For stealth are (cover or concealment) and non observed status two seperate conditions or does concealment / cover automatically provide non observed status?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

27 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

For stealth are (cover/concealment) and non observed status two separate conditions or does concealment/cover automatically provide non observed status?


They are two separate things. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to pinpoint a creature with concealment (since you wouldn't be able to observe them).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

1: Despite being cited extensively in the stealth rules, cover is really irrelevant to stealth. A wall of force provides total cover... but you can see someone 'sneaking' behind it just fine. Concealment (against various senses) is the only factor which really matters. That said, most forms of cover also provide concealment against one or more senses. However, it is the concealment properties which need to be considered... the effectiveness in blocking attacks (i.e. 'cover') is irrelevant.

2: If a target has total concealment against all of an enemy's precise senses then that target is not observed by the enemy. So, a target behind a pillar might have total concealment from vision and blindsight, but not touch (e.g. with a long tentacle) or lifesense... and thus still be 'observed'.

Thus, to me, the uncertainty revolves around situations where the target has partial concealment from all of the enemy's precise senses. A target that steps behind a sparsely leaved bush or into a shadowy area can still be seen and attacked... albeit with a 20% miss chance. This is more than just 'awareness of location', but less than perfect 'observation'.


CBDunkerson wrote:

1: Despite being cited extensively in the stealth rules, cover is really irrelevant to stealth. A wall of force provides total cover... but you can see someone 'sneaking' behind it just fine. Concealment (against various senses) is the only factor which really matters. That said, most forms of cover also provide concealment against one or more senses. However, it is the concealment properties which need to be considered... the effectiveness in blocking attacks (i.e. 'cover') is irrelevant.

2: If a target has total concealment against all of an enemy's precise senses then that target is not observed by the enemy. So, a target behind a pillar might have total concealment from vision and blindsight, but not touch (e.g. with a long tentacle) or lifesense... and thus still be 'observed'.

Thus, to me, the uncertainty revolves around situations where the target has partial concealment from all of the enemy's precise senses. A target that steps behind a sparsely leaved bush or into a shadowy area can still be seen and attacked... albeit with a 20% miss chance. This is more than just 'awareness of location', but less than perfect 'observation'.

This theory, which I generally agree with, is hampered by the fact that nowhere I'm aware of does stealth distinguish between partial and total cover/concealment.


concealment= partial concealment. They're the same thing. the 20% miss chance one.

cover= partial cover. The +4 AC one.

total cover and concealment by their nature mean you can't see them at all you effectively have invisibility.

The Concordance

FAQ'd

Would like the issue settled. I'm on the "cover/concealment sufficiently breaks observation" side of the argument.

Scarab Sages

CBDunkerson wrote:
1: Despite being cited extensively in the stealth rules, cover is really irrelevant to stealth. A wall of force provides total cover... but you can see someone 'sneaking' behind it just fine. Concealment (against various senses) is the only factor which really matters. That said, most forms of cover also provide concealment against one or more senses. However, it is the concealment properties which need to be considered... the effectiveness in blocking attacks (i.e. 'cover') is irrelevant.

A wall of force does not provide total cover against some attacks, in particular, laser weapons ignore it.

Scarab Sages

To the OP, definitely different things. I think the writing of stealth is poor, though, as I think you could reasonably "attempt stealth" while being observed, with the effectiveness of your stealth being resolved on a person by person basis. Otherwise, friendly PCs (and companions) would prevent use of the stealth and successful stealth would make you invisible to your allies.

As written, Stealth can be used to detect observers because if you can't stealth, your being observed. I don't really think that's reasonable. So I'd have you roll stealth and not tell you if you failed, letting the PCs and NPCs act accordingly to how they rolled their perception.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Cover is a solid barrier between the observer and the target, it can be transparent, translucent or opaque.

Partial cover is a solid barrier that is not large enough to completely shield the target, or has gaps in it.

Concealment is a non-solid barrier between the observer and the target, it can also be transparent, translucent or opaque.

Partial concealment is a non-solid barrier that not large enough to completely shield the target.

Invisibility means you can't be seen, not that you are not seen.

You have to be in a position where normally you could be seen in order to be invisible, otherwise you are simply not seen.

So having total cover and concealment is not the same as being invisible.
They are two similar but different situations.

Considering the variety of senses available in the game it is possible for cover or concealment to provide a variety of defenses between an observer and a target.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Isn't Invisibility a superset of Total Concealment? It gives Total Concealment and a bonus to Stealth rolls.


