I knew that the rules governing Stealth was wonky. But I thought I could iron out the worst parts, interpret the rules and make a few house rules. That I would wind up with something that worked for the most common uses of Stealth. Sure I expected problems to persist, but that they would be borderline cases, uncommon enough for me to hand-waive when the came up at the table. But nooo... Stealth is a complete pile of smelly garbage and I can't wrap my head around anything about it.
So I'll try and boil down my problems to a few questions illustrated with an illustrated example (thanks to Jon Roberts beautiful dungeon tile set).
Unfortunately the messageboards don't seem to allow the [img] tag, so a link will have to suffice.
This is a dungeon room. In the top-right is a floor-mounted torch. Its 20 ft. normal light radius is drawn with a white, dotted light (perhaps not completely correct, but close enough for now).
In the dungeon are two people, the two enemies A and B. As the scene begins, A enters through the corridor to the square marked with a white contour A. A is carrying a torch which illuminates B (the white B) with dim light (not drawn). B has not heard A approach, nor did A anticipate the presence of B so neither gets a surprise round. B wins the initiative.
B is the stealthy character of the pair and will want to try and sneak up on A, denying her Dex bonus and thus allowing for Sneak Attack.
I'll now narrate action-for-action, asking questions as I go along.
Round 1, B:
A wants to go stealth, but is already spotted by A and not in cover nor concealment.
-Can B move to dim lighting conditions as shown with arrow 1 (the end position marked with the blue B) and roll Stealth as part of that move action? If B can't use Stealth because of not starting his in cover nor concealment, assume the top-left torch wasn't present and B thus starts in dim light. Would it then be possible to use stealth?
--Is it necessary to successfully create a diversion with Bluff against A:s Sense Motive first?
---What action would that be? Free? Standard?
---Does B:s player get to know the outcome of the attempt?
--In the event of a successful bluff (or if it wasn't necessary), B rolls Stealth (with a -10 modifier). Does B:s player get to know the outcome? When?
If it is possible for B to use Stealth, I'll assume his check(s) succeed.
Round 1, A:
A do no longer see B. She opts for a move action into the room, perhaps using her standard action to drink a potion or something. This move is shown with arrow 2 and A:s new position is the blue A. A:s torch now sheds light farther into the room, but does not illuminate B:s with normal light as shown with the white dotted line.
-Do A get another perception check on her own turn?
Round 2, B:
Still in Stealth, we assume, B wants to attack A.
-B uses his move action to break stealth and move adjacent to A, as shown by arrow 3. As a part of this move, he again rolls Stealth. Moving the 25 ft. probably exceeds half B:s movement, so he gets a -5 modifier. Assuming he succeeds, he is still in Stealth when he reaches A. He can now attack A with a Standard action. A is denied her Dex bonus and B thus gets to use Sneak Attack. B:s stealth then immediately ends. Is this correct?
--Would B:s stealth have ended automatically even if he didn't attack A, buy virtue of not being in cover nor concealment any more?
Is there something I've missed, something I should have asked about?
Some of this is judgment call, some is rules-based.
Can B move with stealth to arrow 1? No. He doesn't have cover to hide behind and he's only moving into concealment, not total concealment, which means he is still "in plain sight" (even backlit against the well-illuminated wall behind him) so B can still clearly see him (or at least his silhouette) well enough to count as "in plain sight" which means no use of stealth here.
Some GMs might ignore that since the rules say you only need cover or concealment (without requiring total concealment) but I would not. B clearly sees A, a obviously moves to an area where he is still (dimly) illuminated by the torch and is still in plain sight of B. No Stealth. He needs to completely break line of sight to get out of "plain sight".
If you did allow B to use stealth for some reason, then:
Round 1 A: brings the torch close enough to illuminate B with dim light. B is "in plain sight" and dimly illuminated (and still beautifully silhouetted against that well-lit back wall) so should be unable to use Stealth at all (DC 0 to see B just standing there). Again, if this is ignored and we assume that the concealment from dim light is enough for Stealth, then yes, definitely give A a new chance at the most favorable distance (closest point of A's movement) to perceive B.
Round 2 B: Yes, B can do what you said with one attack that denies DEX. If B doesn't attack, the stealth ends due to not finding cover or concealment.
That's pretty much it, but note that if you put a bit of furniture in this room, say, a big table and chairs (enough to provide cover), then I would have no problem at all with B moving to that furniture and using Stealth (due to cover, not be "in plain sight" anymore), in which case everything works as you described.
