Rogues hide in plain sight


Rules Questions

101 to 126 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

BNW wrote:
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.

vs.

Rogue HiPS wrote:
... while within that terrain, she can use the Stealth skill to hide, even while being observed.

It sure seems like normal Stealth's "get to an unobserved place" is canceled out by HiPS's "can use Stealth... even while being observed."

It's not a RAW vs RAI problem so much as a logic problem.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Scavion wrote:
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.

Shadowlord brings up a good point on the RAW of the matter. The RAW is somewhat ambiguous but with the FAQ on Hellcat Stealth it is quite clear how it functions.

I am in support of normal Stealth's "Get to an unobserved place" being overruled by HiPS's stealth "even when observed."

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:
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?

You use the options when you are in the appropriate situation. I do not need to bluff if nobody is around, for instance. I do not need to bluff if I can get into appropriate terrain or lighting conditions, for instance. I do not need to bluff if I have become invisible, for instance. Multiple other situations abound which make those two options for meeting the singular condition of being unobserved.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
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.

But not if I crouch, or lay prone, etc... It's not like the character is a mannequin that has one stance.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
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.

That's not my argument at all. Never has been. Do you actually read these things?

BigNorseWolf wrote:
As you missed several times, what i said HIPS did was to break the need for the bluff check.

Hmmm, that's not what the developers say. Quoted for you in This post by Shadowlord, which is the second time he's provided that information. Also provided by Seraphimpunk (including the link to the original statement, which has been provided twice, too).

After this statement:

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I read the first post from some people and decided that was more than enough.

All I can conclude is that Blahpers was correct when he said:

Blahpers wrote:
I read this as "La la la la la, I can't hear you!"

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When the goal was understanding and the result is willful ignorance.
Victory is ever bittersweet.


ErrantPursuit wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
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?
You use the options when you are in the appropriate situation. I do not need to bluff if nobody is around, for instance. I do not need to bluff if I can get into appropriate terrain or lighting conditions, for instance. I do not need to bluff if I have become invisible, for instance. Multiple other situations abound which make those two options for meeting the singular condition of being unobserved.

If nobody is around, you're not observed, so that case is irrelevant. If you can't get to appropriate terrain or lighting conditions, then bluffing won't help you. Under that interpretation there is no need to bluff.

Consider a large dimly lit open area with nothing else providing cover or concealment. Assume everyone is using normal vision. Dim light provides partial concealment, so if you haven't already been seen you can sneak around all you want. Once spotted, either because you break stealth by attacking or by a good Perception roll, how can you hide again? For the moment assume no HiPS type abilities.
My reading is you could bluff your opponent into looking away, then move quickly so you're not in the same spot when he looks back and with a Stealth check at -10 be hidden again.
If, as you're arguing, concealment is sufficient to break observation, then all you need to is make your check.

Actually part of what I suspect is going on here is a lack of distinction in the rules between partial and total cover/concealment. Given how generally poorly written the stealth/cover/concealment/light level rules are this isn't surprising.
It all makes a little more sense if some common sense is applied and we accept that total cover/concealment breaks observation, but partial does not. If I'm on the other side of a wall or a distance away in total darkness, you're not going to know where I am, even if you saw me go around the corner or walk off into the dark. OTOH, if it's just dim light or you saw me duck into the underbrush, it's going to be easy to keep track.


Cover has partial, regular, improved, and total. Improved can come in degrees, and both partial and improved are largely left to the GM to decide. Just to complicate things. -_-

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

the dev's know Stealth in general needs fixing.
eventually they may get to it, until then things still need to work, so they work.


Seraphimpunk wrote:

the dev's know Stealth in general needs fixing.

eventually they may get to it, until then things still need to work, so they work.

It's not even that they may get to it. They've gotten to it and decided the fix is too big for a FAQ or errata. It'll probably have to wait for a new edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think I can see where some confusion is coming from.

Note, ever instance where I state another's assertions/arguments/whatever, imagine I also wrote "or at least that's what I think he/she is saying".

STEALTH

Spoiler:
Stealth wrote:

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.

Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total* concealment. You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.

Creatures gain a bonus or penalty on Stealth checks based on their size: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Medium +0, Large -4, Huge -8, Gargantuan -12, Colossal -16.

