Stealth without bluff check in concealment even if observed?


Rules Questions

51 to 96 of 96 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Looking at JUST the observing rules, to me it is clear. If you are observed, the only way to use stealth is to "find cover or concealment", or use bluff for a distraction. Sounds really easy to get to concealment if you are already there, so just do that.


LazarX wrote:

The person that would be observing the rogue knows where the rogue was last seen at.

What happens next depends on circumstances.

If the rogue goes before his enemy in initiative. he can go invisible and then move. At that point we have opposed stealth vs perception checks.

I agree. That's my point. The rogue now has concealment from invisibility and can make a Stealth check. However, under BNW's explanation of Stealth, the rogue couldn't hide without rolling a successful Bluff vs Sense Motive because he was being observed.

Under the way Gauss and I are describing it, the Rogue just got concealment, he can now Stealth. The people who saw him before knew what space he was in when he Stealthed, but if he obtained concealment and then moved with a successful Stealth check, then they lose track of him.

Under BNW's version, the rogue literally cannot Stealth, so even if he's moving around everyone has perfect awareness of what space he's in, regardless of how good he is at Stealth, because he's not entitled to a Stealth check at all.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Says what? A game definition? You? I mean seriously, is This guy not in plain sight?

The funny thing is, this is a man hiding behind a wall. He has failed his Stealth check.


So according to this approach, if it's dim light, I can be standing right next to you, having just attacked you, make a stealth check and you won't know where I am? No need for a distraction.

I've always considered total cover/concealment necessary to break observation without a distraction. It's not strictly RAW, but I'm not convinced there's a coherent, strictly RAW interpretation of the rules.


thejeff wrote:
So according to this approach, if it's dim light, I can be standing right next to you, having just attacked you, make a stealth check and you won't know where I am? No need for a distraction.

You're using the fact your opponent cannot see you effectively to evade his awareness. Your Stealth check represents that he cannot effectively see you. Why can't he effectively see you? Because the light is too dark and he has trouble making you out, especially when you're avoiding trying to be seen.

Shinobi.


thejeff wrote:
So according to this approach, if it's dim light, I can be standing right next to you, having just attacked you, make a stealth check and you won't know where I am? No need for a distraction.

Only if the the person you are hiding from doesn't have any sort of low-light/darkvision. I consider dim light to be just enough to get around in without smashing too hard into the walls.


In other words: "Yes"

So what purpose does the whole Bluff/feint/distraction thing serve? No mechanical benefit, it just keeps him from knowing roughly where I went into cover/concealment?

After all, if I'm already in concealment, I can just make a stealth check and move, even he saw me before. If not, I still have to move to cover/concealment for the bluff check to work, so why not just move there and then use Stealth? Maybe he knows roughly where I went, but OTOH there's no penalty and only one check to make.

Similarly with sniping, if I snipe and try the check at -20, he sees me. If I shoot from stealth and then use Stealth he knows roughly where I was, but I can move.

There are a lot of rules that imply that if someone is already aware of you, you have to do something to break that before you can use stealth.


Pretty much. Bluffing for a distraction is something you do when they can clearly see you and you want to get to cover without being noticed. It's the "Hey look, it's the President!" *dives for cover*, "Hey, where'd he go!? He was here a second ago!" shtick.

And yeah, sniping is awesome. When you snipe and succeed, nobody has any idea where the attack came from. Some guy just got hit, but it's anyone's guess as to what happened. If you shoot, then move and Stealth, you give your position away, even if they can't see you anymore they are quite aware of where you were and that's a big deal (otherwise they gamble on trying to move in the direction that you might be while you pick them off).

I'm not exactly seeing what the problem is.


That they're both presented as the way to do it, when in your interpretation they're much more situational. Extra checks and penalties for a minor benefit.

I get what schtick it is, it just seems far more useful to skip all the "Hey is that a demonic duck of some kind" nonsense and just vanish and walk away. Especially since there's only one check and it's an easier one.

Along with all the actual rules text saying you can't use stealth if you're being observed. And then separate text saying you need cover or concealment. Which, along with the rules for breaking or avoiding observation (distracting, sniping) implies that they're separate things. Even with cover/concealment once someone's spotted you, you have to do something to break that.


That seems to be the main point missed. Stealthing while you have cover or concealment is usually about not being seen *while* you're moving, thus your opponent not knowing *where* you are. It's not so much about "being in stealth" where you end up.

That said, in a dark room (or a forest such as the weapon training described above), stealthing an opponent (even in melee) is reasonable (fading into the darkness) and perhaps a good idea to strike unobserved and deny dexterity.


Except that it very much is about "being in stealth" where you end up. Even if you just take a 5' step or move around with AoAs since your target can't locate you. If his Perception doesn't beat your Stealth, he's got to guess at your square and then have even less of a chance to hit you even if he guesses right. Can't target you with a lot of spells. If you have moved then even AoA might miss you. Plus denying dex/sneak attacks.

There will be cases where not knowing where you shot from or where you dove into cover will useful, but not that many. Only when there are only a couple isolated spots you can be.


Maybe is that why people think rogue are underpowered, they aren't understanding how usefull and tatical stealth really is ?

