|
Which is in ultimate combat... which came out well after the rogue.
That's a good point, I was not aware of the timeline on that. It doesn't change my argument, but it's good to know.
Lay out, in game terms, how you think that works. the rogue is fighting an orc fighter while 10 feet away from a tapestry. He's like to start hiding. How do you think that works?
Withdraw action, move to tapestry and stealth. Move to new location with my other 20' of movement (or more) while stealth displacing last known location. Should I stay behind the tapestry and ready an action to stab the Orc directly into the face should he investigate my hiding spot, it would be the GM's call if I could Sneak Attack or not. When he pulls the curtain aside he would see me and I would lose stealth. Just as a stealthed creature would if hiding inside a magical darkness that got dispelled.
That scenario aside, let us stay on topic...
Again, it is something that is normally necessary to hide, because people standing around in the middle of lit rooms tend to be hard to miss.
So...observation? Cover and concealment are there to stop you from being observed.
Ergo: If being observed is not a barrier to stealth, people standing around in the middle of the lit room can now...hide in plain sight. Using Stealth.
|
|
ErrantPursuit, not in a Rules Forum in which a discussion is based on RAW instead of RAI.
I'm not saying that the intention is to not give the rogue camouflage as well, but as written they do not gain that benefit and therefore still require cover/concealment.
The need for cover/concealment arises from the fact that the rogue has no mechanic to blend into the environment and hence is still clearly visible without cover/concealment and therefore the stealth check is useless.
You're missing the crux of it. I am not arguing about intent. You're case is that cover and concealment is required whether people can see you or not.
My point is that cover and concealment are required to prevent people from seeing you.
Withdraw action, move to tapestry and stealth. Move to new location with my other 20' of movement (or more) while stealth displacing last known location. Should I stay behind the tapestry and ready an action to stab the Orc directly into the face should he investigate my hiding spot, it would be the GM's call if I could Sneak Attack or not. When he pulls the curtain aside he would see me and I would lose stealth. Just as a stealthed creature would if hiding inside a magical darkness that got dispelled.
And notice here that you don't need to make a bluff check. The rules say you do need to make a bluff check. You also took no penalty when the rules call out a penalty because you have to move fast under those circumstances.
This is incredibly on topic because being observed is A barrier to stealth. Being behind something is a seperate barrier to stealth.
The recent errata makes this even clearer
Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.
When you move behind the tapestry the orc is still aware of you.
In your example the orc can follow where you're going with his eyes the entire time. He watches you go behind the tapestry, he can see your feet on the bottom.
My point is that cover and concealment are required to prevent people from seeing you.
No one is arguing otherwise, but you're saying they're the ONLY requirement, which is patently false.
|
Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): A rogue with this talent can select a single terrain from the ranger's favored terrain list. She is a master at hiding in that terrain, and while within that terrain, she can use the Stealth skill to hide, even while being observed. A rogue may take this advanced talent more than once, each time selecting a different terrain from the favored terrain list.
Which is in ultimate combat... which came out well after the rogue. References the rangers favored terrain ability, and copies the condition "while being observed".
Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): While in any of his favored terrains, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use the Stealth skill even while being observed.- which came out with the core rule book.
the ranger ,by 17th level, doesn't need Camouflage ability, because they can now hide in plain sight, while being observed. which precludes the need for cover or concealment.
even if a ranger traded Camouflage for something else, their 17th level ability would work the same. as they can hide without the need for anything else while observed.
that the rogue's ability mimics the 17th level ability, means that it too supersedes the need for cover/concealment as a means for hiding from observers.
|
|
So you are arguing that you can always use stealth when you have cover/concealment because that keeps people from observing you?
In the stealth description both cover/concealment AND the absence of observers are mentioned. They are not one and the same.
If you use stealth while unobserved without cover/concealment you are not hidden if at a later point someone comes around and observes the spot you are in. This is what happens with the rogue's HIPS as well, she can use stealth because she counts as unobserved, but without cover/concealment or an ability that makes them unnecessary, as written, she is just as visible as she was before the stealth check
they're not the same. but cover/concealment are used to break observation.
if you're somehow still observed ( rushing to a dark corner vs. someone with darkvision, running into fog vs. someone who can see in fog ), then you don't have success conditions to stealth and they automatically observe you stealthing.if you can stealth while being observed, you don't need anything to hide behind.
eliminating the observation need means you could stealth anywhere/anytime. (subject to rules and conditions, fine print may apply. buy now )
Seraphimpunk,
That's entirely circular.
As you can see, shadowdancer HIPS works. It specifically called out that it negates BOTH the need to be unobserved AND the cover/concealment requirement: separately. The rogue version does not, so by RAW it does not. It really bites for rogues, I tried to point out the problem when the book was first released
|
|
So you are arguing that you can always use stealth when you have cover/concealment because that keeps people from observing you?