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 Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).

Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.

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.

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.

Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving.

If you have the Stealthy feat, you get a bonus on Stealth checks (see Feats).

*The word total does not appear in the PRD's entry for the stealth skill, but it does appear in the errata pdf download.

ErrantPursit & Company (hereafter referred to as "Errant") are asserting that having cover/concealment = being UNobserved.

BigNorseWolf & Company (hereafter referred to as "Wolf") are asserting the opposite, that having cover/concealment =/= being UNobserved.

Errant is using this quote by Sean K Reynolds (particularly the part about Hellcat Stealth, NOT the bit about Shadow Dancers' HiPS) to support their stance:

Spoiler:
Hellcat Stealth wrote:

Hellcat Stealth

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.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
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.

Hellcat Stealth does not explicitly say anything about cover/concealment, but SKR says that it negates their need, seemingly thereby equating being unobserved with having cover/concealment.

By extention, Errant is asserting that because the wordings of Hellcat Stealth and the HiPS Advanced Rogue Talent are very similar, they function in the same way (meaning the HiPS Advanced Rogue Talent trumps the need for cover/concealment).

Spoiler:
HiPS Advanced Rogue Talent wrote:
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.

Wolf has brought up the issue of bluff checks.

Wolf says that if a character is engaged with a foe, he needs to make a bluff check to distract the foe before using stealth since the foe is still observing him, even if the adventurer has cover/concealment. Errant says this is not the case because having cover/concealment = being UNobserved. However, see this quote by James Jacobs.

Spoiler:
James Jacobs wrote:

*snip*

Ah... well, Hellcat stealth just lets you make stealth checks when folks are looking right at you. Normally, even if you have a great hiding spot, you can't make a stealth check when someone's whatching you. You typically have to distract them with a Bluff check or otherwise move into full cover to break line of sight before you can make a Stealth check. This feat lets you avoid that extra step and just try to Stealth... with a big penalty... while someone's looking at you.

This would seem to imply that even if you have some kind of cover/concealment ("even if you have a great hiding spot"), you still would normally need to make a bluff check. This would appear to mean that having cover/concealment =/= being UNobserved.

Then again, I'm not quite sure how the next bit of the quote ("or otherwise move into full cover to break line of sight") affects things, so maybe this is not the best quote to go on, but it's something.

Another thing that complicates things is this quote from Sean K Reynolds about the Ranger version of HiPS.

Spoiler:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I don't like duplicating a class ability, especially as its a 17th level ranger ability. And especially as HIPS technically does NOTHING, because the Stealth rules are messed up.

I like the feel of it, though. Could be cleaned up and simplified.

Ranger HiPS wrote:
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.

Note that this quote by SKR came years after the quote about Hellcat Stealth.

Note that, SKR may just be referring to the 12th level Ranger class feature, Camouflage. If he is, then Ranger HiPS is useless because he thinks having cover/concealment = being UNobserved, and therefore not needing cover/concealment = not needing to be UNobserved (or to be clearer, not needing cover/concealment = you can be observed and still use stealth).

Spoiler:
Camouflage wrote:
Camouflage (Ex): A ranger of 12th level or higher can use the Stealth skill to hide in any of his favored terrains, even if the terrain doesn't grant cover or concealment.

TBC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cont. From Above.

Wolf asserts that Rangers' Camouflage & HiPS work in tandem, with Camouflage removing the need for cover/concealment then HiPS removing the need to be UNobserved. Wolf also asserts that, because this is the case, and since Rogues do not get an equivalent to Camouflage, they still need cover/concealment if they have the HiPS Advanced Rogue Talent.

Wolf asserts that this is supported by the Shadow Dancer HiPS

Spoiler:
Shadow Dancer HiPS wrote:
Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow.

Wolf asserts that the bold part, rather than qualifying the first sentence, actually specifically removes the need to have cover/concealment. This means that, even when not within 10 feet of dim light, a Shadow Dancer can use stealth while being observed so long as he/she can get to cover/concealment via movement.

Another thing that complicates the issue is the Shadow Sorcerer Bloodline power, Shadow Well, which does expressly remove both the need to be UNobserved AND the need for cover/concealment. Wolf did bring this up earlier, albeit indirectly.

