Stealth, and 5ft. steps.


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I proffer the following scenarios where I would allow stealth at my table, recognizing that the rules are open for interpretation. In my opinion, they are open to interpretation intentionally, because the game cannot reasonably accommodate all scenarios with specific rules.

-Dropping prone into a ditch while unobserved (free action, counts as "movement"). You're behind cover, and no one's looking.

-Successfully creating a distraction, then taking a 5' step into a fog bank (not an action, counts as "movement"). You're unobserved (thanks to the distraction), and have concealment.

Since I'd allow either of the above, I'd allow any other free/non- action "movement" that occurs during, or creates, the conditions necessary for stealth to allow a stealth check "as part of the movement".

Keep in mind, however, the first line in the Action section of Stealth (italics mine):

PCR, page 107 wrote:
Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.

The first sentence tells you "if no other rules apply, using stealth takes no action". The next sentence tells you the "normal", that is the most common, use of stealth. To move quietly. The final sentence provides the only specified exception to the sentence usually none.

I'll readily grant, they could have cleaned up the language. And should, if they want using Stealth to take an action. Personally, I think the RAI match the RAW, which appears to be that it doesn't take an action to be stealthy. Instead, it's an alteration to how you behave when taking other actions. Including no action.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The wording for Hellcat Stealth and Hide in Plain Sight are nearly identical.

Why would the use of Hellcat Stealth still require cover/concealment?


Because it doesn't say it grants concealment (or the ability to use Stealth as if you do).

I can see how one can imagine, conceptually, it might, since you're using areas of bright light as an inverse "shadow", but the text doesn't give it to you. I like your combo otherwise, though - the need for concealment in normal/bright light is the only thing I can see that it doesn't automatically have, but a potion of Blur could solve that.


Bizbag, if that were the case there would be no benefit to Hellcat Stealth. You can always stealth with cover/concealment no matter the light level. What do you think the feat grants if not the ability to stealth without cover/concealment?

BillyGoat, the line you quote causes problems for your argument. It clearly shows that using stealth is a move action unless doing so as part of movement.

Sniping does not say anything about it being a move action. So, using stealth after any ranged attack is a move action. But counting a 5' step as enough movement would mean you could full attack, move 5' and stealth, while the 'normal' rules are one attack and stealth, or one attack and stealth while moving.

Sniping means that the target never knew where the shot came from, not only that you are stealthed after the shot.

I can't imagine that the RAI was ever for characters to get extra action economy by taking a 5' step.


Komoda wrote:
BillyGoat, the line you quote causes problems for your argument. It clearly shows that using stealth is a move action unless doing so as part of movement.

It does not clearly show that at all.

PRD wrote:


Action: Usually none.

Stealth is usually not an action at all. Full stop.

In cases where it does not fall into the "usually none" clause it will need to be spelled out. Sniping is spelled out, so requires a move action.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The writer of the feat seems to think that Hellcat Stealth removes the need for cover/concealment.

See here.


It is not spelled out in sniping. It is spelled out in a different section and says see sniping. That means that sniping also has to follow this rule.

As a parallel, Use Magic Device states:

CRB wrote:
Action: None. The Use Magic Device check is made as part of the action (if any) required to activate the magic item.

That does not mean that you can move, cast a spell, then activate a wand via Use Magic Device just because Use Magic Device is not an action.

It is clearly not Action: None. Full Stop.

There is much more to it, just like there is much more to the stealth rules.

-----------------

Back to stealth, it is illogical to believe that you:

Start the round in stealth, Shoot an arrow and Stealth again as a move action with a -20 penalty.

But absolutely RAI to:

Start the round out of stealth, take a full round action of firing arrows, take a 5' step and stealth with no penalty.

-----------------

The economy of actions is much to far apart to justify a 100% penalty. As such, I do not believe that a 5' step is enough. It must be part of bona fide move (read: move action), not just a 5' step (read: not an action).

