I've spent the last two hours googling this and reading threads on Reddit, GitP, and the Paizo forum, so pardon me if this has been settled. If it has, I haven't found it. I have two questions:
1. Has there been a FAQ/errata/developer post which establishes whether someone retains their DEX bonus against foes of which they are not aware due to use of the stealth skill?
Answered!
outshyn wrote: Here is a quote from the lead designer, Jason Bulmahn:
Quote: Creatures are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC "if they cannot react to a blow" (CR pg 179 under AC). It was our intent that if you are unaware of a threat, you cannot react to a blow.
2. Has there been a FAQ/errata/developer post which delineates how, if at all, total concealment is different from partial concealment for the use of the stealth skill?
Everyone I've ever played with assumes that if you don't know someone is there, you lose your DEX bonus vs. their attacks, and that total concealment is treated as invisibility. But RAW neither of these is the case, and I can't believe after all these years the developers have never touched this issue.
mogonk wrote: Has there been a FAQ/errata/developer post which establishes whether someone retains their DEX bonus against foes of which they are not aware due to use of the stealth skill? Here is a quote from the lead designer, Jason Bulmahn:
Quote: Creatures are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC "if they cannot react to a blow" (CR pg 179 under AC). It was our intent that if you are unaware of a threat, you cannot react to a blow.
Beautiful, thank you sir.
I'm just going to explain a little bit about why I find the RAW on total concealment so completely unacceptable.
PC: "Okay, I'm standing still inside a Fog Cloud. The enemy has no line of sight to me. I use stealth." *Rolls Stealth with no bonus*
DM:*Rolls Perception with no penalty* "Okay, they see you."
PC: But they literally can't see me.
DM: Well, they perceive you.
PC: But I'm standing still, not making any noise, and they can't see me.
DM: Well, maybe they hear your breathing.
PC: And you're telling me there is no penalty to detect someone exclusively by listening for their breathing from 30 feet away?
DM: Yes.
This is on-face absurd.
Scenario 1: It's twilight, so outdoor conditions are "dim light". I'm sitting motionless on the side of the road as a group of soldiers go by.
Scenario 2: Still twilight, still sitting by the side of the road. I've cast fog cloud and it is 100% impossible to see me.
How is anybody okay with those 2 stealth checks being identical?
It's pretty sticky. One workaround is to not give checks to people who have no reason to make checks. Although soldiers patrolling a road at twilight who see a big patch of fog should be pretty suspicious anyway.
Actually, now that I think a little bit more about it, the Fog Cloud might make them MORE suspicions that just relying on natural conditions.
mogonk wrote:
2. Has there been a FAQ/errata/developer post which delineates how, if at all, total concealment is different from partial concealment for the use of the stealth skill?
Everyone I've ever played with assumes that if you don't know someone is there, you lose your DEX bonus vs. their attacks, and that total concealment is treated as invisibility. But RAW neither of these is the case, and I can't believe after all these years the developers have never touched this issue.
Well, its because it isn't spelt out in any one place but when you put it all together you should figure it out.
From Dexterity wrote: Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack. From Perception wrote: If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. From Armor Class wrote: Sometimes you can’t use your Dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can’t react to a blow, you can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC. If you don’t have a Dexterity bonus, your AC does not change. From Total Concealment wrote: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment). From Skill: Stealth wrote: Hide
Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.
The biggest factor is that using Stealth to Hide only gives you Total Concealment. If you already have Total Concealment, stealth doesn't give you any additional benefits. So, clear enough?
Technically speaking, the guard would have a -3 perception due to range. Then its straight perception vs stealth and if the guard beats you he knows something is there but can't see it. Suprisingly its easier to find an invisible creature in fog than one in plain sight because you expect to not see things hidden in fog, or darkness.
Quote: PC: "Okay, I'm standing still inside a Fog Cloud. The enemy has no line of sight to me. I use stealth." *Rolls Stealth with no bonus*
DM:*Rolls Perception with no penalty* "Okay, they see you."
