|
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.
Specifically, Camoflauge let's you do the Breaking Stealth use of the skill indefinitely
When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make an attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).
Using Camouflage, the ranger can leave the bush and stealth around the field all day even if someone else is on the field.
Camoflauge doesn't have the "even when observed" bit that most of the HiPS abilities include, so I'm inclined to think that just because he doesn't need C/C doesn't mean he automatically breaks observation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No.
1) Breaking stealth didn't exist when the ranger was written
2) Camouflage works accross entire biomes. The idea that he needs hide in plain sight for multi state stealth runs is ridiculous, and thats the only thing he'd need it for. The glade and the thicket are both forest, he has camoflage in both.
I'm inclined to think that just because he doesn't need C/C doesn't mean he automatically breaks observation.: ....
the entire point of the argument is that the ranger later gets hide in plain sight. Hide in plain sight that he apparently doesn't need according to you because [observed and (cover/concealment)are the same thing. Why is hide in plain sight an ability, at all, if the ranger has cover/concealment under the same conditions?
The obvious answer is because (cover and concealment) and observed/unobserved aren't the same thing. They are two seperate causes and you need to meet both of them.
This makes the ranger abilities make sense
It fits the raw if you read the entire paragraph at one go
it fits the "you cannot stealth while being observed" clause
It leads to less raw silliness.
Lets adventurers understand object permanence that most sentient life forms figure out before 3.
Doesn't dramatically alter the game
Explains why the rules even bother to bring up observed at all.
There is no reason to adopt the one clause view, at all.
|
Two actors, A and B, are in a forest that contains a great deal of concealment (undergrowth) but no cover (all trees only provide partial cover, no hills, etc). If A is currently observing B, how far away from A does B have to move before he can try to use Stealth?
From what I understand of trying to apply BigNorseWolf's interpretation, there is no distance at which B can hide from A, since there is no distance at which B becomes unobserved by A.
It depends on the circumstances.
If A starts out hiding when B comes up, A can hide at any distance up to and including "I got your nose!"
If A and B are already glaring at each other , swords drawn, then no. Neither one can simply announce a stealth check and have a 50 50 chance of vanishing from someone's sight. You need to use the "look a monkey" bluff check from the core rules, which is hard because vanishing from someone looking at you is hard.
Alternatively A could move beyond the encounter distance of a dense forest (2d6 × 10 feet) , gain total concealment and start the mouse hunt over.
A could crouch into the undergrowth if it's sufficiently dense, then move somewhere else. If B fails to track A's movement, B no longer knows where A is. How do we know whether B successfully noticed A's slow, careful movement through the concealing growth?
Stealth vs. Perception.
Can't do it? What if the undergrowth is more substantial--say, a densely planted corn field? What's the threshold of observation?
|
|
Alternatively A could move beyond the encounter distance of a dense forest (2d6 × 10 feet) , gain total concealment and start the mouse hunt over.
Given my question, the only applicable answer is your third. It seems odd that it is just as easy for A to continue observing B while he is in undergrowth at 5 feet as it is at 120 feet, and that it is unaffected by Perception, no less.
Alternatively A could move beyond the encounter distance of a dense forest (2d6 × 10 feet) , gain total concealment and start the mouse hunt over.Given my question, the only applicable answer is your third. It seems odd that it is just as easy for A to continue observing B while he is in undergrowth at 5 feet as it is at 120 feet, and that it is unaffected by Perception, no less.
1)Not really, since "automatic" doesn't scale and isn't supposed to scale. Is it weird that it's just as hard to flap my arms and fly 80 feet as 800? No.
2) It might not be. 120 feet in the situation you describe is guaranteed to be out of encounter distance and thus have total concealment
3) Going "look a monkey!" is far easier at 100 feet than 10. You have a +10 circumstance bonus on your stealth check, negating your book it penalty. With 2 equal opponents , that gives you a ~25% chance of succeeding.
It doesn't say that the encounter ends. It just says that thats maximum encounter distance , which i'm going to go out on a limb *drumroll* and means you can't see anyone past that point, which is why it got selected for maximum encounter distance in the first place.
I don't think it's that weird. I've been in beech whips where my surveying class was shouting "WHERE ARE YOU" to people only to have them hand equipment through the trees.