Of course, this is just my opinion. Amazingly with all the times I have seen this argument, which is exactly parallel to +1 BAB and drawing a weapon, no Devs have apparently chimed in, so I go back to your table has to decide until we get a FAQ.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

The writer of the feat seems to think that Hellcat Stealth removes the need for cover/concealment.

See here.

Well then there you have it. You're all set.

I'll offer my opinion that that's probably a little too powerful for a feat with such low prerequisites, but that's my opinion.

I'll also offer my opinion to concur with Komoda that you probably *shouldn't* be able to vanish with no movement (or only a 5' step). It's easy to extrapolate from the Sniping rules that the "design guideline" for re-entering Stealth after taking actions that reveal you is a move action, at a -20 penalty. I'd even say that Hellcat would reduce that penalty to -10 (that is, for a total of -10). It's never been commented on by the devs, though, so as it stands, Blackbloodtroll should be able to vanish where he stands.

He should be wary though, that it's at risk of being changed by official FAQ due to the dubiousness of the rules for entering Stealth. He should prepare alternate tactics assuming he has to commit a move action to enter Stealth.


Komoda wrote:

It is not spelled out in sniping. It is spelled out in a different section and says see sniping. That means that sniping also has to follow this rule.

You are taking the see sniping comment out of context.

PRD wrote:


However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.

The context is 'after making a ranged attack' you 'may use a move action to stealth'. Sniping then goes on to describe penalties to stealthing in that situation.

Sniping is a specific rule. If you make a ranged attack, you may follow it with a move action to stealth at the given penalties. Nothing about it following the non-existent general rule of stealthing takes a move action.

Komoda wrote:


As a parallel, Use Magic Device states:

CRB wrote:
Action: None. The Use Magic Device check is made as part of the action (if any) required to activate the magic item.

That does not mean that you can move, cast a spell, then activate a wand via Use Magic Device just because Use Magic Device is not an action.

It is clearly not Action: None. Full Stop.

You are also reading this wrong.

What type of action is it to UMD? None. Right there, first word.

PRD wrote:


The Use Magic Device check is made as part of the action...

Not it's own separate action, not even a free action. It is a non-action.

What type of action is it to activate a wand, scroll, etc? Generally a standard action. But these aren't using the UMD skill, these are activating the item. Depending on your class you may or may not need to use the UMD skill in association with triggering the item. e.g, a wizard does not need to use UMD to activate a scroll of magic missile. A rogue would need to use UMD. If you do need to use UMD it takes no (none) additional actions beyond what normally activating the item takes.

PRD wrote:


Back to stealth, it is illogical to believe that you:

Start the round in stealth, Shoot an arrow and Stealth again as a move action with a -20 penalty.

But absolutely RAI to:

Start the round out of stealth, take a full round action of firing arrows, take a 5' step and stealth with no penalty.

I'm not stating you can do this. (I'm not sure anyone in this thread has, if they have I overlooked it).

The original question is what does it take to gain stealth? Not what does it take to gain stealth after making a full round of attacks? Those are two very different scenarios.

The first is a broad open ended question to which we can provide broad answers. The second is a narrowly specific question.

A lack of a dev chiming in on the topic doesn't add any weight to any given viewpoint. It is merely a lack of dev input on the topic.

I do however see now your concern with the possibility of using stealth as a non-action or as part of a 5' step. Though I still feel stealth is deliberately left open for GM adjudication to handle scenarios on a case by case basis. In some cases (like after a full attack) it doesn't make sense. In other cases, not requiring a move action, make sense. Invisibility even tacks an additional +20 onto the DC required if the creature is stationary.


Quote:
I do however see now your concern with the possibility of using stealth as a non-action or as part of a 5' step. Though I still feel stealth is deliberately left open for GM adjudication to handle scenarios on a case by case basis. In some cases (like after a full attack) it doesn't make sense. In other cases, not requiring a move action, make sense. Invisibility even tacks an additional +20 onto the DC required if the creature is stationary.

