Tonight I played a game where there were 6 characters in the group, rogue, fighter, paladin, bard, monk, and ranger. We were all walking down an alley, where my monk was last in line, when our group was met by 4 enemies. These enemies were not magical beasts nor were they monsters, just a halfling and three humans. When the combat was set to begin we rolled initiative and my monk was to go first. The rogue and I chose to leave the combat area and take other alleys to in order to use stealth to re-enter combat and sneak up on the enemies as the rest of the group entered the fray and began fighting. When the rogue and the monk made it around to a position behind the enemies, I said that we were going to use stealth and sneak up on the enemies so we could gain flank and re-enter combat without the enemies knowing right away that we were there. I asked what time it was in the game and the DM said it was 8:30 at night. That told me that there were low light conditions.
The DM says that since combat started before we left to sneak around that the enemies are aware of us and that stealth is ineffective and that if we tried come up to them from behind they would just see us and would not need to use Perception. I am noting that we went completely out of combat and were not seen or heard coming back because no Perception checks were made by the enemies.
So, all of this to pose these questions... Would stealth work if we succeeded our check to move into position behind the enemies according to the rules and would it be within the rules to do what we planned to do? Should the enemies have to make a perception check to know that we were back? The DM says the rules say no. His decision isn't a house rule.
|
You can use stealth from cover or concealment, and if you left their sight entirely, you can definitely use it while out of sight. You can't use it if you were standing in the open behind them, but you can if you were around a corner when you started to use stealth.
You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.
You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.
Cover and Stealth Checks
You can use cover to make a Stealth check. Without cover, you usually need concealment (see below) to make a Stealth check.
Soft Cover
Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.
It sounds like, by the rules as written, I am using stealth correctly and the DM is not.
So let me just clarify some more and ask my question again, so I know my answer.
If my character is around a corner that he was not observed going around, therefore having 100% concealment, and chooses to use stealth to come around that corner and make his way toward the enemies, stealth can be used and the enemies have to make a perception check to see him as soon as he steps around the corner and loses concealment?
If my character is around a corner that he was not observed going around, therefore having 100% concealment, and chooses to use stealth to come around that corner and make his way toward the enemies, stealth can be used and the enemies have to make a perception check to see him as soon as he steps around the corner and loses concealment?
Depends.
"If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth." So if they "happen" to look in your direction or have scent or tremorsense active, you're made the moment you step from your concealment. And as long as they don't observe you though, you can keep using Stealth.
there is no "behind" in Pathfinder combat.
It sounds like, by the rules as written, I am using stealth correctly and the DM is not.
So let me just clarify some more and ask my question again, so I know my answer.
If my character is around a corner that he was not observed going around, therefore having 100% concealment, and chooses to use stealth to come around that corner and make his way toward the enemies, stealth can be used and the enemies have to make a perception check to see him as soon as he steps around the corner and loses concealment?
Let me first say that stealth rules in pathfinder really need a re-working to allow it in situations that are anywhere realistic.
But by RAW, this is how your scenario would go:
You leave combat and turn the corner. At that point, you are not observed and can use stealth.
If you come back around the corner and move to engage in melee, and there are no other conditions that have changed, assuming there are no other methods of maintaining cover/concealment, then the opponents would need to make perception checks depending on the current light conditions as they perceive them. There are a lot of modifiers that go into this check (distraction, distance, etc). You will likely lose stealth at this point.
Unlike the real world, from which your common sense is derived, this is at odds with the game rules. You are essentially trying to sneak up on an enemy when they are facing you. Pathfinder has no facing rules, and therefore they have a virtual 360 degree field of view.
Barring a way to get up into melee range from inside cover/concealment, you lose stealth when you attack, so unless your opponent is flanked at the time of attack, no sneak attacks.
Your DM was wrong in one thing. They still needed to use Perception -- it will be a ridiculously easy check for them, but they still need to do it.
No cover/concealment = no stealth barring certain abilities like "Hide in Plain sight".
