[PF] Stealth and Concealment

[Yanisa]

I am taking this discussion out of the FAQ thread. Stealth in pathfinder is really oversimplified to the point of silliness, but lets try to explain it in-depth.

Okay my statement is followed. According the rules you cannot use stealth when being observed. However you can use Stealth while having cover or concealment. This overrides the clause of being observed.

I brought up this SRD line:


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.


The second sentence is not a conditional allowing you to ignore the first one.

To use Stealth you must meet the following conditions:

You must not be observed.
You must have cover or concealment.

Hide in Plain Sight allows you to hide while observed. Without HiPS, your only other choice is to distract your enemies or find total cover/concealment.

You don't magically gain the ability to hide by stepping into a dimly lit room or behind a chest-high wall.

I know this makes rogues slightly less awesome, but it makes sense. Otherwise every rogue would be wearing a minor cloak of displacement and stabbing you in the face.

But that is actually what stealth does, giving you the mundane ability to hide in places where normal people cannot see well.

From the cover and concealment rules:

Cover and Stealth Checks
You can use cover to make a Stealth check. Without cover, you usually need concealment (see below) to make a Stealth check.
Soft Cover... ....However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.

Concealment and Stealth Checks

You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.
This second one means you can use stealth in the middle of a dim room, or even in the middle of an open plain field with a moonlit sky.

Lighting rules:

A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover.
...Normal light functions just like bright light
A creature within an area of dim light can make a Stealth check to conceal itself. Areas of dim light include outside at night with a moon in the sky...

Okay now for other part, being observed. Let go back to my favorites lines


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.
This means most creatures need a sight to observe you (exceptions for scent and tremorsense, more?). In general that is a perception vs stealth, but what if you are observing someone? The Line of Sight rules deal with this.


Line of Sight

A line of sight is the same as a Line of Effect (A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier) but with the additional restriction that that it is blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight (such as Concealment).
So the conclusion here is that solid barrier, like cover, or non solid barriers, like concealment, make you unable to observe things. That is why you can use stealth.

Ergo Concealment allows stealth checks even when being observed. (Ergo Cover and Concealment override the clause for being observed.)

So, people, am I right or am I wrong? Did I miss something?

[Spore]

I agree with your interpretation. Dogs or something granting scent will still screw autohide from concealment. But RAW isn't exactly clear here as I can see Keneths argumentation.

In addition to that my initial question was sparked by the Shadow Caller eidolon. The shadow caller gets Stealth as class skill and its eidolon gets free concealment. It doesn't get Shadow Template, it even doesn't get free bonus on Stealth, it gets the means to hide everywhere.

It is strongly implied that concealment grants the diversion to hide. Because you can't observe an eidolon spawned from your own shadow in a dimly light room. Try finding your shadow if you walk in the shadow of a tree or house.

[Shinken]

What does hide in plain sight do, then?

[Yanisa]

I agree with your interpretation. Dogs or something granting scent will still screw autohide from concealment. But RAW isn't exactly clear here as I can see Keneths argumentation.

In addition to that my initial question was sparked by the Shadow Caller eidolon. The shadow caller gets Stealth as class skill and its eidolon gets free concealment. It doesn't get Shadow Template, it even doesn't get free bonus on Stealth, it gets the means to hide everywhere.

It is strongly implied that concealment grants the diversion to hide. Because you can't observe an eidolon spawned from your own shadow in a dimly light room. Try finding your shadow if you walk in the shadow of a tree or house.

The rules should have, just like cover, had a broader scope of concealment and how it deals with line of sight.

Soft Concealment, like dim light - gives 20% miss chance but doesn't break line of sight.
Total Concealment, like darkness - gives 50% miss chance and breaks line of sight.

As the rules stand now any concealment breaks line of sights and becomes total concealment. Overruled by the specific trumps general rules many times.

As a side note

In any condition of illumination other than bright light, the eidolon disappears into the shadows, giving it concealment (20% miss chance).
Implies that it does break line of sight, the magic word being disappears. It is different then dim light. :smallwink:

[Spore]

The same thing only without concealment. Getting 24/7 concealment is actually rather seldom to aquire.


Implies that it does break line of sight, the magic word being disappears. It is different then dim light. :smallwink:

Flavor text doesn't create implications for me. The game would be easier if rules and flavor text would be marked...

[Yanisa]

What does hide in plain sight do, then?

Use stealth while being observed. (Link (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/rogue-talents/paizo---rogue-advanced-talents/hide-in-plain-sight-ex))

Especially useful against dark vision, scent, tremor sense and similar abilities. Or when you don't got darkness, or smokebombs, or a barrel to hide behind.


Flavor text doesn't create implications for me. The game would be easier if rules and flavor text would be marked...

