I don't know how else you would read "a shadowy area or curtain work nicely" to avoid an opponent's "precise sense [of sight]" except that you're allowed to use stealth while you're in shadows, even when your opponent watched you walk into the shadows.
Whether said shadowy area and curtain is giving you Total or partial concealment is not said.
RAW: The idea that you are not observing someone on a moonlit night, in fog, in a bush, or especially standing behind a waist high wall is pretty nuts to start with. The easy stealth option doesn't answer why observed even needs to be a condition mentioned, at all, if its synonymous with cover and concealment.
Further
Camouflage (Ex)
A ranger of 12th level or higher can use the Stealth skill to hide in any of his favored terrains, even if the terrain doesn't grant cover or concealment.
Hide in Plain Sight (Ex)
While in any of his favored terrains, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use the Stealth skill even while being observed.
Why would hide in plain sight even be an ability, at all, if the ranger already has non observed status whenever they want it ?
If easy stealth was how the game worked none of this wouldhave to be there, and coincidentally, the hard stealth option where observed and cover/concealment aren't the same thing dovetails perfectly with the rest of the rules... by coincidence?
Its still the same exact problem: Why mention observation, at all, if cover/concealment and observation were one and the same? Why would sniping exist? Why would the bluff check exist? Why snipe?
Powerwise it makes stealth obscene. Not being seen is the most powerful ability in the game. Its better than AC (50% miss chance which is really more of a 99% miss chance since even a 5 foot step can get you into 1 of 7 squares) , prevents you from being targeted, denies dex, grants you a surprise round... Oops its dark. I 5 foot step and stealth now you can't see me.
There's no interpretation paradigm where easy stealth makes more sense or a better game.
|
Whether said shadowy area and curtain is giving you Total or partial concealment is not said.
I don't know how else you would read "a shadowy area or curtain work nicely" to avoid an opponent's "precise sense [of sight]" except that you're allowed to use stealth while you're in shadows, even when your opponent watched you walk into the shadows.
Can a curtain or shadowy area give partial? Yes. So it must work for partial concealment. "Shadowy area" screams dim light to me for some reason.
]
Can a curtain or shadowy area give partial? Yes. So it must work for partial concealment. "Shadowy area" screams dim light to me for some reason.
Why create a distraction, take a -10, and get to concealment when you can just get to concealment?
|
|
Why create a distraction, take a -10, and get to concealment when you can just get to concealment?]
Can a curtain or shadowy area give partial? Yes. So it must work for partial concealment. "Shadowy area" screams dim light to me for some reason.
So they don't realize which curtain you ran behind! I agree, distractions aren't optimal.
So they don't realize which curtain you ran behind! I agree, distractions aren't optimal.Why create a distraction, take a -10, and get to concealment when you can just get to concealment?]
Can a curtain or shadowy area give partial? Yes. So it must work for partial concealment. "Shadowy area" screams dim light to me for some reason.
And the rangers hide in plain sight is an ability because...?
And the rangers hide in plain sight is an ability because...?
Because it's a cool, well-themed ability for the ranger class. No other explanation necessary.
Because it's a cool, well-themed ability for the ranger class. No other explanation necessary.
And the rangers hide in plain sight is an ability because...?
Its a prone shooter ability under the easy stealth interpretation. Since you always have concealment since level 12, you always have non observed status. The ability does nothing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ranger Camoflauge allows you to maintain your stealth when not in cover or concealment. You need to begin unobserved, but can then remain hidden even out in the open. Once you break stealth, you're gonna have to break observation to stealth again by likely finding cover or concealment.
Ranger HiPS allows you to stealth right in front of the very eyes of your opponent. This ability is great! Too bad it comes online so late, but at least you have a bunch of Favored Terrains by then.
@BNW we have literally argued the same things before with one another. In the meantime, Ultimate Intrigue came out and it's clear that cover/concealment breaks observation. It even gives the example of Blur (partial concealment) not allowing stealth for the reason that it "leaves a clear visual", but not because it's partial instead of total. The rules don't require total cover/concealment, just cover/concealment.
Ranger Camoflauge allows you to maintain your stealth when not in cover or concealment.
And you couldn't answer this question there either.
There is no such thing as a ranger in his favored terrain without cover or concealment for stealth purposes. He always has it. According to you he doesn't need hide in plain sight.
You need to begin unobserved
Why does the ranger need to begin unobserved when no one else with cover and concealment does?
but can then remain hidden even out in the open. Once you break stealth, you're gonna have to break observation to stealth again by likely finding cover or concealment.
The ranger does not need to find cover or concealment. He always has it.
Ranger HiPS allows you to stealth right in front of the very eyes of your opponent. This ability is great! Too bad it comes online so late, but at least you have a bunch of Favored Terrains by then.
Ranger Camouflage allows you to do that under the easy stealth interpretation.
@BNW we have literally argued the same things before with one another. In the meantime, Ultimate Intrigue came out and it's clear that cover/concealment breaks observation.
