| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a constant, 360 degree field of potential vision. It's not that you can see everything all around you it's that you might see something happening around you, irrespective of its position.
It seems to me that if you can't attempt to move out from behind cover using stealth without instantly being spotted then we're not dealing with 'potential' vision, we're dealing with constant 360 vision.
It's a constant, 360 degree field of potential vision. It's not that you can see everything all around you it's that you might see something happening around you, irrespective of its position.It seems to me that if you can't attempt to move out from behind cover using stealth without instantly being spotted then we're not dealing with 'potential' vision, we're dealing with constant 360 vision.
Or the designers have made the (erroneous but simplifying) assumption that at some point during the maneuver the perceiver will direct their gaze in that direction and that stealth is therefore impossible in that situation.
.Which do you think is the more likely assumption they've made - some kind of simplification like that (realism sacrificed in exchange for ease of use) or that everyone is simultaneously looking in all directions all the time?
In a game where you never face one direction because you effectively have 360 vision you don't have a behind.
"I don't have a 'behind' and "I can see in all directions at once" are two different things though.
It's a constant, 360 degree field of potential vision. It's not that you can see everything all around you it's that you might see something happening around you, irrespective of its position.It seems to me that if you can't attempt to move out from behind cover using stealth without instantly being spotted then we're not dealing with 'potential' vision, we're dealing with constant 360 vision.Or the designers have made the (erroneous but simplifying) assumption that at some point during the maneuver the perceiver will direct their gaze in that direction and that stealth is therefore impossible in that situation.
.
Which do you think is the more likely assumption they've made - some kind of simplification like that (realism sacrificed in exchange for ease of use) or that everyone is simultaneously looking in all directions all the time?
If the consequence of the "simplification" is constant 360 vision it doesn't really matter which one they were intending.
Err. Maybe, but it's not a consequence. That's what I said. You suggested that the consequence of automatically being seen when leaving cover is that one must have constant 360 degree vision and that it cant be "potential vision". In fact, it can - another assumption which fits being that the chance of directing one's attention in that direction during the maneuver is 100%.
No need to assume continuous 360 degree vision, there is another assumption with the same consequence. Namely that a 'perceiver' is certain to direct their limited attention towards the person trying to be stealthy at some point during the maneuver.
Abstractions dont cover every detail. That's what's good about them.
Could someone please reference me the rule that states that all sighted creatures withing the Pathfinder Role Playing Game have all around vision or crystal balls for eyes or sci-fi like HUD's that display everything around them?
I have seen listings for low-light vision, 60ft Dark Vision, 120ft Dark vision... I just haven't seen any creature with a listing of All Around Vision.
If it has already been posted and I missed it I apologize.
You did miss it. If I can draw a line from my character to the other character without any obstruction then I can see them. I don't have to choose a direction because the game has no facing rules. That is listed a few post about the post I am now replying to.
A phrase like Line of sight makes sense in the real world, but in the real world something that you are not looking at is not in your line of sight regardless of cover or concealment, so you wouldn't have line of sight to someone who was 10 feet behind you.
The issue is the apparent constant 360 vision that I see little actual support for in the rules.
In a game where you never face one direction because you effectively have 360 vision you don't have a behind.
except when you do
"Wearing a Blindfold: The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one's back on the creature or shutting one's eyes). The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent."
That is a specific case for that situation. You can use a special rule/situation to prove a point.
Just like charging allowing me to move up to double my move speed and attack. I still cant do so normally. Charge is special case, and so are gaze attacks. Nice try.
PS:SKR is not the only 3.5/PF dev to say the game has no facing.
In a game where you never face one direction because you effectively have 360 vision you don't have a behind."I don't have a 'behind' and "I can see in all directions at once" are two different things though.
Maybe in real life, but not in the game. You can argue all day, but devs disagree, and the book disagrees. Otherwise a distraction would not be needed to bypass the effective 360 degree vision.
Once again the combat chapter only cares about drawing lines. It does not say only drawing lines from certain corners of the square, which would represent which way the character is facing.
Not to throw fuel on the fire but how you folks think this factors in?
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
From my perspective, it offers the possibility that a person not actively looking for stimulus can be countered by stealth. Or rather someone tries to sneak between areas of concealment, causing a perception check vs their stealth. They might see the character using stealth, they might not. The character actively searching for stimulus however might be what some posters describe as the 360º vision person who auto discovers people who move beyond cover. Someone on guard might be "using a move action to intentionally search for stimulus".
If so, a character who is attempting to sneak around, might have to wait for aid guard to become distracted, or lose interest in spending their move action every round before attempting a risky stealth move. Perhaps they would need a sense motive check to know when the moment is right.
Now I know that I am speculating a lot on that one sentence, but it does bear asking, why the difference levels of attention to stimulus? Does it factor into the stealth RAW?
You did miss it. If I can draw a line from my character to the other character without any obstruction then I can see them.What rule determines whether or not you do see them?
Total Concealment blocks line of sight.
Cover and Total cover allow for stealth checks to be make.
This is in the combat chapter.
|
You did miss it. If I can draw a line from my character to the other character without any obstruction then I can see them.What rule determines whether or not you do see them?Total Concealment blocks line of sight.
Cover and Total cover allow for stealth checks to be make.
This is in the combat chapter.
What rule states that if you have line of sight to a character you automatically see them?
Not to throw fuel on the fire but how you folks think this factors in?
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
From my perspective, it offers the possibility that a person not actively looking for stimulus can be countered by stealth. Or rather someone tries to sneak between areas of concealment, causing a perception check vs their stealth. They might see the character using stealth, they might not. The character actively searching for stimulus however might be what some posters describe as the 360º vision person who auto discovers people who move beyond cover. Someone on guard might be "using a move action to intentionally search for stimulus".
If so, a character who is attempting to sneak around, might have to wait for aid guard to become distracted, or lose interest in spending their move action every round before attempting a risky stealth move. Perhaps they would need a sense motive check to know when the moment is right.
Now I know that I am speculating a lot on that one sentence, but it does bear asking, why the difference levels of attention to stimulus? Does it factor into the stealth RAW?
The person trying to move across my field of vision is observable stimuli. That is an automatic check. If the 360 degree vision did not exist the "reactive" check could not even be made. The fact that the check can even be made support the 360 degree vision. But with no cover or concealment the perception check is really easy to make.
Now if I someone do not see the person in my field of vision I would have to wait until my turn, and take a move action to check.
It does say you can use stealth while moving, and part of your movement is out in that open area where you no longer have cover or concealment. At that point you no longer qualify for stealth.
There is a caveat on that. If your observer can be considered distracted and you can reach an unobserved location, you can make the stealth check at -10. What constitutes distracted is, effectively, GM's decision.
There is a caveat on that. If your observer can be considered distracted and you can reach an unobserved location, you can make the stealth check at -10. What constitutes distracted is, effectively, GM's decision.It does say you can use stealth while moving, and part of your movement is out in that open area where you no longer have cover or concealment. At that point you no longer qualify for stealth.
That point has already been mentioned by me in one of these ongoing stealth threads. We are just assuming no distraction at the moment.
You did miss it. If I can draw a line from my character to the other character without any obstruction then I can see them. I don't have to choose a direction because the game has no facing rules. That is listed a few post about the post I am now replying to.
I think it's better characterized as "If the creature in question does not have either cover or concealment and my character doesn't count as distracted (which enables the dash to cover clause in the stealth rules), he can be seen without needing a perception check." Simply drawing one unobstructed line is usually not enough because most checks for cover/concealment succeed as long as at least one line is obstructed.
That point has already been mentioned by me in one of these ongoing stealth threads. We are just assuming no distraction at the moment.There is a caveat on that. If your observer can be considered distracted and you can reach an unobserved location, you can make the stealth check at -10. What constitutes distracted is, effectively, GM's decision.It does say you can use stealth while moving, and part of your movement is out in that open area where you no longer have cover or concealment. At that point you no longer qualify for stealth.
I think it's a really important caveat to make and it's probably a caveat that the GM should be encouraged to be lenient with. In one of the famous threads about sneaking up to steal a chicken, moving across an open spot, while the farmer sits on the porch, I'd rule the farmer distracted if he's doing pretty much anything that doesn't involve looking around for trouble - whittling, drinking moonshine from a jug, sharpening a knife. That rogue can make a move across the open terrain and back into stealth-appropriate territory with a -10 on his check.
I'd even allow a sneak to dash from one column to another in an otherwise open view if he's waiting and watching until the sentry turns to look in another direction under the distraction clause - he's distracted by looking over there rather than in the sneak's direction. I do think the -10 penalty, under these circumstances, may be a bit harsh.
I think it's better characterized as "If the creature in question does not have either cover or concealment and my character doesn't count as distracted (which enables the dash to cover clause in the stealth rules), he can be seen without needing a perception check." Simply drawing one unobstructed line is usually not enough because most checks for cover/concealment succeed as long as at least one line is obstructed.
You did miss it. If I can draw a line from my character to the other character without any obstruction then I can see them. I don't have to choose a direction because the game has no facing rules. That is listed a few post about the post I am now replying to.
I listed the actual rules earlier. What you are quoting is the simplified paraphrase from me.
I think it's better characterized as "If the creature in question does not have either cover or concealment and my character doesn't count as distracted (which enables the dash to cover clause in the stealth rules), he can be seen without needing a perception check." Simply drawing one unobstructed line is usually not enough because most checks for cover/concealment succeed as long as at least one line is obstructed.
You did miss it. If I can draw a line from my character to the other character without any obstruction then I can see them. I don't have to choose a direction because the game has no facing rules. That is listed a few post about the post I am now replying to.
Technically there still is a perception check, it just starts at DC 0 (the DC to notice a visible creature). It is modified most directly by range (+1 to the DC per 10 feet). If the observer is distracted (which in my book, in-combat would certainly apply) then add another +5 as well as the sneaking character's stealth check -10. Then calculate pi to 10 places and and use its cube root as the number of actions it takes to wish you never looked up how stealth worked.
I think it's better characterized as "If the creature in question does not have either cover or concealment and my character doesn't count as distracted (which enables the dash to cover clause in the stealth rules), he can be seen without needing a perception check." Simply drawing one unobstructed line is usually not enough because most checks for cover/concealment succeed as long as at least one line is obstructed.
You did miss it. If I can draw a line from my character to the other character without any obstruction then I can see them. I don't have to choose a direction because the game has no facing rules. That is listed a few post about the post I am now replying to.I listed the actual rules earlier. What you are quoting is the simplified paraphrase from me.
Simplified is good, particularly since the phrase I was responding to wasn't accurate. It's not a question of being able to draw a line without obstruction in most cases. Every line you draw must be free of obstructions to disqualify cover or concealment except in the case of melee attacks vs adjacent targets and concealment.
Technically there still is a perception check, it just starts at DC 0 (the DC to notice a visible creature). It is modified most directly by range (+1 to the DC per 10 feet). If the observer is distracted (which in my book, in-combat would certainly apply) then add another +5 as well as the sneaking character's stealth check -10.
Good points. Distance can always add a factor. And I had forgotten about the +5 DC for perception if the perceiver is distracted - definitely makes that -10 dash to cover less of a bitter pill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't ask you to reference your post... I asked for a reference to the rule that states that every creature in existence has All Around Vision(Ex).Edit: They don't by the way, or it would be listed in their stat block as All-Around Vision(Ex)
In fairness, being able to make a perception check due to activities going on in any direction regardless of which direction the creature is currently looking isn't the same as All-Around Vision. For one thing, All-Around Vision precludes the possibility of being flanked - 360 degree perception doesn't include that. And for a second, 360 degree perception also includes hearing and smelling, not just seeing.
An awful lot about these debates on stealth and perception tend to focus on the stealth target's sight. One one hand, that's fair since most of us (and most PCs/NPCs) are going to be sight focused. Foiling sight is the single most important way to achieve a successfully stealthy action, but we shouldn't forget the target's hearing (or other senses). This is why he still gets a perception check to hear the sneak even though there are reasons he absolutely can't see him. And conversely, getting eyes on a sneak is the single best way to foil his ability to be stealthy - hence the need for some kind of visual obscurement be it cover or concealment or attention drawn elsewhere for a moment.
Simplified is good, particularly since the phrase I was responding to wasn't accurate. It's not a question of being able to draw a line without obstruction in most cases. Every line you draw must be free of obstructions to disqualify cover or concealment except in the case of melee attacks vs adjacent targets and concealment.I think it's better characterized as "If the creature in question does not have either cover or concealment and my character doesn't count as distracted (which enables the dash to cover clause in the stealth rules), he can be seen without needing a perception check." Simply drawing one unobstructed line is usually not enough because most checks for cover/concealment succeed as long as at least one line is obstructed.
You did miss it. If I can draw a line from my character to the other character without any obstruction then I can see them. I don't have to choose a direction because the game has no facing rules. That is listed a few post about the post I am now replying to.I listed the actual rules earlier. What you are quoting is the simplified paraphrase from me.
I also said that when I posted the actual rule. Bill to save you some post. I know what the rule is. You are just telling me things I have already posted.
You did miss it. If I can draw a line from my character to the other character without any obstruction then I can see them. I don't have to choose a direction because the game has no facing rules. That is listed a few post about the post I am now replying to.Could someone please reference me the rule that states that all sighted creatures withing the Pathfinder Role Playing Game have all around vision or crystal balls for eyes or sci-fi like HUD's that display everything around them?
I have seen listings for low-light vision, 60ft Dark Vision, 120ft Dark vision... I just haven't seen any creature with a listing of All Around Vision.
If it has already been posted and I missed it I apologize.
I didn't ask you to reference your post... I asked for a reference to the rule that states that every creature in existence has All Around Vision(Ex).
Edit: They don't by the way, or it would be listed in their stat block as All-Around Vision(Ex)
Not every creature has All-Around Vision(Ex). I said they effectively have 360 degree vision.
The two are not the same. The game has no facing. A dev even said so. There is also the fact that drawing lines determines who is and is not without cover or concealment.
All-Around Vision(Ex) prevents flanking. Normal creatures can be flanked.
From a mechanical rule perspective, All around vision is a very specific ability.
And Tempestorm you are trying to use real life logic so I am assuming you are new.
Otherwise you would not better than to try to use real life logic when arguing rules.
As an example I can be paralyzed and I still get a reflex saving throw even though he saving throw.
Actually moving from cover to cover is only allowed if the person is disracted if they have to leave cover A to get to cover B which I explained before.
Once again you are trying to use stealth while moving. However you can't use stealth without cover or concealment. One of the new rules in the stealth blog was going to allow this. I am sure they would not make a new rule if it already existed.
I never said you will always beat the check, but if you are not behind cover or concealment you don't even get a stealth check.
That means the DC to see you is DC 0+ 1 per 10 feet, but most GM's just handwave the roll.
Does your table make anyone roll to see someone in plain sight?
Edit: You can say its silly to draw a line, but it is the rules, and we are discussing the rules, so that makes it not silly for the purpose of this discussion.
All you are bringing is "it does not make sense to me." That is not how the rules work.
In a game where you never face one direction because you effectively have 360 vision you don't have a behind."I don't have a 'behind' and "I can see in all directions at once" are two different things though.Maybe in real life, but not in the game. You can argue all day, but devs disagree, and the book disagrees. Otherwise a distraction would not be needed to bypass the effective 360 degree vision.
Once again the combat chapter only cares about drawing lines. It does not say only drawing lines from certain corners of the square, which would represent which way the character is facing.
I'm still seeing a lot of inference and extrapolation, not much in the way of an actual rule about seeing in 360.
Once again you are trying to use stealth while moving. However you can't use stealth without cover or concealment. One of the new rules in the stealth blog was going to allow this.
Again, what is "using" stealth? If I have cover I can use stealth as a I start moving. If that movement takes me out of cover, oh well, I already used stealth at the start of the movement.
Can't sneak attack from stealth? What?
I'm glad my groups liberally apply common sense to skill checks. It would totally break our suspension of disbelief if the check to steal something from a guy when he was looking away was the same as when he was staring right at you.
Unfortunately I think stealth rules broke when listen and spot became perception and move silently and hide became stealth.
When a guard was looking away, there is still no facing, but he clearly can't see you (auto fails spot check). When you move he roles a listen check against your move silently role.
So I'm fairly new to the whole Stealth problems debate, too, but from reading through this page, I think you all are missing a CRUCIAL bit of information:
Perception is no longer just SEEING things. It's hearing things and smelling things and feeling things, too. Perception can cover a strong odor, a weird taste in the air, hearing footsteps....To go along with that, Stealth is both not being seen and not being heard. Keep those bits of info in mind; they're important.
So, to me, this issue isn't even an issue. Using the example of a stationary guard that is set to his post in the courtyard, and the rogue who is hiding behind the pillar, the rogue rolls stealth vs the guards perception when he moves into an area where he could be seen. If the roll beats the guard's perception roll, then the rogue properly timed his movement to when the guard was looking the other way. If the guard wins the check, the guard either heard something and turned back around, or the rogue timed his movement poorly.
In the case of two people making a similar roll at the same time, and one failing while the other succeeds, the one who failed kicked a loose stone, which made a noise that the guard heard, so he turned around and saw the pair moving.
I REALLY don't see how that's an issue.
As for facing, Pathfinder has a monster ability that gives them full 360 degree vision. Why would that ability exist if all creatures had 360 degree vision all the time?
All these checks are abstracted. There are any number of ways to interpret how the dice come up. Heck, I'm fairly certain the CRB even states that these stats abstract things. It seems like people are really making a mouuntain out of a molehill on this one, to me.
I said they effectively have 360 degree vision. That is due to a lack of facing which is an intentional game design, and that is shown by the fact that you only need to draw lines to determine what you can see.
Also, once again, the point of all around vision is to deny flanking.
I'm still seeing a lot of inference and extrapolation, not much in the way of an actual rule about seeing in 360.
If I can draw a line to any square and be able to perceive the creature in that square what else would it be? There is no facing so I don't have to exclude any particular field of vision.
Again, what is "using" stealth? If I have cover I can use stealth as a I start moving. If that movement takes me out of cover, oh well, I already used stealth at the start of the movement.
Actually the book says you are using stealth while moving. It does not say you use stealth to hide and then move.
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.
That means at the same time you are moving if it is a part of your movement.
Can't sneak attack from stealth? What?
I'm glad my groups liberally apply common sense to skill checks. It would totally break our suspension of disbelief if the check to steal something from a guy when he was looking away was the same as when he was staring right at you.
Unfortunately I think stealth rules broke when listen and spot became perception and move silently and hide became stealth.
When a guard was looking away, there is still no facing, but he clearly can't see you (auto fails spot check). When you move he roles a listen check against your move silently role.
You can attack from stealth. Well some disagree with me about that, but most don't.
Since it seems like my question was missed why did one of the new stealth blog rules say you could hide in plain sight as if you were invisible as long as you reached cover if you could already do so under the current rules?
Here is the proposed rule for point of reference.
When you make your Stealth check, those creatures that didn't succeed at the opposed roll treat you as hidden until the start of your next action or until the end of your turn if you do not end your turn with cover or concealment.
Those of you disagreeing are telling me this is already possible, but the PF rules team obviously disagrees if this was proposed in their stealth blog.
edit:I will be back in a few hours.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a game where you never face one direction because you effectively have 360 vision you don't have a behind.except when you do
"Wearing a Blindfold: The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one's back on the creature or shutting one's eyes). The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent."
OK, there is a big difference here that nobody has mentioned.
If I cast fireball on your character, you decide what your character does. If I try to bluff you, you roll sense motive (if you want) and make your own decision. Etc. You are always in control of your character.
Sure, there are a few obvious exceptions, like many enchantment spells, and a couple combat maneuvers, but those have clear and explicit rules telling the caster exactly what he can and cannot do and telling the victim exactly how to resist or break the enchantment/maneuver and how often he can try.
Now, some people here are advocating that MY facing is determined by YOUR die roll (and let's face it, if you can apply Stealth and if you have bothered to even barely-optimize it, you can Take 10 and have such a huge modifier that nothing in the book will perceive you, even by rolling a 20).
Nothing in Pathfinder works that way. Nothing lets you determine what I am doing, where I am standing, how I am facing, etc. Nothing, with the very explicitly defined exceptions I noted above.
It would be antithetical to the way the game works for one character to control what another is doing. But worse, some people are ignoring the explicit rules about Line of Sight and allowing Stealth-monkeys to determine what their enemy is doing without any rules to support it; these houserules give a simple skill the power of a high-level enchantment spell, allowing stealth-monkeys to control their victims actions.
I can see this scenario now:
DM: Dave, roll a d20.
Dave: aha, 18, not bad.
DM: No, that was a perception check, you needed to beat DC 64.
Dave: I'm 6th level, how am I supposed to have +44 on my Perception skill at this level?
DM: Beats me, it's clearly RAI that you should. In any case, there is a rogue standing in front of you. He just plunged his sword into your spleen for 35 damage.
Dave: 35 Damage! Wow, what, did he sneak attack?
DM: Obviously.
Dave: From in front of me? I'm wide awake, on watch, looking for trouble.
DM: No you weren't. You seem to have turned your back and bent over to tie your shoe, and when you straightened up, BOOM, there he was.
Dave: I did no such thing! I'm careful when I'm on watch.
DM: No you're not. You didn't beat his DC 64.
Dave: That was his STEALTH roll, not his Make-Me-Bend-Over-And-Tie-My-Shoe roll. How can his stealth roll make me bend over?
DM: Beats me, it's just RAI. Did you survive the damage?
Dave: Waht damage? He can't do that! His Stealth skill can't make me stop being alert! He can't walk right up in front of my alert character like that!
DM: Sure he can.
Dave: Where does it say that in the book?
DM: Well, it doesn't because it's RAI. He rolled good Stealth so your shoe must have been untied and you bent over to tie it. Did you survive the damage or not?
Now, had the DM told Dave to have his character roll a Will save and then informed him that his mind was under alien control, Dave may not have liked it but at least he would have to accept that there are explicit rules for this sort of thing.
No such rule for using Stealth to make someone do something they don't want to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does that clarification really mean that currently by RAW, you can't use stealth to hide from your enemies if your friends can see you?
Yes, this is a textbook example of why it is so necessary for a good DM to be able to see when RAW is illogical or just plain stupid and adjust accordingly.
Home rules, people, they're not a bad word. They are in fact the greatest litmus test of a DM's skill and understanding of the rules. Also generally preferable to RAW.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing in Pathfinder works that way. Nothing lets you determine what I am doing, where I am standing, how I am facing, etc. Nothing, with the very explicitly defined exceptions I noted above.
You get to decide what you are doing and where you are facing. You are facing into the woods and watching for anything dangerous. If the rogue gets the drop on you you are obviously just not doing a very good job.
Snark aside, your position is idiotic. When an enemy trips you, that is the DM's die roll telling you what you are doing (falling down). Ditto for drag and reposition. Failing your perception check in this instance is the same (you are not paying attention). Are you going to try to argue that combat maneuvers and any other negative consequences cannot happen to your character because it is someone else's die roll?
Of course your concentration can lapse even if you are actively watching for something, even if you are going to try to hold out that everyone is looking in every direction always by RAW. You still get to describe the specific flavor of that lapse in attention if you so desire. The crunch is just that the rogue gets the drop on you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kind of a decent attempt at reducto ad absurdum, DM_Blake, but I don't see all that many people here arguing to be able to hide behind a blade of grass (after all, that's what Hide in Plain Sight is for). The bone of contention should be that, as written, stealth does nothing after the target has acted once in combat. Literally, nothing. There is no mechanical advantage to being unobserved after the surprise round. Your foes are no longer flat-footed. They are no longer denied their Dex bonus to AC. Nowhere do the rules say that until you are observed they don't get to use their Dex bonus to AC. The entire issue centres on this point. My argument is that the target should be denied their Dex bonus to AC for at least one turn by the stealthy character, to allow a move and attack with sneak attack.
Here's how RAW handles things (only accounting for the relevant characters):
Surprise round: Rogue - I use stealth, I got 22.
GM - Perception was 18, where are you going?
Rogue - I'm going to creep to the edge of the underbrush so that I can move out next round and sneak attack. Ugh. Not enough movement. Okay, I'll be good in another round.
Everyone else - Charge!/Cast lighting bolt!/Flame strike!
Round 1: Rogue - Stealth again, 28, I'll hit the boss at the back next turn, guys.
GM - they still haven't noticed you.
Everyone else: Charge! (Etc.)
Round 2: Rogue - I step out... here, and sneak attack the boss!
GM - he's acted. No longer denied Dex bonus to AC. Not flanked. No sneak attack.
Rogue: but... he didn't know I was there! Don't I get surprise?
GM: nope. Surprise round was 2 rounds ago. If you wanted surprise, you should have gone for him then. He's not surprised, even though you stealthed up to 10' away with cover, 5' stepped, and attacked. You didn't have cover for the attack, you're not stealthed while making it, and even if you were, he's not denied Dex to AC just because he doesn't know you're there. Nice waste of your actions, though.
Rogue - *fume*
Now, I'd let him make a sneak attack. But it's a house rule.
(Caveat: the ability score description of Dexterity says "You apply your character's Dexterity modifier to [...] Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack." but nothing in the combat rules or skill rules for stealth and perception say that a character cannot react to an attack made by an unobserved foe, except in terms of being flat-footed at the start of combat. How do the rules tell us when the target can't react? He gets denied his Dex bonus AC. The argument that he can't react so he's denied his Dex bonus to AC is circular logic: he can't react because he's denied his Dex bonus to AC so he can't react. The situations and conditions that deny Dex to AC are clearly laid out, and "has not observed the attacker" isn't one of them.)
Bluff to make them think you're not going to attack, sure. Reach them with obvious hostile intent in the surprise round or before they act in round 1, go for it. But by RAW, the instant they have acted, stealth does nothing.
If I can draw a line to any square and be able to perceive the creature in that square what else would it be? There is no facing so I don't have to exclude any particular field of vision.
I'm still seeing a lot of inference and extrapolation, not much in the way of an actual rule about seeing in 360.
Again, that's not a rule, that's reading different rules and trying to infer something functional because the rules fail to define a 360 degree field of vision or facing/a lack there of.
Again, what is "using" stealth? If I have cover I can use stealth as a I start moving. If that movement takes me out of cover, oh well, I already used stealth at the start of the movement.
Actually the book says you are using stealth while moving. It does not say you use stealth to hide and then move.
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.That means at the same time you are moving if it is a part of your movement.
I started moving, I had cover, I rolled stealth. Did I use stealth as part of my movement? Yes, I did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, some people here are advocating that MY facing is determined by YOUR die roll (and let's face it, if you can apply Stealth and if you have bothered to even barely-optimize it, you can Take 10 and have such a huge modifier that nothing in the book will perceive you, even by rolling a 20)...
Correction. Your facing is determined by YOUR perception check. Your DC is determined by your opponent's stealth check. You are still in control of your character's actions. That is absolutely how things work in pathfinder (bluff vs sense motive, sleight of hand vs perception, etc, etc).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A really simple fix that could be easily errata'd would be (emphasis = new addition/alteration):
Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. If your check succeeds, you go unnoticed to that creature until after you make an attack or take a violent action, or until you end your turn within that creature's line of sight without cover or concealment. You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty. It's impossible to use Stealth while running, or charging, or as part of an attack or other violent action.
Adding those couple of sentences shouldn't be too hard in the space they have in the Core Rulebook, doesn't require an entire rewrite of the rules, and that clarification should solve most of the issues you all are bringing up here on the forums. This is how I run Stealth in my games, anyhow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A really simple fix that could be easily errata'd would be (emphasis = new addition/alteration):
Adding those couple of sentences shouldn't be too hard in the space they have in the Core Rulebook, doesn't require an entire rewrite of the rules, and that clarification should solve most of the issues you all are bringing up here on the forums. This is how I run Stealth in my games, anyhow.
Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. If your check succeeds, you go unnoticed to that creature until after you make an attack or take a violent action, or until you end your turn within that creature's line of sight without cover or concealment. You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty. It's impossible to use Stealth while running, or charging, or as part of an attack or other violent action.
Personally, I think you should only be able to get as close as your margin of success times 10 feet. Closer than that, and the distance modifier would mean you were spotted.
Simply put, in order to Tenchu-Stealth-Kill, your stealth needs to beat their perception without distance modifiers.
This is fun, because the GM knows the margin of success, and the stealth character does not.