| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I don't think some of this stuff has been brought up since the errata, and if it has I couldn't find it.
1.If a rogue were to sneak spring attack from stealth and end in concealment/cover, he could still make a stealth check correct?
2. Would this check make the -10 "have to move fast" penalty?
3. 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?
4. Does your opponent being in combat with your allies constitute a distraction?
5.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?
Thank you.
Should I FAQ flag this?
1. Incorrect - unless the target he attacked was killed in the attack.
This does allow you to move from cover, use Stealth to approach a target, and make a single attack, at which point, Stealth is broken, regardless of the outcome. 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.
2. If the attacker moved more than half his total speed in making the spring attack, then he would take any relevant speed penalties.
3. Uncertain. I believe it would require a Bluff check. Now, if you could enter into cover, then move into a different location, and your opponent went to where you were and you weren't there anymore, then I'd probably consider that sufficient to make a new Stealth check.
4. I would say no; the reason your opponent retains his DEX against a target is because he's actively keeping track of where his enemies are, meaning that even as he's parrying an attack from your fighter friend, he's keeping tabs on where you are as well.
5. Will have someone else answer, I'm not the best when it comes to lighting rules. First thought is that you could use it to regain cover by using a distraction, assuming that none of your foes had low-light or darkvision.
[edit]
Re: FAQ'ing. My understanding is that the designers prefer single FAQ questions. I don't know that any of these require designer intervention specifically; at least 3 of them are likely answered by proper reading of the stealth errata and existing rules, and all of them might be.
1. Incorrect - unless the target he attacked was killed in the attack.
2. If the attacker moved more than half his total speed in making the spring attack, then he would take any relevant speed penalties.
3. Uncertain. I believe it would require a Bluff check. Now, if you could enter into cover, then move into a different location, and your opponent went to where you were and you weren't there anymore, then I'd probably consider that sufficient to make a new Stealth check.
4. I would say no; the reason your opponent retains his DEX against a target is because he's actively keeping track of where his enemies are, meaning that even as he's parrying an attack from your fighter friend, he's keeping tabs on where you are as well.
5. Will have someone else answer, I'm not the best when it comes to lighting rules. First thought is that you could use it to regain cover by using a distraction, assuming that none of your foes had low-light or darkvision.
1. Attacking ends stealth yes, but how does it prohibit additional stealth checks? If stealth is part of movement and you move after attacking in spring attack, if that movement allows you to end your turn in cover, does the skill preclude you from making another check? I see evidence both ways. The intention seems to be that id does, and I think that's the stronger case, but I'm not sure.
2. I'm referring to the stealth penalty "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." and not any actual speed penalty.
3. But if your opponent thinks you're one place and you're not, haven't you already successfully "stealthed" him?
4. True, but if keeping tabs was all that were required to avoid stealth, how would a distraction ever work? I imagine an enemy in melee while the rogue is standing next to a tree. The enemy averts his gaze for a moment to deal with the combat and the rogue "acts quickly" (taking the -10) to dive behind the tree and stealth. This is opposed by the enemy's perception, effectively his check of how well he was keeping tab on the rogue. This doesn't seem much different than sniping. It sounds fair and logical to me.
I don't mean to disagree with everything you say (and truly I don't) I'm just trying to be thorough. I've not encountered a lot of stealth focused characters and I'm trying to research before GMing for one. I don't want to over or under power stealth and ruin it for someone.
For purposes of simplicity, I'd have to say that the rules do what they say they do, and nothing more.
That means that if you attack, your stealth breaks. Your opponents are aware of you, even if you cross to thick brush and dive into it before the end of your turn. Without some distraction, you can't regain stealth against them by simply taking cover.
In the example that I gave about entering the bushes and moving to another location, I think implicit to that would be a bluff check; otherwise, your opponents would be assumed to track your movement through the bushes because you can't reacquire concealment from them in that manner.
In regards to item 4, based on the changes made to stealth rules, I would say that someone has to make a bluff check in order to be considered an active distraction for the Rogue.
I don't think some of this stuff has been brought up since the errata, and if it has I couldn't find it.
1.If a rogue were to sneak spring attack from stealth and end in concealment/cover, he could still make a stealth check correct?
2. Would this check make the -10 "have to move fast" penalty?
3. 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?
4. Does your opponent being in combat with your allies constitute a distraction?
5.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?
Thank you.
1. Only if he ended in full concealment/full cover or had an ability that allowed him to hide while being observed.
2. If he's using a distraction to hide while being observed then he takes the penalty.
3. You cannot hide while being observed. If you are in full cover/full concealment, then you cannot be observed.
4. GM discretion.
5. Dim light provides enough concealment to stealth provided you enemy doesn't have some way of seeing in dim light (ex. low-light vision or darkvision). You still can't hide while being observed, though.
Trees don't provide full cover unless they take up an entire square, and even then they still have to completely block line of sight to your square corner to corner.
I would imagine pillars work the same.
You could run behind a solid wall, or beyond the light of a torch. I don't think either of those are unreasonable.
It's my understanding that the rules of stealth allow for multiple types of distractions. I see no reason to think that bluff checks are the only form of distraction. It's a shame to think that a sudden explosion or something would have to still to have an accompanying bluff check to allow the rogue to sneak off in the confusion.
1. Only if he ended in full concealment/full cover or had an ability that allowed him to hide while being observed.
2. If he's using a distraction to hide while being observed then he takes the penalty.
3. You cannot hide while being observed. If you are in full cover/full concealment, then you cannot be observed.
4. GM discretion.
5. Dim light provides enough concealment to stealth provided you enemy doesn't have some way of seeing in dim light (ex. low-light vision or darkvision). You still can't hide while being observed, though.
Would you change your answer to #3 if the tree were a redwood?
