I'm thinking it's the later, which is why I'm giving different examples.-James
I appreciate your using different examples but they all include some sort of cover/obscurement of a form of observation. I have no problem with the points you are making they can stealth in the fog etc. the opponent can use perception to find the square they are in, I'm fine with that.
BBT spends a lot of time in the books trying to optimise his characters and whilst I think he sometimes can't see the wood for the trees, at least he's doing unusual and interesting builds. He also PROVOKES debate, the cheeky thing, whilst looking for confirmation of his rule interpretations. Which can be very interesting and useful.
It's the interpretation of the stealth rules that says "I can be fighting you in a brightly lit room and I can take a step back and vanish", that bothers me. It just doesn't work for me, a bit too dodgy Kung Fu movie Ninja.
And whilst I take your point about the Disable Device, I think that Knock is a poor man's Disable Device rather than the other way round.
A rogue can sneak up and do a massive amount of damage, then they need to work at it, get flanking or feint etc. Stealth is for sneaking up and sneaking away.
When you Snipe, you start in Stealth. After you attack, you are Revealed. You have permission to Stealth again because you meet all criteria.
I must admit I thought the roll was to stay concealed?
You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location
Maintain rather than hide again.
Though I agree with BBT he can stealth as part of another action, usually movement. As for the 5' step bit; extrapolating from the snipe rules, how about you have to be at least 10' away from some one to hide/re-hide/maintain your obscured location from them? It's the closest I can find to a rule on the space/distance you need to hide.
Fog/mist/undergrowth etc usually give you an idea of how "obscuring" it is in the description, say 5' between you for total concealment. So a 5' step in fog would do...
|
We are discussing extraordinary, and supernatural heroes, using extraordinary, and supernatural abilities, to do extraordinary, and supernatural things.
Just because it's not a spell, doesn't mean it should be seen as impossible for those heroes who don't cast spells.
By the way, let's not resort to personal sniping.
I apologise if you consider that to be personal sniping it wasn't intended to be. I find a debate with you involved always touches on new things/rules/ideas.
Extraordinary but within a set of rules to try and balance them, make them playable, it's a game after all.
Why shouldn't things be impossible without spells/supernatural abilities? Surely that's why you have class and race choices to provide spice and variety, benefits and drawbacks.
|
|
The Troll regenerates as an extraordinary ability.
Unless otherwise specified, feats and class abilities are extraordinary.
This would mean feats like Hellcat Stealth, are extraordinary abilities.
From the PRD:
Extraordinary Abilities: These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field. Indeed, extraordinary abilities do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics.
What we are really discussing is action economy, nothing else.
Extraordinary and supernatural have no bearing on the discussion. They are only categories used to describe how they interact with other features of the game.
There are two questions that will lead to the correct answer and they have nothing to do with the build provided as an example. They come from the most basic parts of the game, yet neither question has ever been directly proven either way.
--------
Question 1: "What type of action (no, free, immediate, swift, move or full) is stealth when NOT used in the NORMAL way, or while SNIPING?"
Question 2: "Does a 5' Step (not a 5' move action) count as movement to trigger an effect of a skill or ability that happens as part of movement? Examples include stealth and drawing a weapon with +1 BAB."
--------
Clearly you can move 5' as a move action and stealth if you have a trigger. This build has a lot of triggers, so he is basically invisible all the time. It is powerful, but the power of the build has nothing to do with these questions because they are on the most basic parts of the game, not some advanced, hard to find rules.
The outcome just makes those advanced, hard to find rules awesome or truly amazing.
I still don't know how you get from this
[Quote: PRD]Stealth
(Dex; Armor Check Penalty)
You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. This skill covers hiding and moving silently.
to what you're describing.
It isn't in any book I've seen, there are no rules for it, unlike sniping. No feats that mention it "this feat allows you step out of combat and hide at +2 Without provoking an AoO" nothing. What am I not seeing that you guys do?
(Please bear with me I haven't role played with any "new" people for fifteen years or more. I think my group has just been playing together for too long and we have become set in our old fashioned ways.)
1. If it were a shadowdancer or assassin near shadow, would it still 'bother' you for them to use their special ability: hide in plain sight?2. If it were a ranger in their favored terrain would it still 'bother' you for them to use their high level special ability: hide in plain sight?
3. Or is your problem simply with the second tier feat: hellcat stealth?
1 It would depend on the circumstances - are they 'vanishing' in the midst of combat/interaction? then yes. Are they being observed from out of reach? then No.
2 & 3 as above.That's part of the game, and not something that we should try to boil down to "a < b".
Are we just repeating ourselves here?
1. A rogue does not deal 'massive' damage when you think about it. Compare it to a fighter with a twohanded weapon power attacking with their weapon training and specializations. Sneak attack is the way for a rogue to KEEP UP. And it is not like a rogue could not flank and gain this on a full attack, so again it is not a problem.
2. Stealth need not be so narrowly confined. For example I made up a deaf oracle that uses stealth to buff the party while being unseen and of course unheard.