Both of these are not going to be true. You are 1)motionless and 2)under total concealment. To me that sounds like a +40 bonus to your Stealth (per RAW). Why do you think otherwise? Unless the enemy has some ability to perceive you through both Fog Cloud and the twilight conditions you are going to have some bonuses. And assuming you are more than 5ft into the Fog Cloud.
And as Meirril said there's range penalties to perception and yes if the Fog Cloud is not blending in with other natural fog the soldiers are going to see it and it should put them in a high state of awareness that something is going on.
The reverse is also true, unless you have abilities that let you see through the Fog they are also at +20 against your Perception to clue you in on their presence along with other mods some of which are entirely in the realm of GM's call (such as how they'll handle 5 foes vs 20 moving past you.)
Kayerloth wrote: You are 1)motionless and 2)under total concealment. To me that sounds like a +40 bonus to your Stealth (per RAW). Where are you getting a RAW bonus to stealth from total concealment?
Meirril wrote: The biggest factor is that using Stealth to Hide only gives you Total Concealment. If you already have Total Concealment, stealth doesn't give you any additional benefits. So, clear enough? Not true. The passage you quoted is explicit on the additional benefit: they are not aware of you. You can be Invisible, which gives you total concealment, and then fail a stealth check, resulting in the opponent being aware of you.
So no, it's not clear unless we treat total concealment as synonymous with invisibility, which we don't have a basis to do RAW.
mogonk wrote: Meirril wrote: The biggest factor is that using Stealth to Hide only gives you Total Concealment. If you already have Total Concealment, stealth doesn't give you any additional benefits. So, clear enough? Not true. The passage you quoted is explicit on the additional benefit: they are not aware of you. You can be Invisible, which gives you total concealment, and then fail a stealth check, resulting in the opponent being aware of you.
So no, it's not clear unless we treat total concealment as synonymous with invisibility, which we don't have a basis to do RAW. Oh really? I don't see your additional benefits anywhere under Stealth so if you want to show me where they are exactly, I'd really appreciate that.
mogonk wrote: Everyone I've ever played with assumes that if you don't know someone is there, you lose your DEX bonus vs. their attacks, and that total concealment is treated as invisibility. Your logic is slightly backwards. Invisibility is treated as total concealment.
From the combat section we see the following
Ignoring Concealment wrote: Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible character. Invisibility is an exception where an opponent is allowed to make a perception check even though you have total concealment.
It's also worth noting that even if someone is at a location and has total concealment, they still can't actually be attacked. An enemy can however, attack the square they occupy with a 50% miss chance.
Total Concealment wrote: Total Concealment
If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
If a perception check is being allowed against an opponent with total concealment the concealed character at minimum should get the same bonuses to their stealth check that invisibility provides.
In your example, it depends on how far away the guard is relative to the character in the fog cloud
Fog Cloud wrote: A creature within 5 feet has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance). Creatures farther away have total concealment (50% miss chance, and the attacker can’t use sight to locate the target). So, unless the guard has tremor sense, their perception check is not to "see" you, but rather to hear or smell you. In those cases their perception check (if successful) only lets them know which square you are in, they can not attack you directly since you still have total concealment.
Meirril wrote: I don't see your additional benefits anywhere under Stealth[/url] so if you want to show me where they are exactly, I'd really appreciate that. Hm? It's literally the portion you quoted. The second sentence from the link you just posted.
Quote: Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment. Note that you are denied your dex bonus to creatures you are not aware of, but you are not denied your dex bonus to creatures who have total concealment. Because nothing in the rules says you are. Dig? LordKailas wrote:
If a perception check is being allowed against an opponent with total concealment the concealed character at minimum should get the same bonuses to their stealth check that invisibility provides. I agree that they "should" in the sense that it would make sense if they did. But no, nothing in the rules says that. Nothing in the rules says that they can't make a perception check to notice someone with total concealment. Nothing in the rules says they take a penalty for doing so, or that their opponent gets a bonus for being totally concealed.
