What is the functional difference between a successful stealth check to remain hidden and being invisible?
It seems to me that a successful stealth check to remain hidden should result in the invisible condition.
Here's the wording of the invisible condition:
InvisibleInvisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See the invisibility special ability.
If you are hidden you are effectively invisible, but only for as long as you have cover or concealment.
If you are actually invisible you don't need cover or concealment because nobody can see you without magical aid.
You said it yourself... "visually undetectable..."
A hidden character is visually detectable (opposed skill checks).
Invisible creatures are visually undetectable.
In Old(er) DND books you have both "Hide" and "Move silently" as class skills. Now it is replaced by Stealth (easier)
So my two cents:Invisible :You can still be heard...
This is a never ending and still unresolved point of contention in the rules (particularly with regards to rogues). A 3.5 faq equated them with each other, so that's probably how i would do it.
There might still be signs of the creature's presence, footprints or sounds, if a character is invisible and a perception check might be able to pinpoint the location of the creature(determine which square the creature is in) an invisible creature gets a +20 on stealth checks to avoid being located.
A succesful perception check, usually a move action, would allow someone to attack the creature with a 50% mischance for having total concealment.
Stealth and invisibility complement eachother in such a way as a character that has concealment can always try to use stealth and stealth reduces the chance of the creature to be pinpointed.
What, if any, are the functional differences between a successful stealth check to hide and being invisible?
It seems to me that a successful stealth check to hide should result in the invisible condition.
It's actually the other way around. Being invisible gives you bonuses to become hidden.
An invisible thing can still be heard, smelled, identified and located by it's footprints, displacing water, or smoke, or dust, etc. An observer can try to determin if an invisible thing is there and locate the square an invisible thing is in.
If a thing is hidden from an observer, they have failed to do so (or are totally unaware it's there at all).
Though, if an attacker is only hidden (not magically invisible) I think it's situational and a DM call if the attacker gains all the benefits of invisibility in an attack. Like if the basis of the steath check is distraction, and the attacker snuck up from behind out of the target's field of view, seems like yes, but if the attacker leapt up from behind a rock in the targets field of view, then the target should be just caught flat footed, same as if they were unaware by just botching the initial perception check at start of combat.
The invisible condition states that he need only be visually undetectable to benefit from the condition. Failed perception checks mean they did not visually (or with any other sense) detect him.
Here's the situation that I'm basically asking about:
I've got a ranger hiding in some bushes. Caravan guards fail their perception checks to see him.
He shoots one of them with a bow. For the purposes of this attack, is he considered to have the invisible condition?
You have to actually be invisible to be invisible. He is considered to be hidden though at least until the takes a shot. Once you attack your position is revealed unless you are invisible. The only way to stay hidden in this situation is to snipe which has its own rules.
Being hidden means that you are unseen, that you are visually undetected. Invisible says "Invisible creatures are visually undetectable." The two are one and the same. If they are not, then what is the hidden condition?
You have to actually be invisible to be invisible. He is considered to be hidden though at least until the takes a shot. Once you attack your position is revealed unless you are invisible. The only way to stay hidden in this situation is to snipe which has its own rules.
Invisible is "invisible" like the invisible man(movie) or the lady in the Fantasic Four, meaning you are literally invisible(undetectable by sight). Hidden just means you are well hidden. I answered this one at the top of the thread. Invisible always(99%) is due to magical means, while hidden is due to skills.
I actually agree stealth should also give you a +2 bonus to hit on your first attack, not quite clear why this would not be the case, though there is no definite wording to say it is so.
Being hidden means that you are unseen, that you are visually undetected. Invisible says "Invisible creatures are visually undetectable." The two are one and the same. If they are not, then what is the hidden condition?
What we have here is a clash of semantics. The invisible condition requires the character to be visually undetectable. That can be achieved in a number of ways - being in complete darkness with no darkvision on you, being successfully stealthy, and using special abilities that confer invisibility.
Then there's using the special ability of invisibility. That confers the invisible condition against anyone who doesn't have see invisibility or true seeing active (or potentially other powers that beat invisibility).
The invisible condition states that he need only be visually undetectable to benefit from the condition. Failed perception checks mean they did not visually (or with any other sense) detect him.
Here's the situation that I'm basically asking about:
I've got a ranger hiding in some bushes. Caravan guards fail their perception checks to see him.
He shoots one of them with a bow. For the purposes of this attack, is he considered to have the invisible condition?
The guards neither see, nor hear, nor smell (nor notice him with tremor sense or anything else), him in the bush if they miss their check.
But consider the difference if he shoots them in the back or in the face. If they're looking at the bush he's hiding behind, it's reasonable they'll see him as he breaks cover to shoot. If they're looking someplace else, then not.
If as luck would have it the target's looking right the archer when he pops up, I'd rule they're still caught flat footed. If their back was turned, or if he could shoot through the bush without breaking cover, then he should get the full benefits of not being seen (invisibility).
If it wasn't clear which way they're looking. I'd roll a die to determine their facing at the critical moment.
