Stealth, yes again.


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lost Ohioian wrote:

Lets see if we can get a FAQ out of this;

Can you stealth while in combat, without total cover or concealment?

please hit the FAQ button guys!

This seems to be the crux of the issue

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

And is total cover/concealment different?


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


How, for the love of god, can you ever be unobserved in Pathfinder by a strict reading of the stealth rules?

Start the encounter stealthed. Thats what its for. Or Make the bluff check. Thats the reason that it's there.

Polonius is standing behind the tapestry as you walk into the room with his feet sticking out: Concealed and not observed. Make a stealth check vs perception.

Polonius stabs hamlet, walks behind the tapestry: Concealed but observed. He's not fooling anyone, you saw where he went. He still has concealment (because you can mistake a bulge in the tapestry for his kidney), but you know exactly which square to swing at.

This is wrong, the concealment makes him unobserved but aware of location. You know where he is, but you can't clearly see him. Thus he's not observed anymore.


Chess Pwn wrote:


This is wrong, the concealment makes him unobserved but aware of location. You know where he is, but you can't clearly see him. Thus he's not observed anymore.

It is absolutely correct.

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

You cannot target someone who's location you are merely aware of with a spell. You can toss a charm person at the rogue standing in a dark alley cleaning his fingernails. This is not the right level of awareness for concealment.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:


This is wrong, the concealment makes him unobserved but aware of location. You know where he is, but you can't clearly see him. Thus he's not observed anymore.

It is absolutely correct.

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

You cannot target someone who's location you are merely aware of with a spell. You can toss a charm person at the rogue standing in a dark alley cleaning his fingernails. This is not the right level of awareness for concealment.

Exactly. Defining any level of cover/concealment as meaning only "aware of location", even if they're not Stealthy or you beat their Stealth roll breaks so much more of the game.


"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... a shadowy area or a curtain work nicely, for example."

a shadowy area or curtain provided protection from a precise sense, otherwise you can't stealth. Since you are protected from a precise sense, you can stealth.

Now if they don't stealth then they auto fail and you're observing them. But it's enough of a hinderance to sight that they could try and stealth and have you lose them.


Chess Pwn wrote:

"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... a shadowy area or a curtain work nicely, for example."

a shadowy area or curtain provided protection from a precise sense, otherwise you can't stealth. Since you are protected from a precise sense, you can stealth.

Now if they don't stealth then they auto fail and you're observing them. But it's enough of a hinderance to sight that they could try and stealth and have you lose them.

So they're simultaneously observed and not observed? Observed for everything except being able to use stealth?


You can't keep quoting different snippets out of context, get it shot down, and move on to the next one.

You ... ed out a very important part

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.

Defining a 20% miss chance level of darkness as making vision an imprecise sense doesn't fit with the rest of the rules.


thejeff wrote:

So they're simultaneously observed and not observed? Observed for everything except being able to use stealth?

If they're in a dark alley (concealment) there are the following options:

1. They don't stealth, or your perception beats their stealth check. You observe them in the UI sense with a precise sense. You can target them with a spell, or attack them with a weapon, with the standard 20% concealment miss chance.

2. They use stealth, and they beat your perception check. You're aware of their location (square), but some combination of their ability to slide in and out of shadows, slippery movement, swirling a cloak, whatever, means they have total concealment and are not observed in the UI sense. You cannot target them with a (non-ranged touch or touch) spell, and they have full 50% concealment against attacks in that square.

Ultimate Intrigue pg 188 wrote:
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.

Concealment in an area (bad light) provides a sufficient confusion of an observers sight trying to pick you out from the background environment that you can try to break direct observation with a stealth vs. perception check. Individual concealment (blur) in an otherwise clear observational environment doesn't do the same.

The sniping distinction arguably depends on whether they're shooting behind an isolated tree (situation is like blur) or from a big hedge of undergrowth (like an area of darkness). That certainly matches up with my experiences of trying to lay and avoid ambushes in the forests of Fort Benning.


Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

"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... a shadowy area or a curtain work nicely, for example."

a shadowy area or curtain provided protection from a precise sense, otherwise you can't stealth. Since you are protected from a precise sense, you can stealth.

Now if they don't stealth then they auto fail and you're observing them. But it's enough of a hinderance to sight that they could try and stealth and have you lose them.

So they're simultaneously observed and not observed? Observed for everything except being able to use stealth?

If they're in a dark alley (concealment) there are the following options:

1. They don't stealth, or your perception beats their stealth check. You observe them in the UI sense with a precise sense. You can target them with a spell, or attack them with a weapon, with the standard 20% concealment miss chance.

