Stealth Errata


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Concealment does not bypass blindsense or blindsight, and neither do the new stealth rules. As soon as you move into the range of blindsense of blindsight they know you are there, but to different degrees.

edit:If you meant as long as you stay outside of their range then the new rules don't change anything.


Hendelbolaf wrote:
You are not considered to have concealment while using stealth but you need concealment or cover to use stealth. I think you may have it backwards. If you use Stealth and are not detected, then your foe is just unaware of you. There is no concealment once you have stepped out and are going in for the attack, just stealth. Does that make sense?
Stealth Errata wrote:
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment.

I'm not sure if the difference matters though.


wraithstrike wrote:

Concealment does not bypass blindsense or blindsight, and neither do the new stealth rules. As soon as you move into the range of blindsense of blindsight they know you are there, but to different degrees.

edit:If you meant as long as you stay outside of their range then the new rules don't change anything.

Because it's treated as concealment, which Blindsight/sense ignores?

I guess. I'm not sure I like it though. Not sure it's intended either.


thejeff wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Concealment does not bypass blindsense or blindsight, and neither do the new stealth rules. As soon as you move into the range of blindsense of blindsight they know you are there, but to different degrees.

edit:If you meant as long as you stay outside of their range then the new rules don't change anything.

Because it's treated as concealment, which Blindsight/sense ignores?

I guess. I'm not sure I like it though. Not sure it's intended either.

If you are asking then then yes that is why. Blindsense and Blindsight notice anything with it has line of effect to, and is within the range for the monster.

As an example if you are 100 feet away, and I fail to meet the perception DC then I have no idea you are there. But if you move within range of my blindsight or blindsense I have line of effect then I will know you are there.

This brings up another issue however since blindsense lets me know what square you are in it would make sense to say that I should be able to look into that square and see you instead of only having a 20% miss chance. The same would apply to tremorsense if you are on the ground.

PS: The new rules don't don't anything to negate those abilities. They don't even care if you are invisible.


Of course, before this clarification/change the same was true of regular senses as soon as you left cover/concealment. Normal vision noticed anything it had line of sight to.
Now you can dash from cover to cover without being noticed if you beat their perception check.

I'm not sure it makes sense for blind sight to work differently.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Dr Grecko wrote:

I know this thread is about the Stealth Errata, And if you don't mind a slight hi-jack, I have a question since I don't have my book in front of me right now.

What sentence did they remove from the adding spells section?

"Page 219—In the Adding Spells to a Wizard’s Spellbook section, in the Spells Gained at a New Level paragraph, delete the last sentence of the paragraph."

5 edition CRB wrote:
Spells Gained at a New Level: Wizards perform a certain amount of spell research between adventures. Each time a character attains a new wizard level, he gains two spells of his choice to add to his spellbook. The two free spells must be of spell levels he can cast. If he has chosen to specialize in a school of magic, one of the two free spells must be from his specialty school.

That, I think.

PRD wrote:
Spells Gained at a New Level: Wizards perform a certain amount of spell research between adventures. Each time a character attains a new wizard level, he gains two spells of his choice to add to his spellbook. The two free spells must be of spell levels he can cast.

Confirmed.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
DM_Blake wrote:

I still submit that "unaware" does not automagically equate to "flat-footed" at any time.

From the CRB rules on Initiative, Flat-footed, and Surprise (paraphrased).

  • At the start of a battle you are flat-footed until you get your first turn.
  • When a combat starts, some creatures may be unaware of their enemies.
  • When this happens, there is a surprise round.
  • During a surprise round, those creatures who are unaware have not acted yet, so they are flat-footed.

All of this explicitly says that flat-footed happens at the start of a combat. Flat-footed creatures can obviously be sneak attacked regardless of whether they are aware of their enemies or not. Once a creature acts, that creature is no longer flat-footed.

At that time, even if he is unaware of a particular enemy, he is no longer flat-footed so he is now acting in combat and trying to stay alive, thus he is defending himself. Being unaware of one enemy does not restore him to being flat-footed because that condition only occurs at the start of combat before he got to act.

"unaware" <> "flat-footed"
"unaware" <> "unable to defend himself"
"stealthy" <> "invisible"
"stealthy" <> "total concealment"
"stealthy" = "concealment" but "concealment" <> "invisible"

Until one of those first three gets implemented in raw, or a separate explicit rules change gets implemented, there is still a gap between being sneaky and being able to sneak attack. All the houserules and all the common sense won't change the fact that this gap exists in RAW. Even if every GM (including me) and every player alive agree that RAI is for rogues to sneak attack from steatlh, RAW still has this gap.