At some point you'll target them without penalty (more than x feet of brush provides concealment), at some point they'll have a 20% miss at some point they'll have total concealment or you'll have no idea where they are. If having only three steps of concealment is kinda weird well the game simplifies a lot. I don't think it's a wonky simplification or out of line with the rest of the game.
I'm not generally opposed to forest offering concealment, I'm just not quite clear on how it works. And not really comfortable with the hard cut off from "Now I have not trouble tracking you, shooting at you (I suppose there's a miss chance), etc, but you can't even try to hide if I've already seen you and then suddenly, just a little further and I can't see you no matter what.
Its the kind of simplification the game uses all the time and has to unless you want a bell curve and a T chart. The game doesn't offer that level of gradation, if anything the scaling ease of the "look a monkey" fake out is less plateaued scaling than most things in the game.
If the options are stealth gets immesurably easier at 120 feet than 110 feet or someone vanishing 5 feet away from you around a corner, that's an easy pick.
Right again if two are in melee. A vs B. A swings at B, misses or hits doesn't matter. He then announces I'm gonna stealth cause this brush I'm standing is concealment/cover (any amount doesn't matter). Mind you he doesn't move cause he doesn't have to according to some people's thought. Now its B's turn he just got attacked the guy is in the square next to him and misses that perception check and then announces I'm gonna stealth. A's turn he misses the perception so he doesn't break stealth. Now we had 2 people that were just toe to toe battling it out and now they can't see each other? All because there was a 20% concealment or partial cover?
What's being said is every person in combat should end their turn with now I'm gonna stealth!
Or you enter stealth, move , and return to your original position.
Stealth is a skill. It's a very useful combat skill as far as skills go, but its not supposed to be something you roll every round of combat.
Or you enter stealth, move , and return to your original position.
Stealth is a skill. It's a very useful combat skill as far as skills go, but its not supposed to be something you roll every round of combat.
Cool, I think the US just retroactively won a lot of fights in the Vietnam War.
Cool, I think the US just retroactively won a lot of fights in the Vietnam War.
At best, that a Heroic sword and sorcery simulator might not quite work for a mechanized war in the 1960s is far less of a problem than Heroic sword and sorcery simulator not working as a Heroic sword and sorcery simulator.
More likely , fighting at a long distance with total concealment and waiting for a nat 20 and the 50 50 miss chance would pretty much explain the ammo expended per hit, with the limitation on approaching reality being the d20 system itself and the auto hit rule.
Do you have a better argument than "the two clauses interpretation isn't perfect when i stretch it well beyond typical adventuring scenarios?"
The two clauses interpretation
makes the ranger abilities make sense
It fits the raw if you read the entire paragraph at one go
it fits the "you cannot stealth while being observed" clause
It leads to less raw silliness.
Lets adventurers understand object permanence that most sentient life forms figure out before 3.
Doesn't dramatically alter the game
Explains why the rules even bother to bring up observed at all.
Models the difference between a prepared ambush and someone trying to hide in front of you.
keeps the game from getting dragged down by a stealth roll every single round from every opponent and the coresponding perception checks from every player.
explains why "hey look a monkey" is even mentioned as an option
explains why sniping is an option.
Can you give an argument FOR the one clause interpretation besides "it's raw? Because "its raw" doesn't cut it when you can read raw two different ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right again if two are in melee. A vs B. A swings at B, misses or hits doesn't matter. He then announces I'm gonna stealth cause this brush I'm standing is concealment/cover (any amount doesn't matter). Mind you he doesn't move cause he doesn't have to according to some people's thought. Now its B's turn he just got attacked the guy is in the square next to him and misses that perception check and then announces I'm gonna stealth. A's turn he misses the perception so he doesn't break stealth. Now we had 2 people that were just toe to toe battling it out and now they can't see each other? All because there was a 20% concealment or partial cover?
What's being said is every person in combat should end their turn with now I'm gonna stealth!
OK, so? Using one's environment for a tactical advantage is a huge part of fighting in small groups. It is not like it is going to work all the time. Against equally trained combatants you only have a 50/50 chance.
A lot of the posts here seem to assume that the ability to make a stealth check is equal to succeeding at one when that is not true.