I agree with you, mostly. Stealthing after a full attack wouldn't make sense, except that the character has the magical or superhuman ability to make an opponent lose track of where he is (observation) and to provide magical shadows to mask his presence - such as Shadow Well, or the "sunbeams as shadows" ability of Hellcat Stealth (all offering or substituting for concealment).

That said, I think good GM sense says this *should* be a move action. Since there is no RAW limit on free actions in a turn, and you can take free actions between attacks in a full attack, a player could vanish before every attack. The 5' step would limit this to once per round, but it would let the character ignore all attacks of opportunity for anything they might do, at no real penalty for discovery because they can resume stealth even if they want to take a full round action.

The action economy should be, as I see it: spend a move, be able to act freely until discovered. If discovered, may spend a move again to resume (and his feats above would assist him in doing just that.)


I don't believe I am reading them incorrectly, which is why we disagree. I feel that "Usually none" is clearly defined. "Normally... as part of movement..." is the game definition of "Usually".

This is parallel to how UMD says "None" then goes on to explain what none means. My point is that the explanation is super important to the action type.

The problem with Stealth is, and many people agree this is a problem no matter what they feel the correct outcome is, is that Stealth does a horrible job of stating what type of action it is when it is not a "usual" circumstance. The only other mention is a move action. But then it only describes that when talking about ranged attacks. So what about melee attacks or full round actions that don't involve movement?

So people latch on to the "None" or the "Move Action" part. Neither can prove their case. Both sides are just grabbing on to one part to fill the void but there is no way to be sure which part is correct.

------------

As to the Dev position, I was only stating that this question comes up a lot an has not been addressed by the Devs and therefore the answer cannot be proven. Not that their lack of position gives any credence to either position.

------------

If you can stealth as part of a 5' step, you can stealth as part of a 5' step.

If you can stealth as a free action, you can stealth as a free action.

If either the free action or the 5' step are the rule, than you can full attack, which is exactly where this discussion is going to lead, and must be considered when assigning the action economy to the skill use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just to chime in, I personally feel that allowing for such things to occur in action economy (full attacking and then being able to stealth with a five foot step) should be strongly discouraged, in case this is addressed by the developers.


Why?


blahpers wrote:
Why?

Because of things like hide in plain sight and hellcast stealth. Imagien this scenario: You're enemy runs up next to you and disappears while you're fighting someone else. Next thing you know you can spot him again and you're taking a full attack to the face. Then, before you know it he's disappeared again. You don't have a perception score high enough to find him, even if you put max ranks into perception. You can never actually find him. Further, none of your friends can him either to shot him with spells or ranged attacks. And then it happens next round. And the next. If you move, he just follows you and does it over and over again, you don't have a chance to retaliate.

That sounds like lots of fun doesn't it?


Claxon wrote:
Just to chime in, I personally feel that allowing for such things to occur in action economy (full attacking and then being able to stealth with a five foot step) should be strongly discouraged, in case this is addressed by the developers.

I don't see anything wrong with:

PC A is fighting the blinded NPC B.

PC A attacks, and then stealthily 5' steps aside.

NPC B needs to decide which square in which to make their attack, and depending upon the relative stealth of A might be able to determine it.

I do not believe that NPC B should automatically know the proper square after PC A has moved. Perhaps you do.

As to the rules, they are straight forward. A 5' step is movement, and that falls squarely within the usual use for stealth. This isn't even a fringe case in that regard.

What makes it a little fringe is that normally the skill user would need to be unobserved in order to make the check in the first place. The OP has invested the majority of his character in being able to do that as frequently as possible. Let them shine.

-James


Regardless of the ability to re-enter stealth, a hidden character could not make a full attack, with the benefit of stealth for all of them; after the first attack, you'd be revealed.

