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
Nah, I'd simply rather have a hard-and-fast rule that works and makes sense. Everything is up to DM discretion anyway; spelling it out every time there's a clunky rule just looks like a heaping helping of duct tape, instead of actual fixes to the engine.
Fix it right the first time; no need to codify DM discretion, they're already using it.
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
The GM is supposed to do that anyway. That is what rule 0 is for.
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
Not helpful. Given that this is already a presupposition of the entire game, your condescension that you or your GM will have better or more desirable common sense than any other GM is inapplicable.
Maybe they should add one more sentence too:
"Your ability to use common sense to sort out confusing and internally conflicting rules is not superior to anyone else's."
And maybe another sentence would be helpful:
"Common sense is all well and good, but a working game mechanic is far more universally applicable."
|
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
Not helpful. Given that this is already a presupposition of the entire game, your condescension that you or your GM will have better or more desirable common sense than any other GM is inapplicable.
Maybe they should add one more sentence too:
"Your ability to use common sense to sort out confusing and internally conflicting rules is not superior to anyone else's."
And maybe another sentence would be helpful:
"Common sense is all well and good, but a working game mechanic is far more universally applicable."
Man, your GM must be a real PITA.
dot
|
How easy is it to regain stealth?
Could a rogue next to an opponent use a move action to go behind a tree (possibly taking an AoO), roll stealth, then emerge from behind the tree back to where he was (end of move action) (roll stealth again maybe?) and then attack that opponent with a sneak attack?
Richard
|
|
Ok, so the Rogue could do it with two turns: one to move behind the tree, roll stealth (to become "stealthed") and wait. If the opponent doesn't move so that the rogue no longer has cover from the tree then the next round he emerges from cover, rolls stealth, attacks with sneak attack and no AoO.
Richard
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I like this, it makes spring attack nasty for rogues.
Two guards guarding the entrance. Randy Rogue is in concealment.
Cool :-)
Richard Develyn:
Basically, yes. But if the guard does walk around the tree and sees the rogue because cover is broken, the stealth will end immediately. The more interesting question is this:
"Can a rogue move around a tree and, as part of the move, gain stealth. Then with his standard action, ready to stab the guard as he comes around the tree. If so, does this count as attacking from stealth and does it grant the rogue the sneak attack damage and impose any AC/Dex penalties on the guard?"
I'd argue no because the guard knows where the rogue is. That said, the guard could also just circle around the tree so he is not adjacent when he sees the rogue... though the rogue could just ready action to throw a dagger when the guard comes into sight.
Matthew Morris:
Spring attack won't work like that. When he attacks, he breaks the stealth. So when he ends his turn in concealment, he is no longer stealthed.
The bit about starting/ending in concealment is how you remain stealthed while you move through an area without concealment. Note that the line about how attacking instantly breaks stealth is right there in the same paragraph.
I like this, it makes spring attack nasty for rogues.
Two guards guarding the entrance. Randy Rogue is in concealment.
Steps out of concealment
Spring attacks Meyer, doing enough damage to kill him. completes movement in concealment.
Boyajian failed to beat his stealth check, so he sees his buddy drop dead suddenly but didn't see who did it. Cool :-)
This is wrong. He wouldn't see the rogue before he hit his buddy, but when his buddy drops, he sees the rogue sprinting back to his cover.
I'd argue no because the guard knows where the rogue is.Knowing where something is doesn't break stealth.
Actually, the guard wouldn't know, though he might think he knows. The rogue could have climbed up the tree, disappeared down a trap door, gone invisible and gone somewhere else, etc.
Richard
It is an odd situation. The guard knows where the threat is (or thinks he does; we'll assume he's right and the rogue is just standing behind the tree). At what point, as he walks around the tree, does he see the rogue and at what point does the rogue's readied action trigger?
Does he see the rogue before the rogue attacks, thus denying the sneak attack/AC penalties? Does the fact that he knows there is a rogue waiting to stab him mean anything?
I believe the rules do not favor the poor about-to-be-stabbed-in-the-gizzard guard. Poor guard.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
This is wrong. He wouldn't see the rogue before he hit his buddy, but when his buddy drops, he sees the rogue sprinting back to his cover.I like this, it makes spring attack nasty for rogues.
Two guards guarding the entrance. Randy Rogue is in concealment.
Steps out of concealment
Spring attacks Meyer, doing enough damage to kill him. completes movement in concealment.