The lack of facing rules really devalues stealth.
|
Let us get some facts correct, as I am the GM for this game:
The allies, 6 of them, encountered a group of 4 enemies. Before the enemies revealed themselves and the encounter began, they had cast several spells on themselves: among them, detect magic.
There was no surprise roll or round. The combat simply began with initiative. All 6 of the allies could clearly see all 6 of the enemies and vice versa. They were approximately 70 feet away from each other.
The monk started first, and decided to double move away from the area, followed by the rogue. Their plan was to go around and come at the enemies from the other side of the alley.
After some combat ensued, the monk and rogue had made their way to the other side. The alley was 30 to 40 feet wide in areas, with windows and doors to buildings. The walls had no boxes, barrels, etc. on the walls.
The monk and rogue came up on the encounter 75 feet away. The were behind a corner. The other combatants were actively engaged in combat, moving around. The enemy closest (75ft) to the monk was in the middle of the alley.
The monk seems to think he could use stealth to sneak up next to the enemy without being observed.
I ruled this was not possible for the following reasons:
1. Since the monk was not invisible, he would be observed, especially in light of detect magic being on.
2. The monk could not move more than his movement while stealthing.
3. The enemy was in the middle of the alley, with 10 feet on either side that was complete open space.
The player argues he began the move from cover and concealment. I agreed that this was the case. I agreed that he could make it to a certain point while using stealth but that that would end his turn. However, once it was his turn again, he still claimed could use stealth to walk into the middle of the alley right next to the enemy without being observed. I ruled this was not possible.
Once the monk entered the open area of the alley, i.e. he had no cover no concealment and was out in the open, able to be observed as there is no facing in combat, then he would be seen.
As the rules state:
"If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth."
And the monk could not make it the enemy in one move...
There is some debate about some old D&D provision of stealth that didn't make it to Pathfinder but that was an oversight rather than an intended omission on the dev's part. That said, stealth does say the following:
It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
The only exception to this is the snipe application of stealth which carries a -20 penalty to the check.
During a fight Pathfinder assumes you're cognizant of your goings on in all directions essentially at the same time.
This is an example why some people say stealth needs an overhaul. As is, you either need to snipe or get the drop on someone before combat begins. If you somehow had cover/concealment right up to an adjacent space to a character you could theoretically use stealth but it'll still take some GM fiat to determine exactly how it plays out once you go to make the attack as, again, the rules say it's impossible to use stealth while attacking yet lists cover/concealment as conditions in which you can essentially re-stealth, as it were.
Detect Magic has a duration of Concentration.
From the Magic chapter (emphasis mine):
Concentration
The spell lasts as long as you concentrate on it. Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when casting a spell can also break your concentration while you're maintaining one, causing the spell to end. See concentration.
You can't cast a spell while concentrating on another one. Some spells last for a short time after you cease concentrating.
So, for Detect Magic to play any role here, the enemies with it could not have taken another standard action other than "maintain concentration", could not have cast any other spells (even quickened), and must have made all concentration checks from taking damage in combat.
Nothing in environment or combat links low-light conditions with concealment.
May he confused detect magic with the detect alignment variety of spells? The latter lets you detect the creature's aura and the former doesn't.
Sadly, the rules relevant to stealth are scattered all over the place and not entirely consistent from place to place unless you make assumptions about context.
Edit: Actually "low light" isn't the correct term. It isn't a lighting level. "Dim light" is what I should have used.
Ah, my search-foo is weak today apparently.
The correct term is dim light.
The enemies were casting spells and using channel negative energy each round, no concentration on detect magic, so even though the monk and rogue had potions of cure light wounds, the enemies were not concentrating on detecting magic. That method of detecting the monk and rogue would not have been possible.
I am not questioning getting a sneak attack, being able to attack while using stealth, or gaining flank, so those comments are irrelevant.