The problem I see with it is, you are essentially gaining most of the benefit of the Greater Invisibility spell, except it cannot be dispelled, cannot be defeated with True Seeing, has no duration limit, and takes less time to initiate. A wizard would have to spend two feats and five spell levels extra to be able to use the spell at a similar action cost as Stealth - Quicken and Silent Spell.

I'm not saying the ability to stealth in combat is overpowered, or unfair, but I think you should have to spend a resource on it if you are spotted (or reveal yourself) to re-enter stealth. If you move up to your speed as your Move action, or take the Withdraw action, you can do it as part of that, or you can simply spend a Move action on it.

(Note that I'm not arguing this is what the rules *are*. The rules are that you can enter stealth where you stand, as it is).


I do agree, that with the rules as stated I think it works exactly how BBT wants them to work, that you can re-enter stealth as a 5ft step. However, I hate the implications of this because short of making enemies designed to excel at perception they have very little shot of being able to fight the character.


Claxon wrote:
However, I hate the implications of this because short of making enemies designed to excel at perception they have very little shot of being able to fight the character.

It's very easy to handle and deal with. Some characters don't fight the same way that other characters do. Simple.

I think that you are making far more of it than it really is.

You might as well rail against flying creatures not landing to fight on the ground. It's part of the game. Accept it, adapt, and move on.

-James


Claxon wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Why?

Because of things like hide in plain sight and hellcast stealth. Imagien this scenario: You're enemy runs up next to you and disappears while you're fighting someone else. Next thing you know you can spot him again and you're taking a full attack to the face. Then, before you know it he's disappeared again. You don't have a perception score high enough to find him, even if you put max ranks into perception. You can never actually find him. Further, none of your friends can him either to shot him with spells or ranged attacks. And then it happens next round. And the next. If you move, he just follows you and does it over and over again, you don't have a chance to retaliate.

That sounds like lots of fun doesn't it?

Yes, actually. A rogue doing what a rogue is supposed to do does sound like fun. It isn't like there's nothing anybody can do:

  • Ready an action to attack him the moment you see him. This will go off after his first attack, unless it's ranged and he makes his -20 roll.
  • Ready an action to grapple him. He can't re-Stealth if you're observing him with your sense of touch. (I'm assuming that since Hellcat Stealth is a light-based mechanic that it won't protect the enemy from other senses.)
  • Ready an action to cast faerie fire on him.
  • Chuck a fireball or three into the area.

    I could keep going.


  • My thought is mostly for how the fighter can handle the situation. Lets take a case of a archer, with a ring of freedom of movement and the ability to HiPS or something similar. Hes also got greater shadow armor.

    You cant grapple him, hes not sniping, faerie fire might give you a chance to spot him, and if you have 3 sources of fireball to lob at one enemy you probably have other threats that need to addressed besides him.


    james maissen wrote:
    Claxon wrote:
    Just to chime in, I personally feel that allowing for such things to occur in action economy (full attacking and then being able to stealth with a five foot step) should be strongly discouraged, in case this is addressed by the developers.

    I don't see anything wrong with:

    PC A is fighting the blinded NPC B.

    PC A attacks, and then stealthily 5' steps aside.

    NPC B needs to decide which square in which to make their attack, and depending upon the relative stealth of A might be able to determine it.

    I do not believe that NPC B should automatically know the proper square after PC A has moved. Perhaps you do.

    As to the rules, they are straight forward. A 5' step is movement, and that falls squarely within the usual use for stealth. This isn't even a fringe case in that regard.

    What makes it a little fringe is that normally the skill user would need to be unobserved in order to make the check in the first place. The OP has invested the majority of his character in being able to do that as frequently as possible. Let them shine.

    -James

    Nothing in my interpretation of the rules prevents this. It would only prevent a full attack. You can move 5' as a move action, which would allow you to use stealth.

    I do not agree, as shown above, that a 5' step is clearly "movement" just as often a "hand" is not a hand, and a foot is a "hand" and a beard is a "hand" or wait a chin... I think you get my point about how things are not always so simple.