So yeah, fine, house-rule all you want. Use common sense all you want. The CRB says you should use common sense. Paizo says you should use common sense. Even PFS, the nitpickeiest set of Pathfinder rules says you should use common sense.

So use it.

But it's still a good idea to know what the real rules are so that you know you're breaking...

Good point. I have always allowed the characters to make a sneak attack when leaving stealth, but making a unaware target flat footed against you don't work. Flat-footeness (if that exist in English) don't end when you are attacked, it end when you act in your turn.

If the combatant unaware of you was automatically flat-footed against you I am sure we would see tons of people arguing that you can make a full attack against him, always befitting from your sneak attack.


You can make a full attack against a flat-footed opponent, always benefiting from sneak attack ... It happens in the first round of combat all the time.


Great to see this finally get resolution, glad that it was able to be boiled down to something that could pass the "Errata Test".

I hit FAQ on it, but thought it's worth mentioning to say that JB's post about Denied Dex/ making single Perception check at most favorable point is very worthwhile to add to the FAQ. On the latter it isn't necessarily 'at the closest distance' since that could have Cover while another square doesn't... So it can be a vague issue. Personally, I think it's reasonable to allow one Perception check to cover all that a Stealth character does, so if the Perception only beats Stealth in the final square of movement (due to shorter distance) even though Cover means no line of sight there, OK, but if it beats it earlier (further away) with line of sight, then that should be allowed as well.


thejeff wrote:
Now you can dash from cover to cover without being noticed if you beat their perception check.

I guess I'm the only person who has trouble with a non epic stealth check basically granting single round invisibility now.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
You can make a full attack against a flat-footed opponent, always benefiting from sneak attack ... It happens in the first round of combat all the time.

In the context of using stealth in the middle of a fight, Ninja.

Stealth don't make you attack flat footed. Being unaware at the start of a fight make him flat footed.
Equating one to the other is a sure way to generate problems.

Pinky's Brain wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Now you can dash from cover to cover without being noticed if you beat their perception check.
I guess I'm the only person who has trouble with a non epic stealth check basically granting single round invisibility now.

You can do that in real life, you need to time your movement so that you avoid the spotting character field of view.

As Pathfinder and 3.5 give characters 360° vision we need to simulate that in another way.


Quandary wrote:
re: making single Perception check at most favorable point...

It also might make sense to explicitly cover how this interacts with the 'Breaking Stealth' rule (not breaking stealth while transiting normal lighting/no-concealment area, or only breaking it when you end turn in such area), that although the area isn't considered to break stealth (until end of turn), it DOES affect the Perception check (most favorable distance, lighting modifiers).


Diego Rossi wrote:
You can do that in real life, you need to time your movement so that you avoid the spotting character field of view.

That's a 4e like conceit, use some BS explanation which on the face sounds reasonable ... but in the actual game simply can't always apply. As I said, you can walk through a courtyard full of soldiers for 6 seconds, 5 feet away from them in passing.

Either they're all conveniently looking away ... or it's temporary invisibility. I'll go with the one which doesn't strain my immersion more, which is to say temporary invisibility.

PS. you could also of course add a caveat that the check can only be made at the DM's discretion ... and then it becomes 5e like, which is not much better.

Sczarni

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber
Pinky's Brain wrote:


Either they're all conveniently looking away ... or it's temporary invisibility. I'll go with the one which doesn't strain my immersion more, which is to say temporary invisibility.

In a courtyard full of soldiers, they would each get a check, if there are 20 or more most likely at least 1 will roll a natural 20 on the check, see you and alert the others giving them a bonus to their checks


Except of course if you rolled high and you're higher level and/or optimized for stealth a 20 won't be enough, no amount of BS will cover it ... it's temporary invisibility.


Pinky's Brain wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
You can do that in real life, you need to time your movement so that you avoid the spotting character field of view.

That's a 4e like conceit, use some BS explanation which on the face sounds reasonable ... but in the actual game simply can't always apply. As I said, you can walk through a courtyard full of soldiers for 6 seconds, 5 feet away from them in passing.