I recall a certain ability called immortality, which doesn't give immortality by RAW (just removes age penalties). But according the designers it does because IT IS NAMED IMMORTALITY and people not getting that are stupid.

It shows a bit of the Pathfinder design, they do see flavor text as rules in some parts. (I bet there are exceptions too)

[Larpus]

My understanding is that yes, cover does allow for stealth checks and the such.

However, there is a catch: if there is a lone crate in an open field, then hiding behind it is meaningless, as much as the enemies can't truly see you, they still know exactly where you are because there is nowhere else for you to be at.

So, for "hide behind cover" stealth, the first check is to move somewhere else undetected, if you succeed that, then congratulations, you are stealthed! The enemies no longer know exactly where you are.

But if there is only one way out, you might still be victim of a massive penalty or simply unable to leave without being detected (in case of bright light) unless the enemies are somehow distracted, otherwise they'll be watching the spot you disappeared to.

On dim light conditions, however, I don't think that you can make stealth checks while observed, after all, the enemies can still see you, even if rather poorly.

But that's where distraction comes into play, if you get them distracted, then you can freely roll stealth and possibly succeed in vanishing, but you do the check at -10 and chances are you want to move some, otherwise a GM might call for repeated checks (at a penalty, even) as while the enemies can't see you, they still know your general location and are probably watching the spot.

About HiPS, always seen it as bundling the distraction part into the stealth check, so all it does is make it really easier to hide while observed, but not give you the ability to turn invisible. I'd also say it waves away the -10 due to you know, MASTERY OF TERRAIN, otherwise it's a really weaksauce ability.

All that is for sight-based enemies, though. If they have scent, tremorsense, are using Detect Thoughts or the such, you'll need to also somehow fool their other senses to get them off your back.

Also keep in mind that in order to do anything cool with stealth, you have to begin the round stealthed, so all you can accomplish on the round you get to fool your observers is just that: get into "stealth mode". Any cool sneak attacking or daring move to the other side of the room will have to wait until next round.

And for displacement…I just don't see the idea flying. Yeah, you have concealment-like miss chance, but you are still observed, as evidenced by the "you can still be targetted normally" bit.

[Keneth]

You can disagree with me if you want, but the conditions I've listed are RAW and RAI. You cannot use Stealth while being observed, and normal cover or concealment do not prevent creatures from observing you. Period.

You can house rule it if you want in your game, but in PFS or any game run by strict RAW, you need HiPS to hide by your method.

[Yanisa]

On dim light conditions, however, I don't think that you can make stealth checks while observed, after all, the enemies can still see you, even if rather poorly.
Problem is.. as far as I can see it is RAW that you can hide in dim light while being observed. It shouldn't, probably, but it does RAW.

Besides that all your other points are valid and combine the RAW stealth rules with common sense. :smallwink:



And for displacement…I just don't see the idea flying. Yeah, you have concealment-like miss chance, but you are still observed, as evidenced by the "you can still be targetted normally" bit.
The fact displacement calls out that you can be targeted as normal proves that at least total concealment completely breaks line of sight.


You can disagree with me if you want, but the conditions I've listed are RAW and RAI. You cannot use Stealth while being observed, and normal cover or concealment do not prevent creatures from observing you. Period.

You can house rule it if you want in your game, but in PFS or any game run by strict RAW, you need HiPS to hide by your method.

I learned the whole stealth from my pathfinder society games, I played a rogue and tag teamed a lot with a Venture Captain Ninja. Pretty sure he knew the rules better then I did.

And didn't I just prove that concealment and cover break line of sight, thus break being observed? It's all in the rules, I proved all my points with quotes from the SRD. What more do you want?

[The Grue]

You can disagree with me if you want, but the conditions I've listed are RAW and RAI.

RAW is open to debate; if it weren't, there would be no debate.

RAI is, forgive my bluntness, exceptionally arrogant of you to claim unless you work for Paizo. Do you?

[Keneth]

I learned the whole stealth from my pathfinder society games, I played a rogue and tag teamed a lot with a Venture Captain Ninja. Pretty sure he knew the rules better then I did.

Then I'm afraid your venture captain got it wrong. Even PFS veterans are fallible. Look at every Stealth breakdown on the internet, or ask any of the game designers if it makes you feel better. You'll see that we all agree on the basics. You can hide with cover or concealment, but only so long as you're not being observed.

Once you are already hidden however (i.e. not being observed), you can use Stealth in normal cover or concealment. Also note that Stealth isn't blanket invisibility, you can be observed by one creature while sneaking up on another that's not aware of you.


And didn't I just prove that concealment and cover break line of sight, thus break being observed?