Can B move with stealth to arrow 1? No. He doesn't have cover to hide behind and he's only moving into concealment, not total concealment, which means he is still "in plain sight" (even backlit against the well-illuminated wall behind him) so B can still clearly see him (or at least his silhouette) well enough to count as "in plain sight" which means no use of stealth here.
Some GMs might ignore that since the rules say you only need cover or concealment (without requiring total concealment) but I would not. B clearly sees A, a obviously moves to an area where he is still (dimly) illuminated by the torch and is still in plain sight of B. No Stealth. He needs to completely break line of sight to get out of "plain sight".
I truly believe this isn't rules as written. I'm not even sure it's rules as intended. Concealment, not only total concealment, allows stealth. Dim light grants concealment. It might be a little silly, sure. But I think the designers wanted rogues to be able to hide under poorly light conditions. Anyway, I'll not debate the subject more. I'll simply disagree and move on.
Lets take two new cases. Similar, but with a detail differing I think is important.
In image 2, combat ones again starts as A and B notices each other. No-one is hidden from the beginning, no surprise round. The room is brightly lit now, so that's no factor.
B is behind a chair and a table, granting cover. B takes a move action (1) and ends up behind a couple of barrels, at no point leaving cover and completely exposing himself.
Should be able to use Stealth as a part of this move. Maybe after first succeeding with diversion?
The question: is image 3 any different? Now A doesn’t have any cover to begin with, but can still move into cover with action 1. Still able to use stealth in the first turn?
OP - Yes, B can use Stealth in Round 1. B is in concealment relevant to A, which is all the rules require.
As for ending next to A, whether attacking or not B loses Stealth. If B attacks, Stealth breaks due to the attack. If B doesn't attack, Stealth breaks due to ending their turn without cover or concealment.
The situation in Image 3 wouldn't allow Stealth as B does not have cover or concealment when making the initial move. The situation in Image 2 would, because B has cover.
EDIT: Spaced the torch in the corner in Image 1. If B is in normal light, no Stealth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since a picture is worth a thousand words.
Follow this link.
Scroll down a short ways to "Problem #2". Look at the picture showing the young girl in the dim light with a bright background behind her.
Yeah, it's a bit hard to make out details of the girl in the dim light - even her own relatives might not recognize her face. But EVERYBODY can see her standing right there. Even though she's in dim light.
Now, you say she's not using Stealth. I agree. So tell me, how does she stand right there in the same spot with all that brightness behind her and somehow use Stealth?
She can't.
Nor can anyone in Pathfinder, unless they have some kind of HiPS or HellCat Stealth or something similar.
Sure, the girl can try to hide behind those trees - that counts as at least concealment and maybe cover too. Or she can lie down in the tall grass and weeds, but that requires going PRONE and using the grass as additional concealment.
None of which is applicable to the OP's scenario. In that scenario. his "A" is essentially this girl, the bright light behind her is the torchlit room, and there are no trees or grass or anything else to hide behind.
No Stealth because the rules say:
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.
As you can all see (pun intended), the girl in the photo is absolutely observed, therefore cannot use Stealth.
The same holds true for the OP's "A" individual.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, I'm making the claim that you cannot use Stealth while being observed by anyone using any senses (but usually sight).
I'm further making the claim that the OP's "A" guy cannot get out of sight of the OP's "B" guy in that room with that lighting (see the link to the photo I referenced), so "A" is always observed in the positions shown in the diagram and there "A" is always unable to use Stealth.
Take away that backlighting torch, move it far enough away to the right or left so that there's no backlighting, or just move "A" off to the side of the room (basically north of where "B" enters the room), and I'll gladly grant a Stealth check based on the dim lighting granting regular concealment.
Concealment breaks observation.
This is another hotly debated topic that hasn't been resolved by direct developer clarifucation.
|
Let's take a look at what the CRB says about necessary conditions.
Cover and Stealth Checks: You can use cover to make a Stealth check. Without cover, you usually need concealment (see below) to make a Stealth check....
Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.
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.
Note that the Stealth skill only requires concealment, not total concealment. And so agrees with the combat chapter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If B is initially observed by A, then B can't use stealth without a Bluff & distraction. That much is true.
This is actually the entire issue being debated.
The rule says you can't use Stealth while being observed. The rule says you can use Stealth while in cover or concealment.
The debate is whether cover and concealment break observation or whether you are still being observed, even though you have cover or concealment.
I believe concealment breaks observation. So if you are in dim lighting, you are not "being observe" for the purpose of using Stealth.
*shrug* James Jacobs runs it with concealment being sufficient. It works well enough for me.
And yeah, that's how it would work with case 3. You're hard to see, but without a distraction, people know exactly where you went. So it's just a matter of them moving to where they can see you. With a distraction, nobody knows where you went, so they actually have to search.