If you can't jump into the brush or some other cover/concealment during a fight then stealth really only works when the DM lets you set an ambush. At work I can walk right at someone that is actively watching me, even talking to me, and duck behind a low wall (office) or between pallet racks and still surprise them seconds later with a shot from a Nerf gun. This stuff is not that hard to do.
|
OK, so? Using one's environment for a tactical advantage is a huge part of fighting in small groups. It is not like it is going to work all the time. Against equally trained combatants you only have a 50/50 chance.A lot of the posts here seem to assume that the ability to make a stealth check is equal to succeeding at one when that is not true.
If you can't jump into the brush or some other cover/concealment during a fight then stealth really only works when the DM lets you set an ambush. At work I can walk right at someone that is actively watching me, even talking to me, and duck behind a low wall (office) or between pallet racks and still surprise them seconds later with a shot from a Nerf gun. This stuff is not that hard to do.
Generally, I'd expect them to be surprised that you're shooting them, not that you were still there.
Can you duck back down after shooting them and do it again?
on a paintball field I would have to say... Sometimes.
Sometimes they "Expect" me to pop out on the left - and I do it on the right. Sometimes they split their attention between left and right sides of the pallet rack and I step on a box and pop up from behind. And maybe even once I shot thru the crack they overlooked while they were watching for me to pop up in three different places... Then there's the troupe where I toss my hat out the left side - while shooting them from the right. Yeah... sometimes it works. And sometimes I peek around and get a water-balloon to the face.
OK, so? Using one's environment for a tactical advantage is a huge part of fighting in small groups. It is not like it is going to work all the time. Against equally trained combatants you only have a 50/50 chance.
Thats the problem. Characters are specialized. At higher levels the difference between tiers of unskilled, skilled, and monkey becomes more than the die. So yes,
If you can't jump into the brush or some other cover/concealment during a fight
You can. There's a system for that. You make a bluff check so they're not looking at you and THEN you hide. Why do you think that option is there? You cannot tell me with a straight face that an ambush is the only way to hide when that option is in the rules, being discussed, and being pointed to as the mechanic for doing exactly what you want to do without using that mechanic. You might think the mechanic sucks, isn't fair, takes too long, or isn't worth it but you can't say it's not there.
Alternately, get total cover or total concealment and then hide.
At work I can walk right at someone that is actively watching me, even talking to me, and duck behind a low wall (office) or between pallet racks and still surprise them seconds later with a shot from a Nerf gun. This stuff is not that hard to do.
To office workers. In an office. Not semi professional quasi trained adventurers.
OK, so? Using one's environment for a tactical advantage is a huge part of fighting in small groups. It is not like it is going to work all the time. Against equally trained combatants you only have a 50/50 chance.A lot of the posts here seem to assume that the ability to make a stealth check is equal to succeeding at one when that is not true.
If you can't jump into the brush or some other cover/concealment during a fight then stealth really only works when the DM lets you set an ambush. At work I can walk right at someone that is actively watching me, even talking to me, and duck behind a low wall (office) or between pallet racks and still surprise them seconds later with a shot from a Nerf gun. This stuff is not that hard to do.
Generally, I'd expect them to be surprised that you're shooting them, not that you were still there.
Can you duck back down after shooting them and do it again?on a paintball field I would have to say... Sometimes.
Sometimes they "Expect" me to pop out on the left - and I do it on the right. Sometimes they split their attention between left and right sides of the pallet rack and I step on a box and pop up from behind. And maybe even once I shot thru the crack they overlooked while they were watching for me to pop up in three different places... Then there's the troupe where I toss my hat out the left side - while shooting them from the right. Yeah... sometimes it works. And sometimes I peek around and get a water-balloon to the face.
Which is exactly what the roll represents.
OK, so? Using one's environment for a tactical advantage is a huge part of fighting in small groups. It is not like it is going to work all the time. Against equally trained combatants you only have a 50/50 chance.
Thats the problem. Characters are specialized. At higher levels the difference between tiers of unskilled, skilled, and monkey becomes more than the die. So yes,
If you can't jump into the brush or some other cover/concealment during a fightYou can. There's a system for that. You make a bluff check so they're not looking at you and THEN you hide. Why do you think that option is there? You cannot tell me with a straight face that an ambush is the only way to hide when that option is in the rules, being discussed, and being pointed to as the mechanic for doing exactly what you want to do without using that mechanic. You might think the mechanic sucks, isn't fair, takes too long, or isn't worth it but you can't say it's not there.
Alternately, get total cover or total concealment and then hide.