It is not. The first Paragraph reads VERY strongly in favor of the hard stealth interpretation. The second paragraph reads strongly in favor of the easy stealth interpretation. Its like they just re wrote the stealth rules sentence for sentence without realizing thedifferent reading between the two parts in the stealth rules.
And the rangers hide in plain sight is an ability because...?So they don't realize which curtain you ran behind! I agree, distractions aren't optimal.Why create a distraction, take a -10, and get to concealment when you can just get to concealment?]
Can a curtain or shadowy area give partial? Yes. So it must work for partial concealment. "Shadowy area" screams dim light to me for some reason.
I've been part of some heated arguments on the issue, and I have realized that HiPS & Camouflage actually supports both Hard and Easy stealth.
Camouflage doesn't actually say that the Ranger is granted Cover/Concealment. Someone on the Easy stealth side would then take this to mean that the Ranger doesn't have C/C, and would therefore not break Observance (since real C/C is needed to break Observance).
So while Camouflage circumvent the need for C/C, it doesn't circumvent the need for being unobserved, which C/C does (according to the Easy stealth side).
If Camouflage's description was:
"A ranger of 12th level or higher can use the Stealth skill to hide in any of his favored terrains, acting as if he had Cover or Concealment."
then it would support the Hard stealth side's view. But as it is, Camouflage doesn't let us determine anything.
A question that I will pose is: Where is the description of what type of action it is to "Create a diversion to hide." To me it seems like people are lumping this in with Feint as a standard action. This creating a diversion to hide does not have the same results as Feint (intrinsically) and therefore I suggest it is part of the stealth action
If something doesn't have a listed action it defaults to standard. Hence the standard part :)
There is an inquisition ability to make it a move action, heavily implying that its more than a move action, which would make it standard.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ranger Camoflauge allows you to maintain your stealth when not in cover or concealment.And you couldn't answer this question there either.
There is no such thing as a ranger in his favored terrain without cover or concealment for stealth purposes. He always has it. According to you he doesn't need hide in plain sight.
You need to begin unobservedWhy does the ranger need to begin unobserved when no one else with cover and concealment does?
but can then remain hidden even out in the open. Once you break stealth, you're gonna have to break observation to stealth again by likely finding cover or concealment.The ranger does not need to find cover or concealment. He always has it.
As Wonderstell stated above, Camoflage doesn't give the ranger cover or concealment, he just doesn't need it to make a stealth check. Since he doesn't have C/C, he needs to begin his stealthy approach unobserved. After he has begun, he can now continue to stealth out in the open because he doesn't need C/C and is currently unobserved.
HiPS trumps this because you can stealth when observed.
BNW, I'd link you to previous threads where I've discussed this (and the Ranger Camouflage/HiPS questions), but Wonderstell summed it up pretty nicely (if I remember correctly, he's been involved in some of the same conversations).
Suffice it to say, I don't see the problem with the Ranger class features. "Easy" stealth works with the rules, leads to more fun and varied usable classes and features for PCs, and (to me anyway) is the most obvious reading of the rules (the UI quotes straight up say concealment* breaks precise sense observation)
So if they ever clarify it to work the other way, that's fine. I'll adopt and adapt. But until then, I'm perfectly happy playing it the way I always have.
* I'm not sure "Shadowy" can mean anything but concealment. You're not "shadowed" if you're in total concealment due to lighting; you're in darkness.
Also, don't forget that just about every creature has at least low-light if not darkvision (or both). That severely hampers the obscene power you think this interpretation gives stealth.
Suffice it to say, I don't see the problem with the Ranger class features. "Easy" stealth works with the rules, leads to more fun and varied usable classes and features for PCs, and (to me anyway) is the most obvious reading of the rules
It is not fun being denied your ability to interact with something because the DM says "you don't know where it is". At many tables, with a lot of DMs, i have seen this leads to arguments, frustration, innanity, and "how are the laws of physics working today" conversations.
Having someone able to vanish while you are looking at them treats skilled adventurers like toddlers that don't understand the concept of object permanence. Having someone poof out of existence because they're behind a waist high wall its nuts. Having farmers in an open moonlit field able to vanish from each other in a game of whackamole is weird.
(the UI quotes straight up say concealment* breaks precise sense observation)
It does no such thing. It follows the stealth rules rewording it sentence by sentence, and oddly enough gives the same conclusion as the original stealth rules. (for various values of "conclusion)
Also, don't forget that just about every creature has at least low-light if not darkvision (or both). That severely hampers the obscene power you think this interpretation gives stealth.
Every creature in the dungeon has it. Your party? Not so much. Pretty much makes being a human a death sentence: 5 foot step stealth sklerk 5 foot step stealth sklerk.
Suffice it to say, I don't see the problem with the Ranger class features. "Easy" stealth works with the rules, leads to more fun and varied usable classes and features for PCs, and (to me anyway) is the most obvious reading of the rules
It is not fun being denied your ability to interact with something because the DM says "you don't know where it is". At many tables, with a lot of DMs, i have seen this leads to arguments, frustration, innanity, and "how are the laws of physics working today" conversations.
