Can you use stealth with 20% concealment while observed?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 143 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

daimaru wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:


If you're standing in the corner of a dimly lit room, you can use stealth against a guard (who doesn't have darkvision), whether s/he's already seen you or not. If the perception check is high enough, your stealth check failed and you're seen.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you? If the guard has already seen you and -knows- you're in the corner, then you can't disappear. You've been observed and you can't even try a stealth check.

Now, if someone distracts the guard and you duck into a dark corner, then you can try to hide.

Why not? It sounds like your problem with this is that the stealthy person has nowhere to hide and no escape route. Taken to the extreme, the rogue is in a reverse spotlight, a deep shadow surrounded by plenty of light. The rules actually account for this and make the escape plausible. The rogue can attempt stealth and go into stealth representing the guard having trouble pinpointing exactly where the rogue is within the shadow. If the rogue stays there, the guard will still have trouble pinpointing his location as long as he continues to be stealthy. If the darkness area is stupidly small, the guard has a good idea of the location, but a rogue could still lunge out of the darkness for a sneak attack. If the rogue wanted to escape, the stealth rules require him to end his move in another area of cover or concealment to remain stealthy. When combined with the half speed a stealthy rogue is traveling at, the rogue couldn't make it to another spot and would be caught if the area truly didn't favor him.


Nightfiend wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Iron Giant wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

No need to go that roundabout.

This is the first line of the Stealth skill:

Quote:
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.
Blur does not stop you from being observed. You cannot, therefore, use Stealth with Blur as your only source of Concealment.
Using that logic can make any concealment (short of total concealment) invalid for stealth. I can just as easily "observe" someone in a shadow or a light mist as I can someone with a blur spell cast on them.
Correct. However darkness makes someone without darkvision effectively blind. The fog spells also say you can't see someone beyond 5 feet in addition to saying you get 50% concealment beyond that distance.
Those are examples of total concealment, not concealment, though. The Stealth rules reference concealment (20%), not total concealment (50%).
That is true, but the rules also say you can't hide while being observed. That is why I think you have to satisfy both. If it said you had to see them clearly like it does for sneak attack to avoid someone being able to hide from you, then I would say normal concealment would be good enough.
If someone is not being observed, why would they need cover or concelment?

You need it to stay observed. Obviously if there's no one around, hiding in the bushes may seem pointless, but when somebody walks by they would observe you if you weren't already in bushes. If you wait until they see you before jumping into the bushes it's not going to work.


Nightfiend wrote:


If someone is not being observed, why would they need cover or concelment?

I think we're using the term "observed" differently. To me, it means "spotted, already seen". In that case neither cover nor concealment does any good unless total, because stealth doesn't work once you're observed.

If I haven't been observed, then I can use stealth to try to sneak around using partial cover or concealment, subject to my opponent's perception checks. So long as my checks are better than his, I stay unobserved, even though I may be in his line of sight.

I think you're using "observed" to mean "not fully under cover/concealment, where you could be seen if their perception is high enough".

Sorry if I'm wrong about what you're saying.


Nightfiend wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Iron Giant wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

No need to go that roundabout.

This is the first line of the Stealth skill:

Quote:
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.
Blur does not stop you from being observed. You cannot, therefore, use Stealth with Blur as your only source of Concealment.
Using that logic can make any concealment (short of total concealment) invalid for stealth. I can just as easily "observe" someone in a shadow or a light mist as I can someone with a blur spell cast on them.
Correct. However darkness makes someone without darkvision effectively blind. The fog spells also say you can't see someone beyond 5 feet in addition to saying you get 50% concealment beyond that distance.
Those are examples of total concealment, not concealment, though. The Stealth rules reference concealment (20%), not total concealment (50%).

That is true, but the rules also say you can't hide while being observed. That is why I think you have to satisfy both. If it said you had to see them clearly like it does for sneak attack to avoid someone being able to hide from you, then I woyou misread my statement uld say normal concealment would be good enough.

If someone is not being observed, why would they need cover or concelment?


I quoted the stealth rules from the PRD, the link is in the first post.

There are other statements regarding stealth in the cover and concealment sections of the Combat chapter.

I'm keeping out of the discussion to avoid swaying it in either direction. Seems there is some disagreement on this issue.


OK, last post because I'm pretty sure I've covered all this and we're just saying, "yes you can", "no you can't".

If you can't be seen in the shadow, there's absolutely no point to stealth or perception checks. You're invisible.

If you can be seen, and were observed entering the shadow or failed your stealth check, you can't disappear without some sort of distraction or ducking into total cover or concealment. A further stealth check is meaningless (and illegal) because you've been observed.


daimaru wrote:
Nightfiend wrote:


If someone is not being observed, why would they need cover or concelment?

I think we're using the term "observed" differently. To me, it means "spotted, already seen". In that case neither cover nor concealment does any good unless total, because stealth doesn't work once you're observed.

If I haven't been observed, then I can use stealth to try to sneak around using partial cover or concealment, subject to my opponent's perception checks. So long as my checks are better than his, I stay unobserved, even though I may be in his line of sight.

I think you're using "observed" to mean "not fully under cover/concealment, where you could be seen if their perception is high enough".

