I realize you can't initially attempt to use stealth if you're being observed, but if you're already in stealth when a potential "observer" arrives, can you MAINTAIN that stealth in plain sight?
To maintain stealth you must have cover or concealment against the person trying to find you. If you have neither of these (and no Hide in Plain Sight or similar) your attempt at Stealth fails... at least in regards to that person.
Nope. if someone walks into the kitchen and you're standing in the middle of the room when they turn on the lights there's nothing to hide behind and thus no stealth.
The stealth rules are somewhat ambiguous. Being observed would suppose that the opponent sees you and actively keeps an eye on you, and it doesn't make sense to need to be observed before you're noticed; and the rules are unclear on when one can enter stealth or be noticed.
One could argue that being in plain sight does not necessarily means being observed.
Of course, realistically if you're in the field of vision of someone you're automatically noticed, and then observed. But fields of vision are limited (all-around vision ability excepted), and skill uses aren't always realistic.
The ability to sneak up to someone who's looking elsewhere is realistic and somewhat essential to the game (3.5 had a rule for that, but not PF).
You can also choose to use cinematic and non-realistic interpretations, too, if you ever want your players to sneak twice on someone digging for gold in a largely open graveyard, or something of the sort.
Paizo, as far as I'm aware, always refused to offer a clear explanation of what stealth allows you to do despite loooong threads about it and a lot of FAQ requests, maybe so that the DMs could make their own decisions on the matter.
so...during combat my rogue "stealths" and sneaks up on a goblin, to stab him in the back. unless he has hips it fails? because it has to be dark? not mid afternoon and he has to hide behind something? i was under the impression it is a spot vs stealth kinda thing.
so...during combat my rogue "stealths" and sneaks up on a goblin, to stab him in the back. unless he has hips it fails?
Probably.
In order to hide you need to
1) Not be observed- Your rogue is fine here. Presumably you start creeping along before you're anywhere near the goblin. This is what hide in plain sight (look at the DESCRIPTION. The name is incredibly misleading) Changes) Normally if you want to hide and people already know where you are then running behind some bushes just doesn't cut it. People can follow you with their eyes. What hide in plain sight lets you do is elminate this, and ONLY this, qualification from being able to hide. Your other option is to use a bluff check to say "Look a monkey!" make people turn away, and then hide. But either way you still...
2) You need cover or concealment. Cover can be a wall, or the nooks and crannies of a roughly hewn cavern. It cannot be the party fighter. Concealment can be fog, darkness, light brush, crops, (some say it can be a blur spell)
Now that is VERY problematic with a Goblin. They have darkvision out to 60 feet, so anything within 60 feet of them is considered lit unless its magical darkness. There are no facing rules, so you can't be "behind" the goblin and out of sight to sneak up on him.
Even worse for a rogue is that concealment stops you from sneak attacking. So you need some luck and positioning to use concealment, or you need to have better vision than your opponent (normal <low light vision < darkvision) and catch your opponent outside of their light level.
So, if you have a goblin standing in the middle of an open room , in the dark, by raw you can't sneak up on him and stab him in the back using stealth.
because it has to be dark? not mid afternoon and he has to hide behind something? i was under the impression it is a spot vs stealth kinda thing.
You need to get the right conditions and THEN make spot vs stealth.
Also, if your potential observers are distracted, you can attempt to use Stealth. So you have a bit of wiggle room if you can work with your GM on if the Goblin is not expecting to be attacked and looking at his findernails or daydreaming, etc. This can even work in combat with a bluff check and a penalty to dive for cover/concealment (all in the skill description).
If you're ambushing the goblin, say you rolled stealth before you turned the corner, the surprise round should start when he notices you, so if he's near the corner, you still have the chance to short-charge up to him and catch him flatfooted, then again for a full attack if you beat him in initiative, since he will not have acted yet.
I have been doing stealth wrong my whole gaming life, i have been recently seeing the threads about this and would love toget a treatmonts guide to stealth for dm's and players. so i can hand it out and we can be on the same page. I hate to quote "commons sense" type of stuff for a place where badgers can fly and trees can talk.
