Blurring, Stealthing, Bluffing, and Stabbing your way through life.


Rules Questions


So I was reading the Stealth skill and came across this part:

Stealth wrote:
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.

And this:

Stealth wrote:
Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.

And I know that it's been ruled that the Blur spell's concealment is enough to allow you to use Stealth.

Looking at the Bluff skill description, it says nothing about this at all. It does mention Lying, Secret Messages, and Feinting, and describes what kind of action they each are.

So, from what I can gather from the rules, it looks like you have the ability to perform a full attack while "stealth cycling" to continuously make your opponent flat footed to you by distracting them and quickly hiding again after every attack. Sort of like using your magical concealment and fighting style to continuously slip under the guard of whatever creature you're fighting because they can't really tell where your weapons are coming from.

By attacking, bluffing successfully, stealthing successfully with a -10 to your stealth roll, attacking, bluffing successfully, stealthing successfully with a -10 to your stealth roll, and etc., until you run out of attacks, you can sneak attack on every attack if you have that ability.

Bluffing this way uses no action, and neither does stealth, since you don't have to move to get back into concealment.

Best of all, you can end the round in stealth by bluffing and stealthing once your attacks are done. One 5 ft step later and they no longer even know which square you're in.

Thoughts?


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Wraithcannon wrote:
And I know that it's been ruled that the Blur spell's concealment is enough to allow you to use Stealth.

Citation ? Because I don't think so.

Wraithcannon wrote:
it looks like you have the ability to perform a full attack while "stealth cycling" to continuously make your opponent flat footed to you by distracting them and quickly hiding again after every attack.

No. "you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind."

You must move to an unobserved location to re-stealth.


Agreed with SlimGauge, there has been a big argument about whether or not blur is sufficient to allow stealth. I don't think there was ever a resolution.

In my mind, blur is not sufficient. It makes you appear blurry, but if you are in an open field you will be clearly there. Except a little blurry.


Also, you don't seem to have taken into account the time it takes to make checks. If it's, say, a move action, which seems logical to me, then you couldn't full attack.

The time it would take to Bluff would also matter. These actions take more time than it takes to roll the dice irl.


Hellcat Stealth lets you make a stealth check in bright or normal light at a -10 penalty, even while being observed (so no cover or concealment needed).

Technically, I suppose RAW would let you make a stealth check prior to each attack, but I think any sensible GM will probably limit you to doing it once per turn. But frankly, even if they don't, it's not particularly game-breaking (not in comparison to what your raging barbarian or instant enemy ranger are going to be doing just standing there).

Liberty's Edge

Also keep in mind that stealth normally has to be done as part of movement, so you could (at best) get a sneak attack on two hits in one round this way (start stealthed -> first attack -> 5' step + stealth -> second attack). And that assumes you have hide in plain sight.


Using Stealth and Bluff this way are both no action. Not a move, not a swift, not an immediate action, nothing. It says that right in the rules.

If you do the research, you'll find Blur is sufficient for stealth, but I don't need to convince anyone of that, just look it up.

Fretgod seems to be the only one getting it, RAW this is all possible. He's also right in the fact that this is hardly a game breaker compared to the latest and greatest builds that are out there.

All of this mechanic relies on is making multiple successful opposed checks every round. Any failures and you don't get the bonus on that attack.


Wait just a minute. Are you saying we can use bluff as a distraction to hide before every attack for free? And the stealth check after that is also free?

Liberty's Edge

Wraithcannon wrote:
Using Stealth and Bluff this way are both no action. Not a move, not a swift, not an immediate action, nothing. It says that right in the rules.

I fail to see where it says that in the rules. It doesn't list an action for misdirecting to enable a stealth check, but without a listed action you generally assume standard. And it doesn't grant you a stealth check as part of that check, it simply allows you to use stealth afterwards, so it still requires movement.

CRB wrote:
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.

Basically, the *one* exception to requiring movement to stealth is the action for retaining stealth after sniping, which is a move action.

I won't say this is a game-breaking any way you decide to play it, but allowing a stealth for no action is *definitely* not in the rules!


Yes Omni, but only if you fulfill the conditions for being able to go into stealth, such as having cover like a fog, blur, or some other effect that you can use.

CRB wrote:

Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action.

Normally you have to move to find cover or concealment, but in the case above, you already have it.


Omnitricks you can use bluff to distract someone then move to a hiding location. You can not bluff and then stealth while out in the open with no cover or concealment.

Here is a full quote:

Quote:
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.

