FAQ Request: Does Wind Stance Allow someone to roll for stealth.


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

41 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

after, a debate I thoroughly enjoyed for a while, people started complaining and saying to make a new thread and attempt for a FAQ. so i did.

does wind stance(or possibly other temporary cover or concealment, such as lightning stance or tower shields) permit an individual a stealth check while in a normally lit room with no cover or concealment coming from another source?

If yes, what specifically does it allow a stealth check against, or can an individual stealth in general by running fast enough when using this feat?

Please FAQ request and debate in a calm and orderly manner.

the original post that started the debate was:

maouse wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
maouse wrote:
then returning to stealth with wind stance.
WIND STANCE ONLY WORKS FOR RANGED ATTACKS IT DOES NOT ALLOW STEALTH

If you move more than 5 feet this turn, you gain 20% concealment for 1 round against ranged attacks.

Stealth

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

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.

So you move 10'-15', have 20% concealment (against ranged attacks? does this matter? nope... you have 20% concealment). Or better asked: can you please define the different kinds of concealment for me please? One such that 20% concealment melee isn't 20% concealment ranged isn't 20% concealment magic? I don't find that differentiation anywhere. You would not get a stealth against anyone next to you, but certainly could against anyone not threatening your square with melee...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hit FAQ but I'd rule no in any of my games (unless a FAQ is released to the contrary).

My thoughts: The concealment is limited in scope. It doesn't make you hard to see, it makes you hard to hit by ranged attacks. I read it as a fast way to say "in only the specific case of being a target of ranged attacks, you gain a 20% chance of being missed by said ranged attacks as if you have concealment". It isn't global concealment and thus doesn't qualify the "concealment for stealth" requirement.

I also understand this is a debatable approach and I'm not trying to debate the issue, just to provide one viewpoint on the issue to those uncertain of their own thoughts. There are other viewpoints that exist and I'm sure their proponents see mine as wrong just as much as I see their argument as flawed. The joy of the game!


It doesn't. Just like blur doesn't.

The concealment doesn't change the effective lighting you are standing in.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

It doesn't. Just like blur doesn't.

The concealment doesn't change the effective lighting you are standing in.

Lighting matters not at all for Stealth. It's completely irrelevant.

Stealth requires Concealment or cover (conditional or not, wind stance grants Concealment) and that you are not being observed.

If you satisfy those conditions, you can attempt Stealth.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
KrispyXIV wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

It doesn't. Just like blur doesn't.

The concealment doesn't change the effective lighting you are standing in.

Lighting matters not at all for Stealth. It's completely irrelevant.

Stealth requires Concealment or cover (conditional or not, wind stance grants Concealment) and that you are not being observed.

If you satisfy those conditions, you can attempt Stealth.

No one on the battlefield with a ranged weapon. No concealment .... :-P

No, you don't have concealment for all purposes. You have concealment only for the specific purpose of avoiding ranged attacks.


Diego Rossi wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

It doesn't. Just like blur doesn't.

The concealment doesn't change the effective lighting you are standing in.

Lighting matters not at all for Stealth. It's completely irrelevant.

Stealth requires Concealment or cover (conditional or not, wind stance grants Concealment) and that you are not being observed.

If you satisfy those conditions, you can attempt Stealth.

No one on the battlefield with a ranged weapon. No concealment .... :-P

No, you don't have concealment for all purposes. You have concealment only for the specific purpose of avoiding ranged attacks.

Having Concealment against X satisfies the requirements for having Concealment.

Stealth does not require you to 'have Concealment from all theoretical observers', does it? Otherwise, the potential of blindsight or lifesense would prevent you from ever attempting it.

Now, the key here is that wind stance isn't going to help with the 'being observed' requirement like more general Concealment like foliage or fog or darkness would.

But moving around quickly enough to be stealthy is a very common trope...

Edit: plus, anyone with access to a held object or a handful of dirt is a potential ranged attacker, for what that is worth.