Spoiler:
Shadow Well wrote:
Shadow Well (Sp): At 9th level, you can use the Stealth skill even while being observed and without cover or concealment, as long as you are within 10 feet of a shadow other than your own. In addition, when within an area of darkness or dim light, as a standard action you may choose to switch places with a willing ally within 60 feet, who must also be in darkness or dim light. At 13th level, you can instead switch the positions of two willing allies, each of whom must be within 60 feet of you. Unless otherwise noted, this travel is identical to dimension door. You may use the ability to switch places once per day at 9th level, plus one additional time per day at 17th level and 20th level.

That's all I've got regarding who's arguing what. Personally, I am of the opinion that at least total cover/concealment (if not the normal versions) make you unobserved.

With regards to HiPS, I think the RAI is that any instance of Hide in Plain Sight grants the ability to use stealth no mater the circumstances (observed/unobserved/cover/concealment/etc.) so long as the conditions expressed in the ability description are met.


Quote:
Then again, I'm not quite sure how the next bit of the quote ("or otherwise move into full cover to break line of sight") affects things, so maybe this is not the best quote to go on, but it's something

I think that might be the most important part of the quote, actually, with regards to this tit-for-tat.

It flat out states that a bluff check isn't required.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Wolf about using/not using a bluff check before moving to cover and then using stealth:

Say an adventurer is fighting a brigand in an area of normal light. 10 feet behind the adventurer is a large pillar (large enough to grant total cover), and 10 feet to the right of the pillar is an area of darkness (say from a permanent Darkness spell). The adventurer wants to get away via stealth.

He could use bluff to distract the brigand, then (if successful at the bluff) use stealth and move to behind the pillar. If the brigand fails his perception check, he has no idea where the adventurer went.

Now let's say the adventurer is not confident in his ability to bluff the brigand. He could move to behind the pillar normally (let's ignore the widthdraw action, so he provokes an AoO but it misses), then use stealth from behind the pillar to sneak into the area of darkness. If the brigand fail his perception check, he thinks the adventure is still behind the pillar; if he succeeds, he sees the adventurer move into the darkness.

EDIT: I apologize in advance to anyone wishing to engage me in a discussion about my posts, but I've been up for over 24 hours and need to sleep. I hope some understanding can come from what I've presented though.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Seraphimpunk wrote:

the dev's know Stealth in general needs fixing.

eventually they may get to it, until then things still need to work, so they work.
It's not even that they may get to it. They've gotten to it and decided the fix is too big for a FAQ or errata. It'll probably have to wait for a new edition.

i always wondered what the outcome of the stealth playtest was.

thats too bad.


Honorable Goblin wrote:

Wolf asserts that Rangers' Camouflage & HiPS work in tandem, with Camouflage removing the need for cover/concealment then HiPS removing the need to be UNobserved. Wolf also asserts that, because this is the case, and since Rogues do not get an equivalent to Camouflage, they still need cover/concealment if they have the HiPS Advanced Rogue Talent.

Wolf asserts that this is supported by the Shadow Dancer HiPS

That is all well and good, he may be correct in his assessment of how Camouflage and Ranger HiPS work in tandem. That is exactly how I understand and explain it as well, but it doesn't matter either way. Hellcat Stealth has nearly the exact same wording as Rogue HiPS. Neither ability mentions that they trump cover/concealment but SKR posted that Hellcat Stealth does.

Wolf has decided to ignore me and my arguments, apparently because he doesn't like the way I present them, but the fact remains that even under HIS understanding of Stealth (which is also how I understand it) his argument has a huge hole in it. Unless Wolf can point out the mechanical differences between these two lines of text and logically explain why ONE should trump cover/concealment while the OTHER does not, he has very little weight behind his argument.

Quote:

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.

I understand the qualifiers for Stealth in the same fashion he does. Regardless, these two abilities have the same wording and I see no reason why one of these should trump cover/concealment while the other doesn't. Without that, I don't see why anyone would not follow the designer example that SKR set with Hellcat Stealth and extend that principle to Rogue HiPS.

.....

