During our latest game we had some trouble figuring out the correct DCs for detecting a rouge under a "Greater Invisibility".
If the Rouge is already standing next to a monster, uses a full attack action and then takes a 5ft. Step, is it possible for him to make a stealth-check to be harder to find ?
Or is the DC a flat DC 20 as in the Spell Description ? For Moving an being in Combat.
+20 Invisible
+20 Trying to find exact location
-20 in combat
And if the Rogue just full-attacks an doesn't move (and so doesn't use a stealth check) is the DC than 40 ?
+20 Invisible
+20 Trying to find exact location
+20 Not Moving
-20 in combat
Thanks for any clarifications in this matter.
The flat 20 is just to know that someone is around. It does not even give you a direction, but the creature has to be within 30 feet.
If the rogue uses a full attack and 5 foot steps away the +20 to invis and -20 to being in combat cancel out.
The "not moving" is for when the rogue is doing nothing at all. Since he just made an attack he does not get +20 for "not moving".
I will also add that there is no +20 "for trying to find the exact location".
You get a +20 for being invisible, and another +20 for stationary.
If you are using the spell, then the spell ends as soon as you make the first attack and you become visible, unless you are using greater invisibility.
If you beat the stealth check you get to "pinpoint"(find the square)the invisible creature is in, but since they are invisible there is still a 50% miss chance.
I am pretty sure the person being stabbed in the face is not being distracted from the stabber. I would say it might apply to someone else's perception check.
I will also add that there is no +20 "for trying to find the exact location".
Well the reason we thought that would apply was that in the SRD there is that Passage under Invisibility
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check.
So Im still a bit unsure if this +20 is added to the Stealth check or not. I would assume it Is, but that would mean invisible attackers (that move away after striking) are really hard to locate without special countermeasures (Glitterdust, See Invisibility, ect.)
I would not let the 5 foot step count as movement for the stealth check, so he's still "fighting" not "stealthing"
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check.
invisible: +20
invisible creature is: In combat or speaking –20
so its a dc 0 to notice he's there (especially since he's trying to stick a sword in you) and a dc 20 to pinpoint his square.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, why is makeup invisible and how exactly is it attacking someone?
Second, here is how it works:
1) Invisible Creature (IC for short) starts adjacent to the target (perhaps it was stealthing and the target walked by). We will assume this is a surprise round action limiting the IC to one attack and one 5' step after the attack.
2) IC attacks target. Target is now completely aware of the IC and has pinpointed the location. This is automatic.
3) IC takes a 5' step. Target no longer has a pinpoint location on the IC but still knows there is an IC in the area (+20 invis -20combat = DC0)
Regular round begins, we will assume Target won initative.
4) Target takes a move action to make a perception check to try to pinpoint the IC. The DC of this check is: +20 (invisible) = DC20. There is no range penalty since the IC only moved 5'. Lets assume the DC20 was made.
5) Target takes a 5' step and moves to the IC.
6) Target rolls an attack against the IC (including 50% concealment).
7) IC makes an attack against the Target.
8) IC takes a regular move action to move away and makes a stealth check while doing so as part of the move action. Now the DC is much higher (+20 invis, +stealth check).
Summary: If the IC is not moving but is attacking (and adjacent) there is no check to be made. It is automatically pinpointed if it is adjacent to the target. If it is attacking and not adjacent it is automatically 'vectored' (direction indicated to the general area).
If the IC moves away using a move action it is allowed to make a stealth check as part of that action. Add up all bonuses an penalties on page 563.
- Gauss
everything is correct gauss, but you forgot to apply the -20 penalty for moving or fighting on step 4 and 8
During our latest game we had some trouble figuring out the correct DCs for detecting a rouge under a "Greater Invisibility".
I'm having a hard time following the thread, but I made a couple posts here detailing invisibility and perception, and in the second post, stealth.
Dekalinder, at the moment the perception check is made in step 4 and step 8 they are not fighting. I could see it being ruled the other way though and since it is a grey area I went with what was most favorable to the IC.
I figure if I had included the -20 someone else would have told me that at the time of the check there is no -20.
Personally, I think it is -20 in any round that combat occurs with the IC.
Note: there is no '-20DC' for moving. There is a '-5DC' for moving at half speed, a '-10DC' for moving at full speed, a '-20DC' for running, and a '+20DC' for being stationary.
So in step 4 the DC is: +20(invis) +0(no move penalty) and -20(combat) = DC 0.
In step 8 the DC is: +20(invis) +0 or -5 (if less than half speed or half speed) -20(combat) +stealth check. for a total of DC0 or DC-5 +stealth check.
- Gauss
I do it for the most part like Gauss outlines.
Any round they take an attack action they are considered in combat. I do not count an individual that is attacking that does not take a five foot step as immobile. Immobile is standing still doing nothing else including attacking.
RPGs are abstract. Rounds are a convenient method of running combat. I never assume that once a character's round ends, they are no longer moving or acting as though they are suddenly frozen like a turn-based game. All of the actions happen in a flurry of six seconds continuing on into the next six second period still flurrying just like real time. Until a player disengages from combat and takes the time to Stealth, they cannot use that skill unless doing something like Sniping which is outlined in the rules.
Dear Lord, let's not start the whole "is Stealth + 20 a modifier or a DC?" debate again. I still haven't recovered from last time.
As things stand (to stop me rambling for a couple of pages), I agree with Gauss.
During our latest game we had some trouble figuring out the correct DCs for detecting a rouge under a "Greater Invisibility".
If the Rouge is already standing next to a monster, uses a full attack action and then takes a 5ft. Step, is it possible for him to make a stealth-check to be harder to find ?
Yes. The Stealth description says Stealth is usually no action. It goes on to say generally Stealth is part of some other movement. The description says movement not Move Action. A 5' step qualifies, IMO, as a movement.
Or is the DC a flat DC 20 as in the Spell Description ? For Moving an being in Combat.
+20 Invisible
+20 Trying to find exact location
-20 in combat
In this instance there are several rules you need to look over and most of them blend perfectly (Stealth, Perception, and the Invisibility spell). The portion that makes this dificult is in the glossary where Invisibility is described in greater detail. But I believe the perception DC would be: Stealth check +20, -20 for combat.