If you are concealed then you are not in an unobserved place. The intent is to make them look left while you go right.

The question now becomes does concealment count as an unobserved place. I will likely allow it in my house rules.

Liberty's Edge

Wraithcannon wrote:

Yes Omni, but only if you fulfill the conditions for being able to go into stealth, such as having cover like a fog, blur, or some other effect that you can use.

CRB wrote:

Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action.

Normally you have to move to find cover or concealment, but in the case above, you already have it.

You make a stealth check as part of movement. Full stop. Whether you have cover or concealment or not, it says you use it as part of movement. It even clarifies that it doesn't require it's own action, but it still requires movement, and that part's even in your quote!. The ONLY listed exception is sniping. That's it. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, you have to move or snipe. Those are your choices.


So, if I am a rogue standing behind cover (say a tapestry) in a room and a guard on patrol walks through, I need to move somewhere else before I'm allowed a stealth check?


Seems legit. I guess its possible to argue that for the moment the bluff check is made the spot you are in is unobserved although its things like this which gives rule lawyering a bad name :P

What I foresee by some GMs if this is abused (especially mine who is also a rule lawyer) is to eventually in combat start giving penalties to the bluff check especially if you do it to the same opponent over and over (heard of the boy who cried wolf?) I don't think it will ever reach the impossible level but far fetched would be more likely so -10 to the check just like stealth.

Which means you'd need to make two separate checks of different kinds opposed by two other skills of different sorts.

Actually Stabbitty it says no action and the part of being part of a move action more as example instead of a rule so it is doable. Of course if it gets too broken the GM has the prerogative to shut it down or cancel it out entirely.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Wraithcannon wrote:
So, if I am a rogue standing behind cover (say a tapestry) in a room and a guard on patrol walks through, I need to move somewhere else before I'm allowed a stealth check?

personally if you're behind a tapestry and trying to hide and not moving i don't think a check is required if he cannot see or hear you.

Liberty's Edge

Bandw2 wrote:
Wraithcannon wrote:
So, if I am a rogue standing behind cover (say a tapestry) in a room and a guard on patrol walks through, I need to move somewhere else before I'm allowed a stealth check?
personally if you're behind a tapestry and trying to hide and not moving i don't think a check is required if he cannot see or hear you.

Indeed. If you're behind total cover you're effectively invisible. If you're invisible and not moving, that's a +40. Even without a stealth check you're sitting at a DC40 to be noticed as long as you stay very still. Unless they have blindsight, then you're boned.

Omnitricks wrote:


Actually Stabbitty it says no action and the part of being part of a move action more as example instead of a rule so it is doable. Of course if it gets too broken the GM has the prerogative to shut it down or cancel it out entirely.

That sentence after the phrase "Usually none" is a clarification, which clarifies it is done as part of movement. The sentence after that grants the exception to that "Usually" with sniping. It's the only sensible way to parse that paragraph.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.

Blur has no interaction with Stealth.

Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell's effect (though fighting an unseen opponent carries penalties of its own).
LINK

Stealth into your own Blur? Cool, can't be seen. Oops, Blur's effects now ignored. Now seen.

Using Bluff in order to "Create a Diversion to Hide" has no listed Action, though it would most likely be a Standard Action. Also, it does not note whether the Action includes movement.
The Heretic's (Inquisitor) Judgement:Escape changes it to a Move Action after an attack. It's only usable if movement is included in the Diversion, or very poor if a 5-Foot Step is expected.
The Street Performer's (Bard) ability Quick Changes allows a Diversion as a Swift Action. If a Diversion includes movement, then this is very powerful.


Wraithcannon wrote:
So, if I am a rogue standing behind cover (say a tapestry) in a room and a guard on patrol walks through, I need to move somewhere else before I'm allowed a stealth check?

The tapestry should count as cover so you should be ok.


The rule: Usually none.
The exception: sniping, etc.
The clarification: ...as a part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action. I'll point you to the last part of the sentence.
Separate action. Hence ergo it doesn't take an action unless specified as an exception like sniping.

Simply put to save time on any unnecessary arguments you're trying to look for RAI where there is actually nothing to support it whereas I'm just going with RAW especially since its to my advantage.

Also Blur's interaction with stealth is through the concealment rules. You might want to take a look at that if you haven't already. At the point that opponents which cannot see the subject then its easier to do whatever because you know, penalties of its own.


Wraithcannon wrote:
Fretgod seems to be the only one getting it, RAW this is all possible. He's also right in the fact that this is hardly a game breaker compared to the latest and greatest builds that are out there.