2. They use stealth, and they beat your perception check. You're aware of their location (square), but some combination of their ability to slide in and out of shadows, slippery movement, swirling a cloak, whatever, means they have total concealment and are not observed in the UI sense. You cannot target them with a (non-ranged touch or touch) spell, and they have full 50% concealment against attacks in that square.

And in case 1, they're unobserved and can try to use stealth again at the next opportunity - even though they're observed enough to target.


I'd say they're always observed until the stealth check beats perception. The area of concealment doesn't break observation (in the UI sense), it introduces the environment necessary for stealth to break that observation.


Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
I'd say they're always observed until the stealth check beats perception. The area of concealment doesn't break observation (in the UI sense), it introduces the environment necessary for stealth to break that observation.

But then "can't use stealth if you're observed" is meaningless gibberish.


Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
. They don't stealth, or your perception beats their stealth check. You observe them in the UI sense with a precise sense. You can target them with a spell, or attack them with a weapon, with the standard 20% concealment miss chance.

The entire argument for this position (which will get you some very weird, very game breaking results) is UI's perception levels. Those perception levels do not have a 20% miss chance and can be targeted with spells level for you to say they can be targeted by spells but can still stealth.

Quote:
Concealment in an area (bad light) provides a sufficient confusion of an observers sight trying to pick you out from the background environment that you can try to break direct observation with a stealth vs. perception check.

Or it's sufficient that stealth doesn't automatically break.

Quote:
I'd say they're always observed until the stealth check beats perception.

You cannot stealth while observed. That's the schrodingers cat you wind up with under that ruling.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


You cannot stealth while observed. That's the schrodingers cat you wind up with under that ruling.

Ok, let's deconflict this by making a distinction between observed and the state of observing.

Once again:

Quote:
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.

And this:

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. 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.

So I propose this can explain the seeming contradiction.

1. When you're in an area of normal or bright light you are observed. You are always observed regardless of any Stealth check (which you cannot make) unless you use any of the traditional methods to get into a situation where you can use stealth.

2. When in an area of darkness or widespread concealment, your opponent is no longer observed because your vision is degraded, and that's your primary precise sense. However, you can still achieve the status of observing your opponent because (a) they haven't attempted a stealth check, so your hearing plus your degraded vision are enough, or (b) your perception check beats their stealth check so that the combination of hearing and degraded vision are not enough to maintain that observing status.

It's unfortunate they used two such similar words (a common tragedy in Pathfinder), but you can draw a distinction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
plausible psuedonym wrote:
Ok, let's deconflict this by making a distinction between observed and the state of observing.

Asmodeuous just promoted you to high priesthood.

That is an incredibly random argument to make. On top of that, remember that you are arguing against another interpretation, AND for some of the rules silliness that your interpretation allows: Like stealthing as a move action against someone that you're in melee with on an L shaped corner.

You cannot just say that something is the rules because there's an argument for it. You have to compare competing arguments and making a distinction between observing and observing being used in the same paragraph severely weakens yours.


Plausible Pseudonym wrote:


So I propose this can explain the seeming contradiction.

1. When you're in an area of normal or bright light you are observed. You are always observed regardless of any Stealth check (which you cannot make) unless you use any of the traditional methods to get into a situation where you can use stealth.

2. When in an area of darkness or widespread concealment, your opponent is no longer observed because your vision is degraded, and that's your primary precise sense. However, you can still achieve the status of observing your opponent because (a) they haven't attempted a stealth check, so your hearing plus your degraded vision are enough, or (b) your perception check beats their stealth check so that the combination of hearing and degraded vision are not enough to maintain that observing status.

It's unfortunate they used two such similar words (a common tragedy in Pathfinder), but you can draw a distinction.

Which breaks down again to "You can use stealth in cover or concealment" and there is no need to talk about "observed" or "observing" at all.

Mind you, I think it's far more likely that they switch between "observed" and "observing" based on whether they're talking about the character trying to Perceive or hide than some more abstract distinction.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
plausible psuedonym wrote:
Ok, let's deconflict this by making a distinction between observed and the state of observing.

Asmodeuous just promoted you to high priesthood.

That is an incredibly random argument to make. On top of that, remember that you are arguing against another interpretation, AND for some of the rules silliness that your interpretation allows: Like stealthing as a move action against someone that you're in melee with on an L shaped corner.

You cannot just say that something is the rules because there's an argument for it. You have to compare competing arguments and making a distinction between observing and observing being used in the same paragraph severely weakens yours.

OTOH, I'm pretty sure there's no rules interpretation that's anywhere near RAW and doesn't allow all sorts of rules silliness.