I try to put a lot of hiding places in my maps, to the point of marking cover-friendly squares for stealth types do their thing.

Lantern Lodge

Draco Bahamut wrote:

Maybe is that why people think rogue are underpowered, they aren't understanding how usefull and tatical stealth really is ?

I try to put a lot of hiding places in my maps, to the point of marking cover-friendly squares for stealth types do their thing.

This would be true... If rogues weren't the only ones who used stealth.


On the subject of over or underpowered based on Class, I use Stealth frequently as a GM and as a player. It is infrequent that I use a rogue in either case. Stealth can be a pretty strong tactic in the right situations with the right Stealth modifiers, but in general it's not terribly difficult to shut down.

In fact, beyond just having a good Perception modifier and the luck of rolling, there's lots of tricks you can use against strike-vanishers, including (but not limited to) faerie fire and glitterdust which both nullify the benefits of concealment and provide a -20 and -40 penalty to Stealth respectively.


I would say that total cover or concealment prevents you from being observed, but partial cover certainly doesn't.


Those only work AFTER you can see your target.


Komoda wrote:
Those only work AFTER you can see your target.

If they're not breaking Stealth they're not doing much. If they do break Stealth (such as to attack someone) you're going to have a pretty good idea where to aim your AOE. >_>

But that's neither here nor there, I suppose. Anyway, I'm working on prepping for today's game so I must leave you all for now. TTFN. :)


Which is why you attack from stealth, then move and stealth. Now you're hidden and they don't know where you are.


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:


This would be true... If rogues weren't the only ones who used stealth.

Yeah. As much as rogue characters aren't only from the rogue class.


Quote:
Hide in Plain Sight (Su): At 8th level, an assassin can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as he is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, an assassin can hide himself from view in the open without having anything to actually hide behind. He cannot, however, hide in his own shadow.

That means you're standing out in the open, no cover, no concealment. If Stealth worked where you still cannot be observed, then an Assassin could only HiPS if the Assassin is standing in a room alone (since there's no facing in PF, simply being in a room with someone means you can see them at all times). If anybody else is in the room, the Assassin standing without any cover or concealment is necessarily "being observed". That an Assassin's HiPS entry states that they can hide without cover or concealment, regardless of the presence of others, pretty strongly implies that ordinarily you can hide while in the presence of others, so long as you have cover or concealment because it seems that "being observed" means "you don't have cover or concealment".

The Assassin's HiPS essentially takes Stealth from being "You must be in the shadows to use Stealth" to being "You must be near the shadows to use Stealth". Otherwise, what's the point of HiPS if it can be circumvented by having an enemy simply standing within eyesight?

Shadow Dancer's entry works the same way.

There's also the same implication of "plain sight" in the Symbol of Death entry.

Quote:
To be effective, a symbol of death must always be placed in plain sight and in a prominent location. Covering or hiding the rune renders the symbol of death ineffective, unless a creature removes the covering, in which case the symbol of death works normally.

In short, such a symbol only works if it is in "plain sight". What does that mean? It isn't covered or concealed.

Quote:
As a default, a symbol of death is triggered whenever a creature does one or more of the following, as you select: looks at the rune

A Symbol of Death can be triggered simply by being looked at or "observed". But if it's covered in anyway, it won't be triggered until it is uncovered (meaning while covered it is not in "plain sight").

Other relevant entries (in my opinion):

Quote:
Deft Palm (Ex): A rogue with this talent can make a Sleight of Hand check to conceal a weapon while holding it in plain sight, even while she is being observed.
Quote:
Unnoticed (Ex): At 12th level, the wanderer may use Stealth to hide even while being directly observed or when no cover or concealment is available, as long as he is adjacent to at least one creature of his size or larger, by spending 1 point from his ki pool.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Change Shape (Su) As a full-round action, a raktavarna can take the shape of a handheld object, most often an ornamental light, a one-handed weapon, or a piece of treasure. If the rakshasa remains stationary in such a form, it can attempt Stealth checks even while being observed.

It appears to me to be the intent that "observed" really does mean "out in the open" or "in plain sight" or (for the purposes of Stealth) "doesn't have cover or concealment". Hence, you can stealth if you have cover or concealment because you are not "being observed" insofar as Stealth is concerned.


Total cover makes you unobserved. Partial cover may not.


Hide in Plain Sight specifically says "even while being observed". That's specifically different from normal Stealth. You can't draw the conclusion that "while being observed" means "without cover/concealment" from an ability that specifically lets you hide while being observed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Hide in Plain Sight specifically says "even while being observed". That's specifically different from normal Stealth. You can't draw the conclusion that "while being observed" means "without cover/concealment" from an ability that specifically lets you hide while being observed.

Yes I can. The rules impact of the Assassin's and Shadow Dancer's ability is:

"As long as he is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, an assassin can hide himself from view in the open without having anything to actually hide behind."

So, you can hide even if you don't have cover. The "fluff" description (so to speak) is that the character can hide "while being observed". The only rules impact that discusses hiding without cover or concealment. Clearly the intention is that ordinarily you can hide as long as you have cover or concealment since the only thing being changed is the ability to hide without cover or concealment.