I don't think the intent ever required starting in total cover or concealment because in more than one place in the book, they specifically reference cover and concealment and leave the descriptor total out of it. Requiring total cover or concealment would likely mean that Stealth virtually never happens.
Concealment breaks observation.
This is another hotly debated topic that hasn't been resolved by direct developer clarifucation.
No, it doesn't.
Total Concealment breaks observation. It says so in the RAW:
If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you
So Total Concealment is the situation that has no "line of sight". Not regular concealment (note the lack of any mention of "no line of sight" in the description of Concealment).
Which means that you absolutely DO have "line of sight" to an opponent with ordinary Concealment therefore you are observing him. That is exactly why you need to make a Bluff check AND become "unobserved":
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.
"unobserved place of some kind". "Unobserved". No "line of sight". Total Concealment or Total Cover, take your pick.
Part of the problem may be with your conception of dim light. The picture you linked is of a girl in Normal light, I'd say, with the backlighting being Bright.
If she were in normal light you could make out details of her face. I know I can always make out details of peoples' faces in normal light. You can't make out her or other small details of her clothing, etc., because she's in dim light.
But even if your position is true that it's just normal light, go ahead and get photoshop or something and turn the lighting effect on her down to zero - she will become just a black shadow with no features at all. Total zero light. Less than "dim light".
And if you do, you'll still perfectly see her entire silhouette against the background light. Even if you turn that down to "normal" or even "dim" light, you'd see the girls shadow-silhouette against ANY background light, even if she's in TOTAL darkness.
The OP's scenario had a guy IN PLAIN SIGHT, fully OBSERVED, trying to pretend he's a pebble on the floor, in "dim" light, with a wonderful "normal" light directly behind him.
He's exactly as visible as that girl in the photo - mainly because he isn't a pebble on the floor.
Part of the problem may be with your conception of dim light. The picture you linked is of a girl in Normal light, I'd say, with the backlighting being Bright.If she were in normal light you could make out details of her face. I know I can always make out details of peoples' faces in normal light. You can't make out her or other small details of her clothing, etc., because she's in dim light.
Eeer, what? Where in the rules does it say that normal light always allow you to make out details of peoples faces? Normal light means "enough light not to impact your accuracy when trying to hit someone with a ranged attack".
Waking up at 3 in the morning having to pee, the bedroom illuminated buy your laptop standby light and the stars and street-lights through your half-blinded window is dim light. You see the walls, the chair etc. but you have to at least be somewhat careful not to trip over your dark backpack lying on your dark coloured floor. Flick your bed-side reading lamp alight, even pointed at your pillow, and the entire room is in normal light.
|
|
you only have to be unobserved while you make the check, not while under its effects. If you are in a spot where you are allowed to make a stealth check, or allowed because of a bluff distraction, that "moment" you enter stealth. An instant later, when folks might observe you, they don't, because you are employing stealth.
best example:
Bluff "hey, what's that over there," bluff check success.
"Huh?" target looks away. Now unobserved, you make the successful stealth check.
"stabby stab in your back sucka!!" sneak attack.
Part of the problem may be with your conception of dim light. The picture you linked is of a girl in Normal light, I'd say, with the backlighting being Bright.If she were in normal light you could make out details of her face. I know I can always make out details of peoples' faces in normal light. You can't make out her or other small details of her clothing, etc., because she's in dim light.Eeer, what? Where in the rules does it say that normal light always allow you to make out details of peoples faces? Normal light means "enough light not to impact your accuracy when trying to hit someone with a ranged attack".
Waking up at 3 in the morning having to pee, the bedroom illuminated buy your laptop standby light and the stars and street-lights through your half-blinded window is dim light. You see the walls, the chair etc. but you have to at least be somewhat careful not to trip over your dark backpack lying on your dark coloured floor. Flick your bed-side reading lamp alight, even pointed at your pillow, and the entire room is in normal light.
Not sure what the lighting in your room with your street lights and curtains and dark floor really is, but Pthfinder actually has definitions for it:
In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly... Areas of bright light include outside in direct sunshine ...
Normal light functions just like bright light... Areas of normal light include underneath a forest canopy during the day, within 20 feet of a torch...
So normal light is not "direct sunshine" but can be indirect sunshine "under a forest canopy". It's also within a few feet of a torch. I can read by torchlight. I can identify peoples' faces by torchlight. I can even identify people nearby by mere moonlight which is listed as an example of dim light.