At work I can walk right at someone that is actively watching me, even talking to me, and duck behind a low wall (office) or between pallet racks and still surprise them seconds later with a shot from a Nerf gun. This stuff is not that hard to do.
To office workers. In an office. Not semi professional quasi trained adventurers.
I don't have a problem with the mechanic. I think it just means something different than you do. The way I see it:
With the Bluff check and a successful stealth check, they have no idea where you went. They don't know what direction. They don't know what square. They have no clue. As far as they are concerned, you could be on a different plane now.
Without the bluff check and a successful stealth check, they have an idea where you went. The know you dropped behind the wall or into a pile of brush, they just can't see you now. They can drop a stinking cloud on your butt, run away from you, or burn down the bushes. They can even fire an arrow into a square that they think you are in with a 50% miss chance.
I don't think the Bluff mechanic is pointless in regards to stealth.
I also recognize that at this point the whole argument is subjective and can not be proven for either side. Clearly there are people that think that the "observed" state is lost by cover and concealment (excluding things like blur) due to the line "Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth."
And there are also people that think you are always observed via "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can’t use Stealth."
I wholeheartedly believe that:
"Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth." (CRB Stealth)
is a qualifier for:
"If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can’t use Stealth." (CRB Stealth)
That position is backed up by:
"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." (Ultimate Intrigue Perception and Stealth)
So in the Stealth rules it tells you when you can't use Stealth (observed), then goes on to tell you how to overcome that (cover/concealment). The info in Ultimate Intrigue points out that cover and concealment break the observed state in more detail than the CRB. It goes further to give examples of what types of cover/concealment don't work as well as those that do. All while talking about being observed.
Both sources start their respective paragraphs with a sentence describing what happens when observed. The very next sentence in BOTH sources describe ways to break be observed.
But again, it is not set in stone. There is no line that reads "you can break current, ongoing observation by getting to cover or concealment."
Just:
"Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth." (CRB Stealth)
OK, so? Using one's environment for a tactical advantage is a huge part of fighting in small groups. It is not like it is going to work all the time. Against equally trained combatants you only have a 50/50 chance.
Thats the problem. Characters are specialized. At higher levels the difference between tiers of unskilled, skilled, and monkey becomes more than the die. So yes,
If you can't jump into the brush or some other cover/concealment during a fightYou can. There's a system for that. You make a bluff check so they're not looking at you and THEN you hide. Why do you think that option is there? You cannot tell me with a straight face that an ambush is the only way to hide when that option is in the rules, being discussed, and being pointed to as the mechanic for doing exactly what you want to do without using that mechanic. You might think the mechanic sucks, isn't fair, takes too long, or isn't worth it but you can't say it's not there.
Alternately, get total cover or total concealment and then hide.
At work I can walk right at someone that is actively watching me, even talking to me, and duck behind a low wall (office) or between pallet racks and still surprise them seconds later with a shot from a Nerf gun. This stuff is not that hard to do.
To office workers. In an office. Not semi professional quasi trained adventurers.
Right. Like I said, "Against equally trained combatants"
Without the bluff check and a successful stealth check, they have an idea where you went. The know you dropped behind the wall or into a pile of brush, they just can't see you now. They can drop a stinking cloud on your butt, run away from you, or burn down the bushes. They can even fire an arrow into a square that they think you are in with a 50% miss chance.
Okay, and if you went into the brush or behind that wall why would you stay there? There's other brush or cover to move into. If there isn't, then "look a monkey" won't help you, because they WILL know where you went if you're hiding behind the only tree in the savanah.
The "Look a monkey" option takes up your standard action and is made at a -10 penalty. It requires 2 skills based off of two different ability scores. Batmanning away from someone is supposed to be hard, not something you can do with a 50 50 miss chance.
Without the bluff check and a successful stealth check, they have an idea where you went. The know you dropped behind the wall or into a pile of brush, they just can't see you now. They can drop a stinking cloud on your butt, run away from you, or burn down the bushes. They can even fire an arrow into a square that they think you are in with a 50% miss chance.Okay, and if you went into the brush or behind that wall why would you stay there? There's other brush or cover to move into. If there isn't, then "look a monkey" won't help you, because they WILL know where you went if you're hiding behind the only tree in the savanah.
The "Look a monkey" option takes up your standard action and is made at a -10 penalty. It requires 2 skills based off of two different ability scores. Batmanning away from someone is supposed to be hard, not something you can do with a 50 50 miss chance.