And if the Rogue just full-attacks an doesn't move (and so doesn't use a stealth check) is the DC than 40 ?
+20 Invisible
+20 Trying to find exact location
+20 Not Moving
-20 in combat
In this case the opponent automatically knows which square the attacker is in. He still suffers the 50% miss chance to actually hit the invisible target.
If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves). The only exception is if the invisible creature has a reach greater than 5 feet. In this case, the struck character knows the general location of the creature but has not pinpointed the exact location.
Dear Lord, let's not start the whole "is Stealth + 20 a modifier or a DC?" debate again. I still haven't recovered from last time.
Could you link this thread, I wanted to read through it and can't find that specific one.
Also, did it come to any general concensus?
During our latest game we had some trouble figuring out the correct DCs for detecting a rouge under a "Greater Invisibility".
If the Rouge is already standing next to a monster, uses a full attack action and then takes a 5ft. Step, is it possible for him to make a stealth-check to be harder to find ?
Yes. The Stealth description says Stealth is usually no action. It goes on to say generally Stealth is part of some other movement. The description says movement not Move Action. A 5' step qualifies, IMO, as a movement.
Or is the DC a flat DC 20 as in the Spell Description ? For Moving an being in Combat.
+20 Invisible
+20 Trying to find exact location
-20 in combatIn this instance there are several rules you need to look over and most of them blend perfectly (Stealth, Perception, and the Invisibility spell). The portion that makes this dificult is in the glossary where Invisibility is described in greater detail. But I believe the perception DC would be: Stealth check +20, -20 for combat.
And if the Rogue just full-attacks an doesn't move (and so doesn't use a stealth check) is the DC than 40 ?
+20 Invisible
+20 Trying to find exact location
+20 Not Moving
-20 in combatIn this case the opponent automatically knows which square the attacker is in. He still suffers the 50% miss chance to actually hit the invisible target.
If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves). The only exception is if the invisible creature has a reach greater than 5 feet. In this case, the struck character knows the general location of the creature but has not pinpointed the exact location.
From the PRD:
It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
This kills everything you wrote. Any round you attack in, you cannot use Stealth save for Sniping. Moving five feet does not change that you are attacking and you cannot use Stealth. Stealth requires that disengage from attacking in any way except sniping and that part is clear.
Stealth is part of movement and can be part of another action like using Sleight of Hand to pick a pocket. It is clear you cannot attack and use Stealth at the same time save in very specific circumstances like Sniping.
Not sure how you could read it any other way. I know I would never allow you to Stealth after taking a full attack and then moving 5 feet. Having to spell out that 5 feet is a base level of movement allowed to be sensible should not be something the game developers should have to do. It should be understood that a 5 foot step does not mean you get to suddenly start soft padding after you just jumped in and made a bunch of furious attacks. That's trying to take rules lawyering to a nonsenscial level.
Game developers can't account for every use of Stealth. Just because it makes Stealth part of a move action, doesn't mean you can use it every single time you move any distance like a 5 foot step after an attack or full attack. Some of Stealth is using the idea of reasonable use as defined by circumstances as decided by the GM. That's why it is written in a bit of a looser fashion than other skills. There is some latitude in the action type to give the GM and player some latitude in deciding reasonable use while moving or drawing a weapon quietly or closing a door quietly or drawing a scroll quietly and other such uses. Using Stealth afer taking a 5 foot step after a full attack is not that situation.
This kills everything you wrote.
I was aware of that line but I think you're focusing on the wrong word.
It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
Using the word while implies that before and after are fair game. The reason you can't use Stealth while attacking is because you become painfully observable as you strike. Generally this leads you to enter observed status. Normally after an attack you wouldn't be able to re-stealth because Stealth states you can't use Stealth while being observed. If you wanted to try you would have to distract your enemy and move to an unobserved location. However, the OP said the attacker was under a Greater Invisibility spell. So, even though he attacks he is still not observable so nothing prevents him from re-entering Stealth after his attack without the need of a prior distraction.
Any round you attack in, you cannot use Stealth save for Sniping.
Not only is that NOT said in RAW it is explicitly contradicted in the new Stealth eratta and further contradicted by RAI statements from Pathfinder's lead developer.
Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).
Clearly Stealth is allowed in the same turn as an attack. This is an example of rules saying you can use Stealth to approach a target. The only time Stealth breaks is immediately after you attack. Usually you would not be able to re-enter Stealth for my above mentioned reasons but, again, Greater Invisibility is involved and so the attacker never becomes truely observed.
Not really correct here. The wording was intentionally put together to specify "at the end of your turn". That is the moment when you check your status to see if you can maintain Stealth. This does allow you to move from cover, use Stealth to approach a target, and make a single attack, at which point, Stealth is broken, regardless of the outcome. Now, if you slay that target with one hit, and still could maintain Stealth from all other foes in the area (if say, it is dark and they cannot see you), a GM might reasonably interpret that you could maintain Stealth from other foes, but that requires GM interpretation and is not really the point of this particular situation.
Here JB, the lead designer, is saying there might be circumstances under which you can use Stealth to approach, attack, and keep Stealth after the attack under situational GM discretion. For instance: When you cannot be seen.
I think it's pretty obvious that the line you quoted does NOT mean you can't use Stealth and attack in the same round. It means, as explicitly demonstrated in the RAW, that your Stealth ends when you attack. The only exception is Sniping during which you have a chance to never break Stealth at all. Usually, breaking Stealth from an attack creates a whole list of new problems to deal with before you can re-enter Stealth because you become observed. However, if you are invisible you don't have to worry about that so much.
It should be understood that a 5 foot step does not mean you get to suddenly start soft padding after you just jumped in and made a bunch of furious attacks. That's trying to take rules lawyering to a nonsenscial level.
Once again, the attacker is under the Greater Invisibility spell wich is the reason he can do this. If he didn't have that spell or some other ability like HiPS, he would not be able to do it. Still not for the reason you are stating, but rather because he would have become observed and doesn't have enough actions left to bluff and move to an unobserved location in order to re-roll Stealth.