Those are Pathfinder's examples which are much less ambiguous than leaving us to wonder how many streetlights are near your bedroom window, how bright they are, and how thick your curtains are.
you only have to be unobserved while you make the check, not while under its effects. If you are in a spot where you are allowed to make a stealth check, or allowed because of a bluff distraction, that "moment" you enter stealth. An instant later, when folks might observe you, they don't, because you are employing stealth.
best example:
Bluff "hey, what's that over there," bluff check success.
"Huh?" target looks away. Now unobserved, you make the successful stealth check.
"stabby stab in your back sucka!!" sneak attack.
You're saying that even out in the open, brightly lit and everything, a rogue can attempt a diversion bluff, move and use stealth as long as she ends the move in cover or concealment? Right?
Would there be a difference if the rogue already were in cover or concealment, but still observed? Or would the rogue need to do the exact same thing: bluff, move and use stealth with the same DCs?
Line of sight isn't the same as observed. That's the whole point of Stealth.
Bluff lets you distract him to break observation without total cover/concealment, letting you use partial cover/concealment.
At least, I'm pretty sure that's the intent. As I've said the rules for this are really badly written.
Maybe.
But we have things like HiPS, Hellcat Stealth, and Invisibility to handle situations where you want to disappear while people are looking at you and have clear line of sight to see you.
Standing in a dim room with no intervening cover and plenty of back light while using none of those solutions for observed disappearance is just not going to work - if you could, then you would NEVER NEED those abilities/feats/spells to make yourself disappear.
You MUST make some effort to become unobserved. Standing there like a poorly-illuminated buffoon in plain sight and chanting a mantra of "be the floor, be the floor, be the floor" is not actually going to work, no matter how fervently you chant your mantra.
Break the line of sight or accept the fact that you're observed. And if you're observed, you cannot use Stealth.
If you're observed, you need to bluff and then you can use stealth. -10 modifier due to the Bluff.
No, that's only half of the rule. You missed the other half. I quoted it a dozen posts ago, but here it is again:
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.
"unobserved place of some kind". "Unobserved". No "line of sight". Total Concealment or Total Cover, take your pick.
So you have to try the bluff with the -10, and get to an unobserved place which doesn't at all mean just standing where you are (because you were observed there and you still will be observed there, so you must "get to" a different place where you are not observed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A creature within an area of dim light can make a Stealth check to conceal itself.What part of that are you not getting. You don't need dim light & something to hide behind. You're not automatically observed in dim light. That's what it does.
But that is only the Stealth rule. You can't just pick your favorite part of the rule, quote it over and over, ignore the rest of the rule, and then just assume that's how the whole thing works and everyone else must be just "not getting" it.
Furthermore, "can" doesn't mean or even imply "always able". It very much can mean "able whenever other conditions don't prevent it."
The part you are ignoring is
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth
You cannot just ignore that.
It's possible to be in dim light and still be "observed". It's obviously possible in the real world (I observe people in moonlight all the time, and I'm sure you do too), it's possible in Pathfinder RAW (dim light does NOT break line of sight, nor does any other form of concealment).
So if you apply BOTH rules at the same time without ignoring the one that's inconvenient for your interpretation then we get:
"A creature within an area of dim light can (when not otherwise prevented) make a Stealth check to conceal itself unless it is being observed with any senses (but typically sight)."
That's the rule. It's right there in the RAW, but you have to read ALL of it and not ignore parts that are inconvenient.
You do need to make some effort to become unobserved. We call that "using Stealth".
(I think you meant to say "you do not need to make some effort") but I get your point.
However, your point is wrong.
Let me fully quote the whole Stealth rule about being observed.I'll quote it in pieces and respond to each piece:
Being Observed If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight),
I think it's very clear at this point that you ARE observed. If you are in a situation where you are not observed, then you don't need this rule at all. So the fact that we're applying it to a particular character in a particular situation means that that character is being observed, right?
you can't use Stealth.
That's pretty straight forward too. You're being observed so you cannot use stealth.
Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.
We know you're currently being observed and can't use stealth. So you will need to "find cover or concealment". In other words, you haven't found it yet because you're being observed.
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth.
Now we know you need a distraction or you cannot use Stealth. Because you are being observed. Wherever you are, right now, you're being observed.
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.
Your distraction can get your observers to turn their attention from you. This allows you to try a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place.
This is the key part.
It literally says you must "get to" an unobserved place, which means you are not, now, in an unobserved place. Even your distraction only "turns their attention" but doesn't make you "unobserved" - if it did, you would NOT need to "get to" an unobserved place.
Therefore, you are still "observed" and must "get to" some place that is not "observed" or you are not even allowed to attempt this distraction.
This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
This just adds a modifier to the previously mentioned Bluff check.
