Hello, everyone.
So, despite playing Starfinder for 3 years, I feel like I am completely ignorant of the Unseen Attacker rules as written, and so far every GM I have ever played with has been massively simplifying them. I have spent 3 hours today trying to wrap my head around all of the visibility rules, but I am only more confused than when I've started.
I am hoping that you fine people could help break them down for me once and for all. Explain like I'm five. And provide the quotes of the rules that you base your answers on, or at least tell me where I can find them.
Let's assume we have two characters: Billy is trying to detect Jack. Jack is trying to hide from Billy.
1) There are four states of awareness. Billy looks directly at Jack. He is "Observing" him. If Jack walks behind a wall - does that mean that Billy goes from "Observing" to "Aware of Location", since "you still can’t observe the creature with a precise sense such as vision"? Or does he go to "Aware of Presence", because "you don’t necessarily know exactly where it is"? Or does Billy stay "Observing", despite Billy not being able to observe Jack?
2) There are "Dealing with Unseen Creatures" rules. Billy can't observe Jack behind a wall, so does that mean that Jack gets +20/40 to his Stealth check? If so, does Billy need to attempt a Perception check against Jack who rolls a Stealth check despite not hiding? Or does Billy just supernaturally know where Jack is, completely ignoring the "Dealing with Unseen Creatures" rules? If so, why?
3) There are "Dealing with Unseen Creatures" rules. Jack stands in a Fog Cloud, which says "the attacker can’t use sight to locate the target". Does that mean that Jack is invisible? Does it mean he has +20/40 to his stealth checks and does Billy need to attempt a Perception check against Jack who rolls a Stealth check despite not hiding to detect him in a Fog Cloud?
4) At which point does an Invisible (or Greater Invisible) Jack has to attempt Stealth checks to set the DC for Billy's Seek action of the Perception skill described in the "Dealing with Unseen Creatures" rules (You must first succeed at a Perception check to search for the creature’s location)? And does Jack have to take the Hide action for that? Why?
5) Can Billy shoot a square where he thinks an invisible Jack is standing, following the "Total Concealment" rules of "attacking into a square", directly countering the "Dealing with Unseen Creatures" rules that state "If you are unaware of a creature or aware only of its presence, you cannot directly attack it"? What if Jack took the Hide action while invisible?
6) If Jack had Greater Invisibility, would it be impossible for Billy to spot him without Blindsense/Blindsight/See Invisibility, because Jack has a constant +20/40 to his checks, attacking Billy does not reveal Jacks position according to the "Dealing with Unseen Creatures" rules, and does that mean that even if Jack attacks Billy while adjacent to him and then moves away after that - Billy still isn't aware of Jack's location, only of his presence?
I hope you guys can chew these rules up for me, because I'm at the end of my rope figuring these out.
Thank you all kindly.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit I never get so much into detail with these rules (neither as a DM nor a player).
For my table we normally play it simple.
But let me try to answer your questions:
1) I would go with Aware of Presence as Billy didn't know where Jack moved once he left Billies field of view. (he can't observe him behind the wall, no LoS).
2) Billy does not know where Jack is, even if he is not trying to hide. In this situation I would let Billy roll a perception check (DC 10 "Hear the sound of a Small or Medium creature walking"). If he succeds he is "Aware of Billies Location.
3)see 2)
4) If Jack want to actively hide from Billy, he has to do a Stealth check (including the +20/40 bonus). Jack has to do the roll, once he declares he is hiding.
5) I would rule yes, because there is no rule which forbid a character to attack an empty space. Of course Billy still have the 50% miss chance if he tries to do a direct hit (I would also roll this, if Jack is not in the space and simply tell the player "seems you missed").
6) If Billies perception is high enough he could spot Jack. And yes, if Jack is still invisible after the attack, Billy will be "Aware of his Presence" but not "Aware of his Location".
Hope this helps a little bit.
Thank you for the reply! And yeah, I think that's how most people rule it at home, with invisibility and greater invisibility turning someone absolutely impossible to detect with gigantic bonuses to perception. However I really am more interested in the RAW, so I hope someone else can still reply to this with the full power of the rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's assume we have two characters: Billy is trying to detect Jack. Jack is trying to hide from Billy.