Some of Stealth is using the idea of reasonable use as defined by circumstances as decided by the GM.
You mean like:
A guy is suddenly, and without warning, viciously attacked by an unknown assailant. He takes somewhere between one and seven horrific blows and yet at no time can he actually see what is attacking him due to it being under the Greater Invisibility spell.
Dear Lord, let's not start the whole "is Stealth + 20 a modifier or a DC?" debate again. I still haven't recovered from last time.Could you link this thread, I wanted to read through it and can't find that specific one.
Also, did it come to any general concensus?
Here and here at least. There might have been another one.
I think we concluded that the rules are perfectly clear and obvious and that every else is reading them wrong. Sadly we couldn't agree on what they actually say.
Thanks for the links.
This kills everything you wrote.I was aware of that line but I think you're focusing on the wrong word.
It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.Using the word while implies that before and after are fair game. The reason you can't use Stealth while attacking is because you become painfully observable as you strike. Generally this leads you to enter observed status. Normally after an attack you wouldn't be able to re-stealth because Stealth states you can't use Stealth while being observed. If you wanted to try you would have to distract your enemy and move to an unobserved location. However, the OP said the attacker was under a Greater Invisibility spell. So, even though he attacks he is still not observable so nothing prevents him from re-entering Stealth after his attack without the need of a prior distraction.
Any round you attack in, you cannot use Stealth save for Sniping.Not only is that NOT said in RAW it is explicitly contradicted in the new Stealth eratta and further contradicted by RAI statements from Pathfinder's lead developer.
Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).Clearly Stealth is allowed in the same turn as an attack. This is an example of rules saying you can use Stealth to approach a target. The only time Stealth breaks is immediately after you attack. Usually you would not be able to re-enter Stealth for my above mentioned reasons but, again, Greater Invisibility is involved and so the attacker never becomes truely observed.
Not really...
A guy is suddenly, and without warning, viciously attacked by an unknown assailant. He takes somewhere between one and seven horrific blows and yet at no time can he actually see what is attacking him due to it being under the Greater Invisibility spell.
If that person lives, he will know the exact direction of the attacker. He'll also hear the attackers movement as you can't stealth while you're making furious stabs with weapons at full strength seven times over the course of six seconds. You might even get spots of blood on you that clearly delineate where you are or the blood dripping off your daggers. Why don't I as a DM interpret your attacks as having caused blood droplets to hit you making you a clear target for the guy you attacked without providing concealment? Should we start throwing that option in for GMs as well?
You seemed to be ignoring the GM interpretation part.
And this part Now, if you slay that target with one hit. As in you cannot Stealth against a target you attacked even if you move five feet.
What Bulman is acknowledging is that GMs have to interpret the situation accordingly. I do not see you able to use Stealth after making a full attack while taking a five foot step. Nothing in the rules supports this including what Bulman stated.
You are not longer using Stealth once you attack. You only have the advantage of invisibility and do not get to make a Stealth check after making a 5 foot step after a full attack. Attempting to judge this as the necessary movement for Stealth is an unreasonable interpretation. One I would never allow.
I am very much aware that a five foot step translating game terms to some semblance of reality is a minimum amount of movement a person can make while jostling about in combat.
Suffice it to say I once again reiterate that you cannot use Stealth after making an attack on someone and then moving five feet. If the game designers have to spell out every use, Stealth is going to get ridiculous.
It's real simple: You don't get to stealth. attack, and make it impossible for your attacker to detect you.
Thanks for the links. So much discussion on that topic (I didn't see those, probably because I was searching for combat, which those topics weren't really covering).
Personally, I don't understand why anyone who's invisible shouldn't also be considered to be in stealth. I don't see any scenario where a character wouldn't want to stealth while invisible. Because of this, in my opinion it makes sense to imply that an invisible character is a character under stealth all the time unless attacking/casting/interacting with observers.
Whether your invisible or not you should always have stealth penalties applied to the DC to detect. Some low-dex guy carrying around a tower shield and half plate should not be completely undetectable just because of the spell that doesn't say it does anything regarding sound (or smell). The one exception is maybe if they're motionless, but even then one could say that having low dex and/or using certain gear makes it hard[er] to remain motionless. Humans do naturally move/shake, particularly for breathing and balance, and with clackety gear that could be enough to draw some extra attention.
Am I missing something? as far as I read, there wasn't a whole lot of discussion on this key issue (probably because it's more RAI/houseruling/logic than it is RAW discussion), particularly no mention at all about the whole "why not stealth while invisible?" topic from what I saw.
The issue I have is namely with allowing both attack/cast + move&stealth with invisibility, at the same time as getting some absolutely ridiculously absurd bonuses to "stealth" (roll+20+20+20+stealth or whatever) when not motionless.
Maybe my post should be in a houserule/advice thread since it's probably against RAW, but I can't help but think it's against RAI and against what makes the game balanced/fair and realistic.
Stealth requires half-movement. Some people don't want to move at half speed all the time.
Stealth is such an open-ended skill that much of it is left up to the GM to adjudicate. That's why it has been such a controversial skill. It's very powerful in conjunction with spells. It can make combat with an invisible stealthed character impossible if you allow them to stealth while attacking. That's why the rules are quite clear that when you attack, you break stealth at the very least for the person you attacked.
People arguing that Stealth be allowed for five foot steps after full attacks are looking to break the game and make impossible attack combinations with classes like the ninja or rogue. It's pretty ridiculous. I hope most GMs out there are quick to kill such combinations as they lead to nothing but arguments around the table because some player can't get away with his pet strategy.
If that person lives, he will know the exact direction of the attacker.
Unless there's a reach or ranged weapon involved the defender knows exactly where the invisible creature is "until it moves."
He'll also hear the attackers movement
We will get into RAW further down. Setting RAW aside for a second and focusing on realism; do you really think every run of the mil monster and NPC is going to have the presence of mind, after a full attack from an invisible attacker, to be listening intently for the footsteps of someone who may or may not be creating a little distance? I don't.
you can't stealth while you're making furious stabs with weapons at full strength seven times over the course of six seconds.