Having someone able to vanish while you are looking at them treats skilled adventurers like toddlers that don't understand the concept of object permanence. Having someone poof out of existence because they're behind a waist high wall its nuts. Having farmers in an open moonlit field able to vanish from each other in a game of whackamole is weird.
(the UI quotes straight up say concealment* breaks precise sense observation)It does no such thing. It follows the stealth rules rewording it sentence by sentence, and oddly enough gives the same conclusion as the original stealth rules. (for various values of "conclusion)
Also, don't forget that just about every creature has at least low-light if not darkvision (or both). That severely hampers the obscene power you think this interpretation gives stealth.Every creature in the dungeon has it. Your party? Not so much. Pretty much makes being a human a death sentence: 5 foot step stealth sklerk 5 foot step stealth sklerk.
I forgot all the monsters and farmers in fields everywhere are designed to be super awesome at stealth with impossibly high modifiers and that PCs are in no way capable of detecting such monsters. Also that PCs are only ever humans and that not having inherent ways for humans to see in poor lighting is totally unfair and not at all a con to be assessed and balanced when determining what type of race a PC wants their character to be. Good points all around.
It's not like people can hunker down behind a low wall to try to hide or anything. That's not possible in the slightest. Such a suggestion violates the very laws of physics and treats gamers like toddlers. I hadn't considered that perspective.
And again, the section from UI says you can't perform stealth while being observed by precise senses. Then it explicitly says shadowy areas shield from precise senses. Apparently you read that differently than me. *shrug*
You know what's a good way to prevent monsters from hiding in the darkness? Light. It's a 0-level spell. Works pretty handy. Or grab a torch. I hear they're cheap. Or I suppose you can buy a magic item that gives you the ability to see in poor lighting.
Or you can complain that stealth rules aren't totally realistic while the elf in the corner stops times, waggles her fingers, and explodes the ice dragon flying overhead. Whatever suits you.
|
|
"It is impossible to Stealth while attacking, running, or charging."
Is a very important sentence. The issue is, when does the attacking action end?
Does it end after you take a Standard action to attack or are you considered attacking for the whole round?
That question is not defined and opened to interpretation.
I don't know the answer and I can read it either way. At moment, I'm leaning to, if you attack, you're considered as attacking for the whole round. This is more due to the Sniping Rule and other abilities that allow stealthing while attacking as specific rules that trump normal stealth rules.
If it extended past the moment of actual attack, the rules would tell you as much. You aren't attacking after you've stopped. Let's say there's a skill that can't happen "while spell casting". Would you say that the skill was impossible to use after the spell casting was complete?
It literally says WHILE attacking. How can it go any other way?
"It is impossible to Stealth while attacking, running, or charging."
Is a very important sentence. The issue is, when does the attacking action end?
Does it end after you take a Standard action to attack or are you considered attacking for the whole round?
That question is not defined and opened to interpretation.
I don't know the answer and I can read it either way. At moment, I'm leaning to, if you attack, you're considered as attacking for the whole round. This is more due to the Sniping Rule and other abilities that allow stealthing while attacking as specific rules that trump normal stealth rules.
Your attack ends after you roll the dice and do damage. There is no "in combat state" for pathfinder that prevents stealth.
You can take a 5' step after taking all your attacks in a full attack, and since stealth is a part of movement, you can stealth using that 5' step.
Or you can complain that stealth rules aren't totally realistic while the elf in the corner stops times, waggles her fingers, and explodes the ice dragon flying overhead. Whatever suits you.
Your reading of the stealth rules is not the stealth rules. VASTLY different things.
Your reading has most conceivable benchmarks of being problematic. Its unrealistic is one of those. With a skill usable by mundane, untrained people when one reading of the rules gets you realism and the other one turns Farmer Brown into Dr. McNInja Brown that's a big point in the first ones favor.
There's no need at all to even bother with observed/unobserved, at all, if they're synonymous with cover/concealment. There's no need to write in a term observed and make it mean something completely different than its english meaning and contrast it with cover/concealment if its the exact same thing as cover/concealment. Not only does it appear important in the raw, but many class abilities include it as well. The idea that they tossed in a completely superflous term and kept using it as the basis for class abilities boggles the mind.
It pretty much negates other abilities. Sniping, creating a distraction to hide, are all pretty important mechanics to just be circumvented and rendered obsolete if you can just start stealthing while people are looking at you. That means that investing in those character options was pretty worthless, meaning that the only stealth build is just more pluses more pluses and more pluses.
There is just no interpretation paradigm where easy stealth is the better one.
*In your opinion.There is just no interpretation paradigm where easy stealth is the better one.
If you need to dismiss rather than engage then its not just an opinion.
Just bear in mind the designers have said they would like to re-examine stealth in one of the blog posts. I forget when.