Besides, if you could not draw this conclusion the language in HiPS wouldn't make sense. It says that you can hide without cover or concealment. It makes no discussion about changing the rules when you do have cover or concealment. So you are better at hiding with no cover or concealment but no better at hiding if you do have concealment? This is particularly curious if your position is one stating that observation includes when you have cover and/or concealment.

Beyond that, Shadow Well and a couple other abilities specifically imply in their construction that "while being observed" and "having cover or concealment" are two different things.

For Stealth purposes, "being observed" means being out in "plain sight". If you have cover or concealment, you are not in "plain sight".

Besides, what's the point of the concealment/cover language in the Stealth entry if you still have to be unobserved in order to make a check? You can't use Stealth if you're being observed, except you can if you have cover or concealment (against many monsters), except you still can't because you're being observed. The cover/concealment aspect is therefore irrelevant. Are you being observed? Then you can't use Stealth. Have cover? Doesn't matter, still can't use Stealth because you're being observed. Or cover/concealment means you're not in "plain sight" so you're not "being observed" for the purposes of Stealth. If that's the case, not only does the cover/concealment section make sense but the fact that an ability which allows you to hide even while in plain sight (meaning without cover or concealment) makes perfect sense, particularly since it's called Hide in Plain Sight. You don't need help hiding if you're not in plain sight.


Gauss wrote:

What is the summary here?

1) If people are observing you using any sense you cannot use stealth.
2) If you have cover or concealment you can use stealth.
3) If observers are distracted then you can attempt to use stealth to get to an un-observed place of some kind.

Thus, based on that, cover or concealment does not qualify as being observed since you are already in a place you can use stealth.
Simple deductive reasoning.

You are miss-quoting the Stealth rules a bit in line 3. The rule does not say, "If observers are distracted then you can attempt to use stealth to get to an un-observed place of some kind." They say, "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. What you are trying to convey and what is actually written are a little different.

...

The thing is, the rules were re-written a little bit in the conversion of 3.5 to PF. I think they were trying to make it a bit easier to understand but it didn't really help. Here is the way they were written in 3.5:

3.5e SRD on Hide skill wrote:

You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check. Total cover or total concealment usually (but not always; see Special, below) obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway. (*1)

If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide. You can run around a corner or behind cover so that you’re out of sight and then hide, but the others then know at least where you went. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check; see below), though, you can attempt to hide. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Hide check if you can get to a hiding place of some kind. (As a general guideline, the hiding place has to be within 1 foot per rank you have in Hide.) This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.

(*1): In PF you still need a Stealth check even behind total cover or total concealment because you are rolling Stealth in place of Move Silently as well.

If you take the 3.5 reading and then read it's evolution, Stealth, in PF it is a little clearer.

You can't use Stealth while being observed (if you are seen). You can break that line of sight and get to an unobserved location, THEN attempt a Stealth check. The Stealth check is not a mechanic to break observation. You must break observation first, THEN use Stealth.

Once you are in Stealth, or if you start out in Stealth concealment is enough to move around undetected. But if something sees you, you have to break it's line of sight (observation). How do you do that? Bluff, Total Concealment, or Cover are three ways to get that done.


The Stealth skill entry is broken up into several paragraphs, idea groups. This whole section is one idea group to explain one mechanic of Stealth:

PRD/Stealth 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.

So there is a lead in, to set the stage for the mechanic:

1. You cannot use Stealth if you are observed.

2. Cover/Concealment allows you to attempt Stealth in most cases.

That is the scenario set up, so how do you perform that. It is given in the next few lines where the mechanic is explained:

3. 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.

Read carfully, note that observation MUST BE BROKEN FIRST, that is the Bluff check, then a Stealth check is made "if you can get to" an unobserved location.

Total Concealment or Cover are other methods of breaking observation. Partial concealment is not enough, on it's own, to break observation, that is why the Bluff mechanic exists.

...

Concealment and Partial Cover are enough to avoid observation if you are using Stealth. HOWEVER, if something has seen you, or is already observing you, then you must break line of sight (observation) BEFORE you use Stealth. It has been pretty much the same since the 3.5 Hide rules.


Gauss wrote:

Ok, there appears to be some confusion as to my stance. My understanding of the original question was (paraphrased for simplicity) "If you begin your turn observed but in cover or concealment can you use stealth?".

To answer that I present three scenarios:

1) You have Cover (not total cover) and they can see you. Can you use stealth?
My interpretation of the rules (based on my previous post) is yes because you have cover and thus falls under the clause that states you can use stealth because you have cover.

2) You have Concealment (not total concealment) and they can see you. Can you use stealth?
My interprestation of the rules (based on my previous post) is yes because you have concealment and thus falls under the clause that states you can use stealth because you have concealment.

For the sake of argument let's accept this as true.

Gauss wrote:

3) You do not have Cover or Concealment. Can you use Stealth?

No, not without providing a distraction (such as bluff) to give you the chance to get to cover or concealment.

If 1 and 2 are true why do I need a Bluff check at all in scenario 3? I can just as easily walk over to the area of concealment in plain view and roll Stealth with the exact same effect AND I don't waste my Standard Action. Or better yet I am able to use my Standard Action in a double move to put some distance between me and the last place anyone saw me. If you are correct, why would anyone ever waste their Standard Action on a Bluff check?