Sorry if I'm wrong about what you're saying.

"Observed" doesn't mean "seen". It also encompasses being heard and smelled. So why does jumpimg behind a crate provide for a new stealth check? You're already being observed, in that I could hear you.


Daimaru wrote:
If you can be seen, and were observed entering the shadow or failed your stealth check, you can't disappear without some sort of distraction or ducking into total cover or concealment.

Where do the rules state it must be Total Cover or Total Concealment? We have an excerpt on the first page that says mere Cover or Concealment will do.

If someone wants to argue that this exceeds the 'being observed' clause, then so does the third sentence, meaning Bluff won't actually work to enable entering Stealth because that first sentence trumps it.

Stealth.

^^^ Go here. Ctrl+F Search for "total". Notice the word appears nowhere on the page. Do the same thing, but search for "concealment" and "cover". Nowhere will you see "total" in front of either of those words.

"Total Cover" and "Total Concealment" are unnecessary according to the rules. You CAN use them, as they provide more than the prior stage, but a mere 20% concealment from shadows (against non-Darkvision foes) works fine.

So, we go to the Combat page Paulicus so generously provided. We Ctrl+F again...

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

Notice neither say improved or total versions are necessary.

TheJeff wrote:
Or if you don't make a stealth check at all. I can't just open the door walk into the room, see the guard and then hide. He sees me at that point. No rolls needed. Once he's seen me, he's seen me, unless I get out of his sight. Dim light doesn't do that. It lets you keep from being automatically spotted if you're using Stealth.

Yes, yes you can if you still have concealment or cover before your turn ends. If you don't have either, then you can't go back into Stealth. Do you have enough movement to get back to cover or concealment? Well, if it's a 5' wide door you just opened and then you move to either side, yes, yes you can. Of course, the Guard gets to see which direction you went BEFORE you Stealthed, and you may need to double move else he'll use a single move to go to that location (possibly carrying a torch that gets rid of the darkness) and all of the sudden you may not be in Stealth anymore in regards to that guard. And if you waste a Move to open the door, you better be one of those 60+ movement speed optimized Flash guys, otherwise attempting to Stealth again will be fruitless.

Incidentally, getting into cover or concealment and then using Stealth and succeeding in the opposed roll is, in fact, exactly the definition of 'getting out of his sight'.
Also, if the guard is in a room and doesn't have a light source (or Darkvision), he's a pretty terrible guard and deserves what he gets.


fretgod99 wrote:
"Observed" doesn't mean "seen". It also encompasses being heard and smelled. So why does jumpimg behind a crate provide for a new stealth check? You're already being observed, in that I could hear you.

No, Scent is an entirely different mechanic.

Yes. Jumping behind a crate and using Stealth counts as a new Stealth check. This is one of the areas where 3.5 and Pathfinder diverge (for that matter, I miss them being separate skills). The Hider gets behind the crate and squeezes out of sight. The Finder KNOWS THE LAST SQUARE HE SAW THE HIDER EXIT. Why? Because the Hider was not in Stealth while moving through those squares. The Finder then moves there. Unless the Hider has some neat tricks, the Finder is now adjacent to him. The Hider no longer has cover, and despite being in "Stealth Mode", is automatically 'detected' by the Finder as his Stealth no longer meets the necessary criteria and it is not his turn. The Finder now melees the Hider while chuckling. The Hider doesn't even get an AoO, as he had cover to and against the Finder when the latter moved through his threatened area.


Who needs to move. It's dim light. According to this theory I can just stand where I was and hide. (That might sound dumb, but it's so obvious that I'd try to move that it might be smarter to just stand there.) I could also just walk up to the guard. Sneak attack him because he can't see me, then stay right next to him and stealth again so he can't attack me.

But yes, you're right. The stealth rules can be read that way. They can also be read about a dozen other ways. Because as I said in my first post in this thread, they're not consistent. There is no RAW stealth, because the stealth rules are too badly broken.

But if we're using this version I also want the "No concealment within 60' of anyone with darkvision" rule. No hiding in undergrowth or fogbanks if there's anyone with darkvision around.
Also the literal text talks about not being able to use Stealth if anyone is observing you: Which means if one person, even an ally, is watching you, you can't even try to hide.

More seriously, under your interpretation, is there any use in the Bluff, distraction, use cover/concealment rule? Since you could just walk over to the concealment in plain view and then make the roll without needing the Bluff check or taking the -10 penalty.


Quote:
Who needs to move. It's dim light. According to this theory I can just stand where I was and hide. (That might sound dumb, but it's so obvious that I'd try to move that it might be smarter to just stand there.)

And when they walk closer with a light source, you lose your concealment, and your Stealth, and are probably going to get hit in the face. If the guard is moving INTO THE DARKNESS without a light source or Darkvision, he's not much of a guard (a 1st level Warrior, perhaps) and gets what he deserves.

Quote:
I could also just walk up to the guard. Sneak attack him because he can't see me, then stay right next to him and stealth again so he can't attack me.