Scarab Sages

It's one of the areas where you can either use the simple rule, Stealth require's concealment, or the GM can chose to interpret the intent of the rule and decide if a situation which grants concealment is actually sufficient.


Lucio wrote:
It's one of the areas where you can either use the simple rule, Stealth require's concealment, or the GM can chose to interpret the intent of the rule and decide if a situation which grants concealment is actually sufficient.

'interpret'is the key word there as far as intent goes. As I noted above, the infiltrator relying on speed to slip by sentries and guards unnoticed ("What was that?!" "It must have been the wind.") is a VERY common trope.

As such, to me this seems a very appropriate use of this feat...

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I'm gonna say no too. They see you move, it's not like they can't still see you, they just make ranged attacks against you slightly worse.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Let me ask you this: The Rules state you have to have concealment in order to make a steal check.

I have total concealment against people that are not in the room I am in, does that let me make a stealth check and have it apply to someone in the room?


Imbicatus wrote:

Let me ask you this: The Rules state you have to have concealment in order to make a steal check.

I have total concealment against people that are not in the room I am in, does that let me make a stealth check and have it apply to someone in the room?

If you have some other form of Concealment relevant to those people, and if they are not observing you, yes.

If they are observing you and you don't have some form of Concealment from them, then no.

If you make a Bluff check and can gain Concealment against them (say, against any potential ranged attacks they make with improvised thrown weapons), yes. Why not? Running in circles around the room faster than they can keep track of is kindof the most absurd use of this feat, but hey... A few crates or barrels or a smokestick would allow the same thing with no feat investment.

Liberty's Edge

Yeah...that's clearly not how Wind Stance works or is supposed to work. It doesn't give concealment from people, and thus can't be used for this.


Ok... so stemming from thsi logic...

In the middle of combat, yoe have your fighter up against the BBEG who happens to be a rogue of 6 levels higher and your wizard/cleric are asleep (why are you having trouble wiht a rogue???) and you are an archer, and the fighter is inbetween you. Can the rogue make a stealth check?? Because, TECHNICALLY, if there is something obstructing your view of the target (like a person between you two) they have partial concealment from your attack....


K177Y C47 wrote:

Ok... so stemming from thsi logic...

In the middle of combat, yoe have your fighter up against the BBEG who happens to be a rogue of 6 levels higher and your wizard/cleric are asleep (why are you having trouble wiht a rogue???) and you are an archer, and the fighter is inbetween you. Can the rogue make a stealth check?? Because, TECHNICALLY, if there is something obstructing your view of the target (like a person between you two) they have partial concealment from your attack....

It's the kind of situation where the DM should stand up. IMO, in this case, no. Why? He is the main treat of the group, so chances are that the Archer have his eyes on him.

But if we change it: your party is fighting a Stone Giant Barbarian1/Bard1/Cavalier1. Your rogue is behind the Fighter and didn't attack the Giant in the last round. I would let him get the Stealth check. Why? The Giant should have is focus on the Fighter (or the Spell caster/ Archer) who are immediate treat and not really care about the rogue.

But here it's how I would rule it (even if some FAQ goes against it), not my understanding if the general rule. So he have Concealment and not watched.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
KrispyXIV wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

It doesn't. Just like blur doesn't.

The concealment doesn't change the effective lighting you are standing in.

Lighting matters not at all for Stealth. It's completely irrelevant.

Stealth requires Concealment or cover (conditional or not, wind stance grants Concealment) and that you are not being observed.

If you satisfy those conditions, you can attempt Stealth.

No one on the battlefield with a ranged weapon. No concealment .... :-P

No, you don't have concealment for all purposes. You have concealment only for the specific purpose of avoiding ranged attacks.

Having Concealment against X satisfies the requirements for having Concealment.

Stealth does not require you to 'have Concealment from all theoretical observers', does it? Otherwise, the potential of blindsight or lifesense would prevent you from ever attempting it.

Now, the key here is that wind stance isn't going to help with the 'being observed' requirement like more general Concealment like foliage or fog or darkness would.

But moving around quickly enough to be stealthy is a very common trope...

Edit: plus, anyone with access to a held object or a handful of dirt is a potential ranged attacker, for what that is worth.

Wind stance concealment work Vs ranged attack - You agree?

Now you have concealment against the ranged attack and you can use stealth against it ... the only problem is that it isn't a creature.

The stealth rules take in account situations where different you can have concealment against different creatures.
In this situation you have concealment only against ranged attack, so you can gain stealth only against them, not against the creatures in the area.


Three guards are standing evenly-spaced against one wall of a well-lit 5x5 square room. Against the other side of the room is an animated scarecrow with Wind Stance. Two of the guards are armed with crossbows; the third guard is completely naked, has no arms and cannot spit. Perhaps it is some sort of bizarre erotic target practice. Who knows. That's not important right now.

What you allege would suggest that, for whatever nonsensical reason, the straw-man can Wind Stance back and forth, stealthing against the guards with crossbows in plain sight, yet has absolutely no hope of hiding against the naked armless guard who cannot spit.

I find this silly and reject your interpretation. I conclude that it is more logical that this Concealment only grants a miss chance against ranged attacks with no further effect. I would further suggest that it may be better errata'd to remove 'concealment' from the text in the future, though this would have to be checked against effects that negate concealment as it may have unintended consequences (allowing Wind Stance to remain effective against something that should actually negate it).


Saigo Takamori wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

Ok... so stemming from thsi logic...

In the middle of combat, yoe have your fighter up against the BBEG who happens to be a rogue of 6 levels higher and your wizard/cleric are asleep (why are you having trouble wiht a rogue???) and you are an archer, and the fighter is inbetween you. Can the rogue make a stealth check?? Because, TECHNICALLY, if there is something obstructing your view of the target (like a person between you two) they have partial concealment from your attack....

It's the kind of situation where the DM should stand up. IMO, in this case, no. Why? He is the main treat of the group, so chances are that the Archer have his eyes on him.

But if we change it: your party is fighting a Stone Giant Barbarian1/Bard1/Cavalier1. Your rogue is behind the Fighter and didn't attack the Giant in the last round. I would let him get the Stealth check. Why? The Giant should have is focus on the Fighter (or the Spell caster/ Archer) who are immediate treat and not really care about the rogue.

But here it's how I would rule it (even if some FAQ goes against it), not my understanding if the general rule. So he have Concealment and not watched.

Creatures do not grant Cover. Creatures grant Soft Cover, which cannot be used to attempt stealth checks.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

No FAQ needed, wind stance doesn't allow you to stealth.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
leo1925 wrote:
No FAQ needed, wind stance doesn't allow you to stealth.

+1


The basis behind the feat is not to allow you to hide, but to avoid ranged attacked. I know the RAW does not specifically say "This feat is ONLY to avoid ranged attacks", but it is pretty clear.

edit: They could have said miss chance, but I think the devs assume people will go with the spirit of the rules so they just said "concealment".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Not only that but it never says you apply concealment versus people, only ranged attacks. I went into this in another thread.

they argued that anyone attacking at ranged would be prone to the stealth check, but obviously you make the stealth check during your own turn, when no one has ranged attacked you yet. Also, being able to ranged attack makes no sense, since even someone right next to you could potentially choose to throw his sword at you.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Troubleshooter wrote:
I would further suggest that it may be better errata'd to remove 'concealment' from the text in the future, though this would have to be checked against effects that negate concealment as it may have unintended consequences (allowing Wind Stance to remain effective against something that should actually negate it).

a rogue could potentially attempt to do a ranged sneak attack, wind style would prevent the precision damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:


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

Wind stance isn't concealment against a creature, and even if it were, this wording is inviting the GM to say, "No, that form of concealment really doesn't cover it."


KrispyXIV wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

It doesn't. Just like blur doesn't.

The concealment doesn't change the effective lighting you are standing in.

Lighting matters not at all for Stealth. It's completely irrelevant.

