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


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

ShieldLawrence wrote:


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.

It does when the rules are ambiguous or to help you decide between two competing interpretations.

The one thing interpretation works better the more out of context you take the rules, is less realistic, wonkier, more broken, and overall weaker position. There's no reason to go with it unless you think that rules say only one thing and you know what that one thing is: a rules interpretation paradigm that rarely pans out.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
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.

When did I say that Observation and C/C are the same thing? That's your spurious interpretation of what my position is. My position is that C/C are something that can break observation.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

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.

Well, if the Ranger is standing alone in a brightly lit, empty room, then the Ranger can hide. Because relative to any observers, the Ranger has total cover. However, as soon as any creature with sight walks into the room, the Ranger is standing without cover, and is thus no longer hidden. Just like if a Rogue goes and hides behind a pillar, that Rogue can use Stealth due to the cover. However, if on your turn you move to an area where the pillar no longer provides the Rogue with cover relative to you, *poof*, there's the Rogue. Rangers with Camouflage, however, remain hidden despite the absence of Cover, because they do not need cover to remain hidden in a favored terrain. However, to enter Stealth, they still must be unobserved.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

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.

Being in C/C means you're not being observed. Not being in C/C does not mean you are being observed.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
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.

More specifically, this is incorrect. As you noted in your post, the Camouflage ability grants this: 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.

Note that it doesn't say the Ranger is treated as having cover or concealment, just that it's no longer needed in a favored terrain to be able to hide. But again, this ability does nothing with regard to observation. So while you might not need Cover or Concealment to hide, you still need to be unobserved.

Because again, I've never said those concepts are one and the same.


fretgod99 wrote:


Because again, I've never said those concepts are one and the same.

You're just saying that they only matter to level 12 to 15 rangers and lightbulbs inside of refrigerators while the door is closed. No one else needs to differentiate them with regards to being observed.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:


Because again, I've never said those concepts are one and the same.

You're just saying that they only matter to level 12 to 15 rangers and lightbulbs inside of refrigerators while the door is closed. No one else needs to differentiate them with regards to being observed.

Well, that's actually not what I'm saying. But hey, if it makes you feel better to mischaracterize my argument, feel free.


fretgod99 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
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.

More specifically, this is incorrect. As you noted in your post, the Camouflage ability grants this: 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.

Note that it doesn't say the Ranger is treated as having cover or concealment, just that it's no longer needed in a favored terrain to be able to hide. But again, this ability does nothing with regard to observation. So while you might not need Cover or Concealment to hide, you still need to be unobserved.

Because again, I've never said those concepts are one and the same.

But any time you have Cover or Concealment, you can use Stealth, even if you're currently being observed, right? And if you don't have either, then you can't use stealth. All assuming no special abilities.

The only cases where observation matters are corner cases like a Ranger between 12th and 17th level in his favored terrain.

That's your theory.

The problem of course is that nowhere do the rules actually define what breaks observation - other than a distraction. We're inferring everything else.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShieldLawrence wrote:


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.

It does when the rules are ambiguous or to help you decide between two competing interpretations.

The one thing interpretation works better the more out of context you take the rules, is less realistic, wonkier, more broken, and overall weaker position. There's no reason to go with it unless you think that rules say only one thing and you know what that one thing is: a rules interpretation paradigm that rarely pans out.

Thought this sounded familiar.

Like I've said in the latest two threads (and most before this one, too), the Stealth rules need a lot of work and clarification. Hopefully we'll get something helpful eventually.

Regardless, absolutely nothing new is added to the conversation. The same points get retread (often by the same people, it seems) every time it's brought up. So, howsabout we just start generating FAQ clicks and move along?


fretgod99 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:


Because again, I've never said those concepts are one and the same.

You're just saying that they only matter to level 12 to 15 rangers and lightbulbs inside of refrigerators while the door is closed. No one else needs to differentiate them with regards to being observed.

Well, that's actually not what I'm saying. But hey, if it makes you feel better to mischaracterize my argument, feel free.

Can you name any other time it matters with regards to being observed?

Because it's the conclusion that drops out of what you're saying.


fretgod99 wrote:


Regardless, absolutely nothing new is added to the conversation. The same points get retread (often by the same people, it seems) every time it's brought up. So, howsabout we just start generating FAQ clicks and move along?

I thought the fighting was what generated the clicks...


thejeff wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
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.

