Why You No Likey PF's New Classes?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 485 of 485 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because it's not as vague as you are saying it is, and the reasoning given in the UI text would make it impossible to use Stealth in other conditions that explicitly allow you to, such as in a natural fog or dim light.


Ashiel wrote:
Because it's not as vague as you are saying it is

I don';t think that it's vague. I think it's crystal clear that you need non observed status. But there's no real way to argue what a sentence says, so i was starting by giving it the benefit of the doubt.

Quote:

and the reasoning given in the UI text would make it impossible to use Stealth in other conditions that explicitly allow you to, such as in a natural fog or dim light.

You CAN make stealth in those conditions

If you're not observed.

"I can buy alchohol if i'm over 21
"Do you have any money?
"I don;'t need it I'm over 21!"

This is not remotely a contradiction, it's what people have been saying all along.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
But why would you ever make a bluff check at all if you can just start stealthing?

Because you didn't have cover or concealment, obviously. That's what the Stealth skill says.

Also, you're automatically observed if your feet are sticking out and you didn't use Stealth. Of course if they watch you move to cover or concealment and then Stealth, they may not see you but they know where you went. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to drop a faerie fire into the 5 ft. space where you hid.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

I don';t think that it's vague. I think it's crystal clear that you need non observed status. But there's no real way to argue what a sentence says, so i was starting by giving it the benefit of the doubt.

More or less the Same here. I would rule like you but would not be mad if my DM rules like Ashiel.


Ashiel wrote:


Also, you're automatically observed if your feet are sticking out and you didn't use Stealth.

He's attempting stealth, but, you SAW him, and his feet, the entire time. How on earth would you not know where he is, right now?

Thats what concealment (not full concealment) is. You can still see them.

Adventurers are not toddlers. (most of them) they understand object permanance.

Quote:
Of course if they watch you move to cover or concealment and then Stealth, they may not see you but they know where you went. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to drop a faerie fire into the 5 ft. space where you hid.

It does take a caster though. "solve this problem with magic" doesn't mean that there's no problem.

Quote:
Because you didn't have cover or concealment, obviously. That's what the Stealth skill says.

You did gain cover or conealment: if it's not in reach of your double move it's not in reach of your bluff and move either and neither tactic works.


Sundakan wrote:
Being someone who is "profoundly nearsighted" and having fought someone without my glasses on, I can speak from experience that it's not that hard to hit something vaguely human shaped within arm's reach.

You're not profoundly enough nearsighted to simulate the blur effect. Or maybe it takes severe cataracts. Enough to produce a 20% miss chance.


Atarlost wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Being someone who is "profoundly nearsighted" and having fought someone without my glasses on, I can speak from experience that it's not that hard to hit something vaguely human shaped within arm's reach.
You're not profoundly enough nearsighted to simulate the blur effect.

"I don't know that lamp post is talking butit's wrong..."

Liberty's Edge

So...I'm back on the forums after my break. Hi folks!

Ashiel wrote:
Because it's not as vague as you are saying it is, and the reasoning given in the UI text would make it impossible to use Stealth in other conditions that explicitly allow you to, such as in a natural fog or dim light.

Uh...this is not what the rules in UI state. Or are you arguing that they would by logic? Because that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you're several steps back into the fog, or into dim light people losing track of you in the swirling shadows or mist makes sense. If you have Displacement or Blur in a brightly lit area, though, they can see you clear as day...just looking weird. There's no general condition to get lost in, just an isolated thing that looks misty. You. Blur is not Predator-style lightbend, nor intended to be. It blurs your outline, and thus makes it easy to miss extremities...but says nothing about making you translucent.

By logic, for similar reasons, you likely shouldn't be allowed to Stealth in a single square of darkness or mist, either...but luckily there are basically no effects that cause a single square of darkness or mist, so that situation is practically nonexistent.

Really, arguing that the Stealth rules in UI screw non-casters when they explicitly only screw Blur and Displacement is...weird. Those are spells. Or magical effects at the very least. Weakening them decreases spellcaster power if anything (not, y'know, a lot, since casters still have invisibility and the like, but a little).