Yes, because the rules tell me I can. Seraphimpunk made an excellent post on this already
When you move behind the tapestry the orc is still aware of you.
If the tapestry is enough to allow concealment then I can stealth, perhaps by using the tapestry and hangings to pull my feet off of the ground or some other tactic. If it is not enough to conceal me, then I cannot use stealth. Being aware that I moved there is not the same as knowing exactly where I am. It becomes my last known location, rather like turning invisible. If you do not displace then people can still target your square or try to hit you inside of it.
My point is that cover and concealment are required to prevent people from seeing you.No one is arguing otherwise, but you're saying they're the ONLY requirement, which is patently false.
...
If you are not arguing that the purpose of cover and concealment are to break observation, and if I can hide while being observed, why do I need cover and concealment?|
|
So are you arguing that a bluff check is enough to hide since the diversion lets you attempt stealth while people observe you? No need to move into concealment/cover?
The rogue shouts: "Look behind you, a three-headed monkey", rolls epic bluff and stealth but still stands in front of the orc. Is she now hidden from the orc?
that's the same scenario as HIPS without Camouflage
You could use that situation to grant a sneak attack using something like feint. If you must be unobserved in order to use stealth (without the hide in plain sight feature) then when the orc looks back he sees you. If you can hide in plain sight, then whether the orc can see you or not is of no relevance.
If you are not arguing that the purpose of cover and concealment are to break observation, and if I can hide while being observed, why do I need cover and concealment?
I'm arguing that cover or concealment are by themselves INSUFFICIENT to break observation. To do that, you need either the bluff check or hide in plain sight.
Look at how you're reading it. There's NO penalty for what you're doing nd you dont' have to make a bluff check. Why do you think the bluff check is even mentioned at all if you don't need to do it? Why do you think the penalty is there if you don't have to deal with it?
Give me an in game example where you think you'd use a bluff check.
|
|
If you are not arguing that the purpose of cover and concealment are to break observation, and if I can hide while being observed, why do I need cover and concealment?I'm arguing that cover or concealment are by themselves INSUFFICIENT to break observation. To do that, you need either the bluff check or hide in plain sight.
Look at how you're reading it. There's NO penalty for what you're doing nd you dont' have to make a bluff check. Why do you think the bluff check is even mentioned at all if you don't need to do it? Why do you think the penalty is there if you don't have to deal with it?
The rules literally say that you are wrong. Stealth mentions it specifically.
Further, I am not arguing against using bluff to provide a distraction in the middle of combat with someone you are fighting to allow the rogue to skedaddle behind some cover and take the penalties associated. This is a situational requirement. If I expect to stay hidden it becomes even more critical because "I can't see him, but I saw him run behind the tapestry there." is a completely legitimate counter-action to take. I can stealth, but it won't last long and people can still target my location if not me directly. It's inferior to making a bluff check first and then moving out of sight.
If the spell Darkness was cast the rogue would not need to bluff to use that cover. If invisibility was cast the rogue would not need to use cover or bluff. (maybe you're arguing that the rogue does?) This is because the rogue can no longer be observed. Hide in Plain Sight states that being observed is no longer a barrier to the rogue. The rogue is so good at hiding in his terrain that you can be staring right at him and he goes poof.
|
|
cover or concealment by themselves are insufficient to break observation if someone is already observing you . like, for instance, if you run around a corner to break observation, but discover that there is someone already waiting down the hall. you've broken sight line from A, but B is in the hall observing you.
or if no one is around, you can hide in a bush. because no one has observed you going into the cover to hide.
with hide in plain sight, you don't need to hide behind something, or it would be called something else, like hide while being observed, and I guarantee you that every version of it would call out that you would still need something to hide behind. How many HIPS abilities call out that you need something to hide behind?
the ranger's hide in plane sight ability at 17 works exactly as written, independently of their camouflage ability. it does not depend on that ability, its a stand alone. the same with the rogue's ability.
|
|
@BigNorseWolf: If my position has come across that under normal circumstances a rogue can stealth in the middle of combat while engaged in a fight and being observed, then we got our wires crossed in the debate somewhere. I am not arguing against needing to use Bluff or Cover when situationally appropriate, nor am I arguing that the penalties for moving quickly should not be applied as appropriate.
I am only arguing that the line from Hide in Plain Sight which states:
she can use the Stealth skill to hide, even while being observed.
means that the rogue can choose to make a stealth check in bright light standing next to you.
The rules literally say that you are wrong. Stealth mentions it specifically.
You keep acting as if I'm the one that needs to read the rules. I'm sorry, but you can't just link the rules as if they prove your point.
They do not.
There is a giant chunk of the rules there, both pre and post errata, that you cannot incorporate into your examples.
If the spell Darkness was cast the rogue would not need to bluff to use that cover.
Yes, he would. You do not stop being able to follow someone just because it got dm.
If invisibility was cast the rogue would not need to use cover or bluff. (maybe you're arguing that the rogue does?)
I am not.
The rogue would not need cover because he has concealment... total concealment in fact from the spell.
He would not need to bluff because
Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision, including darkvision.
Which i think i'm saying is "unobserved"
This is because the rogue can no longer be observed. Hide in Plain Sight states that being observed is no longer a barrier to the rogue. The rogue is so good at hiding in his terrain that you can be staring right at him and he goes poof.
It does not, unfortunately.
Your interpretation that concealment and observation are one and the same requirement cannot account for the bluff check and the -10 penalty in the rules. My interpretation that they are two seperate checks can. You've given me no reason to believe that my interpretation is wrong, at all.
|
|
The rules literally say that you are wrong. Stealth mentions it specifically.You keep acting as if I'm the one that needs to read the rules. I'm sorry, but you can't just link the rules as if they prove your point.
They do not.
Ummm...you said concealment isn't enough. Across a large enough spectrum of cases you are correct. There are specific situations in which concealment is not enough. Others...when the rules state: "Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth." I tend to think I should follow the rules. And, you know, they also proved my point when I said you were wrong, because the rules actually state in unambiguous terms your position was not founded.
There is a giant chunk of the rules there, both pre and post errata, that you cannot incorporate into your examples.
Like what? The whole section is two paragraphs and a special cases section which is about four more sentences. Three paragraphs are not a giant chunk of the rules...If you'd like to point me to the giant chunk I'd like to see what I'm missing.
If the spell Darkness was cast the rogue would not need to bluff to use that cover.Yes, he would. You do not stop being able to follow someone just because it got dm.
Well, according to the Vision and Lighting you are incorrect.
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.
So...I'm quoting the rules again, because...they prove my point.
If invisibility was cast the rogue would not need to use cover or bluff. (maybe you're arguing that the rogue does?)I am not.
The rogue would not need cover because he has concealment... total concealment in fact from the spell.
He would not need to bluff because
Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision, including darkvision.
Which i think i'm saying is "unobserved"
Praise Jeebus! We're getting somewhere!
This is because the rogue can no longer be observed. Hide in Plain Sight states that being observed is no longer a barrier to the rogue. The rogue is so good at hiding in his terrain that you can be staring right at him and he goes poof.It does not, unfortunately.
Your interpretation that concealment and observation are one and the same requirement cannot account for the bluff check and the -10 penalty in the rules. My interpretation that they are two seperate checks can. You've given me no reason to believe that my interpretation is wrong, at all.
Well...I thought we were.
I am not stating concealment and observation are one and the same. I thought I was very clear. I'll try to be more clear:
Observation is the deciding factor on whether you can use stealth or not. Observation is further complicated because some creatures can observe you while others cannot. However, it is the start and end of preconditions you must meet to use stealth. That is what I have to say about observation.
Concealment is a method by which a character can break observation from interested parties. Concealment and cover and bluff checks are all used as ways to meet the condition of becoming unobserved.
It seems from your last paragraph that you are saying I must make a bluff check and have cover or concealment every time I try to use stealth and these are intrinsic properties to hiding. Why do we use Bluff and Concealment? To become unobserved. (you and I both seem to agree on that part) If we do not care if we are unobserved then what purpose do they now serve?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They work similarly. HS trumps the need for cover/concealment, but you have a penalty on the check. HIPS trumps the need for cover/concealment, but it requires a nearby shadow, and has no penalty.I take two things from that comparison statement. Firstly, Shadowdancer HiPS trumps the need for cover/concealment. Secondly, if it looks like HiPS, smells like HiPS, and acts like HiPS (or perhaps if it's actually called HiPS) it is likely intended to allow you to trump the need for cover/concealment and hide in plain sight.
yes he's discussing shadowdancer HiPS vs. hellcat stealth
but "Secondly, if it looks like HiPS, smells like HiPS, and acts like HiPS (or perhaps if its actually called HiPS) it is likely intended to allow you to trump the need for cover/concealment and hide in plain sight." is a pretty clear opinion on the rules.
ifs SKR's quote doesn't persuade you that maybe devs lean towards all HiPS abilities trumping the need for cover/concealment, I don't know how we can help clarify our opinion on it.
maybe if we start from the beginning with how you think it work.
|
|
Thanks for bringing that back up, Seraphimpunk. Remind me to send Shadowlord a thank you at some point for posting that the other day.
You are difficult to see in the light.
Prerequisites: Skill Focus (Stealth), Stealth 6 ranks.
Benefit: You may make Stealth checks in normal or bright light even when observed, but at a -10 penalty.
Normal: You cannot make Stealth checks while observed.
Notice that the language on this ability does not mention cover or concealment at all, just like the rogue's version.
Also notice that under normal it says you cannot make checks while being observed, not that you cannot make stealth checks while concealed and unobserved, or after bluffing, finding concealment and becoming unobserved.
The shadowdancers HIPS trumps the need for concealment because they're taking a shadow from a few feet away and wrapping it around themselves , making their own concealment.
Firstly: You and Isil-zha are trying to make my argument about SD HiPS vs Rogue HiPS. It is NOT, I have made it very clear that my argument is comparing Rogue HiPS to Hellcat Stealth. I am merely using a quote from SKR that was comparing Hellcat Stealth to SD HiPS. However, I am using that example to compare Rogue HiPS and Hellcat Stealth. You both seem to be actively avoiding the point of my argument.
Secondly: Really, are you sure the SD is wraping himself in a shadow from 10 feet away? I would like to see where the rules say that or anything at all like that. The rules say they need to be within 10 feet of dim light, there's nothing in there about wraping up in a shadow to gain concealment.
In fact, SKR stated that SD HiPS "trumps" the need for "Cover and Concealment." Trumps the need means that it over rides the need for it completely. It does not mean you still need concealment you just gain it by pulling a shadow from 10 feet away and concealing yourself.
Additionally, if you were correct and they were hiding using the "concealment" of a shadow they pulled from 10 feet away then lowlight vision and darkvision would be effective against this ability. JJ says LLV and DV don't thwart HiPS."If a shadowdancer is within dim light and can thus use Hide in Plain Sight, yes, that lets him try to Stealth against everyone. Low Light Vision and darkvision don't particularly help or limit this."
Rogue HIPS offers no such mechanism or wording. They don't need to make the (action undefined) bluff check to try to hide.
Hellcat Stealth: You may make Stealth checks in normal or bright light even when observed, but at a -10 penalty.
Rogue HiPS: while within that terrain, she can use the Stealth skill to hide, even while being observed.
BigNorseWolf, please explain in detail the difference you see between the two, almost identical, abilities posted above and why you think one should trump cover/concealment while the other, which containst the same language, does not.
What I see is two abilities that are worded almost identically. Neither ability explicity states it trumps cover/concealment but one of them has a designer statement behind it saying it does trump cover/concealment. Based on that, I can see no good reason not to treat one like the other.
The different HIPS are all worded differently. If someone went through the trouble of doing that instead of copy pasting it tells me they're supposed to BE different.
They are written differently for a number of reasons that do not have to include or have anything to do with your argument.
1) Different writers.
2) Different editors.
3) They are meant to be somewhat different in the sense that they have different triggers.
4) Assassin and SD HiPS are copy/pasted from 3.5 while new abilities are being written under the PF mindset of trying to smooth out the gaming experience, remove unnecessary complication, and save word space in their products.
ErrantPursuit, not in a Rules Forum in which a discussion is based on RAW instead of RAI.
I'm not saying that the intention is to not give the rogue camouflage as well, but as written they do not gain that benefit and therefore still require cover/concealment.
Hellcat Stealth: You may make Stealth checks in normal or bright light even when observed, but at a -10 penalty.
Rogue HiPS: while within that terrain, she can use the Stealth skill to hide, even while being observed.
What I see is two abilities that are worded almost identically. Neither ability explicity states it trumps cover/concealment but one of them has a designer statement behind it saying it does trump cover/concealment. Based on that, I can see no good reason not to treat one like the other.
My opinion here isn't based on RAW vs RAI. It's based on an explicit designer statement and strict comparison of abilities. Obviously the designers don't think there is a problem with the RAW of Hellcat Stealth because it has not been altered. RAW for Hellcat Stealth is that you may hide even while observed, and that statement is sufficient to include trumping the need for cover/concealment.
Isil-zha, please explain in detail the difference you see between the two, almost identical, abilities posted above and why you think one should trump cover/concealment while the other, which containst the same language, does not.
The need for cover/concealment arises from the fact that the rogue has no mechanic to blend into the environment and hence is still clearly visible without cover/concealment and therefore the stealth check is useless.
Except the ability states, "can use the Stealth skill to hide, even while being observed," so being clearly visible is explicitly not a problem.
Oh stealth rules, you so crazy.