Once you attack him in Stealth, you are no longer in Stealth after that attack. Go read the Stealth rules. If you have some trick to get multiple Standard Actions to attack, then you are likely Mythic and the poor guard doesn't stand a chance anyway. And if you are adjacent to him and have concealment, yes, you can be in Stealth. You just can't re-Stealth after you attack (because Stealth says so), EXCEPT for the Sniping maneuver spelled out in the Stealth entry.

Quote:
The stealth rules can be read that way. They can also be read about a dozen other ways. Because as I said in my first post in this thread, they're not consistent. There is no RAW stealth, because the stealth rules are too badly broken.

The only reason you call them broken is because you are TRYING to read things into them that are not there. There are many confusing rules in this game, but this aspect of Stealth is not one of them. It is quite clear cut.

Quote:
But if we're using this version I also want the "No concealment within 60' of anyone with darkvision" rule. No hiding in undergrowth or fogbanks if there's anyone with darkvision around.

Soon as you can point out, in detail, how you are attempting this.

Quote:
Also the literal text talks about not being able to use Stealth if anyone is observing you: Which means if one person, even an ally, is watching you, you can't even try to hide.

No, this is a false assumption based on the faulty interpretation of rules you have presented. You can still attempt Stealth if you have cover or concealment... you just need it against your allies, too. ;)

If you're going to point out the 'flaw' in the rule, at least point out the correct one.
For example, if you really want to be nitpicky about it, you can point out how this only applies when "people" are observing you. Constructs, Elementals, Outsiders, Oozes, Plants, Vermin, Animals, Magical Beasts, and the like are arguably not people at all, and you can Stealth anytime you desire against them. :p
But if you want to nitpick this bad, then you are deliberately attempting to read things into them, as mentioned before.

Quote:
is there any use in the Bluff, distraction, use cover/concealment rule? Since you could just walk over to the concealment in plain view and then make the roll without needing the Bluff check or taking the -10 penalty.

READ the Stealth entry! Succeeding at Bluff and then getting into Concealment/Cover counts as being Stealthed FOR THE ENTIRE MOVEMENT. The last square they 'observe' you in is the square in which you initiated the Bluff. You now have a radius potentially equal to your Move in which you COULD be hidden, and only the foes that succeed in a Perception roll know specifically where you went.


Arturius, there are enough people debating this that clearly it is not clear cut. There have been other threads about this very topic before so it is not just this thread that is pointing out the lack of clarity here.


Quote:

Arturius, there are enough people debating this that clearly it is not clear cut. There have been other threads about this very topic before so it is not just this thread that is pointing out the lack of clarity here.

Gauss, that's nice. But this is this thread, not any of those. If someone wants to take one of those arguments and use it here, cool, it will face the same scrutiny as the rest have so far. If it doesn't pertain to using Stealth in Concealment, however,, it is probably OT and needs to stay where it belongs.

There are plenty of goofy things wrong with the wording of the rules, as I even listed in my own post above. The one under contention here is actually one of the few places it's actually covered quite well.


Actually these rules have been argued before also so thry are clear at all. Just because some can understand them that does not make them clear.


wraithstrike wrote:
Actually these rules have been argued before also so thry are clear at all. Just because some can understand them that does not make them clear.

Oh please. Everyone understands them perfectly clearly. They just understand them differently.


Arturius Fischer wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
"Observed" doesn't mean "seen". It also encompasses being heard and smelled. So why does jumpimg behind a crate provide for a new stealth check? You're already being observed, in that I could hear you.

No, Scent is an entirely different mechanic.

Yes. Jumping behind a crate and using Stealth counts as a new Stealth check. This is one of the areas where 3.5 and Pathfinder diverge (for that matter, I miss them being separate skills). The Hider gets behind the crate and squeezes out of sight. The Finder KNOWS THE LAST SQUARE HE SAW THE HIDER EXIT. Why? Because the Hider was not in Stealth while moving through those squares. The Finder then moves there. Unless the Hider has some neat tricks, the Finder is now adjacent to him. The Hider no longer has cover, and despite being in "Stealth Mode", is automatically 'detected' by the Finder as his Stealth no longer meets the necessary criteria and it is not his turn. The Finder now melees the Hider while chuckling. The Hider doesn't even get an AoO, as he had cover to and against the Finder when the latter moved through his threatened area.

You're not seeing my point. Perception covers all your senses, not just sight. Similarly, the word "observe" is not limited to just the sense of sight; the word observe also encompasses other senses, including smell and sound. You need not have scent to make a perception check based upon a smell. You need not have a special ability to observe somebody who is making sound. Ergo, "being observed" encompasses more than someone simply being able to see you. Yet that is the only sense anybody seems to be strict about in regard to Stealth.

Hence my question: If being observed includes hearing (and it does), why does you diving behind a crate allow for a new Stealth check? Since I can hear you do it, while it is occurring, you are ipso facto "being observed".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Even when having concealment you can be observed si no stealth should be possible. Not being able to see you clearly is different from not being able to see you at all. One still has you being observed.
I disagree with this. While that would be an obvious understanding of the words, I don't think it's the intended function.
Bigdaddyjug wrote:

I agree with this interpretation.

The general rule is that if you are being observed, you cannot use stealth.

The specific rule is that having cover or concealment allows you to use stealth, even if you are being observed.

