|
So I had a player argue with me last night about this ruling and nothing he pointed to me on the boards from the developers changed my opinion on the rule I made so I am bringing the specifics out to here to see the difference in opinions and maybe a confirmation of my ruling or a change of my opinion.
So lets start of with the relevant rules of stealth because that I were my ruling is coming from..
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).
So you can come out of cover an still be in stealth as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. You can also attack after coming out of cover but that will end you stealth after your attack.
Got it, understand it. The problem I had was that I had a player that wanted to move full movement from starting in stealth (so -5 to roll) attack someone at a point in that movement where he would not been able to get back into cover even if he did not attack.
I ruled since he moved beyond the point of being able to get back into cover he was no longer legally in stealth therefore he could not get an attack unobserved. He stated that being able to get back into cover was not important that he was still in stealth since he started the turn in stealth. Basically he could walk into a room from starting in stealth and not be seen until the end of his movement if he was not behind cover at that point.
I insisted that to be able to attack while in stealth he must first be at least able to finish the first condition of stealth even if he was not going to, which states 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. Since he could never complete that condition because he would never be able to get back into concealment, he was not legally in stealth.
What do you all think?
I would love some logical opinions or links to posts by developers.
|
|
Hey Dragnmoon.
The player's stealth ends after the attack or at the the very end of his turn if he makes no action that would jeopardize his cover. Moving full speed does not break stealth. Not having available movement to get back into cover does not break the stealth.
SKR made comments on this situation in a post around the time the 'breaking stealth' concept was added to the rules. He emphasized that the pasage Your Stealth immediately ends after you make an attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below) was added to allow a character the opportunity to catch a target flat-footed even if he was in the open. Stealth ends immediately after the attack was made. I apologize, but I was unable to find that post.
edited for clarity.
|
|
Yeah, I wish I could have found that post for you...maybe someone else will have better luck.
So I have to ask...because I am having a hard time understanding where your decision came from.
Why would you deduce that the remaining distance the character can or cannot travel during the turn would break his stealth before the end of his turn? Could you elaborate on your thinking?
|
|
Though I thought I already explained it, I will gladly do so again.
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.
So here is the condition for remaining in stealth after leaving concealment, it requires you to succeed at a stealth check at the end of your turn in cover or concealment. You can break that stealth during that action (attack) but the breaking of that stealth does not change the fact you still need to qualify for the condition of stealth before that breaking of it, and those qualification require you to be able to start and end in concealment, even if something interrupts that action before it is complete (attacking).
That may have not been the intent of the rule but that is how it reads. If they had a different intent I would love to see that post.
There was an FAQ on it. I will find it. They changed stealth. If he ends his turn without cover or concealment the stealth ends, but if he is able to move and attack before using all of his actions for that round he gets the benefit of being hidden.
As a side note stealth, much like perception is an ongoing thing.
Example
The enemy has a stealth check of 30. The observer rolls a 28(penalties for distance are included). Let's say the stealthy character moves 30 feet toward the observer. That removes some of the penalties for distance so now the perception is 31, and the stealthy guy has been spotted.
With that out of the way I will find this information for you about being able to attack, and effectively being invisible without cover until you attack or your turn ends.
Stay tuned.
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
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).
That is errata. It is saying you stealth ends if you make an attack or if you end your turn with no cover or concealment.
Your turn is not over when you finish moving. Your turn is over when you have used up all of your actions for your turn, so if he can attack his turn is not over. Once he makes the attack that is what ends his stealth, or if he were to move right next to the creature, but not attack, his stealth would also end because he had no cover or concealment.
The wording was intentionally put together to specify "at the end of your turn". That is the moment when you check your status to see if you can maintain Stealth. This does allow you to move from cover, use Stealth to approach a target, and make a single attack, at which point, Stealth is broken, regardless of the outcome.
-------------------------------------------------------------
As for my quote on rechecking perception there is an easier way to do it.