Stealth requires Concealment or cover (conditional or not, wind stance grants Concealment) and that you are not being observed.

If you satisfy those conditions, you can attempt Stealth.

There is actually rules about stealth in the vision and lighting rules.

Those rules prevent this and blur from granting defacto hide-in-plain-sight.


RJGrady wrote:
Quote:


Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.
Wind stance isn't concealment against a creature, and even if it were, this wording is inviting the GM to say, "No, that form of concealment really doesn't cover it."

I concur. Wind Stance clearly isn't granting you concealment against the creature itself, only ranged attacks made.


Troubleshooter wrote:
Saigo Takamori wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

Ok... so stemming from thsi logic...

In the middle of combat, yoe have your fighter up against the BBEG who happens to be a rogue of 6 levels higher and your wizard/cleric are asleep (why are you having trouble wiht a rogue???) and you are an archer, and the fighter is inbetween you. Can the rogue make a stealth check?? Because, TECHNICALLY, if there is something obstructing your view of the target (like a person between you two) they have partial concealment from your attack....

It's the kind of situation where the DM should stand up. IMO, in this case, no. Why? He is the main treat of the group, so chances are that the Archer have his eyes on him.

But if we change it: your party is fighting a Stone Giant Barbarian1/Bard1/Cavalier1. Your rogue is behind the Fighter and didn't attack the Giant in the last round. I would let him get the Stealth check. Why? The Giant should have is focus on the Fighter (or the Spell caster/ Archer) who are immediate treat and not really care about the rogue.

But here it's how I would rule it (even if some FAQ goes against it), not my understanding if the general rule. So he have Concealment and not watched.

Creatures do not grant Cover. Creatures grant Soft Cover, which cannot be used to attempt stealth checks.

Yeah... the guy who started this (moause or some such), honestly believed things like Wind stance and Tower Shields allowed for stealth. I asked this because, by his logic, this would also apply, of which, it obviously is flase and so, takes apart his whole argument.


A tower shield should work. Of course any creature with object permanency will know where you're hiding.


Obviously I think no, having been part of the intital discussion. 'against ranged attacks' is not an inclusive statement.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
A tower shield should work. Of course any creature with object permanency will know where you're hiding.

If you let tower shields allow for a stealth check, you create this weird situation where they become the best method of stealthing for an in-combat rogue. Also, it creates a whole bunch of other ridiculous rules interactions like being able to plonk down your tower shield in front of an opponent and then have them no longer be aware of your presence.

For example, imagine a well lit, 100ft hallway with no hiding spots and a guard standing on the opposite end looking down towards your hiding space. If tower shield cover allows for stealth, you could run out from the cover, plonk your shield down as your standard action and roll stealth, repeating each turn until you pass the guard safely. The guard would never notice you are there, somehow ignoring the huge shield that keeps being chucked down every turn. Obviously this is pretty silly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What about

Lightning Stance?:
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Dodge, Wind Stance, base attack bonus +11.

Benefit: If you take two actions to move or a withdraw action in a turn, you gain 50% concealment for 1 round.


EDIT:
Blakmane wrote:
For example, imagine a well lit, 100ft hallway with no hiding spots and a guard standing on the opposite end looking down towards your hiding space. If tower shield cover allows for stealth, you could run out from the cover, plonk your shield down as your standard action and roll stealth, repeating each turn until you pass the guard safely. The guard would never notice you are there, somehow ignoring the huge shield that keeps being chucked down every turn. Obviously this is pretty silly.

A cardboard box, however, is proven to work in that scenario.


Blakmane wrote:

Obviously I think no, having been part of the intital discussion. 'against ranged attacks' is not an inclusive statement.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
A tower shield should work. Of course any creature with object permanency will know where you're hiding.

If you let tower shields allow for a stealth check, you create this weird situation where they become the best method of stealthing for an in-combat rogue. Also, it creates a whole bunch of other ridiculous rules interactions like being able to plonk down your tower shield in front of an opponent and then have them no longer be aware of your presence.