1 "A massive amount of damage (for a thief)" better? Why would a Thief want to KEEP UP with a Fighter in a fight? They fulfil different roles. Flanking to get it involves being in combat, striking from hiding doesn't.
2. Great! Sounds like a useful and fun character.Please I'm not reacting to the product finished or not I'm reacting to the premise it's built on.
And I don't know of anyone who's saying you can take a Move Action without provoking an AoO. Nor a feat that gives you a +2 stealth & avoids an AoO for non-withdrawl movement.
That was my point there are no feats that mention stealth during an interaction just under observation - nobody's saying it at all, it was a fictitious example.
So your complaint is that, because of a house rule you have, readied actions to shut this down would be less useful? ;)
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.
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.
1) There are no rules governing this.
2) Combat is hectic, from a common sense perspective a perception check while distracted should be needed at a minimum (but see 1, which leaves the GM making up some number, which leads to table variation, and without at least some guidelines for 1 means this is very much a house rule).3) The very definition of house rule is, a rule that adds or alters how the rules as written work, such that not every group will play it the same way. These are almost always made as a case for role-playing, verisimilitude, or balance. And there is nothing wrong with any of those reasons, but they are still house rules.
4) I could easily come up with a dozen scenarios where my 'doing nothing' during a round wouldn't give any indication I've readied an action. I agree some things would be obvious, such as holding a baseball bat ready to swing at an incoming baseball is obvious. Others are not, such as crouching down behind a crate taking cover from archers with a readied action to move if any of them drops their bow and comes at me drawing a melee weapon. Or a readied action to surrender if the paladin charges at me (but only the paladin as I know he is likely to be merciful whereas any of his allies may decide to just run me through).
1) There are no rules governing this.
2) Combat is hectic, from a common sense perspective a perception check while distracted should be needed at a minimum (but see 1, which leaves the GM making up some number, which leads to table variation, and without at least some guidelines for 1 means this is very much a house rule).
3) The very definition of house rule is, a rule that adds or alters how the rules as written work, such that not every group will play it the same way. These are almost always made as a case for role-playing, verisimilitude, or balance. And there is nothing wrong with any of those reasons, but they are still house rules.
4) I could easily come up with a dozen scenarios where my 'doing nothing' during a round wouldn't give any indication I've readied an action. I agree some things would be obvious, such as holding a baseball bat ready to swing at an incoming baseball is obvious. Others are not, such as crouching down behind a crate taking cover from archers with a readied action to move if any of them drops their bow and comes at me drawing a melee weapon. Or a readied action to surrender if the paladin charges at me (but only the paladin as I know he is likely to...
I agree there aren't rules, because there doesn't need to be rules. It's like asking if you can see what someone standing in front of you is doing. You might not understand what they're doing, but you can see it. Adding a perception check to see...well that's a DC 0 to notice a visible creature + 1 per 10ft. I would say noticing a creature includes noticing what it's doing. No need for any house rules.
As far the act of doing nothing and readying action, my point is that a cautious character would just assume if you don't use your action that round that you've readied an action against him. It's very rare that (and lets assume this character isn't alone) characters are going to spend an entire round of combat doing nothing useful and not ready some sort of action. Even if they didn't, he can simply wait if they can't find him.
I agree there aren't rules, because there doesn't need to be rules. It's like asking if you can see what someone standing in front of you is doing. You might not understand what they're doing, but you can see it. Adding a perception check to see...well that's a DC 0 to notice a visible creature + 1 per 10ft. I would say noticing a creature includes noticing what it's doing. No need for any house rules.
I could claim there doesn't need to be rules regarding spellcraft determining what spell another player is casting. If my character is a wizard, he just 'knows' that other guy is casting a fireball.
I could claim there doesn't need to be rules for stealth. If I can see the other guy he isn't stealthed.
Both of these I could claim as 'common sense' because its 'obvious' in such and such a scenario.
The lack of rules for noticing a readied action isn't because it is 'obvious' or 'common sense' how this should work, because as I've indicated there are scenarios I can throw at you where there are no visual clues of a character with a readied action.
Readied actions, thematically, aren't just about preparing for an expected situation, they are also about taking advantage of a possible situation. e.g., there is a blazing wall of fire between me and a prisoner. Readied action to run through the area where the wall of fire is if it disappears (otherwise I'm standing around trying to think of what to do next and wasting my turn). Thematically such a character doesn't need to be crouched at the starting line like he is waiting for the gunshot to start off a foot race - he just notices the fire disappear and takes advantage of it as he wasn't pre-occupied with whatever actions he could have been taking but chose not to.
There are no rules that say I need to project my intended course of action.
So, sorry, but you are still in house rule territory with this concept. If you want more realism for it you should also allow the character readying an action to make a bluff check to hide his intent, or project a false intent - but that extends to even more house ruling.
As far the act of doing nothing and readying action, my point is that a cautious character would just assume if you don't use your action that round that you've readied an action against him.
This is a metagamey concept. In a one on one duel, sure you probably know if the other guy has 'taken his actions'. But in a large brawl, you likely have no idea if that guy behind you on the other side of the table has done anything with 'his turn'.