Gauss wrote:
If #1 and #2 are "No" then it basically restricts stealth to total concealment and total cover unless you distract them. I have never seen stealth run this way and I do not believe the rules support this stance (as stated in my previous post).

False. It restricts BREAKING OBSERVATION (line of sight) to Total Concealment and Total Cover, or a Bluff check. If you have not yet been observed (nothing has seen you, spotted you with Perception) you can use Stealth all day with Partial Cover or Concealment. If you have been observed, you must break observation before using Stealth.


HectorVivis/Stealth Play Test wrote:
You are not hidden from creatures that are observing you (creatures that you didn't have cover or concealment from) or that succeed at the opposed check.
Gauss wrote:
HectorVivis, thank you for posting the RAI (it is not RAW since the playtest did not become RAW). That is pretty clear that observed means creatures that you do not have cover or concealment from.

AND creatures that have succeeded at the opposed check. So, even if you have cover/concealment you can still be observed if they spot you with an opposed check. In which case, you cannot use Stealth because you are observed.


I usually agree with stuff you have to say, but...

Ashiel wrote:
Meanwhile Stealth specifically says that you can use it when you have A) cover, B) concealment, and it says this in a way as to make them an exception to the observation thing.

Not if you read that whole section as a single idea.

1, 2, 3.

1. What's the problem?

2. What will help?

3. How do I make that work?

PRD wrote:
1) If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. 2) Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. 3) 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.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Gauss wrote:

What is the summary here?

1) If people are observing you using any sense you cannot use stealth.
2) If you have cover or concealment you can use stealth.
3) If observers are distracted then you can attempt to use stealth to get to an un-observed place of some kind.

Your own logic says the exact opposite of your conclusion. If you could stealth in cover or concealment then why would the distraction be necessary at all?

LOL, I came to the exact same conclusion when I read his post.


Ashiel wrote:
I mean, if you didn't work that way, turning invisible would mean nothing because you'd need a bluff check to attempt to hide.

No, because invisibility gives you Total Concealment which breaks Observation.

Ashiel wrote:
And if you were in a pitch black room, and someone said something in the darkness, even if you couldn't see them, once you had observed their presence they couldn't hide in the darkness anymore.

Darkness also grants Total Concealment, breaking Observation. Hearing a sound and not being able to locate the source is not the same as Observing it. By the same token, smelling something but not being able to immediately find the source of that smell isn't the same as Observing it. If so, the second a thing with Scent caught a smell it would know exactly where you were, that is not the case.

Ashiel wrote:
And if you have someone using a cloaking device like the predator (or a magical equivalent) then you couldn't hide from anyone who caught a glimpse of you unless you were a great liar.

Correct... Or unless you pass behind something that breaks line of sight like a tree, pilar, or area of darkness. Which if IIRC is exactly how it is portrayed in the Predator movies. Once Arnold catches a glimps he is able to visually track the creature until it moves behind something that breaks line of sight.


Gauss wrote:

No BigNorseWolf, my logic does not state the exact opposite of my conclusion. You do not need to use a distraction if you have cover or concealment.

You do need to use a distraction to move unobserved to a place where you can continue to be unobserved such as with cover or concealment.

Except that is a complete waste of time when you would be better off using the Standard Action to double move and create more distance between you and where you entered Stealth. Remember, with the "Breaking Stealth" rules you don't need to maintain cover/concealment to maintain Stealth.


Ashiel wrote:
Gauss wrote:

No BigNorseWolf, my logic does not state the exact opposite of my conclusion. You do not need to use a distraction if you have cover or concealment.

You do need to use a distraction to move unobserved to a place where you can continue to be unobserved such as with cover or concealment.

Ah yes, the dreaded open hallway issue. Where you have a hallway shaped like a "T" and you're trying to cross the intersection and there's a guy in the | part of the hallway. You can't Stealth from one side of the horizontal line to the other because the intersection has no cover/concealment. So you gotta make a distraction so you can slip by unnoticed.

*tosses a copper piece down the hallway, skitters past*

No longer an issue:

Stealth wrote:
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).

...

Ashiel wrote:

But yeah, the alternative would mean that if your party's rogue activates their ring of invisibility during combat, everyone automatically knows where he is unless he makes a bluff check, even if he activated it and then with perfect silence walked away from where he was standing.

Why? Because he can't Stealth. He has total concealment (invisibility) and a +20 to Stealth, and for all we know he's got another +33 to Stealth for having a +10 Dex and 20 ranks in Stealth, but everyone knows exactly where he is as he moves around until he makes a successful Bluff check.

No, Total cover/concealment breaks observation. It did even back when this was the 3.5 Hide skill. Bluff, Total Cover, and Total Concealment break observation allowing a Hide/Stealth check.


Gauss wrote:

If you have either cover or concealment you are not in plain sight.

At BEST cover/concealment would only grant the unfavorable conditions modifier to a Perception DC of 0. You are still absolutely OBSERVABLE.

Perception wrote:


1. Unfavorable conditions1 +2
2. Terrible conditions2 +5

1. Unfavorable conditions depend upon the sense being used to make the check. For example, bright light might decrease the DC of checks involving sight, while torchlight or moonlight might increase the DC. Background noise might increase a DC involving hearing, while competing odors might increase the DC of a check involving scent.