I'm not even convinced there's a non-contradictory RAW for Stealth/Perception/vision/etc.

Sovereign Court

I can recall walking thru my living room in the dark last night.

That d&*^ footstool must have made it's stealth check, 'cause I never saw it before it got sneak dice on me. And I was looking!

I don't think something has to be using Stealth to be "... no longer observed..." "...When in an area of darkness or widespread concealment...". Heck, I don't even think something needs to be ALIVE to get missed by a Perception check...

But heck, that's real life. We're way past that at this point. We're dealing with RULES, not REALITY.

just ignore me, I'm not really contributing anything useful to this conversation.


thejeff wrote:
OTOH, I'm pretty sure there's no rules interpretation that's anywhere near RAW and doesn't allow all sorts of rules silliness.

The only absurdity you get is 360 degree turret vision. Everything else for cover/concealment works fine (and no interpretation breaks the turret)

Quote:

I'm not even convinced there's a non-contradictory RAW for Stealth/Perception/vision/etc.

[bnw run on sentence]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 by momentarily diverting their attention with a distraction such as a bluff check. 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 by making a stealth check at -10 penalty because you have to move fast. [/bnw run on sentence]

What contradictions or absurdities does that get you?

Shadow Lodge

*facepalm*


BigNorseWolf wrote:

You can't keep quoting different snippets out of context, get it shot down, and move on to the next one.

You ... ed out a very important part

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.

Defining a 20% miss chance level of darkness as making vision an imprecise sense doesn't fit with the rest of the rules.

I've been quoting the same thing the entire time.

Quote:

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... a shadowy area or a curtain work nicely, for example.

So explain to me what it's saying? How are a shadowy area or a curtain nice examples for avoiding the opponent's precise sense of vision?


Btw, allies provide cover, no? So if all you needed was cover to use stealth, rogues could pretty much do it all the time.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Btw, allies provide cover, no? So if all you needed was cover to use stealth, rogues could pretty much do it all the time.

Cover and Stealth Checks

You can use cover to make a Stealth check. Without cover, you usually need concealment (see below) to make a Stealth check.

Soft Cover

Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.

This stops stealth checks in it's definition.


Ugh, me need to read more. ;)

Hmm, I suppose partial cover would still work...


Chess Pwn wrote:


So explain to me what it's saying?

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. In order to maintain stealth you need to STAY out of an opponents targeting senses (usually vision).Blur and displacement don't count: they can still see you.
.You can hide in a shadowy area or behind a curtain. .Hide in plain sight lets you ignore this requirement.

You also have the option of moving from pillar to pillar as per the core rulebook errata, as long as you start and end in stealth.

The problem with ultimate intrigue is that it doesn't have rules for 20% miss chance level of observation anywhere. You can be targeted with a spell at 20% miss chance or +4 cover, but there is a miss chance so it doesn't meet all of the technical definitions of a targeting sense. It goes right from wriggly field to pitch black.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:


So explain to me what it's saying?

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. In order to maintain stealth you need to STAY out of an opponents targeting senses (usually vision).Blur and displacement don't count: they can still see you.
.You can hide in a shadowy area or behind a curtain. .Hide in plain sight lets you ignore this requirement.

You also have the option of moving from pillar to pillar as per the core rulebook errata, as long as you start and end in stealth.

The problem with ultimate intrigue is that it doesn't have rules for 20% miss chance level of observation anywhere. You can be targeted with a spell at 20% miss chance or +4 cover, but there is a miss chance so it doesn't meet all of the technical definitions of a targeting sense. It goes right from wriggly field to pitch black.

I'm sorry, I'm not following. What's the issue you're seeing?


Chess Pwn wrote:


I'm sorry, I'm not following. What's the issue you're seeing?

People not listening for starters


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:


I'm sorry, I'm not following. What's the issue you're seeing?
People not listening for starters

Okay, so you have someone that is specifically trying to listen and understand your view. First problem solved.


The issue is that if you can perceive someone well enough to target them with a spell in 20% concealment, or +4 cover (like a dimly lit room, or peeking out from a corner), then why isn't that person being 'observed' and thus unable to stealth?

How do you target someone with a spell unless you can observe them?


Chess Pwn wrote:


Okay, so you have someone that is specifically trying to listen and understand your view. First problem solved.

Assuming that's true for a second...

Question: What is the observation level of a Rogue in an alley at dusk cleaning his fingernails and with a 20% miss chance ?

Answer: None of the observation levels fit perfectly.

You can be targeted with a spell at 20% miss chance or +4 cover (which meets the definition of observing) but there is a miss chance so it meets the definition of "aware of location".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:


Okay, so you have someone that is specifically trying to listen and understand your view. First problem solved.