So, if you have a goblin standing in the middle of an open room , in the dark, by raw you can't sneak up on him and stab him in the back using stealth.
I disagree, RAW isn't clear on that. You can't do it if the goblin observes you. But there's nothing that says that the indeterminate facing rules (there is facing rules, that cover flanking and the all-around vision ability, they just don't allow to say exactly which direction a character faces at a given point) mean that the creature observes everything that's not concealed or behind cover.
"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." seems to mean that cover or concealment is not a systematic requirement for stealth, but just a way to escape observation.
I have been always been floored by the fact that in low light you cant sneak attack, or that you cant sneak in bright light,
damned if you do damned if you dont
Paizo's decision to solve these problems with new feats is more flooring yet.
I disagree, RAW isn't clear on that.
Raw is perfectly clear on this. That the raw isn't fair to rogues is a different matter entirely. Its not fair and its not raw are two completely separate issues. It says you need cover or concealment. You have neither cover nor concealment against someone in an open room where they can see everything.
You can't do it if the goblin observes you. But there's nothing that says that the indeterminate facing rules (there is facing rules, that cover flanking and the all-around vision ability, they just don't allow to say exactly which direction a character faces at a given point) mean that the creature observes everything that's not concealed or behind cover.
The flanking rules are not facing rules. There are no facing rules. At all. You cannot simply say that there's nothing in rules that don't exist that contradict you so that your reading is raw.
Even if you're going to try to argue the flanking rules should be applied they don't help you. If i have an opponent right in front of me at 12 o clock , one at 9 o clock and one at three o clock. I am being flanked.. but not because of which way i'm facing. the opponents on my sides have an advantage because they're flanking with a friend on the other side. If i disarm or stun the one at 3 o clock and hit the one at 12 o clock again the one at 9 o clock has NO combat advantage over me because i'm no longer being flanked even though everyone is in the exact same position and facing.
"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." seems to mean that cover or concealment is not a systematic requirement for stealth, but just a way to escape observation.
While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
You have to move to the "unobserved place" Anywhere that the Goblin can see isn't an unobserved place.
You cannot simply walk up to someone in the middle of a lit room and a sign that says "you can't see me"
By your reading camouflage and hide in plain sight would be redundant abilities.
Camouflage (Ex): A ranger of 12th level or higher can use the Stealth skill to hide in any of his favored terrains, even if the terrain doesn't grant cover or concealment
I have been always been floored by the fact that in low light you cant sneak attack, or that you cant sneak in bright light,
damned if you do damned if you dont
Yea, I think 'distraction' is supposed to serve as the grease for those wheels. You can stealth if the potential observer is distracted (per the skill description), and distraction can cover everything from facing the other way to Vazini's pointing "What in the world could that be!". But it all is as clear as mud.
Its not fair and its not raw are two completely separate issues. It says you need cover or concealment.
Of course those are separate issues. But it doesn't say you need cover or concealment. It says that, even though being observed prevent you from using stealth, finding cover and concealment (implied by the "against most creatures" : against creatures using sight to observe you) allows it.
You cannot simply say that there's nothing in rules that don't exist that contradict you so that your reading is raw.
Yet you're saying that because there's no rule to determine which direction a creature faces, that means that they observe every observable thing, though that rule doesn't exist.
I'm not claiming my reading is RAW, I'm claiming RAW isn't clear and doesn't say what you assumed it does. So I propose a reading based on the meaning of the word "observed".On the facing rules and flanking and all-around vision...
First, RAI : it's not a coincidence that flanking replaces backstabs of previous editions rogues.
Second, RAW : it's not a coincidence that all-around vision prevents flanking.
Just because they abstracted the rules for facing doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
In the situation you describe, you're no longer flanked because you can observe every threatening opponent without having to turn around, which you couldn't do when there was threatening opponents on opposite sides of you. Because you play a creature that always faces a particular direction, even though you don't need to mention it (because the rules cover it for you).