2. As for unfavorable conditions, but more extreme. For example, candlelight for DCs involving sight, a roaring dragon for DCs involving hearing, and an overpowering stench covering the area for DCs involving scent.

Light levels are specifically called out as an example of unfavorable conditions. However, that only adds a +5 at most to the DC of the Perception check. There for making a 0 DC into a 5 DC, which is still very much Observable.

...

Gauss wrote:

- Yes, people around the corner would have 50% concealment, until you removed the cover.

This is equivalent to squeezing yourself flat against the wall. Not equivalent to your picture.

Except people just around the corner DON'T have 50% miss chance, they have a +4 to AC. 50% miss chance only takes place if they have Total Cover which only happens if you have no line of effect to them. Adjacent creatures on either side of a corner only have normal Cover, NOT a 50% miss chance.


fretgod99 wrote:
Otherwise, what's the point of HiPS if it can be circumvented by having an enemy simply standing within eyesight?

It can't be circumvented by having an enemy in eyesight, the skill says "even while observed" it dirrectly correlates to both requirements for stealth:

Stealth Requirements:
1. You need to be unobserved: If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.
2. You need cover/concealment: Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.

HiPS:
1. Can use Stealth even while being observed.
2. Can use Stealth even with nothing to hide behind/in.

It is a 1 to 1 dirrect correlation.

fretgod99 wrote:

There's also the same implication of "plain sight" in the Symbol of Death entry.

Quote:
To be effective, a symbol of death must always be placed in plain sight and in a prominent location. Covering or hiding the rune renders the symbol of death ineffective, unless a creature removes the covering, in which case the symbol of death works normally.
In short, such a symbol only works if it is in "plain sight". What does that mean? It isn't covered or concealed.

This is NOT an indication of concealment. This is an indication of Total Cover.


Last post I promise, and I appologise for the wall of Shadowlord posts.

...

Lastly I would like to point out the clarifying description of "Using Bluff to Cause a Distraction" that was added in the Stealth eratta.

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.

This clarifying addition from eratta seems to indicate that "observing you" is defined as "aware of you" which changes the meaning of the earlier entry quite a bit.

If you read the two sections in conjunction you get:

Quote:

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.

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.

So any time something is observing (aware) of you, you can't use Stealth. Unless you cause a distraction (bluff) to give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check.


Also:

3.5 Hide/Move Silently evolved to PF Stealth: Concealment alone doesn't break observation.


Throwing in my two pence simply because I have a question/scenario at the end.
Firstly I completely agree with Shadowlord's rule crunching. He seems as someone who understands the rules.

From the link

Shadowlord wrote:

3. Stealth pulls the majority of it's language from Hide. It still says that if you are "observed" you can't use Stealth. Here is where the change happens, introducing confusion, because PF tried to combine two seperate skills into one. They say: Observing you using any of their senses. That could mean any sense, I agree. They careate that by adding (but typically sight). Why is that? I believe it's a throw back to the Hide/Move Silently skills. HIDE, a purely vision based skill, is the only part of modern Stealth, which required you to break "observation."

I Honestly don't think PF made any confusion. What PF did was take some of the story breaking rule soliciting and move it into roleplay. It forces players to use stealth and perception in more creative way(as much as I hate the word)

Where at 3.5 one could break out the rulebook and fight over how he lost sight and was not observed any longer.

In PF to my understanding you may have a far more fluent game-flow.
In the heat of battle the little halfling rouge can find stealth by simply finding something to break the line of sight.

If someone is actively looking for the halfling rouge in a quiet room (Guard cruising for a bruising with the rouge that just hid in the princesses chambers) Then his "observation" can be extended to then listening bit, for he knows the cheeky thing is in there (and the guard has no other pressing matters to attend to other than giving the pretty little thing a struggle snuggle). In this case hiding in the wardrobe grants him visual concealment he can still fidget around and make noise (hit something in the wardrobe) as he draws his weapons, was out of breath from running, has turrets (as all the best rouges do) or similar rot.

In darkness a bat or race that may have ears +n due to racial benefits could still use ear power to observe noise. Or smell someone for that matter or any other way of heat or magnetic location... magnetic stealth could be tricky, though...

This is the benefit I see in PF, it gives some more power to role-playing/game-flow over rule bashing. As all those 4 skills from 3.5 are compressed into just Stealth and Perception and both have more game-flow modifiers than before. Giving more power to the GM's and the PC's to paint the story out rather than taking out their rule books and ordering pizza because this will drag out.

As for the question/scenario:

I play a Bard, my mate is a Halfling rouge with silly high stealth bonuses.
Lets say I cast blur mid battle granting him concealment anyway and he darts out. Mid a nosy battle with an aggressive oratory bardic performance, can the little blurred speck of a halfling rouge use such narrow things as trees or other PC's that really only briefly break line of sight as he darts past to grant him his stealth check?
Or must he stop behind them for the check? (it is mid battle mind you and my bard if flashy...and shouts...quite a bit)


Thoranin wrote:

Throwing in my two pence simply because I have a question/scenario at the end.

Firstly I completely agree with Shadowlord's rule crunching. He seems as someone who understands the rules.

Thank you

Thoranin wrote:
From the link
Shadowlord wrote:

3. Stealth pulls the majority of it's language from Hide. It still says that if you are "observed" you can't use Stealth. Here is where the change happens, introducing confusion, because PF tried to combine two seperate skills into one. They say: Observing you using any of their senses. That could mean any sense, I agree. They careate that by adding (but typically sight). Why is that? I believe it's a throw back to the Hide/Move Silently skills. HIDE, a purely vision based skill, is the only part of modern Stealth, which required you to break "observation."

I Honestly don't think PF made any confusion. What PF did was take some of the story breaking rule soliciting and move it into roleplay. It forces players to use stealth and perception in more creative way(as much as I hate the word)

Where at 3.5 one could break out the rulebook and fight over how he lost sight and was not observed any longer.

In PF to my understanding you may have a far more fluent game-flow.

That is certainly PF's goal.

Thoranin wrote:
In the heat of battle the little halfling rouge can find stealth by simply finding something to break the line of sight.

I absolutely agree; keeping in mind that concealment alone doesn't break line of sight.

Thoranin wrote:
If someone is actively looking for the halfling rouge in a quiet room (Guard cruising for a bruising with the rouge that just hid in the princesses chambers) Then his "observation" can be extended to then listening bit, for he knows the cheeky thing is in there (and the guard has no other pressing matters to attend to other than giving the pretty little thing a struggle snuggle). In this case hiding in the wardrobe grants him visual concealment he can still fidget around and make noise (hit something in the wardrobe) as he draws his weapons, was out of breath from running, has turrets (as all the best rouges do) or similar rot.

I think I agree with your intent, but I would explain it differently. "Observation" is binary in nature. It's either ON and you can't attempt Stealth until you break it, or it's OFF and you can attempt Stealth freely. Now, I absolutely agree that in your scenario the guard may hear the Rogue, or get some other clue that the Rogue is in the Princesses room and walk in. I don't think hearing something in the room automatically means the guard is "observing" the Rogue.

Once the guard is inside the room the Rogue is still able to attempt Stealth inside the wardrobe. The guard rolls Perception and either hears the Rogue or not. If he hears the Rogue at that point he KNOWS the Rogue is in the wardrobe, but he still has to open the wardrobe and actually find the Rogue. If he doesn't hear the Rogue at that point, he will probably take 20 on Pereception in the room and search around until he does see/hear the Rogue. In either case the Rogue is most likely going to recieve that struggle snuggle you mentioned. However, I don't think the Rogue is "observed" until the guard actually opens the wardrobe and finds him. That is not to say the guard can't know where something is without "observing" it. He would know exactly where it is as soon as he hears something in the wardrobe. But the Rogue could still attempt a Stealth check to be quiet. The Stealth check might even be successful. Then the guard opens the wardrobe, removing the Rogue's cover, and sees the Rogue standing in plain view.

Thoranin wrote:
In darkness a bat or race that may have ears +n due to racial benefits could still use ear power to observe noise. Or smell someone for that matter or any other way of heat or magnetic location... magnetic stealth could be tricky, though...

Yes, but those creatures have special senses that specifically say they can do that. In the case of the bat, it has Blindsense.

PRD wrote:
Blindsense: Other creatures have blindsense, a lesser ability that lets the creature notice things it cannot see, but without the precision of blindsight. The creature with blindsense usually does not need to make Perception checks to notice and locate creatures within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature. Any opponent that cannot be seen has total concealment (50% miss chance) against a creature with blindsense, and the blindsensing creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment. Visibility still affects the movement of a creature with blindsense. A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.

The bat doesn't need line of sight to observe something because it's special sense says it only needs line of effect.

Thoranin wrote:
This is the benefit I see in PF, it gives some more power to role-playing/game-flow over rule bashing. As all those 4 skills from 3.5 are compressed into just Stealth and Perception and both have more game-flow modifiers than before. Giving more power to the GM's and the PC's to paint the story out rather than taking out their rule books and ordering pizza because this will drag out.

Just to be clear, I am only being so rigid about the rules because we are in a rules forum where someone has asked how something works according to RAW. I am not generally so strict when I am running my home games, mainly for two reasons:

1. Exactly the reason you mentioned. I like things to flow from story and RP more than I like debating rules at the table.
2. If I were going to be this strict on my players then I owe them a mape of every single encounter, drawn in perfect detail. That would be a LOT of work.

...

Thoranin wrote:

As for the question/scenario:

I play a Bard, my mate is a Halfling rouge with silly high stealth bonuses.

Lets say I cast blur mid battle granting him concealment anyway and he darts out. Mid a nosy battle with an aggressive oratory bardic performance, can the little blurred speck of a halfling rouge use such narrow things as trees or other PC's that really only briefly break line of sight as he darts past to grant him his stealth check?
Or must he stop behind them for the check? (it is mid battle mind you and my bard if flashy...and shouts...quite a bit)

Two things before I answer:

1. I don't believe the concealment from Blur alone allows for Stealth checks. The last line of the Blur spell states: Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell's effect. So, if you use Stealth you are not seen, if you are not seen your opponent may ignore the effects of Blur, if it ignores the effects of Blur you lose Concealment.