Disagree? Find a source. I'd be delighted if you could, I've spent more time than I care to admit looking. There is no such rule.
LordKailas wrote: Your logic is slightly backwards. Invisibility is treated as total concealment. In addition to the other benefits, yes. Read the description again. Invisibility is a special named condition. Invisibility denies targets their dex bonus. Total concealment doesn't. Invisibility provides a stealth bonus. Total concealment doesn't.
I'm not talking about what makes sense; we agree that it should work like invisibility. The problem is that it doesn't, RAW.
mogonk wrote: In addition to the other benefits, yes. Read the description again. Invisibility is a special named condition. Invisibility denies targets their dex bonus. Total concealment doesn't. Invisibility provides a stealth bonus. Total concealment doesn't.
I'm not talking about what makes sense; we agree that it should work like invisibility. The problem is that it doesn't, RAW.
Ok, well by the RAW total concealment does not allow someone to make a vision based perception check. Total concealment <> concealment. A character can use concealment (not total concealment) to make a stealth check. If the character is successful they gain total concealment. If the character fails they still benefit from the concealment they tried to use.
The only reason invisibility grants a bonus to the stealth check is because enemies are specifically allowed to make a vision based check against invisibility when normally they would not be allowed to make the check. This bonus is to compensate that enemies are allowed to make the check in the 1st place.
In your fog based example. The character already has total concealment and therefore can not make a stealth check. If the guards are listening for you and you are not moving then the character will remain undetected. If the character then draws back a bow to shoot the guards the guards get a perception check to hear the bow being drawn. The DC will be as follows
DC 25(base DC) + 2(unfavorable conditions) +1 per 10 feet. If the guards are 100 feet away they are contending with a DC 37 perception to be alerted prior to the attack. The character shooting at them continues to benefit from the total concealment without needing to make any stealth checks. Provided they stand still.
The guards would then be "aware" that you are somewhere in the fog after you start shooting at them. If they move closer and beat the DC to hear your bow being drawn they now know which square you are in and could attack the square with a 50% miss chance.
At this point you could make a bluff check (as per the stealth rules) to create a distraction. If successful you can now make another stealth check (since you currently do not have cover nor concealment) in order to make your opponents no longer aware of you. They have lost track of your position in the fog.
If you do not create the distraction then the guards hear you move to a new location and they could attack the new square you now occupy.
Invisibility usually ends when a creature attacks so the inconsistency you're referencing only occurs when it comes to a creature under the effects of greater invisibility. Even creatures with natural invisibility like will-o-wisps become visible when they attack. This is because their ability is based on invisibility and not greater invisibility. The invisible stalker calls out special exceptions that it's invisibility does not end when it attacks.
total concealment <> invisibility. Invisibility grants total concealment among other benefits and limitations that don't normally apply to just having total concealment.
If a DM is calling for you to make a stealth check when you have total concealment and are not moving, they are not using the RAW. If the guards want to find you they have to have a reason to make the check and the DCs will be set as appropriate to the reason they are making the check.
I think if you really want a raw answer, the closest you'll get is:
Quote: Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible character. which is logically equivalent to saying "Sighted opponents may only make Perception Checks against total concealment when who they are perceiving is invisible."
I understand if that's not acceptable to you because it's not spelled out and it's in an unintuitive section but:
A) It is RAW.
B) While the rules aren't written very well or intuitively, that doesn't negate 'A'
C) It's not our job to convince you that true things are true
CRB, Combat wrote: 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. CRB,Commbat wrote: Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check. CRB,Combat" wrote: Ignoring Concealment: Concealment isn't always effective. An area of dim lighting or darkness doesn't provide any concealment against an opponent with darkvision. Characters with low-light vision can see clearly for a greater distance than other characters with the same light source. Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible character. An invisible character gains a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if moving, or a +40 bonus on Stealth checks when not moving (even though opponents can't see you, they might be able to figure out where you are from other visual or auditory clues). None of the above indicates anything about the 'quality' of the amount of Cover or Concealment. Merely indicates you must have it.
