Rogues hide in plain sight


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Does a rogue require cover to use his version of hide in plain sight? it states that he may stealth while being observed as long as he is in his chosen terrain, but it says nothing about needing a lack of concealment unlike a shadow dancer who's ability states they can do it as long as they are within 10ft of dim light, regardless of having something to hide behind, thanks in advance for any response.


Needing cover or concealment would probly defeat the point of HiPs.


Doesn't look like it. As long as they're in the favorite terrain they've chosen they can attempt a stealth roll without cover.


Well it wouldnt completely defeat the purpose of HiPS, you can still do it while being observed, so if you are in dim light you can still vanish from sight even if they are watching you, Shadow dancers version of HiPS states specifically that they dont need anything to hide behind.


The Holy Moo wrote:
Well it wouldnt completely defeat the purpose of HiPS, you can still do it while being observed, so if you are in dim light you can still vanish from sight even if they are watching you, Shadow dancers version of HiPS states specifically that they dont need anything to hide behind.

Shadow Dancers HiPS is mechanically the same as the Rogue's or Rangers just restricted in a different way.

And yes it would defeat the purpose. Read the name again come on. Hide in 'Plain' sight.


Yes, he still requires cover or concealment. A ranger gets the Camouflage ability at level 12, and Hide in Plain Sight at level 17. The first allows for stealth checks without cover or concealment, the second allows for stealth checks even while being observed.

The purpose of Hide in Plain Sight is that the character no longer requires a Bluff check or other distraction before reaching cover/concealment and making a stealth check. It's only when a character has both Camouflage and Hide in Plain Sight that they could make a stealth check in full view of a creature without anything to hide behind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cover or concealment is the normal way to not "be observed", which negates stealth.

Removing the restriction on making a stealth check while observed, means you don't need the cover or concealment anymore at all.

Camouflage is designed to allow a ranger to hide in the flat desert, or any other terrain that has no standing objects to break line of sight.

Shadowdancer HIPS can stealth while observed while within 10ft of dim light.

Ranger HIPS can stealth while observed while in his favored terrain.

Rogue HIPS can stealth while observed while in his favored terrain.

Shadowdancer HIPS:
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.

Ranger Camouflage:
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.

Ranger HIPS:
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.

Rogue HIPS:
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.

They all use the exact same phrasing, different qualifiers... so they all have to work the same way.

The shadowdancer doesn't get an ability to ignore cover or concealment, it jumps straight to while observed. So... if the rogue talent means you still need cover or concealment, then so does the shadowdancer... and I don't think anyone would argue that.

Although, on this forum...


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?


Actually, with the Camouflage ability making the cover or concealment unnecessary, (IMO) the 17th level ability is kinda redundant.

Since like I said, cover or concealment is usually how you break line of sight (to not be observed). If you can hide without cover or concealment, then you can hide while observed. It would also come online about the same time character wise as a the rogue ability, and approx 4-5 levels after the shadowdancer/assassin can do it.

But that's my personal take on it.


TGMaxMaxer, note that the SD ability says that the SD needs to be within 10ft of dim light... so being close enough to the shadows is good enough in terms of necessary concealment and the next part states that no cover is needed.

The rogue ability is missing any sort of language like that, so unless the rogue gets camouflage somehow she still needs concealment or cover even when in the favoured terrain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All three versions have the same mechanical benefit:
Being able to use the stealth skill even while observed.

The remainder of the text in the abilities is a list of qualifiers to receive that listed benefit.

So, we look at the stealth skill to see how that changes the normal use of it.

I have bolded the part in spoiler relevant to the above listed benefit, in the 4th paragraph.

PRD CRB STEALTH:
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 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).

So, HIPS (all versions) give the benefit of ignoring the normal rule of not being able to initiate a stealth check while currently observed.

For the purposes of this example, lets create a hypothetical condition called "Observed". This condition is incurred when you are within the sensory range (normally sight) of an enemy. While you have the "observed" condition, you cannot make a stealth check to hide. Normal rules provide a way to negate the "observed" condition, by placing objects/effects that would grant cover or concealment between you and the enemy. They also allow for you to momentarily negate the "observed" condition by making a successful bluff check, to cause the enemy to turn his senses away from you, and giving you a momentary window in which to make a stealth check, but the short time causes a -10 penalty on the check, and still requires you to move to an un"observed" place.