Either they're all conveniently looking away ... or it's temporary invisibility. I'll go with the one which doesn't strain my immersion more, which is to say temporary invisibility.

PS. you could also of course add a caveat that the check can only be made at the DM's discretion ... and then it becomes 5e like, which is not much better.

Or you can go for the other alternative, in which everyone has 360 degree vision and you can never sneak up on anyone at all. No one can ever just not notice someone walking up to them.

Equally BS explanation.

It's got nothing to do with 4e or 5e.


thejeff wrote:
Or you can go for the other alternative, in which everyone has 360 degree vision and you can never sneak up on anyone at all. No one can ever just not notice someone walking up to them.

Which in combat or approaching guards actually doing their job, who don't have good reason to only expect trouble from one direction, is the better way to handle it IMO.

Quote:
It's got nothing to do with 4e or 5e.

Using a conceit as an explanation is 4e like, adding caveats for arbitrarily changing/removing the ability to make checks is 5e like ... recognizing it is a mess but still wanting player usable rules and thus houseruling the mess is 3e like.

I'd add facing for out of combat use of stealth personally.


Thank you for the rules update. This is a great benefit to stealth-using creatures (PCs and NPCs). Catching a pick pocket just got a whole lot more interesting. ; )

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Pinky's Brain wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
You can do that in real life, you need to time your movement so that you avoid the spotting character field of view.

That's a 4e like conceit, use some BS explanation which on the face sounds reasonable ... but in the actual game simply can't always apply. As I said, you can walk through a courtyard full of soldiers for 6 seconds, 5 feet away from them in passing.

Either they're all conveniently looking away ... or it's temporary invisibility. I'll go with the one which doesn't strain my immersion more, which is to say temporary invisibility.

PS. you could also of course add a caveat that the check can only be made at the DM's discretion ... and then it becomes 5e like, which is not much better.

Actually it is a 1st ed. AD&D concept, where you had a facing.

And yes, I could pass unseen shirting the edge of a square full of people listening and looking Bruce Springsteen singing on a stage or a politician speaking.
Or a row of archers firing against a target and facing the other way from me.
After a point the number of persons in the square don't make a difference.

RL the English army trained his men on patrol to cover all angles, first men straight ahead, second the left, third the right, fourth the back of the squad, the next mens covering again the same field of vision, and they were still ambushed or failed to see the enemies.


Diego Rossi wrote:
RL the English army trained his men on patrol to cover all angles, first men straight ahead, second the left, third the right, fourth the back of the squad, the next mens covering again the same field of vision, and they were still ambushed or failed to see the enemies.

Ambushing or hiding are different from normal speed (ie. upright) movement 5 foot in front of them.


thejeff wrote:

Of course, before this clarification/change the same was true of regular senses as soon as you left cover/concealment. Normal vision noticed anything it had line of sight to.

Now you can dash from cover to cover without being noticed if you beat their perception check.

I'm not sure it makes sense for blind sight to work differently.

Blindsight is like radar. You get in range of the radar and they know you are there. Nothing in the new rules says anything about trumping those abilities. Nothing in the monster abilities says they care about concealment.


My PFS ninja is doing a happy dance in my head :D

Thanks for the clarification Jason!

Edit - Also this opens up some more functionality for abilities like Assassinate, yay!

The Exchange

Pinky's Brain wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
RL the English army trained his men on patrol to cover all angles, first men straight ahead, second the left, third the right, fourth the back of the squad, the next mens covering again the same field of vision, and they were still ambushed or failed to see the enemies.
Ambushing or hiding are different from normal speed (ie. upright) movement 5 foot in front of them.

True, but the GM is the final arbiter of circumstance. If the courtyard you mention is grey stone and dirt, with barrels and boxes scattered around, and the guards are just milling around, then run the rules with no change. If the guards are strictly at alert and keeping each other apprised of what they can see, give them a circumstance bonus to their perception. If the courtyard is featureless white stone, then tell the rogue that he just can't sneak past them.

In any case, being able to move 15' from a concealed space to a concealed space means that you can only cross 10' of exposed area without taking the penalty for moving at full speed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

FREQUENTLY ASKED BUT NOT YET ANSWERED QUESTION: A FAQ dealing with the Stealth Skill Concealment parameter for Stealth vs. the Vision & Lighting Dim Lighting/Darkness parameter for Stealth would be great. RAW, V&L seems to be the ultimate requirement (i.e. you need concealment from lighting, other concealment doesn't suffice because normal/bright lighting precludes stealth), but it's just very counterintuitive if that's the case but it's not mentioned in the Stealth Skill (but the general Concealment parameter allowing Stealth IS mentioned).