Twilight or other less than full daylight conditions give you concealment assuming the creature potentially seeing you has more or less human perceptions.
Fog, Rain, Snow, Smoke or other weather and environmental effects frequently create areas of poor visibility. Poor visibility pretty much equals concealment when using regular old english as a speaking medium.
Trees, Brush, or other foliage, other creatures and terrain create either concealment or cover.
Unfortunately have to run, back later ...
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Kayerloth wrote: None of the above indicates anything about the 'quality' of the amount of Cover or Concealment. Merely indicates you must have it. yes, but you seem to have completely skipped over the section that talks about total concealment and how it differs from concealment.
Total Concealment wrote: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
Total Concealment <> Concealment. Successful stealth checks specifically grant total concealment.
BlarkNipnar wrote: I think if you really want a raw answer, the closest you'll get is:
Quote: Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible character. which is logically equivalent to saying "Sighted opponents may only make Perception Checks against total concealment when who they are perceiving is invisible."
No, it's not equivalent to that at all. That implication is a massive, massive stretch. You mean to say that you don't think people can make perception checks to detect people just because they can't be seen?
Well the RAW directly contradict that, because there ARE rules for the bonus to stealth/penalty to perception when someone has total cover, in the perception rules. So clearly you can make perception checks to detect people you can't see.
Unless you want to try to make the case that you auto-succeed stealth checks inside fog but not behind a castle wall?
LordKailas wrote: Ok, well by the RAW total concealment does not allow someone to make a vision based perception check. I'm going to stop you right there, because you're making it clear that you're playing by a system of houserules without realizing it. There is nothing in the rules that says the check to detect someone is vision based. There is nothing in the rules to indicate that you automatically fail your perception vs. stealth because you can't see them, or even that there is a penalty. Stealth is opposed by perception, and there is a short list of modifiers. Total concealment is not one of those modifiers. Anything beyond that is not RAW.
There are 4 situations where you can't see a person, and all have different penalties:
They are invisible - You cannot see them, and take an effective -20/-40 to detect them.
You are blind - You cannot see them, and take a -4 to perception to detect them.
They have total cover - You cannot see them, and you take a penalty based on how thick the material obstructing them is.
They have total concealment - You cannot see them, and take no penalty to detect them.
Now, I think we agree that these situations SHOULD be about the same. What I keep telling you is that RAW they aren't. You can clearly use perception to detect people you can't see, and the penalty you take in that situation is completely dependent on the reason you can't see them. It's different in all four cases, and none of the four says you can't make perception checks. If you can't point to a rule that supports your claims, you're talking about houserules, period.
mogonk wrote: LordKailas wrote: Ok, well by the RAW total concealment does not allow someone to make a vision based perception check. I'm going to stop you right there, because you're making it clear that you're playing by a system of houserules without realizing it. There is nothing in the rules that says the check to detect someone is vision based.
You are twisting my words.
When you have total concealment you can not make vision based perception checks. I did not state that all perception checks are vision based.
this is supported by the rules.