So, since needing cover or concealment was the way to negate the observation of the enemy to begin with, when you get to ignore the observation, why would cover or concealment be necessary any more?

HIPS (all versions) allow you to ignore the "observed" condition, when wishing to make a stealth check, provided you meet alternate conditions.

For the Shadowdancer, you must be within 10ft of dim light.
For the Ranger, you must be in a favored terrain.
For the Rogue, you must be in a favored terrain.

That's it. It negates the normal requirements of making a stealth check, in exchange for some situational class abilities.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

yeah, why would you need cover or concealment? that wouldn't leave you in plain sight. you'd... have cover... or concealment... .

TGMaxMaxer has the right of it.


If somebody is aware of you all the concealment/cover in the world is usually not enough to let you use stealth. That is what the ability grants.

Both, SD and Ranger abilities use language that negates that requirement for concealment/cover. The rogue ability does no such thing.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Isil, look at the Ranger HIPS vs. the Rogue one again.
The Ranger HIPS has no language to negate cover/concealment. But they have a lesser version Camouflage that they gain earlier, that allows them to ignore having cover/concealment. Still, if someone looks at a ranger, and watches him hide with Camo, they still see him and he's not Hidden from that observer.

the rogue talent is the equivalent of the 17th level ranger ability.
it doesn't mention cover/concealment because if you can hide while being observed, you don't need cover or concealment to hide behind: you can do it while being observed.

If someone watched a Rogue hide at 17th level, he simply disappears, because your eye can't follow him. he's hidden, even if you observe him hiding.


Seraphimpunk: Camouflage does have that language for the ranger though... since the rogue does not get this ability she still needs cover/concealment.

Silver Crusade

I feel this is redundant, but sometimes repetition is necessary.

The only sticking point I see from Isil-zha is that under the Rogue version you do not get a specific line indicating there is no need to have some form of cover.

The counterpoint from TGMaxMaxer is that cover is required only to break observation.

The rules read fairly clearly that the barrier to making a stealth check is observation, and that you only need a small window to break observation ("Look over there!" ... "Uh...where did he go?"). So far the argument is in support for TGMaxMaxer, that if you do not need to worry about being observed, then you do not need concealment or cover.

Isil-zha, can you support your claim that requiring cover is a separate mechanism from observation and needs to be canceled out independently?


If it doesn't need to be cancelled out, why does the Shadowdancer ability call it out specifically?

Usually if you are not in concealment and/or cover at the end of your movement you are still visible and your stealth check is worth nothing.

SDs use nearby shadows to hide in, Rangers use camouflage to blend into the environment. Unless the rogue has a similar ability the stealth check is of no use to her, she may make it while being observed but she still has none of the abilities that actually help her hide somewhere unless she ends up with regular cover/concealment. HIPS does not make the rogue invisible, hence perception checks on a rogue without concealment/cover are automatic.

Silver Crusade

Isil-zha wrote:

If it doesn't need to be cancelled out, why does the Shadowdancer ability call it out specifically?

Usually if you are not in concealment and/or cover at the end of your movement you are still visible and your stealth check is worth nothing.

Assuming my logic is sound. If being observed is no longer important, than being visible (where people observe you) will not change things. Still hidden.

Your first question is a good one, why do they call it out specifically? Maybe there are situations we are overlooking.


Perception
Notice a visible creature DC0

That's what the rogue counts as without concealment/cover/camouflage at the end of her stealthy movement.

edit: there is something a bit off with your argument, as well.

for stealth to be successful without any abilities you need:
cover/concealment + not being observed while doing so

camouflage negates the first, ranger/rogue hips the second (while in FT)

SD hips goes a bit further than the rogue/ranger version. It states being close enough to concealment due to dim light is enough and cover is unnecessary.

Only one of the requirement is called out as not necessary anymore by the rogue ability. Hence the other requirement is unaffected.

Silver Crusade

The rogue can ignore being observed. This would return it back to an opposed stealth/perception check.

If it doesn't matter that people can see me, then people seeing me doesn't matter. It is a tautology.