Queen Moragan wrote:
Cover is a solid barrier between the observer and the target, it can be transparent, translucent or opaque.

No, it's not.

Cover

To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

Quote:
Partial cover is a solid barrier that is not large enough to completely shield the target, or has gaps in it.

Partial cover is the +2 bonus one.

Partial Cover: If a creature has cover, but more than half the creature is visible, its cover bonus is reduced to a +2 to AC and a +1 bonus on Reflex saving throws. This partial cover is subject to the GM's discretion.


Murdock Mudeater wrote:

To the OP, definitely different things. I think the writing of stealth is poor, though, as I think you could reasonably "attempt stealth" while being observed, with the effectiveness of your stealth being resolved on a person by person basis. Otherwise, friendly PCs (and companions) would prevent use of the stealth and successful stealth would make you invisible to your allies.

As written, Stealth can be used to detect observers because if you can't stealth, your being observed. I don't really think that's reasonable. So I'd have you roll stealth and not tell you if you failed, letting the PCs and NPCs act accordingly to how they rolled their perception.

Yeah, there's a whole lot of weirdness in the Stealth rules, much of it eased by assuming that whenever they talk about using Stealth they mean against a specific target - When being observed, you can't use Stealth (against that observer).

I'm personally fond of "A creature can't hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover."
No hiding in the bushes with your friend the dwarf. Just doesn't work. Can't do it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Stealth rules:
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.

Now either there is an outright contradiction within two sentences of each other (and one sentence is completely meaningless) or something else is going on.

There is something else going on. Your quote comes from a paragraph and the paragraph makes the meaning of the sentence perfectly clear.

You cannot stealth while observed

You need to reach cover or concealment

Here is how you reach cover or concealment unobserved: you make a bluff check to tell them "hey look a monkey". Those that fail are distracted. You can then make a stealth check at a -10 penalty to haul rear to the shadows, batman style.

It makes every sentence work without any contradictions
It resolves every "contradiction" you get otherwise
It makes every sentence meaningful (the line "if your onlookers are momentarily distracted is pretty meaningless otherwise)
It means that camouflage is not a prone shooter option.
It means that the lines in shadowdancer stealth "A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed" is meaningful
It makes sniping an actual option instead of "why would you ever do that"
It makes the bluff and hide tactic an actual option instead of "why ever would you do that" : It takes two skills and a whopping -10 penalty. Why would you EVER take that option if all you needed was concealment?
It keeps stealth from being the god skill improved invisibility in combat
It does a pretty good job of mirroring reality

Most importantly it explains why they're all in the same paragraph together, in context. Sentences 3 4 and 5 obviously rely on each other. Sentences 1 and 2 being there only makes any sense if they're supposed to work with the rest of the paragraph.

Neither concealed nor observed: Polonius doing the macarana in the middle of the room.

Concealed and not observed: Polonius behind the curtain with his shoes sticking out as soon as you walk into the room

Concealed but observed: Polonius stabs hamlet and walks behind the curtain with his shoes sticking out: adventurers are not toddlers, they understand the concept of object permanance and can follow part of an object.


thejeff wrote:


I'm personally fond of "A creature can't hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover."
No hiding in the bushes with your friend the dwarf. Just doesn't work. Can't do it.

... does anyone actually argue that it's not relative? I can't decide if that's from too much core rulebook to the head or not nearly enough...


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:


I'm personally fond of "A creature can't hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover."
No hiding in the bushes with your friend the dwarf. Just doesn't work. Can't do it.
... does anyone actually argue that it's not relative? I can't decide if that's from too much core rulebook to the head or not nearly enough...

No, I don't think so. But it's illustrative of not being able to take a single line from the rulebook and act as if establishes anything.

I mean, that line and others like it are quite clear, simple, direct and to the point. And very obviously wrong. Similarly the bit about needing Cover or Invisibility to use Stealth in normal or Bright Light, meaning that unlike dim light or darkness you can't use the light conditions for stealth, but completely ignoring that there are other forms of concealment.


thejeff wrote:


I mean, that line and others like it are quite clear, simple, direct and to the point. And very obviously wrong. Similarly the bit about needing Cover or Invisibility to use Stealth in normal or Bright Light, meaning that unlike dim light or darkness you can't use the light conditions for stealth, but completely ignoring that there are other forms of concealment.

I always read that as you can't use a little bit of blur or screen if the lights are on in wriggly field , but i suppose with blur out of the question anyway hiding behind leaves would work.