My feeling has already been made clear in other posts. You can't attack and then use stealth once you have attacked. As the post above makes clear, you can't use stealth while attacking. As you obviously can't use stealth alongside a standard attack or full attack action (because they aren't move actions) I chose to believe the designers didn't intend the phrase to be redundant and it actually means something.
There is an exception clearly described as sniping, which can be done if you are more than 10ft away and already hidden, by using a move action with a significant penalty. I so nothing to indicate that this should also be made redundant by letting people attack and stealth normally.
I really don't see that we need to complicate things with debates about five foot steps or the length actions take. It really seems quite simple.
Peace out.
Stealth requires movement, not a move action.
Stealth requires movement, not a move action.Stealth requires movement, not a move action.
Stealth requires movement, not a move action.
Stealth requires movement, not a move action.
The sole exception to this is sniping which is a ranged attack wherein the attacker does not move, but is still allowed to remain hidden while attacking.
You are not hidden while attacking in any way shape or form. What is not happening is that you are not "attacking" for your entire turn when making a full attack action. There is nothing in the rules that supports this interpretation.
I can 5' step away from my target and not be able to attack him, ergo, it is impossible for me to be attacking him.
There is no support in the rules for a state of "attacking" for your entire turn.
Or you can complain that stealth rules aren't totally realistic while the elf in the corner stops times, waggles her fingers, and explodes the ice dragon flying overhead. Whatever suits you.Your reading of the stealth rules is not the stealth rules. VASTLY different things.
Your reading has most conceivable benchmarks of being problematic. Its unrealistic is one of those. With a skill usable by mundane, untrained people when one reading of the rules gets you realism and the other one turns Farmer Brown into Dr. McNInja Brown that's a big point in the first ones favor.
There's no need at all to even bother with observed/unobserved, at all, if they're synonymous with cover/concealment. There's no need to write in a term observed and make it mean something completely different than its english meaning and contrast it with cover/concealment if its the exact same thing as cover/concealment. Not only does it appear important in the raw, but many class abilities include it as well. The idea that they tossed in a completely superflous term and kept using it as the basis for class abilities boggles the mind.
It pretty much negates other abilities. Sniping, creating a distraction to hide, are all pretty important mechanics to just be circumvented and rendered obsolete if you can just start stealthing while people are looking at you. That means that investing in those character options was pretty worthless, meaning that the only stealth build is just more pluses more pluses and more pluses.
There is just no interpretation paradigm where easy stealth is the better one.
That's not how stealth works, even under my interpretation. So ... *shrug*
I never said cover/concealment and observation are the same thing. I can't help if you're arguing a point that I am not nor ever have made. I have, however, said that concealment breaks observation, because that appears to be what the rules contemplate.
This doesn't negate sniping; that's been explained already in this thread. How destractions work has been explained already in this thread. Neither have been negated by my interpretation. If you think that, it's because you don't understand the interpretation and its consequences.
Also, your reading isn't necessarily "more realistic". It is more realistic in some circumstances. Less so in others. So again, *shrug*. And again, unless your farmer has devoted a lot of resources to stealth, he's not a ninja.
Random Farmer in Dim Lighting: I'm going to hide!
Random Other Person: Take 10.
GM: He's right there. *points*
The Stealth Rules aren't realistic (not just my interpretation, the rules in general - which is what I said before). You're complaining because you think my interpretation is unrealistic, but only in the sense you're not ok with. I'm fine with that. I'm also fine recognizing that UI reiterates that concealment breaks observation. You're not. That's cool. Play your game however you want.
But you know what my interpretation does do? Give stealth-based characters a little more opportunity to make use of their abilities. Oh noes! I has broken teh game!!!
That's not how stealth works, even under my interpretation. So ... *shrug*
Farmer brown and farmer White are getting in a little extra harvets time in a field, under the moon.
Farmer brown, still being mad about that incident with the cow last week, whacks farmer white in the head with his hoe, and walks off.
Since they're peasants and all peasants are all alike, they both have 10 dex, 10 wisdom, and no ranks in either stealth or perception.
Farmer brown has a 50% chance of pulling this off from what you're saying.
I never said cover/concealment and observation are the same thing. I can't help if you're arguing a point that I am not nor ever have made. I have, however, said that concealment breaks observation, because that appears to be what the rules contemplate.
I am genuinely confused by the alleged difference.
This doesn't negate sniping; that's been explained already in this thread. How destractions work has been explained already in this thread. Neither have been negated by my interpretation. If you think that, it's because you don't understand the interpretation and its consequences.
I do. You're not using it to its fullest potential. Someone could be anywhere within 6oft is roughly what you're going to be able to tell from the arrow sticking out of your butt. There is no reason to make a standard action to bluff and amove action to hide when you can just withdraw , hide, move somewhere else without a -10 penalty. It effectively gets you a +10 bonus AND instead of being somewhere within 30 feet you're somewhere within 60 feet.
Random Farmer in Dim Lighting: I'm going to hide!
Random Other Person: Take 10.
GM: He's right there. *points*
Farmer Brown:Rolls an 11 to stealth. Picks up black pajamas and throwing shamrocks.