Then what purpose, if any, does the following portion of the Stealth rules serve in your interpretations?

PRD wrote:

If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. 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.

It is a mechanic SPECIFICALLY designed to break an enemies line of sight so you can get to a place of cover/concealment unseen and enter Stealth.

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Say you have a situation with Joe and Bob. Joe is a human guard standing outside of a dungeon door looking down a hallway. The hallway is 60' long and dimly lit. Bob walks into the hallway at the other end from Joe and decides he wants to stealth. Joe can obviously observe Bob, but Bob has concealment because Joe is a puny human and does not have low-light vision or darkvision and Bob is more than 20' away. So it would be entirely possible for Bob to stealth up to within 25' of Joe. However, once he got 20' (or less) away, he could no longer stealth because he no longer has concealment.

Couple of things here.

1. In your scenario, the Perception check to see Bob from Joe's possition starts at 11 even without Stealth due to distance and terrible visual conditions. And I would probably add the +5 to DC for being distracted... simply because most guards don't stand at perfect attention for an entire night; he is far more likely focused on what he would rather be doing. So, that's a possible DC 16 to even notice Bob walk into view. That's if Bob walks into view before he decided to use Stealth.

2. If Bob is smart and decides to use Stealth before he walks into plain view then the DC to spot him increases: Possible DC 16 + Stealth Roll results. If Joe dosn't spot Bob then Bob can proceed under Stealth. If Joe does beat the Stealth check with Perception and sees Bob, then Bob is observed and must break line of sight before attempting Stealth again.

3. Also, Bob is absolutely able to use Stealth within 20' of Joe. He must use the Breaking Stealth rules that were added in Eratta:

PRD/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).


After having read most, not all, of the post over the last page and a half I think I see where some people are getting pretty confused. I doubt this is going to help much but I will give it a shot.

To the question, "Is concealment enough to make a Stealth check?"
Answer: Yes, but...

The "but" is: You read all these things in combat, and in vision and lighting, and they say Concealment is sufficient for Stealth. Yes, that's true but the specific rule is in the Stealth description and says you can't use Stealth if you are being observed. Put that together, Concealment is enough to enter Stealth or to remain undetected if you are already successfully under Stealth. HOWEVER, if an enemy has ALREADY observed you, you cannot use Stealth against that enemy until you break it's observation of you. In most cases observation is sight based, because most things in PF are primarily sight based creatures. So, if you break line of sight you break observation. Being observed is NOT the same as a creature simply knowing you are in the area. Most creatures hear something, understand that something is in the area, then pass that information to their EYES to find the source of that sound. Creatures who are capable of actually pinpointing your location (OBSERVING) with other senses, have special senses available to them: Blindsense, tremmorsense, blindsight, scent, etc. In most of those special cases, passing behind cover or into total concealment will not break observation.

The reason people refer to using Total Concealment or Cover to break observation is because those two things break line of sight. Once line of sight is broken you can freely use Stealth and move around in lower levels of Concealment without being noticed. This is where the Bluff mechanic comes in as well, to break observation.

....

My question to those who disagree would be:

If my above interpretation is NOT correct, then why do the bluff rules to break observation exist? Additionally, why is the Hide in Plain Sight ability phrased the way it is?

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

So, if normal concealment is enough to break observation, why is there a supernatural prestige class ability that is specifically designed to be able to use Stealth even while being observed?

The answer is, normally you can't use Stealth while being observed, you have to break line of sight first, even if you have concealment.

Better yet, why is the Ranger HiPS ability worded the way it is if my above interpretation is not accurate?

PRD/Ranger/HiPS wrote:
Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): While in any of his favored terrains, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use the Stealth skill even while being observed.

The SINGLE purpose of that lvl 17 ability is to be able to enter Stealth while being observed. So clearly, under normal circumstances you are not meant to enter Stealth while observed.

Every HiPS ability description is very similarly phrased. They give you the ability to use Stealth while being observed, an ability not normally available.

...

If you think about it, that is very similar to how hiding works in real life. When I was a kid I played a lot of man-hunt games at night in the woods. It would be dark, dark enough you could barely see someone just 15' away, but if you had seen them, knew where they were and which way they were walking, it was pretty easy to follow them. Unless they passed behind a patch of thick trees, brush, or a really dark area. On the other hand, if you had not noticed someone in the area, you could walk close enough for them to slap you and never know they were there.


Stealth is so weak and the rules on it are so badly explained that I would allow it to work. I am not sure if it does though, that is partly why I dropped the argument. I can't prove the intent one way or the other by RAW. I do think there is a definite correct way to rule this, but nobody can prove what it is, and I think the devs have decided to let stealth go until PF 2.0


fretgod99 wrote:
You're not seeing my point. Perception covers all your senses, not just sight.

Correct.

fretgod99 wrote:
Similarly, the word "observe" is not limited to just the sense of sight; the word observe also encompasses other senses, including smell and sound.

Correct, but... Observation is more than just noticing there is something in the area. Observation means that something is able to pinpoint your location.

fretgod99 wrote:
You need not have scent to make a perception check based upon a smell.

