That's not true, there's examples of movement as an immediate action (following step). There's also a standard action to move (while prone).Please quote specifics.
OK, I misquoted the crawling text (: But there's plenty of examples otherwise.
Of movement without a move action?
* Run
* Charge
* Move 5 ft. through difficult terrain
* Withdraw
* Restricted Withdraw
There are others, but it's the same principle. You don't need a move action to have movement. . . .
That's not true, there's examples of movement as an immediate action (following step). There's also a standard action to move (while prone).Please quote specifics.
He did, but here's the actual RAW (which you could have looked up, since he told you what it was).
Step Up (Combat)You can close the distance when a foe tries to move away.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: Whenever an adjacent foe attempts to take a 5-foot step away from you, you may also make a 5-foot step as an immediate action so long as you end up adjacent to the foe that triggered this ability. If you take this step, you cannot take a 5-foot step during your next turn. If you take an action to move during your next turn, subtract 5 feet from your total movement.
Crawling: You can crawl 5 feet as a move action. Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who threaten you at any point of your crawl. A crawling character is considered prone and must take a move action to stand up, provoking an attack of opportunity.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm sorry.. if you have poor visibility when reduced to only seeing up to 10 feet away, how is having WORSE visibility being reduced to only seeing up to 5 feet away suddenly better for your vision???No.
As I said in my prior post, visibility conditions here are based on how FAR you can see not on how WELL.
You could see a great distance in dim light, just that everything therein would have concealment.
Meanwhile in an obscuring mist you can only see 5 feet.
-James
How does being able to see 20, 200, 2000, or 20000 feet help when you are moving 5 ft? I'm sorry, but if I'm walking down the hall in dim light, I don't look out the window at the end and try to read the menu on the pub down the road, I look at the ground in front of me. I only need to be able to see the 5 feet in front of me that I'm trying to walk on. If I can see that, then I'm good.
Arguing that being able to see 30 feet when I'm only looking at the 5 feet in front of me makes no sense, and nothing in the rules says you have to be able to see 30 feet to move 5 feet.
The rules on obstructed vision are referring to thinks like moving in complete darkness (50% concealment) or while blinded. Not in situations where you can see 5 feet but not 10. An example would be a stone that lit your 5 foot square normally, and gave dim light out to 5 feet. You could move your full movement using that, because you are carrying it with you. By the same token, you can see 5 ft away, and can make an adjustment to that square, taking your light source with you.
I'll just pop in here to say the developers believe a 5-foot step to be movement.
"She could instead limit her movement to a 5-foot step[.] (Core Rulebook, p. 181)"
"The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step[.] (Core Rulebook, p. 181)"
"The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. (Core Rulebook, p. 187)"
"You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement.(Core Rulebook, p. 189)"
About the visibility thing, I'm trying to find the exact rules for this. . .
The only rule I can find is:
Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed.
Obscuring mist gives creatures total concealment beyond 5 ft. -- but it doesn't make you blind. . . .
Some people believe that you only get to apply sneak attack damage to one attack in a full attack action? Is it possible we can find a rule quote supporting this position?
As above, the Stealth skill states "It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking" so once you begin attacking, you no longer are using stealth, and thus are observed, and thus the target is no longer denied his dex, and thus you no longer get sneak attacks.
Now what about attacking from behind, where MOST SMART rogues would attack from, no observation there.
There is no facing in Pathfinder, the opponent knows you are there, and is not denied his Dex.
Now for this senario, an invisible rogue (Jack) gets next to say a guard (one who is on guard, but fails to notice Jack), the guard is not only Denied DEX, but flat-footed. would Jack not get his full set of sneak attacks? I believe he does, Even if the guard knew he was there Jack could still get a full set of Sneak attacks on him in the first go.
If the guard does not know Jack is there, then Jack gets a surprise round. A standard action. Assuming Jack has a higher initiative than the guard, the first non-surprise round he could full attack. Since the guard has not yet acted, he is flat-footed, and Jack can get a sneak attack on each attack he makes. Once the guard acts, he is no longer flat-footed.