Is there a rules reason you can direct us to where the use of cover or concealment is to achieve something other than breaking line of sight to allow for a stealth check?


The rogues version needs cover... which is why other classes stealth better than the rogue.

To stealth you need

1) cover or concealment
2) to not be observed.

HIPS, despite the name, only deals with 2. Not 1.


my edit got ninja'd by the wolf

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For clarity of reference: Stealth. This is also quoted above us by Malachi.

Stealth clearly reads that cover or concealment is used to not be observed. In fact the language is even weaker on cover or concealment because it states "most creatures". Bluff is used to create a moment when you are not observed. If you are crossing observed terrain you can take a -10 on your check to stay hidden as you find another spot that is unobserved. The keystone of each sentence where it talks about being unable to stealth is observation. So, in order to stealth you need: To not be observed. Bluff checks, concealment, cover, all of this provides a conduit to that one condition. Removing that one condition allows you to Hide in Plain Sight.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Rangers need cover, until their higher level ability obliviates the need for cover.
Rogues ability, better than a rangers because its attained all at once, obliviates the need for cover from the start. As long as you're in the rogues favored terrain.

Why any class should be able to stealth better than a rogue is ridiculous. they're the original stealth class.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Isil-zha wrote:

If it doesn't need to be cancelled out, why does the Shadowdancer ability call it out specifically?

Usually if you are not in concealment and/or cover at the end of your movement you are still visible and your stealth check is worth nothing.

SDs use nearby shadows to hide in, Rangers use camouflage to blend into the environment. Unless the rogue has a similar ability the stealth check is of no use to her, she may make it while being observed but she still has none of the abilities that actually help her hide somewhere unless she ends up with regular cover/concealment. HIPS does not make the rogue invisible, hence perception checks on a rogue without concealment/cover are automatic.

shadowdancers call it out specifically because they're not hiding in darkness or concealment, the darkness is supernaturally concealing them. so if they're not close enough to the darkness, they can't remain hidden. its not that they need the concealment to hide. they need the darkness to supernaturally disappear into it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Seraphimpunk wrote:

Rangers need cover, until their higher level ability obliviates the need for cover.

Rogues ability, better than a rangers because its attained all at once, obliviates the need for cover from the start. As long as you're in the rogues favored terrain.

Why any class should be able to stealth better than a rogue is ridiculous. they're the original stealth class.

Everything a Rogue can do, another class can do better.

Stealth is no different.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

@ Seraphimpunk & ErrantPursuit: I like the way you guys are explaining the Camouflage / HiPS progression for the Ranger, and the differences between HiPS ability phrasing. I have never heard it explained that way. It's an interesting view point. I agree with your end result/conclusion but I have always understood and explained it differently.

...

@ Isil-zha & BNW: A lot of classes have their own versions of HiPS, even some feats can grant HiPS now. Several of them are worded slightly differently, but that is just to demonstrate the different ways they approach the ability. However, IMO, they are all meant to achieve the same end, which is hiding even if people are looking right at you and even if there is no concealment or cover. The only thing that differs from class to class is the trigger for using this ability.

1) My first argument for that theory is one of pure common sense. Why would the designers of a game, who are actively trying to create a cohesive streamlined game, intentionally create 6 different abilities that do 6 different (but suspiciously similar) things and all have the exact same name? I don't think that makes any sense at all and really don't think it's the design team's intent. In fact, I think that would be pretty counter-productive to their stated goal of making a smoother gaming experience.

2) My second argument is one of historical example. There is a feat called Hellcat Stealth that is worded almost identically to the Rogue Advanced Talent in Ultimate Combat. First let's look at Hellcat Stealth's mechanical text:

Hellcat Stealth wrote:
You may make Stealth checks in normal or bright light even when observed, but at a -10 penalty.

Compare that with the mechanical text in the Rogue's ability:

PRD / UC 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.

I actually have argued your exact point against Hellcat Stealth, that it did not explicitly trump Cover/Concealment and therefore you must still have one or the other to use the ability. I was then directed to a post by a Pathfinder Designer who had THIS to say about Hellcat Stealth when comparing it to a Shadowdancer's HiPS ability:

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.

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.