Anywhere that the Goblin can see isn't an unobserved place.
Yes, but not at the same moment.
When the goblin turns back, he'll observe one place, then another, etc : that's when you'll need to be in an unobserved place.It doesn't mean that when he's not searching around for you he observes everywhere at the same time. Note too that this rules is made to hide from multiple observers.
You cannot simply walk up to someone in the middle of a lit room and a sign that says "you can't see me"
That's what you say, not what the rules say. So, for lack of precise rules, I'd say one should rely on common sense and the DM's descriptions to say if the goblin is looking at you or not.
Of course those are separate issues. But it doesn't say you need cover or concealment.
1) Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. (the implication there is that you need stealth
2) What does the camouflage ability do in your opinion? It doesn't seem to do anything by your reading of the rules
Yet you're saying that because there's no rule to determine which direction a creature faces, that means that they observe every observable thing, though that rule doesn't exist.
By raw, there's something hidden, you make a perception check. There's no listed penalty for it being behind you.
I'm not claiming my reading is RAW, I'm claiming RAW isn't clear and doesn't say what you assumed it does. So I propose a reading based on the meaning of the word "observed".
My reading dovetails nicely with the abilities camouflage and hide in plain site, which each alter one of the conditions necessary for stealth.
On the facing rules and flanking and all-around vision...
First, RAI : it's not a coincidence that flanking replaces backstabs of previous editions rogues.
Second, RAW : it's not a coincidence that all-around vision prevents flanking.
Just because they abstracted the rules for facing doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Yes, it does. The facing rules were eliminated. They were abstracted into non existence. They can't be used as a justification for interpretation
In the situation you describe, you're no longer flanked because you can observe every threatening opponent without having to turn around, which you couldn't do when there was threatening opponents on opposite sides of you.
But in that situation i am clearly facing the orc at 12 o clock.
Even if i have an orc at North, South-east, and south west, i can't see them all , but none of them get any combat advantage over me.
Because you play a creature that always faces a particular direction, even though you don't need to mention it (because the rules cover it for you).
Except that the rules dont, as the lack of any mechanism for sneaking up behind someone demonstrates.
Yes, but not at the same moment.
When the goblin turns back, he'll observe one place, then another, etc : that's when you'll need to be in an unobserved place.
And what is a humanoids field of vision? How about a horses? Do elves have a wider one? What about dwarves? How behind do you have to be? 180 degrees? How about 170? 150 ?
Its too complicated. So yes, perception IS all round vision... especially when you consider that perception is not just vision. It is all 5 sense.
It doesn't mean that when he's not searching around for you he observes everywhere at the same time. Note too that this rules is made to hide from multiple observers.
That's what you say, not what the rules say. So, for lack of precise rules, I'd say one should rely on common sense and the DM's descriptions to say if the goblin is looking at you or not.
Common sense that says you can sneak up on someone in a well lit room?
-I'm sorry for how i went off a bit on you before, your argument IS better than i gave it credit for.
Ah serindipity, here's a post from Sean K Renolds on the subject
I think i remember how to link
______________________________________________________________________
And even if it were, weren't the rafters... in shadow? That's concealment, thus, Stealth is possible.
Quote:
It's Christmas time, and I spend last weekend spending some time visiting my brother-in-law's family. My five-year-old nephew was happily playing with a toy car, so I crept up on him through the living room, quietly and slowly. Then, I pounced on him shouting something about a ticklemonster, earning me many giggles and a dirty look from my wife.
Pathfinder doesn't have facing, which is why you can't do that in the game. If an NPC was specifically only looking in one direction, the GM could rule that sneaking up behind them is technically concealment, thus you can use Stealth. But the game assumes that people at risk of being killed at any moment tend to look in ALL directions instead of just focusing on one.
1)Yep, if observation prevents it, finding cover or concealment allows stealth. It does not mean nothing else allows it.
2)The camouflage ability allow a ranger to be hidden in plain sight, while the hide in plain sight ability does just what it says.