Quote:
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

While Vision is explicitly a Precise Sense (see below), by this definition it ceases to be a precise sense vs a concealed opponent, because it doesn't allow you to attack enemies without suffering a miss chance from concealment.

Now,
Observation has a requirement of being able to use precise senses:

Quote:
Observing: The final state is when the perceiving character is able to directly observe the sneaking character with a precise sense, such as vision.

It seems that you are, technically, not observed if the creature cannot use a precise sense VS you

It would follow that dim Light breaks observation vs normal sighted creatures.

But is this the intent? Did designers really mean that you only need Cover or Concealment in order to break observation, making Dim Light effectively a sufficient condition for attempting a stealth check?

It appears that:

Quote:
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 need of "not being observed" is the reason you need cover or concealment in the first place.

This phrase seems to imply that getting cover or concealment then does somehow affect the status of being observed.
Is this really the case?

Quote:
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.

Purpose: avoiding all of an opponent's precise senses

What does work nicely? "a shadowy area or a curtain"


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Queen Moragan wrote:
Cover is a solid barrier between the observer and the target, it can be transparent, translucent or opaque.

No, it's not.

Cover

To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through
a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature,
the target has cover (+4 to AC).

Quote:
Partial cover is a solid barrier that is not large enough to completely shield the target, or has gaps in it.

Partial cover is the +2 bonus one.

Partial Cover: If a creature has cover, but more than half the creature is visible, its cover bonus is reduced to a +2 to AC and a +1 bonus on Reflex saving throws. This partial cover is subject to the GM's discretion.

I bolded the part of your response that describes a barrier between the observer and the target.

I can only assume you agree with the partial cover as they are virtually identical except for the game effects.

It might just be me but I really don't find the Stealth rules to be all that complicated.

From a position in the open, you need some kind of distraction, or you can simply move to where you can't be seen, once you reach concealment or cover, from whatever senses you need to, you can make a Stealth check. Sure they might know where you went and generally where you are, but not exactly, make a Stealth check.

Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.


I'd say they're separate just because there are a multitude of senses that aren't sight.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Regarding the OP, cover, concealment, and non observed status are three different things. Having cover or concealment does not automatically provide non observed status.

A simple example;
Creature A has total cover and concealment and is invisible too!
Creature B is reading a book.
Creature A is making a lot of noise.
Creature A is observed by creature B due to the noise it makes.

If creature B were Silenced while digging through the wall to creature A, then it would be non observed. Until the vibrations of digging through the wall became great enough or the sound of the wall collapsing next to creature A became evident. But that is creature A breaking cover, literally.


Queen Moragan wrote:

I bolded the part of your response that describes a barrier between the observer and the target.

You seem to be saying that cover blocks line of sight and it doesn't. Case in point...

Quote:
Partial cover is a solid barrier that is not large enough to completely shield the target, or has gaps in it.

Something with gaps would still be cover, up to half your body.

Total cover: A 6 foot high wall in between you and the archer
Improved cover: an arrow slit in between you and the archer
Cover: A waist high wall, a meatshield, or a tree you'r hiding behind.
Partial cover: A very low rock that covers a knee or two. (arrows to the knee cause retirement)

Cover isn't nearly enough to make you not seen.

Quote:
From a position in the open, you need some kind of distraction, or you can simply move to where you can't be seen, once you reach concealment or cover, from whatever senses you need to, you can make a Stealth check.

neither concealment or cover stop you from being seen. A waist high wall for example is cover, but they can still see you there.

Either does concealment, they can still see you there. Its only a little hard to tell where your arm ends and the leaf begins.

The Concordance

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.
I've always considered the rules to read in a linear way. The second sentence is telling you how to get an allowed stealth check in the face of the first sentence.

I understand how it can be read as two conditions that must be met, and I think UI better supports the C/C can break observation school of thought.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Queen Moragan wrote:

I bolded the part of your response that describes a barrier between the observer and the target.

You seem to be saying that cover blocks line of sight and it doesn't. Case in point...

Quote:
From a position in the open, you need some kind of distraction, or you can simply move to where you can't be seen, once you reach concealment or cover, from whatever senses you need to, you can make a Stealth check.

neither concealment or cover stop you from being seen. A waist high wall for example is cover, but they can still see you there.

Either does concealment, they can still see you there. Its only a little hard to tell where your arm ends and the leaf begins.