Correct, but... You do need Scent to pinpoint someone using a perception check based on smell.

fretgod99 wrote:
You need not have a special ability to observe somebody who is making sound.

Correct, but... Only a creature with ecco-location is capable of pinpointing your exact location using sound.

fretgod99 wrote:
Ergo, "being observed" encompasses more than someone simply being able to see you.

Correct, but... Most creatures don't posses other sense keen enough to pinpoint your location. Most creatures are primarily sight based. Do you honeslty think if you blinded yourself you would be able to pinpoint a creature 20, 10, or even 5 feet away using only sound? Have you ever played "Marco, Pollo" it's not that easy, and in that case you even have people splashing around in water.

fretgod99 wrote:
Yet that is the only sense anybody seems to be strict about in regard to Stealth.

Correct. Because any creature who's other senses are keen enough to pinpoint you, has special senses: Scent, Blindsight, etc.

fretgod99 wrote:
Hence my question: If being observed includes hearing (and it does), why does you diving behind a crate allow for a new Stealth check? Since I can hear you do it, while it is occurring, you are ipso facto "being observed".

Because, have you ever heard something and not been able to figure out where the sound came from? Have you ever heard something and had to spend 5 or 10 minutes visually tracking down where that sound came from? I know I have.

I will add, however, that if the guy who dove behind a crate proceeded to stay crouched behind that crate, it would NOT be too hard to determine where he went no matter how good that Stealth roll was. On the other hand, if he passed behind a pilar and from there into concealment and moved away from the pilar. You might run behind the pilar, because that's the last place you saw him. But he has moved, and unless you saw that movement, you have lost him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Stealth is so weak and the rules on it are so badly explained that I would allow it to work. I am not sure if it does though, that is partly why I dropped the argument. I can't prove the intent one way or the other by RAW. I do think there is a definite correct way to rule this, but nobody can prove what it is, and I think the devs have decided to let stealth go until PF 2.0

Two main problems:

1. Stealth rules are written in a manner that is confusing to most readers.

2. Once you understand all the details, it's still a little clunky to run Stealth by RAW in a typical game. It requires a LOT of detail on your map and in your scenario.

I think the way you and I, and a few others, have explained it is correct by RAW. But I doubt most games are actually run that way, even when the GM and players understand how it's supposed to work.


Shadowlord wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Stealth is so weak and the rules on it are so badly explained that I would allow it to work. I am not sure if it does though, that is partly why I dropped the argument. I can't prove the intent one way or the other by RAW. I do think there is a definite correct way to rule this, but nobody can prove what it is, and I think the devs have decided to let stealth go until PF 2.0

Two main problems:

1. Stealth rules are written in a manner that is confusing to most readers.

2. Once you understand all the details, it's still a little clunky to run Stealth by RAW in a typical game. It requires a LOT of detail on your map and in your scenario.

I think the way you and I, and a few others, have explained it is correct by RAW. But I doubt most games are actually run that way, even when the GM and players understand how it's supposed to work.

I agree, and when I get time, hopefully this weekend I can present something less murky to deal with.


Where does it say that "observe" = "able to pinpoint"?


Re HiPS: It allows you to use stealth when you're near concealment (among other things).

Silver Crusade

I think the big question here is what does "observed" mean in that one specific sentence of the stealth rules. Do they have to make a perception check to observe you or do you just have to be standing in their field of vision?

If the player is in a dimly lit hallway with a human guard at the other end and the guard has not even attempted a perception check yet, can the player stealth? What if the guard makes his perception check the result is high enough to notice you before stealth comes into play? Can you then move to a different square, maybe farther away from the guard, and attempt a stealth check?


Bigdaddyjug wrote:

I think the big question here is what does "observed" mean in that one specific sentence of the stealth rules. Do they have to make a perception check to observe you or do you just have to be standing in their field of vision?

If the player is in a dimly lit hallway with a human guard at the other end and the guard has not even attempted a perception check yet, can the player stealth? What if the guard makes his perception check the result is high enough to notice you before stealth comes into play? Can you then move to a different square, maybe farther away from the guard, and attempt a stealth check?

The guard gets an automatic perception check ("in response to stimula"). So do you. (You could not notice there was guard there at all.)

Assuming the guard actually has a light, which wasn't stated, but I assume is why people were talking about being autoseen within 20', your chances of seeing him are very good.

Once he's seen you, and assuming lighting conditions are constantly "dim", you need to break line of sight to use stealth. (Assuming reasonable length hall and some GM fiat - if we're talking infinite corridors at some point you're far enough away.)

Silver Crusade

I said dimly lit hallway.


For what it's worth, those of us who've been playing the game since 3.0e, have read hiding rules as follows:

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.

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.

Note the order is reversed in presenting the info, and there's even a paragraph break. Need cover or concealment to hide. Next paragraph: If people are observing you, you can't hide.

Hence why you might have some "old timers" playing with this context, despite the ordering in the current rules.


fretgod99 wrote:
Re HiPS: It allows you to use stealth when you're near concealment (among other things).

Not for rangers.


I started a similar thread a while back, here's what people were saying:

Stealth without bluff check in concealment?


Kaisoku wrote:

For what it's worth, those of us who've been playing the game since 3.0e, have read hiding rules as follows:

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.

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.

Note the order is reversed in presenting the info, and there's even a paragraph break. Need cover or concealment to hide. Next paragraph: If people are observing you, you can't hide.

Hence why you might have some "old timers" playing with this context, despite the ordering in the current rules.

Yup.


Dot.


Thank you for the link Grimmy. I found the posts about the old stealth playtest particularly enlightening.

Paizo Stealth Play Test, Round Two 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.

This seems to be a strong indicator of RAI.


This might be of some help to clarify the effect of concealment. This is found in the Common Terms section (emphasis mine):

"Line of Sight

A line of sight is the same as a Line of Effect but with the additional restriction that that it is blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight (such as Concealment)."

That seems to be pretty clear cut to me. Concealment is described as a factor that limits normal sight.


Brandenfascher wrote:

This might be of some help to clarify the effect of concealment. This is found in the Common Terms section (emphasis mine):

"Line of Sight

A line of sight is the same as a Line of Effect but with the additional restriction that that it is blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight (such as Concealment)."

That seems to be pretty clear cut to me. Concealment is described as a factor that limits normal sight.

Which is just more sloppy language. What are the other effects of even dim light blocking line of sight?

Forget 20% miss chance, can you even target someone you don't have line of sight to?

Edit: Interesting that the specific examples give total concealment. Dim light isn't mentioned.


thejeff wrote:
Brandenfascher wrote:

This might be of some help to clarify the effect of concealment. This is found in the Common Terms section (emphasis mine):

"Line of Sight

A line of sight is the same as a Line of Effect but with the additional restriction that that it is blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight (such as Concealment)."

That seems to be pretty clear cut to me. Concealment is described as a factor that limits normal sight.

Which is just more sloppy language. What are the other effects of even dim light blocking line of sight?

Forget 20% miss chance, can you even target someone you don't have line of sight to?

Edit: Interesting that the specific examples give total concealment. Dim light isn't mentioned.

Well... Maybe not specifically an example of line of sight, but in the Vision and Light section of Gamemastering it explains that dim-light specifically DOES grant concealment (emphasis mine), to normal sight of course. It also implies dim-light is "darkness":

"In an area of dim light, a character can see somewhat. Creatures within this area have concealment (20% miss chance in combat) from those without darkvision or the ability to see in darkness. A creature within an area of dim light can make a Stealth check to conceal itself. Areas of dim light include outside at night with a moon in the sky, bright starlight, and the area between 20 and 40 feet from a torch.

Edit: I realized I misread your post. I thought you were asking for an example of dim-light blocking line of sight.. ah well.


Agreed dim light certainly provides concealment, but no where else does it even imply that dim light blocks line of sight.

The consequences would be severe.

Quote:
With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight.

Ranged weapons would be completely useless in dim light, if it blocked line of sight.

Even more specifically

Quote:
If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies.

If any concealment breaks line of sight, then any concealment is total concealment.


thejeff wrote:

Agreed dim light certainly provides concealment, but no where else does it even imply that dim light blocks line of sight.

The consequences would be severe.

Quote:
With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight.

Ranged weapons would be completely useless in dim light, if it blocked line of sight.

Even more specifically

Quote:
If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies.
If any concealment breaks line of sight, then any concealment is total concealment.

You have a good point there. It seems to just flop concealment into total concealment between my Line of Sight reference and your last reference there. I'll have to look more into that.


It's part of why I've given up on trying figure out a strict RAW interpretation of the stealth rules. Terms are used inconsistently. Passages contradict one another. Statements that seem to be clear and emphatic obviously aren't as absolute as they appear to be.


Looking at it again, I'd have to guess that either
A) you're right, it's a contradiction or not clearly worded, and the line of sight passage was actually meant to refer to total concealment exclusively, as you noted the examples referred to.
-or-
B) Dim-light is an exception to the line-of sight rule. Of course, there's no evidence for that beyond the explicit description of how dim-light's concealment functions.

I'd wager that it's "A", as the description of the Fog Cloud spell quotes thus:

"The fog obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet. A creature within 5 feet has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance). Creatures farther away have total concealment (50% miss chance, and the attacker can't use sight to locate the target)."

... implying that basic concealment doesn't block line of sight.

I guess for me it's back to what exactly "to observe" means when it comes to basic, non-total concealment. To bad it wasn't even expressly defined in direct context with concealment, but it would be a mess if the designers had to define every single word.


fretgod99 wrote:
Re HiPS: It allows you to use stealth when you're near concealment (among other things).

Some forms of HiPS also do that, not all forms, and that is a whole other discussion as well. But ALL forms of HiPS have one thing in common, the statement "even while observed."

Ranger HiPS only has the statement "while observed"
Hell Cat Stealth only has the statement "while observed"
Rogue Advanced Talent only has "while observed"


fretgod99 wrote:
Where does it say that "observe" = "able to pinpoint"?

"Observed" is not a specifically defined term in the PF rules. I explain it that way because it is easier to undestand. In dictionary terms observe means you know where something is. Hearing something alone doesn't tell you exactly where it is. A sight based creature hears something, then passes that info to the eyes to visually aquire the source of the sound. Creatures that aren't primarily sight based have special senses.

