|
For stealth, do I need to have concealment/cover from all observing me, or is it handled per observer?
In example, if I have blinded (or otherwise gained concealment) from a single enemy, perhaps via the dirty trick combat maneuver or the 1st level darkness domain power, can I attempt a stealth check against them only?
Or do I need to be concealed from all enemies in order to attempt stealth?
I believe you only need to hidden from your target. Doing that while seen by other enemies is difficult. You clearly do not need to be hidden from your allies, so you don't need to be hidden from everyone.
/cevah
It is per target.
They are correct.
For stealth, do I need to have concealment/cover from all observing me, or is it handled per observer?
Handled per observer.
In example, if I have blinded (or otherwise gained concealment) from a single enemy, perhaps via the dirty trick combat maneuver or the 1st level darkness domain power, can I attempt a stealth check against them only?
Yes.
Or do I need to be concealed from all enemies in order to attempt stealth?
No.
However, the enemies that can see you still can communicate with the blinded enemy giving the blinded one to locate you and attack your square. You still have a 50% miss chance to his attacks, though.
|
|
However, the enemies that can see you still can communicate with the blinded enemy giving the blinded one to locate you and attack your square. You still have a 50% miss chance to his attacks, though.
Was just looking at the Darkness domain's Touch of Darkness.
Touch of Darkness (Sp): As a melee touch attack, you can cause a creature's vision to be fraught with shadows and darkness. The creature touched treats all other creatures as if they had concealment, suffering a 20% miss chance on all attack rolls. This effect lasts for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your cleric level (minimum 1). You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
Should be able to hit them with this, then make a stealth check against the target. Would grant total concealment instead of just concealment, which would more than double the effect.
That got me thinking about the dirty trick combat maneuver regarding blinding.
Been trying to figure out if I can make a stealthy character work, despite our DM not being very keen on putting terrain/cover/concealment in most dungeons (dislikes keeping track of it).
Your touch impairs their vision. It does not let you make a stealth check, since it does not give you cover or concealment.
PRD: "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth."
/cevah
Your touch impairs their vision. It does not let you make a stealth check, since it does not give you cover or concealment.
PRD: "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth."
/cevah
And Touch of Darkness makes the target treat all others as if they had concealment.
So yes he would be able to stealth in regards to the target.
May be RAI, but I don't see it RAW.
/cevah
However, the enemies that can see you still can communicate with the blinded enemy giving the blinded one to locate you and attack your square. You still have a 50% miss chance to his attacks, though.Was just looking at the Darkness domain's Touch of Darkness.
** spoiler omitted **
Should be able to hit them with this, then make a stealth check against the target. Would grant total concealment instead of just concealment, which would more than double the effect.That got me thinking about the dirty trick combat maneuver regarding blinding.
Been trying to figure out if I can make a stealthy character work, despite our DM not being very keen on putting terrain/cover/concealment in most dungeons (dislikes keeping track of it).
There are very specific rules regarding being blind.
Blinded: The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character.. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.
They think you have concealment, yet the shadows they see do not actually exist. If they did, others would see them. Without the shadows, you don't have concealment. You can enter shadows to gain concealment, but how do you enter their eyes?
The blinded point, however, does lend more weight that should be able to stealth, but I am not fully convinced.
/cevah
In order to use stealth, the shadows don't have to physically exist -- we aren't talking the hide in plain sight ability of the Shadowdancer. Normal stealth requires concealment against the individual that is using his perception to keep you in sight.
To the quasi-blinded person, you can use stealth to avoid his perception if he treats all other creatures as having concealment.
They think you have concealment, yet the shadows they see do not actually exist. If they did, others would see them. Without the shadows, you don't have concealment. You can enter shadows to gain concealment, but how do you enter their eyes?
/cevah
By this logic any illusion spells that grants concealment wouldn't function with stealth because the conditions that grant concealment don't actually exist, they are an illusion.
There is never any RAW reference to anything needing to exist. If you can find something that points to this I would be ... well very surprised.
If an affect forces a character to treat you as if you had concealment from it, you have concealment from it. The flavor text about vision being fraught with shadows and how all this happens is irrelevant. All that should matter is the effect the ability grants.
However, the enemies that can see you still can communicate with the blinded enemy giving the blinded one to locate you and attack your square. You still have a 50% miss chance to his attacks, though.
They can only talk on their turn though, since Speaking is a Free Action.
Speaking has a specific rules exception. You can talk on other people's turn.
Speaking has a specific rules exception. You can talk on other people's turn.
Right, forgot about that. That brings up a question for argument's sake.
Speak
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.
So letting someone say "He's right in front of you!" Is probably legit. But that can indicate 3 possible squares. Would you let someone say, "He's right in front of you! In the square 45 degrees to your right front side!"? How specific would you let someone get before they are breaking the Free Action limit?
They think you have concealment, yet the shadows they see do not actually exist. If they did, others would see them. Without the shadows, you don't have concealment. You can enter shadows to gain concealment, but how do you enter their eyes?
What makes you think the shadows aren't real? Nothing in the description states it's an illusion. And even if it is an illusion, the shadows don't have to be real, they grant concealment, that is all that's necessary. Several Illusions grant concealment, to include Invisibility.
Of these two quotes one is from a real effect, one is from a Spell-like Ability that may or may not be an illusion:
...treats all other creatures as if they had concealment...
...All opponents are considered to have total concealment...
So, which concealment is less real?
Speaking has a specific rules exception. You can talk on other people's turn.Right, forgot about that. That brings up a question for argument's sake.
So letting someone say "He's right in front of you!" Is probably legit. But that can indicate 3 possible squares. Would you let someone say, "He's right in front of you! In the square 45 degrees to your right front side!"? How specific would you let someone get before they are breaking the Free Action limit?Speak
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.
That is up to the GM. If there are features in the room you can say he is between ____ and ____. I think more than two sentences is pushing it however.
As for this concealment thing the rules only call for concealment. They don't differentiate between concealment from illusions and concealment from non-illusions.
So letting someone say "He's right in front of you!" Is probably legit. But that can indicate 3 possible squares. Would you let someone say, "He's right in front of you! In the square 45 degrees to your right front side!"? How specific would you let someone get before they are breaking the Free Action limit?
He's on your six !
Goblins at ten oclock !
Harpies three oclock high !
Do clocks exist in Pathfinder?
The final encounter within Rise of the Rune Lords, "Chapter 2: The Skinsaw Murders" takes place within the ruins of a huge clock tower...
Then it is logical!
But when you yell, 3 o'clock, what direction is it?
In the military, (at least in my experience) it is based on the direction of attack, not the direction of the person you are specifically yelling at.
Tell a fighter pilot to check his six, and he'll always check directly behind him. If someone tells me to check my 3 o'clock, I'll look 90 degrees to my right. If I need to be more specific, I could say "Gnomes at YOUR seven o'clock ! Pixies at MY 2 o'clock !". Or you could go nautical. "Mermaids on the port fore-quarter ! Sea-horses dead astern ! Iceberg right ahead ! Klingons off the starboard bow !"
Ah, a ship! Now you're speaking my language. All positions are in fact based off of the ship and none are based on the individual.
My point was, modern combat techniques do not always transfer to a game based around a mythological medieval era. I could apply all kinds of modern tactics like screening, bounding, overwatch, suppressive fire and enfilade fire, but I feel it really starts to detract from the setting.