1) There are four states of awareness. Billy looks directly at Jack. He is "Observing" him. If Jack walks behind a wall - does that mean that Billy goes from "Observing" to "Aware of Location", since "you still can’t observe the creature with a precise sense such as vision"? Or does he go to "Aware of Presence", because "you don’t necessarily know exactly where it is"? Or does Billy stay "Observing", despite Billy not being able to observe Jack?
Aware of Presence. If Billy and Jack are in the living room, and Jack walks into the kitchen, Billy can't see Jack but still knows he is in the area.
2) There are "Dealing with Unseen Creatures" rules. Billy can't observe Jack behind a wall, so does that mean that Jack gets +20/40 to his Stealth check? If so, does Billy need to attempt a Perception check against Jack who rolls a Stealth check despite not hiding? Or does Billy just supernaturally know where Jack is, completely ignoring the "Dealing with Unseen Creatures" rules? If so, why?
If Jack takes an action to attempt a Stealth check then yes, he gets the bonus. He does not get a "free" Stealth check. If Jack doesn't attempt a stealth check then Billy will automatically see Jack as soon as Billy walks around the wall. Without walking around the wall, Billy just knows that Jack is in the area, not his exact location. If Jack does attempt the stealth check, then Billy has to make a perception check when he walks around the wall.
3) There are "Dealing with Unseen Creatures" rules. Jack stands in a Fog Cloud, which says "the attacker can’t use sight to locate the target". Does that mean that Jack is invisible? Does it mean he has +20/40 to his stealth checks and does Billy need to attempt a Perception check against Jack who rolls a Stealth check despite not hiding to detect him in a Fog Cloud?
Same as #2. At no point is Jack considered "invisible" as that word is reserved to describe an ability with very specific rules. Jack is would be Unseen. Assuming normal senses: all Invisible creatures are Unseen, but not all Unseen creatures are Invisible.
4) At which point does an Invisible (or Greater Invisible) Jack has to attempt Stealth checks to set the DC for Billy's Seek action of the Perception skill described in the "Dealing with Unseen Creatures" rules (You must first succeed at a Perception check to search for the creature’s location)? And does Jack have to take the Hide action for that? Why?
This is where it gets a bit weird. Even though Jack would normally need to take an action to hide, Billy needs to make a perception check even if Jack hasn't taken the Hide action. The way most people play this is that the invisible creature gets an automatic stealth check.
5) Can Billy shoot a square where he thinks an invisible Jack is standing, following the "Total Concealment" rules of "attacking into a square", directly countering the "Dealing with Unseen Creatures" rules that state "If you are unaware of a creature or aware only of its presence, you cannot directly attack it"? What if Jack took the Hide action while invisible?
Yes, Billy can shoot a square. It doesn't matter whether Jack is invisible or hiding, Billy still can't directly attack him. But as long as Jack is aware of Billy's presence he can make a guess at a square and shoot it. If Jack is on the other side of a wall, Billy can lob a grenade over the wall at an intersection (assuming no ceiling) but can't directly target Jack.
The phrase "If you are unaware of a creature or aware only of its presence, you cannot directly attack it" simply means that you have no idea which square the creature is in. You can still attack into a square. If you are Aware of Location, you do know what square it's in, so you have greatly increased your chances of making a successful attack. (Yes, this is prone to a lot of metagaming.)
6) If Jack had Greater Invisibility, would it be impossible for Billy to spot him without Blindsense/Blindsight/See Invisibility, because Jack has a constant +20/40 to his checks, attacking Billy does not reveal Jacks position according to the "Dealing with Unseen Creatures" rules, and does that mean that even if Jack attacks Billy while adjacent to him and then moves away after that - Billy still isn't aware of Jack's location, only of his presence?
Correct.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for the reply! And yeah, I think that's how most people rule it at home, with invisibility and greater invisibility turning someone absolutely impossible to detect with gigantic bonuses to perception. However I really am more interested in the RAW, so I hope someone else can still reply to this with the full power of the rules.