Alternativly, if the archer made the 'snipe' stealth re-roll at -20 to stay hidden, that'd mean he stayed hidden regardless where the target was facing, so would get all the bonuses.
There are two things: Invisibility, and the Invisible Condition. One is magical, the other not necessarily so. Both however grant the same numerical bonuses.
If you are hidden due to concealment, a high stealth check, and someone else's failed perception check, do you enjoy the same numerical benefits as a creature enjoying the Invisible Condition? Meaning: you get +2 on ranged attacks and treat targets as flat footed
Yes
Any target that is unaware of your presence is flat flooted against and gains bonuses as such
The invisible condition states that he need only be visually undetectable to benefit from the condition. Failed perception checks mean they did not visually (or with any other sense) detect him.
Here's the situation that I'm basically asking about:
I've got a ranger hiding in some bushes. Caravan guards fail their perception checks to see him.
He shoots one of them with a bow. For the purposes of this attack, is he considered to have the invisible condition?
So you were concealed in a bush, and the guards goes past you without seeing nor hearing you...
First, don't forget this strange rule : there's no facing in Pathfinder, you can see at 360° all the time... Me I houserule that this is the case only when people are actively in combat... But this is my houserule... ;)
So if at any time in your action you lose your concealment you lose your stealth too...
If you get out of the bush and fire they can see you by RAW so you are not invisible to them, but you surprise them and got a surprise turn in which they are flat footed (and if you have won the initiative they will still be flat footed on related to you the next round)
If you fire from inside the bush (still concealed) I don't think there's a RAW for this... I will rule that you are "invisible" but have a 20% liss chance due to concealment of the bush and it use your surprise round...
Next round they still have to find you (but not that hard since you have fired I would rule some consequent bonus to their perception check, but have to use their move action to spot you...)
Well I think that kind of situation will always need a some DM call... And I, as a DM, will always try to reward my players if they come with a clever plan... ;)
First, don't forget this strange rule : there's no facing in Pathfinder, you can see at 360° all the time... Me I houserule that this is the case only when people are actively in combat... But this is my houserule... ;)
This is especially important because in pathfinder perception is all 6 senses. You may not be able to see something behind you but you can still hear it.. so its still a perception roll.
There are two things: Invisibility, and the Invisible Condition. One is magical, the other not necessarily so. Both however grant the same numerical bonuses.
If you are hidden due to concealment, a high stealth check, and someone else's failed perception check, do you enjoy the same numerical benefits as a creature enjoying the Invisible Condition? Meaning: you get +2 on ranged attacks and treat targets as flat footed
Yes
Any target that is unaware of your presence is flat flooted against and gains bonuses as such
Not exactly, since (for example) missing a perception check at the start of combat doesn't give the +2, though this also means they're unaware of the attacker. Idea being they're caught flat footed, but it's not like they don't see it coming at all.
It's also not exaclty right that everything is assumed to be looking 360 all the time, since distraction allows a steath check (at a bonus), covering a situation where attention is elsewhere (facing the other way, looking at something, etc.). A DM reasonably could rule that even a target in combat who has no idea the stealther is there (so isn't keeping an eye out for him) might be distracted by the opponents he does know about, so as to allow a stealther a check to cross the open ground to sneak up behind him.
Sorry I meant denied dex.. I was on my phone
There are two things: Invisibility, and the Invisible Condition. One is magical, the other not necessarily so. Both however grant the same numerical bonuses.
If you are hidden due to concealment, a high stealth check, and someone else's failed perception check, do you enjoy the same numerical benefits as a creature enjoying the Invisible Condition? Meaning: you get +2 on ranged attacks and treat targets as flat footed
You only get the Invisible Condition if you are, well... How can I say this? If you are INVISIBLE!
Here's the situation that I'm basically asking about:
I've got a ranger hiding in some bushes. Caravan guards fail their perception checks to see him.
He shoots one of them with a bow. For the purposes of this attack, is he considered to have the invisible condition?
No. He gets a surprise round, they're flatfooted and if he shoots them he can use a move action to restealth (-20 to the check, but that why only the stealthiest characters can do it). Its particularly useful for rogues (Sneak attack, restealth, sneak attack, rinse and repeat, you can play Batman, Sam Fisher or Solid Snake like that) and maybe for a ranger hunting one of his favorite enemies. For everyone else maybe not so much. Invisibility only lets you attack the once and then they catch you with your pants round your ankles. Greater invisibility doesn't need to waste an action restealthing but it is so much more useful if used on the partys rogue, or any other meatshield, than on the wizard.
Also keep duration in mind: greater Invisibility is better than Stealth? Maybe. But it only lasts 2 minutes when cast by a 20th level wizard. You can keep stealthing the whole night long if want.
Keep in mind unfavorable conditions and distance too. Good strategy and use of terrain can be better than magic. It's +1/10ft to the DC to be perceived, on top of your stealth check and other modifiers, so if you're shooting with a longbow from 200ft away, you're effectivly restealthing at no penalty, at only a -4 to hit, just from the distance. If you're shooting at someone by a campfire from the darkness that could be an additional +2, +5 or even the Classic where if they're blinded by darkness, it's the poor man's Greater Invisibility.