| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hi
I am hoping that ya'll can settle an argument on Blurred Movement (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/blurred-movement) and stealth.
Can you use Blurred Movement to stealth while being observed in bright light or normal light?
Can you use Blurred Movement to stealth from an open position (no cover or concealment) to another open position (no cover or concealment)
Thank you
The stealth rules in the CRB are an atrocious mess, so you're unlikely to get a solid consensus.
The most relevant part of the rules is this:
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.
It is very unclear whether finding cover or concealment negates the requirement to be unobserved when using stealth. However, consider the following possibility: a man moves to hide behind a solid wall of glass. He has total cover, but he is still completely observable. Would you allow this man to make a stealth check? I would argue that if you say no, then blur and the like is in a similar position: they don't prevent you from being observed, so do not allow stealth regardless of the concealment they grant. However, this is a complex issue and my logic is not watertight (I'm assuming cover and concealment would follow the same train of thought, for one). I don't think someone who ruled the opposite (say, by arguing that blur makes a target more difficult to observe) is necessarily wrong.
Mostly this all stems from how arbitrary the idea of 'observation' is and how poorly hide and move silently were integrated into the pathfinder ruleset for stealth (stealth was already a bit shakey in 3.5 to begin with).
Note that regardless of how you rule this, as soon as the blurred movement ends, your stealth ends. Thus, you could not use this to e.g. get sneak attack on a target.
In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. Some creatures, such as those with light sensitivity and light blindness, take penalties while in areas of bright light. A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover. Areas of bright light include outside in direct sunshine and inside the area of a daylight spell.
Normal light functions just like bright light, but characters with light sensitivity and light blindness do not take penalties. Areas of normal light include underneath a forest canopy during the day, within 20 feet of a torch, and inside the area of a light spell.
Yeah, I think it is pretty clear that Blurred Movement isn't enough to use Stealth.
When discussing Stealth, there are essentially two sides.
The one who believes that you can't use Stealth while being observed, and the one who believes that you can.
You are either on side Can't or Can depending on what you think the Stealth skill is actually doing.
*****
Suppose a police officer is walking along an empty street in the middle of the night. The light from the street lamps negates some of the darkness, and we assume that everything on the street is in Dim light.
The police officer (Charles, let's call him Charles) sees a man 50 ft away with a striped outfit, black mask, and a big sack with a dollar sign on his back in the middle of the street. Startled, both of them are at a loss at what to do.
Charles starts to bring out his baton and yells for the thief to stop where he is. But the thief now uses Stealth.
The thief is still standing in plain view, in the middle of the street, but as he has 20% concealment from the Dim light he can attempt to Stealth according to the rules.
If you think Charles should just have to walk up to the thief and cuff him, then you are at side Can't. If you think that the thief has become invisible to Charles as long as Charles doesn't beat the thief's Stealth check, then you belong on side Can.
*****
There are also those who think that the Stealth skill is used to give yourself a condition which makes it impossible for enemies to pinpoint your location even when they are staring right at you, but I feel as if this belief is in clear contradiction to the description and paragraphs of the Stealth skill.
I.E. "He can see me, but he can't see what I'm doing so therefore I get 50% concealment against him."
The thief is still standing in plain view, in the middle of the street, but as he has 20% concealment from the Dim light he can attempt to Stealth according to the rules.
If he was in plain view, there would not be a 20% miss chance.
In pathfinder, "observed" is not defined. Even worse, there is no separate Spot and Listen skills. This makes it even more complicated because concealment has no in game affect on sound. Therefore, all combatants are passively observed via hearing through use of the perception skill.
In my opinion, cover or concealment allow for stealth attempts. If cover or concealment ends, so does the stealth. So in answer to the OP, both questions are yes, he can "stealth". However, if he does so with no other source of cover or concealment (or some other way) than the character does not end the turn in stealth so there is very limited gain.
In my opinion, cover or concealment allow for stealth attempts. If cover or concealment ends, so does the stealth. So in answer to the OP, both questions are yes, he can "stealth". However, if he does so with no other source of cover or concealment (or some other way) than the character does not end the turn in stealth so there is very limited gain.
No no no. Regardless on your view of the Stealth skill, all that is overruled by the Vision and Light rules.
In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. Some creatures, such as those with light sensitivity and light blindness, take penalties while in areas of bright light. A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover. Areas of bright light include outside in direct sunshine and inside the area of a daylight spell.
Normal light functions just like bright light, but characters with light sensitivity and light blindness do not take penalties. Areas of normal light include underneath a forest canopy during the day, within 20 feet of a torch, and inside the area of a light spell.
You can't use Stealth in normal or bright light unless you are invisible or have cover. This can't be made any clearer.
No no no. Regardless on your view of the Stealth skill, all that is overruled by the Vision and Light rules.
Stealth rules would overrule the vision and light rules... since it's the section of the rules that is more focus on stealth and thus has priority. You could for example, use stealth in a bright environment if there was an obscuring mist spell, since the stealth uses say you can use concealment to allow yourself to use stealth.
The one who believes that you can't use Stealth while being observed, and the one who believes that you can.