Errant, you're not making an argument. You're stating that you're right, and saying that that makes you right, and ignoring points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shadowlord, you are now the patron deity of rogues, thieves, assassins, and all others who seek refuge from prying eyes in my games now.
Your portfolio is Shadow, Protection, Trickery, and Luck.
To sum,
Based on a designer clarification, Hellcat Stealth, which DOES trump the need for concealment and cover uses the same exact wording as the Rogue's Hide in Plain Sight which would mean it trumps the need for concealment and cover as well.
In fact, SKR stated that SD HiPS "trumps" the need for "Cover and Concealment."
Yes, when speaking of Shadow dancer HIPS
Shadowdancers exist in the boundary between light and darkness, where they weave together the shadows to become half-seen artists of deception
and the requirement that they be within 10 feet of an area of dim light.
In fact, SKR stated that SD HiPS "trumps" the need for "Cover and Concealment."Yes, when speaking of Shadow dancer HIPS
Shadowdancers exist in the boundary between light and darkness, where they weave together the shadows to become half-seen artists of deception
and the requirement that they be within 10 feet of an area of dim light.
Dude. Keep reading, SKR goes on to say that Hellcat stealth which uses the exact same wording as the Rogue's HiPS, ALSO trumps cover and concealment.
In fact, SKR stated that SD HiPS "trumps" the need for "Cover and Concealment."Yes, when speaking of Shadow dancer HIPS
Shadowdancers exist in the boundary between light and darkness, where they weave together the shadows to become half-seen artists of deception
and the requirement that they be within 10 feet of an area of dim light.
At this point I am unsure if it's your comprehension of my argument that is the problem or if you understand perfectly well and are simply avoiding my argument because you have no good counter. But I will break down my last post to you because your statement here doesn't address any of my arguments or questions.
.....
I am addressing two things in my previous post to you. This part:
Secondly: Really, are you sure the SD is wraping himself in a shadow from 10 feet away? I would like to see where the rules say that or anything at all like that. The rules say they need to be within 10 feet of dim light, there's nothing in there about wraping up in a shadow to gain concealment.
In fact, SKR stated that SD HiPS "trumps" the need for "Cover and Concealment." Trumps the need means that it over rides the need for it completely. It does not mean you still need concealment you just gain it by pulling a shadow from 10 feet away and concealing yourself.
Additionally, if you were correct and they were hiding using the "concealment" of a shadow they pulled from 10 feet away then lowlight vision and darkvision would be effective against this ability. JJ says LLV and DV don't thwart HiPS."If a shadowdancer is within dim light and can thus use Hide in Plain Sight, yes, that lets him try to Stealth against everyone. Low Light Vision and darkvision don't particularly help or limit this."
Is in dirrect response to YOUR statement:
The shadowdancers HIPS trumps the need for concealment because they're taking a shadow from a few feet away and wrapping it around themselves , making their own concealment.
Which is false, see my argument above.
.....
The second thing I am addressing is your active avoidance of my argument, dodging and weaving, to skirt the point of my statements. Again, I am NOT comparing Rogue HiPS to SD HiPS. I am comparing it to Hellcat Stealth. So if you want to continue arguing your point, and IF you have a valid argument to continue with, this is the portion you should be addressing:
Hellcat Stealth: You may make Stealth checks in normal or bright light even when observed, but at a -10 penalty.
Rogue HiPS: while within that terrain, she can use the Stealth skill to hide, even while being observed.
BigNorseWolf, please explain in detail the difference you see between the two, almost identical, abilities posted above and why you think one should trump cover/concealment while the other, which containst the same language, does not.
What I see is two abilities that are worded almost identically. Neither ability explicity states it trumps cover/concealment but one of them has a designer statement behind it saying it does trump cover/concealment. Based on that, I can see no good reason not to treat one like the other.
Shadowlord, you are now the patron deity of rogues, thieves, assassins, and all others who seek refuge from prying eyes in my games now.
Your portfolio is Shadow, Protection, Trickery, and Luck.
Thanks.
To sum,
Based on a designer clarification, Hellcat Stealth, which DOES trump the need for concealment and cover uses the same exact wording as the Rogue's Hide in Plain Sight which would mean it trumps the need for concealment and cover as well.
See... This guy understands what I am saying. Notice he doesn't mention SD HiPS anywhere in his summary of my argument.
That's pretty convincing.
You may make Stealth checks in normal or bright light even when observed, but at a -10 penalty.
A rogue with this talent can select a single terrain from the ranger’s favored terrain list. She is a master at hiding in that terrain, and while within that terrain, she can use the Stealth skill to hide, even while being observed.
They do use the same text (basically), just with different qualifiers. One is light level, the other is terrain. If a designer ruled that Hellcat Stealth works even without cover or concealment, it follows that the rogue ability must also. Wow.