Lets say all this happens, then round 3 Jack steps back and becomes invisible. The guard drinks a potion or whatever. Round 4, Jack takes a 5' step and full attacks. The guard, since he does not know where Jack is, is denied his dex. After the first attack, invisibility breaks, and Jack is visible, so his subsequent attacks do not get sneak attack dice.
Relevant rules, so everyone's on the same page.
You can only take a 5-foot-step if your movement isn't hampered by difficult terrain or darkness. Any creature with a speed of 5 feet or less can't take a 5-foot step, since moving even 5 feet requires a move action for such a slow creature.
So, only difficult terrain or darkness. Obscuring Mist is not darkness.
Let's look up difficult terrain.
Hampered Movement: Difficult terrain, obstacles, or poor visibility can hamper movement.
Oh yay, really helpful that.
Poor Visibility is not defined. It's strictly a GM thing. To me, I assume you can 5ft step in dim light. That's a 20% concealment. I also assume you can 5ft step in obscuring mist, because you can see 5 ft. I see no logic in saying you have to be able to see 20 or 30 or 50 or 200000 feet to be able to adjust 5 ft.
Poor Visibility is not defined.
No, not explicitly. Under the Survival skill, in the section on following tracks, the table lists examples of poor visibility: Overcast or moonless night, Moonlight, Fog or precipitation).
Poor Visibility is not defined.No, not explicitly. Under the Survival skill, in the section on following tracks, the table lists examples of poor visibility: Overcast or moonless night, Moonlight, Fog or precipitation).
Yep, but again, nothing concrete. It's all very vague. I've been on moonless nights where I could see 10 feet out, and others where I couldn't see my hand in front of my face. Same for overcast nights. Moonlit nights, foggy days, and during the rain.
Actually, I've been in a rain before where I couldn't see more than 10 feet away. I had to look straight down in front of me and move slowly to make sure I didn't get lost going from one class building to the other (used to live in New Orleans, and you wouldn't believe the torrential downpours you can get down there).
Poor Visibility is not defined.No, not explicitly. Under the Survival skill, in the section on following tracks, the table lists examples of poor visibility: Overcast or moonless night, Moonlight, Fog or precipitation).
That's poor visibility for the purposes of tracking, not poor visibility in general. Moonlight doesn't necessarily constitute poor visibility for all situations.
I think in general, "poor visibility" in the "hampered movement" rules from the combat section should equate to blindness. The 5 ft. step rules strictly apply to darkness (and hence blindness):
You can only take a 5-foot-step if your movement isn't hampered by difficult terrain or darkness
You think that when they wrote 'poor visibility' they instead meant 'complete darkness'?
Really?
Well, technically blindness. . . many creatures see fairly well in darkness.
Shrug, when you DM then that's the case. Easy enough.You think that when they wrote 'poor visibility' they instead meant 'complete darkness'?
Really?
It is a DM's call as to what constitutes 'poor visibility' but frankly it should be something better than 'completely obscured'.
If we go by the books.. poor visibility is vision under 60 feet.
-James
I think they meant poor visibility within the 5 foot region, which I can't find a good example of short of complete darkness (perhaps with the dazzled condition? That would at least make more sense).
You keep quoting 60 feet. If you have rules in the books that say 60 feet, then please quote them. Otherwise, please stop posting 'per raw' 'per the books' 'per the rules' with your 60 feet quote.
I'm willing to be swayed, but you have done nothing to show any rules, just said they are rules and quoted 40 or 60 feet as your belief.
I'm sorry other people had mentioned this section several times so I had assumed that everyone could find it,James
I didn't see it, but no big deal. However, let me quote the entire section.
Poor Visibility: Anytime characters cannot see at least 60 feet due to reduced visibility conditions, they might become lost. Characters traveling through fog, snow, or a downpour might easily lose the ability to see any landmarks not in their immediate vicinity. Similarly, characters traveling at night might be at risk, too, depending on the quality of their light sources, the amount of moonlight, and whether they have darkvision or low-light vision.