I would just like to say that is horribly misrepresenting the sides, it should be "The one who believes that you can't use Stealth while not behind cover or affected by concealment, and the one who believes that you can hide whenever not observed, with cover and concealment being examples of how you can make yourself unobserved against most creatures in most situations."
No no no. Regardless on your view of the Stealth skill, all that is overruled by the Vision and Light rules.Stealth rules would overrule the vision and light rules... since it's the section of the rules that is more focus on stealth and thus has priority. You could for example, use stealth in a bright environment if there was an obscuring mist spell, since the stealth uses say you can use concealment to allow yourself to use stealth.
Specific trumps general rules.
Again, I don't know how the sentence in the VaL rules can be written any clearer than it is. There is no room for ambiguity.
And your example is false. If someone cast Obscuring mist in a bright environment, it stops being a bright environment in that area. It is stated in the spell description that enemies can't locate you with sight when you are within the fog. It would be closer to an area of darkness.
The one who believes that you can't use Stealth while being observed, and the one who believes that you can.I would just like to say that is horribly misrepresenting the sides, it should be "The one who believes that you can't use Stealth while not behind cover or affected by concealment, and the one who believes that you can hide whenever not observed, with cover and concealment being examples of how you can make yourself unobserved against most creatures in most situations."
That's rather interesting. This is not the differing opinion I have met.
I've felt as if the core of the problem is whether or not "Being Unobserved" is a requirement in addition to Concealment/Cover.Some believe that the Stealth skill is used to continue your state of unobservance (enemies being unaware of you), and some believe that the Stealth skill is used to start your state of unobservance.
Specific trumps general rules.
1. That's... not really the specific area of rules, since it's talking about something that is constant.
2. It's obvious it's an oversight.And your example is false. If someone cast Obscuring mist in a bright environment, it stops being a bright environment in that area. It is stated in the spell description that enemies can't locate you with sight when you are within the fog. It would be closer to an area of darkness.
Obscuring mist does not alter the light of the environment, you just cannot see past 5 feet. And in that 5 ft. that you can see, individuals have concealment Regardless of light levels. Which would allow you to stealth.
In my opinion, cover or concealment allow for stealth attempts. If cover or concealment ends, so does the stealth. So in answer to the OP, both questions are yes, he can "stealth". However, if he does so with no other source of cover or concealment (or some other way) than the character does not end the turn in stealth so there is very limited gain.No no no. Regardless on your view of the Stealth skill, all that is overruled by the Vision and Light rules.
You can't use Stealth in normal or bright light unless you are invisible or have cover. This can't be made any clearer.In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. Some creatures, such as those with light sensitivity and light blindness, take penalties while in areas of bright light. A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover. Areas of bright light include outside in direct sunshine and inside the area of a daylight spell.
Normal light functions just like bright light, but characters with light sensitivity and light blindness do not take penalties. Areas of normal light include underneath a forest canopy during the day, within 20 feet of a torch, and inside the area of a light spell.
While you are correct that stealth cannot be used in normal light unless certain conditions are met, it is clear that the two examples in vision and light are not the only two. There are many, many ways you can use stealth in normal light.
The stealth skill specifically list concealment as one of those conditions.
A creature can't hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover.
So, according to your interpretation, it would be almost 100% impossible to use Stealth on a creature with Darkvision. Yet we know that is not the case. Fog Cloud easily enables someone to use Stealth, in normal light and against creatures with Darkvision.
One can also Stealth in the undergrowth of a forest.
Because any square with undergrowth provides concealment, it’s usually easy for a creature to use the Stealth skill in the forest.
Make no mistake, concealment provides the qualifiers to enable a character to Stealth.
This game is IMMENSELY complex. So many rules require a full view of parts written throughout the entire CRB. Even worse, many parts directly conflict. Just look at the jump section of Acrobatics. In the same paragraph it states that the jump DC is the distance of the span to be cleared AND it states that the result is the distance jumped. Those two things are different. I believe it has been cleared up in a FAQ, but there are disparities like this throughout the game.
No no no. Regardless on your view of the Stealth skill, all that is overruled by the Vision and Light rules.Stealth rules would overrule the vision and light rules... since it's the section of the rules that is more focus on stealth and thus has priority. You could for example, use stealth in a bright environment if there was an obscuring mist spell, since the stealth uses say you can use concealment to allow yourself to use stealth.Specific trumps general rules.
Again, I don't know how the sentence in the VaL rules can be written any clearer than it is. There is no room for ambiguity.
And your example is false. If someone cast Obscuring mist in a bright environment, it stops being a bright environment in that area. It is stated in the spell description that enemies can't locate you with sight when you are within the fog. It would be closer to an area of darkness.
The one who believes that you can't use Stealth while being observed, and the one who believes that you can.I would just like to say that is horribly misrepresenting the sides, it should be "The one who believes that you can't use Stealth while not behind cover or affected by concealment, and the one who believes that you can hide whenever not observed, with cover and concealment being examples of how you can make yourself unobserved against most creatures in most situations."That's rather interesting. This is not the differing opinion I have met.
I've felt as if the core of the problem is whether or not "Being Unobserved" is a requirement in addition to Concealment/Cover.Some believe that the Stealth skill is used to continue your state of unobservance (enemies being unaware of you), and some believe that the Stealth skill is used to start your state of unobservance.
What makes you think that Vision and Light is Specific and Stealth is General?
And then which is more specific when you add a spell (Blurring Movement) and a the Concealment status?
Also there is this:
Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.
Again, I don't know how the sentence in the CONCEALMENT* rules can be written any clearer than it is. There is no room for ambiguity.
*Changed one word.
@Milo v3
Specific trumps general rules.1. That's... not really the specific area of rules, since it's talking about something that is constant.
2. It's obvious it's an oversight.
I would say this is a pretty specific set of rules only in effect at specific types of lightning conditions.
And how in any way is it obvious that it's an oversight? You are simply disregarding this rule because you don't agree with it.
And your example is false. If someone cast Obscuring mist in a bright environment, it stops being a bright environment in that area. It is stated in the spell description that enemies can't locate you with sight when you are within the fog. It would be closer to an area of darkness.Obscuring mist does not alter the light of the environment, you just cannot see past 5 feet. And in that 5 ft. that you can see, individuals have concealment Regardless of light levels. Which would allow you to stealth.
Yeah, I'm not going to argue about Obscuring Mist. You must realize that this example isn't fair since it completely changes the variables of Bright light of which we are talking about.
*****
@Komoda
Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.
A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover.
Actually, even if it is rather easy to see that VaL is the specific rule, I don't even need to point that out. These two rules don't contradict eachother.
It doesn't matter if you can use concealment to make a Stealth Check if you can't use Stealth.
*****
A creature can't hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover.
So, according to your interpretation, it would be almost 100% impossible to use Stealth on a creature with Darkvision. Yet we know that is not the case. Fog Cloud easily enables someone to use Stealth, in normal light and against creatures with Darkvision.
Really, you are referring to a spell which by its description mentions that you can't be located by sight within it. To bring up spells which makes you "invisible" will not in any way disprove anything I have said, you are simply showing me examples of Specific over General.
For christ's sake, the description of the spell even states that it negates Darkvision.
And how in any way is it obvious that it's an oversight? You are simply disregarding this rule because you don't agree with it.
It's obvious it's an oversight because it contradicts Every other part of the stealth rules which specifically say that concealment Does allow you to use stealth.
@Milo v3
Specific trumps general rules.1. That's... not really the specific area of rules, since it's talking about something that is constant.
2. It's obvious it's an oversight.I would say this is a pretty specific set of rules only in effect at specific types of lightning conditions.
And how in any way is it obvious that it's an oversight? You are simply disregarding this rule because you don't agree with it.
And your example is false. If someone cast Obscuring mist in a bright environment, it stops being a bright environment in that area. It is stated in the spell description that enemies can't locate you with sight when you are within the fog. It would be closer to an area of darkness.Obscuring mist does not alter the light of the environment, you just cannot see past 5 feet. And in that 5 ft. that you can see, individuals have concealment Regardless of light levels. Which would allow you to stealth.Yeah, I'm not going to argue about Obscuring Mist. You must realize that this example isn't fair since it completely changes the variables of Bright light of which we are talking about.
*****
@Komoda
Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover.Actually, even if it is rather easy to see that VaL is the specific rule, I don't even need to point that out. These two rules don't contradict eachother.
It doesn't matter if you can use concealment to make a Stealth Check if you can't use Stealth.
*****
A creature can't hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover.So, according to your interpretation, it would be almost 100% impossible to use Stealth on a...
I am not sure I understand your argument. I thought it was that concealment didn't allow for a Stealth check. But then when shown that was not the case you say it doesn't matter because the Stealth check isn't allowed?
My whole point is that I believe, and have backed up why, that concealment is enough to make a character "unobserved" and therefore the character is allowed to Stealth.
I thought that you were saying that in no way does concealment allow one to make a Stealth check.
I may be mistaken, but is your position now that it does not make the character "unobserved" and therefore a Stealth check cannot be made? If so, why is this not the same for cover, which is described exactly the same way in regards to stealth in the Forest Rules, the Combat Rules and the Stealth Skill sections of the Core Rule Book?
@Milo v3
And how in any way is it obvious that it's an oversight? You are simply disregarding this rule because you don't agree with it.It's obvious it's an oversight because it contradicts Every other part of the stealth rules which specifically say that concealment Does allow you to use stealth.
Rules aren't meant to contradict eachother, they are meant to overlap or be exceptions.
You can use concealment to make a Stealth check.
You can use this ski-pass to ride on our ski lift.
"Oh, great! So I can use Stealth whenever I have concealment, then?"
A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover.
You can only use the ski lifts between 09:00-18:00, unless you have permission from a ski teacher or it is an evening ski day.
"But you just said I can use Stealth whenever I have concealment!"
Your problem is that you view the first as an absolute, while you should treat it as a rule. And rules comes with exceptions.
