Why You No Likey PF's New Classes?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

401 to 450 of 485 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Why?
Because you can still be observed.

You are observed in a darkened room. Either you have total concealment or you don't. You can either be seen or you cannot. However, merely having concealment as written is enough to allow you to Stealth.

Stealth wrote:
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.

The grammar and structure here is important.

1. You cannot use Stealth while being observed.
2. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.

Notice that if you were not being observed then you don't need Stealth anyway because they do not know you are there.

3. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as with a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobservd place of some kind.

The previous sentences already gave the condition that allows you to Stealth (cover/concealment). The latter sentence notes that without those things, with a distraction, you can use Stealth and get to one of those things albeit with a penalty (such as standing in the open, bluffing someone, then diving behind a barrel). Normally you cannot use Stealth at all while standing in the open (you have no cover/concealment) but when the distraction you can attempt to become hidden without cover or concealment with a penalty, but you must gain cover/concealment to remain hidden.

Otherwise you wouldn't be able to actually fool anyone with a distraction because you wouldn't be able to use Stealth until you walked to some cover or concealment, and any idiot would be able to tell that you're hiding behind the crates they just watched you walk over to. Except your stealthed without cover or concealment at a penalty so they don't know what cover/concealment you went to. Was it the crates, the barrels, the pot in the corner, are you hiding behind the lamp post?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Mechanically, how does that make blur different from any other form of (20%) concealment.
Because you are actually concealed. I must admit, I've never seen concealment actually allow someone to hide. It's almost always cover or invisibility.

Then they were not playing by the rules. The Stealth skill itself specifies that concealment allows you to Stealth. This is why dim light is a bad place for humans, because while you're not blind and can perceive your surroundings things can hide from you (and potentially ambush you) where they simply couldn't if you were an elf.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Why?
Because you can still be observed.
You are observed in a darkened room.

Only by creatures that can see in the dark.

Ashiel wrote:
Then they were not playing by the rules.

Forgive me, I mispoke. I've never seen any concealment available to allow Stealth checks.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Mechanically, how does that make blur different from any other form of (20%) concealment.
Because you are actually concealed. I must admit, I've never seen concealment actually allow someone to hide. It's almost always cover or invisibility.

Actually concealed = has concealment. >_>


TriOmegaZero wrote:


Only by creatures that can see in the dark.

Admittedly, for some reason Paizo has decided to make it so 90% of creatures have darkvision :P

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:


Only by creatures that can see in the dark.
Admittedly, for some reason Paizo has decided to make it so 90% of creatures have darkvision :P

It's also a real pain to track different light levels on physical tabletops.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Actually concealed = has concealment. >_>

Yes, and since blur does nothing to actually conceal you, I don't have it allow Stealth checks. Much as the PDT does, as shown by the Ultimate Intrigue text.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Then they were not playing by the rules.
Forgive me, I mispoke. I've never seen any concealment available to allow Stealth checks.

Seriously? You've never witnessed anyone try to hide in fog, smoke, snow, or bushes? Those are all really common ways to hide in gameplay and literature, and all grant concealment.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Aratrok wrote:
Seriously? You've never witnessed anyone try to hide in fog, smoke, snow, or bushes?

Not in a way that didn't grant them total concealment anyway.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Why?
Because you can still be observed.
You are observed in a darkened room.

Only by creatures that can see in the dark.

Ashiel wrote:
Then they were not playing by the rules.
Forgive me, I mispoke. I've never seen any concealment available to allow Stealth checks.

Read the environment and additional rules chapters TOZ. Dim light (such as the edge of a torch, or in a dark but not totally dark) room grants concealment and allows you to Stealth. That's why low-light vision is pretty baller even in the dark, because the radius that creatures cannot Stealth against you is much larger, and in areas that are normally illuminated with dim light you can see just fine (no concealment).

In water, invisibility only provides concealment, but that's still enough to Stealth. If you're in smoke, you gain concealment so ninja vanish! More than 5 ft. from someone in a fog? Concealment! The additional rules explicitly says creatures can see in dim light but they have concealment in dim light (except vs creatures that see fine in those conditions such as elves & critters with darkvision).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Yeah, it never comes up.

The stealther is always in total darkness or has 5ft of fog between them and the observer or any number of things that make it more than 20% concealment.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Actually concealed = has concealment. >_>
Yes, and since blur does nothing to actually conceal you, I don't have it allow Stealth checks. Much as the PDT does, as shown by the Ultimate Intrigue text.

UI's text is a huge nerf because you explicitly can see creatures in dim light but they have concealment. It is identical to blur in every sense. You have no problems observing a creature in dim light aside from concealment that it grants. Concealment that allows you to Stealth.