Other than the weirdness of invisibility giving a bonus to hide and requiring a perception check but apparently not requiring a hide check, the rules are pretty straightforward.
1) Can you see it right now? Observing2) Do you know exactly where it is but can't see it directly (usually via blindsense)? Aware of Location.
3) Do you know it's around somewhere because you saw it earlier or it did something that clued you in? Aware of Presence?
4) Has it done nothing but sneak up on you? Hasn't attacked you yet? You didn't see it earlier? Unaware.
Invisibility is extremely powerful, but in Starfinder there are a variety of magical, technological, and innate ways of precisely sensing using non-visual means. And attacking breaks invisibility or stealth unless the invisibility is greater or inherent to the creature. If your GM is continually throwing those kind of opponents at you at low levels (before you can afford counters) you may want to discuss whether or not she's actually making the game fun.
The rules as written are straight out contradictory, and that causes a lot of trouble for the stealth rules.
Someone that has cover (cover cover, the +4 one) or concealment (the 20% one) don't fit neatly into any catagory.
They are not quite observed because you don't have a clear unobstructed line of view and attack to them but they're not aware of location either because you can still target someone with targeting spells if all they have is concealment.
Here is the contradiction.
What is the observed status of an operative doing jumping jacks in a shadowy alleyway?
None of the observed statuses really fit.
And that's the area you need the most rules for, and all of the following stealth rules break or diverge in how they're read from there. Its fairly intuitive that you can't shoot someone you heard three rooms away dropping a vase, or behind a wall, but what is and what isn't supposed to be possible for someone in a dark alley with the stealth skill is where the rules need to fill in, and where they're.. ironically the most obfuscated.
|
|
What is the observed status of an operative doing jumping jacks in a shadowy alleyway?
Well, a lot is going to depend on where potential observers are, whether the operative is actively trying to hide, and what has happened previously (did the operative take a shot at the observer?) but I’ll answer for some of the more typical cases.
Assuming an unaugmented (unmagicked, unteched, etc) human observer and that the “shadowy alley” would classify as dim light:
1. If the operative isn’t doing anything to try to hide, then for anyone with direct line of sight they are Observed. (But have 20% concealment).
2. If the Operative is trying to hide they can attempt a Stealth check, even against creatures with direct LOS. If they fail, they are Observed. If they succeed they are Aware of Presence. (Yes, much harder to hide while doing jumping jacks. And yes, players often have metagame knowledge of what square they are in given what kind of actions were available and where the NPC could possibly be. But the actual state should be Aware of Presence.)
3. If the Operative has not interacted with the Observer and is not in LOS, they are Unaware. A GM might rule that the jumping jacks are noisy enough to make the observer Aware of Presence, but the Operative could attempt a stealth check to stay Unaware.
1. If the operative isn’t doing anything to try to hide, then for anyone with direct line of sight they are Observed. (But have 20% concealment).
. If the Operative is trying to hide they can attempt a Stealth check, even against creatures with direct LOS.
And here's the problem.
A creature currently being observed can’t attempt a Stealth check without first breaking that observation.
I would agree an operative COULD start hiding , have someone not notice them in the shadowy corner, and then keep going. But once they are observed they need to break observation to stealth, and their status in the alley way doing jumping jacks is observed.
To break observation, the creature must either mask itself from your precise senses (with darkness, fog, invisibility, or the like, but not with effects such as displacement that still leave a clear visual indicator of its location), move somewhere it can’t be observed (a place with cover, for example), or use Bluff to create a distraction to momentarily break your observation of it.
This part (copied pretty much from pathfinder, where it caused the exact same problems) Breaks down one of two ways. Either they mean total darkness, fog from further away than 5 feet (not that there weren't 45 different ways to have fog in pathfinder), and total cover. I think this makes stealth reasonably hard to do in the middle of combat.
Or there are some very strange 3.5 states of observation, one with and one without +4 cover and without 20% concealment. This imho makes using a move action to stealth every time you have cover almost the option to take. It is VERY easy to have cover, and not being observed is absurdly powerful againstspellcasters.