I'm afraid you didn't, no. Concealment only breaks line of sight if it's total concealment, seeing as you target creatures with concealment normally. Cover only breaks line of sight if it's total cover, as you can likewise target creatures with normal cover.

[Yanisa]

I'm afraid you didn't, no. Concealment only breaks line of sight if it's total concealment, seeing as you target creatures with concealment normally. Cover only breaks line of sight if it's total cover, as you can likewise target creatures with normal cover.

Makes senses, to attack something you need to have line of sight.

Yet it doesn't explain the wording on Line Of Sight

A line of sight is the same as a Line of Effect (A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier) but with the additional restriction that that it is blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight (such as Concealment).

If that said Total Concealment there was no problem but it says Concealment, meaning that any form of concealment breaks line of sight.
Which is odd compared to:

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).

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.
I chuck it up too Line of Sight should have said Total Concealment rather then concealment, than it is in line with the concealment rules and makes sense. The fact I based my statement on the faulty written Line of Sight did not help.

The Line of Sight text also doesn't really deal with cover, but the covers rules are clear about that one.


To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).
Which indeed means you see the target, but part of it is covered.

Ignoring the vague wording on Line of Sight, you are right. Concealment/Cover don't overrule while being observed, Total Concealment/Cover do overrule while being observed.

[Keneth]

After reading my own posts, I realized that I've made myself sound like the biggest self-righteous prick.

Let's try this again, this time with explanations, instead of simply telling you you're wrong.

The reason why your interpretation seems to make some kind of sense is because you're cherry-picking your pieces of the RAW.

The paragraph from which the original two sentences are from has to be viewed as a whole. Otherwise the second sentence seems like a permission slip to ignore the first one.


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. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.

The rest of the paragraph clearly demonstrates that you can attempt to use cover or concealment for Stealth, but only after momentarily distracting your opponents (usually via Bluff check).

Moreover, the rules for line of sight do say that it is broken by concealment (and cover since it breaks line of effect), but again you're not showing the whole story.


Total Cover

If you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you.

Meaning that the only time line of effect is broken by cover is when you have total cover.

The same holds true for concealment.


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.

The line of sight is only broken if the concealment is total.

Edit: Partially ninja'd by yourself.

[Yanisa]

After reading my own posts, I realized that I've made myself sound like the biggest self-righteous prick.

I always think I sound arrogant when I (think that I) am right. No offense taken.


The reason why your interpretation seems to make some kind of sense is because you're cherry-picking your pieces of the RAW.

The paragraph from which the original two sentences are from has to be viewed as a whole. Otherwise the second sentence seems like a permission slip to ignore the first one.

But that's how the entire paragraph is build up, in my reading at least. I see:

[Sentence explaining when you cannot use stealth]
[Sentence explaining exception with cover or concealment]
[Sentence explaining exception with distraction]
[Sentence building on distraction, times two]

Basically I read:


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.

If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.

I don't see the flow in the story. Might be just me.


The reason why your interpretation seems to make some kind of sense is because you're cherry-picking your pieces of the RAW.
That's very human and like a human I tend to stare blind on one fact, ignoring other facts. Glad there are other people out here to point out even I can make mistakes. I do admit I missed a piece of vital evidence.

Still doesn't explain why Line of Sight says concealment without the word total in front of it. :smalltongue:

[Keneth]

I don't see the flow in the story. Might be just me.

The problem is that the Stealth rules attempt to describe two very different situations in one concise paragraph.

There are two logical statements derived from the rules.


Normally, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.
While being observed, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth if your observers are momentarily distracted.

I agree that it could have been written much better and, even with all the subsequent errata, Stealth still sucks.

The official playtest (http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcml) rules are much better, and they actually do work almost exactly as you were playing the RAW. That is, cover and concealment explicitly make you unobserved, and distracting an enemy gives you concealment for one action, allowing you to hide. They also introduce the Hidden condition, once and for all ending the argument that, by RAW, total concealment doesn't give you any of the bonuses of invisibility.

Of course, for the sake of sanity, using these rules (or even HiPS rules) also requires that you house rule effects like blur by removing any mention of concealment from them. That solves a lot of the ridiculousness.


Still doesn't explain why Line of Sight says concealment without the word total in front of it. :smalltongue:

No one has ever accused D&D designers of being too precise in their wording. Vagueness is common and often intentional. Which is why these arguments arise in the first place.

[Yanisa]

The problem is that the Stealth rules attempt to describe two very different situations in one concise paragraph.
Yeah, they really tried to condense stealth rules. Like they wanted to twitter it. :smalltongue:



I agree that it could have been written much better and, even with all the subsequent errata, Stealth still sucks.
One of the designers said (I bet it was SKR) that it should be hard for Rogues to get sneak attacks. The stealth rules are part of that I guess. It is also a reason why I hated my PFS rogue and was glad when she died. (Which in hindsight is sad.)