I get that this is a rule clarification/change you don't like, but arguing that it screws martials specifically is really kinda weird and inaccurate.


Atarlost wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Being someone who is "profoundly nearsighted" and having fought someone without my glasses on, I can speak from experience that it's not that hard to hit something vaguely human shaped within arm's reach.
You're not profoundly enough nearsighted to simulate the blur effect. Or maybe it takes severe cataracts. Enough to produce a 20% miss chance.

You'd need to be on the borderline (if not over it) of being legally blind for that to be the case, and that's not what most would describe as merely "nearsighted", profoundly or not.

That is not how Blur seems to be depicted.

Blur just doesn't make a ton of sense. It'd be more believable if it was a bit like Blink where pieces of you occasionally fuzz out of existence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
By logic, for similar reasons, you likely shouldn't be allowed to Stealth in a single square of darkness or mist, either...but luckily there are basically no effects that cause a single square of darkness or mist, so that situation is practically nonexistent.

A room filled with candles. A dark space with for torches in a box formation with the center-most point from the torches being dim light or darkness because no light radius extends into it.

It very easily happens. All the time in fact. RAW, in core, a character can use Stealth inside a room filled with candles (the room is dim light). Everything inside the room has concealment vs normal sight. Stealth is legal.

A room illuminated by candles, our rogue can literally walk circles around people in the room, walking past them, between them, etc. Walk back and forth between two people having a conversation with each other.

But concealment from blur, oh yeah, that just doesn't make sense.


Admittedly, I've seen someone sneak up on people from the front in a room where it's candle-lit in real life. I don't know how they failed that perception check though...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Distraction penalties.


Milo v3 wrote:
Admittedly, I've seen someone sneak up on people from the front in a room where it's candle-lit in real life. I don't know how they failed that perception check though...

I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm saying that it blows my mind that you can have a rogue do the waltz around someone in circles in a candlelit room, and nobody worries about that, but the reason that blur is apparently the odd man out on concealment is because it doesn't conceal your form enough.

A rogue can walk around you and your friends in this room, no problem, walking circles around you unless you succeed at a Perception check or are an elf or something, but that's too much concealment.

Liberty's Edge

Ashiel wrote:
A room filled with candles. A dark space with for torches in a box formation with the center-most point from the torches being dim light or darkness because no light radius extends into it.

This is a really niche situation, though. One I've literally never seen in all my years of gaming. You'll note I said 'practically nonexistent', not completely nonexistent. It is, as a practical matter, rare enough that I don't think the rules for it being a bit lacking is a big problem.

Ashiel wrote:

It very easily happens. All the time in fact. RAW, in core, a character can use Stealth inside a room filled with candles (the room is dim light). Everything inside the room has concealment vs normal sight. Stealth is legal.

A room illuminated by candles, our rogue can literally walk circles around people in the room, walking past them, between them, etc. Walk back and forth between two people having a conversation with each other.

Uh...a room full of candles (assuming small handheld-sized candles of the sort those rules clearly reflect) is not the kind of environment I was discussing. The whole room is dimly lit, full of shadows and easy ways to dart out of sight as the candles flicker. And that leaves aside hiding behind whatever the candles are on...

I mean...have you ever been in a dark room where the only light is from candles, even a fair number? I find hiding in such a room reasonable enough. It's not 100% realistic...but what in Pathfinder is?

Now, enough bright candles probably start counting as a lantern or some other higher (otherwise chandeliers suddenly make no sense) and light things up a bit more...but then the rules would treat that as no longer entirely dim lighting.

Ashiel wrote:
But concealment from blur, oh yeah, that just doesn't make sense.

That's not actually what I said. What I said was that there's a pretty easy chain of logic where it makes sense that dim lighting does allow Stealth but blur doesn't, not that you couldn't also justify it the other way.

My point was that either would make sense depending on how blur actually works in-universe, and so claiming blur not working violated all logic was silly. Blur can (from description) as easily represent something like this as anything that would actually allow you to hide better.