You can use concealment to make a Stealth check unless you are in an area of bright/normal light in which you would need to be invisible or have cover.
You can use this ski-pass to ride on our ski lift unless it is after 18:00, for which you would need permission from a ski teacher or there being an evening ski day.
*****
@Komoda
I am not sure I understand your argument. I thought it was that concealment didn't allow for a Stealth check. But then when shown that was not the case you say it doesn't matter because the Stealth check isn't allowed?
My whole point is that I believe, and have backed up why, that concealment is enough to make a character "unobserved" and therefore the character is allowed to Stealth.
To be fair, I don't feel as if you have backed anything up. You tried to disprove a rule by changing almost all variables to better suit your view. Using spells such as Fog Cloud and Obscuring Mist to disprove the VaL rules will not work since you actually change the vision state while doing so.
Fog cloud does not simply give you concealment. In most of the cases it completely blinds everyone in it. It is making people effectively invisible since you can't be located by sight. Which would make it one of the exceptions of the VaL rules.
*****
I thought that you were saying that in no way does concealment allow one to make a Stealth check.I may be mistaken, but is your position now that it does not make the character "unobserved" and therefore a Stealth check cannot be made? If so, why is this not the same for cover, which is described exactly the same way in regards to stealth in the Forest Rules, the Combat Rules and the Stealth Skill sections of the Core Rule Book?
I am trying to say that, yes, concealment allow one to make a Stealth check. Unless...
As for my position, you are correct in thinking I don't believe all concealment would make you "unobserved", and I also believe "being unobserved" is an addition to the general rule that "you can use concealment to make a Stealth check".
And I do believe it is the same for cover. If someone is staring at you while you try to hide behind a trashcan (cover), then you will fail. That person is still aware of you.
*****
In regards to OP's question, I have presented a VaL rule which specifically addresses his problem, and answers it.
You both disregard this VaL rule since you believe another rule is absolute.
Seriously, I'm having a hard time understanding how you completely disregard the concept of "exceptions" for this specific rule.
What makes the concealment rule special? Why would you believe it is true for all situations?
I personally rule no to blur allowing stealth despite the strict reading of the stealth rules that would allow it.
Blur makes you fuzzy to see, but you're still clearly visibly if you have nothing else to hide behind.
It doesn't give you hide in plain sight, so you can't hide in your own shadow.
No one that I am aware of has a hard time understanding exceptions. My point is that it is almost impossible to prove which is the norm and which is the exception. It can almost never be proven.
I believe the above quoted parts from the Stealth Skill, the Combat Section on Concealment, and the Environment rules concerning Forests are the exception to Vision and Light.
I don't offer them as proof as proof is absolute. I offer them as evidence of support.
You appear to believe that the Vision and Light rules are the exception to Stealth, Concealment in general, and Forests.
I get your point. I just disagree. It happens a lot on these boards. Many people see it your way, and many see it my way. I took the effort to show you why I take my position without attacking you or claiming mine is absolute.
And I agree, the rules are not supposed to contradict, but they do. Anyone that has been on these forums long enough is very clear on that. It is one reason why there are so many FAQs and different versions of the CRB. It is much better now than it used to be.
I get your point. I just disagree. It happens a lot on these boards. Many people see it your way, and many see it my way. I took the effort to show you why I take my position without attacking you or claiming mine is absolute.
I appreciate that. But my problem is that I can't understand your position. I'm reading what you're writing, but it simply does not make sense to me.
From your answers to OP's question, I assume you believe that someone who had 20% concealment (such as from the Warpriest Darkness blessing) could hide in the middle of a football arena in daylight.
What would this even look like?
...And why forests?
You appear to believe that the Vision and Light rules are the exception to Stealth, Concealment in general, and Forests.
Please, Komoda. I firmly believe that you hold that point of view since it makes sense to you. If you don't clearly explain to me how someone could use Stealth in a scenario such as this, then I don't think I can ever understand you or those who share your opinion.
Hi
I am hoping that ya'll can settle an argument on Blurred Movement (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/blurred-movement) and stealth.
Can you use Blurred Movement to stealth while being observed in bright light or normal light?
Can you use Blurred Movement to stealth from an open position (no cover or concealment) to another open position (no cover or concealment)
Thank you
Thank you all for your help and insight.
I try to take a large view of the rules of the game when applied to in-game tactical advantages.
Stealth is not always equal to completely hidden where no one has any idea where you are. If you watch someone duck behind a wagon, you know they are behind the wagon. But then what? Do they appear from the front, the back, above, underneath, or even THROUGH the wagon?
That is what I believe the stealth rules represent. It is why concealment and cover allow someone the chance to stealth. At any point the "hiding" character could pop out and catch you off guard. And your character has the ability to nullify it through the Perception skill. Yes, you know they are there, but you still don't know where they are going to attack you from. Heck, they might even scurry away while you are waiting for them to pop out.