Ashiel wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Mechanically, how does that make blur different from any other form of (20%) concealment.
Because you are actually concealed. I must admit, I've never seen concealment actually allow someone to hide. It's almost always cover or invisibility.
Actually concealed = has concealment. >_>

Except in the case of blur, apparently.

I will never understand why standing in bright moonlight within 5ft of an observer permits stealth, but being blurry and indistinct shouldn't. Both are pretty ridiculous.

Actually, I bet many of the people who have a problem with blur stealth also wouldn't allow stealth rolls in dim light either.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yeah, it never comes up. The stealther is always in total darkness or has 5ft of fog between them and the observer or any number of things that make it more than 20% concealment.

Okay, well, it's come lots and lots of times in campaigns I've played. Trying to find dark spots to Stealth in, or using fog spells to allow your party's sneak to navigate through trouble are par for the course.

And are 100% by the core rules.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
And are 100% by the core rules.

I don't understand why you are bringing this up. Our party sneak also looks for darkness and fog to hide in. When they don't just have Hide in Plain Sight yet anyway.


Snowblind wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Mechanically, how does that make blur different from any other form of (20%) concealment.
Because you are actually concealed. I must admit, I've never seen concealment actually allow someone to hide. It's almost always cover or invisibility.
Actually concealed = has concealment. >_>

Except in the case of blur, apparently.

I will never understand why standing in bright moonlight within 5ft of an observer permits stealth, but being blurry and indistinct shouldn't. Both are pretty ridiculous.

Actually, I bet many of the people who have a problem with blur stealth also wouldn't allow stealth rolls in dim light either.

Yes. You can Stealth within 5 ft. of someone holding a lit candle because the candle provides 5 ft. of dim light. Anything within that light has concealment. In other words, if you're playing in a game, do not walk out to see what the noise was with a candle. It's a good way to get eaten.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
And are 100% by the core rules.
I don't understand why you are bringing this up. Our party sneak also looks for darkness and fog to hide in.

Because you can still observe people in dim light. EDIT: In fact, anything short of total cover or total concealment means that you can still observe the person.

Of course, those are things that explicitly allow you to Stealth. Cover and concealment.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Because you can still observe people in dim light.

And? (Also, no one uses candles for anything but background description.)


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Because you can still observe people in dim light.
And? (Also, no one uses candles for anything but background description.)

And it's the same thing. Can you observe someone within the area? Yes. Can they use Stealth while in the area? Yes.


Put another way, you haven't actually shown why you cannot, because the rules say that you can and your made up explanation for why you cannot is demonstrably false by the rules which show plenty of other instances where creatures can observe you and target you with no issues but you can Stealth.


Snowblind wrote:
Actually, I bet many of the people who have a problem with blur stealth also wouldn't allow stealth rolls in dim light either.

Why? Darkness makes more sense to obscure things than something that only hides position to a small extent.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
And it's the same thing. Can you observe someone within the area? Yes. Can they use Stealth while in the area? Yes.

Only if they aren't being observed. In that case, they'd need a distraction, or to move back into the dark where they have total concealment.

Shadow Lodge

Ashiel wrote:
Put another way, you haven't actually shown why you cannot, because the rules say that you can and your made up explanation for why you cannot is demonstrably false by the rules which show plenty of other instances where creatures can observe you and target you with no issues but you can Stealth.

This ain't the Rules Forum, dear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Stealth became a pathfinder class so suddenly, I never saw it coming.


Milo v3 wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Actually, I bet many of the people who have a problem with blur stealth also wouldn't allow stealth rolls in dim light either.
Why? Darkness makes more sense to obscure things than something that only hides position to a small extent.

Bright moonlight and extremely close proximity to a candle doesn't obscure anything to a tactically relevant degree. Not when the thing being obscured is a 30ft high giant standing 5ft away from the observer.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Stealth became a pathfinder class so suddenly, I never saw it coming.

Because it had concealment! :D


captain yesterday wrote:
Stealth became a pathfinder class so suddenly, I never saw it coming.

Well since it affects a number of classes very heavily, it changes a lot about their worth.

For example, **** non-caster stealth users now. It's either invisibility or bust.

Grand Lodge

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

Welcome to Casterfinder.


Snowblind wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Actually, I bet many of the people who have a problem with blur stealth also wouldn't allow stealth rolls in dim light either.
Why? Darkness makes more sense to obscure things than something that only hides position to a small extent.
Bright moonlight and extremely close proximity to a candle doesn't obscure anything to a tactically relevant degree. Not when the thing being obscured is a 30ft high giant standing 5ft away from the observer.