But you know what my interpretation does do? Give stealth-based characters a little more opportunity to make use of their abilities. Oh noes! I has broken teh game!!!
Don't imagine this on a rogue. Imagine it on a wizard who chucks a fireball and then stealths 30/60 feet away. All he needs to be just as good as a rogue is a trait, especially since all those class features to stealth don't really do anything, its all about the +
Precise and Imprecise Senses: Since Perception covers all senses, it is important to distinguish which of those senses count as observing a creature that is using Stealth.
Some senses are more precise than others. Imprecise senses allow a creature to pinpoint the location of another creature, but they don't allow for the use of targeted effects, and attacks against those creatures are subject to miss chances from concealment. A few examples of imprecise senses are hearing, scent, blindsense, and tremorsense. A sense is precise if it allows the creature to use targeted effects on creatures and objects it senses, and to attack enemies without suffering a miss chance from concealment. This includes vision, touch, blindsight, and lifesense. Precise senses allow the creature to pinpoint an enemy's location. When a creature uses a precise sense to observe an enemy, that enemy is unable to use Stealth against the observer unless it creates a distraction first, or has a special ability allowing it to do so. Senses other than the listed ones count as precise or imprecise at the GM's discretion. A creature might have a limited form of a sense that makes it too weak to count as precise, such as a beast with primitive eyes that has difficulty seeing a creature that isn't moving.Cover and Concealment for Stealth: The reason a character usually needs cover or concealment to use Stealth is tied to the fact that characters can't use Stealth while being observed. A sneaking character needs to avoid all of an opponent's precise senses in order to use Stealth, and for most creatures, that means vision. Effects such as blur and displacement, which leave a clear visual of the character within the perceiving character's vision, aren't sufficient to use Stealth, but a shadowy area or a curtain work nicely, for example. The hide in plain sight class ability allows a creature to use Stealth while being observed and thus avoids this whole situation. A sneaking character can come out of cover or concealment during her turn, as long as she doesn't end her turn where other characters are directly observing her.
To break this down you need to
A. not be observed by a precise sense,....and
B. you need cover or concealment.
.....and/or
C. A class feature or other method that can negate A and/or B.
So if I hit someone in the face, and then cast an immediate/swift action invisibility then I should be able to stealth assuming they do not have blindsight or some similar precise sense. <--Just one example.
Now I am going to go back and read this disagreement between BNW and Fretgod to see who I think is right.
I do. You're not using it to its fullest potential. Someone could be anywhere within 60ft is roughly what you're going to be able to tell from the arrow sticking out of your butt. There is no reason to make a standard action to bluff and amove action to hide when you can just withdraw , hide, move somewhere else without a -10 penalty. It effectively gets you a +10 bonus AND instead of being somewhere within 30 feet you're somewhere within 60 feet.
There is a reason.
If you bluff and then move(stealth), nobody saw you once you made that stealth so you could have hidden anywhere(assuming there are several places to hide).
If you just withdraw people will see you until you get to the point of cover/concealment. They not know exactly where you are, but if they saw you moving towards the brick wall it is reason to say you are somewhere in the area.
I understand this could in theory cause problems, but there are not normally a lot of places to hide unless a GM is really liberal with what counts as cover*. If the combat is outside in a forest that could be a problem, but it will be good for stealth since it is normally easily negated. In actual gameplay I don't think this will be a real issue at most games because fights tend to take place inside of buildings/dungeons. Unless someone actually leaves the room they won't have a lot of options.
*I for one, would not allow a coffee table to count, but a bookshelf would suffice.
|
Observed uses both Precise and Imprecise Senses (See Ultimate Intrigue).
Actually, Ultimate Intrigue seems very clear that 'observed' is based on precise senses only;
"Precise and Imprecise Senses: Since Perception covers all senses, it is important to distinguish which of those senses count as observing a creature that is using Stealth."
"Precise senses allow the creature to pinpoint an enemy's location. When a creature uses a precise sense to observe an enemy, that enemy is unable to use Stealth against the observer unless it creates a distraction first, or has a special ability allowing it to do so."
"Observing: The final state is when the perceiving character is able to directly observe the sneaking character with a precise sense, such as vision."
From these it seems clear that the entire 'imprecise senses' distinction exists specifically because those are the senses which do not count for 'observing' a target.
This is actually the biggest change to my understanding of stealth from the UI write-up. I previously thought that all senses counted / that pinpointing the target's location square (which CAN be done with imprecise senses) was synonymous with 'observing'.
You do NOT need to see the target to keep it 'under' the 'Observed' effect after they attacked to know what square they're in. You just don't know "precisely" where they're at.
Nope, the UI defined states are different;
Observed - Keeping exact track of with a precise sense
Aware of Location - Know which square they are in due to an imprecise sense.
Aware of Presence - Know they are somewhere nearby, but do not know what square
Unaware - Do not know that they are nearby
So the person that attacked can not Stealth the same round they attacked.