Firstly, no one is talking about using Stealth while you are attacking. As I stated above it's before and/or after.
You might even get spots of blood on you that clearly delineate where you are or the blood dripping off your daggers. Why don't I as a DM interpret your attacks as having caused blood droplets to hit you making you a clear target for the guy you attacked without providing concealment? Should we start throwing that option in for GMs as well?
All of those fluff things are handled within a Stealth vs. Perception roll. If the defender makes his perception check you can say, "your opponent spotted some blood drips on the floor where you are standing," or whatever fluff you want to wrap it up in.
You seemed to be ignoring the GM interpretation part.
GM interpretation is one thing, and needed in some circumstances. That is not what is being discussed in this thread. It's discussing RAW and the line you pointed out doesn't say what you want it to say. There are two reasonable ways that while could be interpreted: 1. In the same turn as, or 2. during, its actual dictionary meaning. You seem to be stating 1. as your preferred meaning, however, while cannot mean "not at all in the same turn you attack in." The rules actually explicitly contradict that meaning. The errata added a scenario that explicitly states you can use Stealth in the same round as an attack. The example shows you sneaking up on your target then attacking.
Now if you want the word while to mean what you deeply desire it to mean, you have to start interpreting it in an unreasonably creative way. While is defined as: In the same round as an attack; but only before, not after. "Yes you can use Stealth during the same round as an attack, but only before the attack. You may not use Stealth after an attack because it's impossible to use Stealth while attacking." If that's the way you, as a GM in your own home, want to judge the sentence you pulled out, by all means do that. But it's a house rule not RAW or even clear RAI.
And this part Now, if you slay that target with one hit. As in you cannot Stealth against a target you attacked even if you move five feet.
What Bulman is acknowledging is that GMs have to interpret the situation accordingly. I do not see you able to use Stealth after making a full attack while taking a five foot step. Nothing in the rules supports this including what Bulman stated.
I wasn't using his statement as a RAW argument or a perfect example of this situation. I was using it because YOU said Stealth could not be used in the same round as an attack. I was using his statement to set examples and general principles that it certainly can based on situation and circumstances involved.
You are not longer using Stealth once you attack.
Correct. Your Stealth ends after you attack. Just like the Invisibility spell.
You only have the advantage of invisibility and do not get to make a Stealth check after making a 5 foot step after a full attack.
Your interpretation, not mine and not that of most of the people I have read on this board who have a good handle on Stealth rules. As per my "while 1 and 2" argument above I would say: Your house rules, not RAW.
Attempting to judge this as the necessary movement for Stealth is an unreasonable interpretation. One I would never allow.
It's all a matter of restrictions on Stealth and the number of actions in your turn. I think you're interpretation of, "It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging," is wrong based on my arguments above. I won't readdress that here. Now you have the other restrictions on Stealth to deal with: Observation, concealment, and/or cover. All three of those are taken care of by the Greater Invisibility spell unless the creature can see invisible or has extra senses such as blindsight. Now we are left with a restriction on the action it takes to perform a Stealth check. What does Stealth say about that:
Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.
There is exactly ONE instance where Stealth requires a Move Action, that is Sniping. Other than that it is no action or part of a movement. Movement is undefined in game terms but clearly does not mean Move Action. Your decision in your game to define the word movement as, "any number of things but definitely not a 5' step," is a house rule.
@Shadowlord
I think I'm just going to start PMing you into these threads the instance I see them with a link
Something along the lines of...
I summon thee oh lord of shadow!!
Also I am getting a chance to start a Ptolus game soon and I'm recreating my assassin...trying to talk the GM into making a NPC named shadowlord for purposes of me joining the assassin ranks
If that person lives, he will know the exact direction of the attacker.Unless there's a reach or ranged weapon involved the defender knows exactly where the invisible creature is "until it moves."
He'll also hear the attackers movementWe will get into RAW further down. Setting RAW aside for a second and focusing on realism; do you really think every run of the mil monster and NPC is going to have the presence of mind, after a full attack from an invisible attacker, to be listening intently for the footsteps of someone who may or may not be creating a little distance? I don't.
you can't stealth while you're making furious stabs with weapons at full strength seven times over the course of six seconds.Firstly, no one is talking about using Stealth while you are attacking. As I stated above it's before and/or after.
You might even get spots of blood on you that clearly delineate where you are or the blood dripping off your daggers. Why don't I as a DM interpret your attacks as having caused blood droplets to hit you making you a clear target for the guy you attacked without providing concealment? Should we start throwing that option in for GMs as well?All of those fluff things are handled within a Stealth vs. Perception roll. If the defender makes his perception check you can say, "your opponent spotted some blood drips on the floor where you are standing," or whatever fluff you want to wrap it up in.
You seemed to be ignoring the GM interpretation part.GM interpretation is one thing, and needed in some circumstances. That is not what is being discussed in this thread. It's discussing RAW and the line you pointed out doesn't say what you want it to say. There are two reasonable ways that while could be interpreted: 1. In the same turn as, or 2. during, its actual dictionary meaning. You seem to be stating 1. as your...
You are using a house rule to adjudicate that the 5 foot step that can occur before, between, or after a full attack is sufficient movement to make a Stealth check even though you have attacked the entire round you are attempting to Stealth in.
You're attempting to say "Any round you move any distance you can stealth". The rule does not say that. It only says that "Stealth is usually part of another action like movement".
The rules do clearly say that any time you attack, you cannot stealth. It only gives one circumstance "Sniping" where there are rules to allow you to attack and Stealth again. Bulman gives another possibility.
This:
Action
Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.
Does not change this which is in the body of the skill and has no exceptions except Sniping and GM Interpretation:
It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
You are using a house rule to claim the Action portion of a skill explanation supersedes the explanation of the skill itself.
You are also using a house rule to divide the attacking portion of the round and the moving portion of a round in a manner that is not consistent with the rules. The way the Pathfinder system works, any time you full attack in a round you are considered to have attacked throughout the round even if you take a 5 foot step. It's a full round action (as in taking up the entire round) and the 5 foot step is added in to allow what constitutes a minimal movement. But by RAW, a full attack action indicates you are attacking the entire round as in FULL ROUND ACTION as in all 6 seconds.
Your argument makes sense if applied to a round in which you attack and move more than 5 feet. Then your round is clearly divided into an attack (Standard action) and movement(Move action). You can claim to have done something other than attack the entire round.
Movement occurs as either part of another action such as Charging or Withdrawing or as part of a Move action such as moving your base movement. You are considered to be moving as part of the action.
Your reading is not RAW and certainly not RAI. I guess if the developers ever have to deal with enough players trying to use Stealth while Full Attacking using their 5 foot step as enough movement to justify a Stealth check, then I guess they'll have to clarify.
There are enough of us that understand how a round breakdown occurs to know that Full Attacking takes up the entire round and the 5 foot step does not quality as movement for the purposes of changing the "You cannot Stealth while attacking, running, or charging".
Suffice it to say I do not agree with your interpretation either by RAW or RAI. A Full Round Action using the Full Attack Action means you are attacking the entire round for purposes Stealth and the rule "It is impossible to Stealth while attacking."
Stealth requires half-movement. Some people don't want to move at half speed all the time.
Stealth doesn't require any movement at all. It can also be used with greater than half speed movement but take a -5 penalty. Unless you take the Fast Stealth skill which allows you to move at your full movement rate with no penalty.
Stealth is such an open-ended skill that much of it is left up to the GM to adjudicate. That's why it has been such a controversial skill. It's very powerful in conjunction with spells. It can make combat with an invisible stealthed character impossible if you allow them to stealth while attacking. That's why the rules are quite clear that when you attack, you break stealth at the very least for the person you attacked.
It's not impossible at all. Invisibility grants a +20 to Stealth rolls if you are active in the round. Being in combat penalizes that by -20 so it's a straight Stealth vs. Perception roll... hardly impossible. Now add in access to things like See Invisible, Glitterdust, extraordinary senses, etc... It's not very impossible at all.
People arguing that Stealth be allowed for five foot steps after full attacks are looking to break the game and make impossible attack combinations with classes like the ninja or rogue. It's pretty ridiculous. I hope most GMs out there are quick to kill such combinations as they lead to nothing but arguments around the table because some player can't get away with his pet strategy.
A flat Stealth vs. Perception roll is hardly game breaking and a far cry from being impossible to deal with. I hope most GMs out there are knowledgeable enough on counter tactics to be capable of challenging this strategy in ways other than, "No, you aren't allowed to do that at my table."
You are using a house rule to adjudicate that the 5 foot step that can occur before, between, or after a full attack is sufficient movement to make a Stealth check even though you have attacked the entire round you are attempting to Stealth in.
I don't believe it's using house rules, but yes. I do believe that a 5' step is sufficient for making a Stealth check if you meet the requirements for making that check. (IE: Aren't Observed and have Cover/Concealment, etc...)
Sure you may have been attacking for most of the round, but you still have actions left in your turn after a Full Round Action: Free Actions, Swift Actions, Immediate Actions, or no action such as Stealth or 5' Steps.
You seem to be saying that Stealth must be used as part of a Move Action. Is that how you define movement? If so I disagree with you. I believe movement encompasses far more than just Move Actions and the description goes on to state one circumstance in which Stealth actually does require a Move Action indicating movement means something different.
Additionally the first line says that action is usually none. I take that to mean you don't have to move or do anything if you meet the right circumstances. If you have a Rogue who is standing in a dark corner and hears someone else enter the room, do you rule that he has to take some Move Action requiring a movement of more than 5' in order to use Stealth? I think the first line indicates he is within RAW to stand perfectly still in that dark corner and roll Stealth. Also there is no actual movement during a round of sniping. You stay perfectly still except for firing your arrow. You don't actually move, Stealth just eats up your Move Action for that round. So saying that Stealth must always be part of a Move Action or a movement of greater than 5' doesn't make any sense to me or how I interpret the rules.
You're attempting to say "Any round you move any distance you can stealth". The rule does not say that. It only says that "Stealth is usually part of another action like movement".
And 5' steps qualify as movement IMO. Now all that we are contesting is the definition of the while in, "Impossible while attacking."
The rules do clearly say that any time you attack, you cannot stealth. It only gives one circumstance "Sniping" where there are rules to allow you to attack and Stealth again. Bulman gives another possibility.
You aren't popping out of Stealth to attack and then immediately re-Stealthing when you Snipe. The roll at the end of the attack is to maintain an obscured location. Meaning, if no one beats the penalized Stealth roll you have effectively maintained Stealth throughout your entire attack... which is the exception being spoken about when the rules says "Impossible while attacking." During a Sniping attack you can actually maintain Stealth during an attack, if your Stealth roll is successful. Normally attacks end your Stealth, putting you in observed status and forcing you to break observation before using Stealth again.
...
Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.
Does not change this which is in the body of the skill and has no exceptions except Sniping and GM Interpretation:
It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
I never said it did. I just don't think you're interpreting those two lines correctly.
You are using a house rule to claim the Action portion of a skill explanation supersedes the explanation of the skill itself.
I am not sure how you think this if you actually read and understood what I was saying above, but that is not the case. I simply define the word while as actually during the act of striking vs. your apparent definition of in the same round after you've made an attack. I also define usually no action and part of a movement as being very different than your apparent definition of as part of a Move Action and movement greater than 5 feet.
You are also using a house rule to divide the attacking portion of the round and the moving portion of a round in a manner that is not consistent with the rules. The way the Pathfinder system works, any time you full attack in a round you are considered to have attacked throughout the round even if you take a 5 foot step. It's a full round action (as in taking up the entire round) and the 5 foot step is added in to allow what constitutes a minimal movement. But by RAW, a full attack action indicates you are attacking the entire round as in FULL ROUND ACTION as in all 6 seconds.
As far as I know this has been an acceptable use of Stealth by RAW since the D&D 3.5 days and generally continues to be acceptable in Pathfinder.
Someone's synopsis of how HiPS works in Pathfinder: "Most GMs allow this, because in D&D 3.5e it was indeed possible to use Stealth with a five-foot step. There was a feat called Cunning Evasion that made use of that fact."
This one is on d20PFSRD Another synopsis of how an Archer Rogue would use HiPS to full attack and then 5' step to use Stealth: "The problem with the standard sniping rule is that you can only attack once. There are several ways around this problem, but the most direct path would be to get the Hide in Plain Sight class ability. This ability lets you use Stealth while being observed as long as there is an area of "low light" within ten feet of you, which can even be the shadow of another creature. Since the use of the Stealth skill is a non-action that is meant to piggyback on a movement or some other similar type of action, you could begin your turn hidden using Stealth, make a full attack action, and then use your five-foot step with Stealth to hide again. This doesn't help with the sneak dice, since it only works for the first attack, but it's a start. This also keeps you from having to take that -20 penalty for sniping, because of the use of Stealth at no penalty, even when observed."
In fact the only place I have seen that a 5' step is insufficient for making a Stealth check is HERE, and it's in someone's houserules based around the Stealth playtest that took place several months ago and never made it to completion. I have run across a couple people on these forums who think 5' step doesn't qualify for Stealth but most of them thought that because the read "Move Action" in place of "movement."
Your argument makes sense if applied to a round in which you attack and move more than 5 feet. Then your round is clearly divided into an attack (Standard action) and movement(Move action). You can claim to have done something other than attack the entire round.
At least I am consistent with my argument. While you may not agree, my argument logically incorporates everything presented in the rules, developer statements, and examples from 3.5 and PF. Your argument has been changing for several posts now:
Your first statement was that you could not use Stealth at all in the same round as an attack. The rules explicitly state you can, at least before an attack. Then you say you can use Stealth before an attack but can't use Stealth after an attack. Which, is a heavy redefinition of the word while that you have not readdressed. And now you are saying my argument works if you make a Standard Action attack and then use a Move Action to move away.
Movement occurs as either part of another action such as Charging or Withdrawing or as part of a Move action such as moving your base movement. You are considered to be moving as part of the action.
So if Stealth can only be taken during movement, and movement means moving as part of a Move Action, then how does one acquire a +40 to Stealth by staying still?
Your reading is not RAW and certainly not RAI. I guess if the developers ever have to deal with enough players trying to use Stealth while Full Attacking using their 5 foot step as enough movement to justify a Stealth check, then I guess they'll have to clarify.
Well that view is quite prevalent on the forums here and apparently other places according to a routine google search. PFSRD seems to support it as do most people I have read who have a good handle on the Stealth rules.
There are enough of us that understand how a round breakdown occurs to know that Full Attacking takes up the entire round and the 5 foot step does not quality as movement for the purposes of changing the "You cannot Stealth while attacking, running, or charging".
I'm not sure who you are talking about when you say, "enough of us." You are the only person I have ever heard make this argument in this fashion. Additionally I have never seen developer comments supporting your interpretation. I have seen a whole lot of people on multiple PF and D&D 3.5 forums who interpret the rules the same way I do. A developer coming on and saying we are all wrong would go a long way but it hasn't happened. They have spent a whole lot of time answering a whole lot of FAQ and have tried multiple times to address the questions about Stealth but have not said anything about these prevalent interpretations on their forums being wrong. All I have found is that it was perfectly legal in D&D 3.5 and haven't seen any place where that has been changed in the PF version of the same rules.
Suffice it to say I do not agree with your interpretation either by RAW or RAI. A Full Round Action using the Full Attack Action means you are attacking the entire round for purposes Stealth and the rule "It is impossible to Stealth while attacking."
But it's ok to use Stealth to move closer to a target leading up to an attack. And it's ok to attack with a Standard Action then move away with a Move Action using Stealth. Really? That complicated view is how you adjudicate this line:
It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
Please define while because your definition seems to be changing with an almost 1 to 1 rate with your posts.
Even if I don't agree, I could at least understand your POV when you said you can't use Stealth at all in the same round as an attack. But again RAW contradicts that. Then you said you can use Stealth before an attack but not after an attack. I disagree with that view simply based on the use of the word while. I don't see how while can possibly mean before but not after. Then you said my argument would make sense if you Standard Action attack then Move Action to move away and use Stealth but you definitely can't Full Attack then 5' Step into Stealth. At this point you are contradicting your own statements. And I have no idea how you could think that convoluted mess is what the designers meant when they wrote this:
It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
Please be consistent. Also please state your definitions of movement and while as discussed in the Stealth description.
...
How does your adjudication of Stealth handle these situations:
1. Starting your turn under Stealth from a previous round. 5' step toward an enemy to close the gap then take a Full Attack action. Does Stealth end during the 5' Step, or does the attacker roll Stealth to move 5' and then break Stealth during the first attack?
2. A character standing in a dark corner of a room and rolling Stealth. Does he need to move first?
3. A character who cast invisibility the round before, then decided on his new turn to attempt Stealth and stay perfectly still. Does he have to move to roll Stealth or can he stand still and gain the +40 to Stealth this round?
4. Someone attempting to open a door quietly. Does he legally roll Stealth to open the door quietly and without being noticed or does this not count as a legal use of Stealth due to no movement of greater than 5' taking place?
5. A character Stealths into a sleeping enemy's sleeping quarters. He wants to take the enemy's armor and weapon without waking the enemy. Can he roll Stealth to quietly lift the armor and/or weapon out of place without waking the enemy?
...
With my definitions of while and movement this all works smoothly.
While: During the actual act of striking. Before and after are fair and legal.
Movement: Any movement of any kind.
Additionally, under the right circumstances I don't think you would need to move at all to use Stealth.
@Shadowlord
I think I'm just going to start PMing you into these threads the instance I see them with a link
Something along the lines of...
I summon thee oh lord of shadow!!
Also I am getting a chance to start a Ptolus game soon and I'm recreating my assassin...trying to talk the GM into making a NPC named shadowlord for purposes of me joining the assassin ranks
Sounds awesome, thanks.
I consider invisibility granting "always in stealth"...
This all sounds pretty heavily house ruled to me. Maybe I'm just not understanding your meaning.
For scenario #5 made by shadowlord, I'd say stealth wouldn't apply at all. I'd say it'd be only a slight of hand check.
You could wrap it up in a Sleight of Hand check, but it doesn't really fit that skill. It doesn't fit Stealth perfectly either but Stealth is a better fit than Sleight of Hand IMO. SoH is for hiding things on your person, lifting things off of another person, or stealing something small while someone is actively watching you. There are two DC examples given in the skill description; one is for palming a coin sized object DC 10 and the other is for lifting a small object off another person DC 20. Picking up a Sword and Armor from the floor while your enemy is sleeping and sneaking away with them doesn't really fall under SoH. Now if the Sword was under the enemy's pillow or in his hands it would certainly involve SoH but outside that I would go with Stealth.
For #4 he could use stealth for himself (by forfeiting/expending his move action by my reasoning) but I wouldn't say it would affect the door's noise at all. Door can make as much noise the GM wants it to make regardless of anyone's stealth, because the door is not part of the character.
That is why a good B&E guy always brings a little oil to lubricate the hinges. But, after all your lubricating and prep-work, all that fluff and description is rolled into a simple Stealth vs. Perception roll.
edit: after reading some more, I think I'm disagreeing with shadowlord? I don't consider 5-foot step to be movement, and hence don't consider it viable to trigger stealth. (also why it would give +20 to stealth if invisible and not acting)
I'm pretty sure I disagree with the entire first half of your post. Not entirely sure as I didn't understand exactly what you meant by some of it. Anyhow, invisibility only grants two things to Stealth: +20 if you're moving or +40 if you're "immobile." It sounds to me like you are saying you should still be able to get the +40 to Stealth if you only take a 5' step. IMO, if you take any action even a 5' step, you are not "immobile," and therefore only get the +20.
Same sort of rules for stealthing as drawing a weapon (without quickdraw). I think a feat to allow 5-foot-step/free-action stealth would be fine though, if it doesn't already exist.
Except that drawing a weapon is actually explicitly called out as taking up your Move Action, or being done as Free Action during your normal Move Action if you have a +1 or higher BAB. Stealth is only called out as part of a movement. Is a 5' step a movement:
You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can't take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance.
You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.
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.
You may not take a 5-foot step using a form of movement for which you do not have a listed speed.
IMO, these descriptions indicate that a 5' step is indeed classified as a "movement."
|
Unfortunately, Joesi, your interpretation of the interaction of Invisibility and Stealth don't work with the RAW. Specifically, the DC for the Perception of an invisible creature using Stealth is Stealth Check +20, with an additional +20 if they are stationary. They do still have to roll their Stealth check to not make any noises or such, they are not automatically as quiet as can be.
Regarding the "what constitutes movement" question raised by Shadowlord, I think it's fair to say that any action that involves traveling movement. As an example, drawing a sword involves movement, as does drinking a potion, but I wouldn't call those actions movement for purposes of using Stealth. Any action that requires a travel any distance, however, I would. A 5-foot step is movement. I do think that it's shenanigans to be able to full-attack while under Greater Invisibility and to 5-foot step away to regain Stealth, but I also believe it to be RAW. However, a 5-foot step also is movement that counts against the immobility +20 to Stealth granted by being invisible.
Here's part of the justification for being able to use Stealth after a 5-foot step, emphasis mine:
If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves).
A find it hard to believe that one doesn't move when taking a 5-foot step. If I wanted to, I could say that my invisible character waves his arm after his full-attack, thus moving and causing his target to no longer know where he is. But that's ridiculous. It makes much more sense to think that he stabs his target a few times, then backs off and tries to stop breathing hard (triggering a Stealth check, but not guaranteed sucess).
Defining movement as "literally any movement one makes" is a little bit ridiculous. Defining movement as "a move action" is equally ridiculous, because drawing a weapon doesn't mean you can Stealth. Defining movement as "any action in which the character travels any distance (of at least 1 square)" makes at least some sense. Defining it as traveling any distance means that all the rules are consistent.
The parenthetical above only indicates that the minimum distance it is possible to move is 5 feet for most characters (awkward cases for characters of size Tiny or smaller, but that's a different discussion).
Edit: Ninjaed by the Shadowlord. All hail.
Somehow Sniping from range is a move action that allows only one attack using Stealth, but Full Attacking and moving 5 feet allows a Stealth check all in one action.
If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.
It sure is hard to snipe from long range and make a full attack. But it sure is easy to make a full attack from melee and stealth.
Action
Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.
The words "usually" and "normally" are open-ended. They mean the majority of the time, but not all. They imply by their nature that Stealth is an open-ended skill that the GM must interpret according to what the player wants to do. There are clear actions that are not useable with Stealth.
For some reason Shadowlord is making the claim that the Action portion is some hard and fast rule. It is not. It does not say "Stealth checks are made as part of any movement." If that were the wording, then his interpretation would be valid RAW. That isn't what it says.
Some examples of actions where the GM can allow a Stealth check that are not clearly spelled out:
Drawing a weapon or object quietly would allow a Stealth check.
You might allow a person to open a door quietly with a Stealth check.
Pick a lock quietly.
Put your clothes on quietly before you sneak out of the princess's bedroom.
Plenty of actions that only involve actual movement you could require a player to make a Stealth check to do.
Yes I should have made it more clear (although in the previous post where I talked about it, I did make it pretty clear that it wasn't really RAW). I am aware it would be a house rule to do that, but rather it makes sense (otherwise you get nonsensical things happening, such as penalties not applying to one's "stealth" while invisible) and seems fair. That said, I find RAW more or less conflicts with itself on the issue of invisibility and/or stealth anyway so to follow it strictly isn't too helpful when it still runs into problems.
Except that drawing a weapon is actually explicitly called out as taking up your Move Action, or being done as Free Action during your normal Move Action if you have a +1 or higher BAB. Stealth is only called out as part of a movement. Is a 5' step a movement:No, that's the thing, drawing a weapon doesn't specifically mention "as part of a move action", just movement/move (specific word depending on if you read quick draw's description or combat's explanation)
Overall the rules aren't particularly clear what moving is. I think it's quite clear that no one should be using 5-foot steps to stealth after a full attacks regardless what RAW says, and since RAW itself is not clear enough, this fairer de-facto-RAW/RAW-interpretation can be considered the rules to use.
Also, if one was to interpret 5-foot steps as being able to stealth, why do they bother mention the sniping rule as using a move action instead of a 5-foot step? (which presumably one could forfeit if they didn't want to change squares) Or mention the fact that it could be possible to full-round snipe?
Show me where it says you can make a Stealth check only as part of movement or as part of any movement. Doesn't say that does it?
It says usually and normally. Very different words. I have no idea why some are interpreting those words as meaning "any time you move you get to make a stealthy check." That is certainly not what the Stealth skill indicates by RAW or RAI.
Yes I should have made it more clear (although in the previous post where I talked about it, I did make it pretty clear that it wasn't really RAW). I am aware it would be a house rule to do that...
Fair enough.
No, that's the thing, drawing a weapon doesn't specifically mention "as part of a move action", just movement/move (specific word depending on if you read quick draw's description or combat's explanation)
Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.
If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.
Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.
No, it actually is called out as requiring a Move Action, or being a Free Action in part of your normal move if you have BAB 1 or higher.
Also, if one was to interpret 5-foot steps as being able to stealth, why do they bother mention the sniping rule as using a move action instead of a 5-foot step? (which presumably one could forfeit if they didn't want to change squares) Or mention the fact that it could be possible to full-round snipe?
Sniping is specifically called out because it is an ecxeption to the normal rules and is EXTREMELY hard to do.
It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).
Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.
Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.
The action segment states that Stealth is usually no action, or attached to some other movement, however, when used in Sniping it requires a move action. It requires the use of your entire move action because it's an extremely dificult maneuver to perform. It is not the same as attacking from stealth, popping into plain view, then trying to disappear again back into stealth. If you perform this maneuver, and if no one's Perception beats your Stealth, you maintain your obscure location. Meaning it's essentially the same as firing a ranged attack from Greater Invisibility. You are never seen. The opponent has at best only a general idea of which dirrection you fired from. That is the reason it is so hard to Snipe and the reason Stealth takes so much effort that it sucks up your entire Move Action.
Somehow Sniping from range is a move action that allows only one attack using Stealth, but Full Attacking and moving 5 feet allows a Stealth check all in one action.
Yeah. Because Sniping is a way of attacking round after round without ever being seen at all and it can be done without magic (greater invisibility) but it's extremely hard to do well.
If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.It sure is hard to snipe from long range and make a full attack. But it sure is easy to make a full attack from melee and stealth.
In one scenario the attacker has the aid of Greater Invisibility. In the other scenario they are trying to attack without ever popping into view using skill alone. I should certainly hope that attacking without ever being noticed at all and without the aid of magic would be a dificult maneuver to pull off.
The words "usually" and "normally" are open-ended. They mean the majority of the time, but not all. They imply by their nature that Stealth is an open-ended skill that the GM must interpret according to what the player wants to do.
Correct. However, your specific GM interpretation of what is and is not allowed by Stealth at your table does not constitute RAW. Usually NONE, Normally part of a MOVEMENT, however, during Sniping it is a MOVE ACTION. Sniping is the only instance where Stealth requires more than no action or part of a movement by RAW. Could there be other instances based on GM interpretation... I suppose so, but that's THAT GM'S INTERPRETATION, not RAW.
There are clear actions that are not useable with Stealth.
Correct. The RAW examples are:
It's impossible to use Stealth WHILE attacking, running, or charging.
And that "while attacking" is further clarified lower in the description:
Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).
For some reason Shadowlord is making the claim that the Action portion is some hard and fast rule. It is not. It does not say "Stealth checks are made as part of any movement."
Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action.
The only exception that is called out to this "normally none or part of a movement" is in Sniping where it's a full Move Action. Any other exceptions to none or part of a movement, are your GM interpretation and not RAW.
Some examples of actions where the GM can allow a Stealth check that are not clearly spelled out:
Drawing a weapon or object quietly would allow a Stealth check.
You might allow a person to open a door quietly with a Stealth check.
Pick a lock quietly.
Put your clothes on quietly before you sneak out of the princess's bedroom.
Plenty of actions that only involve actual movement you could require a player to make a Stealth check to do.
All GM interpretation. The only ways these are acceptable under RAW are if you either get really creative with what "movement" means or you roll these up under the Usually None portion of action description. I agree with you that these actions are valid possibilities for Stealth. But my definitions are clearly different than yours and this stuff has not problem fitting into how I view Stealth.
...
Which brings me back to the fact that I have attempted to thouroughly explain my definitions of, impossible while attacking, and, Usually no action or part of a movement. As far as I can tell you still have not defined them at all. I would have said that your require it to be part of a move action but your examples above aren't even as much movement as a 5' step and you endorse using Stealth.
|
|
Just clarifying something about the "Full-Attack, 5-Foot Step, Stealth" scenario.
The only way that Shadowlord and I are attempting to justify the idea of a 5-foot step being enough to justify using Stealth isn't because of the fact that it is movement. We're specifically looking at the initial example given of a Greater Invisibility spell being in effect.
Namely, an invisible creature makes a full-attack. By rules as written, at the end of the full-attack action, the target of the full-attack knows where the attacking (currently invisible) creature is.
Per rules as written, if that creature then has a way to move, their location is obscured by the fact that they are invisible.
If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves).
The Stealth check after the 5-foot step is only triggered by the fact that A) they are currently invisible, and B) they are no longer standing in the spot where they were standing when they performed their full-attack action.
Neither Shadowlord nor any of the others arguing in favor of the 5-foot step Stealth check is arguing that it universally applies. It only applies when another condition which would allow a Stealth check is in place, such as
We're not saying that any Rogue could sneak up on Fighter A, shank him twice, and then shift away and Stealth. We're saying that if a Rogue is under the effects of Greater Invisibility, or in very dense fog, or has darkvision and is in a pitch-black room, that he can do the back-stabby dance and then shift away and Stealth because other conditions allow him to do so. The 5-foot step only serves to remove him from a square where his location is already known, into a square where his location is unsure.