Concealment and Stealth


Rules Questions


So while I'm (begrudgingly) of the opinion that the Stealth rules mean for you to avoid observance by concealment/cover, I've noticed that (normal) concealment more often than not can't be used to hide.

Skills in Conflict (Ultimate Intrigue) 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. A sneaking character can come out of cover or concealment during her turn, as long as she doesn't end her turn where other characters are directly observing her.

Okay, so effects "which leave a clear visual of the character" can't be used to use Stealth. This means that every effect that grants concealment to single targets is worthless for stealth, since you're leaving a clear visual. What can be used is area effects, such as an area of darkness or Obscuring Fog. Since the concealment is all around you, the effect doesn't leave a clear visual.

So let's focus on Dim Light/Darkness. As is commonly known, Darkvision negates the concealment opponents would be granted from illumination levels. The Vision and Light rules would from a strict reading disallow you to use any forms of concealment to hide in normal light, but they're more likely to only be relevant to concealment from illumination.

Vision and Light wrote:

In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. Some creatures, such as those with light sensitivity and light blindness, take penalties while in areas of bright light. A creature can’t use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover. Areas of bright light include outside in direct sunshine and inside the area of a daylight spell.

Normal light functions just like bright light, but characters with light sensitivity and light blindness do not take penalties. Areas of normal light include underneath a forest canopy during the day, within 20 feet of a torch, and inside the area of a light spell.

/.../

Characters with darkvision (dwarves and half-orcs) can see lit areas normally as well as dark areas within 60 feet. A creature can’t hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover.

In most encounters, at least someone will possess Darkvision. This disqualifies Dim Light for hiding purposes, leaving only concealment from the first 5 ft of fog/smoke as a viable option for hiding.

With the exception of smoke, every other eligible use of concealment for hiding seems to be total concealment. Which basically amount to: "you can use concealment to hide when they already couldn't see you due to concealment".

Is there any other area effect granting concealment, or is fog/smoke the only reliable way to hide without resorting to cover/total concealment?


I found the following that seem to be reliable methods of stealth that don't use fog or smoke.

Blend (1st lvl)
Shadowfade (1st lvl)
Chameleon Stride (2nd lvl)
Synesthesia [single target](3rd lvl) - makes target perpetually distracted, so this is debatable
Wall of Nausea (3rd lvl)
Mydriatic Spontaneity[single target](3rd)
Shadow Body (7th lvl)
Synesthesia Mass (7th)
Mydriatic Spontaneity Mass (7th)
Impenetrable Veil(9th)

On a side note, there are a lot of fog/smoke/cloud effects and most illusions / wall spells will grant you full concealment as well. So, there are quite a few options.


Completely forgot about undergrowth in forests, so that's another area concealment readily available.

LordKailas wrote:
Chameleon Stride (2nd lvl)

This one is quite interesting, as I'm trying to make a mental flowchart to simplify deciding if a source of concealment could be used to hide or not.

Blur is an example of a concealment effect that doesn't allow you to use stealth, so I'm drawing my conclusions from comparing that spell to the other effects (and the whole 'clear visual' language used).

Although Chameleon Stride isn't an area effect, and could be argued to therefore leave a clear visual of the target, the flavor of the spell states that you're harder to pinpoint.
Would this 'translucent state' allow you to hide, or are you still leaving a clear visual?

Chameleon Stride wrote:
You fade into the background, and while you are not truly invisible, you are hard to pinpoint due to your translucent state. While under the effects of this spell, you gain a +4 bonus on Stealth checks and have concealment from creatures more than 5 feet away (attacks have a 20% miss chance).


Or, you could just ignore Ultimate Intrigue if you aren't playing an intrigue game. It has some rather silly things in it.

Re: blur and displacement: I agree they aren't enough to provide sufficient concealment to use Stealth--you're clearly there, you're just kind of fuzzy/offset. There might be other single-target effects that don't have that qualification, though, so I'd adjudicate on a case-by-case basis.


Hm, as I'm biased I'll lean toward a strict reading of the rules and declare any (single-target) concealment effect to leave a clear visual.
Unless the effect states that it's enough for Stealth, that is.

Probably more sensible to go by a case-by-case basis, but I like to simplify when possible.


blahpers wrote:

Or, you could just ignore Ultimate Intrigue if you aren't playing an intrigue game. It has some rather silly things in it.

Re: blur and displacement: I agree they aren't enough to provide sufficient concealment to use Stealth--you're clearly there, you're just kind of fuzzy/offset. There might be other single-target effects that don't have that qualification, though, so I'd adjudicate on a case-by-case basis.

While I agree with displacement since it gives a miss chance, but does not actually confer concealment, how do you come to the conclusion that a spell that grants concealment does not grant concealment?


Blur makes you blurry and wavery. It grants sufficient concealment to make you difficult to hit. It doesn't make you able to vanish into thin air--you're still clearly in the same general spot. Ergo, blur does not prevent you from being observed, and being unobserved is a prerequisite for using Stealth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Blur makes you blurry and wavery. It grants sufficient concealment to make you difficult to hit. It doesn't make you able to vanish into thin air--you're still clearly in the same general spot. Ergo, blur does not prevent you from being observed, and being unobserved is a prerequisite for using Stealth.

You can make a stealth check while observed as long as you have concealment. That is what the rules say. The concealment allows you a chance to be no longer observed via the stealth check.

As a mechanic concealment is concealment. How you gained concealment is irrelevant. Unless Blur has some specific language that limits its effects, it is treated just like low light or smoke or foliage or any other effect that grant concealment.


thorin001 wrote:

You can make a stealth check while observed as long as you have concealment. That is what the rules say. The concealment allows you a chance to be no longer observed via the stealth check.

As a mechanic concealment is concealment. How you gained concealment is irrelevant. Unless Blur has some specific language that limits its effects, it is treated just like low light or smoke or foliage or any other effect that grant concealment.

Yes, well. The rules also say:

Skills in Conflict (Ultimate Intrigue) 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. A sneaking character can come out of cover or concealment during her turn, as long as she doesn't end her turn where other characters are directly observing her.

Which is what I quoted in my OP.


Quote:
as I'm biased I'll lean toward a strict reading of the rules and declare any (single-target) concealment effect to leave a clear visual.

Strictly, the rules don't say this; they don't mention that something has to be an area effect, nor do they say that the concealement can't be for only a single character. Imagine, forexample, a curtain that is just wide enough for a single character to hide behind; that would fit within the rules as written (and, in fact, other than the 'exactly wide enough for a single character' part, it is one of the examples). RAW is simple: if the "concealment" effect doesn't, somehow, make the character blend in (ie they leave a "clear visual"), regardless of whether they cover an area or just the individual, then they can't be used for stealth, otherwise, they can. Remember that the "clear visual" exception is an exception, not the rule; the ruel is that concealment can be used for stealth.


thorin001 wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Blur makes you blurry and wavery. It grants sufficient concealment to make you difficult to hit. It doesn't make you able to vanish into thin air--you're still clearly in the same general spot. Ergo, blur does not prevent you from being observed, and being unobserved is a prerequisite for using Stealth.
You can make a stealth check while observed as long as you have concealment. That is what the rules say. The concealment allows you a chance to be no longer observed via the stealth check.

Eh, no:

Quote:
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.

A blurry rogue in the middle of a brightly lit, flat, featureless plane is all too easy to observe using sight. No Stealth for you.

Quote:
As a mechanic concealment is concealment. How you gained concealment is irrelevant. Unless Blur has some specific language that limits its effects, it is treated just like low light or smoke or foliage or any other effect that grant concealment.

Not really. This is Pathfinder, not Magic: The Gathering. Mechanics are not divorced from their circumstances.


merpius wrote:
Quote:
as I'm biased I'll lean toward a strict reading of the rules and declare any (single-target) concealment effect to leave a clear visual.
Strictly, the rules don't say this; they don't mention that something has to be an area effect, nor do they say that the concealement can't be for only a single character. Imagine, forexample, a curtain that is just wide enough for a single character to hide behind; that would fit within the rules as written (and, in fact, other than the 'exactly wide enough for a single character' part, it is one of the examples). RAW is simple: if the "concealment" effect doesn't, somehow, make the character blend in (ie they leave a "clear visual"), regardless of whether they cover an area or just the individual, then they can't be used for stealth, otherwise, they can. Remember that the "clear visual" exception is an exception, not the rule; the ruel is that concealment can be used for stealth.