Boyajian failed to beat his stealth check, so he sees his buddy drop dead suddenly but didn't see who did it. Cool :-)
I beleive you are incorrect. He begins and finishes his turn in concealment. He never attacked Boyajian, so he never took an action with Boyajain that broke his stealth. IF Meyer survives the hit, yes stealth is broken for Meyer, but all Boyajian sees is Meyer dead.
It is also a classic stealth trope. Two guards go past, Ahnold rises from cover (moving while under stealth) snaps the rear guard's neck (makes his spring attack) and ducks back into shadows. First guard keeps going, or spins and sees nothing.
Or does guard #2 in your scenario see the rogue sneaking away after picking guard #1's pocket instead of shiving him in the neck?
Edit: More imporantly, it is a valid interpretation.
Now, if you slay that target with one hit, and still could maintain Stealth from all other foes in the area (if say, it is dark and they cannot see you), a GM might reasonably interpret that you could maintain Stealth from other foes, but that requires GM interpretation and is not really the point of this particular situation.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I beleive you are incorrect. He begins and finishes his turn in concealment. He never attacked Boyajian, so he never took an action with Boyajain that broke his stealth. IF Meyer survives the hit, yes stealth is broken for Meyer, but all Boyajian sees is Meyer dead.
Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).
I'm not seeing any sort of single-observer qualifier. It doesn't say "Your Stealth against the target of the attack ends", it just says "Your Stealth ends". Where are you getting the selectiveness from? Did I overlook something?
Or does guard #2 in your scenario see the rogue sneaking away after picking guard #1's pocket instead of shiving him in the neck?
There's nothing in the Stealth skill description that says picking a pocket causes your stealth to immediately end like there is for attacking.
EDIT: Ninja'd by an edit.
I beleive you are incorrect. He begins and finishes his turn in concealment. He never attacked Boyajian, so he never took an action with Boyajain that broke his stealth. IF Meyer survives the hit, yes stealth is broken for Meyer, but all Boyajian sees is Meyer dead.It is also a classic stealth trope. Two guards go past, Ahnold rises from cover (moving while under stealth) snaps the rear guard's neck (makes his spring attack) and ducks back into shadows. First guard keeps going, or spins and sees nothing.
Or does guard #2 in your scenario see the rogue sneaking away after picking guard #1's pocket instead of shiving him in the neck?
Edit: More imporantly, it is a valid interpretation.
Now, if you slay that target with one hit, and still could maintain Stealth from all other foes in the area (if say, it is dark and they cannot see you), a GM might reasonably interpret that you could maintain Stealth from other foes, but that requires GM interpretation and is not really the point of this particular situation.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
He took an attack action, which immediately ends his stealth. If the guard has unobstructed line of sight to the rogue at that point, the guard sees him, no check needed, because immediately after the attack, the rogue is not stealthed.
There is a reason the assassin prestige class has an ability quiet death.
Quiet Death (Ex): At 6th level, whenever an assassin kills a creature using his death attack during a surprise round, he can also make a Stealth check, opposed by Perception checks of those in the vicinity to prevent them from identifying him as the assailant. If successful, those nearby might not even notice that the target is dead for a few moments, allowing the assassin to avoid detection.
This lets the assassin attack someone with death attack, and not be realized as the one who made the attack. They still might see him, but they won't know he is the one who killed. (I'm thinking target is in a crowd, assassin can study, death attack, and make stealth check to just walk on with no one the wiser until the target falls over.)
Even this wouldn't avoid the 2nd guard from seeing the assassin, merely from knowing the assassin is the one who killed his friend.
|
My interpretation is that the 2nd guard would see the Rogue after he attacked his buddy. The Rogue would need to still be in cover at his next turn, assuming the Guard doesn't go and attack him after the other dropped dead, to try and stealth again. The guard might even get a circumstance bonus as he seen the Rogue take cover after offing his bud.
But sneak attacking the first guard isn't something to be sneezed at, and other PC's may be around to keep the Guard busy as the Rogue tries to sneak about.
Yeesh this is a hot loaf. Thank goodness for the errata so people can stop arguing. What? They fixed stealth and people are still arguing? Glad I'm not smart enough to dissect the rules on a molecular level like some here else I'd miss the big picture! It is now easier to sneak attack as a rogue and to use stealth in general. Ok folks flame on.
Stealth still has issues with invisibility, but it is better. For those of us that play at home it is a smaller issue. For those of us in PFS this really needs to be fixed.