    I am sure we all agree that lifting your arm is moving, yet is not enough to count as movement.


    Claxon wrote:

    My thought is mostly for how the fighter can handle the situation. Lets take a case of a archer, with a ring of freedom of movement and the ability to HiPS or something similar. Hes also got greater shadow armor.

    You cant grapple him, hes not sniping, faerie fire might give you a chance to spot him, and if you have 3 sources of fireball to lob at one enemy you probably have other threats that need to addressed besides him.

    This is when you say "screw it" and bust out the big guns: Ready Action (Dominate Person) or other compulsion. If they're a pansy class, Quickened True Strike, Ready Action (Disintegrate).


    The rules call out a 5' step as movement.

    Someone immobilized certainly would be prevented from doing it.

    There is a difference between move action and movement.

    James


    Claxon wrote:

    My thought is mostly for how the fighter can handle the situation. Lets take a case of a archer, with a ring of freedom of movement and the ability to HiPS or something similar. Hes also got greater shadow armor.

    You cant grapple him, hes not sniping, faerie fire might give you a chance to spot him, and if you have 3 sources of fireball to lob at one enemy you probably have other threats that need to addressed besides him.

    That's 73,000 gp worth of equipment already, not even including weapons, ammo, and other items. By that level of play, there are measures anybody can take if they spend some time flipping through the wondrous item list.

    Also, I don't see anything there that saves him from the sniping penalty (other than really high stealth).

    Again, you're complaining about the rogue's primary class feature. As if he's supposed to give the fighter a fair fight on a silver platter. Use your head. Next someone'll complain that you can't Power Attack a prismatic sphere


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Also, anybody who says that a 5' step is not movement is reaching so far that he threatens additional squares.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

    Well, there are other ways to perceive creatures, other than sight.

    So, to get to the point where you can use Stealth this well, it takes a lot of investment.

    Full casters are still gods, and other PCs can instead focus on damage, or other offensive options.

    Just saying.


    Love ur build bbt...pretty much a copy if my crazy alchemist assassin

    As far as the issue of some poor guy getting attacked constantly and not seeing his opponent...readied action to trip can ruin this easily so I don't see the OPness

    I have this exact thing going on in my current game and honestly HiPS and hellcat are used more out of combat than in anyways...I know that depends on your GM but even in REAL combat (not theorycraft combat) it's still not that OP


    Personally speaking, if I was DM'ing, I would rule there is a difference between observation and interaction (as implied by the sniping rule and Stealth description). So I would require a bluff distraction or a move into cover or even a sniper type -20, to hide during combat, unless you had improved invisibility. But hey I'm a spoilsport, just saying.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

    So, houserule to make the feat not work.

    As you wish.


    I like how the best examples of how to counter this character is ample use of magic.

    Which, as a GM is exactly why I don't care for it. Let me fight the party with a caster who is prepared specifically to counter party members. What about fights that don't involve humanoids? They wont have access to magic to be a serious threat to this character.

    I don't care about that yes, there are some very ways to counter this character as much as you have to prepared to counter this guy and start using readied actions to do it. And supposing you ready your action to roflpwn him once he becomes visible. I play that you can tell when someone readies an action. You don't know what they're planning to do, but you can tell they're looking for something specific to happen and act in response. The wise character notices that, and does something different from what you expect.

    Let me be clear, I know exactly how this works by the current rules. It's legal. I just think it's awful.

    All I would like to see done is that it requires a move action or be taken as part of a move action, thus preventing a full attack. That's all I want. In my games, that is how it would be played.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

    Martial PCs just cannot have nice things.

    Why do world-destroying god Wizards never get as harsh a treatment?

    It's just "yeah, well, magic", and they get away with whatever they want.


    blackbloodtroll wrote:

    Martial PCs just cannot have nice things.

    Why do world-destroying god Wizards never get as harsh a treatment?

    It's just "yeah, well, magic", and they get away with whatever they want.