2. People provide "soft cover." Soft cover doesn't allow Stealth. Unless you are in a "crowd."

Soft Cover:
PRD/CRB/Combat/Soft Cover wrote:
Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.

Crowds:
PRD/CRB/Environment/Crowds wrote:

Crowds: Urban streets are often full of people going about their daily lives. In most cases, it isn't necessary to put every 1st-level commoner on the map when a fight breaks out on the city's main thoroughfare. Instead, just indicate which squares on the map contain crowds. If crowds see something obviously dangerous, they'll move away at 30 feet per round at initiative count 0. It takes 2 squares of movement to enter a square with crowds. The crowds provide cover for anyone who does so, enabling a Stealth check and providing a bonus to Armor Class and on Reflex saves.

Directing Crowds: It takes a DC 15 Diplomacy check or DC 20 Intimidate check to convince a crowd to move in a particular direction, and the crowd must be able to hear or see the character making the attempt. It takes a full-round action to make the Diplomacy check, but only a free action to make the Intimidate check.

If two or more characters are trying to direct a crowd in different directions, they make opposed Diplomacy or Intimidate checks to determine to whom the crowd listens. The crowd ignores everyone if none of the characters' check results beat the DCs given above.

With that being said, I believe passing behind anything that breaks line of sight (cover, total cover, total concealment) should be enough to initiate a Stealth check. If Stealth is successful, you should be able to pass between areas of cover/concealment without being observed using the Breaking Stealth rule.

NOTE: Your scenario doesn't fall precicely within RAW but I think it does fall within the RAI of Breaking Stealth:

PRD/CRB/Stealth wrote:
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.

By strict RAW, you are probably required to stop behind the tree. Then break strealth on your next turn. But I really don't think that is the intent. I believe the intent of adding the Breaking Stealth errata was simply to end the argument of whether or not you are IMMEDIATELY counted as being in plain view (Perception DC 0) the second you leave cover/concealment.

...

Also keep this in mind when Breaking Stealth:

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.


Shadowlord wrote:


Thoranin wrote:
If someone is actively looking for the halfling rouge in a quiet room (Guard cruising for a bruising with the rouge that just hid in the princesses chambers) Then his "observation" can be extended to then listening bit, for he knows the cheeky thing is in there (and the guard has no other pressing matters to attend to other than giving the pretty little thing a struggle snuggle). In this case hiding in the wardrobe grants him visual concealment he can still fidget around and make noise (hit something in the wardrobe) as he draws his weapons, was out of breath from running, has turrets (as all the best rouges do) or similar rot.

I think I agree with your intent, but I would explain it differently. "Observation" is binary in nature. It's either ON and you can't attempt Stealth until you break it, or it's OFF and you can attempt Stealth freely. Now, I absolutely agree that in your scenario the guard may hear the Rogue, or get some other clue that the Rogue is in the Princesses room and walk in. I don't think hearing something in the room automatically means the guard is "observing" the Rogue.

Once the guard is inside the room the Rogue is still able to attempt Stealth inside the wardrobe. The guard rolls Perception and either hears the Rogue or not. If he hears the Rogue at that point he KNOWS the Rogue is in the wardrobe, but he still has to open the wardrobe and actually find the Rogue. If he doesn't hear the Rogue at that point, he will probably take 20 on Pereception in the room and search around until he does see/hear the Rogue. In either case the Rogue is most likely going to recieve that struggle snuggle you mentioned. However, I don't think the Rogue is "observed" until the guard actually opens the wardrobe and finds him. That is not to say the guard can't know where something is without "observing" it. He would know exactly where it is as soon as he hears something in the wardrobe. But the Rogue could still attempt a Stealth check to be quiet. The Stealth check might even be successful. Then the guard opens the wardrobe, removing the Rogue's cover, and sees the Rogue standing in plain view.

Could have worded badly, meant to state that the guard has seen the halfling enter the room, if the guard's perception in this case automatically extends to listening. And the halflings stealth check automatically turns into move silently/stay quiet. Would he be panting in the wardrobe from running he could attempt a stealth check or maybe the GM would add some constitution modifier to keep quiet and stop panting (well in this case its panting so constitution...but already PF's more fluid story mechanic comes into play)

Would he fail, he would count as "observed" by sound and would not be able to redo a stealth check in that very same wardrobe even if the guard just readies a crossbow to fire a bolt at him (or begins cracking his joints to cast fireball) n'est pas?

If the rouge would succeed it would buy him time or maybe even the guard might give up entirely after some time. (not enough sold for his time, and the princess is not that pretty after all)

EDIT:To give it a more battle nature we are more familiar with. Would the rouge fail his Stealth against the guard, the guard would not be flat footed against the rouges attacks or if he'd open the wardrobe to spear the little thing, but upon success the rouge could (lets say the wardrobe has a keyhole to peep through) use his full sneak attack on the guard when he would pass by while searching the room.

Shadowlord wrote:


Two things before I answer:

1. I don't believe the concealment from Blur alone allows for Stealth checks. The last line of the Blur spell states: Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell's effect. So, if you use Stealth you are not seen, if you are not seen your opponent may ignore the effects of Blur, if it ignores the effects of Blur you lose Concealment.

