|
Scenario 1
Patient Rogue is successfully stealthed behind a cover, 30ft from the shopkeeper and is observing the shopkeeper
Patient Rogue readies a stealth move on the criteria of the shopkeeper being distracted (by outside stimulus)
Moves toward his next cover as a standard readied action (move done from cover to cover, with no concealment in between)
rolls a 10+7(stealth)+5(creature making the perception check is distracted) {22} vs rolls a 10+1(perception)-3(distance) {8} = Shopkeer's reactive perception fails by 14
Note: The Patient rogue is not creating a diversion (bluff) to go from being observed to being unobserved and thus (in my opinion) would not
take the -10 penalty for needing to move quickly in this circumstance (but I humbly could be wrong here).
He is also not moving his full speed of 30ft to go to his next cover (15ft away) and does not take the -5 penalty for that either.
But he is moving though an area with no concealment or cover, where he could potentially be observed by the distracted shopkeeper.
Would he need to take the -10 anyway, because he crosses an area of normal light with no concealment, even though he
was initially unobserved? (the spirit of this -10 applies if "your observers" are momentarily distracted, which I believe is not the case here because the patient rogue is initially not observed, unless we consider that at the point between the 2 covers, the rogue IS observed)
Note:
I could see the -10 apply if the rogue were observed in front of the shopkeeper, and wanted to flee to the shadows after a successful diversion.
This -10 seems harsh when initially unobserved (behind cover) and my understanding is that it does not apply if the shopkeeper is distracted and the rogue is unobserved.
In the case where he needs to take the -10 on that, here is the result:
Scenario 2
Patient Rogue is successfully stealthed behind a cover, 30ft from the shopkeeper and is observing the shopkeeper
Patient Rogue readies a stealth move on the criteria of the shopkeeper being distracted (by outside stimulus)
Moves toward his next cover as a standard readied action (move done from cover to cover, with no concealment in between)
rolls a 10+7(stealth)+5(creature making the perception check is distracted)-10(observer momentarily distracted, moving quickly) {12} vs rolls a 10+1(perception)-3(distance) {8} = Shopkeeper's reactive perception fails by 4
What scenario here do you think I need to use?
Thanks
As I read the rules if the rogue is moving from cover to cover, and whilst he's in the process of moving the shopkeeper is distracted, there is no -10. The -10 is provided as per the rules in this way: "If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. 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."
The emphasis there is mine. Point being, the -10 is there if the rogue is in plain sight and then using a distraction to quickly duck behind cover. If you're moving from cover to cover, and the observer is distracted in between, I'm pretty sure that -10 does not apply.
That's my 2cp anyway.
|
|
That is how I saw it as well.
The -10 would be in the event where the rogue is observed in front of the shopkeeper for example.
He creates a diversion and moves afterward to the shadows.
The -10 applies because the rogue had to disapaear (after a successful diversion) from being observed in front of the shopkeer basically in the bink of an eye.
When initially not observed, versus the perception of a creature which is already distracted (lets say the shopkeeper dropped his pen) I would say the -10 would not apply because you are not creating the diversion and have to hide just the second after you made it.
I understand this is subject to debate, so I wanted to poll the community for feedback.
Guys, I encourage you to continue providing your thoughts on this.
If by some luck we could come to some form of consensus, that would be great.
|
|
Fast stealth would allow the Patient rogue to move 30ft instead of 15ft with no -5 penalty, and you may or may not rule that it allows you do reduce the penalty of moving quickly after a diversion, or from between cover to cover against a distracted shopkeeper.
(it makes sense to me by the way)
Although, I would appreciate your opinions on whether we should go with scenario 1 or 2, for a rogue without fast stealth.
Thank you.
RAW the rogue gets spotted as soon as he leaves cover. The new stealth rules were supposed to fix that.
|
|
BigNorseWolf, are you sure that the rogue would be spotted even by a DISTRACTED shopkeeper, by RAW?
Because the point of the bluff diversion to hide is to momentarily DISTRACT the shopkeeper.
So, the RAW would say that that if the rogue DISTRACTS the shopkeeper withn a bluff he can move with stealth(at -10), but if he waits for the shopkeeper to be distracted by another stimulus, then he is automaticlaly spotted?
I understand RAW can be tricky, but that is too much.
EDIT: Hey, sorry if it looks like I pick on you. I am not at all. It just looks like you have a good understanding of the RAW and I value your input.
This is pretty much all up to your DM. Cover to Cover is hotly debated to beging with, but beyond that. Then you have the quality and length of the diversion and the NPC's reaction to it to take into acount. Plus weather or not a fast stealth is required to cover the distance in the time is a judgement call many would require you to make before you leave said cover as well as deciding if your target is properly distracted enough for you to make your move.
Long story short this is why there is a DM and we dont just look up rules and play with all PC's..its his or her encounter they should tell you what rules are in effect and what arent.
If I were the DM I would allow it in concept. If you were just waiting for a random distraction, I would ask you to be specific and then all modification to preception would be based a great deal upon that. For example glancing out a window is a lot different than turning your back completely to a crowded and noisey shop while fetching something from a low cupboard.
|
|
On distraction rules:
There is the "Creature making the check is distracted" +5 to the perception DC, that we can see in the perception skill modifiers.
Although I would assume you are saying that the conditions for being distracted are pretty much left to the GM.
(which the GM could flavour with a favourable or unfavourable +2 / -2 perception modifer)
EASY SOLUTION: have your staelthy person buy a lesser cloak of displacement for 24,000g. carry your concealment with you.
Humm. this thread should not be under the "advice" category, but under "Rule questions".
Not sure how to change that or how this happened...
Mods did it, more than likely because they think you are looking for advice about which scenario people agree with, not how to interpret a rule. It's not a big deal, people that understand your question will answer it regardless of where it is.
I believe scenario 1 makes sense, but rules as written if you do not have cover or concealment you cannot make a stealth check, and you must always have cover or concealment to maintain stealth.
What I believe would solve a lot of issues is if they would have put in the description of stealth "As long as you are only doing a move action, if you had cover/concealment at the beginning of your move and had successfully made a stealth check, you could maintain your stealth as long as you ended your move action with cover/concealment."
I think that, or something very similar, would work.