For example, imagine a well lit, 100ft hallway with no hiding spots and a guard standing on the opposite end looking down towards your hiding space. If tower shield cover allows for stealth, you could run out from the cover, plonk your shield down as your standard action and roll stealth, repeating each turn until you pass the guard safely. The guard would never notice you are there, somehow ignoring the huge shield that keeps being chucked down every turn. Obviously this is pretty silly.

Sadly when i read this skyrim came to mind lol.


Justin Sane wrote:
Lightning Stance

I would just like to remind everyone that effects that last 1 round end before the start of your next turn. So your stealth would function up till the moment right before your turn starts.

Lightning Stance would work mediocrely.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Scavion wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
Lightning Stance

I would just like to remind everyone that effects that last 1 round end before the start of your next turn. So your stealth would function up till the moment right before your turn starts.

Lightning Stance would work mediocrely.

you could use it to simply avoid guards, definitely not a offensive combat feat.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for starting this thread. I clicked FAQ.

Here is my reasoning for Wind Stance (and Tower Shields) giving the user a stealth roll:

Per all the RAW, sure it does. Stealth requires cover, concealment, OR not being observed. Not all three.

Additionally, stealth is not "against" anyone until they observe you. Meaning, you can roll stealth whether anyone is nearby or not. You can roll stealth while alone. You can start stealth while the rest of the party can see you, but your enemies can't. Etc...

Concealment specifically states that if you get concealment, you can roll stealth. It does not specify partial, full, against moose, against ranged attacks, against one person, against a group... any time you get concealment, you can roll stealth.

Concealment doesn't state anything about being used against a "person." It is against ranged attacks and melee attacks (per RAW). And melee attacks are resolved / determined the same way as ranged attacks. So the statement "against ranged attacks" really means both against ranged attacks and against melee attacks. Though I conceded that in this instance, it might only apply against anyone who can't attack you with a melee weapon.

Wind stance specifies in the description that it makes you hard to pinpoint. This is a perception roll normally (DC 20) to even tell what square someone is in. Which means, if you accept that as part of the feat, the person moves so fast you don't see where they went. Which is the definition of being concealed... you can't see them clearly/at all.

And that is the logical conclusion I come to based on RAW. As opposed to making up a story that it is somehow the same as Blur (instead of other forms of concealment). Nowhere is RAW does it say it is the same as Blur.

Sczarni

Blakmane wrote:

Obviously I think no, having been part of the intital discussion. 'against ranged attacks' is not an inclusive statement.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
A tower shield should work. Of course any creature with object permanency will know where you're hiding.

If you let tower shields allow for a stealth check, you create this weird situation where they become the best method of stealthing for an in-combat rogue. Also, it creates a whole bunch of other ridiculous rules interactions like being able to plonk down your tower shield in front of an opponent and then have them no longer be aware of your presence.

For example, imagine a well lit, 100ft hallway with no hiding spots and a guard standing on the opposite end looking down towards your hiding space. If tower shield cover allows for stealth, you could run out from the cover, plonk your shield down as your standard action and roll stealth, repeating each turn until you pass the guard safely. The guard would never notice you are there, somehow ignoring the huge shield that keeps being chucked down every turn. Obviously this is pretty silly.

You plunk it down, roll stealth, and they have no idea where you are in the square you are in... and only if the shield is between you and them... and guess what, this is immaterial unless the rogue drops the tower shield and moves, as you can't attack the rogue anyway, because full cover doesn't allow it. However, you can attack the square or use magic against the shield, as normal, which stealth wouldn't help anyway.

A rogue with full cover who can attack you while you can't see them might still get sneak attacks... even without stealth... but this would need to be vented in RAW somewhere. I don't know if it is atm.

The only benefit that the cover + stealth would give is if the rogue drops the shield and moves to continue stealth. Which is completely logical in its effect. Basically, a rogue behind a wall moves... can you see them? Nope. Why would this shield situation be different?

Yes, a Tower Shield (with a single dip into fighter?) is a rogue's best friend, perhaps. Except it takes a standard action and can be defeated by a 5' step...


