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


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
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.

Because observation doesn't matter at all in those cases.

If you were in a lit room without cover/concealment when the humans walked in you couldn't have hid from them, even if you tried before they saw you.

If you were in a dark room without cover/concealment when the dwarves walked in you couldn't have hid from them, even if you tried before they saw you.

In fact, in both of those cases, you couldn't hide even if you had a distraction. There's still no cover or concealment.


thejeff wrote:
If you were in a lit room without cover/concealment when the humans walked in you couldn't have hid from them, even if you tried before they saw you.

Actually, the walls provide full cover from the creatures outside. But that is not the point.

Instead of a room, try imaging a pillar:

If I'm on the west side of the pillar and enemies are on the east side, I can attempt a stealth check, because I'm not being observed.
My next turn, I will be free to go either the pillar at North or South without breaking stealth.

But if before I could attempt my first stealth check another enemy was somehow observing me (i.e. there is an additional enemy on the west side of me) I couldn't hide from my current position.

unless I can break his observation first, that is.

Not only this is not a corner case; It's extremely common.

The Concordance

BigNorseWolf wrote:
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.

Maybe by the way you read it? I don't see contradictions I see clarifications and exceptions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

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.

Camoflage only states that he can hide without cover or concealment, but it does not let him bypass the rule for being observed, so if you are looking at him then he can not hide.

When can he hide?

If he is hiding in an area before someone shows up that has no cover or concealment they still can not see him. It likely requires setup, but it works. If he is not a ranger he can not hide in an area that has no place for him to hide.


ShieldLawrence wrote:


Maybe by the way you read it? I don't see contradictions I see clarifications and exceptions.

Ok, and is there anything in the system elsewhere pointing to the one thing method as opposed to the two thing method?


wraithstrike wrote:


If he is hiding in an area before someone shows up that has no cover or concealment they still can not see him. It likely requires setup, but it works. If he is not a ranger he can not hide in an area that has no place for him to hide.

So they're ONLY two things... for rangers level 12-17 . For everyone else they're one stop shopping?

Even for pathfinder with a bat judo flipping a red dragon, THAT would be weird.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


If he is hiding in an area before someone shows up that has no cover or concealment they still can not see him. It likely requires setup, but it works. If he is not a ranger he can not hide in an area that has no place for him to hide.

So they're ONLY two things... for rangers level 12-17 . For everyone else they're one stop shopping?

I'm lost here. What do you mean?


wraithstrike wrote:


I'm lost here. What do you mean?

he believes only Rangers ever access Camouflage and HIPS


D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
thejeff wrote:
If you were in a lit room without cover/concealment when the humans walked in you couldn't have hid from them, even if you tried before they saw you.
Actually, the walls provide full cover from the creatures outside. But that is not the point.

Yes, and thus they couldn't see you until they walked in, at which point they would see you because there's nothing left to hide in.

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:


Instead of a room, try imaging a pillar:

If I'm on the west side of the pillar and enemies are on the east side, I can attempt a stealth check, because I'm not being observed.
My next turn, I will be free to go either the pillar at North or South without breaking stealth.

But if before I could attempt my first stealth check another enemy was somehow observing me (i.e. there is an additional enemy on the west side of me) I couldn't hide from my current position.

unless I can break his observation first, that is.

Not only this is not a corner case; It's extremely common.

Or you could just walk to the other pillar and use stealth then. I'm not sure I'm visualizing it right, but you need to end that turn in cover from all the enemies (or be visible to some of them).

This has the drawback that they may suspect you're still there, but you can actually do it. You are using stealth without creating a distraction first.


thejeff wrote:
You are using stealth without creating a distraction first.

This is not forbidden. The rule forbids using stealth without creating a distraction if a creature is observing you

If I have moved behind a pillar where no one can see me, I have already interrupted observation. I am not breaking the rule if I hide now without creating a ditraction first, because I am not being observed.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If he is hiding in an area before someone shows up that has no cover or concealment they still can not see him. It likely requires setup, but it works. If he is not a ranger he can not hide in an area that has no place for him to hide.

So they're ONLY two things... for rangers level 12-17 . For everyone else they're one stop shopping?

Even for pathfinder with a bat judo flipping a red dragon, THAT would be weird.

Yeah, that's pretty much my take. Rangers get a case where they can hide without cover/concealment, but not if they're seen first.

Makes no sense to me.

I think wraithstrike was describing the standard interpretation, where no one can use cover or concealment to hide if they're already observed without a distraction or special ability.