Plague of Flies wrote: This cloud moves at up to 10 feet per round, and obscures all sight (including darkvision) beyond 5 feet. Creatures 5 feet away have concealment (20% miss chance), and creatures farther away have total concealment (50% miss chance, and the attacker can’t use sight to locate the target). Fog Cloud wrote: Creatures farther away have total concealment (50% miss chance, and the attacker can’t use sight to locate the target). Now lets look at the perception skill. It lists how difficult it is to perceive something based on what sense is being used. It is as follows
Hear the sound of battle –10
Notice the stench of rotting garbage –10
Detect the smell of smoke 0
Hear the details of a conversation 0
Notice a visible creature 0
Determine if food is spoiled 5
Hear the sound of a creature walking 10
Hear the details of a whispered conversation 15
Find the average concealed door 15
Hear the sound of a key being turned in a lock 20
Find the average secret door 20
Hear a bow being drawn 25
Sense a burrowing creature underneath you 25
Notice a pickpocket Opposed by Sleight of Hand
Notice a creature using Stealth Opposed by Stealth
Find a hidden trap Varies by trap
Identify the powers of a potion through taste 15 + the potion‘s caster level
Only one of those is specifically vision based, "Notice a visible creature". So, lets look at your scenario again and see what makes sense. Well, the character isn't engaged in battle, they aren't covered in garbage, they don't smell like smoke, they aren't having a conversation, they aren't visible, they aren't made out of rotten food, they aren't walking, they still aren't talking, they aren't a concealed door, they aren't turning a key, they aren't a secret door, they aren't drawing a bow, they aren't a burrowing creature, they aren't picking a pocket, they aren't using stealth because they already have the benefits of a successful stealth check (can't be seen and are currently not noticed), they aren't a hidden trap, and they aren't a potion.
So, in this scenario you can not use a perception check to find the person because there is nothing to perceive.
If the scenario changes then there might be something to detect. A perception check would be possible if any of the following things were changed.
*The person started muttering to themself or otherwise talking
*The person fired a bow or made an equivalent level of sound
*The person did not have the benefit of total concealment (no fog cloud)
*The person was exceptionally smelly
*The person was walking or otherwise moving
*The person was engaged in combat of some sort
The only time the stealth check comes into play is if the person would otherwise be visible. But they have cover or concealment which they are attempting to use to be unnoticed.
I'm not making up rules or houseruling anything. I'm using the senario you presented and applying the rules as they are written.
If someone is standing perfectly still, not moving and not talking then the only perception dc that is left is the perception check which is based on vision (which is a DC 0 btw). However, total concealment states that it is not possible to detect someone with vision if they have total concealment from you.
LordKailas wrote: Now lets look at the perception skill. It lists how difficult it is to perceive something based on what sense is being used. It is as follows
Hear the sound of battle –10
Notice the stench of rotting garbage –10
Detect the smell of smoke 0
Hear the details of a conversation 0
Notice a visible creature 0
Determine if food is spoiled 5
Hear the sound of a creature walking 10
Hear the details of a whispered conversation 15
Find the average concealed door 15
Hear the sound of a key being turned in a lock 20
Find the average secret door 20
Hear a bow being drawn 25
Sense a burrowing creature underneath you 25
Notice a pickpocket Opposed by Sleight of Hand
Notice a creature using Stealth Opposed by Stealth
Find a hidden trap Varies by trap
Identify the powers of a potion through taste 15 + the potion‘s caster level
Only one of those is specifically vision based, "Notice a visible creature".
And only one of those has anything to do with the question of whether you can detect someone using stealth: "Notice a creature using Stealth". It is stealth opposed by perception. Period. That's what the rules say.
You keep saying that you can't make a perception check, but you still haven't cited any rules to indicate that. What are you basing this on? I've given you example after example to demonstrate that you can use perception to detect people you can't see. From the actual rules. What do you have to contradict that?
So now that we've established you can make a check, the only question is what the DC is. And the perception skill is clear that the DC is the opposed stealth check, and total concealment does not modify that check RAW.
????
but the creature in question isn't using stealth.
What are you using then to detect it?
LordKailas wrote: Kayerloth wrote: None of the above indicates anything about the 'quality' of the amount of Cover or Concealment. Merely indicates you must have it. yes, but you seem to have completely skipped over the section that talks about total concealment and how it differs from concealment.
Total Concealment wrote: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
Total Concealment <> Concealment. Successful stealth checks specifically grant total concealment. And ...
