Can the designers please fix the Stealth rules?

[Robert A Matthews]

Blur = Stealth in plain sight

Blur wrote:

The subject's outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).

[thejeff]

Robert A Matthews wrote:

Blur = Stealth in plain sight

Blur wrote:

The subject's outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).

Yes. Though it's been argued that it's not intended.

Part of the reason it's kind of silly to be so adamant about "Oh no! you can't possibly sneak up on someone in the light. It would break everything. Unless you use a second level spell to do it, then it's fine."

[Ross Byers]

I removed a couple posts that were Not Helping.

[Ninja in the Rye]

Again I'm going to ask:

Using Skills wrote:

When your character uses a skill, he isn't guaranteed success. In order to determine success, whenever you attempt to use a skill, you must make a skill check.

Stealth wrote:

Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action.

So it says you make a check as part of movement, not that you keep continually making checks as you move. Using a skill = making a skill check.

If I have cover I can make a stealth check as I start to move, I have now used stealth as part of that movement. There is nothing about me needing to continue making stealth checks as I move to continue benefiting from stealth.

So why does my movement later leaving cover matter if I've already used stealth for this movement?

[3.5 Loyalist]

Tempestorm wrote:

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.

Yeah this has always made me wonder, and it is why I have facing. I think xorns see all around them, and a few other enemies.

[DM_Blake]

Tempestorm wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Quote:

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.

You are correct, it is not hard to understand. It's a simple opposed role modified (often heavily) by circumstance. Heck, it may even prove to be impossible in a given situation. That doesn't mean it is ALWAYS impossible.

Where are you getting this? Where in the rulebook does it say Stealth can be used in plain sight with a big circumstance penalty? I've seen you use those words more than once in this thread alone, so it's time for a citation.

Specifically:
1. Where does it explicitly state you can use Stealth in plain sight? I can and have cited where it does not, so now I'm looking for the opposing citation. You cannot use Stealth while being observed. It's in the Stealth rule. If you deem that someone who isn't observed is eligible to roll for Stealth, my question then is "Why bother since he isn't observing me anyway?".
2. Where does it detail the (often heavy) circumstance penalty on your Stealth check in plain sight? I cannot find one chart, table, or bit of text to tell me what that penalty is, but I can find the DC to see someone in plain sight in the table under the Perception skill - it is DC=0, not DC=Opposed by Stealth.

[Tempestorm]

"Why bother since he isn't observing me anyway?"
Because he could. But he might not. Hence the opposed roll (Stealth vs. Perception) as you move from cover point to cover point. You aren't standing in plain sight, you are hiding (behind a bush, a tree, a box, a (insert infinite things one could be hiding behind here)) as you begin your move you roll stealth they roll perception. If successful you move to another cover point (if there are any, if there is not then the simple perception check vs. perception would likely apply).

Everything that happens in the game can be modified via circumstance modifiers. The Stealth & Perception write ups list broad term examples of modifiers. The DM is a living, breathing, thinking (at least I hope all of these apply to your DM) being who can make judgment calls and adjuticate situations based on the given circumstances. The "Rules" allow for this.

When this approach is followed the game works. When the game is treated as a computer program to be adjuticated by 1's and 0's it breaks. Period.

Once again, I will state, I am not equating Stealth to Invisibility. Nor am I equating Perception to Clairvoyance. I am simply using the guidelines in the book to resolve someone attempting to be sneaky... and it works just fine.

[Tempestorm]

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Tempestorm wrote:

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.

Yeah this has always made me wonder, and it is why I have facing. I think xorns see all around them, and a few other enemies.

As I stated earlier Loyalist I was being a bit facetious when I made that post. I was aware of the All-around Vision(Ex) ability that a certain hand few of creatures have. The comment was made because the term "all around" and "360 degree field" were being used quite a bit.

You may be correct on Xorns, I am not certain off the top of my head.

Regardless it seems most are in agreement that for most creatures it is a potential 360 degree field of vision. The hang up is does that mean if someone is trying to slip past your guard they get a perception check vs. DC 0 modified by distance and other circumstances or is it an opposed Stealth vs. Perception because, you know, the person is trying to be sneaky and started from cover whilst trying to get to more cover without being seen. /shrug

At any rate, I believe I am finished. Typing in circles is exhausting and I really don't see anyone truly budging on their view points.

I will simply close by saying treat your games as living breathing things, not binary code, and they will work just fine. Or they won't. But the game will go on anyway, if you let it.

[3.5 Loyalist]

I would agree, it is why I question why some are so against house rules. House rules are the just the rules as expressed through a dm and their group. There will be changes, differing interpretations, some limitations, but hopefully some new ideas and smooth smooth usage.

Like diplomacy, it has its place and what it represents, but it isn't quite the same as large scale oratory or winning an argument in public, so we added a new skill but you can use your diplomacy for oratory, on a -4.

[wraithstrike]

For what its worth we should be getting clarification "soon". That is why I stopped debating the issue. :)

[Tempestorm]

Could I get the RAW definition of this "Soon" term wraith? ;)

Sorry, couldn't resist. lol

[thejeff]

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

I would agree, it is why I question why some are so against house rules. House rules are the just the rules as expressed through a dm and their group. There will be changes, differing interpretations, some limitations, but hopefully some new ideas and smooth smooth usage.

Like diplomacy, it has its place and what it represents, but it isn't quite the same as large scale oratory or winning an argument in public, so we added a new skill but you can use your diplomacy for oratory, on a -4.

Lots of people on all sides of this issue have mentioned house rules. It's still nice to have an understanding of what we're houseruling from.

Some people have also said they played it RAW and had no problems, but when questioned either mentioned house rules or very different understandings of RAW from each other.

[pH unbalanced]

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

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).

Do you have to make him aware of you first? Can't you use the hoary old 'throw a rock into the bushes so you can sneak past him' trick as a Bluff check for distraction? (Or the Pathfinder update of that -- Ghost Sound?)

[DM_Blake]

The diversion-to-find-cover rule specifically states that you are creating your own diversion to make an enemy lose track of you while you move away to get cover/concealment and try a new Stealth check.

That's RAW.

So yes, it starts by having you being observed.

While there are no RAW rules for a hidden (successful use of Stealth) character trying to create a diversion to move through an observed area to get cover/concealment on the other side of that observed area and try a new Stealth check, it's quite obvious that the same basic mechanic can be applied with only a little refluffing - instead of saying "Hey, what's that behind you?" to create your diversion, you toss a rock behind the observer.

Same bluff check to "deceive" the observer long enough to create your diversion.

Either way, the game mechanic causes the observer (potential observer) to become momentarily distracted to allow you to move out of/through an observed location into one with cover/concealment and attempt a Stealth check.

RAW? Not quite. Easily refluffed RAW to apply to a situation that isn't covered in the rules? Definitely.