All those HD mean giants tend to have pretty good Stealth modifiers relative to normal people if they want to. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I guess, if stealth is all you care about.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Welcome to Casterfinder.

When you play the game of Pathfinder, you cast or you die. There's no middle ground.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Welcome to Casterfinder.

This is why I keep growing ever more agitated with Paizo. I sang their praises years ago, and these days I question if the books on my shelf I bought from them were a mistake.

They are constantly nerfing martial characters or preventing them from doing anything, constantly giving casters the goodies of martial characters, or making them have no need for martial characters.

In core, a Stealth focused character can serve a solid tactical role by acquiring a magic item like a lesser cloak of displacement which allows them to use their skills and such on adventures.

With the UI nerf, you can't do that anymore. Now you need to be completely unseen to Stealth (which is explicitly not what the core rules on Stealth say, in fact it says the opposite), so now only casters can reasonably be able to use Stealth.

It wasn't even broken. The requirement to keep moving to re-stealth meant that you were limited to 1 standard action methods of attack if you wanted to try to keep Stealthing. And there are so many ways to foil it (including several low-level spells, and many more high level spells).

I...gah! Whaizo! D:<


captain yesterday wrote:
I guess, if stealth is all you care about.

If a cleric suddenly lost their ability to heal, a lot of people would care. If clerics could no longer raise the dead or summon monsters, a lot of people would care.

When a rogue (or ranger or whatever) can't slip through a battle to try to fight a VIP target (such as the necromancer bombing the crap out of your party while his undead are wailing on anyone who tries to get close to them) loses that ability...I CARE.

EDIT: Especially when some of those classes can't do anything ****ing meaningful otherwise. Seriously, the one thing core rogue actually does have going for it is that with the right gear, it's actually pretty solid as a hazer (pop out of no where, sneak attack a high profile target, then try to hide before you get torn to shreds).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
EDIT: Especially when some of those classes can't do anything ****ing meaningful otherwise. Seriously, the one thing core rogue actually does have going for it is that with the right gear, it's actually pretty solid as a hazer (pop out of no where, sneak attack a high profile target, then try to hide before you get torn to shreds).

We have one of those in our Skull and Shackles game. Kobold, chameleon skin powers, UCRogue.

My Druid has to spend his actions helping him get sneak attack a lot.


Chameleon skin powers?


Lemmy Z wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Welcome to Casterfinder.
When you play the game of Pathfinder, you cast or you die. There's no middle ground.

Or have a caster that do the job and then high five for teamwork.


Ashiel wrote:


The grammar and structure here is important.

THat's just grammatical juggling. And while not incorrect it's certainly no the only valid interpretation. In the end is a matter of what the GM and the players feels balanced and cool.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Chameleon skin powers?

I'd have to ask him where he got it.


Nicos wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


The grammar and structure here is important.

THat's just grammatical juggling. And while not incorrect it's certainly no the only valid interpretation. In the end is a matter of what the GM and the players feels balanced and cool.

Grammar matters. And while it's not the only interpretation, it is the only valid interpretation when backed up by the rest of the rules concerning things like light conditions, fog, smoke, and other effects that explicitly allow you to use Stealth even though they can see you.


Ashiel wrote:


The grammar and structure here is important.

1. You cannot use Stealth while being observed.
2. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.

The rest of the paragraph is important because it tells you how to not be observed. It would be completely irrelevant if all you needed to do was hit concealment. Why would you EVER spend a standard action to bluff, take a -10 to your stealth, if all you needed to do was spend a non action, hit concealment, and go poof?

The tactic has always been on worse than shaky rules grounds.


Ashiel wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


The grammar and structure here is important.

THat's just grammatical juggling. And while not incorrect it's certainly no the only valid interpretation. In the end is a matter of what the GM and the players feels balanced and cool.
Grammar matters. And while it's not the only interpretation, it is the only valid interpretation when backed up by the rest of the rules concerning things like light conditions, fog, smoke, and other effects that explicitly allow you to use Stealth even though they can see you.

Certainly not. The rules can be interpreted as that you have to be previously unseen (like going from total cover behind a wall + move + end the movement inside a FOG).

Owner - Gator Games & Hobby

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interesting, I'd always seen this ruled as you had to fulfill two conditions to begin stealthing:

1) You had to have cover or concealment

2) You could not currently be observed

Once you were stealthing you could keep moving around under cover or concealment, since a creature under stealth isn't being observed.

I'll have to take another look at this when I get home though.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


The grammar and structure here is important.

1. You cannot use Stealth while being observed.
2. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.

The rest of the paragraph is important because it tells you how to not be observed. It would be completely irrelevant if all you needed to do was hit concealment. Why would you EVER spend a standard action to bluff, take a -10 to your stealth, if all you needed to do was spend a non action, hit concealment, and go poof?

The tactic has always been on worse than shaky rules grounds.

Ever watch any movie where some dude clearly does not have cover or concealment and then goes "What's that!?" and then when they glance away he hides? Well in d20 you have 360o vision. Bluffing doesn't make you go blind. You are given an explicit means of Stealthing while lacking the requirements so that you can now go get cover/concealment without them knowing where you hid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cwethan wrote:

Interesting, I'd always seen this ruled as you had to fulfill two conditions to begin stealthing:

1) You had to have cover or concealment

2) You could not currently be observed

Once you were stealthing you could keep moving around under cover or concealment, since a creature under stealth isn't being observed.

I'll have to take another look at this when I get home though.

Thats how most people i've seen do it (or at least do it when the players try it...) and meshes with hide in plain sight and camoflage being seperate abilities.


Except it's not written like that at all.

If it said something like:

"To use Stealth you must have cover or concealment. If you are currently being observed, you cannot use Stealth even if you gain cover or concealment. You can use a distraction (such as a Bluff check) to..."

Except as it is written, the default is you cannot use Stealth while being observed (clearly you can always use Stealth when not being observed because you're not being observed), but then explains that gaining cover or concealment is enough to allow you to use Stealth.

It functions without hiccups as written, and it is backed by the rest of the rules that repeatedly note that you can hide in conditions that people can indeed see you in (such as the radius of a candle's light) or inside a fog that isn't very dense (fog gives concealment to creatures greater than 5 ft. away, but you can still see them), etc.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

But you still have to break observation while getting concealment or it fails outright.


It has a lot of hiccups as you're reading it, which is not "how it's written" or "how it is"

The bluff and hide mechanic is completely superfluous
You can lose track of someone while they're standing behind a waist high wall
Camouflage is a non ability
Sniping is completely pointless

As soon as you concede the possibility that observed and concealed are seperate conditions it instantly becomes the reading that fits the wording and all the other rules of the game like a glove.


You realize that the waist high wall thing is right, right?

If you're behind a waist high wall and use Stealth, they can't spot you unless they beat your Stealth check because you currently have cover/concealment. If you lose cover/concealment (such as them walking around the wall to find you) well you're boned.

Yes, camouflage is a superfluous ability.

As is Elephant stomp. And prone shooter.

But okay, so would you agree that if you have cover/concealment, but you're being looked at, you can bluff check and then stealth with a penalty?


Ashiel wrote:

Except it's not written like that at all.

If it said something like:

"To use Stealth you must have cover or concealment. If you are currently being observed, you cannot use Stealth even if you gain cover or concealment. You can use a distraction (such as a Bluff check) to..."

"... 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. "

So my example is covered by the rule and is a valid interpretation.

- start your turn unobserved behind total cover
- move
- end in a place with concealment
- you are allowed to stealth

It fits.

I don't know why you are adamant to your particular interpretation of a clearly vague text.


Ashiel wrote:
ou realize that the waist high wall thing is right, right?

Yes, but it's not a thing that really lets you hide from someone while they're looking right at you.

Quote:
But okay, so would you agree that if you have cover/concealment, but you're being looked at, you can bluff check and then stealth with a penalty?

Yes.

But why would you ever make a bluff check at all if you can just start stealthing?

Batman: Bluffs with a standard action and takes a -10 on his stealth to go hide somewhere with his move action.

Bob the peasant: Stands in the shadow , makes a stealth check with no penalty, moves somewhere, and still has his standard action to move even further away. Or he withdraws, moves into the shadow, and keeps moving into the shadow to further increase the number of places he could be.

Reading interpretation is highly subjective, it cannot be used as the sole basis against a mountain of evidence that non observed is a condition you need to make.

Not observed Not concealed: Polonius doing the macarana in the middle of the room. *

Not observed, Concealed: Polonius behind the tapestry with his feet poking out as you walk into the room

Observed, Not concealed: Polonius stops doing the macarana and walks behind the tapestry with his feet poking out: you might miss easily those feet walking into the room, but you're not going to not notice them when you SAW him walk into position.

In order to go from doing the macarana in the middle of the room to hiding behind the curtain, Polonius has to go "LOOK A GHOST!" and dash behind the tapestry, otherwise you know exactly where he went.

*though this may change if you gouge your eyes out.

401 to 450 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.