Parsing that all together means:
If you are observed, then you cannot use stealth unless you can:
1. get to an unobserved location and
2. distract your observers with a Bluff check at -10
That first step is literally making an effort to use use Stealth - and as I said, making an effort to become unobserved.
Line of sight isn't the same as observed. That's the whole point of Stealth.
Bluff lets you distract him to break observation without total cover/concealment, letting you use partial cover/concealment.
At least, I'm pretty sure that's the intent. As I've said the rules for this are really badly written.Maybe.
But we have things like HiPS, Hellcat Stealth, and Invisibility to handle situations where you want to disappear while people are looking at you and have clear line of sight to see you.
Standing in a dim room with no intervening cover and plenty of back light while using none of those solutions for observed disappearance is just not going to work - if you could, then you would NEVER NEED those abilities/feats/spells to make yourself disappear.
You MUST make some effort to become unobserved. Standing there like a poorly-illuminated buffoon in plain sight and chanting a mantra of "be the floor, be the floor, be the floor" is not actually going to work, no matter how fervently you chant your mantra.
Break the line of sight or accept the fact that you're observed. And if you're observed, you cannot use Stealth.
Shadowdancer's HiPS
A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow.
What is changing about this? Only the requirement for cover/concealment. Instead of having to stand in or behind cover or concealment, the Shadowdancer just has to be near it. That's the explanation for being able to use Stealth "even while being observed". This isn't two separate abilities (hide while being observed, hide while w/i 10' of dim light); it's one: hide while being observed, further explained as not actually being in dim lighting or behind cover, but near it.
Hellcat Stealth
You may make Stealth checks in normal or bright light even when observed, but at a -10 penalty.
Ordinarily, you can hide in normal or bright light if you're behind cover. Using Hellcat Stealth, you can hide in normal or bright light when you're out in the open, even with someone staring right at you, albeit at a -10 penalty.
But the whole point of these abilities is that you don't need cover or concealment. That is it.
They work similarly. HS trumps the need for cover/concealment, but you have a penalty on the check. HIPS trumps the need for cover/concealment, but it requires a nearby shadow, and has no penalty.
The take home from this is that, ordinarily, cover/concealment is all you need to make a Stealth check. HS and HiPS remove the need for cover/concealment. That is it.
If you have concealment, you can make a Stealth check.
A creature within an area of dim light can make a Stealth check to conceal itself.What part of that are you not getting. You don't need dim light & something to hide behind. You're not automatically observed in dim light. That's what it does.But that is only the Stealth rule. You can't just pick your favorite part of the rule, quote it over and over, ignore the rest of the rule, and then just assume that's how the whole thing works and everyone else must be just "not getting" it.
Furthermore, "can" doesn't mean or even imply "always able". It very much can mean "able whenever other conditions don't prevent it."
The part you are ignoring is
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use StealthYou cannot just ignore that.
It's possible to be in dim light and still be "observed". It's obviously possible in the real world (I observe people in moonlight all the time, and I'm sure you do too), it's possible in Pathfinder RAW (dim light does NOT break line of sight, nor does any other form of concealment).
So if you apply BOTH rules at the same time without ignoring the one that's inconvenient for your interpretation then we get:
"A creature within an area of dim light can (when not otherwise prevented) make a Stealth check to conceal itself unless it is being observed with any senses (but typically sight)."
That's the rule. It's right there in the RAW, but you have to read ALL of it and not ignore parts that are inconvenient.
You're presuming that these must be two separate rules. It is entirely possible that being in cover/concealment breaks observation. If that is the case, then you are not being observed if you are in concealment or have cover.
Beyond that, if we really want to get precise with the language, even total cover might not be sufficient to allow you to make a Stealth check. Per the rule you're citing, Stealth checks are not allowed if anyone is observing you using any of their senses. If I can hear you behind the wall, you're by definition being observed. You can therefore not make a Stealth check.
Beyond that, if we really want to get precise with the language, even total cover might not be sufficient to allow you to make a Stealth check. Per the rule you're citing, Stealth checks are not allowed if anyone is observing you using any of their senses. If I can hear you behind the wall, you're by definition being observed. You can therefore not make a Stealth check.
Just gonna add that there are specific Perception tests to take for this, and as long as you aren't
A) Talking
B) Walking
c) Whispering
then your opponent won't get any Perception (hearing) test to notice you behind that total cover.
|
|
@DM_Blake: I think the problem is that you're working from a definition of "observed" that doesn't jive with the rest of the rules. If I understood correctly, you decided that having line of sight means you're being observed, and then found that if you don't have line of sight, total concealment occurs. You're starting out with your (pretty reasonable) assumption of what "being observed" should be, but the Stealth rules suggest something else;
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.