@Claxon, let me give another example.
A character is paralyzed. He readies an action to do some mental activity under a given condition. What are the rules for observers to know he has:
Readied an action?
Guess what that action might be?
Given the lack of clarity on how a player is supposed to "vanish", they probably CAN, but it's unlikely that's exactly how the various developers imagine it to work.
James Jacobs gave this thematic example:
Essentially, you appear to melt into the shadows like you were made of shadows yourself.
I never said to know what action they've readied.
My interpretation works like this.
1) You're in battle
2) You can notice all your enemies
3) You notice an enemy doesn't take any observable actions
4) Based on knowing they did nothing you believe (whether correctly or incorrectly) they have readied some action against you.
There is nothing metagamey about that, its based purely on observing your enemy. I don't need to see the character do something specific to guess he's readied an action. In fact, I'm looking for him to not do something that would use his actions. In combat if he does nothing I'm just going to assume that he's readied an action to do something.
A large brawl, maybe you don't know what every opponent is doing, 4 to 5 enemies? Not a problem.
Also you said you could provide situation, but you never did before your last post. And in regard to that, if I see a paralzyed creature you're right that I can't make a check to know if he's readied an action or identify what action he's readied. But I could probably guess that he's going to ready an action to take if he can do something, which is a very limited list. Or to ready an action to do something as soon as he is able to act again.
I provided two others prior to the paralyzed example. Wall of fire and crouching behind cover against archers.
A large brawl, maybe you don't know what every opponent is doing, 4 to 5 enemies? Not a problem.
What rule tells me the cut off number?
Sure most combats are half a dozen per side. But some combats (at least ones I run) involve larger numbers. At what point does common sense tell me that is no longer feasible? It will be different at every table, and as such is purely house rule territory.
Assuming a battle small enough that you could track all your enemies, guessing an opponent might have a readied action is different than knowing they have a readied action.
Let's go back to your original statement.
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.
That is a different thing then guessing they might be planning to do something or have 'actions available' to do something (characters talking/thinking/considering about action economy is a metagamey concept - but is required for players to function in the turn based environment). I also note, which is what I'm calling you out on, that I play is not the same thing as what the rules describe or how others play.
Knowing what others are doing also works easily in a turn based system. Suggesting you know what all (even if only 4-5) opponents are doing in a six second flow of real time while simultaneously engaging one or two of them in melee combat (and being effective at that combat) is a bit of a stretch. Spread those 4-5 people in a rough circle around you (at varying ranges of adjacent to 30-40' away) and from a realism (common sense) perspective it becomes impossible.
@ BBT
As far as action economy for Stealth, there are two ways you could read the relevant text.
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 way is the way most people tend to see it:
1) Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action.
2) However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.
The second way is how I prefer to view it:
1) Usually none.
2) Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action.
3) However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.
Note that either way you look at it the 5 foot step is classified as a movement and thus qualifies for triggering Stealth use.
You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement.
Both by the common sense dictionary definition or by interpreting the rules of 5-foot steps you can safely call the 5-foot step a movement. So, yes the 5-foot step is sufficient for making a Stealth check.
...
Separately, under the second interpretation that I subscribe to it is perfectly acceptable to take no action at all (Usually none) and I back this up with several situational examples and at least one bit of RAW that seems to support it.
Example 1: Suppose someone is already standing in the shadowy corner of a dimly lit room. Do you think he has to take any particular action to stand perfectly still in Stealth while the human occupant of the house walks by?
Example 2: Suppose someone is crouching down behind a desk looking for a secret compartment. Do you think he should have to perform any particular action to stay crouched in Stealth if someone opens the door to the study and looks in?
Those are just two very simple scenarios that IMO highlight the fact that Stealth can indeed be used with no action. Then there is this bit of the invisibility description that points at the fact that you can be perfectly still taking no movement and still use Stealth.
If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving.
Before someone says, "Of course you can choose to sacrifice your move action to remain perfectly still," remember that there is one, and only one, situation where Stealth sucks up your entire Move Action, that is while Sniping. Sniping is a very unique circumstance and if done right you are never seen at all throughout the attack, so obviously it should take a great deal of additional effort to perform Stealth under that circumstance.
It's Friday night and I'm tired of arguing over this. I searched a thread that was about it readied actions are obvious. There was no official resolution, and of course there wont be. There are no hard rules to tell us how many people you can and can't notice what they're doing, except that it's a DC 0 to notice someone. So, the only ruling you have is if you can perceive them at all. I extend this to say if you can perceive them, you can tell (within reason) what they're doing. And beyond that there isn't any house ruling to it.
Also, keep in mind this isn't being done by somebody "in combat". The idea is this person has just hidden themselves from everybody else. Ideally no one is detecting them and now they're observing other people. Wouldn't you be doing that if you had this neat disappearing trick? This isn't someone in melee combat with somebody having to defend himself from attacks. This is a virtually invisible guy on the battle field looking out to make sure no one can harm him.