Concealed and not observed: Hiding behind a rock before anyone shows up. Make your stealth check
Concealed but observed: fighting in the dark on a moonlit night. You need to make the bluff check and then the stealth check.
Observed and not concealed:Standing in the middle of Rigly field with the lights on There's no way to make a stealth check without changing both conditions
Not observed and not concealed: Someone reading a book while you're in the middle of Rigly field. You still can't hide behind anything: the second they put the book down they see you.
Two. Separate. Conditions.
Concealed and not observed: Hiding behind a rock before anyone shows up. Make your stealth check
Concealed but observed: fighting in the dark on a moonlit night. You need to make the bluff check and then the stealth check.
Observed and not concealed:Standing in the middle of Rigly field with the lights on There's no way to make a stealth check without changing both conditions
Not observed and not concealed: Someone reading a book while you're in the middle of Rigly field. You still can't hide behind anything: the second they put the book down they see you.
Two. Separate. Conditions.
So your just disregarding the designer clarification on Hellcat stealth? Or are you ignoring the fact that Hellcat Stealth has the same wording as the Rogue's Hide in Plain Sight.
SKR said that Hellcat Stealth trumps Concealment and Cover. The Rogue's HiPS has the exact same wording. What is the confusion here?
Way to not answer anything, or address any of the arguments, in my post.
So, do you just not have a valid counter argument?
These are the two abilities I am comparing:
You may make Stealth checks in normal or bright light even when observed, but at a -10 penalty.
A rogue with this talent can select a single terrain from the ranger’s favored terrain list. She is a master at hiding in that terrain, and while within that terrain, she can use the Stealth skill to hide, even while being observed.
Notice, Hellcat Stealth and Rogue HiPS have the same terminology. Both grant HiPS and neither explicitly say they trump cover/concealment. However, SKR says:
HS trumps the need for cover/concealment, but you have a penalty on the check.
So my argument is, as blahpers would put it:
They do use the same text (basically), just with different qualifiers... If a designer ruled that Hellcat Stealth works even without cover or concealment, it follows that the rogue ability must also. Wow.
It's a very simple argument, to which I have not heard a single valid counter argument from you. So a third time I will ask; between these two lines of text:
Hellcat Stealth: You may make Stealth checks in normal or bright light even when observed, but at a -10 penalty.
Rogue HiPS: while within that terrain, she can use the Stealth skill to hide, even while being observed.
@ BigNorseWolf: Please explain in detail the difference you see between the two, almost identical, abilities posted above and why you think one should trump cover/concealment while the other, which containst the same language, does not.
Concealed and not observed: Hiding behind a rock before anyone shows up. Make your stealth check
Concealed but observed: fighting in the dark on a moonlit night. You need to make the bluff check and then the stealth check.
Observed and not concealed:Standing in the middle of Rigly field with the lights on There's no way to make a stealth check without changing both conditions
Not observed and not concealed: Someone reading a book while you're in the middle of Rigly field. You still can't hide behind anything: the second they put the book down they see you.
Two. Separate. Conditions.
I read this as "La la la la la, I can't hear you!"
|
|
Errant, you're not making an argument. You're stating that you're right, and saying that that makes you right, and ignoring points.
I address each point, quoting the argument I am addressing. I then make my counter-point, support it with quotes and statements from the rules, and ask pertinent questions about your interpretation in order to understand the sticking point better. I was taught that this was an effective way to discuss things and come to a coherent understanding.
Stealth has one condition as written in the rules:
Concealed and not observed: Hiding behind a rock before anyone shows up. Make your stealth checkConcealed but observed: fighting in the dark on a moonlit night. You need to make the bluff check and then the stealth check.
Observed and not concealed:Standing in the middle of Rigly field with the lights on There's no way to make a stealth check without changing both conditions
Not observed and not concealed: Someone reading a book while you're in the middle of Rigly field. You still can't hide behind anything: the second they put the book down they see you.
Two. Separate. Conditions.
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.
This is further supported by the wording of Hellcat Stealth which has been clarified by the designers to not require concealment with the following line...
Normal: You cannot make Stealth checks while observed.
Which indicates that being observed is the only condition to making a Stealth check.
Stealth then follows with examples on how to achieve that condition
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.
After you have seen designer clarification, read the rules, had them broken down, each sentence discussed in relevance, and then re-stated by separate individuals you still do not want to admit it works that way.
I can understand not wanting to agree with fellow players who have no insight to the design process and are also merely interpreting the rules, same as you. Regardless of how poor or strong our arguments may be we are still just using our reasoning. Ignoring the developers who have insight and the authority to make these calls, though, is confusing to me.