Of course, for the sake of sanity, using these rules (or even HiPS rules) also requires that you house rule effects like blur by removing any mention of concealment from them. That solves a lot of the ridiculousness.
Yeah, a lot of times they use the word concealment instead of just flat outing stating a miss chance, like they don't realize concealment comes with more rules then miss chance. :smalltongue:


No one has ever accused D&D designers of being too precise in their wording. Vagueness is common and often intentional. Which is why these arguments arise in the first place.
I am just nitpicky about that party because I stared blindly at part. Hmph.

[Keneth]

One of the designers said (I bet it was SKR) that it should be hard for Rogues to get sneak attacks. The stealth rules are part of that I guess.

Yeah, a lot of times they use the word concealment instead of just flat outing stating a miss chance, like they don't realize concealment comes with more rules then miss chance. :smalltongue:

The sad part is that PF developers often understand the rules and dynamics of their own system even worse than the players. I respect them, and I enjoy talking to them, but more often than not, I don't agree with them. Which is why I literally have hundreds of house rules, and I'm applying new band-aids every day in a vain attempt to patch up the system.

Of course, there are other issues at play here than just incompetence and poor editing. Conciseness in the rules text is mostly there so that they can conserve the page count (to save money), and often rules are intentionally not changed even when the developers understand the problems.

You can hope that Pathfinder 2.0 is gonna be better, but for now we make do with what we have. The beauty of systems with a GM, is that you can use them in whatever way works best for you. Unless, of course, you're part of some horrible abomination like PFS. :smallbiggrin:

[Shinken]

The sad part is that PF developers often understand the rules and dynamics of their own system even worse than the players. I respect them, and I enjoy talking to them, but more often than not, I don't agree with them. Which is why I literally have hundreds of house rules, and I'm applying new band-aids every day in a vain attempt to patch up the system.
Wish more people in this forum were more like you. It's okay to disagree with people, but we should always respect others.
You have my most sincere congratulations on your morals, man.

[Yanisa]

The sad part is that PF developers often understand the rules and dynamics of their own system even worse than the players. I respect them, and I enjoy talking to them, but more often than not, I don't agree with them. Which is why I literally have hundreds of house rules, and I'm applying new band-aids every day in a vain attempt to patch up the system.

I wish I could house rule, but I am stuck with both a newbie and a rule-layering veteran, and tbf I am also relative new, although I got natural experience. It's the main reason why I try to use as much RAW and as much quotes as possible.


You can hope that Pathfinder 2.0 is gonna be better, but for now we make do with what we have.
I secretly don't hope we got a Pathfinder 2.0, at least not soon, because I am spending a lot of money of Pathfinder stuff. :smalltongue: For its faults it is the system I decided to buy, love and stick with. All its flaws included.


Unless, of course, you're part of some horrible abomination like PFS. :smallbiggrin:
PFS wasn't that horrible from my experience, it was not my kind of game and my Rogue wasn't build like I played her, and I might missed the memo, but I never got the hate PFS gets here, but that's a different topic and I stopped playing PFS months ago.

[The Prince of Cats]

To me, it's simple; if you are standing behind a tree and nobody knows you are there then you are hidden. If someone sees, hears or smells you and then you run behind a tree to escape, you can't hide because they know that you are there...

[Slipperychicken]

To me, it's simple; if you are standing behind a tree and nobody knows you are there then you are hidden. If someone sees, hears or smells you and then you run behind a tree to escape, you can't hide because they know that you are there...

They might have very good reason to suspect the runner is behind the tree, but unless they can somehow see through solid wood, they do not see him. Thus, the runner would be eligible for a Stealth check (which would allow him to do something clever like move for some nearby hedges or climb the tree to conceal himself among its leaves).

[Keneth]

I secretly don't hope we got a Pathfinder 2.0, at least not soon, because I am spending a lot of money of Pathfinder stuff. :smalltongue:

I don't think you have anything to worry about. Paizo is pretty committed to its current system, at least for now. A new installment of the rules is coming out eventually though.


I never got the hate PFS gets here

Conforming to a strict set of rules is like an acknowledgement that those rules are balanced and functional. They're not, and PFS often limits you even further, for better or worse.

A big part of roleplaying is creating unique and interesting concepts, and as a GM, I want to make sure that players have the ability to realize those concepts. In a standard D&D game, the GM can simply say "no problem, you can hide if you have cover or concealment," whereas in PFS you more or less need to accept that your rogue will never be very functional compared to other classes, even if you can manage to Stealth.


If someone sees, hears or smells you and then you run behind a tree to escape, you can't hide because they know that you are there...

In the case of a tree, size matters. :smallbiggrin: