|
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.
Ooo, nifty.
I also like how Sellsword's idea mimics the rules for invisibility.
|
|
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.
There is no rule that says you can see in 360 degrees.
There is a rule that says you can't use stealth without cover or concealment.
There is no such rule.
Stealth say that cover and concelemanet allow you to stealth, but the text do not impose the restriction you are claiming.
The rule is actually 'you cannot Stealth while being observed'. Of course, the cover rules do not determine whether or not you are 'observed'.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
well, let's put it this way. You just openly admitted you can't get around behind someone because there is no favored direction.
Not quite, Thomas. You can't get around behind someone by dint of which square your miniature occupies. You get around behind somebody abstractly, by using Stealth versus their Perception.
If you cant get behind them you must either be to the front or to the side. I.e. not in a blind spot. If you're not in their blindspot no matter what position you are relative to them then they have to be facing all directions at once. Otherwise there would be an area where you could not be seen.
There's a difference between "the way the miniature is facing does not determine the direction the character is looking" versus "the character is always looking in all directions at once."
The game is intended to simulate a fantasy world populated by humans and human-like creatures. Humans in the real world don't have 360-degree vision. Neither do humans in Pathfinder.
You're getting a lot of resistance from your posts, because they don't square with anything else: our understanding of the real world, the game we want to play, nor our reading of the rules in print.
We're really doing this all over again, aren't we?
Style feats. Nuff said :D
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason it's in "horrid state" is that 3ed of the game was written by three people and each of them did write a different part of the ruleset. There was no "design by committee" there, Monte wrote classes, feats, combat and spells, Jonathan wrote the skill system and Skip got most of the DM/monster stuff. As far as I recall various threads and blogs, there was very little syncing of their work done.
While most of the ruleset did work out pretty much fine, there's some funky disconnect in some areas, and one of them is how skills work in combat. Well, they work awkwardly, because both parts of the ruleset were written without keeping the other in mind. So it's a bit Frankenstein's Monster there with how stealth, senses and Feint work during a fight.
Likely, in order to "fix" stealth, one would have to re-write a large chunk of the game, because making stealth suddenly work in combat while not getting Perception and all the others skills integrated would be a job half done. So we're pretty much left to wait for any eventual new edition or revision of rules as a whole.
Which I for one am looking forward to.
I think you can do an overhaul on the scale of 3.5 to Pathfinder and produce a much improved product that is largely compatible with the most of the AP back catalog and completely compatible with the setting.
We have gotten to the point where crunch books are going to need to get silly to still have a new feel to them, and I think there are enough quirks to make a revised edition something people are ready for.
I get the "Don't make my rules obsolete!" arguement, but frankly I still have my 3.5 books and I can still used then with Pathfinder if I choose. Moving to a 1.5 won't change that.
Just out of curiosity, how do people believe that the Bluff check to gain concealment is supposed to work by RAW?
We'll go back to our rogue behind one pillar that wants to move behind one 10 feet away with a guard standing on the other side of the pillars 20 or 30 feet away.
Rogue steps out from cover (the diversion to hide apparently only works against creatures who are aware of you) and is insta-seen by the guard (assuming that he beats the DC 0 Perception check).
I guess we have to roll Initiatives at this point. Let's assume the rogue goes first.
The rogue can make a bluff check now to gain temporary concealment?
What action is this? A bluff check to deceive someone is a full round action. So I guess we go with that. "No, I'm not really here!" Seems pretty ridiculous, so I guess the rogue gets a -20 to his bluff check.
Somehow he succeeds.
Mr. Rogue has now used up all his actions for the round to gain temporary concealment but has no actions left to move with. How long does the concealment last?
Doesn't really matter, Guard goes. Uses a move action to locate the Rogue, who wasn't able to use stealth because of not having enough actions. So his DC is back to 0. Guard auto spots Rogue.
Yay?
Just out of curiosity, how do people believe that the Bluff check to gain concealment is supposed to work by RAW?
...
Yay?
Your point is an interesting one. The Stealth rules don't say what kind of action it is. Your point that "deceiving" takes at least a full round is not applicable, the Bluff rule that says that is followed immediately by a second rule that says feinting in combat is a standard action. This clearly sets the precedent that combat bluffing is quicker than the typical non-combat weaving of an elaborate lie, even if the lie is only "These are not the droids you're looking for. Move along".
Since the precedent for bluffing in combat (to feint) is already established as a standard action, I see no reason to assume that bluffing in combat (to create a diversion to hide) should be any different.
The rogue could try "I'm not really here", but I'd hope he'd be clever enough to say something that was not so obviously untrue, like "Oh my god he's trying to kill me!" as he pretends to look over his shoulder for an imaginary assailant, while taking his move action to dive for cover/concealment as the guard starts looking around for whoever is supposedly chasing the rogue.
The Stealth check is made during the move action, as always, but only if the bluff succeeded.
There is no -20. The rules don't call for any penalty to this use of Bluff or Stealth.
So all the pieces really do fit, the rogue uses one standard and one move action, makes a bluff and a stealth check, ends up with cover/concealment which is "normally" required to use stealth.
All good. All RAW.
Back two pages ago I posted this:
“The devs have said they are aware of the problem, but that it would take a redesign to incorporate the changes. Now personally, I don’t want Pathfinder 2nd Ed just for this rather minor issue, since they have published a fix and suggested you use it.
So since Wraithstrike by post #5 already informed one and all that the PF staff are well aware of this and it CAN NOT be fixed by a FAQ, why on earth have a dozen of you hit “FAQ”? It can’t be FAQed. You don’t have to take my word for it, or even James Jacobs word for it. Just read the Stealth Blog and the many, many responses and you will see the HUGE can of worms it opened.”
Now, the Staff here has made it clear that a FAQ is impossible and is not forthcoming. But still another two of you hit the FAQ button. Now, personally I like the FAQ system. I like the fact that the answer our questions, post in our threads, etc. But they have asked you to not abuse the FAQ.
Since it has been stated by staff this can NOT be answered by a FAQ, why are you guys still hitting the FAQ button?
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.
There were all sorts of changes in the stealth blog. Many things were rephrased and clarified. You can't use "This was in the stealth blog" as an argument that it wasn't already supposed to work that way.
Example:
Original rule: "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth."
Stealth blog: "You are not hidden from creatures that are observing you"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?
Good point..
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).
That is a terrible example.
How the GM fluffs what happens is up to him. He could have used different flavor/fluff.
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.
It is effectively 360 vision.
If I have a mini on a map, and I draw a line to any square which direction am I not seeing in, assuming no distraction?
First this "assumption" of yours, it makes an "ass" out of you and somone named mption, you may want to appologize to him. Started playing with 1st Edition before moving to 2nd Edition and playing that exclusively for years. Skipped the begining of 3rd Edition (got into it a bit later) then moved to 3.5 before settling into Pathfinder during the Beta test and have been playing Pathfinder weekly since then. That all covers roughtly 24 years of gaming.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.
Being snarky won't help. You said all around vision = 360 degrees. That is incorrect. It is a specific ability. Now if you want to recant that statement you can.
That is only if I am being observed. If I am behind cover or concealment and unobserved I do not have to use bluff to distract the guard to move to another cover point. It's simply an opposed Stealth vs. Perception.
You are incorrect again. Once you are out in the open you have nothing to hide behind. No cover or concealment equals no stealth. That is in the book.
You can use stealth while moving, you cannot use stealth while attacking, running, or charghing. Slipping from cover point to cover point requires none of those mechanics.
Once again it does require cover or concealment. When you are out in the open you have neither one. That is not hard to understand. Since you are moving and using stealth you must stay qualified for stealth the entire time you are moving.
At no point does the book say you start behind cover lose the qualification to use stealth, and continue to do so. If it does then show it to me.Show me the reference where it states that a creature (barring certain exceptions with All-around Vision) immediately see anything and everything withing a 360 degree field of view.
Effective 360 degree vision.
Show me how this is not effectively true if I can draw a line to any/all square(s) and be able to see what is happening in those squares. Are certain squares excluded from my field of vision? If so which ones.
If none are excluded then I can see all of them. If I can see all of them.... :)
I never said you will...
Just out of curiosity, how do people believe that the Bluff check to gain concealment is supposed to work by RAW?
Guard is looking at you..
You bluff him to make him stop observing you...You then make it to a place to hide.
Anyway we will have to agree to disagree.
No we don't!
*smokebomb*
poof!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even more egregious example of how line of sight does not equal automatic perception.
We handled that a few post ago, and in another thread a few months ago.
You still technically have to make a perception check even without stealth involved. Most GM's just handwave it unless someone is trying to be sneaky.
Just out of curiosity, how do people believe that the Bluff check to gain concealment is supposed to work by RAW?
Guard is looking at you..
You bluff him to make him stop observing you...You then make it to a place to hide.
Thanks for the insight ....
Man, stealth is just all over the place in the rulebooks eh?
Trying to collect relevant lines from the book
Perception
Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.Stealth
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth.Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.
Bright Light
A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover. Areas of bright light include outside in direct sunshine and inside the area of a daylight spell.Dim Light
A creature within an area of dim light can make a Stealth check to conceal itself.Cover
Cover and Stealth Checks: You can use cover to make a Stealth check. Without cover, you usually need concealment (see below) to make a Stealth check.Soft Cover
nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.Improved Cover
Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Stealth checks.Concealment
Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.
So does dim light only allow stealth because dim light grants concealment? Is that why normal light does not mention stealth?
Even more egregious example of how line of sight does not equal automatic perception.We handled that a few post ago, and in another thread a few months ago.
You still technically have to make a perception check even without stealth involved. Most GM's just handwave it unless someone is trying to be sneaky.
I'm still a little confused about how that's supposed to work.
If he doesn't make his perception check - distraction, low Wisdom, distance, whatever, then he doesn't observe me and I can make use stealth, right? But what good does it do me? He already doesn't see me. Does it carry over to his next check?
You still can not use stealth because you have no cover or concealment, but it does not matter because he somehow failed a very easy perception check.
PS:You do not have to use stealth in order to not be noticed. Stealth is just a deliberate attempt to not be noticed.
@thejeff; Apologies, I had removed some of the text for sake of brevity. That particular snippet is in reference to the disagreement as to whether or not you can move from cover point to cover point while remaining undetected via an opposed Perception vs. Stealth check.
I assert that you can, albeit with the possibility of circumstance modifiers (either for or against).
wraithstrike asserts that you cannot, period. That the moment you step from concealment you are seen immediately regardless of the situation (if I am incorrect in this synopsis wraithstrike please correct me, as I do not wish to infer the wrong idea).
We are, it seems, at an impasse. Neither one is going to convince the other that they are correct. /shrug
I was not trying to imply you are auto-seen even though I can see why it seems that way.
I am saying that once you leave cover or concealment you can not use the stealth skill unless the potential observer is distracted.
However if you are far enough away he might fail the perception check anyway, even though that is highly unlikely, most GM's don't call for a perception check unless someone is trying to hide.
Example:
Someone is 100 feat away. The perception DC to see them is 10.
Let say they(the observer) have a modifer of -1 to the perception skill, and they roll a 9.
In that case they(the person 100 feet away) would not be seen, but in most games the GM will just assume the person is seen and not call for a check.
So does dim light only allow stealth because dim light grants concealment? Is that why normal light does not mention stealth?
That is correct. As your quotes show one must have cover or concealment in order to use stealth.
First, thank you for the clarification against the "auto detect". It did seem to me that was what you were stating.
The basis of our disagreement, I believe, is that you say stealth never applies once the individual moves from cover/concealment.
Concealment states you usually need cover to make a Stealth check, not always.
Well it says usually because concealment is not the only way to make a stealth check. If it said always then you could not use cover or a distraction to make a stealth check.
Bright Light does use the word can't (which I am not a fan of as absolutes are almost always incorrect) which supports your stance. The difference in interpretation is that I believe that this does not preclude the ability to move from cover point to cover point, but instead precludes the silliness of trying to say, "He CAN'T see me, I'm using Stealth!" when you are standing in the middle of a sunlit courtyard... dancing a jig.
To be fair bright like does say you can still use stealth if you have cover, but once you leave cover you no longer have cover, and you still trying to use the skill.
I look at it like this. If I need gas(cover/concealment) in my car to get from point A to point B, and I run out of gas before I get to point B then I can't drive(stealth) any farther.
The problem is that in trying to prevent silliness they made it so that it could be taken too literally... which leads to silliness.Edit: And yes, I know Cover says usually you need concealment. But neither are mutualy all inclusive to each other... situation and circumstance is pretty much infinate with regards to possiblities. The writers cannot cover every contingiency. That is what we are for.
I agree that the rules would be nice if they allowed you to walk up behind someone and stab them or run across an open area to hide again but the weakness of the stealth skill was part of the reason for those blogs. Stealth sucks per the current RAW and RAI. I don't expect it to bypass blindsense or any other special ability, but I should be able to walk up behind someone and stab them.
Per the rules you need cover, concealment, or a distraction, and you can't be observed before you make the check.
Yeah we as GM's can always say "well that is silly", but that does not change what the rule is, and in PFS, which I am not a GM for, they don't have that option.
I am sure concealment works in bright light. I chalk that up as a typo, otherwise invisibility would not work since it is concealment.
I am sure concealment works in bright light. I chalk that up as a typo, otherwise invisibility would not work since it is concealment.But it explicitly allows invisibility.
I don't think it's a typo. I suspect it's just that the developers were focusing on "Vision and Light" and weren't thinking of other forms of concealment.
I'm sure it's intended to work, but I'd have an awful hard time justifying by the RAW text.
That still makes it an error if other forms of concealment work by RAI, but not RAW.