Yes, but I'd like to know when the exception is applicable. If you're standing behind a curtain 1 square wide in the middle of a field, then you'd usually have broken Line of Sight to the opponent (assuming the curtain isn't transparent), which would result in Total Concealment. If the curtain is transparent, then you'd have a clear outline of the creature behind it, preventing it from hiding.

So from my perspective, the curtain is a bad example of an effect granting (normal) concealment and allowing you to hide.

While it is a stretch to say that "all single target effects leave a clear visual", that seems to be the rule, rather than the exception.

Grand Lodge

Wonderstell wrote:
merpius wrote:
Quote:
as I'm biased I'll lean toward a strict reading of the rules and declare any (single-target) concealment effect to leave a clear visual.
Strictly, the rules don't say this; they don't mention that something has to be an area effect, nor do they say that the concealement can't be for only a single character. Imagine, forexample, a curtain that is just wide enough for a single character to hide behind; that would fit within the rules as written (and, in fact, other than the 'exactly wide enough for a single character' part, it is one of the examples). RAW is simple: if the "concealment" effect doesn't, somehow, make the character blend in (ie they leave a "clear visual"), regardless of whether they cover an area or just the individual, then they can't be used for stealth, otherwise, they can. Remember that the "clear visual" exception is an exception, not the rule; the ruel is that concealment can be used for stealth.

Yes, but I'd like to know when the exception is applicable. If you're standing behind a curtain 1 square wide in the middle of a field, then you'd usually have broken Line of Sight to the opponent (assuming the curtain isn't transparent), which would result in Total Concealment. If the curtain is transparent, then you'd have a clear outline of the creature behind it, preventing it from hiding.

So from my perspective, the curtain is a bad example of an effect granting (normal) concealment and allowing you to hide.

While it is a stretch to say that "all single target effects leave a clear visual", that seems to be the rule, rather than the exception.

Well, not exactly. Because you measure your (ranged) attacks from your best corner (singular), while they have to target all four of yours from a single corner. Which means that behind a curtain like that, you have concealment.

Note that it doesn't mean they can't assume you're back there. They saw you go in and didn't see you leave. But they don't know exactly where you are, and they can't see you to target you effectively.

For a real world example, imagine a marching band show with some 5ft wide props. A color guard performer can go behind one and literally make a costume change, and most of the audience will miss it. Likewise, imagine that performer looking around the edge and tossing their flag to another performer. You can probably see them (because they're 'attacking'), but they still have cover.

I know real world != mechanics, but that doesn't mean it doesn't help you visualize it.


I don't think "all single target effects leave a clear visual" is the rule, even. Blur and displacement are the only ones specifically called out, and, certainly, most of the spells that LordKalla listed are single target effects that pretty much all are appliciable for stealth.
When I said that concealment allows stealth is the rule, I mean it is RAW; so only specific rules trump that; the onyl specific rule is that anythign that provides concealment, but still leaves the character visually distinct from the background, somehow. The quintessential example being blur, which grants "concealment" in the form of uncertainty about exact location, rather than by actually concealing them. Anything that provides a concealment effect by interrupting them visually (the color guard flags, hanging tapestry, curtain, etc) or by disuising thier presence (chameleon-type effects) is appropriate for stealth, sensically, and is not provided any sort of exception in RAW, so should allow stealth. In other words, if you wish to have a particular effect NOT provide concealment for the purposes of stealth, you should justify why it doesn't, not the other way around. You shouldn't claim overly broad automatic exceptions (all single target concealment) are RAW, unless they are actually written; in this case it is clear that the rule is that concealment allows for stealth; exceptions must be specific.
Of course, when it comes to your table, you can do whatever you like. That is always true.


blahpers wrote:
A blurry rogue in the middle of a brightly lit, flat, featureless plane is all too easy to observe using sight. No Stealth for you.