2. People provide "soft cover." Soft cover doesn't allow Stealth. Unless you are in a "crowd."

Surely RAW could not apply here. My question was a bit more towards 1. 2. adding up. He is a blurred speck dashing about.

-As a GM would you allow soft cover to be used for stealth for that small blurred blot, even if at a higher DC ?
-Or could it help him lower the DC for a bluff based distraction stealth move?


Thoranin wrote:

Could have worded badly, meant to state that the guard has seen the halfling enter the room, if the guard's perception in this case automatically extends to listening. And the halflings stealth check automatically turns into move silently/stay quiet. Would he be panting in the wardrobe from running he could attempt a stealth check or maybe the GM would add some constitution modifier to keep quiet and stop panting (well in this case its panting so constitution...but already PF's more fluid story mechanic comes into play)

Would he fail, he would count as "observed" by sound and would not be able to redo a stealth check in that very same wardrobe even if the guard just readies a crossbow to fire a bolt at him (or begins cracking his joints to cast fireball) n'est pas?

If the rouge would succeed it would buy him time or maybe even the guard might give up entirely after some time. (not enough sold for his time, and the princess is not that pretty after all)

EDIT:To give it a more battle nature we are more familiar with. Would the rouge fail his Stealth against the guard, the guard would not be flat footed against the rouges attacks or if he'd open the wardrobe to spear the little thing, but upon success the rouge could (lets say the wardrobe has a keyhole to peep through) use his full sneak attack on the guard when he would pass by while searching the room.

I think we are using different terminology, but I believe we agree in regards to intent and end results.

Thoranin wrote:
-As a GM would you allow soft cover to be used for stealth for that small blurred blot, even if at a higher DC ?

In my games, as a GM: Possibly, but only because it's a small creature with Blur passing behind a medium creature; and it would probably depend on some other circumstances as well.

Thoranin wrote:
-Or could it help him lower the DC for a bluff based distraction stealth move?

I absolutely think it could grant a bonus to the Bluff distraction. I also think you would get the Unfavorable Circumstances +2 to Perception DCs against your Stealth check, which would help offset the -10 for using Stealth after a Distraction.


Shadowlord wrote:
I think we are using different terminology, but I believe we agree in regards to intent and end results.

Thanks, that is nice to hear really, considering I have not played long (first PF game that lasts for long) Also I would like to try being a GM at some point for some pretty silly story ideas *-* So being on the right track about this sounds excellent.

Shadowlord wrote:


In my games, as a GM: Possibly, but only because it's a small creature with Blur passing behind a medium creature; and it would probably depend on some other circumstances as well.

Nice, just to be clear if I rather use one of my first two 2nd lvl spell slot for a Blur or any other fun fun spell.

Shadowlord wrote:
I absolutely think it could grant a bonus to the Bluff distraction. I also think you would get the Unfavorable Circumstances +2 to Perception DCs against your Stealth check, which would help offset the -10 for using Stealth after a Distraction.

Also sweet, thanks. I do wonder a bit if I can ready a distraction for the rouge after his attack.


It looks like I was mistaken about intent on normal concealment not breaking observation. At least in JJ's opinion, which is enough for me. For everyone's consideration:

Concealment gives the rogue (or ANYONE for that matter) the opportunity to make a Stealth check. If she's successful, the person observing her loses track of her, and she can then make a sneak attack or whatever when she's next able to do so.


Shadowlord wrote:

It looks like I was mistaken about intent on normal concealment not breaking observation. At least in JJ's opinion, which is enough for me. For everyone's consideration:

JJ wrote:
Concealment gives the rogue (or ANYONE for that matter) the opportunity to make a Stealth check. If she's successful, the person observing her loses track of her, and she can then make a sneak attack or whatever when she's next able to do so.

In that case I shall spank our rouge silly with Blur!

Thanks

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Thoranin wrote:


In that case I shall spank our rouge silly with Blur!
Thanks

Don't hurt the make-up!


Gauss wrote:
That is pretty clear that observed means creatures that you do not have cover or concealment from.

This is where TEAM OR's logic fails for me. A character with concealment that *fails* his Stealth check, by your above definition, is not observed because he has concealment. Isn't that kind of counter to the whole point of what Stealth is meant to resprensent?


Gauss wrote:


What is the summary here?
1) If people are observing you using any sense you cannot use stealth.
2) If you have cover or concealment you can use stealth.
3) If observers are distracted then you can attempt to use stealth to get to an un-observed place of some kind.

Thus, based on that, cover or concealment does not qualify as being observed since you are already in a place you can use stealth.
Simple deductive reasoning.

For #3, what if you run behind total cover against said "observers?" Do you get to make Stealth checks or no because you didn't use Bluff to create the diversion to dive behind Total Cover to make the check?

Example, I have 2 enemies observing me. They are behind two big pillars adjacent to each other. On my turn, without using Bluff, I head over behind the pillars and gain Total Cover against them both. According to Total Cover they cannot see me, and are thus no longer "observers" and they also cannot target me. Can I then make a Stealth check? Or no because I never rolled the Bluff to create the diversion to run behind cover at all?

51 to 96 of 96 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Stealth without bluff check in concealment even if observed? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.