The single line you quoted was a paraphrase, not the actual rules. See above for the actual wording. I find that wording very very clear. It only talks about getting lost because they can't see landmarks. That makes 100% sense. I don't read that as a saying if you can't see 60 feet, you have poor visibility. If that were true, then all Oracles with the blind curse would have poor visibility and by unable to make 5 foot adjustments at any time.
I see that as a specific definition of poor visibility when it comes to overland travel and getting lost. I absolutely agree a blind curse oracle could get lost traveling by themselves, since they can't see landmarks. But it doesn't follow that they can't take 5 ft adjustments, which would be the case if you took this section and applied it to combat.
Is 'hampered movement' paralyzed? No? of course not, that would be silly.
Likewise is 'poor visibility' completely unable to see? of course not.
Paralyzed characters cannot take any action. They are "immobilized" in the sense that they can take no physical action (as well as what the game defines as movement). But comparing movement to paralysis is an apples to oranges comparison.
Comparing poor visibility to blindness is simply the difference between "having trouble seeing" versus "can't see anything". Poor visibility can render blindness. Can poor visibility render a visibility state other than blindness, yeah. But in that case, 5 ft. steps aren't hampered. Why would a 5 ft. step not be hampered but general movement would be?
Why would it be easier to take a limited, restricted movement than a general purpose movement?
Why would a 5 ft. step not be hampered but general movement would be?
Why would it be easier to take a limited, restricted movement than a general purpose movement?
A) Why would it be easier to take a limited, restricted movement than a general purpose movement?
A1) Because you are prone. Crawling is a limited, restricted movement other than general purpose movement.
A2) You are an oracle with the Blindness curse. If you use the 'you can get lost' poor visibility deffinition, then an blind curse oracle can never take a 5ft adjustment (which is pretty plainly not intended).
B) Why would a 5ft step not be hampered but general movement would be?
You can only see a 5ft square at a time (illusion spell to block off your vision of anything other than specific 5 ft areas). This would not interfere with you 5ft adjusting within the affected area, but you certainly couldn't see more than 5 ft (assuming you failed your illusion save). By using the rules James quoted, you would be taking away someone's ability to 5ft adjust because they couldn't see 60 feet.
I reiterate, the section of the rules that James quoted applies only to getting lost when overland traveling, due to not being able to see landmarks. It has nothing to do with poor visibility of 5ft moves. There is a difference between 'poor visibility' when driving and walking. Plenty of things that are poor visibility when driving a car are not when walking (speed is a major factor, although the system doesn't take it into effect). A thick fog doesn't stop me from walking down stairs, but it can stop me from runnign down them. As long as I can see 5 ft ahead, I can walk normally.
This all comes down, yet again, to the rules using the same phrasing (poor visibility) in 3-4 different places and defining them in some and not others.
I don't think this will work as you can't attack and use stealth at all. You can use stealth to gain surprise but if there is no surprise stealth can't be use that way.
The concealment allows you to stealth but if your opponent knows something is there he will be ready for it meaning no surprise. I can't find any bonus for attacking while being concealed such as is in dim light or mist. It seems that only gives the defender a bonus in the form of miss chance as you aren't entirely invisible.
Personally I think you should be able to attack from stealth as though you were invisible for a single attack.
I don't think this will work as you can't attack and use stealth at all. You can use stealth to gain surprise but if there is no surprise stealth can't be use that way.
The concealment allows you to stealth but if your opponent knows something is there he will be ready for it meaning no surprise. I can't find any bonus for attacking while being concealed such as is in dim light or mist. It seems that only gives the defender a bonus in the form of miss chance as you aren't entirely invisible.
Personally I think you should be able to attack from stealth as though you were invisible for a single attack.
You can. Stealth DOES work that way. Just not after the first attack, because after that you are no longer stealthed.
I would rule that it works fine the first round. Second round it could work, but I would give the defender a hefty circumstance bonus to his perception if the rogue simply 5' stepped and remained adjacent. He'll be extra alert and watching the character so the second one should be harder.
Of course, how much of a bonus is a good question. I'm leaning toward +10 however.