It's the other interpretation where Rangers between 12 and 16 have a special case.


thejeff wrote:


I think wraithstrike was describing the standard interpretation, where no one can use cover or concealment to hide if they're already observed without a distraction or special ability.

Wraithstrike description fits 100% my view, and I've been spending my last posts in the attempt of showing you it doesn't contradict the rule of "creating a ditraction" at all.

This must mean my reading is the standard one.
Nice.


D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
thejeff wrote:
You are using stealth without creating a distraction first.

This is not forbidden. The rule forbids using stealth without creating a distraction if a creature is observing you

If I have moved behind a pillar where no one can see me, I have already interrupted observation. I am not breaking the rule if I hide now without creating a ditraction first, because I am not being observed.

But again, you also couldn't use stealth where you were because you had no cover or concealment. So the fact that you couldn't didn't depend on you being observed, but on you not having cover or concealment where you were.

You need a case where you would be able to use stealth if you hadn't been seen, but you can't because you've already being observed. My understanding gives plenty of such cases.

For example: You're hiding in the dimly lit room. I walk in and make my Perception check against your stealth so I see you. Now you can't use stealth without a distraction or some special ability, because I'm observing you, even though you still have dim light giving you concealment.


thejeff wrote:
You need a case where you would be able to use stealth if you hadn't been seen, but you can't because you've already being observed.

Aha, here is the problem. The rule does not speak in Past tense.

You must be observed NOW to prevent you from stealthing without creating a ditraction first.

I must provide no example of anyone not being able to hide because he's already been observed. The rules do not say anything like that.

Read the new perception rules, there are 4 states of awareness.
Observed is what prevents Stealth. Observed happens in the present.

The state you're talking of classifies either as "aware of position" or "aware of presence"

Let me reiterate:

People are watching me
I go behind a pillar
No one can observe me now with their sight-based precise sense
I use stealth

This is rules legal

However - if behind the pillare there was another creature, that would prevent me from hiding, because it would be observing me


thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If he is hiding in an area before someone shows up that has no cover or concealment they still can not see him. It likely requires setup, but it works. If he is not a ranger he can not hide in an area that has no place for him to hide.

So they're ONLY two things... for rangers level 12-17 . For everyone else they're one stop shopping?

Even for pathfinder with a bat judo flipping a red dragon, THAT would be weird.

Yeah, that's pretty much my take. Rangers get a case where they can hide without cover/concealment, but not if they're seen first.

Makes no sense to me.

I think wraithstrike was describing the standard interpretation, where no one can use cover or concealment to hide if they're already observed without a distraction or special ability.

It's the other interpretation where Rangers between 12 and 16 have a special case.

Yeah, that is what I was doing.


D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
thejeff wrote:


I think wraithstrike was describing the standard interpretation, where no one can use cover or concealment to hide if they're already observed without a distraction or special ability.

Wraithstrike description fits 100% my view, and I've been spending my last posts in the attempt of showing you it doesn't contradict the rule of "creating a ditraction" at all.

This must mean my reading is the standard one.
Nice.

Except that I think (and I could be wrong) that wraithstrike means that the ranger using camoflage works like everyone else using cover or concealment, while you think he's a special case.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It looks like the Core Rulebook has vague if not outright contradictory stealth rules in it. Rules that have been changed a bit in between editions, but only to some extent, because Paizo doesn't want any indexed item to fall onto another page (all page references from other books would break).

Meanwhile, in Ultimate Intrigue, they gather everything in one place and explain it:

Ultimate Intrigue p. 187-188 wrote:

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. As the Core Rulebook mentions, 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.

States of Awareness: In general, there are four states of awareness that a creature can have with regard to another creature using Stealth.

Unaware: On one end of the spectrum, a sneaking creature can succeed at Stealth well enough that the other creature isn’t even aware that the creature is present. This state allows the sneaking creature to use abilities such as the vigilante’s startling appearance. The Stealth skill description in the Core Rulebook says that perceiving creatures that fail to beat a sneaking character’s Stealth check result are not aware of the sneaking character, but that is different from being totally unaware. This is also true of a creature that has previously been made aware of the creature’s presence or location (see below) but is currently unable to observe the sneaking creature. In those cases, the sneaking creature can’t use abilities such as startling presence.

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).

Aware of Location: The next state is awareness of location. This happens when a perceiving character uses an imprecise sense, such as hearing or tremorsense, to discover what square a hidden or invisible creature inhabits.

Observing: The final state is when the perceiving character is able to directly observe the sneaking character with a precise sense, such as vision. This is generally the result when the perceiving character rolls higher on its opposed Perception check than the sneaking
character’s Stealth result while also having line of sight to the sneaking character and the ability to see through any sort of invisibility or other tricks the sneaking character might be using.

I think the only thing the FAQ would need to do is say "yeah, we fixed this in Ultimate Intrigue, so use those rules."


  • Observed is now a defined term that means direct observation with a precise sense.
  • A sense is not precise if the subject of scrutiny gains concealment against it, except for fringe cases like Blur. Poor lught (without darkvision) or a curtain do suffice.
  • Bluff to distract is only necessary if real observation occurs, not merely being able to spot a somewhat concealed person.


thejeff wrote:
Except that I think (and I could be wrong) that wraithstrike means that the ranger using camoflage works like everyone else using cover or concealment, while you think he's a special case.

The Ranger as wraithstrike explained it works exactly as I think it works, I see no special case anywhere.

Ascalaphus above did an awesome job ate summarizing the issue.
I agree 100% with what he said.


D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
thejeff wrote:
You need a case where you would be able to use stealth if you hadn't been seen, but you can't because you've already being observed.

Aha, here is the problem. The rule does not speak in Past tense.

You must be observed NOW to prevent you from stealthing without creating a ditraction first.

I must provide no example of anyone not being able to hide because he's already been observed. The rules do not say anything like that.

Read the new perception rules, there are 4 states of awareness.
Observed is what prevents Stealth. Observed happens in the present.

The state you're talking of is "aware of position" or "aware of presecne"

No. I'm not.

And I don't understand your objection, though I may have misstated something.

I didn't intend any weirdness with tenses.

I rephrase: You need a case where you would be able to use stealth if you weren't currently being observed, but you can't because you're currently being observed.

My example uses present tense, so it still holds.


ascl..bird i can't spell on this much vicodin wrote:
I think the only thing the FAQ would need to do is say "yeah, we fixed this in Ultimate Intrigue, so use those rules."

Except that people have the exact same divide: the one thingers and two thingers both see the rules in ultimate intrigue depending on which sentence you read.


D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Except that I think (and I could be wrong) that wraithstrike means that the ranger using camoflage works like everyone else using cover or concealment, while you think he's a special case.

The Ranger as wraithstrike explained it works exactly as I think it works, I see no special case anywhere.

Ascalaphus above did an awesome job ate summarizing the issue.
I agree 100% with what he said.

Yes, the Ranger as wraithstrike described him works exactly as you think it works. You think the Ranger is a special case, because he can hide without actually having cover or concealment, thus he can hide in conditions that don't automatically break observation.

I, and I believe wraithstrike, believe the Ranger works like everyone else, except that he treats his favored terrain as if they provided concealment. We think everyone can hide only if they aren't being observed, just like the Ranger. That cover/concealment, like the ranger's favored terrain don't break observation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ascl..bird i can't spell on this much vicodin wrote:
I think the only thing the FAQ would need to do is say "yeah, we fixed this in Ultimate Intrigue, so use those rules."
Except that people have the exact same divide: the one thingers and two thingers both see the rules in ultimate intrigue depending on which sentence you read.

Exactly. It's those rules we're arguing about.

Mind you, I could still see the FAQ getting that answer. :(


thejeff wrote:


I rephrase: You need a case where you would be able to use stealth if you weren't currently being observed, but you can't because you're currently being observed.

Okay. Pic related:

* ** *** **** VISUALIZATION **** *** ** *

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Just to be clear, the Sixth printing of the Rulebook allows for Stealth from cover at the beginning of the turn, then the character can right up to the target and stab, breaking stealth only when the attack is made. (getting Sneak damage on the first (likely only)hit)

Thank you for informing us about the UI expansion of the rules, it seems to correlate with the Core Rulebook on the basic outline.


Imprecise senses allow a creature to pinpoint the location of another creature, but they don’t allow for the use of targeted effects

You can throw a spell at someone in a shadowy location. Therefore its a precise sense, so no stealth.

UI doesn't clarify much if anything beyond blur not working.


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

Sight does not allow to attack enemies without suffering a miss chance from concealment though.

It is listed as Precise, but doesn't meet the requirements

It doens't meet the requirements of either categories, really.


D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

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

Sight does not allow to attack enemies without suffering a miss chance from concealment though.

It is listed as Precise, but doesn't meet the requirements

It doesn't meet the requirements of either categories, really.

Yeah. It appears to be either precise or imprecise, depending on environmental conditions.