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Wind Stance does not grant concealment vs observation, only vs ranged attacks. Stealth is defeated by observation. I will be very surprised if you a) actually get a FAQ and b) are told that it works

Sczarni

SlimGauge wrote:
Wind Stance does not grant concealment vs observation, only vs ranged attacks. Stealth is defeated by observation. I will be very surprised if you a) actually get a FAQ and b) are told that it works

This is opinion. Stealth is OPPOSED by observation. Moving to cover or concealment, even while observed, allows a stealth roll (RAW). You can start out with a stealth roll, wander down a street where people MIGHT see you, and they might not beat your stealth roll. Then, even if looking in your direction, they WON'T SEE YOU. That is the definition of stealth.

They don't automatically see you when you get within 120 of them. Why do people support these nonsense ideas?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I thought of this more, (dealing with effects other than wind stance which I do believe could be worded better) and stuff like Tower shields and Bluff don't have the "lasts for one round" thing. These end the moment they finish their stealth action, so if they are no longer in a position for concealment They're instantly visible again(tower shield have you point out a specific edge of a specific tile). This can be used to escape but not well for assault.

Frankly Wind stance, as i've mentioned to Maouse, comes down to whether or not the concealment applies to anything other than ranged attacks by extension, and I believe this is blurry enough where we need clarification, even if it's just to put to end the ~% chance or so the wording does support it.


That's pretty clearly not how it functions, nor the intent. Wind Stance grants you, quite clearly, "20% concealment for 1 round against ranged attacks". If someone makes a ranged attack against you, you have concealment against that attack. Hooray.

Now someone else comes up and swings a sword at you. Per Wind Stance, you only have concealment against ranged attacks. Since no ranged attack is being made against you, you don't have concealment at the moment.

Now you move and try to use stealth to duck past Smashy Bigstick without getting hit. In order to use stealth, you need concealment. So, is Wind Stance granting you concealment? Wind Stance says you have concealment against ranged attacks. Is anyone making a ranged attack against you? No. Ergo, you have no concealment, and cannot stealth.

Corner case:
I suppose, as a corner case, you could be trying to run through the threatened area of an archer with Snap Shot. If you try to use stealth prior to being fired at, you have no concealment, as per previous. If the archer makes an attack of opportunity against you, a ranged attack is being made against you, and thus Wind Stance grants concealment. Ah, concealment allows you to stealth! But wait, the attack of opportunity interrupts your movement action. Lacking an ability that allows you to interrupt the archer's attack, you can take no actions until the attack and damage have been resolved. So, once the attack is resolved, you attempt stealth again. But the attack is already resolved, and thus no longer taking place; thus, Wind Stance is no longer granting concealment, and you once again cannot stealth.

tl;dr Wind Stance grants concealment only while ranged attacks are occurring, and you can't attempt stealth in the middle of someone else's attack action. When not being attacked at range, you can't claim to have concealment for stealth purposes anymore than you could claim concealment against melee attacks.

Sczarni

Bandw2 wrote:

I thought of this more, (dealing with effects other than wind stance which I do believe could be worded better) and stuff like Tower shields and Bluff don't have the "lasts for one round" thing. These end the moment they finish their stealth action, so if they are no longer in a position for concealment They're instantly visible again(tower shield have you point out a specific edge of a specific tile). This can be used to escape but not well for assault.

Frankly Wind stance, as i've mentioned to Maouse, comes down to whether or not the concealment applies to anything other than ranged attacks by extension, and I believe this is blurry enough where we need clarification, even if it's just to put to end the ~% chance or so the wording does support it.

Well, for assault, the shield holder has cover, so if there is some section on "attacking from cover" that gives someone some sort of bonus or negates the opponent's armor bonus, then it might help just to do this. Again, defeated by a 5' step in melee. For ranged, though, it might make a good defense for a rogue with ranged throwing of something.