As I said cover can be transparent, just watch BattleBots, you can see how the arena provides cover to the audience, everyone can see through it just fine, but flying bot parts of death can't penetrate it because it is solid cover.

Obviously you can't Stealth if they can look right at you. You need cover or concealment that provides some barrier to their senses.

Not every form of cover or concealment meets that requirement. That's where the GM must decide if it meets the threshold for Stealth.


ShieldLawrence wrote:

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

I've always considered the rules to read in a linear way. The second sentence is telling you how to get an allowed stealth check in the face of the first sentence..

But why are the 3rd 4th and 5th sentences not doing the same thing, in the same paragraph? They work together. They contradict each other apart.


Queen Moragan wrote:


As I said cover can be transparent, just watch BattleBots, you can see how the arena provides cover to the audience, everyone can see through it just fine, but flying bot parts of death can't penetrate it because it is solid cover.

I'm leaving the transparent parts alone because thats.. well. Transparent.

Quote:
Obviously you can't Stealth if they can look right at you. You need cover or concealment that provides some barrier to their senses.

How much barrier is the question. Cover (the +4 AC one) Does nothing to block sight, at all. It just makes them harder to hit.

❏❏A❏❏❏❏❏❏
❏❏❏❏❏❏❏❏❏
❏❏❏❏❏❏❏❏❏❏
OC❏❏❏❏❏❏❏❏

Despite a 90+% un obstructed view The Orc has cover against the Archer there from the Column.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

In each case of cover or concealment blocking observation for a Stealth check, you have to consider what the cover or concealment is made of.

There is no one size fits all, it has to be judged case by case. Does it provide enough of a barrier to block the senses, if it does then you can use Stealth. If it doesn't, you can't Stealth, but it is still cover or concealment and provides the benefits to AC and misses.


Queen Moragan wrote:
In each case of cover or concealment blocking observation for a Stealth check, you have to consider what the cover or concealment is made of.

Only in really weird cases that are covered with the assumed presumption that for every general rule you can name there is an exception to it somewhere.

Quote:
There is no one size fits all, it has to be judged case by case. Does it provide enough of a barrier to block the senses, if it does then you can use Stealth. If it doesn't, you can't Stealth, but it is still cover or concealment and provides the benefits to AC and misses.

I don't think anyone is arguing that total concealment or total cover won't let you stealth.

But people are arguing that Cover (+4 to ac) or concealment (20% miss chance) let you stealth even while people are looking right at you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Until they clarify, I will read it as Cover/Concealment break observation.


Anyway, the question is not phrased properly, and will most likely recieve a non-useful answer

Concealment does not "automatically" provide non-observed status

The answer here is obviously NO. In fact, it doesn't always happen.
It depends on the interaction between the senses and the type of concealment!

Concealment only breaks observation if it gives miss chance against melee attacks from currently present enemies (with the excpetion of blur-like effects)

When it gives miss chance, it means that observation through precise senses is compromised, and you do not count as observed anymore.
(See my previous post)

Smoke and Dim Light do not work vs Blindsight, as an example.

With the question phrased like this, (implying it's "automatic" regardless of what kind of concealmen or senses we're talking about) the answer must necessarily be "no" because there are exceptions

This was not the right question to ask.

The Concordance

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShieldLawrence wrote:

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

I've always considered the rules to read in a linear way. The second sentence is telling you how to get an allowed stealth check in the face of the first sentence..
But why are the 3rd 4th and 5th sentences not doing the same thing, in the same paragraph? They work together. They contradict each other apart.

Being Observed

1. So you can't Stealth when people are observing you
2. Here is one way to get that stealth check in
3-5. Here is another way to get that stealth check in

Of course the sentences work together. They are discussing how to stealth when "being observed."


D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

Anyway, the question is not phrased properly, and will most likely recieve a non-useful answer

Concealment does not "automatically" provide non-observed status

The answer here is obviously NO. In fact, it doesn't always happen.
It depends on the interaction between the senses and the type of concealment!

Concealment only breaks observation if it gives miss chance (with the excpetion of blur-like effects)

When it gives miss chance, it means that observation through precise senses is compromised, and you do not count as observed anymore.
(See my previous post)

As the question was phrased, though, the answer is not necessarily the same. It really depends on what type of concealment and what type of senses are involved.

Smoke and Dim Light do not work vs Blindsense, as an example.

With the question phrased like this, (implying it's "automatic" regardless of what kind of concealmen or senses we're talking about) the answer must necessarily be "no" because there are exceptions

This was not the right question to ask.

But Smoke and dim light don't give concealment vs blindsense. They don't give it whether it's for breaking observation or for maintaining existing stealth.

=


ShieldLawrence wrote:


Being Observed
1. So you can't Stealth when people are observing you
2. Here is one way to get that stealth check in
3-5. Here is another way to get that stealth check in

Of course the sentences work together. They are discussing how to stealth when "being observed."

The first line would be completely unnecessary and runs counter to the rest of the statement and brings in the idea of observed out of the blue. Take that first sentence off completely and then you get closer to what you're describing. With it there it's an outright contradiction.

The idea that the orc above or someone in a candle lit room. isn't being observed is squirrel food level nuts.

Why does shadow dancer hide in plain sight bother to mention observed at all?

What does the ranger camouflage ability do?

This reading is more than a little problematic, and I have yet to see a positive argument for it.


thejeff wrote:
But Smoke and dim light don't give concealment vs blindsense.

(sorry I meant Blindsight. Blindsense isn't even a precise sense)

Anyway, actually,
yes, they do.
The creature with Blindsight doesn't suffer any of the possible consequences of Concealment because concealment is "irrelevant" to creatures with Blindsight (including miss chance, that is the key factor to determine wether you are being observed with a precise sense).

Concealment doesn't go away. It is merely made irrelevant.

Again, the question is not phrased correctly.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
What does the ranger camouflage ability do?

I.E.

You can hide in an empty room with no furniture, no cover, and no concealment, if your terrain is Urban and no one is observing you. As long as you don't break your stealth, any person entering the room will not automatically notice you, they will have to beat your stealth check.

Quote:
Why does shadow dancer hide in plain sight bother to mention observed at all?

Because otherwise it would be the same as Ranger Camouflage.

The difference is that HIPS does not simply allow you to hide in an empty room and then stay hidden when people get in.
It allows you to hide in an empty room when people are looking at you from the window.


Something providing full cover is normally solid so I think we can go with that for this discussion, and then bring in corner cases later on.

Cover should allow you to have not be observed.

Total Concealment also allows you to use stealth.

Partial Concealment is unknown to me right now. Ultimate Intrigue says shadowy areas would allow someone to use stealth, but "a shadowy area" is not defined in the game to my knowledge. Is it 20% miss chance aka dim light, or did they mean dark enough to provide a 50% miss chance?

The above assume nothing similar to Blindsight is in play, and there are no other special abilities that allow you to ignore whatever is being used to hide.

PS: Concealment always gives a miss chance unless otherwise stated, however not all miss chance equals concealment.


I start at a hard corner through a door, enter stealth, tumble through someone, and wind up behind a barrel. I vanish in front of him , go through his square and re appear behind a barrel.


wraithstrike wrote:


Cover should allow you to have not be observed.

The orc in the grid above has cover. Why is he not observed?


wraithstrike wrote:
Concealment always gives a miss chance unless otherwise stated

Concealment only gives miss chance against senses that do not make that kind of concealment irrelevant

See my first post in this thread for further details on how this impacts the rules


This dragon can begin stealthing.
He is very very sneaky.

Very
Very
Sneaky

❏❏❏❏A❏❏❏❏
❏❏❏❏CC❏❏❏
❏❏❏❏CC❏❏❏
❏❏❏❏❏DRAGON❏❏❏❏
❏❏❏❏❏Dragon❏❏❏❏
❏❏❏❏❏Dragon❏❏❏❏
❏❏❏❏❏Dragon❏❏❏❏
❏❏❏❏❏Dragon❏❏❏❏
❏❏❏❏❏Dragon❏❏❏❏


wraithstrike wrote:

Something providing full cover is normally solid so I think we can go with that for this discussion, and then bring in corner cases later on.

Cover should allow you to have not be observed.

Total Concealment also allows you to use stealth.

Partial Concealment is unknown to me right now. Ultimate Intrigue says shadowy areas would allow someone to use stealth, but "a shadowy area" is not defined in the game to my knowledge. Is it 20% miss chance aka dim light, or did they mean dark enough to provide a 50% miss chance?

I assume shadowy is dim light and all they meant in that line is that the shadowy corner or curtain would provide enough concealment to use Stealth, if you weren't previously observed. Actually, the real point of that line was to establish that spell effects like blur & displacement didn't work - since that was an old question.

Because having the line "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." only apply to a some weird corner cases where the enemy has some ability allowing it to stealth without standard cover or concealment doesn't make any sense at all.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Cover should allow you to have not be observed.