Assuming that is the case, the only case where Stealth Skill's mention of Concealment (in general) enabling Stealth actually makes any difference (i.e. is not superfluous with the V&L rule) is a case where the Perceiver has Low-Light Vision/Darkvision and is Perceiving the Stealther within a Dim Light/Dark area and there is also some other source of Concealment, i.e. Blur, Adjacent Fog, etc... Albeit that itself is questionable, since Low-Light/Darkvision are worded to treat the areas as normal light (although that gets into for who the area is being treated as a different light category). Even if that case is intended to work like that (making the general Concealment parameter in the Stealth skill NOT 100% superfluous), it is just a rather obscure, non-obvious case, and the continued non-mentioning or non-coherence of the V&L rules with what the Stealth Skill mentions is just very bizarre and unhelpful... If the rules are meant to simultaneously apply, mentioning them both in the same place/paragraph and clarifying their relationship seems highly advisable. As is, MANY players/GMs would never think to look outside Stealth/Perception to find a rule which is a prime limiter of the usage of Stealth.


Quandary wrote:

FREQUENTLY ASKED BUT NOT YET ANSWERED QUESTION: A FAQ dealing with the Stealth Skill Concealment parameter for Stealth vs. the Vision & Lighting Dim Lighting/Darkness parameter for Stealth would be great. RAW, V&L seems to be the ultimate requirement (i.e. you need concealment from lighting, other concealment doesn't suffice because normal/bright lighting precludes stealth), but it's just very counterintuitive if that's the case but it's not mentioned in the Stealth Skill (but the general Concealment parameter allowing Stealth IS mentioned).

Assuming that is the case, the only case where Stealth Skill's mention of Concealment (in general) enabling Stealth actually makes any difference (i.e. is not superfluous with the V&L rule) is a case where the Perceiver has Low-Light Vision/Darkvision and is Perceiving the Stealther within a Dim Light/Dark area and there is also some other source of Concealment, i.e. Blur, Adjacent Fog, etc... Albeit that itself is questionable, since Low-Light/Darkvision are worded to treat the areas as normal light (although that gets into for who the area is being treated as a different light category). Even if that case is intended to work like that (making the general Concealment parameter in the Stealth skill NOT 100% superfluous), it is just a rather obscure, non-obvious case, and the continued non-mentioning or non-coherence of the V&L rules with what the Stealth Skill mentions is just very bizarre and unhelpful... If the rules are meant to simultaneously apply, mentioning them both in the same place/paragraph and clarifying their relationship seems highly advisable. As is, MANY players/GMs would never think to look outside Stealth/Perception to find a rule which is a prime limiter of the usage of Stealth.

No. The V&L section is obviously not consistent with the rest of the rules on concealment.

Your exception for Darkvision doesn't exist, because the V&L section also says "A creature can't hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover."


Yeah... With Darkvision out, that leaves an even smaller corner case for Low Light Vision/Dim Lighting (if that works at all, or whether the area being treated as normal light also precludes you from Stealthing vs the Low-Light Vision Perceivers... does it matter if the STEALTHER has Low Light Vision too, with lacking it being preferable?). If the Low-Light Vision thing doesn't work because of that, then the Stealth Skill mentioning of Concealment (in general) is just totally superfluous (not to mention misleading).

That quote "A creature can't hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover." just highlight just how bizarre it is for this to be in V&L but NOT anywhere in the Stealth Skill, when that is clearly a parameter that is crucially and inherently related to the primary use case of Stealth. If non-Lighting-related Concealment is to only be relevant for a very narrow scenario of Low Light Vision, why not have the general rule be for Dim Lighting/Darkness/Invisibility and make an exception for other Concealment (Blur, etc) in areas of Dim Lighting where there Perceiver has Low-Light Vision (if that is intended). Anyhow, the RAW is just confusing here, all I'm asking for is clarification, as I don't find the current text satisfying by any reading. It is far from clear what is 'reasonable intent' here, flavor-wise I could see arguments for and against other forms of Concealment (Blur, etc) enabling Stealth just as much as Dim Lighting... So I'm really hoping this gets answered this time around.