Well, and to point out that someone complaining that they specifically nerfed a spell and that was somehow Paizo nerfing martials rather than casters seemed more than a bit odd. I mean, seriously, they made it so that casters have fewer ways to do something better than Hide In Plain Sight and other martial options which makes Hide In Plain Sight and other martial options comparatively better...how in the world is that nerfing martials?

I mean, it's not a meaningfully large change given that invisibility is still available...but it's sure not a step down for martials and treating it like it is seems really strange.

Ashiel wrote:
I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm saying that it blows my mind that you can have a rogue do the waltz around someone in circles in a candlelit room, and nobody worries about that, but the reason that blur is apparently the odd man out on concealment is because it doesn't conceal your form enough.

Say rather 'because it doesn't conceal your form at all' and you have a better handle on why people are saying it doesn't work. The linked image above is not harder to spot than a non-blurred version.

That's only one possible visual, but it seems to be the official one.

Ashiel wrote:
A rogue can walk around you and your friends in this room, no problem, walking circles around you unless you succeed at a Perception check or are an elf or something, but that's too much concealment.

Hiding in that room seems pretty doable in the corners or under a table with no real difficulty (assuming Pathfinder PC level competence, anyway).

That said, calling those chandeliers 'lanterns' rather than 'candles' also seems to me an entirely reasonable rules call. And makes hiding much trickier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
I mean, it's not a meaningfully large change given that invisibility is still available...but it's sure not a step down for martials and treating it like it is seems really strange.

No, it means that the minor cloak of displacement (which functions as blur) no longer allows martials to hide. There are many ways for non-casters to achieve blur, including potions, which because blur lasts enough time to allow strike-vanishing to be a thing.

It's a change that has little effect on casters because casters can already do stuff while under invisibility without breaking that invisibility (such as summoning, buffing, or battlefield control effects) and get access to greater invisibility which is patently superior.

Martial characters cannot effectively use invisibility and greater invisibility is prohibitively expensive. Since changing magic affects everything in this system because all the magic items are based on them. This happened to Fighters in 3.5 (they nerfed haste arguably for the reason that it was letting casters drop spells too quickly, but then casters got quicken rods and martials got NOTHING to allow them mobility at mid->high levels).

Quote:
Hiding in that room seems pretty doable in the corners or under a table with no real difficulty (assuming Pathfinder PC level competence, anyway).

No, that's not the point. You are not hiding under the tables (cover), you are hiding because the light is dim and you have concealment. A rogue does not have to remain stationary in the room hiding behind a thing. They can literally walk between people and circles around them in the open paths as long as they make the Stealth check and it beats their Perception checks.

This is RAW. So the argument that UI makes that blur doesn't conceal you enough is nonsense.


I was thinking. We can drop this. We've been at this for like two pages. We can agree to disagree, because there's more to the thread and I don't want to waste it bickering about why rogues can't hide in a desert.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
No, it means that the minor cloak of displacement (which functions as blur) no longer allows martials to hide.

People waste money on that instead of cloaks of resistance?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
No, it means that the minor cloak of displacement (which functions as blur) no longer allows martials to hide.
People waste money on that instead of cloaks of resistance?

Well... There are a few other ways to get a Resistance bonus to saving throws. Certain classes/builds will have great saves no matter what, and a few even make CoR completely unnecessary.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Lemmy Z wrote:
Certain classes/builds will have great saves no matter what, and a few even make CoR completely unnecessary.

True, my Defense domain cleric is pretty awesome. Pretty sure you aren't talking about rogues though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
No, it means that the minor cloak of displacement (which functions as blur) no longer allows martials to hide.
People waste money on that instead of cloaks of resistance?

Minor cloaks of resistance are a staple defensive/utility item. They give a 20% chance to avoid stuff beyond AC and for around 20,000 gp market price they're pretty affordable for the benefits (which once included the ability to use a certain skill in various environments). And you can always add the resistance bonus to the cloak for a 50% markup.

A +5 minor displacement cloak of resistance is 61,000 gp. In roughly the same ballpark as a +5 weapon. Also blocks sneak attacks, which is a plus when fighting certain classes or monsters (such as darkfolk).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Lemmy Z wrote:
Certain classes/builds will have great saves no matter what, and a few even make CoR completely unnecessary.
True, my Defense domain cleric is pretty awesome. Pretty sure you aren't talking about rogues though.

Keep in mind one of the appealing features of the strike-vanishing rogue is that appearing from Stealth to poke and then whisking away again is that it makes it rather irritating to just wreck you with spells since the caster will need to use a readied action. Totally cool to do it but strike-vanishing has defensive benefits such as "Where did that pesky rogue go? I have a dominate person with his name on it! Bah, I don't have time to waste, there's a Paladin coming!"

*POKE*

"Damnit all!"


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Lemmy Z wrote:
Certain classes/builds will have great saves no matter what, and a few even make CoR completely unnecessary.
True, my Defense domain cleric is pretty awesome. Pretty sure you aren't talking about rogues though.

A Rogue with high Cha could dip a couple levels in Paladin... Or use the auto-progression rules from Unchained (or similar house-rule). Or he could buy a different item. Or a custom item. By RAW, you can fuse two different items, such as, say, a CoR and a Cloak of Displacement.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:

Totally cool to do it but strike-vanishing has defensive benefits such as "Where did that pesky rogue go? I have a dominate person with his name on it! Bah, I don't have time to waste, there's a Paladin coming!"

*POKE*

"Damnit all!"

Dominate Person won't help anyway, it's a one round cast. Any caster that tries to use it in combat gets disrupted right quick. Much better to have an area Fort or Will save spell, or just get blindsight.

I've never actually seen minor displacement/resistance cloaks used in any of my games. The downside of PFS I guess.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I've never actually seen minor displacement/resistance cloaks used in any of my games. The downside of PFS I guess.

Huh... I have seen in in nearly all games where the characters leveled up enough to to afford one (and the GM allowed it, of course. Despite it being possible by RAW, many GMs forbid custom magic items, even simple combinations).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Generally speaking, I do as well.


Which is okay. My point is that it's possible for a Rogue (or any other character) to acquire a Cloak of Displacement (or similar item) and still keep their Resistance bonus to saving throws (or similar effect).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Sure, for an opportunity cost. I've never seen anyone willing to pay that cost.


It's not all that costly... CoR are pretty cheap.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
No, it means that the minor cloak of displacement (which functions as blur) no longer allows martials to hide.
People waste money on that instead of cloaks of resistance?

It's a non-personal spell of minute/level duration from a low value slot. They buy up to eight second level pearls of power and get the wizard to blur them as part of the pre-fight ritual. If they buy nine they break even with a multi-effect cloak.

Or they're using the automatic bonus progression or houserules to the same effect because their GM lacks a fetish for everyone having all of the same magic items every game.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Or you just do without a miss chance. That works too.

Edit: Y'know, Ash was right, this is pretty off topic.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Edit: Y'know, Ash was right, this is pretty off topic.

I've personally had enough of blurry rogues and near-sighted fisticuffs, but I'm also curious to see which bizarre direction my thread next takes.

What about precision damage + brilliant energy weapons vs. the greater fortitude armor enchantment? Has PF resolved that debate one way or another, or can my thread possibly go down this dark rabbit hole?


I like Tiddlywinks.

Liberty's Edge

Ashiel wrote:
I was thinking. We can drop this. We've been at this for like two pages. We can agree to disagree, because there's more to the thread and I don't want to waste it bickering about why rogues can't hide in a desert.

I had a response, but yeah, agreeing to disagree seems the way to go. So I'll do that, too.


Ashiel wrote:
I was thinking. We can drop this. We've been at this for like two pages. We can agree to disagree, because there's more to the thread and I don't want to waste it bickering about why rogues can't hide in a desert.

Just pop out of the cake.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey! We are supposed to be hating on new classes here! Stop discussing rules and start talking about how the core book had the most balanced classes ever.

451 to 485 of 485 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why You No Likey PF's New Classes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.