|
Ok, then lets do a purely RAW discussion. in the gaze attack it is statd that one of the method to avoid a gze attack is
Wearing a Blindfold: The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one’s back on the creature or shutting one’s eyes) and does not have to make saving throws against the gaze. However, the creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent.
So,
1) A PC/Npc have blind spots.
2) creatures in the blind spots are consireder to have total concealementBy RAW you can use stealth if you have any form of concealement (like standing in the back of the enemy, see above)
Ergo, by the rules a creature in the blind spots of a Npc could use Stealth to not be noticed.
I firmly reject that the developers implied an entire system for facing in the game based on an aside comment in the universal monster rules for gaze, sorry. Can you do any better than that?
I still think the "canonical" interpretarion of stealth is the wors posible interpretation.
I would like to see the rule that says "at every time a character see in 360 degrees"
We do agree that it sucks, but the game has no facing. The fact that it is so hard to stealth in combat was why Paizo was considering changing the rules so that it was possible.
Here is basically how the rules word it. If I can draw a line from character A to character B, and there is no cover or concealment e then character B can't hide.
Such facing rules would also make it so that if someone is charged from all sides in the same round that one of the attackers would count as not being seen if he could not see all of them, since all of the actions in a round are pretty much simultaneous. We take turns in real life, but the characters are fighting the entire time.
You have to admit the stalh skill do not say that.
Stealth says that against morst creatures finding cover and concelemanet allow to use the skill.
it also says that if a creature is distracter (such by a bluff check*) then the character can use stealth.
in nowhere i read that cover and bluff are the only way to use stealth, there are just options.
* or looking to anohter side.
I said "basically".
Your options by the rules are cover, concealment, and bluff.
I firmly reject that the developers implied an entire system for facing in the game based on an aside comment in the universal monster rules for gaze, sorry. Can you do any better than that?Ok, then lets do a purely RAW discussion. in the gaze attack it is statd that one of the method to avoid a gze attack is
Wearing a Blindfold: The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one’s back on the creature or shutting one’s eyes) and does not have to make saving throws against the gaze. However, the creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent.
So,
1) A PC/Npc have blind spots.
2) creatures in the blind spots are consireder to have total concealementBy RAW you can use stealth if you have any form of concealement (like standing in the back of the enemy, see above)
Ergo, by the rules a creature in the blind spots of a Npc could use Stealth to not be noticed.
I am no trying to say that there a complete facing system in pathfinder, i only want to see if the common interpretation of stealth in unavoidable by RAW.
i have yet to see the RAW of it.
If you insist on a rules quote then I can find it. I have had this argument before. I will shall return shortly.
This is not RAW, but how I run stealth for sneak attacks (as well as my player when the DM).
If a stealther is unobserved they can immediately go into stealth and find cover. If they want to sneak up on someone to attack, it is an opposed check (stealth vs. perception), with of course + or - depending upon what is going on around the stealther, what kind of environment the stealther is stealthing in etc. Anyone show could potentially see the person in stealth gets a roll. If the stealther manages to evade perception to his target, he gets a surprise attack (for sneak damage if applicable).
If the stealther uses Bluff he must move to the appropriate cover to remain hidden from there he can again try to stealth attack his target, with appropriate modifiers.
As for HiPS, HiPS is a supernatural ability, in our rules, one can HiPS and remain hidden without cover, so there he or she can make sneak attacks.
Again, this is house rules, but we find it works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*unorthodox "use your damage as your CMB check" mechanic
*rays using splash mechanics are also strange (especially as part of a teleport)
*40 ft. radius is a HUGE circle of flame, bigger than most dungeon rooms
*has an italicized descriptive intro, which no magic item in the Core Rulebook does
*"Behind" doesn't exist in a game without facing.
*overall, cool idea, presentation and rules-fu is lacking
SKR is a guy that helped design 3.5 and Pathfinder.
Cover
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).
Therefore if I can draw a line from my square to the other creature's square without that line running into something that provides cover then that creature does not have cover. In other words the character can not use cover to hide because he has no cover. The rules don't say if I am facing that direction. They only care whether or not the line from point A to point B is blocked by cover. That means the ninja in the OP's example did not have cover, and could not stealth unless he has concealment or used a bluff check. According to the OP's example concealment, no cover was available.
I said "basically".
Your options by the rules are cover, concealment, and bluff.
I agree that those are the only otions presented in the text but the text do not limit steatlh to those cases.
I think there is no RAW that covers all options to stealth.
RAW basically means you can only have the options the book gives you. A GM deciding that the ninja can still run across the map to sneak attack someone is rule 0 or GM Fiat, not RAW. There is nothing wrong with that, but RAW is for the most the literal interpretation of the rules. If RAW does not give you other options then you don't have other options other than cases where it say "such as" or something similar. There is no "such as" clause with regard to stealth. You get 3 options barring some feat or some other special ability that lets you ignore the general rules.
We are not being obtuse. The developers also support that as the actual rule. They do agree that the stealth rules are jacked up. Remember we are not discussing how to make the stealth rules better. We are discussing what the rules are. If the stealth rules were not so bad they would have just put out an FAQ instead of trying to actively fix them at one point.