1. For simplicities sake, it should be assumed that those making Perception checks get to do so at the most favorable point during the movement of a character using Stealth, to avoid making checks every time the condition changes. Technically, I think you would get a check whenever the conditions change, but that might make things overly complicated during play.
|
|
Actually, you haven't (darn internet communication). I don't think you are understanding what I am asking...and I am not sure if I can communicate it effectively...
The bottom line is that you are ruling that the player's stealth ends during his turn when the Breaking Stealth condition says clearly states that it is evaluated at the END of the turn.
EDIT: Yeah!!! thanks for finding that Wraith.
|
|
Yeah I read both those statements, but neither of them change how I read it. Both of those just confirm that you can attack in the middle of moving between concealment (breaking the stealth at that moment).
I am not disputing you can't attack while moving between concealment breaking your stealth. I am saying if you you move beyond the point of ever being able to get behind concealment you are no longer in stealth.
Neither of those posts contradict that reading of the rule.
Yeah I read both those statements, but neither of them change how I read it. Both of those just confirm that you can attack in the middle of moving between concealment (breaking the stealth at that moment).
I am not disputing you can't attack while moving between concealment breaking your stealth. I am saying if you you move beyond the point of ever being able to get behind concealment you are no longer in stealth.
Neither of those posts contradict that reading of the rule.
If you can't lose stealth until the end of your turn or until you attack then how is stealth being lost?
Your turn does not end until you have no actions left.The "until the end of your turn" is from the prd. It is not from me.
So how is stealth ending?
I will put it like this. The only things that are checked are did you attack and whether or not your turn is over. Then the results are given. They are not changed in the middle of the turn if no attack is made.
Is your turn over?
No-You still have stealth(assumes you have not attacked anyone)
Yes-See Bolded area
Did you make it to cover or concealment?
No-You are now visible
Yes-You are still hidden.
Did you attack anyone before the end of your turn?
No-See bolded areaYes-You are now visible.
Your are reading it that way you are because you are ignoring the "end of your turn" line. That means any time before "the end of your turn" you are still hidden. So you need to find a quote referencing the loss of stealth before "the end of your turn", and there is no such quote.
He is saying that if the character can not make it back to cover/concealment after the attack is made that he loses stealth before the attack is even made ie before the end of his turn, which is strictly against what the book says.
The rules and devs state that you lose dex until you notice the attacker, and he is not noticed until after the attack is made for this specific situation.
Jason even said the intent was to lose dex to AC if the target was hidden.
2. Creatures are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC "if they cannot react to a blow" (CR pg 179 under AC). It was our intent that if you are unaware of a threat, you cannot react to a blow.
Just to make this more clear I will give a the quote from my previous post that Jason was replying to along with his reply so the context is easier to understand.
There is a requirement to remaining stealthed while not having cover/concealment and that is that you must move to another area with cover/concealment and make a stealth check. If you don't move to an area of cover/concealment then your movement does not stay stealthed.
This new wording doesn't allow players to start from stealth and walk out into an open field and stab someone in the back. It just allows you to move around without breaking stealth as long as you start and end with cover/concealment. You no longer need the distraction mechanism to stealth between areas.
This is basically what DragonMoon is saying. However...
Not really correct here. The wording was intentionally put together to specify "at the end of your turn". That is the moment when you check your status to see if you can maintain Stealth. This does allow you to move from cover, use Stealth to approach a target, and make a single attack, at which point, Stealth is broken, regardless of the outcome. Now, if you slay that target with one hit, and still could maintain Stealth from all other foes in the area (if say, it is dark and they cannot see you), a GM might reasonably interpret that you could maintain Stealth from other foes, but that requires GM interpretation and is not really the point of this particular situation.Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
edit: Here is a direct link.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you're proposing Dragonmoon, would require an utter destruction of suspension of disbelief. That would be poor design, and should be a clue that it isn't the proper interpretation.
At the point you have to say, "The enemy sees you because you used too much of your movement to get behind that tree after you stab him" what are you even talking about? Do you need to ask them if they intend to return to cover first and base their stealth off of that? It makes no sense.