The interpretation I presented incorporates ALL of the rules presented in the Stealth skill description, as well as other places around the CRB, and makes sense.

My questions remain, if I am not correct, and if the opposing interpretation is in fact valid, then:

1. Why are the rules for using Bluff to break observation even in the skill description?
2. Why is there an ability, HiPS, specifically designed to allow you to use Stealth while observed?


Shadowlord wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Where does it say that "observe" = "able to pinpoint"?
"Observed" is not a specifically defined term in the PF rules. I explain it that way because it is easier to undestand. In dictionary terms observe means you know where something is. Hearing something alone doesn't tell you exactly where it is. A sight based creature hears something, then passes that info to the eyes to visually aquire the source of the sound. Creatures that aren't primarily sight based have special senses.

To expand on this: You aren't really "observing" something if you don't know where it is. If you heard a noise, or smelt a smell, and then can't locate the source of that stimulus then it isn't really "observed". One simple way to demonstrate this is with the Scent ability itself. Even creatures who have a keen sense of smell don't seem to "observe" you with their noses:

PRD/CRB/Glossary/Scent wrote:
The creature detects another creature's presence but NOT IT'S SPECIFIC LOCATION. Noting the direction of the scent is a move action. If the creature moves within 5 feet (1 square) of the scent's source, the creature can pinpoint the area that the source occupies, even if it CANNOT BE SEEN.

(bolding and allcaps mine) You can see here that simply smelling something in the area does not immediately give a creature the location of that smell (pinpoint). It notices the pressence of something but still has to work to track it down. So, something with Scent can detect a Stealthed enemy in the area and still not know immediately where that scent is coming from. It has to note the dirrection and track the source of the scent to pinpoint the location. IMO, nothing is "observed" until it's location is pinpointed.

Again, "observe" is not a defined term in PF, but even going off the plain language meaning, how can you really be "observing" a thing if you don't know where it's actual location is? So, for a sight based creature, it might hear you and know something is in the area, but until it can track you visually it still can't know for sure where you are.


It's irelevant that it's not defined in PF terms. That it's not means you resort to standard English. "Observe" means to perceive something. "Perceive" means to detect with one's senses. Pinpointing is irrelevant.


fretgod99 wrote:
It's irelevant that it's not defined in PF terms. That it's not means you resort to standard English. "Observe" means to perceive something. "Perceive" means to detect with one's senses. Pinpointing is irrelevant.

Right, I wasn't using pinpoint as a defined term, I was using it to convey an idea. The idea that you need to be able to identify something's location (see it, watch it) in order to "observe" it. If you are saying that is NOT the case, are you then saying:

1. If you hear something down the hall, around the corner, in a dimly lit room... you have OBSERVED it?

2. If you hear something on the other side of a wall... you have OBSERVED it?

3. If you smell a rotten fish in your house, but cannot for the life of you find that rotten fish... you have OBSERVED it?

...

Dictionary.com / Observe

Quote:

verb (used with object), observed, observing.

1. to see, watch, perceive, or notice

There are four words here that describe what it means to observe something. MY interpretation of Perception/Stealth use of the word Observation (as described above) uses the first two and makes very good sense. That is what I mean when I say pinpoint (be able to See and Watch). Now, if you ONLY use the last two words (as you seem to want to do) how would you justify my 3 scenarios above?

Quote:
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.

1. If you have observed the source of that sound then it is incapable of using Stealth even though it is down the hall, around a corner, in another room. That makes no sense.

2. If you have observed the source of that sound then it is incapable of using Stealth to further avoid you even though it is on the other side of a wall. That makes no sense.

3. If you have observed that fish, then it is incapable of being hidden. Why can't you find it?

The way I explain "observed" makes sense paired with the Stealth rules and the dictionary definition of observed; whether you agree with my specific terminology or not.

....

Even if you look at the last two words in the definition of Observe you can easily get the sense that they mean a LOT more than having a vague idea of something being around, somewhere.

To Notice:

Quote:

9.

to pay attention to or take notice of:
"Did you notice her hat?"
10.
to perceive; become aware of:
"Did you notice the anger in his voice?"

To Perceive:

Quote:

verb (used with object), perceived, perceiving.

1.
to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses:
"I perceived an object looming through the mist."
2.
to recognize, discern, envision, or understand:
"I perceive a note of sarcasm in your voice. This is a nice idea but I perceive difficulties in putting it into practice."

To be Aware:

Quote:

1.

having knowledge; conscious; cognizant:
"aware of danger."
2.
informed; alert; knowledgeable; sophisticated:
"She is one of the most politically aware young women around."

There are a few words and phrases in there that could be taken to mean, "to be vaguely aware of," by by far the majority of words in there would be better described as terms of familiarity and beeing keenly aware of something. So, the defined term "pinpointing" might be irrelevant but as an undefined term, I think pinpointing is a pretty fair assessment of what "observing" means. And I think my explaination of Perception and being "observed" is pretty accurate according to dictionary terms.


Paulicus wrote:

Thank you for the link Grimmy. I found the posts about the old stealth playtest particularly enlightening.