3) All the people I have seen argue the point you are arguing against Rogue HiPS compare it to the Ranger's version of HiPS. I think that is a bad comparison for a couple of reasons. First, IMO Ranger HiPS doesn't mention cover/concealment because it's already covered by the Camouflage ability at lvl 12. Secondly, Rogue HiPS is NOT Ranger HiPS it only borrows the Ranger's favored terrain options as specializations for the Rogue's ability. Instead, you should compare Rogue HiPS to the Hellcat Stealth feat because both are stand-alone abilities that are meant to grant the full capability of hiding in plain sight without cover/concealment even if they don't blatantly say it. Ranger HiPS is a terrible comparison for Rogue HiPS because, IMO, is not a stand-alone ability; it works with Camouflage to create the same total ability that other versions of HiPS grant with a single ability.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am considering a separate thread about the observed status, and it's relationship to cover/concealment.


Shadowlord, the SKR quote is referring to the SD HIPS, which isn't really in question as it calls out the no cover/close to dim light


Isil-zha wrote:
Shadowlord, the SKR quote is referring to the SD HIPS, which isn't really in question as it calls out the no cover/close to dim light

It is comparing SD HiPS to Hellcat Stealth, which I stated that in my post. SKR is talking about a feat called Hellcat Stealth which was the focus of my argument. I was comparing Rogue HiPS to that feat because the two are written very similarly. I thought that was pretty clear in my post. The point being, Hellcat Stealth is a feat that grants a type of daylight HiPS but doesn't say anything about negating cover/concealment. However, as SKR stated, it actually does trump cover/concealment. Rogue HiPS is worded very much like Hellcat Stealth, in that it also doesn't say anything about negating cover/concealment. However, since it is an ability called Hide in Plain Sight and since EVERY other version of HiPS also trumps cover/concealment, whether it is blatantly written into the ability or not, the most likely intent is for Rogue HiPS to do the same.

Or is your argument that of the 7+ ways I can think of to gain HiPS, the Rogue's version is the only one that doesn't trump cover/concealment?

And if your answer is yes, do you cling to that argument even when a designer has posted before that a similar ability does indeed trump cover/concealment even though it doesn't explicitly say so in the text? And that similar ability is a feat who's only prerequisites are Skill Focus Stealth and 6 ranks in Stealth. You are saying a Rogue advanced talent written with the same terminology doesn't do the same thing?


I think after reading all this and relevant parts in the core rule book, that the ranger's camouflage ability is really only useful when trying to hide before your enemies show up or can see you, for example a ranger standing on the top of a grassy plateau before some orcs reach the top or a blinded monster up there got it's vision back. Sorry to all of you who already had this figured out.
How all this works is also relevant to the gnome saboteur archetype for the alchemist. It has discovery called Greater Chameleon Mutogen:
"The saboteur's chameleon mutagen now also grants the saboteur the hide in plain sight ability, as the ranger ability of the same name, but it functions in any terrain. The saboteur must be at least 12th level to select this discovery."
I agree with Shadowlord's interpretation that the lack of reference to Camouflage has no negative bearing on what this ability or the Rogue's can do.


Shadowlord 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.

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.

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. Rogue HIPS offers no such mechanism or wording. They don't need to make the (action undefined) bluff check to try to hide.

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.

Silver Crusade

@BigNorseWolf: Read it slowly, as if for the first time.

Stealth, d20PFSRD wrote:
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.

You cannot use stealth if you are being observed. After that it details mechanisms to avoid observation. Concealment and cover are mechanisms to avoid observation, that is all. They are not unique independent requirements on their own. No where does it say "You must have cover or concealment to make a stealth check" nor does it say "you cannot use stealth if you are not in cover or concealed". It says you cannot use stealth if you are observed.

If I have an ability that allows me to stealth even while being observed, then what purpose is cover or concealment serve now? Think it through.


ErrantPursuit wrote:
@BigNorseWolf: Read it slowly, as if for the first time.

Being condescending is not going to help.

Stealth, d20PFSRD wrote:
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.
Quote:
You cannot use stealth if you are being observed. After that it details mechanisms to avoid observation.

Then why would you need a bluff check to hide, ever? Why not just move to the cover if that's all it takes?