Coincidentally, while a seeing creature is in dim lighting (when it is apparently imprecise because there is a miss chance), a stealthy character could vanish into nothing while standing right next to them, no problem.

My guess is that the text is probably meant to refer to senses which can permit targeting spells and attacking miss-free when local conditions permit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

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

Sight does not allow to attack enemies without suffering a miss chance from concealment though.

It is listed as Precise, but doesn't meet the requirements

It doesn't meet the requirements of either categories, really.

Yeah. It appears to be either precise or imprecise, depending on environmental conditions.

Coincidentally, while a seeing creature is in dim lighting (when it is apparently imprecise because there is a miss chance), a stealthy character could vanish into nothing while standing right next to them, no problem.

My guess is that the text is probably meant to refer to senses which can permit targeting spells and attacking miss-free when local conditions permit.

I think I agree. If I understand what you mean anyway.

A sense that allows targeting and attacking miss free under normal good conditions. Sight is such a sense for humans. Sound is not.

The sense is defined as a precise sense for the creature, independent of conditions. If a normal human is observing you with sight, that's a precise sense, even if you're in dim light (and thus have a miss chance).


thejeff wrote:


The sense is defined as a precise sense for the creature, independent of conditions. If a normal human is observing you with sight, that's a precise sense, even if you're in dim light (and thus have a miss chance).

eyup. Otherwise you can't throw a spell on something in the shadows.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:


The sense is defined as a precise sense for the creature, independent of conditions. If a normal human is observing you with sight, that's a precise sense, even if you're in dim light (and thus have a miss chance).

eyup. Otherwise you can't throw a spell on something in the shadows.

warning, this is heading away from useful discussion and into sheer nitpicky pedantry

Would that be the case, though? The text puts up two conditions for a sense to be precise:
1. It must let the creature use targeted spells
2. It must let the creature attack without miss chance.
The text doesn't actually link those two as inherently being a consequence on one another. It just says you need both.

Sight fulfills the first(right?). It doesn't universally fulfill the second, because conditions like dim light can cause a miss chance.

From a super pedantic perspective, this means one of three things.

1. Sight isn't precise, because it doesn't universally remove miss chance.
2. Sight can be precise or imprecise depending on whether or not it happens to remove miss chance.
3. Sight is precise, because it can sometimes remove miss chance

In the absence of further evidence, I would say that the second one is probably the most reasonable, because it implies that the precision of senses is determined on the fly, preventing senses like sight from being left in limbo because they don't strictly fit into "precise" but are really, really close.

However, later on the text outright and unconditionally says that sight is precise, so this issue is over questionable technical writing instead of actual meaningful rules ambiguity.


Snowblind, I don't think it's putting up conditions i think it's stating how to tell if a sense is precise or imprecise.

IF you can make a sense sometimes precise and sometimes not (which is questionable) then [vision in a dark alley] is precise according to the targeting test but imprecise according to the miss chance test. A lot of questionable decisions need to go the right way in order for [vision in a dark alley] to be an imprecise sense so you can stealth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They really need to do a blog on stealth to clear this up. I really wish the blog space was not limited or needing to have a schedule. It just gets in the way.

The Concordance

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShieldLawrence wrote:


Maybe by the way you read it? I don't see contradictions I see clarifications and exceptions.
Ok, and is there anything in the system elsewhere pointing to the one thing method as opposed to the two thing method?

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.

So while within the perceiving character's vision, these spells don't work but reaching cover or concealment WORKS NICELY, or in other words are SUFFICIENT to use stealth.

The CRB says I'm allowed to stealth when I have cover or concealment, so I'm allowed to do so when I get to cover and concealment. UI confirms this by saying a shadowy area (concealment) or a curtain (cover) works nicely for stealth.


ShieldLawrence wrote:


So while within the perceiving character's vision, these spells don't work but reaching cover or concealment WORKS NICELY, or in other words are SUFFICIENT to use stealth.

Not what i meant/asked

What i asked was was there any system or mechanics in the game that hinted your way? I listed a few that implied they were separate, and the ranger ability pretty much requires them to be separate outright.

When a creature uses a precise sense to observe an enemy, that enemy is unable to use Stealth

We can quote the different parts of the UI that seem to say yes or no back and forth at each other all day.

Quote:
The CRB says I'm allowed to stealth when I have cover or concealment, so I'm allowed to do so when I get to cover and concealment. UI confirms this by saying a shadowy area (concealment) or a curtain (cover) works nicely for stealth.

That A works and B doesn't doesn't answer if A works without C.