That wouldn't be true even if your prior statements were accurate. For example, if both characters are in a fog cloud which grants concealment then the attacker could move away stealthily and disappear in the fog.
*There are all kinds of different exceptions to this General rule. I'm only interested in a SIMPLE -
I Attack
Then I use Stealth to hide in the same round.
Without using any other abilities but a simple attack and move ability
ruling on if this is legal or not. As I can see it both ways. At the moment I'm thinking it's not legal but that's more because of the exception rules (Hide in Plain Sight, Sniping, etc)
In that case, it depends on how wide your aversion to 'exceptions' is. No diversion to hide (e.g. diversion created by an ally with a readied action)? Nothing providing concealment? If so... then essentially you are saying, 'it is not legal to use stealth in the same round after attacking if you exclude all the situations when it IS legal'.
I do. You're not using it to its fullest potential. Someone could be anywhere within 60ft is roughly what you're going to be able to tell from the arrow sticking out of your butt. There is no reason to make a standard action to bluff and amove action to hide when you can just withdraw , hide, move somewhere else without a -10 penalty. It effectively gets you a +10 bonus AND instead of being somewhere within 30 feet you're somewhere within 60 feet.There is a reason.
If you bluff and then move(stealth), nobody saw you once you made that stealth so you could have hidden anywhere(assuming there are several places to hide).
If you just withdraw people will see you until you get to the point of cover/concealment. They not know exactly where you are, but if they saw you moving towards the brick wall it is reason to say you are somewhere in the area.
I understand this could in theory cause problems, but there are not normally a lot of places to hide unless a GM is really liberal with what counts as cover*. If the combat is outside in a forest that could be a problem, but it will be good for stealth since it is normally easily negated. In actual gameplay I don't think this will be a real issue at most games because fights tend to take place inside of buildings/dungeons. Unless someone actually leaves the room they won't have a lot of options.
*I for one, would not allow a coffee table to count, but a bookshelf would suffice.
It's almost like this really isn't even a problem ...
Precise and Imprecise Senses: Since Perception covers all senses, it is important to distinguish which of those senses count as observing a creature that is using Stealth.
Some senses are more precise than others. Imprecise senses allow a creature to pinpoint the location of another creature, but they don't allow for the use of targeted effects, and attacks against those creatures are subject to miss chances from concealment. A few examples of imprecise senses are hearing, scent, blindsense, and tremorsense. A sense is precise if it allows the creature to use targeted effects on creatures and objects it senses, and to attack enemies without suffering a miss chance from concealment. This includes vision, touch, blindsight, and lifesense. Precise senses allow the creature to pinpoint an enemy's location. When a creature uses a precise sense to observe an enemy, that enemy is unable to use Stealth against the observer unless it creates a distraction first, or has a special ability allowing it to do so. Senses other than the listed ones count as precise or imprecise at the GM's discretion. A creature might have a limited form of a sense that makes it too weak to count as precise, such as a beast with primitive eyes that has difficulty seeing a creature that isn't moving.Cover and Concealment for Stealth: The reason a character usually needs cover or concealment to use Stealth is tied to the fact that characters can't use Stealth while being observed. A sneaking character needs to avoid all of an opponent's precise senses in order to use Stealth, and for most creatures, that means vision. Effects such as blur and displacement, which leave a clear visual of the character within the perceiving character's vision, aren't sufficient to use Stealth, but a shadowy area or a curtain work nicely, for example. The hide in plain sight class ability allows a creature to use Stealth while being observed and thus avoids this whole situation. A sneaking character can come out of cover or concealment during her turn, as long as she doesn't end her turn where other characters are directly observing her.
To break this down you need to
A. not be observed by a precise sense,
....and
B. you need cover or concealment.
.....and/or
C. A class feature or other method that can negate A and/or B.
So if I hit someone in the face, and then cast an immediate/swift action invisibility then I should be able to stealth assuming they do not have blindsight or some similar precise sense. <--Just one example.
Under the Cover and Concealment section:
1. The reason a character usually needs cover or concealment to use Stealth is tied to the fact that characters can't use Stealth while being observed.
The reason you need cover or concealment (Note: not Total Cover or Total Concealment) is because you cannot use stealth while "being observed" (unless you have a special ability/circumstance as mentioned in the Precise/Imprecise Senses section. Most creatures don't, so cover/concealment is it.
2. A sneaking character needs to avoid all of an opponent's precise senses in order to use Stealth, and for most creatures, that means vision.
In order to make use of Stealth, you must avoid precise senses, typically vision.
3. Effects such as blur and displacement, which leave a clear visual of the character within the perceiving character's vision, aren't sufficient to use Stealth,...
Specific magical effects like blur and displacement which provide concealment are insufficient to overcome being observed by a precise sense.
4. but a shadowy area or a curtain work nicely, for example.
But heading to a "shadowy area" (Note: not darkness) "work[s] nicely [to break being observed by vision]."