More specifically, this is incorrect. As you noted in your post, the Camouflage ability grants this: 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.

Note that it doesn't say the Ranger is treated as having cover or concealment, just that it's no longer needed in a favored terrain to be able to hide. But again, this ability does nothing with regard to observation. So while you might not need Cover or Concealment to hide, you still need to be unobserved.

Because again, I've never said those concepts are one and the same.

But any time you have Cover or Concealment, you can use Stealth, even if you're currently being observed, right? And if you don't have either, then you can't use stealth. All assuming no special abilities.

To be precise, if you have C/C with respect to the other party, the position is that you are therefore not being observed. So it's not "even if you're currently being observed." It is "you are not currently being observed."

thejeff wrote:
The problem of course is that nowhere do the rules actually define what breaks observation - other than a distraction. We're inferring everything else.

Accurate. The Stealth rules have needed a substantial overhaul for years. It's a big task. Hopefully it will be more comprehensively addressed in the future.

I think the hope was that Intrigue would do much of the legwork on the clarification. But, as we've demonstrated here, much of the language appears to have been ported over (at least in meaning) so it didn't really clarify anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But any time you have Cover or Concealment, you can use Stealth, even if you're currently being observed, right? And if you don't have either, then you can't use stealth. All assuming no special abilities.
To be precise, if you have C/C with respect to the other party, the position is that you are therefore not being observed. So it's not "even if you're currently being observed." It is "you are not currently being observed."

Just to be clear, even if I beat your Stealth with my Perception check, I'm not observing you?

Alternately, even if you had made no attempt to use Stealth before I walked around the corner and saw you, I'm still not observing you?
Even if you've just swung at me in melee, I'm still not observing you?

All assuming you're in some kind of area that provides concealment or cover - assume I'm human and it's dimly lit if you want.


thejeff wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But any time you have Cover or Concealment, you can use Stealth, even if you're currently being observed, right? And if you don't have either, then you can't use stealth. All assuming no special abilities.
To be precise, if you have C/C with respect to the other party, the position is that you are therefore not being observed. So it's not "even if you're currently being observed." It is "you are not currently being observed."

Just to be clear, even if I beat your Stealth with my Perception check, I'm not observing you?

Alternately, even if you had made no attempt to use Stealth before I walked around the corner and saw you, I'm still not observing you?
Even if you've just swung at me in melee, I'm still not observing you?

All assuming you're in some kind of area that provides concealment or cover - assume I'm human and it's dimly lit if you want.

I let my PCs make a Stealth check if they move in an area of dim lighting.

So from a strict sense of how I view the rules, yes. Does that seem unrealistic to some degree? Yes, absolutely which is why I tweak it a bit in my home games. I've never claimed my interpretation is a perfect facsimile of the how furtiveness works in the real world. It is unrealistic, but not necessarily any less so than the alternate interpretation. The two interpretations we currently have of the Stealth rules are both unrealistic, just differently. Pick one and adjust. Or don't. But the rules call out cover and concealment, not total cover or total concealment (which would be silly because if you had either you unquestionably wouldn't be observed by sight already). So, I give weight to the fact that they call out cover and concealment, specifically.


If Observation and C/C are two separate conditions that must be satisfied, how do abilities like the Shadowdancer's Hide in Plain Sight and Hellcat Stealth work? Do you still need cover or concealment?

The abilities themselves mention that they function specifically while being observed. But ultimately the impact is that they render the need for cover or concealment meaningless for characters with those abilities in certain situations. We know that's the purpose because SKR told us as much (I believe he wrote Hellcat Stealth, but I could be wrong). "HS trumps the need for cover/concealment, but you have a penalty on the check. HIPS trumps the need for cover/concealment, but it requires a nearby shadow, and has no penalty."


BigNorseWolf wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:


Because again, I've never said those concepts are one and the same.

You're just saying that they only matter to level 12 to 15 rangers and lightbulbs inside of refrigerators while the door is closed. No one else needs to differentiate them with regards to being observed.

Well, that's actually not what I'm saying. But hey, if it makes you feel better to mischaracterize my argument, feel free.

Can you name any other time it matters with regards to being observed?

Because it's the conclusion that drops out of what you're saying.

What happens when a PC is standing in an open field, 25' away from a big tree, and NPCs crest a hill 200' away? NPCs fail their perception check to notice the PC. Is the PC allowed to stealthily approach that tree or is the PC out of luck because there's not concealment or cover to move stealthily in or behind?

In my view, the PC is unobserved, despite a lack of cover or concealment. So Stealth away.

It seems to me that initiation of encounters from even a modicum of distance is a relatively common phenomenon in RPGs. So determining whether a party is observed in the absence of C/C hardly seems like an isolated occurrence.


fretgod99 wrote:
If Observation and C/C are two separate conditions that must be satisfied, how do abilities like the Shadowdancer's Hide in Plain Sight and Hellcat Stealth work? Do you still need cover or concealment?

Shadow dancer is one of the best examples pointing to the idea that cover and concealment are different things. It explicitly negates the need to be unobserved and the need for cover.

Why mention observed at all in addition to cover and concealment if CC automatically grants you unobserved status?

Hellcat stealth is badly written.


fretgod99 wrote:
What happens when a PC is standing in an open field, 25' away from a big tree, and NPCs crest a hill 200' away? NPCs fail their perception check to notice the PC. .

I don't even know if there IS a perception check to see him to start with, making this more than a little dubious a thought experiment to base anything on.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
What happens when a PC is standing in an open field, 25' away from a big tree, and NPCs crest a hill 200' away? NPCs fail their perception check to notice the PC. .

I don't even know if there IS a perception check to see him to start with, making this more than a little dubious a thought experiment to base anything on.

Perception wrote:
Notice a visible creature DC 0
Perception Modifier wrote:
Distance to the creature +1/10'

There very much is a Perception check to notice. 200' away is a DC 20 Perception check to notice someone standing out in the open. Take 10 with an average modifier at low to mid levels and it's not necessarily an auto-spot.

So it's hardly a thought experiment.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
If Observation and C/C are two separate conditions that must be satisfied, how do abilities like the Shadowdancer's Hide in Plain Sight and Hellcat Stealth work? Do you still need cover or concealment?

Shadow dancer is one of the best examples pointing to the idea that cover and concealment are different things. It explicitly negates the need to be unobserved and the need for cover.

Why mention observed at all in addition to cover and concealment if CC automatically grants you unobserved status?

Hellcat stealth is badly written.

Again, I've never said C/C and Observation are the same thing.

It says you can make checks observed, yes. But it does so by changing how you interact with concealment (you no longer need to be in concealment, just near it). That is the relevance. What exactly about Hellcat is badly written?


fretgod99 wrote:
Again, I've never said C/C and Observation are the same thing.

You are having CC grant unobserved status. Leaving observed solely a corner case option in really weird circumstances.

Things often mention both of them when, if that were the case, they would be redundant.

Quote:
It says you can make checks observed, yes. But it does so by changing how you interact with concealment (you no longer need to be in concealment, just near it). That is the relevance.

It doesn't just change how you interact with concealment it also changes how the shadow dancer interacts with the observed clause. There would be no need to state that if the shadow dancer could just stealth as if they had cover and concealment from shadows 10 feet away.

Quote:
What exactly about Hellcat is badly written?

It doesn't mention cover/concealment. Even the way you're letting CC grant unobserved status he would still need cover or concealment... unless you want to say they are the same thing? Because you had concealment granting non observed status and hellcat stealth would have to have non observed status granting concealment to work as written.


Two farmers on a moonlit night have a 50 50 chance of doing the batman thing to each other in the middle of an empty field. Something seems pretty wrong with that.


fretgod99 wrote:


So it's hardly a thought experiment.

Scarcrow is unobserved in the middle of the field.

The DC to spot him is 20. He hasn't been seen.

He cannot STEALTH in the field. He has to rely on his DC 20.

or get behind something if he's got a warrant out for something that would justify sending out an adventuring party.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:


So it's hardly a thought experiment.

Scarcrow is unobserved in the middle of the field.

The DC to spot him is 20. He hasn't been seen.

He cannot STEALTH in the field. He has to rely on his DC 20.

or get behind something if he's got a warrant out for something that would justify sending out an adventuring party.

Why? If someone is unobserved, why can't they travel sneakily?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Two farmers on a moonlit night have a 50 50 chance of doing the batman thing to each other in the middle of an empty field. Something seems pretty wrong with that.

Not really. But ok.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Again, I've never said C/C and Observation are the same thing.

You are having CC grant unobserved status. Leaving observed solely a corner case option in really weird circumstances.

Things often mention both of them when, if that were the case, they would be redundant.

Quote:
It says you can make checks observed, yes. But it does so by changing how you interact with concealment (you no longer need to be in concealment, just near it). That is the relevance.

It doesn't just change how you interact with concealment it also changes how the shadow dancer interacts with the observed clause. There would be no need to state that if the shadow dancer could just stealth as if they had cover and concealment from shadows 10 feet away.

Quote:
What exactly about Hellcat is badly written?

It doesn't mention cover/concealment. Even the way you're letting CC grant unobserved status he would still need cover or concealment... unless you want to say they are the same thing? Because you had concealment granting non observed status and hellcat stealth would have to have non observed status granting concealment to work as written.

If by "weird circumstances" you mean overland encounters, sure.

HS and Shadowdancer's HiPS accomplish the same thing. One says you can hide while observed without concealment (due to lighting - that's thr implicit mention of concealment, by the way; HS changes the lighting requirements for when you're allowed to use Stealth) the other says you can hide while observed without concealment (as long as it's close). Point being, they both change the need for concealment to break the observation to allow Stealth. They work the same, so if one is badly written, the other must be as well. They only seem odd if you hold your particular interpretation. But it appears the author of HS (and former PDT member) thinks it works just fine. So *shrug*.


fretgod99 wrote:
Why? If someone is unobserved, why can't they travel sneakily?

Rules wise? Because he had no cover or concealment and he needs that.

reality wise? Because standing on the pitchers mound of wriggley field short of magic or something coming really close to it your individual skill at hiding is pretty irrelevant.

he CAN, since he hasn't been spotted this turn, move somewhere with cover and then try to stealth. (and since he's unlikely to roll less than 1 he's made himself harder to see)


fretgod99 wrote:
What happens when a PC is standing in an open field, 25' away from a big tree, and NPCs crest a hill 200' away? NPCs fail their perception check to notice the PC. Is the PC allowed to stealthily approach that tree or is the PC out of luck because there's not concealment or cover to move stealthily in or behind?

Let's not go down this road. It leads to bad places. Like arguing you can't see anything more than a few hundred feet away no matter how big or obvious it is.


But the rules say you can't use Stealth if someone is observing you. Where do they say you can't use Stealth if you're unobserved?


thejeff wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
What happens when a PC is standing in an open field, 25' away from a big tree, and NPCs crest a hill 200' away? NPCs fail their perception check to notice the PC. Is the PC allowed to stealthily approach that tree or is the PC out of luck because there's not concealment or cover to move stealthily in or behind?
Let's not go down this road. It leads to bad places. Like arguing you can't see anything more than a few hundred feet away no matter how big or obvious it is.

Ok. But then nobody is allowed to complain about my distinctions between observed and C/C, because it's kind of important to that.

I'd also note that not noticing something and being unable to see it are two separate things.


Fretgod,

You can't tell me that you don't think observation and cover aren't the same thing and then tell me anything that gives you cover gives you non observation and anything that gives you non observation gives you cover/concealment to hide.

I do not think shadowdancer is badly written. From the 2 things perspective it's well written because it explicitly covers both requirements.

A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow.

That first sentence is completely superfluous if cover/concealment grant you unobserved status. If you take the view that observation and cover/concealment are two different requirements it makes perfect sense. I don't think trying to say there's a problem there makes any sense.


fretgod99 wrote:
But the rules say you can't use Stealth if someone is observing you. Where do they say you can't use Stealth if you're unobserved?

They say you can't stealth without cover or concealment. scarecrow isn't stealthing. He's not being seen. There's a difference. he cannot increase his static dc 20 without changing his position somehow. He's not using a stealth skill at all.


fretgod99 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
What happens when a PC is standing in an open field, 25' away from a big tree, and NPCs crest a hill 200' away? NPCs fail their perception check to notice the PC. Is the PC allowed to stealthily approach that tree or is the PC out of luck because there's not concealment or cover to move stealthily in or behind?
Let's not go down this road. It leads to bad places. Like arguing you can't see anything more than a few hundred feet away no matter how big or obvious it is.

Ok. But then nobody is allowed to complain about my distinctions between observed and C/C, because it's kind of important to that.

I'd also note that not noticing something and being unable to see it are two separate things.

I agree those are two separate things. I just don't want to go back to arguing we can't see the sun. :)

The Concordance

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@BNW Why are you claiming that everyone views C/C and Observation as the SAME THING?? We all know it's not the same thing, but you're conflating our arguments by wrapping it up like that.