Assuming that's true for a second...

Question: What is the observation level of a Rogue in an alley at dusk cleaning his fingernails and with a 20% miss chance ?

Answer: None of the observation levels fit perfectly.

You can be targeted with a spell at 20% miss chance or +4 cover (which meets the definition of observing) but there is a miss chance so it meets the definition of "aware of location".

I can target my kidney, I'm not able to observe it while it's still inside this sack of meat.

I think everyone can be right in this argument. Sure you "see" the guy, but when he moved (stealth is typically done as part of movement I recall), he seemed just "disappear". You were observing him, but now you're not. A dagger is thrown at you from what you are pretty sure of is a barrel in the alley. You're confident you know his general location, but you just can't pick him out from all the other shadowy figures present.

I don't know honestly what the intent is, but I think that giving a rogue a chance to shine in battle isn't the worst thing to do. I'd rule that they can stealth as they meet the requirements of the "clarification". But just because they "hid" behind the only cover in a well lit room doesn't mean my NPC's won't just march around the corner and poke them a bit.


Except the rules say that you can't stealth when you ARE observed, not that you can become unobserved by stealthing.

And it doesn't matter how many shadowy figures there are, he could be the only figure that you 'see'. You can target that figure with a spell, thus you must be able to observe that figure.


Dont imagine a rogue taking advantage of this. Imagine a wizard doing it after every fireball.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I don't think fireballs count as ranged attacks for the purpose of sniping.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I don't think fireballs count as ranged attacks for the purpose of sniping.

Not for sniping, but for using any bit of cover or concealment to start stealthing.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Dont imagine a rogue taking advantage of this. Imagine a wizard doing it after every fireball.

I've already imagined a wizard using Improved Invisibility, we're good, fam.

Honestly, playing it as you can attempt stealth in an area of dim light just makes the game more interesting. Low light vision, darkvision, and tactical use of light and dark sources just makes the game more strategic (you may want to shut down your dim light and go full dark if you're losing the Perception vs. Stealth game). Perception is important, but it already was. Stealth becomes more valuable and gives mundanes a way to compete with magicians who can go invisible in any light conditions.


Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
've already imagined a wizard using Improved Invisibility, we're good, fam.

And do you usually enjoy those fights?

Dim light isn't really the problem. (though i would never play a human in a game using that rule) It's cover. it is ridiculously easy to have cover from someone and thats supposed to be a +4 bonus to AC, not free invisibility.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
've already imagined a wizard using Improved Invisibility, we're good, fam.
And do you usually enjoy those fights?

Of course. Finding a way to deny the enemy their invisibility/cover is a challenge over having everyone on a flat playing field.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
've already imagined a wizard using Improved Invisibility, we're good, fam.
And do you usually enjoy those fights?
Of course. Finding a way to deny the enemy their invisibility/cover is a challenge over having everyone on a flat playing field.

its not a challenge. It's wait for the caster to solve it with a spell. and it gets old after the 700th time.

It will be even older when they can hide the flour you dumped on them with a mundane hide check.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
its not a challenge.

It was when my vigilante tried to bull rush the invisible cleric back into the cell behind him, and succeeded.

Sovereign Court

"Observing/Observed" in the context of the stealth rules doesn't mean "able to see at all", it means "being able to see clearly". It's not plain-English language, it's a defined term.

UI makes it clear that "observing" means "witnessing with a precise sense", and a precise sense is a sense that allows targeting with no miss chance. Normally sight is precise, but if someone has concealment, then it is not precise, and thus can't provide observation.


Ascalaphus wrote:

"Observing/Observed" in the context of the stealth rules doesn't mean "able to see at all", it means "being able to see clearly". It's not plain-English language, it's a defined term.

UI makes it clear that "observing" means "witnessing with a precise sense", and a precise sense is a sense that allows targeting with no miss chance. Normally sight is precise, but if someone has concealment, then it is not precise, and thus can't provide observation.

Except that UI also makes it clear that the next step down from "Observed" is "Aware of location", which is considerably less than just "is partially concealed" - 50% miss chance, can only target square, not creature.

BTW, I read the "precise sense" language as defining a precise sense, not reliant on circumstances. Sight is a precise sense for humans because we can use it to target with no miss chance. For other creatures, smell may be a precise sense.
If you're witnessing a creature with one of your precise senses, then you're observing them, even if some circumstance (like partial concealment) gives you a miss chance.

The precise sense language is in there to forestall arguments about "I should be able to hear them, so they're observed even behind full cover, right", not to create this new argument.