Much to my regret, attacking from stealth only gives sneak attack on the first attack of a full round attack. I fought against this very thing in a thread not too long ago. My game I have house ruled that the whole attack can sneak attack, because that seems more fun. Besides, the rogue usually has to spend a round or two getting into position.
I would rule that it works fine the first round. Second round it could work, but I would give the defender a hefty circumstance bonus to his perception if the rogue simply 5' stepped and remained adjacent. He'll be extra alert and watching the character so the second one should be harder.
I don't think the OP wanted to remain adjacent. He was withdrawing 5ft away with an adjustment, to be 10ft away from the victim and totally concealed. The OP just forgot he has to then on his next move stealth/wander through his own fog and hope to find the guy. For the maneuver to really work, he needs scent or tremor sense.
A1) Because you are prone. Crawling is a limited, restricted movement other than general purpose movement.
A2) You are an oracle with the Blindness curse. If you use the 'you can get lost' poor visibility deffinition, then an blind curse oracle can never take a 5ft adjustment (which is pretty plainly not intended).
Why would a 5 ft. step not be hampered but general movement would be?
Why would it be easier to take a limited, restricted movement than a general purpose movement?
Good thing I mentioned "general" movement and not specific exceptions that aren't general! (:
PS I think we agree with each other. . . obscuring mist doesn't remove the ability for you to take a 5 ft. step?
BTW, solid fog has a pretty obvious reference to not taking a 5 ft. step that isn't mentioned in the other fog spells. . .
This spell functions like fog cloud, but in addition to obscuring sight, the solid fog is so thick that it impedes movement. Creatures moving through a solid fog move at half their normal speed and take a –2 penalty on all melee attack and melee damage rolls. The vapors prevent effective ranged weapon attacks (except for magic rays and the like). A creature or object that falls into solid fog is slowed so that each 10 feet of vapor that it passes through reduces the falling damage by 1d6. A creature cannot take a 5-foot-step while in solid fog. Solid fog, and effects that work like solid fog, do not stack with each other in terms of slowed movement and attack penalties.
Because there's no other rule to the contrary, it should be assumed that you can take a 5-foot-step while in a fog cloud. Otherwise, why mention it in the solid fog description?
@meabolex
Yeah, I think we're in agreement. :)
And I do like the reference to solid fog, but, the line is really redundant. Because you move at half-speed, you have to move 10 ft to move 5 ft, which means you can't 5ft step without the line. More of a clarification than anything else. It's part of the slowed movement, not the visibility.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I don't think the OP wanted to remain adjacent. He was withdrawing 5ft away with an adjustment, to be 10ft away from the victim and totally concealed. The OP just forgot he has to then on his next move stealth/wander through his own fog and hope to find the guy. For the maneuver to really work, he needs scent or tremor sense.
True, the rogue would need some way to find his opponent in the fog (assuming the opponent moved from his original spot). In the game which this actually came up, the rogue was at the edge of the fog (his opponent was not inside the fog) and was stepping out of "deep fog" and into "shallow fog" to make his attacks against an opponent who had been forced back against a wall and had no other means of escape. The specifics, in this case, aren't particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, though, so I refrained from excruciating detail to get at the academic point in question.
You can. Stealth DOES work that way. Just not after the first attack, because after that you are no longer stealthed.I don't think this will work as you can't attack and use stealth at all. You can use stealth to gain surprise but if there is no surprise stealth can't be use that way.
The concealment allows you to stealth but if your opponent knows something is there he will be ready for it meaning no surprise. I can't find any bonus for attacking while being concealed such as is in dim light or mist. It seems that only gives the defender a bonus in the form of miss chance as you aren't entirely invisible.
Personally I think you should be able to attack from stealth as though you were invisible for a single attack.
The thing is I see is you can't attack while using stealth. That really doesn't matter though as stealth really doesn't give you a bonus as an attacker like invisibility does. The nice thing about invisibility is denies your opponent dex allowing sneak attack(s). So stealth at best allow you get into position to attack with out your opponent being aware. If successful you drop stealth attack a standard action and if your initiative is higher than your opponent's you can full attack the next round too. After that 5 step into the mist and use stealth again. Since you opponent is now aware of your presence but not your exact location they can not be the target of a sneak attack as you don't have surprise and are not denying their DEX.