Eh, most GMs are going to limit you to using stealth without an action as a part of movement. So like I said, likely once a round at most, after a 5' step typically.

If you already are in stealth (and adjacent to an opponent), you can make your attack, then 5' step to use stealth again (due to Hellcat Stealth or concealment sufficient to allow a check), followed by another attack. But that'd be pretty much the extent of what you could get at pretty much any table, I think.

You'll probably find that there is going to be resistance to the idea that "usually none" is wholly unrelated to the "as a part of movement" part (particularly within the midst of combat).

Liberty's Edge

Omnitricks wrote:

The rule: Usually none.

The exception: sniping, etc.
The clarification: ...as a part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action. I'll point you to the last part of the sentence.
Separate action. Hence ergo it doesn't take an action unless specified as an exception like sniping.

Simply put to save time on any unnecessary arguments you're trying to look for RAI where there is actually nothing to support it whereas I'm just going with RAW especially since its to my advantage.

I'm not looking at RAI, I'm looking right at RAW. Stealth doesn't take a separate action, but you still need to do something to get that "as part of movement" in there, and movement takes an action. The "doesn't take a separate action" is a clarification to the "as part of movement" clause, so you only skip the action if you do the check as part of movement.

Amusingly, the way it's written would allow you to make a stealth check due to involuntary movement such as from bull rush or falling.

Barring silliness with involuntary movement, RAW does not allow action-less stealthing. Period.


StabbittyDoom wrote:
Omnitricks wrote:

The rule: Usually none.

The exception: sniping, etc.
The clarification: ...as a part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action. I'll point you to the last part of the sentence.
Separate action. Hence ergo it doesn't take an action unless specified as an exception like sniping.

Simply put to save time on any unnecessary arguments you're trying to look for RAI where there is actually nothing to support it whereas I'm just going with RAW especially since its to my advantage.

I'm not looking at RAI, I'm looking right at RAW. Stealth doesn't take a separate action, but you still need to do something to get that "as part of movement" in there, and movement takes an action. The "doesn't take a separate action" is a clarification to the "as part of movement" clause, so you only skip the action if you do the check as part of movement.

Amusingly, the way it's written would allow you to make a stealth check due to involuntary movement such as from bull rush or falling.

Barring silliness with involuntary movement, RAW does not allow action-less stealthing. Period.

RAW also assumes you make some sensible inferences. For example: It's a move action to re-stealth after making an attack while sniping and at least 10 feet away from the target, with a penalty. What mechanic would make you think that it would be easier to use stealth when you're adjacent to an enemy and attacking them than it is to use stealth at range, where there are penalties to perception?

Stabbitydoom wrote:


You make a stealth check as part of movement. Full stop.

Actually, not. "You make a stealth check as part of a movement" comma "so it doesn't take a separate action."

Attacking is not movement, so it doesn't fulfill the "normally" part of the statement. Therefore the followup to that simply doesn't apply. In fact, attacking is one of the conditions that explicitly breaks stealth.

There is, however, a line of the skill description that seems relevant to this question:

Stealth wrote:


It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.

That seems pretty open and shut: You lose the benefits of stealth as soon as you make an attack roll and cannot use the skill while attacking. That gives us context for the sniping rule: It's an exception to the rule preventing you from using stealth while attacking.

So, no, you cannot use blur or bluff to re-enter stealth during a full attack action, or re-stealth while adjacent to an enemy after attacking them.

It's best to reference the full text of a rule when discussing corner cases:

So, here's the Stealth rule:

Stealth wrote:


(Dex; Armor Check Penalty)
You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. This skill covers hiding and moving silently.

Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment. You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a -5 penalty. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.

Creatures gain a bonus or penalty on Stealth checks based on their size: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Medium +0, Large -4, Huge -8, Gargantuan -12, Colossal -16.

If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.

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).

Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.

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.

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.

Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving.

If you have the Stealthy feat, you get a bonus on Stealth checks (see Feats).

Emphasis mine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We all seem to be forgetting that the CRB already has exact rules for this:

Core Rulebook, Bluff skill wrote:

Feint in Combat

You can also use Bluff to feint in combat, causing your opponent to be denied his Dexterity bonus to his AC against your next attack. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent’s base attack bonus + your opponent’s Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent’s Sense Motive bonus, if higher. For more information on feinting in combat, see Combat.

Action: Feinting in combat is a standard action.

So there you have it - if YOU want to use bluff to distract an enemy in combat, you use the Feint rules and it's a standard action (the Improved Feint feat can make this a move action).