Not sure what your point is. I'm merely pointing out you have concealment (total and partial are both adjectives used to describe the extent of the concealment). Total concealment is a form of concealment. Partial concealment is a form of concealment. Both let you use Stealth (and in fact are required to employ it) and require your opponent to use Perception to detect your presence. Perception as you pointed out is more than merely seeing a foe and doesn't prevent the foe from making an attack against a given space. Unless they like wasting ammo (and time) those soldiers could conceivably fire at (or otherwise attack) every space within the cloud (or for that matter every space with a LOE and in range). For only the space(s) actually occupied would it matter to the DM and his dice roll what if anything was concealed and possibly hit. And if your perception is visually similar to a human that perception check ought to be at +40 under the circumstances of not moving and having total concealment. If you want to say invisibility is somehow the only form of total concealment worthy of a modifier ... umm no. Make that perception check successfully and now you believe you know which space the target is in. Make your attack roll, compare it to the targets AC and employ the 50% miss chance or that AC won't matter (and if your DM wants those rolls will be made behind his screen and you won't know if the 50% made you miss or you simply failed to hit the AC of the target). Maybe you'll know you've hit when you've hit but that's debatable as well depending on what is causing the total concealment.
And of course there's this
"CRB, Using Skills wrote: Skills can be further modified by a wide variety of sources—by your race, by a class ability, by equipment, by spell effects or magic items, and so on. See Table: Skill Check Bonuses for a summary of skill check bonuses. Feel free to employ a +20 Circumstance bonus for Total Concealment by Fog Cloud it's perfectly RAW by the above. They didn't even try to list all the places one might get a bonus i.e. "and so on".
LordKailas wrote: ????
but the creature in question isn't using stealth.
What are you using then to detect it?
How do you know? He's got concealment ... that is the requirement, not total not partial but some form of either concealment or cover. About the only loophole here is "most" as in (bolding mine):
CRB wrote: Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. You decide if he meets the requirements, the player decides if he's trying and you decide the outcome based on the rules (aka guidelines). Does he somehow fit in the non-most category?
(Edit for spelling error)
mogonk wrote: 2. Has there been a FAQ/errata/developer post which delineates how, if at all, total concealment is different from partial concealment for the use of the stealth skill?
Everyone I've ever played with assumes that if you don't know someone is there, you lose your DEX bonus vs. their attacks, and that total concealment is treated as invisibility. But RAW neither of these is the case, and I can't believe after all these years the developers have never touched this issue.
*
Total Concealment wrote: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
You do not have Line of Sight against a creature with Total Concealment.
If you don't have Line of Sight to an opponent, you can't use sight to locate it.
*
Blindsense wrote: Blindsense lets a creature notice things it cannot see, but without the precision of blindsight. The creature with blindsense usually does not need to make Perception checks to notice and locate creatures within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature. Any opponent that cannot be seen has total concealment (50% miss chance) against a creature with blindsense, and the blindsensing creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment. Visibility still affects the movement of a creature with blindsense. A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see. If you can't see your opponent, you are denied your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from said creature.
==============================
RAW: If you have Total Concealment your opponents will lose their Dex-to-AC since they can't see you. You'd not gain +2 to attacks, since that is a property of being invisible.
RAI: Since there's no difference between being invisible and having Total Concealment, you should really get that +2 when attacking from Stealth.
Wonderstell wrote: Quote: A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see. If you can't see your opponent, you are denied your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from said creature.
==============================
RAW: If you have Total Concealment your opponents will lose their Dex-to-AC since they can't see you. You'd not gain +2 to attacks, since that is a property of being invisible.
RAI: Since there's no difference between being invisible and having Total Concealment, you should really get that +2 when attacking from Stealth.
Agree completely, but that doesn't address the question of what effect it has on Stealth checks. Common sense, and perhaps RAI, would indicate that if it is otherwise the same as invisibility, you should get the +20 per the invisibility description and the perception circumstance modifier table. But I can't find even an oblique reference to that vis a vis total concealment specifically, or just "an opponent you can't see" generally.