I dunno; go and Google image search camouflaged animals. It doesn't take all too much to blend in exceptionally well with your surroundings, and real-world animals are doing it without the benefit of fantastic magical spells. A flat featureless plane is a hypothetical extreme that will rarely if ever come up; real environments have other details that you can blend into, and that's what blur does.

Moreover, I think you're really underestimating what 20% miss chance means. Walk within arm's reach of a large object and try to touch it. I'd imagine you'll succeed. Now try to imagine just how blurry and indistinct it would need to be before there's any chance that you might reach out and not make contact. In this hypothetical thought experiment, I'd imagine the object would have to be so visually indistinct that I'd be relying more on touch than vision to precisely locate it. Conceptually, a blurred character is much closer to an invisible one than a visible one. That leads me to intuit that blur should be sufficient to allow you to make a stealth check. It makes perfect sense to me that blur's 20% concealment would be sufficient to allow you to hide and for an opponent to lose visual track of your position, allowing you to make a stealth check.

Turning to a game-balance perspective, blur happens to be the same spell level as invisibility. In fact, it literally has only two advantages over invisibility: it's not countered by see invisibility, and it doesn't end when you attack. So it's pretty outclassed in a non-combat context. Trying to make new stealth checks after making attacks is easier said than done and usually less effective than it sounds. So I don't see any game-balance problems with allowing this either. If anything it's a cool side-effect of a niche spell.

As for the Ultimate Intrigue rules... that chapter is notorious for inventing new restrictions on existing spell effects out of nowhere. That muddies the water on a lot of issues, since the chapter mixes legitimate advice and rules clarification with alternate rules that are contradictory with the core rulebook. So I'd take the entire chapter with a grain of salt.


Dasrak; RAW blur does not work for stealth; it is literally one of the two examples of things that do not.


Blur is not camouflage. Camouflage is modeled differently depending on the method. Blur just makes you blurry and wavery, which is more than enough to impart a 20% miss chance without making it difficult to tell where you are in general.


merpius wrote:
Dasrak; RAW blur does not work for stealth; it is literally one of the two examples of things that do not.

The problem I have with this is that it's pretty clear that Blur does allow for stealth in the CRB. The stealth skill simply states that having concealment allows you to make a stealth check against most creatures, and since blur provides concealment it allows such a stealth check.

UI and the CRB directly contradict each other in this respect, meaning depending on which sourcebook you take as authoritative you will come to a different answer. Now, you can absolutely choose to take the UI answer if you so choose, but you cannot dismiss those who want to take the CRB answer.

blahpers wrote:
Blur is not camouflage.

You're right on that - it's better than camouflage. If there was a tiger standing perfectly still five feet away from me, I'd have no problems swatting it (whether that's a good idea or not is another story). If he's got blur? I can't see him well enough to even touch him reliably. Both conceptually and under the rules as laid forth in the CRB, this is sufficient to attempt to hide.

And really, this isn't invisibility we're talking about. You still get the usual opposed perception check to spot them. Blur is just sufficient to make stealth possible.


No, it isn't. We've been through this already.


blahpers wrote:
No, it isn't. We've been through this already.

Really, because when you quoted the stealth rules you conveniently left out the very next sentence which undermines your point:

Stealth wrote:
Being Observed: 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.

Emphasis mine. Blur provides concealment, ergo it is sufficient to allow you to use stealth while being observed. This couldn't be clearer. There is literally nothing in the CRB to suggest that blur isn't sufficient to allow you to make stealth checks. I've got nothing against people who want to run the UI rules, but that doesn't change what the CRB says. Concealment is all you need to make that stealth check while being observed, there is no exception or grounds for an exception provided for Blur.


"Against most creatures". A creature directly observing you would be an exception, per the other statement and per pretty much any honest reading of how blur manifests in the game. You don't cast blur and have the mook staring at you go "Boss, where'd he go?". The mook staring at you goes "Ow, that kinda hurts my eyes" and then tries to hit you, possibly failing because your exact location is a little ambiguous.

The Concordance

blahpers wrote:
"Against most creatures". A creature directly observing you would be an exception, per the other statement and per pretty much any honest reading of how blur manifests in the game. You don't cast blur and have the mook staring at you go "Boss, where'd he go?". The mook staring at you goes "Ow, that kinda hurts my eyes" and then tries to hit you, possibly failing because your exact location is a little ambiguous.