You are not "Batmanning" away. When Batman does it, he is gone. No one has ANY idea where he is. Many of the things we are talking about can be countered just by the observer moving. If they move to look around the wall, then stealth is lost because cover is lost. In the case of the brush, you would have a very good idea of where they went. Dropping a fireball on them would be a valid option. It just means you don't know EXACTLY where they are.
Okay, and if you went into the brush or behind that wall why would you stay there?Probably because you only have a 30ft move speed. It takes a bit longer to get away than that round.
The person going "look a monkey" has burned their standard action on the bluff check. They have 30 feet of movement left.
The person just hitting the shadows and stealthing has 60 feet of movement to play with, they can probably get a lot further.
There is you, your enemy, and 2 places of cover from your enemy (bushes).
With the bluff, the enemy has no idea which of the two bushes you went behind (of if you even did).
If you just move and hide then they know which bush you went behind.
In the case of the brush, you would have a very good idea of where they went. Dropping a fireball on them would be a valid option. It just means you don't know EXACTLY where they are.
No. You do not.
Bob the bluffer says "look a monkey". makes his bluff check, dashes for the brush. He has 30 feet to play with. he can be within 30 feet of his start point. (worse comes to worse just fireball his starting square. You cast resist energy on the party right?)
Under the one clause stealth, OnePiece withdraws and starts stealthing. With the same stealth check (or with a mere -5 if he only moves 25 feet per move) and no bluff check he has Sixty feet of movement to play with, and you have no idea where he went once he hit that brush. He can be anywhere within (60- distance to bush) feet of the bush.. which is at least as good as Bobs options.
Thats for when you're even trying to do something remotely realistic. Imagine your party coming down the L shaped cooridoor.
The parties fighter is in melee with the orc.
The orc pulls down the foot of the L, starts stealthing, and resumes his space in melee with the fighter. He's now stealthed against everyone in the party (except the fighter, unless you want to be really rules lawyery and determine cover by melee rules instead of ranged rules, in which case, the fighter can't see the guy right in front of his face. )
The person just hitting the shadows and stealthing has 60 feet of movement to play with, they can probably get a lot further.Not when your cover is the only tree on the savannah.
If neither option works then it's not an argument that "look a monkey" stealth is relevant in a game system where cover or concealment= unobserved. The situations where look a monkey becomes relevant are too incredibly niche to be worth mentioning at all.
I am seeing zero argument that works out to them being one condition being the better way to read the rules.
|
I just finished reading the thread. My post a page back still is relevent and is being somewhat ignored. Here, I will copy and paste it for you to see again...
The thing to remember is the beginning and end of turn.
With the 6th printing of the CRB, the character needs to make stealth checks at these moments in his turn, or right after creating a distraction.
So, if the character begins his turn in cover, he may make a stealth check to hide. He goes and sneaks a close foe, who did not see him with his perception. This breaks stealth. Then the character 5 foot steps into cover from the rest of the enemies, and uses stealth at the end of turn.
Now, typically, a character does not have the action economy to get to cover after attacking a foe from stealth at the beginning of the turn, and this can be dependent on terrain, being indoors with lots of little nooks and hallways, or out in the open field with one haystack to hide behind.
And yes, the character needs to reroll the stealth check at the beginning of the turn, even if he is already in stealth.
So, if someone knows another's location, he only needs to walk over to it and use perception to see the character that re-stealthed under cover. Or just hit the area of the square he knows the stealthed character/NPC is with the miss chance (20%?)
Also keep in mind that one can stealth from others while being observed by those closer to him, like the person he just attacked, if he still has cover against them.
I do have to say that no matter the circumstance, one can not stealth if they are standing right next to another, unless there is a wall between them. (Total Cover)
|
|
My point was that there is no cover from someone right next to you. Dim Light (and lighting in an area in total) is a whole other issue that Stealth would interact with, as are other effects like Obscuring Mist.
I did have a question mark on that, I have had GM's rule it both ways (20% and 50%). There was also the invisible "bump" where the character finds the target square physically.
Tower shield. Thin wall. Plenty of other things provide cover between two 5' squares.
I did have a question mark on that, I have had GM's rule it both ways (20% and 50%). There was also the invisible "bump" where the character finds the target square physically.
Not seeing something is a 50% miss chance. No iffs ands or butts.