On a seperate matter, I like the example you gave of using/not using a bluff check. Good stuff.


PRIOR to SKR's ruling (which I disagree with but it is now the rule and he usually knows whats better for he game then me) BigNorse would have been correct.

Hide in plain sight would obliviate the need for a bluff check, but you would still need to find cover. Prior to the ruling the combination of Camoflauge AND Hide in Plain Sight was needed to hide in the open when observed.

With SKR's ruling HiPS is all that is needed.

However I would still like to know what if any action or restrictiosn on movement there are.

Can you do it when tied up and being questioned?
Royal Torturer approaches the prisoner tied to the chair carrying a red hot poker. "Soon you will feel the burning kiss of my tools. Hey where did he go? The Ropes are still tied to the chair and not slack, what is going on?"

Can you do it when paralyzed and monologued by the BBEG?
BBEG "So vile adventurer you fell for my cunning ambush. Now as you lie there paralyzed on the floor I will fill this room with acid til nothing remains of you but a memory used to frighten all those who stand against me MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!"

BBEG "Hey where did he go? I swear I did not look away from him... there is not even facing in this game how COULD I look away?????"


Honorable Hobgoblin wrote:
Now let's say the adventurer is not confident in his ability to bluff the brigand. He could move to behind the pillar normally (let's ignore the widthdraw action, so he provokes an AoO but it misses), then use stealth from behind the pillar to sneak into the area of darkness. If the brigand fail his perception check, he thinks the adventure is still behind the pillar; if he succeeds, he sees the adventurer move into the darkness.

With total cover that should work, since you are not observed behind the pillar.


Note that if the darkness were not there, the brigand would be well within rights to look behind the pillar and spoil the rogue's fun. He may not "know" the rogue is there, but he knows the rogue is there.

If the rogue expertly climbed the pillar with an accompanying a Stealth check and, as the brigand approached, hid atop the pillar (it's a very tall and wide pillar), then the rogue could maintain Stealth.

A question: Could the Stealthed rogue move out from behind the pillar and sneak attack the brigand using a move action and standard action or some ability like Spring Attack that combines movement and attack, or would he be required to attack from cover? Since a rogue can move from c/c to c/c and maintain Stealth, I would rule that as long as the rogue made a Stealth check as part of the action, they could move and then strike.


Seraphimpunk wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Seraphimpunk wrote:

the dev's know Stealth in general needs fixing.

eventually they may get to it, until then things still need to work, so they work.
It's not even that they may get to it. They've gotten to it and decided the fix is too big for a FAQ or errata. It'll probably have to wait for a new edition.

i always wondered what the outcome of the stealth playtest was.

thats too bad.

The outcome was that they made a rather elegant change to stealth that deals with a good chunk of the problems.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Seraphimpunk wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Seraphimpunk wrote:

the dev's know Stealth in general needs fixing.

eventually they may get to it, until then things still need to work, so they work.
It's not even that they may get to it. They've gotten to it and decided the fix is too big for a FAQ or errata. It'll probably have to wait for a new edition.

i always wondered what the outcome of the stealth playtest was.

thats too bad.
The outcome was that they made a rather elegant change to stealth that deals with a good chunk of the problems.

But decided it was too big a change to be erratad, so it's not official.


thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Seraphimpunk wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Seraphimpunk wrote:

the dev's know Stealth in general needs fixing.

eventually they may get to it, until then things still need to work, so they work.
It's not even that they may get to it. They've gotten to it and decided the fix is too big for a FAQ or errata. It'll probably have to wait for a new edition.

i always wondered what the outcome of the stealth playtest was.

thats too bad.
The outcome was that they made a rather elegant change to stealth that deals with a good chunk of the problems.
But decided it was too big a change to be erratad, so it's not official.

Nope. Its official and everything

• Page 106—In the Stealth skill, in the Check section,
in the first paragraph, add the following sentence after
the first sentence:
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware
of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.
• Page 106—In the Stealth skill, in the Check section,
change the second paragraph to read as follows:
Creatures gain a bonus or penalty on Stealth checks
based on their size: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8,
Small +4, Medium +0, Large –4, Huge –8, Gargantuan
–12, Colossal –16.
• Page 106—In the Stealth skill, in the Check section,
add the following paragraph after the third paragraph:
Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth,
you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved
as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn
in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends
after you make an attack roll, whether or not the attack is
successful (except when sniping as noted below).