Why? What is the real issue here?
support it with quotes and statements from the rules,
"you read the rules again" "here are the rules" is not supporting your statement when the rules themselves are whats being discussed.
I am still waiting for an in game example of when, how, or why you'd ever have to use the bluff check.
Give me something other than an ad hom or aspersions on my motives here.
Which indicates that being observed is the only condition to making a Stealth check.
Not if you read the entire paragraph as a whole.
support it with quotes and statements from the rules,"you read the rules again" "here are the rules" is not supporting your statement when the rules themselves are whats being discussed.
I am still waiting for an in game example of when, how, or why you'd ever have to use the bluff check.
Give me something other than an ad hom or aspersions on my motives here.
Which indicates that being observed is the only condition to making a Stealth check.Not if you read the entire paragraph as a whole.
Are we even talking about this? Because this is not the purpose of the thread.
But heres your example.
Orc sees Rogue-chan. Rogue-chan wants to hide over by that boulder but the Orc is watching. Rogue-chan makes a bluff check to cause a distraction. Distraction is a success and Rogue-chan leaps for the boulder and crouches behind it. Rogue-chan makes her stealth roll and rolls highly. Orc can't seem to find Rogue-chan.
In this example the boulder provides cover.
You use the bluff check to cause a distraction so that you can move to cover or an area of concealment if you are already being observed.
Orc sees Rogue-chan. Rogue-chan wants to hide over by that boulder but the Orc is watching. Rogue-chan makes a bluff check to cause a distraction. Distraction is a success and Rogue-chan leaps for the boulder and crouches behind it. Rogue-chan makes her stealth roll and rolls highly. Orc can't seem to find Rogue-chan.
Note that, in your example, that the mere cover of the rock is not sufficient to start the stealth check. Errant is claiming that it is.
If they want to errata the rogues HIPS to actually do what its supposed to by negating both the concealment and the cover requirement I would be tickled pink. (but you wouldn't be able to see that cause I'd be stealthing)
Orc sees Rogue-chan. Rogue-chan wants to hide over by that boulder but the Orc is watching. Rogue-chan makes a bluff check to cause a distraction. Distraction is a success and Rogue-chan leaps for the boulder and crouches behind it. Rogue-chan makes her stealth roll and rolls highly. Orc can't seem to find Rogue-chan.Note that, in your example, that the mere cover of the rock is not sufficient to start the stealth check. Errant is claiming that it is.
If they want to errata the rogues HIPS to actually do what its supposed to by negating both the concealment and the cover requirement I would be tickled pink. (but you wouldn't be able to see that cause I'd be stealthing)
Wow. You seriously haven't been reading anything of what we've been saying to you.
Hellcat Stealth uses the exact same wording as the Rogue's HiPS and SKR stated that Hellcat Stealth trumps the need for cover/concealment for stealth. Ergo, the Rogue Hide in Plain Sight also trumps the need for cover/concealment.
Orc sees Rogue-chan. Rogue-chan wants to hide over by that boulder but the Orc is watching. Rogue-chan makes a bluff check to cause a distraction. Distraction is a success and Rogue-chan leaps for the boulder and crouches behind it. Rogue-chan makes her stealth roll and rolls highly. Orc can't seem to find Rogue-chan.Note that, in your example, that the mere cover of the rock is not sufficient to start the stealth check. Errant is claiming that it is.
If they want to errata the rogues HIPS to actually do what its supposed to by negating both the concealment and the cover requirement I would be tickled pink. (but you wouldn't be able to see that cause I'd be stealthing)
Wow. You seriously haven't been reading anything of what we've been saying to you.
Hellcat Stealth uses the exact same wording as the Rogue's HiPS and SKR stated that Hellcat Stealth trumps the need for cover/concealment for stealth. Ergo, the Rogue Hide in Plain Sight also trumps the need for cover/concealment.
It seems he is avoiding the argument altogether. Which I can only attribute to a lack of valid argument against it.
Wow. You seriously haven't been reading anything of what we've been saying to you.Orc sees Rogue-chan. Rogue-chan wants to hide over by that boulder but the Orc is watching. Rogue-chan makes a bluff check to cause a distraction. Distraction is a success and Rogue-chan leaps for the boulder and crouches behind it. Rogue-chan makes her stealth roll and rolls highly. Orc can't seem to find Rogue-chan.Note that, in your example, that the mere cover of the rock is not sufficient to start the stealth check. Errant is claiming that it is.
If they want to errata the rogues HIPS to actually do what its supposed to by negating both the concealment and the cover requirement I would be tickled pink. (but you wouldn't be able to see that cause I'd be stealthing)
I read the first post from some people and decided that was more than enough.