So yes, someone in a shadow in the middle of the football field would have a chance to hide. We are not talking about it being automatic or that everyone can do it. We are talking about turning the right way, wearing the right clothes, using shadows and light glares correctly, and things of that nature having a chance to throw you off. Sure, you can know that the person didn't just vanish and you can still drop a fireball on top of them. You just couldn't hit them with a magic missile and you might be surprised that the arrow came from that space.
You also have to understand that in a world where people can teleport, dimension door, turn invisible, or turn to gas, your brain would absolutely comprehend that the person might have just vanished, which is of course impossible here on Earth. The fact that it is even a possibility someone could do that would actually make it easier for them to hide from you because nothing in your head is saying "there is NO WAY he disappeared".
From a strict reading of not being able to hide while observed, if you watched a person walk into a building then they could not ever hide in that building because you watched them walk in there. So now they have cover, which is EXACTLY the same game mechanic as if they walked behind a wagon.
As to forests, as I showed above, there is a rules line that says that you can hide in the underbrush in forests because there is concealment. There are rules throughout the CRB that state concealment can be used to stealth, which I quoted above.
And remember, I never said you had to agree with me. I just think you need to relax a little bit on your assertions that the way you see/read a rule on the only valid interpretations. This game has opened itself up to many different views due to its inconsistent application of logic a few times as well as official changes to FAQs and rules.
But it is still an awesome game that I love to play and discuss/debate.
I try to take a large view of the rules of the game when applied to in-game tactical advantages.
Stealth is not always equal to completely hidden where no one has any idea where you are. If you watch someone duck behind a wagon, you know they are behind the wagon. But then what? Do they appear from the front, the back, above, underneath, or even THROUGH the wagon?
That is what I believe the stealth rules represent. It is why concealment and cover allow someone the chance to stealth. At any point the "hiding" character could pop out and catch you off guard. And your character has the ability to nullify it through the Perception skill. Yes, you know they are there, but you still don't know where they are going to attack you from. Heck, they might even scurry away while you are waiting for them to pop out.
This is a view I have encountered before. The reason I don't share it is because the first paragraph of the Stealth skill.
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.
This means that if enemies are aware of you, then you haven't succeeded with using Stealth at all.
The Sniping paragraph also proves this view wrong.
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.
Note that it mentions your location. If you fail the Sniping check then your enemies would instantly know your location, your square. When they know where to look then they would notice you if you don't have a way to break LoS.
Someone previously countered this argument by saying that there are many cases where someone knows your location, but can't see you.
He brought up Greater Invisibility.
I hope you can see that his example isn't a valid argument in a discussion about Stealth.
*****
So yes, someone in a shadow in the middle of the football field would have a chance to hide. We are not talking about it being automatic or that everyone can do it. We are talking about turning the right way, wearing the right clothes, using shadows and light glares correctly, and things of that nature having a chance to throw you off. Sure, you can know that the person didn't just vanish and you can still drop a fireball on top of them. You just couldn't hit them with a magic missile and you might be surprised that the arrow came from that space.
The problem with your answer is that you have changed the variables again. My question didn't have a person in a shadow. (S)He is the shadow. If this person was in a shadow, then (s)he would be in Dim light. My question dealt with a shrouded person in the middle of an empty field in bright light. If you change the origin of concealment to Dim light, then it isn't in conflict with the VaL rules.
I would very much like it if you could provide me with an answer which doesn't change the variables.
*****
You also have to understand that in a world where people can teleport, dimension door, turn invisible, or turn to gas, your brain would absolutely comprehend that the person might have just vanished, which is of course impossible here on Earth. The fact that it is even a possibility someone could do that would actually make it easier for them to hide from you because nothing in your head is saying "there is NO WAY he disappeared".
Good point, I agree. This is certainly true for those who often deal with casters great enough to cast spells such as Dimension Door. But I would rather think that the majority of the world's inhabitants doesn't regularly deal with lv 7 casters.
*****
From a strict reading of not being able to hide while observed, if you watched a person walk into a building then they could not ever hide in that building because you watched them walk in there. So now they have cover, which is EXACTLY the same game mechanic as if they walked behind a wagon.
There is a great different between cover and total cover. Total cover, such as walking into a building and turning around a corner, would break LoS and observance.
Normal cover will still allow your enemies to see you, since it doesn't cover your whole body. That's why you need to use Stealth to avoid a caster targeting you with Magic Missile behind the wagon, but not inside the house.*****
As to forests, as I showed above, there is a rules line that says that you can hide in the underbrush in forests because there is concealment. There are rules throughout the CRB that state concealment can be used to stealth, which I quoted above.
Because any square with undergrowth provides concealment, it’s usually easy for a creature to use the Stealth skill in the forest.
Yeah, I found it now. But this sentence is "neutral". Nothing here says that you can always Stealth just because there is concealment everywhere. They even mention that it is "usually" easy to use Stealth, which would mean that there are many cases where you can't use Stealth simply because you are in the concealment of the undergrowth. If I want to overanalyze, I would say that the wording with "usually" actually contradicts your view that Concealment will always be enough.
*****
And remember, I never said you had to agree with me. I just think you need to relax a little bit on your assertions that the way you see/read a rule on the only valid interpretations. This game has opened itself up to many different views due to its inconsistent application of logic a few times as well as official changes to FAQs and rules.