No, a creature directly observing you is the “most creatures.” Creatures directly observing each other is the MOST COMMON combat situation in the game.

A creature with blindsight or similar is the exception. Blur doesn’t work because of the Skills in Conflict section of Ultimate Intrigue.

Cover/Concealment is all that’s needed for a stealth check.


blahpers wrote:
"Against most creatures". A creature directly observing you would be an exception

How do you get that? The first text establishes a restriction on stealth, the second sentence establishes what satisfies the requirements for overcoming that restriction: concealment and cover. When it says "most creatures", it's alluding to creatures with specific abilities such as Tremorsense.

blahpers wrote:
You don't cast blur and have the mook staring at you go "Boss, where'd he go?"

No, blur is not invisibility and you don't disappear when you use it. It is concealment, which allows you to subsequently attempt a stealth check. It doesn't even give you a bonus to that check, all it does is make it possible to attempt it in the first place.


With the caveat of CRB only, I agree; you're right that blur can be used to make Stealth checks. If you are using all Paizo rules, however, then blur is not, sicne it is explicitely excepted in UI.
Note that this isn't contradictory, however; CRB doesn't explicitely say that blur can be used in this way; it makes a general ruling without specific exceptions. UI simply adds exceptions to that general rule.


merpius wrote:
UI simply adds exceptions to that general rule.

If I'm looking up the rules for how blur and stealth interact, the book I'm grabbing is the CRB. That book is the definitive source for these rules, and having another book arbitrarily amending those rules is both problematic and completely counter-intuitive. Up until yesterday when I got involved in this thread, I wouldn't have even considered looking it up in UI. This goes double seeing as it's in a chapter that's more about GM advice, which is a terrible place to put rules errata.

In my view, the CRB takes precedence over UI. The rules in UI are at best alternate rules suggestions, and at worst an author misunderstanding/misremembering the rules in the CRB. There's strong evidence that the latter happens fairly regularly; I can't tell you how many feats and archetypes I've seen that allow you to take 10 when not being threatened (which, to be clear, is something that's allowed by default for every skill except UMD). Nothing against you if you want to choose to use the UI rules, but the CRB defines the game mechanics for stealth and blur and I disagree that UI can casually stealth-errata it in a chapter that's primarily about GM advice.


I think I agree that CRB takes precendence, where they conflict, but, as I said; this isn't in conflict. It's not an errata, it is a clarification and only adds specificity.
The fact that the rule is hidden in the wrong place (and I agree; not really the right book, and definitely the wrong place in that book) isn't really material to whether it is RAW or not.
It really is no problem at a table whether you use the stuff from UI or not; it's a table. But, this is the rules forum, and the original question was asking for clarification about this rule, and they included the text from UI as part of what they were trying to get clarity about. Given all that, it seems clear that saying "UI shouldn't count" isn't productive when discussing RAW WRT a rule that is FROM UI.


merpius wrote:
I think I agree that CRB takes precendence, where they conflict, but, as I said; this isn't in conflict. It's not an errata, it is a clarification and only adds specificity.

I disagree. A clarification would address ambiguities in the rules. This is not ambiguous, the CRB rules are crystal clear that this combination works. Nor would we expect the CRB to explicitly address this combination for that very reason; the text is very clear. The UI rules addendum in this case are adding completely new restrictions that are at odds with the permissive text in the CRB.

We have two books saying different things. It's less that UI "doesn't count", and more that it cannot change the otherwise clear text of the CRB that is very blunt that this combo works. The CRB defines how stealth works and how blur works, not UI.


Dasrak wrote:
This is not ambiguous, the CRB rules are crystal clear that this combination works.