Ranger Camouflage: does away with the C/C requirement to use Stealth, but does nothing to vitiate the need for avoiding observation. So, while standing in the middle of an empty, brightly lit room with another character present, the 12th level Ranger is just like everybody else: SOL.

Same Ranger is standing alone in the same brightly lit, empty room, but hears someone approaching. Ranger uses Stealth while standing in the middle of the room. As soon as the other character walks in, any other (non-camouflage-having) character would be spotted immediately, since the lack of cover or concealment prevents the continued use of Stealth. The Ranger can continue to stand unnoticed in the middle of the empty, brightly lit room, because the Ranger was unobserved when entering Stealth and does not need C/C to continue benefitting from it, thanks to Camouflage.

When the Ranger gets HiPS, Ranger can be standing next to someone in an empty, brightly lit room and still use Stealth, because Ranger dgaf.

I'm not seeing how this means C/C can't break observation.

The Concordance

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
The CRB says I'm allowed to stealth when I have cover or concealment, so I'm allowed to do so when I get to cover and concealment. UI confirms this by saying a shadowy area (concealment) or a curtain (cover) works nicely for stealth.
That A works and B doesn't doesn't answer if A works without C.

Doesn't it, though? There was no check for observation because it isn't necessary with cover and concealment. UI didn't say a shadowy area works well to stealth when unobserved it said it worked nicely to stealth. That's the end game, rolling a stealth check.

I don't know how many times you're gonna claim that Ranger Camouflage is somehow broken or useless if C/C breaks observation. Fretgod's description above does a pretty good job describing how it's useful. Many poster's have shown how bluff is still useful if C/C breaks concealment.


fretgod99 wrote:


When the Ranger gets HiPS, Ranger can be standing next to someone in an empty, brightly lit room and still use Stealth, because Ranger dgaf.

I'm not seeing how this means C/C can't break observation.

Because it shows that they're two completely separate things. There would be no need to use observation, at all, in the stealth description if it was only going to be relevant for 12th to 15th level rangers. Why even make it a term in the game, describe it, have abilities around it, etc? It makes no sense.

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.

Your argument here that he needs to break observation breaks all of the arguments for not requiring non observation. The exact same language and arguments that say the rogue can stealth in the shadows with concealment say that ranger CAN hide without cover or concealment. It doesn't say anywhere that he needs unobserved status at all.

or in short, why is "observed" even a thing if cover and concealment break it?

Either observed is a thing just for 5 levels of ranger OR observed is a thing because it's much harder to dissapear in front of someone that knows you're there than to hide from someone that doesn't .


I'm also not hearing any reasons at all that the one thing rule should be embraced other than it's what the text allegedly says.


Re, you need to "look a monkey to vanish behind the pillars"

That dragon diagram made me realize something: Even in the rare event that your cover/concealment is broken up into columns it takes a pretty weird distribution of columns and enemies so that you can't maintain cover somewhere.


Quote:
in short, why is "observed" even a thing if cover and concealment break it?

I think observed is a thing because there are many types of observed and many types of cover/concealment. Only certain combinations allow stealth, without abilities like Camo or HiPS.

For example, (human sight, shadow) allows stealth to be rolled. (darkvision, shadow) does not. Camo lets you ignore y in the (x,y) and just roll vs perception. HiPS lets you ignore x in the (x,y) and just roll vs perception.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
I'm also not hearing any reasons at all that the one thing rule should be embraced other than it's what the text allegedly says.

I don't think that cover/concealment always negates ongoing observation, but sometimes it does. It really depends on what is going, and what abilities are in play.

As an example if I drop darkness(50% miss chance) around myself and you don't have darkvision then I am not observed, and I have concealment.

On the other hand if you also have blindsight then I am back to being observed. I still have concealment also, but for all intents and purposes it doesn't really matter as long as I am within the range of your blindsight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I'm also not hearing any reasons at all that the one thing rule should be embraced other than it's what the text allegedly says.

I don't think that cover/concealment always negates ongoing observation, but sometimes it does. It really depends on what is going, and what abilities are in play.

As an example if I drop darkness(50% miss chance) around myself and you don't have darkvision then I am not observed, and I have concealment.

On the other hand if you also have blindsight then I am back to being observed. I still have concealment also, but for all intents and purposes it doesn't really matter as long as I am within the range of your blindsight.

.

When i say cover i mean COVER. The +4 bonus

When i say concealment i mean concealment, the 20% miss chance.

Those are the game terms. Those are the correct game terms. The wording is deliberate.