Now to the OP's post:

Wraithcannon wrote:
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth.

Not "attempt to attack" but rather "attempt to use Stealth".

Two different things.

If you want to sue Bluff to attack, see the Feint rule I quoted above.

Wraithcannon wrote:
While the others turn their attention from you,

"from you" implies that someone else can make the Bluff check - that can be useful if you have allies distracting your enemy. But it still only lets you use stealth - not attack.

Wraithcannon wrote:
you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind.

So you have to get to some place with Cover or Concealment (as presented in other Stealth rules not quoted here) to even attempt the Stealth check.

Wraithcannon wrote:
Creating a Diversion to Hide:

"to HIDE", not "to attack".

Wraithcannon wrote:
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.

And as seen above (and in the Stealth rules in general), you need to have cover or concealment to hide.

Using Stealth is part of a move action. It is not a free, unlimited action you can use whenever you want. You add a Stealth check to a move action to allow you to hide.

Using move actions between attacks really makes it difficult to land very many attacks each round.

And, as others have already said, Blur does hide you from your enemy - you are still visible, in plain sight. In fact, the Blur spell says "Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell's effect" So clearly, VERY clearly, (pun intended), you MUST be visible to the target for this spell to do anything at all, and if you're visible, you're not hidden. Or in other words, if you're visible, then "people are observing you using any of their senses" (specifically sight) which, according to nearly the first sentence of the Stealth rules means "you can't use Stealth".


So help me to understand something,

Quote:
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.

What is an example of an "unobserved place" that doesn't otherwise offer cover or concealment? I'm trying to understand how using Bluff is useful.

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

If move to a place that has cover or concealment, I can use Stealth without a Bluff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

So help me to understand something,

Quote:
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.
What is an example of an "unobserved place" that doesn't otherwise offer cover or concealment? I'm trying to understand how using Bluff is useful.

That is a very good question.

Originally, the skill description required you to begin your turn in cover or concealment in order to use Stealth. Meaning if you're standing in plain sight and decide to to use Stealth, you had to move this turn to some hidden place and then try to use Stealth NEXT turn (assuming the bad guys didn't just follow you into your hiding place and begin observing you again).

In order to "sneak" away without being seen, you would use this bluff check to momentarily distract your observer while you darted into hiding and if successful, they really had no idea where you went. (Without the bluff roll, doing the same thing would have simply resulted in the observer knowing exactly where you went and you couldn't use Stealth).

Then Paizo changed it to the current wording because the old wording had too many problems.

N N 959 wrote:
Quote:
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.
If move to a place that has cover or concealment, I can use Stealth without a Bluff.

As you've noted, there is nothing in the current wording that prevents you from saying "I duck behind that tree and then use Stealth." Which means you don't need to use this bluff check anymore - you can simply move and hide (stealth) with no bluff at all.

However, it still has one main use: preventing the observer from knowing where you're hiding.

For example: if there are ten trees and you just run to one and roll Stealth, the observer will definitely know which tree you are hiding behind. If you do the bluff first, then the observer would NOT know which tree you're hiding behind; he will have to guess or search for you instead of just following you to your tree and stepping around it and walloping you.

Other than that, it has no real use.


DM_Blake wrote:

However, it still has one main use: preventing the observer from knowing where you're hiding.

For example: if there are ten trees and you...

Okay, that makes sense.

Of course if you have multiple NPC's, you can't bluff them all with one check and so the others will see where you went and just shout it out as the PCs would vs an NPC.


Quite true.

I suggest bluffing them with a charging colossal red dragon (illusion if you must, but having a real one do your bluffing for you is a definite boon) - something like that would grab the attention of a whole lot of observers all at once...

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed a post and reply to it. Accusations of trolling add nothing to the conversation.

Sczarni

@Wraithcannon

From what I understood, you are trying to use Bluff & Stealth in combat to gain sneak attacks?

Why would you do this? This is what feint is for. Stealth is good to gain surprise attacks only during first round.


Yes, Malag.

I'm under the impression that you can, RAW, use stealth and bluff in a cycle along with blur, fog, smoke, or some other effect that grants you concealment in your square to gain sneak attack damage on every strike during a full attack by making multiple successful opposed skill checks versus your opponent before every individual attack.

Feint is great, and can be used at any time, whether you have concealment from your opponent or not, but that limits you to a single strike per round, as it is always at least a move action.

By using your body language and fighting style to bluff, causing a distraction as no action, and then again using your concealment to stealth as no action, you effectively, continuously put your opponent off guard, causing them to misjudge the angle your attacks will be coming from, putting their weapons and/or shield out of position to block properly, and confusing them to the point where they are effectively flat footed to your attacks.

Imagine as an example trying to fight the Predator while he has his stealth field active....


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So if I understand you correctly, this is your plan:

1. Create smoke or some other concealment effect.
2. Use Steatlh to get near an enemy
3. Stab him in the face (sneak attack).
4. Shout "Hey, look out behind you!" and roll a Bluff check to make him look over his shoulder.
5. Roll a Stealth check while the enemy looks behind him (ignoring the fact that you just stabbed him in the face) so that you can hide in your smoke.
6. Stab him in the face (sneak attack).
7. Shout "Hey, look out behind you!" and roll a Bluff check to make him look over his shoulder.
8. Roll a Stealth check while the enemy looks behind him (ignoring the fact that you just stabbed him in the face) so that you can hide in your smoke.
9. Stab him in the face (sneak attack).
10. Shout "Hey, look out behind you!" and roll a Bluff check to make him look over his shoulder.
11. Roll a Stealth check while the enemy looks behind him (ignoring the fact that you just stabbed him in the face) so that you can hide in your smoke.
12. Stab him in the face (sneak attack).
13. Shout "Hey, look out behind you!" and roll a Bluff check to make him look over his shoulder.
14. Roll a Stealth check while the enemy looks behind him (ignoring the fact that you just stabbed him in the face) so that you can hide in your smoke.
15. Stab him in the face.
Etc.

This is your plan?

The world's dumbest enemy is going to keep looking over his shoulder while he keeps getting stabbed in the face, simply because he keeps forgetting that the entirely visible but dim/blurry enemy standing right in front of him in the smoke has been repeatedly stabbing him in the face?

This is your plan?

First, Stealth/Bluff doesn't work this way: "It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.". Stealth is rolled as part of a move action. The rule you quoted in your OP even indicates this: "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" Bluff can give you the diversion to use that move action to get to an unobserved place of some kind so that you can use Stealth, but you can't just stand there and bluff/stealth without moving.

Second, Feint is closer to what you want but it takes its own action so you still aren't going to full attack.

Third, even if you manage to ignore these rules and convince some GM in Bizzaro-World to buy this malarky, it's still incumbent on the GM to apply some common sense:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
pres man wrote:
True, but game rules should not be written to take into account the "common sense" of DMs.

Why not? The game assumes the GM can read, can use logic to determine whether or not a character is flanking, how much cover a table provides, monster tactics, and so on. Assuming the GM has common sense allows us to have a 576-page rulebook instead of a 1,200-page rulebook.

The game shouldn't have to explicitly spell out how fast you can dig with a shovel, how long you can use a shovel before you have to rest, how long you can use a shovel before it breaks, whether or not you can use a shovel as an improvised plate or lever, whether or not you can use a shovel to chip through a stone wall, whether or not you can use a shovel as a breathing device when you're hiding underwater in a swamp, and so on.

There is a HUGE amount of knowledge that the game assumes you know, because knowing that is common sense. For example, the descriptions of the races in the Core Rulebook don't say "humans need air to breathe, humans need food and water, humans need to pee and poop, humans contain blood, humans are alive, humans walk on two legs." You can infer some of those things with other parts of the rules (Suffocation, page 445; Starvation and Thirst, page 444; Injury and Death, page 189) but some of them aren't stated anywhere because it's common sense.

The game also gives GMs a set of tools for making decisions based on common sense. If a skill normally requires a set of tools, you can either have the appropriate tools (+0 bonus), masterwork tools (+2 bonus), improvised tools (-2 penalty), or no tools at all (unable to use the skill). The game doesn't define what "improvised tools" are, it assumes the GM is competent enough to make a ruling about whether or not a particular item is suitable as an improvised tool. Can you use a club as an improvised lockpick? Common sense says no. Can you use a dagger? Common sense says yes. Can you use a rope, hourglass, or iron pot? Common sense says no. Can you see a flask of oil, fishhook, and sewing needle? Common sense says yes.

So, yes, it's perfectly valid for the game rules to assume that the GM understands how the real world works and can make rulings based on that knowledge. Otherwise you're asking for a game book that has to spell out every single thing so that the most thick-witted person in the world never has to think at all when running or playing--at which point you're in a world where we need instructions for toothpicks, warnings on chainsaws that say "do not attempt to stop the chain with your hands," and instructions on peanut packages that say "open package and eat contents."