Very true. I just find it hard to not say anything when there are (according to me) people who are not only wrong, but also convinces people to accept their wrong view.
*****
Through your response, I now know where we differ in our views.
I believe that the Stealth skill is used to hide, to avoid your enemies' awareness.
You believe that the Stealth skill is used to simply become unseen. (correct?)
The game, doesn't care what the variable that causes concealment is. Concealment is what allows the stealth check. It doesn't matter if it is Dim Light, Fog, Snow, Rain, Underbrush, Hail, or any other of the options available in the game.
The line in Stealth is a generalization of situations stemming from hiding before combat. It is not all inclusive. Someone with HiPS that disappears right in front of you absolutely meets the version of Stealth that I mentioned above. It is not like you just forgot that they were ever there.
Sniping is a subset of stealth and is not equal to the normal stealth rules. It is the specific the greatly overrides the general, hence the -20 to the check.
The game, doesn't care what the variable that causes concealment is. Concealment is what allows the stealth check. It doesn't matter if it is Dim Light, Fog, Snow, Rain, Underbrush, Hail, or any other of the options available in the game.
The problem with your answer is that you changed the variables since you couldn't come up with an answer to my scenario. You are defending a viewpoint which you can't apply to real-life situations.
*****
The line in Stealth is a generalization of situations stemming from hiding before combat. It is not all inclusive. Someone with HiPS that disappears right in front of you absolutely meets the version of Stealth that I mentioned above. It is not like you just forgot that they were ever there.
No, but you can't see where the person with HiPS went. HiPS is a EX/SU ability which makes enemies lose track of you.
If someone (without HiPS) tried to use Stealth by running behind a wagon (cover) then you would be aware of them trying to hide there, and you would even be able to see part of them sticking out, since normal cover doesn't break LoS.
*****
Sniping is a subset of stealth and is not equal to the normal stealth rules. It is the specific the greatly overrides the general, hence the -20 to the check.
Sniping isn't a subset to the normal stealth rules. It is the normal stealth rules.
There are four paragraphs in the Stealth skill. I have already explained why two of them disproves your view, but let's go through all of them.
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.
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).
Enemies can't be aware of you if you have used Stealth. If they are, then your Stealth has been broken.
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.
Self-explanatory. You can't Stealth while people are aware of you.
Large bodies that break your opponent's line of sight can sometimes be just as useful as darkness for hiding your position(1).
Special: Normally the soft cover provided by other creatures is not sufficient to allow you to attempt a Stealth check. Soft cover provided by creatures at least one size category larger than you does allow you to attempt Stealth checks against other creatures not already aware of your presence at a –10 penalty(2). If the creature providing the cover knows which square you occupy and is trying to avoid concealing you, this penalty increases to –20.
You can also hide from a creature by staying under its own body if it is at least two size categories larger than you and you are in its space. Such attempts also take a –10 penalty, which increases to a –20 penalty if the creature is aware you are in the area(3). If the creature moves away from you, you are automatically revealed, unless you have readied an action to move with it.
1. The objective is to hide your position.
2. Can't use Stealth against creatures that are aware of you.3. Can't use Stealth against creatures that are aware of you. A penalty if the creature knows you are somewhere close, but hasn't noticed you.
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.
The objective is to hide your position. If they know your position, your square, then your Stealth has failed.
*****
All paragraphs in the Stealth skill are in conflict with your belief. Do you claim that all of them are subsets/generalizations when they are what make up the Stealth skill?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Define aware.
2. Soft cover is not the same as cover.
3. Creatures ordinarily do not provide cover from themselves, so that you can hide under a particularly large creature's bulk is irrelevant to the ordinary functioning of Stealth.
Stealth is allowed, by rule, if you are in an area of concealment or cover. The argument is that you are therefore not "being observed" if you are in an area of cover or concealment.
Someone can run and hide behind a wagon and use Stealth. That is explicitly what the rule allows. That they can use Stealth doesn't mean you don't know where they are. Walk around the wagon so they no longer have cover relative to your position and they're no longer "stealthed" (so to speak).
This debate has raged for a long time. Without explicit developer commentary, it will not be resolved.
1. Define aware.
2. Soft cover is not the same as cover.
3. Creatures ordinarily do not provide cover from themselves, so that you can hide under a particularly large creature's bulk is irrelevant to the ordinary functioning of Stealth.Stealth is allowed, by rule, if you are in an area of concealment or cover. The argument is that you are therefore not "being observed" if you are in an area of cover or concealment.
Someone can run and hide behind a wagon and use Stealth. That is explicitly what the rule allows. That they can use Stealth doesn't mean you don't know where they are. Walk around the wagon so they no longer have cover relative to your position and they're no longer "stealthed" (so to speak).
This debate has raged for a long time. Without explicit developer commentary, it will not be resolved.
To take it one step further, IMO blur is like the wagon, except it doesn't block any line of sight or anything. So you're left with a situation where in an open field despite being blurry everyone should know you general location just find. They might have a little trouble hitting the bit that is actually you, but assuming you don't have anything else to hide behind you're not hiding from anyone.