Next big Core Book: Ultimate Stealth.
I would totally buy it.
Why does stealth work fine in my games? Am I doing something wrong?
Why does stealth work fine in my games? Am I doing something wrong?Maybe not RAW, but certainly not wrong.
The blog rules were still being tested before they stopped, but some good ideas were in there. I think allowing someone to remain hidden as long as they don't stop their turn in out in the open would make it a lot better.
I would allow a rogue to stealth up behind a guard and make a sneak attack. He has to come from a direction the guard does not expect and the guard gets a perception check vs his stealth. Is this not RAW?
I know there is no facing mechanics but if a guard is watching down a hallway and the rogue climbs a wall to get to his area, I count the guard as unaware of him.
Even without facing rules in the mechanics, I as the GM can tell where he is facing.
That is not RAW. By RAW if the character breaks cover he can not stealth, unless he has concealment.
That sucks.
I don't see it. I'm basing my interpretation on this:
Stealth
(Dex; Armor Check Penalty)
You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. This skill covers hiding and moving silently.Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you.
That's the part that seems relevant to moving silently before anyone has observed you.
The other parts about concealment and bluff checks seem to become relevant only when the rogue wants to hide after he has already been observed.
I don't see it. I'm basing my interpretation on this:
Stealth
(Dex; Armor Check Penalty)
You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. This skill covers hiding and moving silently.Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you.
That's the part that seems relevant to moving silently before anyone has observed you.
The other parts about concealment and bluff checks seem to become relevant only when the rogue wants to hide after he has already been observed.
That is only a part of the rules. The rest of it are the instructions on how it works.
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.
This is telling you the requirements need to stealth. You can not be observed. If someone has line of sight to you then they can see you. The only way to stop line of sight is cover and/or concealment. The part about " hiding and moving silently" refers to the fact that it cover both aspects of hiding since hiding generally refers to both. Since PF does not have facing then you can't really say someone is facing a certain direction. That is GM Fiat. SKR specifically said the game has no facing. If the game has no facing then characters can see in all directions.
PS:If there was facing, then why wouldn't surrounding someone make them lose their dex to AC against one of the attackers? After all you would not be able to see all of them.
PS:If there was facing, then why wouldn't surrounding someone make them lose their dex to AC against one of the attackers? After all you would not be able to see all of them.
Isn't that kind of like, I dunno, flanking them? I mean they do get penalties (though its counted as a bonus to hit), it allows sneak attacks, and creatures without faces are typically immune to flanking (oozes and elementals). All the fluff seems to fit pretty well even if it's not exactly what the rules say...
Isn't that kind of like, I dunno, flanking them? I mean they do get penalties (though its counted as a bonus to hit), it allows sneak attacks, and creatures without faces are typically immune to flanking (oozes and elementals). All the fluff seems to fit pretty well even if it's not exactly what the rules say...
PS:If there was facing, then why wouldn't surrounding someone make them lose their dex to AC against one of the attackers? After all you would not be able to see all of them.
Nope.
Not being able to see someone which is what stealth does amounts to them losing dex to AC. That is why not being able to see someone which is what facing would result in and trying to concentrate on two people in melee aka flanking are not the same thing. The facing idea would also come into play with archers. Flanking does not cover that.A penalty and a bonus to hit are not the same thing. An example of this is how the ranged attack rules give the target a bonus to AC if he has cover, but the attacker has a penalty to the attack rolls if he is firing into melee.
That is only a part of the rules. The rest of it are the instructions on how it works.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.This is telling you the requirements need to stealth. You can not be observed.
Maybe when I read the stealth rules I was biased because I was looking for an interpretation that allowed for stealth to be used the way I remembered from looser, more rules-light editions of the game. I hesitate to convert to this ruling because it would discourage my players from playing the iconic rogue from classic d&d and fantasy fiction.
Question...
If everyone is auto-observing everyone else in all directions why is there a DC to notice a visible creature under the perception skill?
Using stealth by RAW to sneak attack is kind of limited. Being in dim-light means things get a 20% concealment without certain racial traits. So a standard human rogue can't sneak attack someone in dim light, but can't sneak attack someone not in dim light either because they come out of stealth. That little ruffle with the rules kills a lot of rogue concepts. Personally, I think you should keep playing the way you are because what's more important, being correct by RAW or having a fun game where your players are playing the concepts they want to play?
Question...
If everyone is auto-observing everyone else in all directions why is there a DC to notice a visible creature under the perception skill?
Perception covers sound and sight. Even a sleeping person gets a perception check. Just because you are visible that does not mean you are automatically noticed. The check is to "notice" a visible creature, not "see" an invisible creature.
edit:typo
Using stealth by RAW to sneak attack is kind of limited. Being in dim-light means things get a 20% concealment without certain racial traits. So a standard human rogue can't sneak attack someone in dim light, but can't sneak attack someone not in dim light either because they come out of stealth. That little ruffle with the rules kills a lot of rogue concepts. Personally, I think you should keep playing the way you are because what's more important, being correct by RAW or having a fun game where your players are playing the concepts they want to play?
