisson, you could totally sneak up on someone while under the effects of blur since your Stealth check was made prior to being observed and by maintaining concealment you cannot be seen, even if you walk out into the the middle of a room.
The only difference is, after being attacked, you suddenly can see them and Maisson is saying you have to make a Bluff check to Stealth again, since you're now being "observed"; which has many logical inconsistencies, and likewise doesn't fit the language in the way the rules are written, as Mr. Midnightoker has noted.
However, depending on the way you do it, it drastically effects the effectiveness of the Rogue. By reading it as it's written, where having cover or concealment allows you to hide from most creatures, a Rogue who has Blur cast on him from the party's wizard can attempt to Hide each round and use standard action attack + sneak attack + move action + Stealth to temporarily show up, attack, then fade out again.
The other method pretty much means it's useless to the rogue other than perhaps a short-term pre-combat buff which might help him get a single good shot off, or just a 20% miss chance; which would be better placed on a character who's going to be tanking in this case (waste of a spell otherwise).