But as you say, a strict reading of rules blur allows for stealth. It just doesn't make sense from a perspective of what the spell actually does (makes you blurry and difficult to hit which functions mechanically like concealment so they use that phrase without explaining all over again how it works). And so without developer intervention there is a 100% correct answer, only two answer that can both be reasonable arrived at.
1. Define aware.
2. Soft cover is not the same as cover.
3. Creatures ordinarily do not provide cover from themselves, so that you can hide under a particularly large creature's bulk is irrelevant to the ordinary functioning of Stealth.
1) Aware
adjective1. having knowledge; conscious; cognizant:
aware of danger.
2. informed; alert; knowledgeable; sophisticated:
She is one of the most politically aware young women around.
-Do you see that rogue staring at us?
-Yeah, I'm aware of her.
2) Yes? I'm sorry but I don't follow.
3) The paragraph is relevant because it mentions that you can't use Stealth against creatures which are aware of you.
"Soft cover provided by creatures at least one size category larger than you does allow you to attempt Stealth checks against other creatures not already aware of your presence at a –10 penalty."
I didn't mean to highlight the whole sentence, it just felt odd to only highlight a part of it.
*****
Stealth is allowed, by rule, if you are in an area of concealment or cover. The argument is that you are therefore not "being observed" if you are in an area of cover or concealment.
Someone can run and hide behind a wagon and use Stealth. That is explicitly what the rule allows. That they can use Stealth doesn't mean you don't know where they are. Walk around the wagon so they no longer have cover relative to your position and they're no longer "stealthed" (so to speak).
Real-life examples won't convince you to alter your view of the rules, since this discussion hasn't ever been about what's logical, right?
It's about what's right according to the rules.And the rules state that you can't use Stealth in Bright/Normal light conditions without cover or being invisible.
In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. Some creatures, such as those with light sensitivity and light blindness, take penalties while in areas of bright light. A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover. Areas of bright light include outside in direct sunshine and inside the area of a daylight spell.
Normal light functions just like bright light, but characters with light sensitivity and light blindness do not take penalties. Areas of normal light include underneath a forest canopy during the day, within 20 feet of a torch, and inside the area of a light spell.
This is according to the rules.
Do you, fretgod99, agree that someone with 20% concealment from Blurred Movement can't use Stealth in Normal/Bright light?
Or do you, as others have done, chose which rules you will and won't follow?
You said Stealth can't be used if creatures are aware of you. Awareness isn't limited to vision. But every discussion boils down to vision. Also, I can be aware of an invisible creature in the room, but nobody is going to say that creature can't use Stealth. The point is that "awareness" is a nebulous and unhelpful concept in this discussion.
The rules say you can use Stealth if you're behind cover. So yes, running behind a wagon allows you to use Stealth.
You used large creatures providing soft cover as a justification that awareness vitiates cover's ability to allow for Stealth. Soft cover does not necessarily provide the same benefits as cover. No conclusions regarding the ordinary use of Stealth can be derived from rules regarding large creatures and soft cover, particularly not in this fashion.
Hiding in a very large creatures space is a special rule aside from ordinary cover situations. Creatures do not ordinary provide cover from themselves, because there is no facing in PF. So a particular rule applying to this unique situation doesn't do much to illuminate how Stealth rules ordinarily work.
I wasn't addressing the Blurred Movement issue. I was addressing the larger, more general Stealth issue. The vision language should likely cover this.
You said Stealth can't be used if creatures are aware of you. Awareness isn't limited to vision. But every discussion boils down to vision. Also, I can be aware of an invisible creature in the room, but nobody is going to say that creature can't use Stealth. The point is that "awareness" is a nebulous and unhelpful concept in this discussion.
As long as the invisible creature isn't
A) Talking
B) Walking
C) Whispering
then there is no Perception check to be made to check if anyone is aware of it, and that creature may use Stealth.
In the same way, they will lose their awareness of the creature the moment it stops talking/walking/whispering, since it stops providing them with stimuli.
*****
You used large creatures providing soft cover as a justification that awareness vitiates cover's ability to allow for Stealth. Soft cover does not necessarily provide the same benefits as cover. No conclusions regarding the ordinary use of Stealth can be derived from rules regarding large creatures and soft cover, particularly not in this fashion.
Hiding in a very large creatures space is a special rule aside from ordinary cover situations. Creatures do not ordinary provide cover from themselves, because there is no facing in PF. So a particular rule applying to this unique situation doesn't do much to illuminate how Stealth rules ordinarily work.
The important part of the "Hide Behind Other Creatures" paragraph is that nowhere does it state that you can use Stealth while creatures are aware of your position. But I see your point, to which I change my previous statement to
"None of the four paragraphs of the Stealth Skill proves or supports the idea that you can use Stealth while the target creatures are aware of you. Most of them plainly disprove this view, while the last one is too specific to be used as proof."
I wasn't addressing the Blurred Movement issue. I was addressing the larger, more general Stealth issue. The vision language should likely cover this.