If I was talking about total concealment i would use total concealment. Again, no one I see is denying that total concealment breaks observation.


In that case I do agree that cover and concealment in that case needs to be spelled out as negating observation. To me, neither breaks observation. If I can see you to attack you or cast a spell at you, then you can't make a stealth check.


I want to say that Dim Light is probably darker than most of you are visualizing.

Imagine a friend of yours walking around you. You have to touch hihYour task is: tap your friend's body with your hand (hit with a touch attack in D&D terms)

In Dim Light no matter how good you are at spacial perception or hand-eye coordination: your perception is so hampered that one time out of five you fail at touching your friend even if he isn't actively dodging, and you cannot put a knife to their throat (or any other weak point) because you cannot see clearly where a weak point is (can't sneak attack) in other words you are not sure where the torso ends and the neck begins.

Rules describe dim light as a light condition where sighted creature "can se somewhat":
It's not supposed to be a light condition where you can discern stuff like facial features. It's quasi-darkness

You can distinguish vague shapes but you are going to make mistakes when trying to hit things often, and you cannot discern an opponent's weak points at all.

There is nothing unrealistic about being able to hide, if you're trained and know how to move. It's difficult to follow movement clearly when it's so dark, you can easily lose track of something.


Just to add a bit more confusion to the debate, even though it might undercut one of my positions: If we're taking the position that sight only counts as a precise sense when circumstances do not impose a miss chance and thus you do not count as observed in such a case, that only applies to concealment, not to cover. Concealment has a miss chance. Cover has an AC bonus.
So while you could, according to that interpretation use stealth in dim light while standing next to someone who you've attacked or who's made their perception check, you could not in the same situation if you were relying on cover not concealment to allow stealth. Or better yet, using underbrush in the forest for concealment versus using using a half-height wall.

Of course, everywhere else in the rules cover and concealment appear to be treated as interchangeable as far as allowing stealth goes.


thejeff wrote:

Just to add a bit more confusion to the debate, even though it might undercut one of my positions: If we're taking the position that sight only counts as a precise sense when circumstances do not impose a miss chance and thus you do not count as observed in such a case, that only applies to concealment, not to cover. Concealment has a miss chance. Cover has an AC bonus.

So while you could, according to that interpretation use stealth in dim light while standing next to someone who you've attacked or who's made their perception check, you could not in the same situation if you were relying on cover not concealment to allow stealth. Or better yet, using underbrush in the forest for concealment versus using using a half-height wall.

Of course, everywhere else in the rules cover and concealment appear to be treated as interchangeable as far as allowing stealth goes.

yes, I think I'm going to abandon this position, there are too many obscure points about it.

At the end of the day, what I really want to know is wether concealment/cover is sufficient to attempt a stealth check to hide or not against creatures that do not make cover/concealment "irrelevant".

"Sufficient" means no other requirements have to be fulfilled.


D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

I want to say that Dim Light is probably darker than most of you are visualizing.

Imagine a friend of yours walking around you. You have to touch hihYour task is: tap your friend's body with your hand (hit with a touch attack in D&D terms)

In Dim Light no matter how good you are at spacial perception or hand-eye coordination: your perception is so hampered that one time out of five you fail at touching your friend even if he isn't actively dodging, and you cannot put a knife to their throat (or any other weak point) because you cannot see clearly where a weak point is (can't sneak attack) in other words you are not sure where the torso ends and the neck begins.

Rules describe dim light as a light condition where sighted creature "can se somewhat":
It's not supposed to be a light condition where you can discern stuff like facial features. It's quasi-darkness

You can distinguish vague shapes but you are going to make mistakes when trying to hit things often, and you cannot discern an opponent's weak points at all.

There is nothing unrealistic about being able to hide, if you're trained and know how to move. It's difficult to follow movement clearly when it's so dark, you can easily lose track of something.

I understand how dark dim light is, and in real life I think you can hide in it, but in the game I don't think you can, just like how the game makes it easier to avoid a sneak attack in dim light, which also makes no sense.


There is a vast difference between what someone can hide in before you see them, and what someone can hide in while you're looking at them. The two things interpretation reflects that the one thing interpretation does not.

The Concordance

BigNorseWolf wrote:
There is a vast difference between what someone can hide in before you see them, and what someone can hide in while you're looking at them. The two things interpretation reflects that the one thing interpretation does not.

A comparison to real life experience doesn't really do much to determine the rules. We are heroic fantasy characters! I've played games where hiding is easier and games where it's harder.

51 to 100 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.