I am only asking if a player can use stealth from a concealed location and move adjacent to an enemy, the enemy needing to make a perception check to detect someone sneaking up to them, by walking down an alley, an open space with nothing to conceal them except the less than broad daylight lighting at 8:30 at night in an alley.
Pathfinder has no facing rules. They're effectively perceptive in all directions insofar as their perception score allows them to be. You'd have a huge penalty for trying to be stealthy right next to an enemy if nothing else.
I would argue that the lighting conditions would provide the necessary cover, and as a distracted opponent, if anything the halfling troupe they were trying to ambush should have taken penalties to see them coming. Allowing a contested stealth and automatic perception check should have been reasonable, at the very least.
At least that's how my playgroup runs things when we have stealthy characters in the party.
It sounds to me like the PCs plan should have worked, barring the enemy beating their stealth checks.
They had cover, then dim light (which grants concealment). I'm not seeing a problem with the PC's actions. Looks to me like the GM mishandled it, or else there was a miscommunication somewhere.
It is entirely possible that the OP asked the GM for the time of day, then the GM gave an answer with absolutely no knowledge of the fact that what the player really wanted to know was the lighting conditions. Then the OP went on to assume dim lighting conditions based off of the answer he was given.
The OP should have asked if there was dim light in the area. That is a more direct question and includes the possibility of lamp posts or other sources of light that would not have come up at all with the indirect initial question. I've seen miscommunications like this happen all the time between players and GMs in games.
|
|
Just want to throw this out there - Detect Magic, in addition to having a concentration duration (standard action each round), is a cone. People can sometimes forget that. Detect Magic is a spell that must be maintained and directed...it's not "on."
Dim light gives concealment, which allows a 20% miss chance - Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use stealth. Therefore, when in Dim light, you may use stealth. It's the translation of the old "Hide in Shadows" skill from previous editions. So at that point it would be Stealth v. Perception.
Now if one of the combatants is weilding a torch, the stealther immediately loses stealth the second he steps into the circle of normal light that the torch gives off since he is no longer in concealment.
Okay, so it looks like no one thinks it's a good idea, but it seems like the general consensus is that it is legal according to the rules and the enemy gets a giant bonus to their perception check. That is what I was getting to... a perception check still must be made. Unless someone else can provide new information, I believe my understanding of the stealth rules is correct in that:
1) one can use stealth when beginning stealth while concealed
2) once the one using stealth can be observed (stepping out from around a corner in my case) a perception check by others has to be rolled and succeed to observe the one who is using stealth
3)dim light such as an alley at 8:30pm counts as concealment unless special abilities allow one to see in it normally
That about sum it up?
The argument about the torch makes sense, though if the character could finish an approach & attack in the same round that they entered the torch light, they may still have been able to pull off any actions (such as gaining SA DMG) that required being unseen, IMHO.
Not that that was the intent of the OP, I don't think.
|
|
As the GM of this scenario, I never once stated there was dim light. The monk is assuming this to be the case; this question was never asked. The wizard he was approaching was carrying a torch, as were the other spellcasters.
The middle of the alley did not contain "dim light", therefore as I said the monk could not have made it to the middle with concealment.
PAUPER says, "Okay, so it looks like no one thinks it's a good idea, but it seems like the general consensus is that it is legal according to the rules and the enemy gets a giant bonus to their perception check. That is what I was getting to... a perception check still must be made. Unless someone else can provide new information, I believe my understanding of the stealth rules is correct in that:
1) one can use stealth when beginning stealth while concealed
2) once the one using stealth can be observed (stepping out from around a corner in my case) a perception check by others has to be rolled and succeed to observe the one who is using stealth
3)dim light such as an alley at 8:30pm counts as concealment unless special abilities allow one to see in it normally
That about sum it up?"
GM says:
1. I agree that stealth can be used when concealed in the beginning. However, you can only move your movement, not 75 ft
2. You can move your entire speed until you enter the range of a light source. The middle of the alley was not dim light.
3. You assume it was dim light.
4. the GM is the final arbiter of the rules.
"Final arbiter" does not mean "final ass." If there really wasn't dim light then cool. However, I hate it when a GM resorts to being a dictator when a player rightly questions how the rules are trying to be applied. If there were no dim light then why did you not simply tell your player that before they resorted to posting here? There are many points where this could have been kept off a forum but communication broke down and here we are.
Also keep in mind that having power does not mean shouting you have power. If you really felt the player was pulling off some illegal shenanigans then simply don't mark down as much damage, declare a miss, declare he was spotted by the enemy, etc. Let them think they got their way and move on.
Lit torches was not one of the things the DM said until posting here. No description of the alley gave us any indication that there were any light sources. The spell casters were casting spells on characters that were not in the torch lit area, would those allies have had some concealment from the enemy spellcasters?
Then you guys seem to have the rules down fine, and all thats left is to work on your communication between GM and player.
Also, had it been dark enough for torches, we should have been stumbling around in the night before encountering the enemies and it would have been obvious that we needed torches as well. Dim light is what I was referring to, I was using the incorrect terms and assuming it was low-light because I forgot that low-light vision makes you see 2x as far as normal in dim light. My mistake.
So since we were in dim light, we all had concealment unless we were within 20 feet of the torches that supposedly were being held by the spellcasters. It seems a lot went wrong with this entire encounter.
|
|
Summing things up here, as there have been some ... variance in the topic. Before doing so, let's review torches and light a little. There are 4 levels of light; bright, normal, dim, and dark. Here, we're dealing with normal and dim light, thanks to torches. Torches make normal light within 20 feet, and increase illumination beyond that out to 40 feet. In dim light, that makes normal light within 40 feet. Now to sum up.
- Stealth may be made in concealment or cover, which includes dim light. (RAW)
- Favorable conditions are the only way to get a bonus to perception against stealth, lest it is a creature that smells of rot in a clean place. (RAW)
- Every 10 feet is a -1 to perception. (RAW)
- Dim lighting is typically a -2 to perception. (RAI)
- Being in the open is no bonus to perception. Dim light ALONE is enough to stealth with no penalty. If they had a lit backdrop there might be a bonus, but no better than +2. (RAI)
- Anyone could use stealth up to 45 feet away from a torch in dim light, if they beat perception vs stealth. (RAW)
- Once within 40 feet of a torch in dim light, stealth no longer works given nothing that would allow it. (RAW)
- With failed perception, opponents are unaware of dangers until they emerge from hiding, though they may be aware of the likelihood of that danger. (RAW)
- Detect Magic is a conical effect spell that requires concentration, and does reveal hidden objects. You must be studying a particular area or object to see its aura. (RAW)
- GM is right in session, but don't pull that card out of session unless you houserule it. (By the book suggestion)
- This does seem to be a case of poor communication. Remember to describe opponents and the environment, lighting is as an important aspect as the space to move in. Thus erroneous assumptions can be avoided. (By the book suggestion)
Did I miss anything?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Final arbiter" does not mean "final ass." If there really wasn't dim light then cool. However, I hate it when a GM resorts to being a dictator when a player rightly questions how the rules are trying to be applied. If there were no dim light then why did you not simply tell your player that before they resorted to posting here? There are many points where this could have been kept off a forum but communication broke down and here we are.
Also keep in mind that having power does not mean shouting you have power. If you really felt the player was pulling off some illegal shenanigans then simply don't mark down as much damage, declare a miss, declare he was spotted by the enemy, etc. Let them think they got their way and move on.
When my integrity as a GM is being questioned I have a right to be an ass. I have been a GM for nearly 20 years, and played these types of games for a bit longer. The issue here is the player said I was reading the rules incorrectly on purpose. I have never done any such thing as this would be ridiculous. I would rather have my players succeed over fail, but I demand they succeed fairly and in accordance with the rules and what makes sense. I am known for creating circumstances WAY out of bounds or common sense to rescue on-death's-door players so they can survive, so any thought of me being an ass due to a rules miscue or using rules to disadvantage a player isn't correct. Strange happenings that benefit a player universally don't get questioned, obviously.