Observation is one thing, C/C is another thing. You can't stealth while observed, but C/C allows you to make Stealth checks. The idea that C/C breaks observation doesn't mean it's the "one thing" interpretation or they're the "same thing."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShieldLawrence wrote:

@BNW Why are you claiming that everyone views C/C and Observation as the SAME THING?? We all know it's not the same thing, but you're conflating our arguments by wrapping it up like that.

Observation is one thing, C/C is another thing. You can't stealth while observed, but C/C allows you to make Stealth checks. The idea that C/C breaks observation doesn't mean it's the "one thing" interpretation or they're the "same thing."

It really does blur the difference though, since it means there aren't cases (or only a few exceptions) where the distinction matters.

Just say "You can use stealth if you have cover or concealment". No need to mention observation, since it doesn't change anything. Whether you're being observed or not, if you have cover/concealment you can use stealth.

Then in special cases like Ranger Camouflage you can say that it only works if you're not observed to start with. (Or if you break observation with distraction, I suppose.)

If you're saying there's really a mechanical difference, give me a case: When do you have cover or concealment, but you can't stealth because you've already been seen? If there aren't any cases, you don't need the observation clause.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
But the rules say you can't use Stealth if someone is observing you. Where do they say you can't use Stealth if you're unobserved?
They say you can't stealth without cover or concealment. scarecrow isn't stealthing. He's not being seen. There's a difference. he cannot increase his static dc 20 without changing his position somehow. He's not using a stealth skill at all.

The scenario I posited in the post you responded to gave the PC an objective of moving towards cover from the open. Do you believe that PC can move with Stealth towards the cover prior to being seen?


All squares are rectangles.

"But you can't actually argue that rectangles and squares aren't the same thing if you're saying squares are rectangles!"


fretgod99 wrote:
The scenario I posited in the post you responded to gave the PC an objective of moving towards cover from the open. Do you believe that PC can move with Stealth towards the cover prior to being seen?

No. he does not have cover or concealment and cannot move with stealth. The difficulty of spotting him is irrelevant to his stealth skill, it is a flat roll based on his distance from his observers. He can get to cover and THEN stealth if it's available.


thejeff wrote:


If you're saying there's really a mechanical difference, give me a case: When do you have cover or concealment, but you can't stealth because you've already been seen? If there aren't any cases, you don't need the observation clause.

I did.

HERE


Quote:
No need to mention observation, since it doesn't change anything.

It doesn't change anything, you change it; its the very basis for stealth. Its what stealth is trying to modify. You are trying to go from observed, to having total concealment (that's the point of stealth).

Laser beams don't shoot out of the guards eyeballs and modify the environment somehow, you are correct. Getting the conditions for a stealth check force the guard to roll a perception check for failing.


fretgod99 wrote:

All squares are rectangles.

"But you can't actually argue that rectangles and squares aren't the same thing if you're saying squares are rectangles!"

If you're not going to differentiate them in the rules why not just call them blockies?


mishima wrote:
Quote:
No need to mention observation, since it doesn't change anything.

It doesn't change anything, you change it; its the very basis for stealth. Its what stealth is trying to modify. You are trying to go from observed, to having total concealment (that's the point of stealth).

Laser beams don't shoot out of the guards eyeballs and modify the environment somehow, you are correct. Getting the conditions for a stealth check force the guard to roll a perception check for failing.

Or you're trying to remain unobserved when you already are. Sneaking into a room from around a corner, for example. Or waiting in hiding when your enemy enters.

If not, you need a distraction (or a special ability) to use stealth.


D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
thejeff wrote:


If you're saying there's really a mechanical difference, give me a case: When do you have cover or concealment, but you can't stealth because you've already been seen? If there aren't any cases, you don't need the observation clause.

I did.

HERE

Can't hide to start with since he doesn't have cover or concealment. Could, according to you, hide as soon as he reaches the pillar, even without a distraction.

That might be less than useful, since they would know where he'd gone, but it still doesn't mean he couldn't do so. It would mean, for example, that he couldn't be targeted at range by either baddy unless they could make the Perception check.


thejeff wrote:
Could, according to you, hide as soon as he reaches the pillar, even without a distraction.