I agree. I am just clarifying what the rules are. I don't really like the stealth rules either, but it is always good to know them in case you end up in a group where a GM refuses to ever budge from what the book says.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think you should keep playing the way you are because what's more important, being correct by RAW or having a fun game where your players are playing the concepts they want to play?
Good point ragnarok. I'm not out to prove the way I've been doing it is RAW or RAI. If the RAW creates problems for me, I'm comfortable changing things for the reason you mentioned. I have always been curious though, because I've heard people complain about how stealth doesn't work, and I wondered what I was doing "wrong" or "different", because I never set out to house-rule it, I just played it the way it seems to read to me in the book and it worked fine.
Now that I've heard the case against stealth I can see where the difference is between the way I'm reading it and the reading that introduces the problems. This problematic reading may be the correct one, or the one that was intended. I don't know for sure. (To those who read it that way, sorry if "problematic" sounds like a criticism, I couldn't think of a better word. Maybe "strict", or "hyper-literal".)
I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong, I just think it's interesting. I'm only trying to explain the way I've been reading it. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to consider that my reading might be reasonably compatible with what is written, and might even be what was intended.
If I'm wrong, no big deal, I'll just house-rule it for my own games to work the way it always has.
Question...
If everyone is auto-observing everyone else in all directions why is there a DC to notice a visible creature under the perception skill?Perception covers sound and sight. Even a sleeping person gets a perception check. Just because you are visible that does not mean you are automatically noticed. The check is to "notice" a visible creature, not "see" an invisible creature.
edit:typo
Not sure I follow. Are you saying if you are visible you are not automatically noticed, but you are automatically observed?
So DC 0 +/- modifiers to notice something you have already automatically observed?
Makes no sense.
I am just clarifying what the rules are. I don't really like the stealth rules either, but it is always good to know them in case you end up in a group where a GM refuses to ever budge from what the book says.
I like to know them for that reason but also just out of curiosity. I skipped from 2e to PF so I like to pick your brain because I know you have followed the evolution of the rules through more additions so you can offer some context.
What I am saying is that you can see in all directions. That does not mean that everything is automatically noticed. The DC of 0 has nothing to do with direction. It has to do with distance. The book also says it is a DC of 0, to notice an visible creature as a base point. Now by RAW there are times that perception check should be made since the book gives you a -1 per 10 feet to the perception roll, but many people ignore it.
Using the OP's example if the ninja breaks cover he will be seen before he gets to the target unless the target has no ranks in perception, a terrible wisdom score, and rolls really low, but those rolls almost never take place, in an actual game unless someone is hiding or very far away, even if the penalty to the perception modifier is really bad.
edit:added "in an actual game"
edit:My previous post was not worded well.
Guys don´t forget, there are some things that you can do.
For human rogues, just take the feat shadow strike.
Or else play a race like Sylph or Ifrit. Both of them have darkvision and can have a trait/feat that allows them to see through fog or smoke.
Then, getting concealment is not done easily, but it can be done.
While the minor/major magic rogue talents suck, there are other ways to get blur/obscuring mist or others.
There is the minor cloak of displacement, that gives you blur all the time. A real nice one.
Also hellcat stealth and spring attack with a good stealth skill are something funny. Or shot on the run.
My groups use common sense for stealth based sneak attacks (again not RAW), but we of course have been playing since the 70's, so we kind of use early rules, mixed with modern rules for it.
Now if characters have a blind spot, what stops the following:A Rogue is fighting a Fighter one on one.
They are 10' away from one another facing one another in combat.
Rogue: I walk completely around him so that I can stab him in the back.
Fighter: But why would I take my eyes off him? We're in a fight!
DM: Sorry it's not your turn, he moved into your blind spot.
Doesn't work because the fighter has already observed that rogue. Obviously if he's sparring with the dude he has noticed he's there. In my interpretation, that's where the paragraph about stealth not working when you're being observed kicks in. All those rules about needing to create a diversion with bluff, move hastily into concealment with a -10 penalty to the check, I am going to use them now. I just don't use them before the rogue has been observed. That's the difference in how I'm reading the stealth rules.
How ya like them vegetables.
First it was sugar, now it's preservatives. Can you drop the sanctimonious drivel for a second and tell me what additives I'm applying to your so-called vegetables? I'm not trying to change the stealth rules I'm explaining how I read them for anyone open-minded enough to consider another point of view. I don't know if my reading is the intended one I just know it's easy, stream-lined, solves more problems then it creates and jell's just fine with the text as it's written.
I'm not trying to tell you how to play so can you please stop telling me what to eat?
Don't condenscend me maaan...
.....
....
...
..
.
I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that we designed an advanced rogue talent that allows you to perform a sneak attack as long as you are hidden at the start of your turn; and we did so because popping out of a fog bank and sneak attacking someone is exactly the kind of thing that one would expect to be able to do somehow.
Daron Woodson
Abandoned Arts
Let me get something straight. We all agree there is a DC (albeit a very low one) to notice a visible creature with the perception skill, right? You guys are saying this DC is the same whether the creature is some buffoon casually walking up waving his hands in the air, or a stealthy trained thief creeping up as softly as possible to stab you or pick your pockets?