Regarding torches, this is a game theme we commonly use: In nearly ALL instances in this game, I do not declare light sources. I rarely make the characters carry torches, but suddenly when it is declared that it is important for the player it is a big deal. In the interest of game time and play for others, I tend to keep things smooth and easy and don't worry too much on little details which, in my experience, truly bog down game time and make other players miserable.
Players will tend to use every advantage they have, which includes a GM's reluctance to keep track of things. For instance, some players like to be walking arsenals, carrying more weapons on them than could be possible, or some don't keep proper track of resources.
I feel that I am a fair and partial GM, but any player who nitpicks every rule while ignoring other facts and play style of the game deserves to have an a@@#@*@ GM occasionally. You can't tell me you have never been at a table and had someone constantly question the GM, or been at a convention where a high-stress event has the GM get snappy... This particular player happens to be my longest serving player, as normally we delve into the ambiguous rulings of Pathfinder and it's related software and hammer out rather fair and just rulings, always keeping in mind that I, as the GM, and as the rules in the Core rulebook states, am the final arbiter of the rules. Years of experience lend me to being a good GM much like an attorney who studies law becomes a good judge.
I was at Gen Con this past year in a group that had a hobbit riding a griffin. He would fly everywhere he went. I was a player and the group was in a dungeon with an 10' roof. The griffin rider player stated he wanted to fly over an enemy who stood about 8' tall. The GM said you can't do that unless you make a roll to move through his square, but the player argued that his person took up only one 5-foot square and so did the enemy, so that he had the room to fly right over...he argued this for a good 5 minutes while everyone else sat back and though how ridiculous this was. Times like this call for a strong GM who has the power to make decisions to help gameplay.
This isn't a shot at the player by any means, but I have much more experience and judiciary "unbias" when it comes to the game than he does. He has never been a GM, so he doesn't have the experience. He has his character, who is his sole worry, second to none. Usually when my players and I have a question about a ruling, we look at the intent and details of the words and go to this awesome forum for clarification. 75% of the time my original ruling was correct. 20% of the time the player ended up being correct. 5% of the time we were both right but the circumstances made the difference.
My rant for this was that GM's have to be asses sometimes. If we were all pushovers, every player would metagame, the game would not be challenging, and everybody would be level 20. On top of that, those players who are fair and understand the GM's role would never play because of the arguing, bickering, and rulemongers and slow play of the table.
If the players we play with want more minute detailed descriptions of entire areas, I will gladly oblige. My point is that we have never done so in the past, and now it appears to be an issue with one player out of six because something was not favorable.
The player points outs in his final post that low-light conditions exact all sorts of variables on an encounter, which is exactly why I tend to simply ignore them in most instances. Too much detail on the battlefield can be overwhelming and cause a combat encounter to take hours on end to complete. This aspect of the game has turned of other players, so we are trying to avoid tiresome combat that bores others.
All this being said, this player and I are actually best friends and will continue to argue over future rules. We often joke we should be game testers as we have found a ton of ambiguous rules in this game and previous editions of Dungeons and Dragons. We are both grateful for paizo and this forum, as it brings like minded intelligent folks together to answer tough questions about a game we love- usually instantaneously.
It would of course be nice if players walked in a GM's shoes...
You have two players that relied almost entirely on environmental conditions such as light and sound in order to do what they did effectively. You may not like much minutia but your PCs need it, especially the rogue to be effective.
And, yes, I do GM so I do know where you're coming from. However, weigh your game preferences against the characters your players want to play. This very much matters.
|
|
"Final arbiter" does not mean "final ass."