Apparently not. : )


Sure, if a finer specification is NOT at odds with the more genral rule, then there is no reason to make that specification.
And, perhaps, clarification was the incorrect word to use. But I don't think errata is, either. I'm pretty sure they were simply trying to add precision/nuance into the more general rule. Some people may have no use for that, but some people may appreciate the greater realism afforded by such added precision.
Why would you have 2 books that said the same thing? So of course they say different things, so what is important is: are they saying incompatible or conflicting things?
It is quite clear that they aren't saying two conflicting things; we have one book that makes a general rule. Then we have another book that adds exceptions to that general rule. If you have been capitalizing on the general rule and the specific rule conflicts with the way you were capitalizing upon it, then it would FEEL like they were conflicting (the rules, that is), but they are not; Paizo has already indicated that specific trumps general. The rule in the CRB is general. The rule in UI is specific. It's also not in conflict; it doesn't say, for example, that NO concealment can be used for stealth, or that cover will not work for stealth, or that stealth can not be resisted with perception; it doesn't directly contradict any of the general rules laid out in the CRB. It merely adds (possibly unwanted, undeeded, unrealistic, or undesirable) details that tweak how those general rules work in specific circumstances. This is basically a perfect example of an application of the "specific trumps general" axiom. If it doesn't fit here, then it basically doesn't fit anywhere. And, just to be clear; the "specific trumps general" directly implies that specific rules, no matter where printed, CAN change otherwise clear text from the CRB, simply by being more specific.


Let's assume that we are in a standard room with good lighting.

A rogue with Blur is being observed. So he hides behind something. He runs to the window and hides behind the curtains. The person will see a blurry rogue run to the window and hide behind the curtains.

I'm not seeing how the actual blur effect is helpful in hiding. I agree that the general stealth rules would allow it, but it would be an example of the rules disagreeing with "reality." Blur doesn't help you hide.

Good thing it was cleared up later.


Blur is somehow less effective at allowing someone in an empty plaza to hide than a clear moonlit night? That's a little odd.


Not really.

If the dim light condition is in the entire area, it makes sense that the concealment provided is good enough to allow for a stealth check.

Let's pretend that there was an effect that made only your square count as dim light.

If you run dive behind the table by being observed, they will easily track the movement of the pocket of dim light behind the table.


You can also watch someone run around a field at night and not lose track of them. Neither situation is very limiting. If we had some ruling on how indistinct someone was while under a blur effect, then we could debate the likelihood of them being lost in the environment. We don't though.


Mallecks wrote:
If the dim light condition is in the entire area, it makes sense that the concealment provided is good enough to allow for a stealth check.

The concealment from blur is exactly the same as the concealment from dim light. They are the same type and level of concealment from different sources.

merpius wrote:
It is quite clear that they aren't saying two conflicting things; we have one book that makes a general rule. Then we have another book that adds exceptions to that general rule.

The CRB establishes both a general rule and a specific rule in this case. Stealth is the general rule, blur is the specific rule. When both are taken together, it is very clear that blur provides concealment which allows you to make stealth checks. It does not stipulate nor allude to any specific exemption. UI isn't establishing a new specific rule in this case, because the rules for blur and stealth already exist. The UI text is therefor establishing a different version of the specific rules for the blur spell, and that conflicts with the version in the CRB.

The fact that the blur spell doesn't explicitly broach the topic of how it applies to stealth is irrelevant, because specific rules do not restate general rules. The absence of additional text is itself an affirmative statement that the general rules for concealment apply in full.


CRB doesn't establish a specific rule regarding stealth with blur. It only establishes a general rule (stealth requires concealement or cover), and it establishes the general effects of blur, including that it is treated as concealment.
Taken together, by the CRB alone, blur should work for concealment; but that is not a specific rule, that is two rules, taken together. The later book gets very specific regarding this particular interaction of rules; the concealment provided by blur does not work for stealth. That is just about as specific as you can get.
So, IF (and only if) you are only using the CRB rules, then blur works for stealth. If you are using the totality of the rules, then blur (very specifically) does not work for stealth.


CRB also establishes the general rule that a creature being directly observed cannot use Stealth at all. This rule gets ignored a lot.

The Concordance

blahpers wrote:
CRB also establishes the general rule that a creature being directly observed cannot use Stealth at all. This rule gets ignored a lot.

Which concealment/cover breaks, as it is “enough” to attempt stealth against most creatures ie things that use precise senses like vision.


Well, it says against most creatures cover or concealment is enough. So, you have to take the creatures abilities into account. A blurry rogue in an open field does not prevent a human from observing him.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Concealment and Stealth All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.