Thank you. Any longer and I might have really gone over the edge.
You said Stealth can't be used if creatures are aware of you. Awareness isn't limited to vision. But every discussion boils down to vision. Also, I can be aware of an invisible creature in the room, but nobody is going to say that creature can't use Stealth. The point is that "awareness" is a nebulous and unhelpful concept in this discussion.As long as the invisible creature isn't
A) Talking
B) Walking
C) Whisperingthen there is no Perception check to be made to check if anyone is aware of it, and that creature may use Stealth.
In the same way, they will lose their awareness of the creature the moment it stops talking/walking/whispering, since it stops providing them with stimuli.
Really? You really think that when the Ninja stabs you with a sword, then vanishes you are now unaware that the Ninja is there?
You are gonna die real fast! It is like a kid the plays peek-a-boo and thinks you can't see him when he covers his eyes.
"Its all clear guys, that Ninja that just tried to kill me vanished, so there is no way he is still around trying to kill me."
Ah, no. I mean that they lose the awareness of the creature, but they still have the awareness that "something" was (probably is) around them.
They know the ninja is there somewhere, but they aren't aware of the ninja.
Slight difference.
What? You cannot attack something you are not aware of. And by attack, I mean anything like cone of cold. If truly unaware, there would be no reason to blast that area.
But one would absolutely be aware. They would just not be able to pinpoint where. So in that case a cone of cold, or fireball, or breath weapon, or cloudkill spell might be very useful.
That is the problem with using "unaware" as a game term with all forms of stealth. There are clearly times you are aware they are there even if they are successfully stealthed.
What? You cannot attack something you are not aware of. And by attack, I mean anything like cone of cold. If truly unaware, there would be no reason to blast that area.
Are you implying that you can't attack enemies which have used Stealth?
/../Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment. /../
Then you are correct. But you can attack an area in which you belive there to be someone.
You aren't ever aware of someone who has used Stealth, but you can assume that the creature is somewhere close by if you know it used Stealth. The problem is that we have to make a distinction between being "aware of someone" and the general use of aware as "having knowledge of some sort".
That is the problem with using "unaware" as a game term with all forms of stealth. There are clearly times you are aware they are there even if they are successfully stealthed.
If you do something that results in enemies becoming aware of you, then you have made some mistake. Like knocking over a glass while using Stealth in a bar. Name one time where someone is aware of you while you have successfully used Stealth.
Invisibility does not allow you to use Stealth while someone is aware of you. If you are speaking while invisible then the DC to notice you is 0 (+modifiers). (Taken from the Special Abilities; Invisibility; DC modifiers). You can try to use Stealth while invisible and talking, but you will most certainly fail. But the moment you stand still and stop talking, the DC to notice you will rise to 40. And that is why it is so easy to Stealth with Invisibility.
*****
Shall we try to summarize a little?
Hi
I am hoping that ya'll can settle an argument on Blurred Movement (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/blurred-movement) and stealth.
Thank you
Can you use Blurred Movement to stealth while being observed in bright light or normal light?
We can agree to the first question. The vision and light rules are very clear on that subject.
In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. Some creatures, such as those with light sensitivity and light blindness, take penalties while in areas of bright light. A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover. Areas of bright light include outside in direct sunshine and inside the area of a daylight spell.
Normal light functions just like bright light, but characters with light sensitivity and light blindness do not take penalties. Areas of normal light include underneath a forest canopy during the day, within 20 feet of a torch, and inside the area of a light spell.
(Hopefully this is the last time I'll have to quote VaL for a long time)
No, you can't use Blurred Movement to stealth while being observed in bright light or normal light.
Can you use Blurred Movement to stealth from an open position (no cover or concealment) to another open position (no cover or concealment)
As for the second question, I have to say YES and NO, but Blurred Movement wouldn't be of any use.
This spell functions as blur, except that the blurring occurs only when you move at least 10 feet on your turn and ceases at the end of your movement. It is therefore mainly used to protect against attacks on your turn, such as attacks of opportunity. If you move at least twice your speed on your turn, the blurring lasts until the start of your next turn.
I believe someone already mentioned this, but you lose your concealment from Blurred Movement when you stop moving. This would mean you break Stealth when you stop moving. But if you double-move then your concealment will last until the start of your next turn, which would allow you to use Stealth for this duration.
So this would normally allow someone to use Stealth, if concealment is the only requirement.
The twist arises when we take into account that you must be in Dim light/Darkness to use Stealth. Since Dim light/Darkness already provides concealment, there is no reason to use Blurred Movement for Stealth. So, to be technical, it is not the concealment from Blurred Movement which allows you to use Stealth, but the concealment from Dim light/Darkness.
TL;DR
No to both questions.
*****
I have answered both questions without delving into the "being observed" part of the Stealth skill since that isn't relevant to OP's questions.
I think we strayed too far from the original intent of this thread with our discussions, so I propose we end this thread if everyone (or the majority) agrees that the VaL rules prevents the first scenario from happening, while the same rules makes Blurred Movement obsolete for any attempt to use Stealth.