5/30/13 update. 5th to 6th printing.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Seraphimpunk wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Seraphimpunk wrote:

the dev's know Stealth in general needs fixing.

eventually they may get to it, until then things still need to work, so they work.
It's not even that they may get to it. They've gotten to it and decided the fix is too big for a FAQ or errata. It'll probably have to wait for a new edition.

i always wondered what the outcome of the stealth playtest was.

thats too bad.
The outcome was that they made a rather elegant change to stealth that deals with a good chunk of the problems.
But decided it was too big a change to be erratad, so it's not official.

Nope. Its official and everything

• Page 106—In the Stealth skill, in the Check section,
in the first paragraph, add the following sentence after
the first sentence:
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware
of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.
• Page 106—In the Stealth skill, in the Check section,
change the second paragraph to read as follows:
Creatures gain a bonus or penalty on Stealth checks
based on their size: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8,
Small +4, Medium +0, Large –4, Huge –8, Gargantuan
–12, Colossal –16.
• Page 106—In the Stealth skill, in the Check section,
add the following paragraph after the third paragraph:
Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth,
you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved
as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn
in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends
after you make an attack roll, whether or not the attack is
successful (except when sniping as noted below).

5/30/13 update. 5th to 6th printing.

Right. I was thinking of the Stealth playtest that introduced the hidden condition and a number of other things. Somehow I didn't think of this change as directly related to that.


blahpers wrote:
Could the Stealthed rogue move out from behind the pillar and sneak attack the brigand using a move action and standard action or some ability like Spring Attack that combines movement and attack, or would he be required to attack from cover? Since a rogue can move from c/c to c/c and maintain Stealth, I would rule that as long as the rogue made a Stealth check as part of the action, they could move and then strike.

According to Jason Bulmahn you can step out of cover/concealment and still make an approach to your target to make an attack. That attack does get Sneak Attack damage, if your Stealth isn't beaten by Perception and if it strikes. As for things like Spring Attack, you can use it but your Stealth is broken when you attack, until you can Stealth again.


thejeff wrote:


Right. I was thinking of the Stealth playtest that introduced the hidden condition and a number of other things. Somehow I didn't think of this change as directly related to that.

total concealment was a nice way of avoiding adding a whole new "hidden" condition.

and the ability to leave and reenter stealth was one of the goals of the playtest. The change was really ellegant and got most of the job done with very little change.

The errata happened a bit after the playtest. Pretty sure it was related.


Shadowlord wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Could the Stealthed rogue move out from behind the pillar and sneak attack the brigand using a move action and standard action or some ability like Spring Attack that combines movement and attack, or would he be required to attack from cover? Since a rogue can move from c/c to c/c and maintain Stealth, I would rule that as long as the rogue made a Stealth check as part of the action, they could move and then strike.
According to Jason Bulmahn you can step out of cover/concealment and still make an approach to your target to make an attack. That attack does get Sneak Attack damage, if your Stealth isn't beaten by Perception and if it strikes. As for things like Spring Attack, you can use it but your Stealth is broken when you attack, until you can Stealth again.

Generally, Stealth is always broken when you attack--at least after the first hit, sniping and extra special abilities notwithstanding. So it seems you could make a Stealth check in either case, but you'd only get the one sneak attack, as expected. That makes sense and doesn't break verisimilitude, which is no small feat given PF's admittedly bonkers Stealth rules.


altontanglefoot wrote:

TGMaxMaxer:

That... makes sense.

So Ranger Camouflage is useless when the ranger's favored terrain is, say, forest or jungle, which both have plenty of cover and concealment?

No, a small clearing in jungle and forest terrain may still be considered jungle or forest terrain.

Ranger Camouflage v ranger HiPS is whether or not you can make the stealth check while being observed. If the ranger hears someone coming before they can see him then he can use camouflage. If the other person sees the ranger before the ranger is aware of them then he cannot; but would be able to use HiPS.

101 to 126 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Rogues hide in plain sight All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.