So RAW total concealment still doesn't provide a bonus to your stealth check.
LordKailas wrote: ????
but the creature in question isn't using stealth.
What are you using then to detect it?
They are using stealth by definition. You are detecting them via sound. Trying not to make sound is one of the things represented by the stealth skill. If you are hiding, and someone is looking for you, it's an opposed stealth-perception check by the rules. If you lose, the DM can rationalize it by saying you sneezed, or stepped on a twig, or whatever. But the rules are not ambiguous about this.
My point remains that invisibility provides a bonus to this, total cover provides a bonus to this, the opponent being blind provides a bonus to this, but total concealment does not.
Kayerloth wrote: And of course there's this
"CRB, Using Skills wrote: Skills can be further modified by a wide variety of sources—by your race, by a class ability, by equipment, by spell effects or magic items, and so on. See Table: Skill Check Bonuses for a summary of skill check bonuses. Feel free to employ a +20 Circumstance bonus for Total Concealment by Fog Cloud it's perfectly RAW by the above. They didn't even try to list all the places one might get a bonus i.e. "and so on".
Sure, it's very easy to fix this ad hoc. The trouble is that every time you sit down at a new table, you have to ask the GM for his interpretation of the concealment rules, because as written they don't make sense.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
mogonk wrote: So RAW total concealment still doesn't provide a bonus to your stealth check. Correct.
Welcome to the Paizo Pathfinder forums. Where RAI is made up and RAW always matters.
Also, as a newcomer it's customary that you not only make a Stealth thread but also a Paladin/Alignment thread. ;)
mogonk wrote: Meirril wrote: I don't see your additional benefits anywhere under Stealth[/url] so if you want to show me where they are exactly, I'd really appreciate that. Hm? It's literally the portion you quoted. The second sentence from the link you just posted.
Quote: Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment. Note that you are denied your dex bonus to creatures you are not aware of, but you are not denied your dex bonus to creatures who have total concealment. Because nothing in the rules says you are. Dig? If that is suppose to be a separate property unique to stealth then the sentence structure is wrong. The entire sentence is a single clause and the part you bolded is just an explanation of what Total Concealment does for you.
Just because you have a vague idea there is something dangerous over there doesn't mean you can dodge attacks. If you want to simulate this, just turn your back to someone and tell them they can take free punches. Invisibility gets a lot of extra verbiage because you have Total Concealment in a case where your opponent does have line of sight to you, but a magical effect covers for you if you bother to use stealth.
While Concealment and Total Concealment share properties (and words) they are two separate states. One allows you to make stealth rolls to gain the other state.
And Perception vs someone that is hiding normally means gaining sight of the person. In the case of Total Concealment that isn't possible, so you only gain awareness of what square they are in. If that sort of awareness is good enough to get dex to AC, then I want my dex to AC when I'm blinded too because I basically have the exact same awareness then and my opponents aren't even trying to stealth.
mogonk wrote: They are using stealth by definition. You are detecting them via sound. Trying not to make sound is one of the things represented by the stealth skill. If you are hiding, and someone is looking for you, it's an opposed stealth-perception check by the rules. If you lose, the DM can rationalize it by saying you sneezed, or stepped on a twig, or whatever. But the rules are not ambiguous about this.
You seem to be making up house rules now in order to defend your position. Your claim is akin to saying that a character needs to make a climb check even though they are already standing at the top of the cliff.
What if the character was under the effects of a statue spell? This spell grants no bonus to stealth or disguise checks. Since a character can't physically move or even breathe while under the effects of such a spell it makes even less sense for them to need to make a stealth check. but according to your house rule the statue character would need to make a stealth check in order to oppose a perception check because the statue character has total concealment.
Sheeeeeesh
Can we make it even more borked up please?
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