Especially after seeing the statement from Jason Bulmahn, I think the intent with Stealth is to allow two different things:
From a hidden position, to move out and attack an enemy with the benefits of being hidden from them
From a hidden position, to be able to dart to another hidden position, with a chance of doing so unnoticed.
Otherwise, there's very few situations in which you can successfully attack from a hidden position with any benefit (particularly with melee weapons). There's no facing in Pathfinder, so if you are where you can see your target, the target can see you. If you step out from behind the tree to stab that guard, he sees you and you don't get any benefits from being hidden from him. You also can't ever move from one hidden position to another, since you get seen as soon as you leave a position which provides cover.
I read the conditions as spelling out two different situations in which the Stealth user might leave cover while hidden:
1) to attack someone who was unaware of you prior to the attack. This attack has the benefits of being hidden from the target, but will reveal you to the target, hit or miss.
"I jump out and stab the unwary goblin in the back!"
2) to move to another position where you have cover. This gives you the possibility of remaining hidden, given a successful Stealth check, but can be difficult, depending on how quickly you have to move to reach that cover.
"While they aren't looking, I dart from behind the wagon to the bushes the goblins have already searched."
The first one isn't dependent upon the second one in any way, from my understanding. It would be really odd if the only way you could sneak attack someone is if you were 'intending' to leap into cover afterwards. I admit the wording could be more elegant (I don't think it is confusing, just poorly constructed), but I think there's two clear situations (getting the jump on some unsuspecting fool, and darting from hiding place to hiding place) and Stealth covers both of them.
This has been discussed a lot. The general consensus from players GMs and developers has been to alter the stealth rule wording. You actually posted the newer version of the rules.
Originally, you lost stealth (by RAW) as soon as you broke cover. The wording also stated that you lost stealth when you attacked, ot after. This newer wording was done with specific intent.
1) You can move from cover to cover without immediately being spotted as soon as you lose concealment.
2) You can sneak up on someone to attack them from stealth.
The logic here is pretty self-evident. If stealth didn't work this way, then no character would ever be able to make a melee sneak attack from stealth. This is particularly true because a character in an area of concealment (like a darkened ally) can use that concealment to stealth, but that same concealment prevents them from being able to sneak attack (baring special items or abilities).
This is a really common trope. An Assassin sneaks up behind a target and cuts his throat. If we accept your interpretation, there is no mundane way for this to actually happen.
|
|
They changed stealth. If he ends his turn without cover or concealment the stealth ends, but if he is able to move and attack before using all of his actions for that round he gets the benefit of being hidden.
So I can't and won't answer everyone in this thread but I want to point out this bolded post.
If the rules actually said it that way it would be a lot clearer and the intent would be obvious, as it is, it does not read that way.
That said, I looked further in the post you all keep quoting with quotes that don't answer my question, and I found one that actually does..
Stealth does break at the end of the turn if you don't regain cover/concealment... that was the change we put into the book.
Right there makes it clear that I was wrong and you can walk around a room in circles if you start your turn in stealth and stay in stealth until the end of you turn even if your movement does not allow you to finish the action behind concealment.
That intent needs to be added to an FAQ or the next printing, because as it reads now it makes it seem you have to be able to start and end in concealment even if you are interrupted in the middle of that action and never get behind the concealment.
I was seeing it as used for close targets to your concealment that limits your time in the open therefore limits your chance of detection. Kind of like the Silent Kills you see in stealth games.
The actual intent allows someone in stealth hasted to walk around with 60 movement all over a room not being concealed in full daylight but never being seen, so what is actually in the book made more sense to me then the quoted intent.
well, you can think of it like someone darting from hiding place to hiding place.
With the old wording, that character was (by RAW) spotted the instant that they broke cover. This made stealth all but unusable. You would never have been able to, say, be hiding in the shadows and then sneak up behind a guard to shank them without breaking stealth. As soon as you stepped out of your hiding spot, they instantly noticed you with no roll necessary.