    That's more of a problem with casters being too strong, and the game not providing enough tools to capitalize on their weaknesses (there should be more ways to tactically discourage spellcasting beyond AOOs, readied actions and outright shutdown like antimagic and silence) I don't think the solution is to turn a blind eye to potential rule breaking because the character is perceived as being lower tier. Stealing is still illegal even if the owner is wealthier than you.

    What's unfortunate is that there is a system that went to lengths to fix this; it's 4E. In a weird way, our decision to use Pathfinder means as some level, we like it this way (to an extent).


    blackbloodtroll wrote:

    Martial PCs just cannot have nice things.

    Why do world-destroying god Wizards never get as harsh a treatment?

    It's just "yeah, well, magic", and they get away with whatever they want.

    I like martial PCs to have nice things, I've also got a nice long set of home rules to nerf casters. I don't need unbalancing rules to make more players an annoyance to balance combat.


    blackbloodtroll wrote:

    So, houserule to make the feat not work.

    As you wish.

    It doesn't stop the feat from working, it just doesn't work the way you want it to.

    I just haven't seen a rule anywhere which would fit in with your intention, no description of how to stealth in close contact, just the mention of observation which is a fairly passive thing. I don't have all the books so please correct me if I'm wrong.
    After only a moderate amount of pottering on the forums I see I'm in the minority on this.


    CountofUndolpho wrote:
    After only a moderate amount of pottering on the forums I see I'm in the minority on this.

    Don't focus on BBT's build, but rather consider a blinded opponent and their ability (and inability) to figure out where an attacker as stepped to after being attacked.

    The blinded foe knows the direction from which the attack came.

    But if the attacker then 5' steps, is the blinded foe automatically allowed to know to which square?

    In my mind, the attacker can make a penalized stealth check. Why?

    1. They are unobserved by the foe (as the foe is blind).
    2. They are moving (a 5' step is moving).
    3. They are not moving at half-speed, and thus the penalty.

    Now with a special rogue talent the penalty can be removed, but that should not influence this one way or the other.

    -James

    Liberty's Edge

    That whole "can't have nice things" quote is overused and over-abused...it sounds like whining.

    Each GM can make their own decision on how they want to handle feat/ability combinations. If a GM doesn't want a particular combo, he can discuss it with the group or decide on his own. Work it out.


    james maissen wrote:

    Don't focus on BBT's build, but rather consider a blinded opponent and their ability (and inability) to figure out where an attacker as stepped to after being attacked.

    -James

    I agree James but there are rules in place for fighting blind. It's the using stealth as a not so poor mans invisibility that I don't get. If you use invisibility it lasts for a limited time and a magic item/charge/spell must be expended on it. If stealth then acts like invisibility there are no limits on how often it can be used and only the cost of achieving the prerequisites.

    To "stealth" in a close up combat situation just seems a play by numbers thing rather than a role play thing. The emphasis on observation just doesn't chime with that usage though there isn't a specific case against it.


    Claxon wrote:


    I play that you can tell when someone readies an action. You don't know what they're planning to do, but you can tell they're looking for something specific to happen and act in response. The wise character notices that, and does something different from what you expect.

    So your complaint is that, because of a house rule you have, readied actions to shut this down would be less useful? ;)


    CountofUndolpho wrote:

    It's the using stealth as a not so poor mans invisibility that I don't get.

    Kinda like how disable device (open lock) is the not so poor mans knock spell?

    Not everything in the world has magic as supreme. Rogues do some fantastic things as a trade-off for not getting the amazing things that fighters get.

    In the case where the target is blind (or can't see the attacker using reach in a fog), why would it be reasonable to assume that they can automatically pinpoint where the attacker has adjusted to?

    Let us remove BBT's feats, class abilities, traits, and all the rest that he has built the character to do.