The real question with wind stance is if you are allowed a stealth roll for ANY cover or concealment. It would be nice to have clarification (though I think RAW is clearly clear about this), if it doesn't follow normal RAW, then they need to say so. Thanks again for the thread.

Also, is there a FAQ on blur's concealment somewhere that specifically outlines what everyone is claiming regarding it's use?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I've already argued the corner case.

I've also said the following:

even if you do get to roll stealth against the ranged attack(everyone in vision must make an opposed perception), if anyone else is observing you and not effected by the concealment, they're watching you with one of his senses and therefore you cannot stealth.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
maouse wrote:


Also, is there a FAQ on blur's concealment somewhere that specifically outlines what everyone is claiming regarding it's use?

I've actually looked at blur, it actually effects people ability to sense you. This is normal concealment like being in low light vision, so it's valid salad.


MurphysParadox wrote:

I hit FAQ but I'd rule no in any of my games (unless a FAQ is released to the contrary).

My thoughts: The concealment is limited in scope. It doesn't make you hard to see, it makes you hard to hit by ranged attacks. I read it as a fast way to say "in only the specific case of being a target of ranged attacks, you gain a 20% chance of being missed by said ranged attacks as if you have concealment". It isn't global concealment and thus doesn't qualify the "concealment for stealth" requirement.

I also understand this is a debatable approach and I'm not trying to debate the issue, just to provide one viewpoint on the issue to those uncertain of their own thoughts. There are other viewpoints that exist and I'm sure their proponents see mine as wrong just as much as I see their argument as flawed. The joy of the game!

I think the feat probably should've just said "miss chance", or "attacks have a 1 in 5 chance of missing", kinda like with Mirror Image.

That said, it is kinda cool to imagine a guy whirring around people to keep from being seen.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
MurphysParadox wrote:

I hit FAQ but I'd rule no in any of my games (unless a FAQ is released to the contrary).

My thoughts: The concealment is limited in scope. It doesn't make you hard to see, it makes you hard to hit by ranged attacks. I read it as a fast way to say "in only the specific case of being a target of ranged attacks, you gain a 20% chance of being missed by said ranged attacks as if you have concealment". It isn't global concealment and thus doesn't qualify the "concealment for stealth" requirement.

I also understand this is a debatable approach and I'm not trying to debate the issue, just to provide one viewpoint on the issue to those uncertain of their own thoughts. There are other viewpoints that exist and I'm sure their proponents see mine as wrong just as much as I see their argument as flawed. The joy of the game!

I think the feat probably should've just said "miss chance", or "attacks have a 1 in 5 chance of missing", kinda like with Mirror Image.

That said, it is kinda cool to imagine a guy whirring around people to keep from being seen.

but then it wouldn't stop possible precision damage(?)


I think Wind Stance probably stops precision damage no matter what—at least against ranged attacks.

Don't get me wrong, this whole idea is silly as f@~+. I might allow it if they're just going through a visible area to go behind an actual hiding place, but otherwise... XD

Sczarni

Bandw2 wrote:

I've already argued the corner case.

I've also said the following:

even if you do get to roll stealth against the ranged attack(everyone in vision must make an opposed perception), if anyone else is observing you and not effected by the concealment, they're watching you with one of his senses and therefore you cannot stealth.

That statement "you can't roll stealth if ANYONE is watching you" is silly and facetious. How does any party of 2 or more people EVER roll stealth? They both close there eyes and give each other full cover? Or do both people, while they can see each other, roll stealth (you just said they can't)?

Much less a group of 4 or 6 people doing it... "Everyone close your eyes and count to 10. On 10 we all roll stealth, ok?" Silly. Of course you can make a stealth roll while being observed. You just can't use it against an enemy who is observing you without cover or concealment or moving to a place they can't see you (bluff and move to unobserved spot).

Against anyone who was observing you when you rolled, your roll doesn't count. So, basically, your friends can see where you are hiding if they were watching you start to hide. Heck, they might even follow right behind you at 5'... is the claim that only the last person in the line of 2, 4, or 6 people the only person who can use Stealth? Because in every game I ever played it is usually the first person in the line who is using stealth. With everyone else right behind them. Looking forward. And knowing when he stops... magically, apparently.