And of course, there are some creatures who can 'see' without using light/vision at all... they may well be the sole case where the Stealth Skill's mention of Concealment (in general) enabling Stealth may be relevant (vs. the L&V rules) since neither Darkvision or Low-Light Vision is in play, although they generally don't have wording removing the normal/bright lighting conditions (and their prohibition of stealth) so that would leave such functionality bizarrely dependent on dim light/darkness conditions.


It's pretty obvious that the intent is that you can't use lighting conditions to hide if it's bright or normal, nor can you hide in the dark from someone who can see in it.
It's just incredibly badly written.

Note as well that it doesn't say you can't hide from someone with Darkvision, but that you can't hide within 60' of someone with darkvision. He could be a buddy trying to sneak up with you and you still can't do it by RAW.

Much like a literal reading of "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth." means that if your party is watching you, you can't sneak up on the monsters around the corner. You're being observed. Not by the guy you're sneaking up on, but that's not what the text says.

You've got to interpret all of this with some common sense.

Sovereign Court

So I'm still not clear on this -

1) When do people roll Perception to notice McRogue sneaking past?
2) How often do people roll Perception?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

So I'm still not clear on this -

1) When do people roll Perception to notice McRogue sneaking past?
2) How often do people roll Perception?

"Jason Bulmahn wrote:
1. For simplicities sake, it should be assumed that those making Perception checks get to do so at the most favorable point during the movement of a character using Stealth, to avoid making checks every time the condition changes. Technically, I think you would get a check whenever the conditions change, but that might make things overly complicated during play.

Technically, he says you should roll once at the most likely time to spot him, which would probably be the closest point. I would usually probably make the roll at the start of movement and if you made it you would notice him at the point where the modifiers would allow you to notice him with that roll.

That was clear as mud. An example:
Sneaky McRogue starts 35' away (-3) on the other side of a wall (-10). He has to move within 10' of you to get by.
You both roll. His Stealth, your Perception.
If you beat him by 13 or more, you realize he's there at the start.
If you beat him by 3 to 12, you see him as soon as he's clear of the wall.
If you beat him by 2, you see him when he's less than 30' away.
If you beat him by 1, you see him when he's less than 20' away.
If you make his roll exactly, you see him when he's less than 10' away.
Otherwise you don't see him at all.

I wouldn't allow multiple rolls, not just because it's overly complicated, but because it would massively nerf Stealth. You would only need to make one Perception roll to spot him. The more rolls, the more chances of pulling it off.


most perception rolls you roll when presented with "stimulus" this includes someone sneaking past you, because they might be making noise, etc. If you fail, you don't get to make another perception check until the conditions change (a gm call) or until you spend a move action to actively perceive your area. So the first is a freebee, the second costs you (if you're even aware enough to use it. Using the move action most often happens in combat when you see other people reacting because they made their checks).

In answer to your question, You realize where his is when he tries to sneak past you, because that is the most dangerous point where he can get caught, i.e. the rogue determines the risk point. If he didn't sneak past you and stayed behind cover, you still roll perception because he might be making noise or some such. In that case you might know "someone is there", but can't pinpoint them. In any case, the GM calls for the number of rolls.

I agree with you about avoiding too many rolls. I might have one stealth roll for operating behind cover/concealment and then just roll whenever someone tries to hop between cover/conceal or tried to sneak up and stab someone.

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:

An example:

Sneaky McRogue starts 35' away (-3) on the other side of a wall (-10). He has to move within 10' of you to get by.
You both roll. His Stealth, your Perception.
If you beat him by 13 or more, you realize he's there at the start.
If you beat him by 3 to 12, you see him as soon as he's clear of the wall.
If you beat him by 2, you see him when he's less than 30' away.
If you beat him by 1, you see him when he's less than 20' away.
If you make his roll exactly, you see him when he's less than 10' away.
Otherwise you don't see him at all.

This is the clearest I've seen it put. Superb.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pinky's Brain wrote:
Except of course if you rolled high and you're higher level and/or optimized for stealth a 20 won't be enough, no amount of BS will cover it ... it's temporary invisibility.

If you're THAT good that's the sort of thing you're SUPPOSED to be able to pull off because its a game of heroic fantasy, not a heist simulator.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

People think having 20 ranks in a skill should just let them beat higher DCs with it, not do more powerful things.