Because adventurers and the monsters they fight are not toddlers. They understand permanence. You might walk into a room and miss a pair of toes sticking out from under the tapestry. If someone stabs you and then walks behind the tapestry you are not going to lose track of them. That's the entire point of the bluff check: you have to go "look a monkey!" to break observation but even then you need cover. They're two separate requirements.

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Being condescending is not going to help.

Tone does not translate well. It would have been better if I sugested to clear your mind and read it again without bias, I guess. Language aside, I was not trying to talk down to you. My apologies if it came across that way.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Then why would you need a bluff check to hide, ever? Why not just move to the cover if that's all it takes?

Because adventurers and the monsters they fight are not toddlers. They understand permanence. You might walk into a room and miss a pair of toes sticking out from under the tapestry. If someone stabs you and then walks behind the tapestry you are not going to lose track of them. That's the entire point of the bluff check: you have to go "look a monkey!" to break observation but even then you need cover. They're two separate requirements.

I agree, your opponents are unlikely to not check behind the only piece of cover in an area. If you do not have the ability to hide even though you are observed then running behind the one piece of cover and letting your enemy see you do it is not going to help you on that enemy's turn when s/he/it moves around the side to beat you up. Even if you bluff first to distract them, then run to cover it will be pretty useless if there is not other cover in the area. When you have multiple pieces of cover it become the shell game.

HOWEVER

That doesn't answer the primary question: What about providing cover is separate from disrupting observation?

If my ability lets me hide even though people are looking at me (observation) why do I need cover?


Your contention is that the cover requirement and the the observation requirement are one and the same: without that your argument falls apart. The need for a bluff check even if you can get to cover demonstrates that they are separate conditions.

Silver Crusade

How so? The bluff check is specifically listed as being a way to break observation followed the remark to get to a place where you can be unobserved.

Stealth wrote:
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.


ErrantPursuit wrote:

How so? The bluff check is specifically listed as being a way to break observation followed the remark to get to a place where you can be unobserved.

Stealth wrote:
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.

And why would you need to bluff and then move behind the tapestry if simply moving behind the tapestry were sufficient?

Silver Crusade

It is not required.

Stealth wrote:
Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.

Arguing that I need to use a bluff check before seeking cover does not answer the point, however.

What about providing cover is separate from disrupting observation?


ErrantPursuit wrote:

It is not required.

Stealth wrote:
Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.

Arguing that I need to use a bluff check before seeking cover does not answer the point, however.

What about providing cover is separate from disrupting observation?

You're reading the sentences separately instead of together. I can try to go through the arbitrary rigamarole of diagramming a paragraph, or I can just cut to the chase and point out that the way you're reading it makes a good third of the paragraph completely superfluous.

Observed is an unexplained/self explanatory condition. It is separate from cover or concealment because you can simultaneously have cover and still be observed.

The problem is that the rogues hide in plain sight was lifted directly off of the ranger: the ranger has camouflage before then to deal with the cover issue.

Silver Crusade

Let's stay focused on the stealth skill. Since what we are discussing is whether or not observation (the corner stone of Rogues Hide in Plain Sight) is separate from the requirement to have concealment. Comparing it to two other different abilities from a different class is muddying the waters and disperses focus of our discussion.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Observed is an unexplained/self explanatory condition. It is separate from cover or concealment because you can simultaneously have cover and still be observed

Correct! So what does this mean? Cover and concealment are about disrupting observation but not in and of themselves specific requirements because: you can still be observed even while in cover or concealed.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

why do you keep referencing bluff to break observation, when hide in plain sight, and stealth both say that you're typically using cover or concealment to hide / break observation.

referencing needing a bluff check to go hide behind cover. is when you can't remain hidden and stay out in the open, in plain sight. but bluff and cover are two things that break observation. you use one to get to the other, when you don't have hide in plain sight.

if you can already hide while observed, you don't need to say, "hey , look over there".
and you don't need a shrub or curtain to hide behind, or a corner to run around.

hiding is still part of a move action, a non action almost. you simply ghost away, and you're hidden ( provided you make a good stealth check ).