The mist is more defensive thing for you. You slip in and make your surprise attack(s) could be 1 or more if you win initiative then you 5' step back into the mist using stealth to hide from a counter attack. At best your opponent sees you and has a 20% miss chance or guess where you are and has 50% miss chance, other that you can slip away.
As another note, I think the mist could also alert your opponent to something being up so they are no long unaware of a enemy presence. For example a guard outside a door in corridor of a castle suddenly find themselves surrounded by a mist that obscures vision. I'd think they'd be very aware something was coming.
|
There is also the battle oracle revelation that allows movement as an immediate actions.That's not true, there's examples of movement as an immediate action (following step). There's also a standard action to move (while prone).): I feel your pain, but stealth applies to *any* movement, not just "normal" movement. I know what you're saying, but the rules are pretty vague here.There is no such thing as a "movement action." When movement is talked about in the Core, it is always in relation to a "move action." Hence, you must realize that when "movement" is talked about, it is always in reference to what you can do during a "move action."
While in the real world sense, those are actions that involve your physical movement, those are not movement actions. You cannot stealth with an immediate action, you must stealth as part of movement (read: move) action.
I wonder why the Paizo staff refuses to clarify the stealth rules.
That is, as explained, incorrect. An action type is not required, rather simply movement is and that is done.As to the others, it's up to your DMs at what point that they want to call things 'poor visibility' but in all honesty requiring it to be impenetrable is extreme. If your DM and your group is fine with that more power to you.. but its not in the spirit or the letter of the rules.
-James
As I pointed out (several times) James, there is no RAW on what 'poor visibility' is. The only time it's defined is in relation to getting lost while wandering the wilderness, and that's defined as 60 feet for purposes of overland movement (missing landmarks).
If you insist on using it for 5ft adjustments as well (which are entirely unrelated to overland travel), you will then be taking a major nerf bat to blind curse oracles (who cannot see 60 feet due to their curse).
All I insist is that 'poor visibility' is not 'NO visibility' which is what you are claiming here.See my original posts on the matter,
James
Actually, what I said was that if you could see 5 feet, then you were fine, in my opinion. I also stated that other effects could prevent you from stepping five feet (such as being dazzled, or having illusion effects going on around you). You really should see my posts above.
What you have been saying (including in the message I responded to) was that your opinion was RAW. Since there are no RAW, it's all up to GM interpretation.
And you were the one who brought up the 60 feet thing from overland travel, several times, and never acknowledged that it had no bearing on the conversation.
"...If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth...at -10 penalty..."
The rule doesn't say if the Bluff check is or not an "action".
Is it possible, at 5 ft of an ennemy in a Cloud (so have concealment), to make a Bluff check to distract, followed by a Stealth check at -10 for a free action???? more than a free?
No. See the bluff skill. "Action: Attempting to deceive someone takes at least 1 round[.]"
Actually, what I said was that if you could see 5 feet, then you were fine, in my opinion.So how much can you see in 'poor visibility'?
You've said this equates to being blind.. in other words 'no visibility'.
Are you altering this?
-James
No, you are either misunderstanding what I said, or intentionally twisting it. What I said was the only light or fog conditions that I could think of that would reduce your ability to take a five foot step would be so dark or so thick that you can't see and are effectively blind. I said other conditions I believe (several times I said this actually) could reduce your ability to 5 ft step, such as dazzled, illusions, and such.
However, simply being unable to see 60 ft (as you repeatedly insisted) is bogus. Are you altering that stance? I've seen you post it, but never seen you take it back, despite being pointed out repeatedly that it was wrong. You seem to be ignoring the question repeatedly. At this point, until you respond to that, I'm not going to respond to anymore of your questions, as it seems rather hypocritical to expect me to defend my statements when you are categorically incapable of responding to questions about yours.
|
Round 2) He makes a full attack action on his enemy, gaining the advantage of sneak attack on his attacks (thanks to Shadow Strike) and then 5' steps away, gaining total concealment in the mist, and makes another Stealth check (which is listed as requiring no action since it is done as part of movement - in this case, a 5' step).