I disagree.


brock, no the other one... wrote:
thejeff wrote:

An example:

Sneaky McRogue starts 35' away (-3) on the other side of a wall (-10). He has to move within 10' of you to get by.
You both roll. His Stealth, your Perception.
If you beat him by 13 or more, you realize he's there at the start.
If you beat him by 3 to 12, you see him as soon as he's clear of the wall.
If you beat him by 2, you see him when he's less than 30' away.
If you beat him by 1, you see him when he's less than 20' away.
If you make his roll exactly, you see him when he's less than 10' away.
Otherwise you don't see him at all.
This is the clearest I've seen it put. Superb.

I think this is a good way to run it.

I would have them roll perception at the beginning, and just note the points at which the DC changes.

Sovereign Court

I agree with rolling once, I just wasn't sure what the new rule said about it. I think rolling too often would stack probabilities against the stealther way too much - it's hard enough sneaking past a lot of people each making one roll.

---

Another question. As I understand, the following is legal (assuming McRogue keeps rolling well):

Round 1: McRogue starts out in the open but on his turn ends up behind concealment.

Round 2: McRogue begins sneaking in this concealed area but moved out into the open, makes a Sneak Attack. Stealth broken by attacking.

Then on round 3 he does the same as in Round 1; moving into concealment again. And on round 4 he stealths on the way in and Sneak Attacks again. Repeat ad nauseam.

So you can play SA-hit and run, but there's a delay because you have to start the turn in a hideable spot. You could speed it up with Spring Attack though, if you can get to the enemy and back into hiding again.

Am I correct here?


I'd say so. Though after Turn 1, the enemy knows roughly where you are and could move to see you, depending on what you're using to hide.


Ascalaphus wrote:

I agree with rolling once, I just wasn't sure what the new rule said about it. I think rolling too often would stack probabilities against the stealther way too much - it's hard enough sneaking past a lot of people each making one roll.

---

Another question. As I understand, the following is legal (assuming McRogue keeps rolling well):

Round 1: McRogue starts out in the open but on his turn ends up behind concealment.

Round 2: McRogue begins sneaking in this concealed area but moved out into the open, makes a Sneak Attack. Stealth broken by attacking.

Then on round 3 he does the same as in Round 1; moving into concealment again. And on round 4 he stealths on the way in and Sneak Attacks again. Repeat ad nauseam.

So you can play SA-hit and run, but there's a delay because you have to start the turn in a hideable spot. You could speed it up with Spring Attack though, if you can get to the enemy and back into hiding again.

Am I correct here?

You can't start out in the open if you are being observed.

Also once you attack someone stealth ends so they would see you running back to your hiding spot.

Sovereign Court

You can certainly start out in the open. Note that McRogue does NOT start out stealthed.

My point is: does it matter if people where you're hiding, as long as it provides concealment?


wraithstrike wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

I agree with rolling once, I just wasn't sure what the new rule said about it. I think rolling too often would stack probabilities against the stealther way too much - it's hard enough sneaking past a lot of people each making one roll.

---

Another question. As I understand, the following is legal (assuming McRogue keeps rolling well):

Round 1: McRogue starts out in the open but on his turn ends up behind concealment.

Round 2: McRogue begins sneaking in this concealed area but moved out into the open, makes a Sneak Attack. Stealth broken by attacking.

Then on round 3 he does the same as in Round 1; moving into concealment again. And on round 4 he stealths on the way in and Sneak Attacks again. Repeat ad nauseam.

So you can play SA-hit and run, but there's a delay because you have to start the turn in a hideable spot. You could speed it up with Spring Attack though, if you can get to the enemy and back into hiding again.

Am I correct here?

You can't start out in the open if you are being observed.

Also once you attack someone stealth ends so they would see you running back to your hiding spot.

Exactly. And then the next turn, you start in concealment and can use stealth.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Excellent!
Thanks, Paizo.

Ruyan.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

People think having 20 ranks in a skill should just let them beat higher DCs with it, not do more powerful things.

I disagree.

@TOZ. I Agree with you soooooooo much.

Also one of the reasons the skill monkey don’t really work as a concept, at least not at higher levels.

Your post is one of my top 10 favorite posts of all time on these messageboards.

Shadow Lodge

Aww shucks.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
If you're THAT good that's the sort of thing you're SUPPOSED to be able to pull off because its a game of heroic fantasy, not a heist simulator.