In short, vision is a precise sense and if someone is using it on you, you are not allowed to use Stealth unless you overcome their vision. Going to a "shadowy area" works nicely to overcome vision. Ergo, if you're in a shadowy area, you are either "not being observed" or you are allowed to make a stealth check despite being observed because you have concealment. Either way, feel free to use Stealth.
Don't imagine this on a rogue. Imagine it on a wizard who chucks a fireball and then stealths 30/60 feet away. All he needs to be just as good as a rogue is a trait, especially since all those class features to stealth don't really do anything, its all about the +
You mean like a Wizard can already do? The Wizard is probably hurling its fireball from 60' away, anyway. Where are we? In a dungeon? So, Wizard hurls a fireball at you ... then steps around a corner and uses Stealth.
Or ...
Wizard hurls a fireball at you ... then moves 10' to the left and uses Stealth because they were already 60' away in a dark dungeon and are now beyond the range of your light source and/or darkvision (in the later case, get within 60' and you can see the Wizard again; in the former, get within normal light range and you can see the Wizard again).
Or ...
The Wizard hurls a fireball at you ... then tries to use Stealth but doesn't do as well as their Rogue ally and is easy to spot because the Wizard didn't bother to ramp up their Dexterity, doesn't have Stealth as a class skill, and hasn't devoted any real resources beyond maybe a skill point or two to Stealth because the Wizard had far better things to invest in.
Or ...
The Wizard hurls a fireball at you ... then just stands there staying invisible thanks to their Greater Invisibility spell.
Again, I'm not really seeing where Stealth is causing a problem here.
Farmer brown and farmer White are getting in a little extra harvets time in a field, under the moon.
Farmer brown, still being mad about that incident with the cow last week, whacks farmer white in the head with his hoe, and walks off.
Since they're peasants and all peasants are all alike, they both have 10 dex, 10 wisdom, and no ranks in either stealth or perception.
Farmer brown has a 50% chance of pulling this off from what you're saying.
Sure. *shrug*
I mean, Farmer Brown is moving at half speed the entire time they're moving away from Farmer White. So they better succeed (at 50% chance) for like the next minute if White is going to have no chance to retaliate. Of course, that also ignores the whole "I know where you live" and "Assault is illegal so I'll call the constable" aspect of things. Brown has 25% chance of making to checks in a row and would still be within 30-45' of White. 12.5% to make three. Etc. Brown is probably boned.
Of course, there's also that whole bit that Farmer Brown has a fairly significant chance of killing White on that first hit. So, you know, murder. A Stealth check isn't really relevant at that point, unless we're extending this to Brown hiding from the authorities. I imagine they probably have some ranks invested in Perception, as well as magical means likely being available to aid in tracking the murderer down. Brown is probably boned.
Are you suggesting that Brown whacks White, then 5' steps back, uses Stealth, then waits their next turn to 5' step in and make another attack? Sure, could do that. But then Brown is out in the open standing next to White, hoping he hit both times (murder!) otherwise White gets a hit back. Or White readied and gets to hit Brown before the second attack, assuming again that White isn't already dead. Brown is probably boned.
Of course, while doing this we're working within a completely artificial and arbitrary turn-based mechanic to simulate combat. But the realism we're truly worried about is how Stealth works.
Again, *shrug*
There is a reason.
If you bluff and then move(stealth), nobody saw you once you made that stealth so you could have hidden anywhere(assuming there are several places to hide).
If you just withdraw people will see you until you get to the point of cover/concealment. They not know exactly where you are, but if they saw you moving towards the brick wall it is reason to say you are somewhere in the area.
It is not. And if you're smart, you won't be there.
Bluffy the vampire slayer uses a standard action to say "look a monkey" . They then move to Cover. Could be anywhere within 30 feet that has cover. This takes a -10 penalty and 2 skills keyed off of 2 different ability scores.
Sneaky just withdraws to the brick wall. Because you can leave cover without breaking stealth, and (this is the big part)sneaky didn't use their standard action, sneaky moves another 3o feet
No -10 penalty, one skill check, one skill, one ability score, and twice the movement.
If there aren't a lot of areas for cover then it doesn't matter how well you bluffed anyone, they know you're behind the curtain.
Again, I'm not really seeing where Stealth is causing a problem here.
and then you stand right next to him.. and he does it again.
Stealth builds aren't (just) made around stacking +s onto stealth. They're made around the observation rules. The easy stealth interpretation hands those class features and feats out to everyone
Again, I'm not really seeing where Stealth is causing a problem here.
and then you stand right next to him.. and he does it again.
Stealth builds aren't (just) made around stacking +s onto stealth. They're made around the observation rules. The easy stealth interpretation hands those class features and feats out to everyone
I stand right next to the Wizard who cast fireball and he does it again? How does that help the Wizard? The Wizard in the example was like 60' away already, anyway. I'm not sure how this critique is relevant.
Regardless, this doesn't hand class features out to anyone. If you're referring to Camouflage and HiPS, they still work as intended and only classes that get them benefit from them. How they work was explained above.