Observed is an important game element. It keeps cropping up in abilities that allow creatures to hide.
For me the easiest way to fix the rules is to specify which cover and concealment the examples mean.: the total cover and total concealment.
|
|
I get what you're saying (How can a creature in shadow attempt a Stealth check if it is being observed when the awareness rules say that you have to break observation to attempt a Stealth check?) but you're overthinking it, BNW.
You don't need total cover or total concealment to make Stealth checks. This is repeated multiple times throughout the CRB, including the rules on Stealth, cover, and lighting. Succeeding at a Stealth check means you are treated as having total concealment. "Masking" from precise senses is not the same as "disappearing" from precise senses. It means that conditions are right that you could disappear from precise senses. And just because you're not leaving your square that doesn't mean you are standing stock still and staring at your enemy. Attempting to Hide is an active action.
Dim light (and other 20% concealment effects) specifically allow you to make Stealth checks. As does cover. Because the conditions are not ideal for observation. You are masked enough to attempt to Hide. Maybe it's because I'm a country boy at heart but it makes perfect sense to me. I can vividly remember water balloon fights where running behind a thin hedge was just enough to cause you opponents to lose track of you for a moment. Or nighttime games of tag, crouching down into a shadow to confuse IT. Most of the times it just takes a couple of seconds for your opponents to locate you, but it does mean they have to pause and look (like using a move action to make a Perception check). Or maybe you never fooled them in the first place (failed your Stealth check).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need total cover or total concealment to make Stealth checks
I'm not arguing that you always do.
Yet we've established that
a creature standing in dim light counts as observed
An observed creature cannot make stealth checks.
You need to contradict one of those to have the space rogue start hiding while you watch him do jumping jacks.
But you don't need to contradict anything if the dim light of the alley is enough to start stealthing BEFORE he's observed. If he's never observed in the first place he doesn't need to break observation and hide. Once he's observed the shadowy corner just isn't cutting it anymore.
What that breaks down to me is that cover and concealment are enough to make stealth checks before you're being looked at, but not while being looked at. Which I think gets you a much more reasonable set of stealth rules.
Is is perfectly natural that you can walk into a room and then not notice pelonius/ feet sticking out from under the tapestry? Yes.
Is it reasonable that you can watch pelonious walk over to the tapestry , see his feet under the curtain, and then lose track of where he is? Not unless your adventurer is a toddler that doesnt get object permanence. (which.. might describe a few....)
What you're trying to do in the middle blind mans bluff is MUCH.. much harder than trying to hide in the same spot with hide and seek. But what you're saying would put the same difficulty on them. As opposed to someone having to zig zag and run around (bluff check) followed by the stealth check... 2 checks that could miss, at a penalty gives a much more reasonable aproximation of your chances of success.
You need to not have or break observation to stealth
A rogue in a dark alley that grants concealment is observed
A dark alley that grants concealment allows stealth checks.
One of those three ideas either won't fit or needs an asterix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You need to not have or break observation to stealth
A rogue in a dark alley that grants concealment is observed
A dark alley that grants concealment allows stealth checks.
One of those three ideas either won't fit or needs an asterix.
I believe it should go something like:
'A dark alley that grants concealment allows stealth checks for creatures that are not already observed.'
A creature currently being observed can’t attempt a Stealth check without first breaking that observation.While this is true, it is a more general rule than the one found under dim lighting:
First, which is more specific than what is highly subjective at best.
Secondly it doesn't say whether you can do that while being observed or if it's just a general statement that dim light won't automatically generate the observed status the way normal.bright light will. Yes, you can hide in the dim light alley. But do you need to do so before you're looked at or can you do it while being looked at?
Saying while being looked at takes observed out of the equation completely. It means there's absolutely no difference between pelonius behind the tapestry before you come into the room or after you come into the room.
This gets really, really weird when people you're fighting just vanish right in front of you. It is incredibly easy to have cover in this game, and a move action turning it into a 50% miss chance makes stealth the most powerful combat skill in the game by drift travel distances.