I agree up to a point, but skills generally shy away from being Ex abilities pre-epic ... temporary invisibility for exceeding perception by one ore more breaks the mold.

If all skills were a little more potent pre-epic it would be more palatable.

Sovereign Court

Pinky's Brain wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If you're THAT good that's the sort of thing you're SUPPOSED to be able to pull off because its a game of heroic fantasy, not a heist simulator.

I agree up to a point, but skills generally shy away from being Ex abilities pre-epic ... temporary invisibility for exceeding perception by one ore more breaks the mold.

If all skills were a little more potent pre-epic it would be more palatable.

This is the attitude that results in overpowered casters. Oh no 20 ranks in a skill is almost as strong as a weak spell! Well, don't you think non-casters need abilities like this for balance? Not to mention the fact that despite all the effort of using stealth, a rogue sneak attack usually averages less damage than a fighter who just walks up and power attacks with a greatsword.

Anyway, to be more comfortable with the plausibility of stealthing across open areas what you should do is stop equating the stealth skill to the invisibility spell.

The rogue is not using his stealth skills to cast invisibility. He is using his years of experience to outsmart your guards. He sees their patterns and finds the perfect moment to slip past all of them at once. If the perception bonus on your guards is a lot lower than his stealth bonus, it indicates that they are simply not highly trained and alert enough to notice him. If not, one of them should spot him.

We tend to have an inflated sense of our own visual abilities. This might change your opinion on the limitations of human perception: 50% of subjects do not notice the gorilla in this clip when told to focus on the basketballs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

It is really not that hard to sneak past people, especially in the midst of combat. I do it in paintball all the time, and I'm a statistician not a highly skilled rogue with superhuman ability stats. The lack of vision cones and in-combat tunnel vision (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otc0vzqtWuI) in pathfinder is highly unrealistic. In reality when a person is engaged in combat almost all their attention MUST remain on the opponents in front of them and they would be lucky to notice an elephant walk behind them. Whipping your head around to check 360 degrees would just result in dying to the enemy right in front of you, as they will strike the instant you turn your attention. That is why it is so critical to protect one's flanks in combat. At least pathfinder does have the flanking mechanics to simulate this to some degree.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Pinky's Brain wrote:

I agree up to a point, but skills generally shy away from being Ex abilities pre-epic ... temporary invisibility for exceeding perception by one ore more breaks the mold.

If all skills were a little more potent pre-epic it would be more palatable.

If a 1st-level Expert with a +4 Disguise skill rolls a 20, a 20th-level Wizard with permanent true seeing will be none the wiser.


I guess that wizard never took ranks in perception? Is it that surprising then that he can't see through someones makeup with magic?

The Exchange

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Ah, so I'm seeing what the problem is now. The PRD text is different from the Core Rulebook Errata PDF.

Errata PDF wrote:
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.
PRD Website wrote:
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment.

Based on what Jason said above, I'm pretty sure that the Errata document is the correct text, and the PRD is a typo.

Edit: Mebolex caught it a full page before me. Whoops.


Atan wrote:
The rogue is not using his stealth skills to cast invisibility. He is using his years of experience to outsmart your guards. He sees their patterns and finds the perfect moment to slip past all of them at once.

He has a couple seconds to pick from at best (since he can get full round of movement in there isn't much time to wait around).


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Couple of notes I want to add here...

1. For simplicities sake, it should be assumed that those making Perception checks get to do so at the most favorable point during the movement of a character using Stealth, to avoid making checks every time the condition changes. Technically, I think you would get a check whenever the conditions change, but that might make things overly complicated during play.

2. Creatures are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC "if they cannot react to a blow" (CR pg 179 under AC). It was our intent that if you are unaware of a threat, you cannot react to a blow. I think we probably should have spelled this out a wee bit clearer, but space in the Stealth description was extraordinarily tight and ever word was at a premium. That said, I think these changes clear up the situation immensely (compared to where they were.. which was nebulous at best).

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

I just saw this all today. Wanted to say thank you for the errata and your own comments, it clears a lot of things up. You guys are all awesome.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hiya.

They only need to add one sentence to make it perfect now:

"The GM should use his judgement for situations that don't seem logical, with the stipulations above used as a guideline, for final determination if Stealth is broken or not."

Problem solved.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

101 to 150 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Stealth Errata All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.