Are you really arguing that we shouldn't assume that the reader is a person of at least average intelligence with at least an average awareness of how the world works?

(Quoted from this thread.)


Yes, exactly!

But I would probably alternate my lies with things like, "Hey, look out behind you!", "Hey, isn't that Aroden?", "Hey, the sky is falling!", "Hey, your shoelace is untied!",and "Hey, is she naked?"

The thing is, you wouldn't really be telling lies, or saying anything at all, bluffing this way would be more like feinting, dipping to the left and stabbing from the right, but the mechanic this way is making an opposed skill check, rather than using an action and automatically faking your opponent out.

"It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging."

See, the problem I have with this statement, and it does seem to invalidate this whole process, is that if you follow it, you can't ever sneak up on someone and stab them even once. Once you make your attack, your stealth ends, if your stealth has ended, you don't get your sneak attack.


Mom and Dad Save the World. Pick Me Up Grenade. Send more men!


Wraithcannon wrote:

Yes, exactly!

But I would probably alternate my lies with things like, "Hey, look out behind you!", "Hey, isn't that Aroden?", "Hey, the sky is falling!", "Hey, your shoelace is untied!",and "Hey, is she naked?"

The thing is, you wouldn't really be telling lies, or saying anything at all, bluffing this way would be more like feinting, dipping to the left and stabbing from the right, but the mechanic this way is making an opposed skill check, rather than using an action and automatically faking your opponent out.

Remember, BLUFF does not grant any ability to sneak attack. STEALTH does.

Verbally distracting someone with a BLUFF check grants no sneak attack - you still need to use STEALTH to try a sneak attack.

There is a reason STEALTH is part of a move action - you need to hide. A little smoke or having fuzzy blurry edges does not make you invisible nor does it make you hidden. Dipping to the left and stabbing from the right does not make you harder to see - you are not hidden.

More importantly, the opponent is not "unable to defend himself effectively from your attack" (per the Sneak Attack rules).

You can BLUFF all day long but your opponent will still know you're there and know you're stabbing him in the face and will not drop his guard and allow you to keep stabbing him in the face unless you can ALSO HIDE FROM HIM so that he is no longer able to defend himself effectively from your attack.

That hiding requires moving to an unobserved location and attempting STEALTH.

This "dip to the left and stab from the right" thing that you're suggesting IS exactly what the FEINT rules are for.

Wraithcannon wrote:

"It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging."

See, the problem I have with this statement, and it does seem to invalidate this whole process, is that if you follow it, you can't ever sneak up on someone and stab them even once.

Read the STEALTH skill more closely:

Stealth Skill 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 an attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).

So there is no problem. If you have successfully used STEALTH this round or in previous rounds, you can move out of your cover or concealment and make ONE attack and your STEALTH ends immediately AFTER that attack.

Wraithcannon wrote:
Once you make your attack, your stealth ends, if your stealth has ended, you don't get your sneak attack.

I don't understand this statement. You use STEALTH, make one attack (sneak attack if you can), and then your STEALTH ends after that ONE attack.

That ONE attack is your sneak attack.. One attack roll, one damage roll including your sneak attack dice, and then your STEALTH ends.

I don't understand your confusion.


You can sneak attack with bluff through feinting as it denies the target their dexterity to AC.

Sczarni

Wraithcannon wrote:

Yes, Malag.

I'm under the impression that you can, RAW, use stealth and bluff in a cycle along with blur, fog, smoke, or some other effect that grants you concealment in your square to gain sneak attack damage on every strike during a full attack by making multiple successful opposed skill checks versus your opponent before every individual attack.

Feint is great, and can be used at any time, whether you have concealment from your opponent or not, but that limits you to a single strike per round, as it is always at least a move action.

By using your body language and fighting style to bluff, causing a distraction as no action, and then again using your concealment to stealth as no action, you effectively, continuously put your opponent off guard, causing them to misjudge the angle your attacks will be coming from, putting their weapons and/or shield out of position to block properly, and confusing them to the point where they are effectively flat footed to your attacks.

Imagine as an example trying to fight the Predator while he has his stealth field active....

There is honestly so many both RAW and RAI that are both wrong with this concept. Even if you could manage it, no sane GM would grant you more then two possible sneak attacks before rules start to collapse on both of your heads.

I can see some merit in what you are trying to accomplish, but it just wouldn't work properly. There are still other ways of landing a sneak attack and this entire concept is what feinting is about or just about very very similar to it.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Blurring, Stealthing, Bluffing, and Stabbing your way through life. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.