It's my understanding that stepping out of vision would allow a character to stealth, and at that point it's up to the GM to adjudicate the difficulty of any checks. But I don't see how you could argue against that person being unobservable without the enemy possessing abnormal sight or scent. I'd really love to have more clarity of "observed." Am I just missing that somewhere?
Perhaps if you could move at least 10 feet without, at any point, losing total concealment versus the target?
It would be the difference between ducking behind a 3-foot wide pillar and passing behind a full segment of wall; between diving into a patch of high grass and diving into a 50-foot patch of dense brush.
It's my understanding that the rules of stealth allow for multiple types of distractions. I see no reason to think that bluff checks are the only form of distraction. It's a shame to think that a sudden explosion or something would have to still to have an accompanying bluff check to allow the rogue to sneak off in the confusion.1. Only if he ended in full concealment/full cover or had an ability that allowed him to hide while being observed.
2. If he's using a distraction to hide while being observed then he takes the penalty.
3. You cannot hide while being observed. If you are in full cover/full concealment, then you cannot be observed.
4. GM discretion.
5. Dim light provides enough concealment to stealth provided you enemy doesn't have some way of seeing in dim light (ex. low-light vision or darkvision). You still can't hide while being observed, though.
Would you change your answer to #3 if the tree were a redwood?
It's my understanding that stepping out of vision would allow a character to stealth, and at that point it's up to the GM to adjudicate the difficulty of any checks. But I don't see how you could argue against that person being unobservable without the enemy possessing abnormal sight or scent. I'd really love to have more clarity of "observed." Am I just missing that somewhere?
If you have full cover you can't be observed and could stealth.
I think it would be difficult to 'step' behind a Redwood using a 5-ft step since an obstacle of that size would preclude diagonal movement and an orthogonal step wouldn't let you threaten anyone in front of the Redwood.
If the tree did occupy an entire square, and you could position yourself such that LOS was completely blocked, then you could stealth without a distraction.
Edit: Of course if the only thing you were hiding behind was a tree, your enemy could simply move to the other side of the tree on his turn. You would no longer have cover, and could no longer stealth.
Edit: Of course if the only thing you were hiding behind was a tree, your enemy could simply move to the other side of the tree on his turn. You would no longer have cover, and could no longer stealth.
This is what I'm saying. Just because the opponent CAN walk right where you are and see you (or jsut go ahead and attack there), doesn't mean you assume they ARE observing you and ignore stealth.
This is what I'm saying. Just because the opponent CAN walk right where you are and see you (or jsut go ahead and attack there), doesn't mean you assume they ARE observing you and ignore stealth.
Edit: Of course if the only thing you were hiding behind was a tree, your enemy could simply move to the other side of the tree on his turn. You would no longer have cover, and could no longer stealth.
I'm not sure what your getting at.
If you have full cover relative to your opponent (say, you're behind a wall), then you can't be observed and can use stealth.
On the opponent's turn, he moves in such a way that you no longer have full cover. Provided you still have normal cover, or concealment, you remain in stealth; your opponent must succeed on a perception check to see you. If he does make his perception check, you're no longer stealthed.
If you do not still have cover or concealment, then you can no longer use stealth. Your opponent immediately sees you.
I'm not sure what your getting at.
What I was getting at, however long ago I said this, was "What then is the point in distraction?"
|
My, perhaps redundant, take.
1.If a rogue were to sneak spring attack from stealth and end in concealment/cover, he could still make a stealth check correct?
The key to making a stealth check is being unobserved. As long as the situation in which you end up leaves you unobserved, then you can stealth.
2. Would this check make the -10 "have to move fast" penalty?
Move too fast, take the penalty. Get a feat to change it.
3. 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?
The key is being observed. Either situation allows you to arrange a moment where your opponent is not observing you which allows you to stealth. Circumstances may dictate you need both. (In this situation I would say you do.) It is reasonable for the GM to say "Unless you want him to know where you went, you need to make the bluff check first so that you are stealthed by the time your opponent looks back." You would still take the -10 penalty.
As has been stated before, if the enemy moves around to get line of sight, then you will be seen regardless of stealth. (Unless you have cool stealth voodoo)
4. Does your opponent being in combat with your allies constitute a distraction?
No.
5.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?
The forums have blown about this one before.
In an area of dim light, a character can see somewhat. Creatures within this area have concealment (20% miss chance in combat) from those without darkvision or the ability to see in darkness. A creature within an area of dim light can make a Stealth check to conceal itself. Areas of dim light include outside at night with a moon in the sky, bright starlight, and the area between 20 and 40 feet from a torch.
The indication is that yes you can make a stealth check. Creatures with Darkvision that are within range (60/90/120/etc..) will see you at the appropriate distances. Same for low-light vision and proximity to light-sources. Primarily this one is about distance of perception. Situations like combat are too broad to say yes or no, it depends on light sources and vision types. You can always stealth and disappear from people with bad vision, but the darkvision or other enhanced sensory types might still perceive you.
In response to OP question # 4 the general consensus seems to be no. And while I would agree in regards to attacks that take place before the stealthing creature's turn on a higher initiative count, I don't see why it couldn't delay or ready it's action until a distracting event took place to stealth (like an attack). The Stealth skill doesn't say you must use bluff to distract. Bluff is an example - "such as". As long as the GM thinks the action is enough to momentarily distract, it should fly.
The Stealth skill doesn't say you must use bluff to distract. Bluff is an example - "such as". As long as the GM thinks the action is enough to momentarily distract, it should fly.
This opens up so many possibilities! Now I want to see rules for an eye poke used to make a stealth roll! It could be an attack roll to allow a stealth check lol.
To clarify, I wasn't meaning the stealthing creature making an attack, but rather it stealthing in reaction to another creature's distracting action or attack.