Apparently, cover or concealment is sufficient to break observation. Observation would mean having a good clear view of someone. That's why the name Hide in Plain Sight makes sense: you don't need a special ability to hide in non-plain sight, that can be done with ordinary Stealth. HiPS is for hiding with nothing to hide behind at all - a pretty fantastical proposition.
If this sounds a bit weird ("how can you be hidden if you have only partial concealment"), I think it's important to consider the time aspect. Hiding in combat is for a few seconds only, per check. You know someone's there somewhere, but you're having a bit of trouble keeping a clear view of them and maybe they can use that to launch their attack when you're not quite ready for it. Or in the case of prolonged stealth, they find some place where your eyes are technically capable of seeing the person, but you don't quite realize that that shape in the murk is a person instead of just another shadow. Camouflage, basically. You see someone but don't realize what you're seeing until it's too late.
That sounds reasonable to me, but I'm not actually aware of any such rules language. Near as I can tell, there are flat penalties for things like "other side of door" and "1' wall". No mention of special conditions.Beyond that, if we really want to get precise with the language, even total cover might not be sufficient to allow you to make a Stealth check. Per the rule you're citing, Stealth checks are not allowed if anyone is observing you using any of their senses. If I can hear you behind the wall, you're by definition being observed. You can therefore not make a Stealth check.Just gonna add that there are specific Perception tests to take for this, and as long as you aren't
A) Talking
B) Walking
c) Whisperingthen your opponent won't get any Perception (hearing) test to notice you behind that total cover.
I'm taking these specific Perception tests from the "Notice Someone/Something" table from the Perception skill.
Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment. The DC to notice such details varies depending upon distance, the environment, and how noticeable the detail is. The following table gives a number of guidelines.
So a GM could absolutely say that your enemies could hear your breathing and give them an perception check, but the check should be appropriately high.
What I meant to convey is that if you aren't granting your enemies stimuli, then they can't become aware/keep their awareness of you. It is really easy to become aware of something through vision since the DC check is 0 (+modifiers), while hearing someone whispering on the other side of a door has a DC of 20.
Let's say someone is breathing quietly on the other side of a barn some distance away, and the DC to become aware of him should be higher than his Stealth.
If this sounds a bit weird ("how can you be hidden if you have only partial concealment"), I think it's important to consider the time aspect. Hiding in combat is for a few seconds only, per check. You know someone's there somewhere, but you're having a bit of trouble keeping a clear view of them and maybe they can use that to launch their attack when you're not quite ready for it. Or in the case of prolonged stealth, they find some place where your eyes are technically capable of seeing the person, but you don't quite realize that that shape in the murk is a person instead of just another shadow. Camouflage, basically. You see someone but don't realize what you're seeing until it's too late.
I'll believe every word of this as soon as you can tell me how you do it in bright light without any special abilities like HiPS or invisibility or something similar.
If all you need is to get somewhere for a second where they're capable of observing you but just don't realize you're there, then it should be possible in bright light or in normal light. But it isn't.
So what you're saying is that the definition of "observed" remains the same between bright and normal light then becomes different between normal light and dim light.
I could almost believe that, except that's not how it works in real life. Not even remotely. Try it. Stand on a soccer pitch in the moonlight. Have a friend stand 10 feet away from you. Now have him move around as much as he wants while you turn your head and body as necessary to watch him moving around - you tell me when he disappears from sight.
He doesn't. Ever. No matter how hard he tries.
Now suppose he distracts you then dives around behind you while you are distracted. Awesome! His Bluff check succeeded and for a few seconds, maybe, you lost track of him. But that's not because of the moonlight; he could have done that at high noon on a sunny day. Which is also true in Pathfinder; the distraction does not require dim light to work - it requires finding some place where you cannot observe him. Furthermore, since Pathfinder doesn't have a "behind him" rule (there is no facing in Pathfinder), there is literally no way in the rules to be "behind" an enemy in combat, then the distract-and-get-behind trick that might work in real life is auto-fail in Pathfinder.
Which takes us back to needing to "find an unobserved place" in order to pull of this trick.
A lot like real life.
And a lot like Pathfinder RAW.
On the other hand those are flat DCs and generally pretty low ones. Walking on the other side of a door is 15. If my stealth is higher than 10, wouldn't I rather use that? (Since the +5 for the door applies either way.)
And there's no indication those are intended as modifiers.
It was a rebuttal to fretgod's comment about total cover not being enough in some cases. You don't become aware of something immediately, so if the person behind total cover doesn't do anything to provide a stimuli for the creature listening, then the DC to observe someone through hearing should be ridiculously high.