To use the same situation again, a ranger with camouflage can be hidden without finding cover/concealment when the goblin looks for him after having been distracted (assuming the room is one of his favored terrains). A ranger with HiPS doesn't need to distract the goblin and can hide while he's observed.
No need to give the goblin a 360 degrees vision to make those different abilities. On the contrary, if the goblin could see everywhere, then creating a diversion would be pointless : it's your reading which disregards the "observed" mention that lets you see the two abilities as redundant.
The facing rules were eliminated. They were abstracted into non existence.
No, they were abstracted into the flanking rules and some others, like the distraction use of the Bluff and Stealth skills and the All-around Vision ability. All rely on the creature looking in one or several directions at one given time. They can't be used to argue that all creatures can see everywhere all the time. But they do strengthen a common-sense based interpretation of the stealth rules in play.
Even if i have an orc at North, South-east, and south west, i can't see them all , but none of them get any combat advantage over me.
The point of covering facing with these "new" rules is to simplify the players and DM's work. Of course that means limiting the simulationist side (similarily to numerous other rules of the game), since [if opponents are on opposed sides of you...] is easier to get into play than [if opponents are not all within a 120 (180 if you are playing a creature with eyes on the side of its head, 90 if you lose an eye, but don't forget the -1 penalty to attack due to the lack of depth perception) degrees cone starting from your space...].
It's too complicated, as you said. So to simulate facing without adding a bunch of variables on the character sheets they made up the relatively simple flanking rules. It doesn't mean, again, that creatures see everywhere, since that's a specific ability.
Except that the rules dont [cover your facing for you], as the lack of any mechanism for sneaking up behind someone demonstrates.
On the contrary that lack is due to the fact that the rules cover facing without player intervention.
In 3.5, the distinction between moving silently and hiding made that easier to do on the fly by a willing DM, though.
Common sense that says you can sneak up on someone in a well lit room?
Yes it does. That's why SKR propose to rule that case as concealment - though it's a pretty bad idea IMO. And the game shouldn't (doesn't ?) assume that one would sneak only onto people searching actively for assassins.
Don't worry about going off. And please don't take offense if my tone is off too - I can't control it that well when I write in english.
1)Yep, if observation prevents it, finding cover or concealment allows stealth. It does not mean nothing else allows it.
That's one possible reading. Its not the reading i have. And its not the developers reading of it either.
2)The camouflage ability allow a ranger to be hidden in plain sight, while the hide in plain sight ability does just what it says.
Its a very narrow use of the skill by your reading. Almost non existant.
The point of covering facing with these "new" rules is to simplify the players and DM's work.
And part of that simplification, which has been around since 3.0. is that perception is equal in all directions.
That's why SKR propose to rule that case as concealment
He proposes that its possible to do by dm fiat , If it was doable by RAW this would be completely and totally unnecessary.
If you look at the rest of thread you'll see that other people were basically asking ' what the hell is wrong with stealth, these conditions are impossible' and the response isn't (as would be the case if you were correct) 'don't worry, you only need cover or concealment once you've been spotted' but sorry, thems the breaks.
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth.
RAW states it's not just cover or concealment, distraction also allows stealth.
"such as by" means bluff is just one example of distraction, allowing others. There is no listing of what else qualifies as a "distraction", so it's a GM call, which means it could include having your back turned, or any number of other reasonable circumstances that would interferece with someones perception so as to make it possible not to perceive someone otherwise in their field of view, which we are all famillar with through common sense and common experience.
That's one possible reading. Its not the reading i have. And its not the developers reading of it either.
Aspheteros +1.
Its a very narrow use of the skill by your reading. Almost non existant.
Not at all. Just because there is situations where the concerned creature is not looking at you, doesn't mean that there's no or almost no situations where it is looking at/for you. There's a lot.
And part of that simplification, which has been around since 3.0. is that perception is equal in all directions.
No. That's not stated and not implied.