The new rule wording that you quoted in the OP was put there to make this change. Maybe it could still be better, but at least you found what you needed.
|
|
well, you can think of it like someone darting from hiding place to hiding place.
That is the way I was seeing it and that is what was causing the problem.
If you are moving 30' (or even 60' hasted) into the open to make an attack you are not using the ability to move from cover to cover. And I was seeing the new errata rule specifically to address to inability before to move from cover to cover or sneak out an kill someone before being seen.
The limitation on how far you can do it I see in the rule makes more sense to me, and I may use that limitation in my Home game, but not in PFS games.
well, you can think of it like someone darting from hiding place to hiding place.That is the way I was seeing it and that is what was causing the problem.
If you are moving 30' (or even 60' hasted) into the open to make an attack you are not using the ability to move from cover to cover. And I was seeing the new errata rule specifically to address to inability before to move from cover to cover or sneak out an kill someone before being seen.
The limitation on how far you can do it I see in the rule makes more sense to me, and I may use that limitation in my Home game, but not in PFS games.
I think there are indeed a few modifications that could make sense.
For one, I think it would be cool if you could be hiding (in cover) and then spring attack out, make an attack, and hide again (assuming you get back to cover). There are no specific rules for this, but I would use the same rules that Sniping uses. Seems like a pretty cool/dramatic scene.I also think its okay to put reasonable limits on how far you can get. Per RAW right now, a hasted rogue can charge 120ft out of stealth and still get sneak attack. I personally don't have a problem with this (since stealth is so gimpy already) but I can see how that might rub someone the wrong way. I think a good way to go would be to use the 30ft. sniping rules for melee as well, E.G. you can keep stealth when moving up to 30ft to attack someone, but that is it.
You still can't run or charge while in stealth and you take penalties for moving over half speed.
A decent rule of thumb is that if you have to apply strange metaphysical or temporal rules to adjudicate Stealth, you're overthinking it. During your movement, Stealth doesn't care about whether you end your turn in cover or concealment--it only cares whether you made a legal Stealth check during that movement, and whether the character performed some other action that affected his ability to remain unobserved (such as stabbing someone). The Stealth rules don't look ahead in time and space and all of the probabilities to see whether it is possible for the character to end their turn in Stealth--after all, for all the character knows, there's an invisible mage in the corner with a readied action to cast deeper darkness on any sneaky person he sees with his eyes of sneaky person seeing. If so, the rogue would somehow maintain Stealth even while being unaware that a hiding place was about to exist.
Rather, the character gets a pass until the end of his turn so long as he makes his Stealth check. Once his turn ends, if he hasn't already broken Stealth, he gets to stay in Stealth unless his final cover/concealment conditions don't allow it.
well, you can think of it like someone darting from hiding place to hiding place.That is the way I was seeing it and that is what was causing the problem.
If you are moving 30' (or even 60' hasted) into the open to make an attack you are not using the ability to move from cover to cover. And I was seeing the new errata rule specifically to address to inability before to move from cover to cover or sneak out an kill someone before being seen.
The limitation on how far you can do it I see in the rule makes more sense to me, and I may use that limitation in my Home game, but not in PFS games.
I think there are indeed a few modifications that could make sense.
For one, I think it would be cool if you could be hiding (in cover) and then spring attack out, make an attack, and hide again (assuming you get back to cover). There are no specific rules for this, but I would use the same rules that Sniping uses. Seems like a pretty cool/dramatic scene.I also think its okay to put reasonable limits on how far you can get. Per RAW right now, a hasted rogue can charge 120ft out of stealth and still get sneak attack. I personally don't have a problem with this (since stealth is so gimpy already) but I can see how that might rub someone the wrong way. I think a good way to go would be to use the 30ft. sniping rules for melee as well, E.G. you can keep stealth when moving up to 30ft to attack someone, but that is it.
If they had spring attack and a way to gain full cover for stealth that is possible...or HiPS/Hellcat stealth works too.