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Dont imagine a rogue taking advantage of this. Imagine a wizard doing it after every fireball.

actually, I use Scorching Ray to snipe. That way I get to count my Sneak Dice...


Ascalaphus wrote:
"Observing/Observed" in the context of the stealth rules doesn't mean "able to see at all", it means "being able to see clearly". It's not plain-English language, it's a defined term.

It wasn't defined for almost a decade.

Quote:


UI makes it clear that "observing" means "witnessing with a precise sense", and a precise sense is a sense that allows targeting with no miss chance. Normally sight is precise, but if someone has concealment, then it is not precise, and thus can't provide observation.

UI also makes it clear that unless you are observing a target you cannot target them with spells.

You can target someone with a 20% miss chance with spells

Therefore they are observed.

conclussion: UI is borked and doesn't cover the most relevant condition for stealth. It simply rephrased the old stealth rules sentence bY sentence.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


UI also makes it clear that unless you are observing a target you cannot target them with spells.

You can target someone with a 20% miss chance with spells

Therefore they are observed.

conclussion: UI is borked and doesn't cover the most relevant condition for stealth. It simply rephrased the old stealth rules sentence bY sentence.

Again, these aren't the same terms. If you're in partial light you are not observed. If you win a Perception vs. Stealth you are, however, observing. In that case you can target with spells, but the 20% miss chance still applies from the light conditions.


I love it when you're arguing against one weird interpretation of the rules and someone jumps in disputing your counter to that weird interpretation with their own different weird interpretation.

Apropos of nothing, of course.


Plausible Pseudonym wrote:


Again, these aren't the same terms. If you're in partial light you are not observed. If you win a Perception vs. Stealth you are, however, observing. In that case you can target with spells, but the 20% miss chance still applies from the light conditions.

This is ridiculous and if anything solidifies my position that you aren't even trying to read the rules you're trying to force them to say something.

Do you have anything to counter the idea that observed and cover/concealment are two different things? Because right now your argument is that they're the same thing is it's the raw, but you need a "jedi truth" definition of the raw to make it so.

You're making a terrible argument, and it doesn't even begin to lean against the evidence going the other way. Why mention observed at all? Why does a ranger need HIPs if they have camoflage? Why is sniping a thing? Why would you ever make the bluff check AND suck up a -10 penalty to your stealth check to batman away. why can you lose track of someone you're staring right at just as easily as you can miss someone hiding in a room?

RAW can say more than one thing. As soon as you accept that your argument falls apart.


Resolve why the Ranger has Camouflage and Hide In Plain Sight abilities with the interpretation of the rules that having cover (alone) allows you to Stealth, because that interpretation makes no sense with those abilities existing.

Ultimate Intrigue's rule conflict with the way the rules were written for everything else and are simply bad rules IMO.

Also, what's the point of the creating a diversion rule if you only need cover/concealment to initiate stealth? Is it just a meaningless rule?

I prefer rules that don't invalidate long existing rules that clearly were written to have some purpose.

The Concordance

Claxon wrote:
Resolve why the Ranger has Camouflage and Hide In Plain Sight abilities with the interpretation of the rules that having cover (alone) allows you to Stealth, because that interpretation makes no sense with those abilities existing.

Camouflage allows the Ranger to leave cover/concealment and continue hiding indefinitely without it (most creatures only have until the end of their turn to do this).

Claxon wrote:
Also, what's the point of the creating a diversion rule if you only need cover/concealment to initiate stealth? Is it just a meaningless rule?

So that the opponent doesn't know which barrel you just dove behind. It's kind of obvious where you're hiding otherwise, and you'd be easy to pursue.


Lawrence, I understand what Camouflage does. The real question is what is the point of Hide In Plain Sight if you have Camouflage?

If you can just make Stealth checks by only needing Cover/Concealment, then Camouflage means you can always make Stealth checks in your Favored Terrain. Hide In Plain Sight would do absolutely nothing for the ranger if you only need cover or concealment to make the check and there is no need to get rid of being observed first.

The existence of Ranger's Camouflage and Hide In Plain Sight means the interpretation that cover/concealment causes you to be unobserved does not agree with at least this one set of rules. The interpretation creates a rule conflict, so it's probably not one we should just accept as is.


with UI and some people saying only conceal is good, i find it funny and ridiculous that someone can stand next to a candle (still a good source of light since it was the primary source of light in the middle age) and the person can just poof and you are no longer able to see him like he is invisible, i prefer to stick to the CRB for the stealth rule since UI rule about stealth go away from logic to a point of absurdity, as i'm reading this thread

51 to 100 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Stealth, yes again. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.