A 5' step is not movement. It's "an adjustment". If it were movement it would be a move action. And as a move action the rogue would not be able to take a full attack but only a single attack action.
Otherwise, I'm perfectly fine with that approach.
(The only time the 5' step is movement is when used as an immediate action and the creature later takes normal movement during their turn. Using the Step Up feat is a good example.)
I do not have a Pathfinder core book in front of me, but if you look in the 3.5 PHB, table 9-4: Hampered Movement (around page 163) it notes that poor visibility costs double movement, and gives the examples of "darkness or fog." I imagine the Pathfinder book has a similar table.
Fog is defined as
Whether in the form of a low-lying cloud or a mist rising from the ground, fog obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet. Creatures 5 feet away have concealment (attacks by or against them have a 20% miss chance).
That is, the fog created by obscuring mist is exactly as dense as naturally occurring as defined by the rules.
Therefore, obscuring mist does cause "poor visibility" and hampers movement.
Whether that prevents one from 5-foot stepping is still debatable, however, as the rules merely state that you cannot 5-foot step if your movement isn't hampered by difficult terrain or darkness. It says nothing about fog, shadowy illumination, or the like.
You keep quoting 60 feet. If you have rules in the books that say 60 feet, then please quote them. Otherwise, please stop posting 'per raw' 'per the books' 'per the rules' with your 60 feet quote.I'm willing to be swayed, but you have done nothing to show any rules, just said they are rules and quoted 40 or 60 feet as your belief.
Do a quick search for 'poor visibility' and you'll find it readily enough.
Poor VisibilityAnytime characters cannot see at least 60 feet due to reduced visibility conditions, they might become lost.
And see the prior post for other quotes.
I'm sorry other people had mentioned this section several times so I had assumed that everyone could find it,
James
Thanks you for proving yourself wrong....
Poor Visibility for the purposes of getting lost
Poor Visibility
Anytime characters cannot see at least 60 feet due to reduced visibility conditions, they might become lost. Characters traveling through fog, snow, or a downpour might easily lose the ability to see any landmarks not in their immediate vicinity. Similarly, characters traveling at night might be at risk, too, depending on the quality of their light sources, the amount of moonlight, and whether they have darkvision or low-light vision.
Poor Visibility for tracking purposes
Poor visibility(Apply only the largest modifier from this category)
Overcast or moonless night +6
Moonlight +3
Fog or precipitation +3
Note all of these conditions count as poor visibility for tracking purposes.
Oh look, they are different!
That is because each one is a specific rule that is meant to only apply to the section of rules it is discussing.
Poor visibility for combat movement purposes is not defined in the combat section, but you can't take a specific rule from another section and apply it generally. Blindness is the only visibility condition that is explicity called out as causing a movement reduction.
Scenario: Rogue with the Shadow Strike feat, Major Magic rogue talent (obscuring mist), and the Stealth skill.
...
I just want to know if it is legal to 5' step into a square that gives total concealment and make a stealth check as part of that step.
Just making sure of something here.
Read the Obscuring Mist spell a bit closer."It is stationary. The vapor obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet."
This means that adjacent creatures are not obscured, as they are 0-5' away from each other.
Partial concealment is at 5' (1 square between them)
Full concealment is at more than 5' (2+ squares between em)
This means that adjacent creatures are not obscured, as they are 0-5' away from each other.
Partial concealment is at 5' (1 square between them)
Full concealment is at more than 5' (2+ squares between em)
Not obscured, correct, but still (partially) concealed.
"A creature 5 feet away has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance). Creatures farther away have total concealment (50% miss chance, and the attacker cannot use sight to locate the target)."
Assuming everyone in the fog:
Orc adjacent to Elf: Concealment (20% MC)
Orc with 1 square between him and Elf: Total Concealment (50% MC)
Orc can use sight to locate Elf when Elf is adjacent, but not when Elf is one or more squares away. (Thus, obscured)