That makes sense. Hope it gets fully ironed out in that case!
|
|
I like this, it makes spring attack nasty for rogues.
Two guards guarding the entrance. Randy Rogue is in concealment.
Steps out of concealment
Spring attacks Meyer, doing enough damage to kill him. completes movement in concealment.
Boyajian failed to beat his stealth check, so he sees his buddy drop dead suddenly but didn't see who did it. Cool :-)
Wrong:
Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).
Your example rogue isn't sniping, so he is detected as soon as he attack.
He can regain Stealth, with a new check, if he end his movement in a location giving him concealment or cover, but he is fully visible during his second part of the spring attack, so Boyajian would know perfectly where he disappeared (unless the rogue was capable to move several squares benefiting from total concealment).
I beleive you are incorrect. He begins and finishes his turn in concealment. He never attacked Boyajian, so he never took an action with Boyajain that broke his stealth. IF Meyer survives the hit, yes stealth is broken for Meyer, but all Boyajian sees is Meyer dead.It is also a classic stealth trope. Two guards go past, Ahnold rises from cover (moving while under stealth) snaps the rear guard's neck (makes his spring attack) and ducks back into shadows. First guard keeps going, or spins and sees nothing.
Or does guard #2 in your scenario see the rogue sneaking away after picking guard #1's pocket instead of shiving him in the neck?
Edit: More imporantly, it is a valid interpretation.
No, it isn't a valid interpretation. The rule don't say "attacking break stealth against the target", it say "Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll2, cut and dry.
Your interpretation as the same value as saying "attacking when invisible break invisibility only against the target".
Now, if you slay that target with one hit, and still could maintain stealth from all other foes in the area (if say, it is dark and they cannot see you), a GM might reasonably interpret that you could maintain Stealth from other foes, but that requires GM interpretation and is not really the point of this particular situation.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
You are trying to invent a general rule from a specific example that say explicitly "that requires GM interpretation" and " GM might reasonably interpret". When something require specific GM interpretation to be applicable it is a bad source to invent a general rule that will be applied by default, as you have presented it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I love how Diego has to say "Wrong" like he is the arbitrator of all, then has to say "And just ignore what the designer said, that it is a GM call and thus possible."
Again, I'm talking about Move-Stabbity-Move in your turn something that is specifically allowed in the rules, if you burn three feats. You half move when you stealth anyway, moving at full speed in another penalty. Difficult as heck, but not impossible.
He probably could have been nicer about it, but he is correct. Once you stab someone your stealth ends by the rules.
|
|
Your example rogue isn't sniping, so he is detected as soon as he attack.
He can regain Stealth, with a new check, if he end his movement in a location giving him concealment or cover, but he is fully visible during his second part of the spring attack, so Boyajian would know perfectly where he disappeared (unless the rogue was capable to move several squares benefiting from total concealment).
I believe I pointed that out above...
|
|
I love how Diego has to say "Wrong" like he is the arbitrator of all, then has to say "And just ignore what the designer said, that it is a GM call and thus possible."
Again, I'm talking about Move-Stabbity-Move in your turn something that is specifically allowed in the rules, if you burn three feats. You half move when you stealth anyway, moving at full speed in another penalty. Difficult as heck, but not impossible.
The rules and FAD are very clear:
you attack, you lose stealth.Bullman said that in very particular circumstances the GM can use Rule 0 and rule differently, but that is not the normal rules, that is using rule 0.
I, as a GM, dislike the idea of people making magic items with spells that could be cast only by character 5 or 10 levels above their current level and disallow that, but it is houseruling and using Rule 0, I don't clam that as the norm.
Try that tactic as a GM in PFS and see what happen.
I like this, it makes spring attack nasty for rogues.Two guards guarding the entrance. Randy Rogue is in concealment.
Steps out of concealment
Spring attacks Meyer, doing enough damage to kill him. completes movement in concealment.
Boyajian failed to beat his stealth check, so he sees his buddy drop dead suddenly but didn't see who did it.Cool :-)
It is not Move-Stabbity-Move, it is Move-Stabbity-Move WITOUT EVER LOSING STEALTH.
|
|
@Diego: with Spring Attack it's actually slightly different:
1) Start out hidden.
2) Move in stealthily.
3) Attack.
4) Lose stealth due to attacking.
5) Move back into hiding.
Next round: goto 1.
So while you could repeat this every round, you do lose stealth every round, you just get it back again. But people can see where you went to hide, so they might step around the corner, or step away far enough that you can't do the same routine the next round.
|
|
@Diego: with Spring Attack it's actually slightly different:
1) Start out hidden.