He proposes that its possible to do by dm fiat , If it was doable by RAW this would be completely and totally unnecessary.
On this point I'll need to talk semantics : he proposes an adaptation of the rules to explicitly allow that situation. I think actual DM fiat would be better, as in the DM decides on the spot in his descriptions whether the creature can see the sneaky guy or not. RAW does not prevent it and it meshes well with the rest of the rules, so it is doable.
RAI, ironically (usually it's the RAW that is broken/clunky or disregards the story), assuming SKR had a decisive hand in the rewriting of Hide/Move Silently, does prevent it.
No. That's not stated and not implied.
The fact that facing is not stated implies all around vision. There is no facing. Beyond proving a negative, look at the dev's post.
On this point I'll need to talk semantics
Not happening. Semantics is tricky enough in your own language, in English this just looks random. I can't see your point. Pathfinder doesn't have facing, which is why you can't do that [sneak up behind someone in an open room] in the game
he proposes an adaptation of the rules to explicitly allow that situation. I think actual DM fiat would be better, as in the DM decides on the spot in his descriptions whether the creature can see the sneaky guy or not. RAW does not prevent it and it meshes well with the rest of the rules, so it is doable.
If it meshed with the rules it wouldn't need DM fiat. It needs DM fiat therefore it doesn't mesh with the rules.
The whole "all around vision" thing only really applies in combat, and even then, only in an abstracted form.
Out of combat, if the GM says they have their back turned to you or are otherwise distracted, you should be able to sneak past them with a decent check.
The whole "all around vision" thing only really applies in combat, and even then, only in an abstracted form.
Out of combat, if the GM says they have their back turned to you or are otherwise distracted, you should be able to sneak past them with a decent check.
If the GM says that meteor swarm does no damage and instead sprays the area with sparkles and rainbow unicorns then meteor swarm does no damage and instead sprays the area with sparkles and rainbow unicorns. That doesn't mean that's what the spell does by the rules, and this is the rules forum.
If the GM says that meteor swarm does no damage and instead sprays the area with sparkles and rainbow unicorns then meteor swarm does no damage and instead sprays the area with sparkles and rainbow unicorns. That doesn't mean that's what the spell does by the rules, and this is the rules forum.The whole "all around vision" thing only really applies in combat, and even then, only in an abstracted form.
Out of combat, if the GM says they have their back turned to you or are otherwise distracted, you should be able to sneak past them with a decent check.
Designer intent should always be considered, even when discussing the rules.
If you honestly believe the designers intended for you not to be able to sneak past someone who isn't even looking you way, then you're beyond help.
As has been mentioned by many others, my above statements hold true in the rules. If you are distracted, people can sneak by you. Period.
It bugs me that people ignore that and go on wild tangents/arguments about how the stealth rules are flawed.
They could be explained more clearly to be sure, but they work just fine.
Designer intent should always be considered, even when discussing the rules.
Yes it should.
If you honestly believe the designers intended for you not to be able to sneak past someone who isn't even looking you way, then you're beyond help.
I believe that the designers did not want to deal with the massive logistics problem of keeping track of facing, hence there are no facing rules. The fact that you can't sneak up behind someone under that abstraction of reality is a RESULT of the rules, not necessarily the intent.
As has been mentioned by many others, my above statements hold true in the rules. If you are distracted, people can sneak by you. Period.
Distracted isn't defined outside of a bluff. Would i apply it to someone working on a complex mechanical trap? Yes. Would i say that someone standing guard is distracted just because his head at some point must turn? No.
It bugs me that people ignore that and go on wild tangents/arguments about how the stealth rules are flawed.
Check the blog. They are flawed, and they're trying to work on a replacement.
They could be explained more clearly to be sure, but they work just fine.
If something works fine, its not whats written there.
The good news is they are working on this very Issue can't find the link just yet but they are play-testing a new version of the Stealth skill.
There's a blog on it?
*checks*
So there is. Glad to see they are looking to clean it up a bit.
New Stealth stuff for those who don't know where to find it.