The DC wasn't meant to replace your stealth check, as it is a check to see if you are being observed or not. But if your enemy must succeed on a perception check to hear your pulse (that is, your pulse is the highest sound you make), then we can assume (s)he isn't observing you (since the DC is too high), and you can make a stealth check.
Beyond that, if we really want to get precise with the language, even total cover might not be sufficient to allow you to make a Stealth check. Per the rule you're citing, Stealth checks are not allowed if anyone is observing you using any of their senses. If I can hear you behind the wall, you're by definition being observed. You can therefore not make a Stealth check.Just gonna add that there are specific Perception tests to take for this, and as long as you aren't
A) Talking
B) Walking
c) Whisperingthen your opponent won't get any Perception (hearing) test to notice you behind that total cover.
I am pretty sure that combat, dancing, doing back flips, chopping wood, slicing onions, and even relieving one's self are all likely things that would allow Perception checks, some of them even based on senses that are not sight or sound.
If this sounds a bit weird ("how can you be hidden if you have only partial concealment"), I think it's important to consider the time aspect. Hiding in combat is for a few seconds only, per check. You know someone's there somewhere, but you're having a bit of trouble keeping a clear view of them and maybe they can use that to launch their attack when you're not quite ready for it. Or in the case of prolonged stealth, they find some place where your eyes are technically capable of seeing the person, but you don't quite realize that that shape in the murk is a person instead of just another shadow. Camouflage, basically. You see someone but don't realize what you're seeing until it's too late.I'll believe every word of this as soon as you can tell me how you do it in bright light without any special abilities like HiPS or invisibility or something similar.
If all you need is to get somewhere for a second where they're capable of observing you but just don't realize you're there, then it should be possible in bright light or in normal light. But it isn't.
So what you're saying is that the definition of "observed" remains the same between bright and normal light then becomes different between normal light and dim light.
I could almost believe that, except that's not how it works in real life. Not even remotely. Try it. Stand on a soccer pitch in the moonlight. Have a friend stand 10 feet away from you. Now have him move around as much as he wants while you turn your head and body as necessary to watch him moving around - you tell me when he disappears from sight.
He doesn't. Ever. No matter how hard he tries.
Now suppose he distracts you then dives around behind you while you are distracted. Awesome! His Bluff check succeeded and for a few seconds, maybe, you lost track of him. But that's not because of the moonlight; he could have done that at high noon on a sunny day. Which is also true in Pathfinder; the distraction does not require dim light to work - it...
I agree that concealment, including dim light, is enough to attempt to stealth. It is only an attempt. So two equally skilled people would have a 50% chance to hide. So? I have hid right in front of people in so many LARPs it is crazy.
But beyond that, because like fretgod99 pointed out, the Devs have not ruled on the "observed" part after all these years and there are two clear sides with logical support, I think that you opinions of having a back light must be addressed.
You are absolutely correct that if a person is DIRECTLY between the exact source of the light and the viewer, it is very obvious where the viewer is. In the OP's image, B is never within that line. So while A would be able to see that SOMETHING was blocking the light directly "west" of him, he would not know what or where (assuming B wins the opposed roll).
Even if B was directly within that line, Pathfinder does not allow for pinpointing/observing someone due to the absence of light. Also, the little girl in the field is not an example of bright light in Pathfinder. In Pathfinder, light fills the space. Standing in front of a torch does not make it harder to see someone in your shadow like it would in real life. So while I agree with the logic that you supplied as support for real world light, it does not work within the game rules.
I am pretty sure that combat, dancing, doing back flips, chopping wood, slicing onions, and even relieving one's self are all likely things that would allow Perception checks, some of them even based on senses that are not sight or sound.Beyond that, if we really want to get precise with the language, even total cover might not be sufficient to allow you to make a Stealth check. Per the rule you're citing, Stealth checks are not allowed if anyone is observing you using any of their senses. If I can hear you behind the wall, you're by definition being observed. You can therefore not make a Stealth check.Just gonna add that there are specific Perception tests to take for this, and as long as you aren't
A) Talking
B) Walking
c) Whisperingthen your opponent won't get any Perception (hearing) test to notice you behind that total cover.
Yes, if you read my posts after that one you can see what I mean by that statement. There was supposed to be a "and the like" after Whispering, but I'm on a tablet right now so I had trouble noticing I missed it. The point is that you aren't automatically observing everything around you.