2) Move in stealthily.
3) Attack.
4) Lose stealth due to attacking.
5) Move back into hiding.Next round: goto 1.
So while you could repeat this every round, you do lose stealth every round, you just get it back again. But people can see where you went to hide, so they might step around the corner, or step away far enough that you can't do the same routine the next round.
I know, but, on the basis of Bulman comment, Matthew was arguing that you can attack without ever losing stealth.
Read the whole sequence of posts. Reading Matthew post it seem that "Move-Stabbity-Move WITHOUT EVER LOSING STEALTH" is something you can do normally, while I argued that in some situations the GM can claim rule 0 and let it work that way, but it is a exceptional situation, not the norm.
Regaining stealth at the end of the move if you are in a concealed position is completely different from never losing it.
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.
Perhaps what needs to be amended is
* stealth grants total concealment from a foe that fails their perception check; and* SA is possible when you have total concealment from the foe (including invisibility, foe is blinded, foe fails their perception check).
|
I just started playing a rogue who tries to get sneak attack damage from ranged attacks (sniping). I need some help (please!) understanding what my protocol should be.
Round 1: I believe I am stealthed. I shoot/snipe and then stealth as a move action at the end of my turn. I notice that the GM lets me apply my sneak attack damage. That means I was stealthed at the beginning of my turn. I still don't know whether my Stealth check at the end of my turn (at the -20) was successful or not.
Round 2: I assume that my Stealth check at the end of Round 1 was successful. I shoot/snipe and then stealth at the end of my turn. I notice that the GM lets me apply my sneak attack damage. That means that I made my Stealth check at the end of Round 1. However, I do not know whether or not I made the Stealth check I just attempted at the end of Round 2.
Round 3: I assume that my Stealth check at the end of Round 2 was successful. I shoot/snipe and then stealth at the end of my turn. I notice that the GM does NOT let me apply my sneak attack damage. I only hit for normal damage. That means that I did not make my Stealth check at the end of Round 2. It also means I was not stealthed at the beginning of Round 3.
My question is for Round 4...
Possibility 1:
I am forced to sit out Round 4 (doing nothing but a Stealth check) if I want to start getting sneak attack damage again (Rounds 5 and on). In another words, were I to attack in Round 4, there would be 0% chance of successfully sniping for sneak attack damage because I was not stealthed at the beginning of Round 3.
Possibility 2:
Even though I was not stealthed at the beginning of Round 3, there is the chance I made my Stealth check at the end of Round 3, and therefore I still have a chance to successfully snipe for sneak attack damage in Round 4. Therefore I snipe/attack in Round 4 (with the possibility of successfully sniping for sneak attack damage) and stealth as a move action at the end of Round 4.
Possibility 3:
Once I've noticed that sneak attack damage has not been applied, I know I must move to a different location in order to get sneak attack in the future. Therefore, in Round 4, I simply move to a different place with cover/concealment and stealth at the end of Round 4. At the beginning of Round 5, I can attempt to snipe again for sneak attack damage.
Which Possibility (if any) is correct?
Sniping allows you to do a stealth check immediately after the attack with a -20 penalty to the check. Generally speaking if you shoot someone and they see you they will react so you should know by the NPC's reaction if they saw you. As an example if I got hit for 1d8+5d6 sneak attack dice I am not going to pretend like I did not know where it came from. I will call your location out. You dont just let snipers(real world) pick you off.
If a GM had an NPC pretend not to notice you he should be forced to make a bluff check.<--That is not a rule, but the game assumes you know when someone knows you attacked them.
If the GM tries to hide that knowledge he has to decide how things work moving forward.
Now lets assume you failed you stealth check, and you know it since that is all I can go by with the normal rules. You should be able to get to a new hiding spot with a successful distraction(you need the bluff skill for that).
Upon getting to your new hiding place, assuming the distraction and stealth check worked out you can start sniping again.
Unsolicited advice-->Ranged rogues don't generally do well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also seconding the "you know if someone knows you attacked them". If nothing else, you should be able to ask the GM if the target is now looking at you (i.e., are they aware of you?); in order for them to conceal that, it would require Bluff (or, less likely, a Perform (Acting) check).
While you all were busy talking Monks again, the 6th printing errata of CRB just went live:
Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth,
you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved
as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn
in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends
after you make an attack roll, whether or not the attack is
successful (except when sniping as noted below)
You know, I have always adjucated it this way when I DM. Just seemed logical to me.