    Take a character with a longspear using lunge to attack another foe while in a fog cloud (or similar) spell. After the character attacks, the foe knows the direction from which the attack came, but not the square. If the character then 5' steps, does this automatically change?

    Are you saying it wouldn't matter if they have a huge stealth score, or have a severely negative one (i.e. full plate, low dex, etc)? Or are you just reacting to a character that's been built to do this one thing?

    I'm thinking it's the later, which is why I'm giving different examples.

    -James


    bbangerter wrote:
    Claxon wrote:


    I play that you can tell when someone readies an action. You don't know what they're planning to do, but you can tell they're looking for something specific to happen and act in response. The wise character notices that, and does something different from what you expect.
    So your complaint is that, because of a house rule you have, readied actions to shut this down would be less useful? ;)

    That's not really a house rule in my opinion. It's pretty common sense to look at someone and know what they're doing.

    If you're in combat and on their turn they don't do anything, and they have this look like they're waiting you can guess it's for you. I don't think that's a house rule. I think that's role playing. You know, the point of the game.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

    Well, imagine a PC fighting in the dark.

    He attacks, then 5ft. steps out of the enemies Darkvision range.

    He can use Stealth as part of this?


    blackbloodtroll wrote:

    Well, imagine a PC fighting in the dark.

    He attacks, then 5ft. steps out of the enemies Darkvision range.

    He can use Stealth as part of this?

    Did he start observed?

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
    james maissen wrote:
    blackbloodtroll wrote:

    Well, imagine a PC fighting in the dark.

    He attacks, then 5ft. steps out of the enemies Darkvision range.

    He can use Stealth as part of this?

    Did he start observed?

    Let's say, yes.


    Unless the 5' adjustment was part of a action that allowed for stealth, then no. Otherwise a hidden character could full ranged attack, then try to hide with the 5' adjust into cover. Rules are quite clear that it is ONE shot as the full round action to shoot and rehide with the sniping option.


    Frankthedm wrote:
    Unless the 5' adjustment was part of a action that allowed for stealth, then no. Otherwise a hidden character could full ranged attack, then try to hide with the 5' adjust into cover. Rules are quite clear that it is ONE shot as the full round action to shoot and rehide with the sniping option.

    Hmm. That's actually a good point - I've been assuming things like melee attacks. If 5' stepping allowed one to "Vanish" with Stealth, the Sniper Standard action/ Move action combo* would be irrelevant.

    *Sniper is technically not a Full-Round action, but it requires the use of both your Standard and Move actions.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

    Now, let's say, he started unobserved.


    It might not matter. If you attack, you're revealed, which if Sniper is any indication, takes a move action to hide. If you don't attack, you're still hidden anyway.

    Sniper allows you to Vanish within a short time window - it has to be done during the same turn - even if you would otherwise be Observed after doing so. If you have an alternate ability that defeats being Observed, I think you could do the same thing, but it might take a Move action, or during a move action spent to move.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

    Now, let's say, he does not need to be unobserved.


    Think of Unobserved as a flag, or checkbox you need filled in to qualify. You can either actually be unobserved, or you can have an ability that ticks the box for you, e.g. Hellcat Stealth or Hide in Plain Sight.
    You also need a Concealment checkbox filled in. You can have regular concealment (or cover), or you can have an ability, like Shadow Well, that ticks the box for you.

    Sniper ticks both boxes for you in exchange for a -20 penalty to your check, and the action to actually hide is a Move.

    With your Hellcat Stealth, you are free to hide in more situations, and at only a -10 penalty.

    When you Snipe, you start in Stealth. After you attack, you are Revealed. You have permission to Stealth again because you meet all criteria.

    With your feats and combos, you have permission to Stealth at virtually any time. To do it, you spend the Move action. If you actually move your speed, you can probably double-up, like with drawing a weapon.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

    So, "usually none" actually means Move action?

    A 5ft. step is not movement?

    For reference on Stealth, see here.

    51 to 100 of 132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Stealth, and 5ft. steps. All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.