Then you missed a very good argument based on explicit designer clarification because you decided that some people should read your posts but you just can't be bothered to read theirs. Why are you still in the thread then?
|
|
I am still waiting for an in game example of when, how, or why you'd ever have to use the bluff check.
We're not discussing the bluff check, we're discussing hide in plain sight...unless you're suggesting that a bluff check is required to use the rogue talent? I asked you if this was the case before and you never clarified...
Which indicates that being observed is the only condition to making a Stealth check.Not if you read the entire paragraph as a whole.
How am I supposed to read it? This is how it reads to me...
The paragraph as a whole....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.
Breaking it down for clarity...
Introduction or Topic Sentence: If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.Supporting Details/Examples: 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.
Conclusion Sentence: <MISSING - Because this is not literature>
So, now we have diagrammed the paragraph. As a whole it still does not say anywhere that concealment is a requirement separate from observation. In fact, it doesn't even diagram properly because...it is not literature. Instead it reads like an instruction manual. Restriction first, followed by ways in which those restrictions may be lifted.
- Stealth qualifiers:
- RULE: If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.
- OPTION: Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.
- OPTION: 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.
Finally, again, we seem to have gotten crossed wires somewhere. I tried to clarify for you in this post what I was arguing and what I was saying. I don't think you're using your active listening(reading) skills. For the most part I and several others have been incredibly patient trying to reach you, but it appears you are very hung up a detail that is not part of this discussion and never was.
-Edit: I totally linked the wrong post first.
-Edit, The return of Edit: There are technically more conditions on being able to use stealth as listed earlier in the skill, these were not relevant to the discussion of using Hide in Plain Sight with or without concealment and were not included. At this point I feel it necessary to include them for completeness in order to ensure my message is not taken out of context with the original topic. "It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging."
While the others turn their attention from you (the bluff check in the previous sentence), you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind.
They are NOT options. They are both conditions you need to meet. Think about it, You tell the orc "look a monkey" but DON"T move to cover and just keep standing there. You're not hidden AT ALL. You're standing right in front of him. He's only looking away for a second: thats why you make the stealth at -10. Why on earth would you EVER take an option to make a bluff check AND a stealth check at -10 and dash to cover when you can just dash to cover and make a stealth check?
How could it be plainer that you need the bluff check AND the stealth check at the same time? Its all right there in the same sentence. It says plain as day that you normally need both once something is aware of you.
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.---> Just because you have cover or concealment does not mean you're not observed. You have cover behind a 3 foot high wall: they can still see you standing there.
Your solution to this is to say that you stealth so that you're not observed so that you can stealth... which is circular. It says flat out you cannot use stealth if people are observing you, so you cannot use stealth so that they're not observing you.
As you missed several times, what i said HIPS did was to break the need for the bluff check.
While the others turn their attention from you (the bluff check in the previous sentence), you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind.
They are NOT options. They are both conditions you need to meet. Think about it, You tell the orc "look a monkey" but DON"T move to cover and just keep standing there. You're not hidden AT ALL. You're standing right in front of him. He's only looking away for a second: thats why you make the stealth at -10. Why on earth would you EVER take an option to make a bluff check AND a stealth check at -10 and dash to cover when you can just dash to cover and make a stealth check?
How could it be plainer that you need the bluff check AND the stealth check at the same time? Its all right there in the same sentence. It says plain as day that you normally need both once something is aware of you.
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.---> Just because you have cover or concealment does not mean you're not observed. You have cover behind a 3 foot high wall: they can still see you standing there.
Your solution to this is to say that you stealth so that you're not observed so that you can stealth... which is circular. It says flat out you cannot use stealth if people are observing you, so you cannot use stealth so that they're not observing you.
As you missed several times, what i said HIPS did was to break the need for the bluff check.
Its already been proven that HiPS trumps the need for Cover/Concealment.
Errant isn't saying you dont have to make the bluff check if you don't want to. He's simply stating the parameters of the Stealth check. To reiterate but perhaps put it in more understanding terms.
Stealth: I can stealth if no one is observing me. If someone is observing me I need to make a bluff check to break their observation to move into some cover/concealment to make my stealth check.
Stealth with HiPS (As per the Rogue ability): I can stealth even if someone is observing me without cover/concealment. Since I can do this while observed with no need for cover/concealment, I don't need to make a distraction to break observation and move into a place where I can hide, the universe is my hiding place.
Its already been proven that HiPS trumps the need for Cover/Concealment.
I will take that into account if I'm playing with a rogue by letting HIPS work. (much the same way that mounted combat needs a handwave, people with pole arms in northwest passages need a handwave, and a few other oddities)
However the first step in getting RAW to match RAI is pointing out whats wrong with raw.