It is impossible to not be observed if all that is required to meet the test of observation is within range of one's senses. Humans can see for miles. Based on winds, you might smell things from hundreds of feet away. Smells are not stopped by concealment or dark lights in any way. Hearing is always active, even while sleeping. So if you make any noise, which any human sized creature makes just be breathing, then you are "observed" because you can't make the Stealth check to see if it is quiet enough to go unnoticed if "observed" is automatic.
Stealth is broken. I am all for debating what the right way to play is, but it should be seen as impossible to prove the right way without Dev intervention.
Heck, they rewrote it at least once because they know it is broken but didn't implement the changes because those changes break other things.
Yes, if you read my posts after that one you can see what I mean by that statement. There was supposed to be a "and the like" after Whispering, but I'm on a tablet right now so I had trouble noticing I missed it. The point is that you aren't automatically observing everything around you.I am pretty sure that combat, dancing, doing back flips, chopping wood, slicing onions, and even relieving one's self are all likely things that would allow Perception checks, some of them even based on senses that are not sight or sound.Beyond that, if we really want to get precise with the language, even total cover might not be sufficient to allow you to make a Stealth check. Per the rule you're citing, Stealth checks are not allowed if anyone is observing you using any of their senses. If I can hear you behind the wall, you're by definition being observed. You can therefore not make a Stealth check.Just gonna add that there are specific Perception tests to take for this, and as long as you aren't
A) Talking
B) Walking
c) Whisperingthen your opponent won't get any Perception (hearing) test to notice you behind that total cover.
Which is why people think Dim Light is enough to make a stealth check.
It is impossible to not be observed if all that is required to meet the test of observation is within range of one's senses. Humans can see for miles. Based on winds, you might smell things from hundreds of feet away. Smells are not stopped by concealment or dark lights in any way. Hearing is always active, even while sleeping. So if you make any noise, which any human sized creature makes just be breathing, then you are "observed" because you can't make the Stealth check to see if it is quiet enough to go unnoticed if "observed" is automatic.
Stealth is broken. I am all for debating what the right way to play is, but it should be seen as impossible to prove the right way without Dev intervention.
Heck, they rewrote it at least once because they know it is broken but didn't implement the changes because those changes break other things.
Observe, as per definition, is something a bit more serious than just being in range of someone's senses.
To observe is to direct attention to the object of interest. Do you observe every person you meet on a busy street?
Which is why people think Dim Light is enough to make a stealth check.
Sure. It doesn't go against the vision and light rules, and you have concealment.
As long as nobody is focusing their attention on you (observing you), then hiding should be easy.
|
Since a picture is worth a thousand words.
Follow this link.
Scroll down a short ways to "Problem #2". Look at the picture showing the young girl in the dim light with a bright background behind her.
Yeah, it's a bit hard to make out details of the girl in the dim light - even her own relatives might not recognize her face. But EVERYBODY can see her standing right there. Even though she's in dim light.
Now, you say she's not using Stealth. I agree. So tell me, how does she stand right there in the same spot with all that brightness behind her and somehow use Stealth?
She can't.
Nor can anyone in Pathfinder, unless they have some kind of HiPS or HellCat Stealth or something similar.
Sure, the girl can try to hide behind those trees - that counts as at least concealment and maybe cover too. Or she can lie down in the tall grass and weeds, but that requires going PRONE and using the grass as additional concealment.
None of which is applicable to the OP's scenario. In that scenario. his "A" is essentially this girl, the bright light behind her is the torchlit room, and there are no trees or grass or anything else to hide behind.
No Stealth because the rules say:
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.As you can all see (pun intended), the girl in the photo is absolutely observed, therefore cannot use Stealth.
The same holds true for the OP's "A"
Actually the girl in the image isn't trying to use stealth and still she isn't seen clearly.
Our stealth expert wouldn't be standing upright in a position with the maximum contrast so that his silhouette is clearly visible.He would try to place himself so that he isn't back lighted by the torch, instead moving to the left or right of the line between the torch and A eyes. That way A eyes, who are currently adapted to seeing with the the light of the torch he carries and that will be seeing the torch on the wall would have a harder time seeing him in the dim light.
I would apply a penalty to the stealth attempt as A will be able to follow B movement while he tries to enter stealth, but stealth isn't necessarily "I don't know that there is someone here and go around whistling in the dark". It can be "I have lost track of him, where he is?" Losing track of the target even momentarily will reduce your ability to react to his actions.
The stealth rules try to emulate parts of the rules that have been removed from the game to simplify thins, like facing, the shadow created by your body while carrying a torch, the simple facts that the light gradually decrease with distance, isn't an all or nothing thing with a clear boundary and that torches aren't even a constant source, they flicker and that alone generate some seeing problem.