Paizo Stealth Play Test, Round Two 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.
This seems to be a strong indicator of RAI.

That playtest was also the time they intended to change things. Stealth was a swift action. Sniping was a standard action that included the stealth re-check, rather than a move action after your attack (<--- This one I approve of, because it allows sniping in a surprise round, which is when you'd normally be sniping, right?).

It's hard to take what they meant away from that playtest, because it was purposefully different from regular Stealth in many ways. It could easily have been a change in implication, as much as it could have been how one developer thought the rules already worked, or etc.

.
I mean, I went from playing 3.X to Pathfinder, and didn't really read any explicit change in how this worked.

Oie... I hope this isn't flurry of blows all over again.


I suspect a lot of the problem might stem from the 3.X (and PF's carry over) interchanging of terms "concealment" and "total concealment".

I suspect that during the creation of the 3e rules, there was originally just the one "concealment" (total), but through developing rules they came up with partial concealment, and unfortunately didn't parse over all the rules properly.

.

Anyways, there was a big Stealth hooplah before, hence why we even had a thread to consolidate all the threads for easy FAQ reference.

That precipitated the Stealth Playtest, and the conclusion was that any change to Stealth to make it make sense would involve more than just an errata, but rather a re-design.

So we'll have to stick with what we have (cloudy, vaguely worded rules that may or may not be attempting to change how things worked from 3e).


Shadowlord wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
It's irelevant that it's not defined in PF terms. That it's not means you resort to standard English. "Observe" means to perceive something. "Perceive" means to detect with one's senses. Pinpointing is irrelevant.

Right, I wasn't using pinpoint as a defined term, I was using it to convey an idea. The idea that you need to be able to identify something's location (see it, watch it) in order to "observe" it. If you are saying that is NOT the case, are you then saying:

1. If you hear something down the hall, around the corner, in a dimly lit room... you have OBSERVED it?

2. If you hear something on the other side of a wall... you have OBSERVED it?

3. If you smell a rotten fish in your house, but cannot for the life of you find that rotten fish... you have OBSERVED it?

Oxford English Dictionary wrote:
Observe: notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant.

It's easy to stack the deck with scenarios. But those really aren't anywhere close to the one I posited that started this discussion. But some similar scenarios to mine reformulated:

1. You see a guy dive behind a crate 15' away from you. You can hear him moving around. Are you observing him? Undoubtedly yes. Why do you need to see something to be observing it? Why do you necessarily even need a special sense ability to be able pinpoint a creature's location with a sense other than vision?

2. Do you think it's preposterous to use your sense of smell to note the location of the Ghast lurking by the wall next to the open doorway you're standing next to?

So if you want me to be honest, my position is play each scenario by ear because the Stealth rules don't always make a ton of sense (as has been noted a number of times throughout this thread). If you're going to strictly construe the phrase "being observed", you ought to do it the same way for all senses. But nobody does that. They only do it for sight. Of course, nobody does that because it'd probably make Stealth nigh unworkable.

Beyond that, since when did being "aware" of something and "having knowledge" of something imply a great deal of familiarity (which is what you're claiming)? Where did you get the idea that I think having a vague idea of something is what I'm implying by observation? You still have to register something as significant. But at the same time, simply being "aware" of something in no way supports the stringent meaning of perception or observation that you're claiming it does.

I mean, we can get into the semantics all day, but a vast majority of the words you bolded don't actually necessitate the conclusion you're saying that they do. Discern, pay attention to, informed, aware? These are the words you think mean A LOT (to use your emphasis) more than having some vague idea that something is around (which, again, wasn't something I've ever actually argued)? I can discern different ingredients in food by taste. I can become aware that my cat has walked into a dark room and know precisely where she is because I can hear her walking on the carpet. I can identify a composer of a piece of music by sound alone.

Now, if this is what you mean by "pinpoint" in regards to using one's abilities to observe someone who'd like to use Stealth, then fine. We're generally in agreement. But I've also just demonstrated, pretty clearly, that it's unnecessary to do any of these things by sight in order to actually be cognizant of, aware of, perceptive of, or observant of something. Hence my point: you can observe things in manners other than by simply looking at them.


fretgod99 wrote:

It's easy to stack the deck with scenarios. But those really aren't anywhere close to the one I posited that started this discussion. But some similar scenarios to mine reformulated:

1. You see a guy dive behind a crate 15' away from you. You can hear him moving around. Are you observing him? Undoubtedly yes. Why do you need to see something to be observing it? Why do you necessarily even need a special sense ability to be able pinpoint a creature's location with a sense other than vision?

2. Do you think it's preposterous to use your sense of smell to note the location of the Ghast lurking by the wall next to the open doorway you're standing next to?

1) Do you think the guy behind the crate could make a Stealth roll to move quietly away?

So you think that would be easier than just trying sneak away in dim light, without anything else to hide behind?

2) Yes. We're lousy at this. You could probably "follow your nose" to him, but locate him without moving over there? Not a chance. You certainly know there is something really stinky around. Process of elimination might tell you it's on the other side of the doorway, but not more than that.

51 to 100 of 143 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can you use stealth with 20% concealment while observed? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.