The orc in the grid above has cover. Why is he not observed?

I mean his entire body has total cover. I dont mean in situations where you can still target some of his square and not other squares that he occupies, but yes you are correct that there are cases where total cover(+4 cover) should not allow for someone to hide because you can still observe them.


D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Concealment always gives a miss chance unless otherwise stated

Concealment only gives miss chance against senses that do not make that kind of concealment irrelevant

See my first post in this thread for further details on how this impacts the rules

That counts as one of the corner cases I already mentioned so my point still stands.


wraithstrike wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Cover should allow you to have not be observed.

The orc in the grid above has cover. Why is he not observed?
I mean his entire body has total cover.

Gotcha

Total cover is a thing, its AC infinity. Cover cover is Ac 4...

Maybe they ought to forget the word count and put normal on things that have a greater and lesser degree...


thejeff wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Something providing full cover is normally solid so I think we can go with that for this discussion, and then bring in corner cases later on.

Cover should allow you to have not be observed.

Total Concealment also allows you to use stealth.

Partial Concealment is unknown to me right now. Ultimate Intrigue says shadowy areas would allow someone to use stealth, but "a shadowy area" is not defined in the game to my knowledge. Is it 20% miss chance aka dim light, or did they mean dark enough to provide a 50% miss chance?

I assume shadowy is dim light and all they meant in that line is that the shadowy corner or curtain would provide enough concealment to use Stealth, if you weren't previously observed. Actually, the real point of that line was to establish that spell effects like blur & displacement didn't work - since that was an old question.

Because having the line "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." only apply to a some weird corner cases where the enemy has some ability allowing it to stealth without standard cover or concealment doesn't make any sense at all.

I agree, that is likely what they meant, but they need to stick to game terms when possible. It would be even better if they said ".. concealment(even 20%) or better unless...." and then explained something like blur as not counting.


thejeff wrote:


Because having the line "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." only apply to a some weird corner cases where the enemy has some ability allowing it to stealth without standard cover or concealment doesn't make any sense at all.

In fact, it doesn't only apply to corner cases. This does not mean it applies the way you think it does. Let me explain:

The text starts with: "When a creature uses a precise sense to observe an enemy"

This begs the question: "is the enemy observing me with a precise sense?"

The rules say that a sense is not precise when the sense cannot ignore miss chance from concealment

This means that in a Dim Light vs Normal Vision situation, normal vision cannot be considered a precise sense,
It follows that in such a situation you're not being observed with a precise sense

There, you have now it fully explained


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It looks to me like they copied the stealth rules line for line with different wording and thus carried over the confusion from the stealth ruules to their new home...


D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Because having the line "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." only apply to a some weird corner cases where the enemy has some ability allowing it to stealth without standard cover or concealment doesn't make any sense at all.

In fact, it doesn't only apply to corner cases. This does not mean it applies the way you think it does. Let me explain:

The text starts with: "When a creature uses a precise sense to observe an enemy"

This begs the question: "is the enemy observing me with a precise sense?"

The rules say that a sense is not precise when it suffers from miss chance from concealment

This means that in a Dim Light vs Normal Vision situation, normal vision cannot be considered a precise sense

There, you have now it fully explained

Except you're not giving any cases where it applies. Other than your interpretation of the 12-16th level Ranger, if you could use stealth against this guy in these conditions, it doesn't matter whether he's observing you or not.

According to you, Normal vision isn't a precise sense in dim light (or when someone's in the underbrush or any kin other case that gives concealment), so they're not observed, so they can use stealth.

When is that enemy "unable to use Stealth against the observer unless it creates a distraction first"?


My bad , its ranger HIPS

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.

Those really don't make sense with the idea that concealment breaks observation.


Quote:
When is that enemy "unable to use Stealth against the observer unless it creates a distraction first"?

-I am a surrounded by humans, I have no cover, I'm not in dim light and I do not otherwise have concealment.

(how is this a corner case?)
-I am a surrounded by dwarfs, I have no cover, I'm in darkness

Of course, if I find other ways of breaking observation (i.e. going behind total cover, or using a diversion) I can hide.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Those really don't make sense with the idea that concealment breaks observation.

This is just a plain wrong assumption, I already explained to you how these make perfect sense:

explanation

1 to 50 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / For stealth are (cover or concealment) and non observed status two seperate conditions or does concealment / cover automatically provide non observed status? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.