There is a reason.
If you bluff and then move(stealth), nobody saw you once you made that stealth so you could have hidden anywhere(assuming there are several places to hide).
If you just withdraw people will see you until you get to the point of cover/concealment. They not know exactly where you are, but if they saw you moving towards the brick wall it is reason to say you are somewhere in the area.
It is not. And if you're smart, you won't be there.
Bluffy the vampire slayer uses a standard action to say "look a monkey" . They then move to Cover. Could be anywhere within 30 feet that has cover. This takes a -10 penalty and 2 skills keyed off of 2 different ability scores.
Sneaky just withdraws to the brick wall. Because you can leave cover without breaking stealth, and (this is the big part)sneaky didn't use their standard action, sneaky moves another 3o feet
No -10 penalty, one skill check, one skill, one ability score, and twice the movement.
If there aren't a lot of areas for cover then it doesn't matter how well you bluffed anyone, they know you're behind the curtain.
Well, Sneaky did withdraw. So Sneaky can't actually move anymore. We know where Sneaky is. Unless you meant Sneaky just walked away, drawing the AoO. Well then I suppose Sneaky could do that. But there's a natural consequence for Sneaky that wasn't there for Bluffy.
Bluffy could be behind any one of the 7 trees in the immediate area. Sneaky is currently hidden, but specifically behind one. Or Sneaky could potentially have moved behind one, then to another area, but ate an AoO while doing so.
Of course, Sneaky moving behind a tree, then moving behind another tree can also happen under your interpretation. Sneaky moves behind a tree and likely has total cover. So Sneaky can move to another tree, starting in total cover and ending in total cover (or even just cover) and we're in the same situation.
So, "easy" Stealth again isn't really a problem.
Well, Sneaky did withdraw. So Sneaky can't actually move anymore.
Withdrawing from melee combat is a full-round action. When you withdraw, you can move up to double your speed.
|
|
Sneaky can't move stealthily between two trees unless he has cover/concealment the entire way.
The only exception to this requires you start your turn in stealth. We will know where Sneaky snuck off to find cover.
Of course, its more difficult when Sneaky has concealment the whole time, such as in darkness or dim lighting against a creature without a light source or darkvision. But how many humans adventure at night with access to neither?
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).
|
|
I feel like at this point we're just arguing how the rules should be. That is, you only need cover/concealment to break observation and to make a stealth check.
If you want to make it harder than that in your campaign, houserule it.
@BNW A thousand examples about why it shouldn't be that easy, how's its broken for farmers to stealth against farmers, doesn't change what's written in Ultimate Intrigue. The posts above do a really good job of showing that.
Anyway, this entire thread is about whether you can stealth on the same turn you attack. I don't think anyone but the OP really thinks that you can't.
Can you Stealth after attacking?
This topic has come up in a lot of different threads. Hopefully, I've summarized everything. I'm hoping to get this as a FAQ as people have strong opinions on this and if you can not stealth in the same round after attacking, a lot of people have been using the stealth rules wrong.Bring this question up as just about every single PFS table I've sat at has been able to use a Stanadard Action to Attack and a Move Action to break line of sight and Stealth. I used to think this was legal but after going through the rules on Stealth, I'm now thinking the answer is No (but still undecided).
Page 106 in the Core Rule Book
Major sentences that seem to say you can NOT Stealth in combat -
It’s impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can’t use Stealth.
Your Stealth immediately ends after you make an attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful.Sentences that indicate it might be possible to Stealth in Combat -
Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.
Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action.My reasons for thinking you can NOT Stealth after making an attack is because of the special Sniping rule (pretty sure there's other 'special' stealth rules too) -
Sniping: If you’ve already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.If you could always Attack as a standard action and then use a move action to hide (stealth) there would be no need for the Sniping rule.
Hoping to get a official answer to this and maybe get it added to the FAQ.
I would like this to be FAQ also. As I read it now you can't attack and enter Stealth on the same turn for any reason except sniping. Yes I understand sniping never reveals you... not what I am stating. You can gain cover or concealment on this turn but must wait for at least the start of the next turn before you enter stealth. Your target just plain and simply gets to retaliate, for free, and not have to use perception to re-find you.
|
|
@Akkurscid The following from Ultimate Intrigue shows that a creature can stealth after attacking:
Aware of Presence: The next state is when the perceiving creature is aware of the sneaking creature's presence, though not of anything beyond that. This is the state that happens when an invisible creature attacks someone and then successfully uses Stealth so the perceiving creature doesn't know where the attacker moved, or when a sniper succeeds at her Stealth check to snipe.
A perceiving creature that becomes aware of a hidden creature's presence will still be aware of its presence at least until the danger of the situation continues, if not longer (though memory-altering magic can change this).
The invisible creature attacks someone and then successfully uses stealth. He didn't wait a full round, it didn't happen on his next turn. He attacked and got out of sight and the target "doesn't know where the attacker moved."
You can stealth on the same round you made an attack as long as you can move.