Bandw2 wrote:

I've already argued the corner case.

I've also said the following:

even if you do get to roll stealth against the ranged attack(everyone in vision must make an opposed perception), if anyone else is observing you and not effected by the concealment, they're watching you with one of his senses and therefore you cannot stealth.

Logically, you should be able to use stealth against a person who can't observe you even if other persons can. The problem is that the published rules simply don't handle that case. There's technically nothing at all stating what benefits or penalties are applied to a person against whom you successfully use stealth, except that they "are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment". The former piece is nebulous mechanically, the latter is usually redundant since concealment is the minimum condition to use stealth in the first place. The stealth playtest a few years back was supposed to resolve this sort of thing, but it got unceremoniously dumped due to issues with "errata vs re-design" and thus is only available as a variant ruleset with GM approval.


I think no. But i also think the feat is kinda poorly written and that it should have been miss chance.
And finally i think it should have been against both melee and ranged. That would have given the fast, mobile combatant somthing nice.
But i dont think the feat gives HIPS.

Sczarni

Bandw2 wrote:
maouse wrote:


Also, is there a FAQ on blur's concealment somewhere that specifically outlines what everyone is claiming regarding it's use?
I've actually looked at blur, it actually effects people ability to sense you. This is normal concealment like being in low light vision, so it's valid salad.

Yeh, I searched for an actual FAQ on this... nothing. So if it grants concealment... and there is no specific statement regarding it... then report to page 196, 197... where it says TWICE:

"Cover and Stealth Checks: You can use cover to make a Stealth check. Without cover, you usually need concealment (see below) to make a Stealth check."

"Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check."

Seems like they meant it so much they put it in twice... three times if you include Stealth on page 106. "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can’t use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding (gaining) cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth (meaning; they lose the ability to observe you). 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. (meaning they momentarily lose the ability to observe you because you bluffed them)"

Sczarni

Cap. Darling wrote:

I think no. But i also think the feat is kinda poorly written and that it should have been miss chance.

And finally i think it should have been against both melee and ranged. That would have given the fast, mobile combatant somthing nice.
But i dont think the feat gives HIPS.

HIPS doesn't end in 1 round...


maouse wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
maouse wrote:


Also, is there a FAQ on blur's concealment somewhere that specifically outlines what everyone is claiming regarding it's use?
I've actually looked at blur, it actually effects people ability to sense you. This is normal concealment like being in low light vision, so it's valid salad.

Yeh, I searched for an actual FAQ on this... nothing. So if it grants concealment... and there is no specific statement regarding it... then report to page 196, 197... where it says TWICE:

"Cover and Stealth Checks: You can use cover to make a Stealth check. Without cover, you usually need concealment (see below) to make a Stealth check."

"Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check."

Seems like they meant it so much they put it in twice... three times if you include Stealth on page 106. "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can’t use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding (gaining) cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth (meaning; they lose the ability to observe you). 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. (meaning they momentarily lose the ability to observe you because you bluffed them)"

The issue is that, while Wind Stance can grant concealment, it does not always grant concealment. The feat has a trigger condition (If you move more than 5 feet this turn), an effect (you gain 20% concealment), a duration (for 1 round), and a conditional (against ranged attacks). If the conditional is not met - that is, if you are not being targeted by a ranged attack - the feat does not grant any concealment.

You can derive a specific case from a general. If the feat granted "concealment for 1 round, except against melee attacks", you could justifiably claim that stealthing does not involve being melee attacked, and thus you do not lose concealment. But Wind Stance grants concealment in a specific sense, and you can't derive a general "I have concealment" from a specific "I have concealment against (a specific X)". You have concealment when a ranged attack is being made against you, and at no other time, because no other condition is given in the feat in which you would gain concealment.

1 to 50 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / FAQ Request: Does Wind Stance Allow someone to roll for stealth. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.