Yep, this is the key point:

If he moves and reach the pillar, as soon as he is in postion X or Y, he is not being observed anymore (because the whole point of my idea is that cover/concealment breaks observation) and thus
It wouldn't contradict the rule that says
"when you are observed with a precise sense you cannot hide without creating a diversion first" because as soon as you reach X or Y position you are not observed anymore and at that point you don't need to create a diversion, naturally :)
The rules is there to serve as a reminder that you cannot hide èi]right away[/i] if you're being observed. You can, obviously, hide as soon as the observed conbdition ceases :)
Which is what happens when you gain cover/concealment
This is logically sensible and not a corner case. This is by no means limited to rangers whatsoever.

Quote:
That might be less than useful

Sure. It sucks. This is not an optimal way of hiding, even with my reading of stealth rules.

Creatign a ditraction is so much more powerful. This is why it's so much more difficult too.


D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Could, according to you, hide as soon as he reaches the pillar, even without a distraction.

Yep, this is the key point:

If he moves and reach the pillar, as soon as he is in postion X or Y, he is not being observed anymore (because the whole point of my idea is that cover/concealment breaks observation) and thus
It wouldn't contradict the rule that says
"when you are observed with a precise sense you cannot hide without creating a diversion first" because as soon as you reach X or Y position you are not observed anymore and at that point you don't need to create a diversion, naturally :)
This is logically sensible and not a corner case. This is by no means limited to rangers whatsoever.

You're missing what I'm asking for. If the rule said absolutely nothing about observation and just said you can't use stealth without cover or concealment, then things would work in this case exactly like you describe. Thus the clause about observation is redundant.

I'm not looking for a case that contradicts the rule, but a case where the rule is useful.


thejeff wrote:
If the rule said absolutely nothing about observation and just said you can't use stealth without cover or concealment, then things would work in this case exactly like you describe. Thus the clause about observation is redundant.

Nope. In Dim Light, I still have Concealment, regardless of creature with Blindsight.

As I already stated in a previous post, a creature with Blindsight is able to observe me in dim light, and coincealment "is irllevant"

Note that concealment doesn't go away, it's merely irrelevant.

I cannot hide in such a case, because I'm being observed. I have, technically concealment; it doesn't give me any related benefits howvere vs the creature with Blindsight


D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
thejeff wrote:
If the rule said absolutely nothing about observation and just said you can't use stealth without cover or concealment, then things would work in this case exactly like you describe. Thus the clause about observation is redundant.

Nope. In Dim Light, I still have Concealment, regardless of creature with Blindsight.

As I already stated in a previous post, a creature with Blindsight is able to observe me in dim light, and coincealment "is irllevant"

Note that concealment doesn't go away, it's merely irrelevant.

I cannot hide in such a case, because I'm being observed. I have, technically concealment; it doesn't give me any related benefits howvere vs the creature with Blindsight

I disagree. Cover and concealment are necessarily relative to a particular creature. Both in terms of its senses and in terms of positioning.


thejeff wrote:
I disagree. Cover and concealment are necessarily relative to a particular creature. Both in terms of its senses and in terms of positioning.

No. This is not the case. Concealment is a thing that exists a priori (with some special exceptions, all clearly stated)

Concealment from dim light doesn't go awawy vs a creature with blindsight.
It is merely made irrelevant.
Irrelevant means you are being observed, the creature with blindisght does not suffer miss chance, etc.
Concealment is still there


D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I disagree. Cover and concealment are necessarily relative to a particular creature. Both in terms of its senses and in terms of positioning.

No. This is not the case. Concealment is a thing that exists a priori (with some special exceptions, all clearly stated)

Concealment from dim light doesn't go awawy vs a creature with blindsight.
It is merely made irrelevant.
Irrelevant means you are being observed, the creature with blindisght does not suffer miss chance, etc.
Concealment is still there

Concealment wrote:
An area of dim lighting or darkness doesn't provide any concealment against an opponent with darkvision. Characters with low-light vision can see clearly for a greater distance than other characters with the same light source.


The shadowdancer works like that, because they're drawing substance from the plane of shadow itself (and we're living in a humanocentric universe...)


And Hellcat Stealth works like it does because the character is mimicking the defensive ability of an evil outsider.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

All squares are rectangles.

"But you can't actually argue that rectangles and squares aren't the same thing if you're saying squares are rectangles!"

If you're not going to differentiate them in the rules why not just call them blockies?

Well, if you're not then you might as well. That's not really relevant to the discussion at hand, though.

101 to 150 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.