ErrantPursuit wrote:

Let's stay focused on the stealth skill. Since what we are discussing is whether or not observation (the corner stone of Rogues Hide in Plain Sight) is separate from the requirement to have concealment. Comparing it to two other different abilities from a different class is muddying the waters and disperses focus of our discussion.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Observed is an unexplained/self explanatory condition. It is separate from cover or concealment because you can simultaneously have cover and still be observed
Correct! So what does this mean? Cover and concealment are about disrupting observation but not in and of themselves specific requirements because: you can still be observed even while in cover or concealed.

Until you can answer why your reading completely ignores the bluff check you don't have an argument. Cover and concealment are not sufficient to break observation to attempt the stealth check, or you wouldn't need the bluff check, ever.

By reading them as seperate conditions you have

Unspecified action: "Look! a monkey!" (attempt bluff check)

Move action: go behind tapestry. Attempt stealth check as part of moving with penalty.

By your reading you simply move behind the tapestry and attempt a stealth roll, which is NOT what the rules say.


Seraphimpunk

I keep referencing it because it demonstrates that observed and covered/concealed are completely seperate things.

Quote:
if you can already hide while observed, you don't need to say, "hey , look over there".

Thats correct, Thats what rogue HIPS does. Its lifted directly from the ranger ability, which assumes you have camoflage to deal with the cover issue.

Quote:
and you don't need a shrub or curtain to hide behind, or a corner to run around.

You still need the cover.

Silver Crusade

Seraphimpunk wrote:
hiding is still part of a move action, a non action almost. you simply ghost away, and you're hidden ( provided you make a good stealth check ).

Not entirely true.

Stealth wrote:

Action

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

It does not require an action usually.

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Thats correct, Thats what rogue HIPS does. Its lifted directly from the ranger ability, which assumes you have camoflage to deal with the cover issue.

This is a spurious argument. How do you get that a rogue's ability achieved at lower levels is lifted directly from the ranger's ability? Where is the grounds that the rogue's advanced talent is a subset of the ranger's class feature? I do not see the legitimacy of this claim at all. Unless you're a developer and informing us that when you designed the rogue's ability you based it directly off of work you did on the ranger...

BigNorseWolf wrote:
You still need the cover.

But why?

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Until you can answer why your reading completely ignores the bluff check you don't have an argument.

The bluff check, as I have said many times and never once ignored, is one of the ways to use Stealth. As mentioned in the skill itself.

Stealth wrote:

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.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cover and concealment are not sufficient to break observation to attempt the stealth check.

What about this line from the stealth skill?

Stealth wrote:
Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.

I think I mentioned that one before in this post 30 minutes ago. Also in this post. As well as by other posters...

BigNorseWolf wrote:
or you wouldn't need the bluff check, ever

Except as stated previously quoted directly from the Stealth skill...

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

does a shadowdancer need to go "hey , look over there!"
no.

what ability do they have?
hide in plain sight.

are there other abilities that work almost exactly like hide in plain sight?
yes.

why do they have differences?
well they've got different triggering conditions. some let you do it in darkness, some let you do it in bright light, some let you do it day or night, but only in your favored terrain.

is the rules intent likely that they all do the same thing: allow you to hide in plain sight?
yes.

if the rogue still needed cover/concealment , wouldn't they have given a precursor rogue talent similar to Ranger : Camouflage ability?
yes.

did they?
nope. they just gave the rogue Hide in Plain Sight.


Seraphimpunk wrote:

does a shadowdancer need to go "hey , look over there!"

no.

what ability do they have?
hide in plain sight.

Shadow dancer 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.

Rogue 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.

The rogue mentions nothing about negating the the need to hide behind anything or being able to do it in the open. The shadow dancers DOES. That makes them vastly different.

Quote:

if the rogue still needed cover/concealment , wouldn't they have given a precursor rogue talent similar to Ranger : Camouflage ability?

yes.

You're assuming that the rules work, which isn't always a given with the rogue.

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:
You're assuming that the rules work, which isn't always a given with the rogue.

This is an absurd argument.

Let me ask again a question you have not answered.

What is the purpose of providing cover/concealment?


Errant Persuit wrote:
This is a spurious argument. How do you get that a rogue's ability achieved at lower levels is lifted directly from the ranger's ability?

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.

Quote:
The bluff check, as I have said many times and never once ignored, is one of the ways to use Stealth. As mentioned in the skill itself.

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?

Quote:
What is the purpose of providing cover/concealment?

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.

1 to 50 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.