Yowza, pretty harsh for someone who wasn’t actually at the game session. As a GM myself, I’m always going to come down on the side of, “Are you playing the GM's game? Then what the GM says, goes.” If you don’t like it, leave. There are a heck of a lot more players out there than there are people willing to GM. You are easily replaced.
Players as a design of the game are not privy to everything that happens in the game. Arrogant players assume they know what is going on and how the rules should be interpreted without thinking about the GM’s intentions or designs. For instance, perhaps those opponents had a little bit of orc blood in them that gave them darkvision, and taking away the concealment of the players. And of course, there is my favorite bonus – the circumstance bonus. “The bad guys see you sneaking down the alley.” “Why? I’m stealthed!” “You don’t know. Stealth doesn’t seem to work.” Conversation over. That can be a result of the GM not wanting you to have stealth (in which case, too bad), but in game terms you can always make up whatever reason you want (see orc blood above, or they have a circumstance bonus of +10 because they grew up in the town, or were particularly trained by their masters to spot those sized people sneaking down those exact types of alleys). All of which the PCs will never know, and which you never have to tell them. And which is simply a result of the GM’s intention of trying to make a more exciting and interesting game for everyone. If that wasn’t the case, the person wouldn’t be a GM. In any group of people there are going to be different opinions on how to make the game more fun, but it ultimately falls to the GM to make those decisions. Sometimes he is right, sometimes he is wrong, but as a player you have to concede to his decision. Otherwise the whole game falls apart.
My point is that players shouldn’t expect to know everything in every situation. And those that do, or throw a fit, or whine…you probably don’t want in your game anyway.
Conditions were low-light.
But I don't believe low-light conditions allow you to walk in the middle of the road unobserved, does it?
It allows you to try.
"Final arbiter" does not mean "final ass."Yowza, pretty harsh for someone who wasn’t actually at the game session. As a GM myself, I’m always going to come down on the side of, “Are you playing the GM's game? Then what the GM says, goes.” If you don’t like it, leave. There are a heck of a lot more players out there than there are people willing to GM. You are easily replaced.
Players as a design of the game are not privy to everything that happens in the game. Arrogant players assume they know what is going on and how the rules should be interpreted without thinking about the GM’s intentions or designs. For instance, perhaps those opponents had a little bit of orc blood in them that gave them darkvision, and taking away the concealment of the players. And of course, there is my favorite bonus – the circumstance bonus. “The bad guys see you sneaking down the alley.” “Why? I’m stealthed!” “You don’t know. Stealth doesn’t seem to work.” Conversation over. That can be a result of the GM not wanting you to have stealth (in which case, too bad), but in game terms you can always make up whatever reason you want (see orc blood above, or they have a circumstance bonus of +10 because they grew up in the town, or were particularly trained by their masters to spot those sized people sneaking down those exact types of alleys). All of which the PCs will never know, and which you never have to tell them. And which is simply a result of the GM’s intention of trying to make a more exciting and interesting game for everyone. If that wasn’t the case, the person wouldn’t be a GM. In any group of people there are going to be different opinions on how to make the game more fun, but it ultimately falls to the GM to make those decisions. Sometimes he is right, sometimes he is wrong, but as a player you have to concede to his decision. Otherwise the whole game falls apart.
My point is that players shouldn’t expect to know everything in every situation. And those that do, or throw a fit, or whine…you probably don’t want in your game anyway.
Please quote me in my entirety. I went on to say
Also keep in mind that having power does not mean shouting you have power. If you really felt the player was pulling off some illegal shenanigans then simply don't mark down as much damage, declare a miss, declare he was spotted by the enemy, etc. Let them think they got their way and move on.
The point is to not argue over the rules behind the decisions but simply to focus on resolving outcomes and letting your players respond. This is a basic GM skill.
Regarding "basic GM skills," what we do at my table (which rotates GMs) is when we have a rules disagreement, we say:
"We will play it (this way) tonight, so as not to bog the game down with rules disagreements, and then look it up tomorrow morning or ask the Paizo forums."
It works wonderfully.