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).
That's where the "years of experience" comes in. In real life, "rogues" like magicians, pick pockets, and cold readers do this kind of stuff all the time based on what they know about general human behavior and making guesses based on your looks. Sometimes they are wrong.
It's no different than using feint in combat. You're making a guess as to what kind of move will fool your opponent based on a couple of seconds of observation. Most times it works, if you're good enough. If it doesn't work, you guessed wrong about that person, and you fail.
As you get more experienced (i.e., higher level), you are right more often than wrong.
If a rogue were to sneak spring attack from stealth and end in concealment/cover, he could still make a stealth check correct? Would this check make the -10 "have to move fast" penalty? On a related note, if a rogue is facing an enemy and side step behind a tree, is gaining cover sufficient grounds to stealth even though he was observed until that point? The skill description seems to say you have to have a distraction (such as a bluff) to even attempt this. But it also says concealment/cover is sufficient to prevent observation by sight. Which is it? Also, does your opponent being in combat with your allies constitute a distraction? If the tree thing works, then what about if you're simply in dim light? Can you move through an area of dim light and just begin stealthing even with enemies around? If they are in combat?
I started on topic but kinda veered off. Maybe I should repost this in Rules.
@Raelin: My understanding is that if you make a melee attack, you break stealth - period; even if you get to cover afterward, as long as your target is still up, you can't regain stealth against him in that manner.
Now, if you successfully killed your with that blow, then you could potentially get to cover and re-stealth versus any remaining enemies that might have noticed you.
Railin:
If you use spring attack I see you when the attack is made. You can not make a stealth check while I am eyeballing you. You might have cover, but I can still observe,even if I can't see you since I know where you are. If I know you are behind that boulder/tree/etc, you need to distract me.
Here is the thing about distraction. One use of distraction(from the bluff skill) allows for you to hide and quickly move to a new location, but it is also used to apply a penalty to perception. The second example applies in combat, but if you are active in combat the GM may not allow it since as a threat it makes sense to focus on you also.
As far as trying to stealth in dim light, it depends on whether or not they can see you well. If the opponent has low-light vision or darkvision you may not have concealment, and even then they have to not be observing you.
Railin:
If you use spring attack I see you when the attack is made. You can not make a stealth check while I am eyeballing you. You might have cover, but I can still observe,even if I can't see you since I know where you are. If I know you are behind that boulder/tree/etc, you need to distract me.
Here is the thing about distraction. One use of distraction(from the bluff skill) allows for you to hide and quickly move to a new location, but it is also used to apply a penalty to perception. The second example applies in combat, but if you are active in combat the GM may not allow it since as a threat it makes sense to focus on you also.
As far as trying to stealth in dim light, it depends on whether or not they can see you well. If the opponent has low-light vision or darkvision you may not have concealment, and even then they have to not be observing you.
But once I get behind cover, you're not "eyeballing" me. In what way are you observing me? If you can observe me even if I'm behind cover, how is cover sufficient to make a stealth check?
Concerning dim light, if you're unaffected by it, it wouldn't provide concealment and that question wouldn't matter. But since it would provide concealment normally, it is relevant in that context. Since pathfinder has no facing, what would constitute whether or not you are being observed? If you have to make a perception check to decide whether or not you're observable, you're already stealthing aren't you? Based on the wording of HiPS, being observed means being not behind cover or in concealment.
I'll see if I can find you some of the discussion thread on the topic, Raelin; one of the devs (can't remember which one, either SKR or JB) stated that once you attack, stealth breaks, period - and simply getting under cover does not allow you to make another stealth check.
Your target is assumed to be visually following you from the point where you attack to wherever you dash to in order to hide again, unless you somehow otherwise distract him (i.e., Bluff check to distract).
The only exception to this is when using the sniping rules to make a ranged attack.
]As I understand it, if you are currently unobserved (Failed Perception check), you can maintain that using partial cover or concealment. If you are observed, by a successful Perception check, by attacking, ending a turn without cover, etc, then you need a bluff check or total cover/concealment to count as unobserved again.
HiPS/Hellcat Stealth let you use stealth even if you are observed.
But if being unobserved requires a perception check (presumably opposed by stealth? otherwise it's impossible to fail said check)to figure out, then how is that different than the stealth vs perception check you would make upon finding out you are unobserved? It's like saying you have to be stealthing to stealth.