Pathfinder's Stealth System is Insane, and it's Making Me Insane

[mogonk]

I've spent more hours than I care to admit researching this, and I can't find any FAQs/errata/or dev posts to contradict what I'm about to say. If you have, please tell me! It would make my day.

RAW, not being able to see someone makes basically no difference to whether you can detect them. That sounds crazy, right? But it's true.

Once you have partial concealment, you can stealth. And partial concealment means very little. "Dim light" is partial concealment. So, night time with a full moon. Or a large room lit with only candles. Etc. It's a pretty low bar. Partial concealment just means it's hard to see you. And thus allows stealth with no bonuses or penalties, in addition to a 20% miss chance. So far, so good.

Total concealment is completely different in concept. Total concealment means it is impossible to see you. There is literally no line of sight to you. You can't be targeted in most cases. When you can be targeted, there's a 50% miss chance, just like invisibility. And that makes sense, because you are literally not visible.

But the perception check to "see" you in total concealment is exactly the same. The stealth check is exactly the same. RAW, there is no benefit to stealth from the fact that nobody can see you.

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.

The most flexible interpretation possible under RAW is that the DM classes the fact that you can't be seen as "terrible conditions" under the rules for the perception skill, and imposes a -5 penalty to their check. That's it.

How did this get past playtesting, multiple printings, a decade of play....how? Is it just that half the tables out there houseruled that if you are not visible you are INvisible and the other half just didn't care if the rules made any sense? This is blowing my mind.

Edit: A lot of people seem to be misinterpreting this in the same ways, so I'm going to clarify a couple of things.

- I am not saying that it should be impossible to detect someone with total concealment. I'm saying it should be a lot harder than detecting someone with partial concealment, and RAW it's exactly the same.

- I am aware of the small modifiers from distance, conditions, etc. These modifiers are tiny compared to how difficult it should be to detect someone you can't see, and there is nothing in the RAW to indicate that total concealment changes these modifiers in any way.

- I know DMs can make spot-rulings and apply massive rule-zero circumstance bonuses if they feel like it, or simply houserule that total concealment=invisibility to address this problem. My point is not that the problem with RAW can't be fixed. My point is that there is a massive problem with RAW, and that as a player, you cannot count on DMs to fix it in a consistent way.

[Erloas]

It sounds like you're basically skipping over or ignoring the opposed skill check aspect of stealth.

I also don't think I would classify Total Concealment as "impossible to see." While that might be the case with something like magic, in the general stealth sense it means blending into the background. We see plenty of real life animals, as well as camo in general, that doesn't make you invisible, just very easy to look over/past. How easy it is comes down to how well they're hidden (their stealth roll) and how closely you're looking (your perception roll).
As for not moving, you'll always be making some noise just breathing, granted it is often something we don't notice but that doesn't mean we *can't* notice, just like a dog will often hear a car pulling up long before their owner does, "hearing" is far from a fixed event.
As well as the sense that something just isn't right, that you're being watched. It can't really be quantified, but it does happen.

There are also modifiers depending on the situation. Stealth has a bit on detection in a forest and perception has modifiers based on distance as well as general conditions such as being in a noisy environment.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/perception/
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/stealth/

[Hellpyre]

If my players are completely nonvisible, I usually just give them the +20 bonus to stealth from invisibility. It makes for a pretty good baseline.

Relevant SRD text: Invisibility (spell)

if a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving.

Invisibilty (effect)

A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check.

Using Stealth: Stealth check +20

[Arutema]

Remember, stealth combined spot, search, and listen from the 3.5 skills. It may be impossible to see someone, but you can still hear their movement or breathing if your perception exceeds their stealth.

[Rynjin]

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.

Which tells me neither you nor the hypothetical DM even bothered to read the Perception skill, which is the opposed check "opposite side of the coin" to Stealth.

"Distance to the source, object, or creature +1/10 feet"

-3 to Perception for being 30 feet away.

So they pinpoint your location (using their Move action if in combat), and it goes to the Concealment rules.

Since they can't see you (even though they know you're there, similar to an invisible creature) while in the Fog Cloud, you still have Total Concealment, giving you every single advantage that making a successful Stealth check gives you in any case.

Stealth in a 1 on 1 scenario is inherently biased toward Stealth; it's an easier skill to jack sky high and is made against people who generally have a penalty to find you, with the end result being uncertain as to whether that even MATTERS.


Remember, stealth combined spot, search, and listen from the 3.5 skills. It may be impossible to see someone, but you can still hear their movement or breathing if your perception exceeds their stealth.

Or smell them, or even taste or touch them with the right abilities (if you're a snake, or a Psion with Touchsight, for instance).

[mogonk]

I also don't think I would classify Total Concealment as "impossible to see."


If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you.

That is the definition of total concealment from the combat rules. If you do not have line of sight to someone, you cannot see them. This isn't ambiguous.


If my players are completely nonvisible, I usually just give them the +20 bonus to stealth from invisibility. It makes for a pretty good baseline.

Agreed. This is what I do, this is what every sane DM does. But it's a houserule.


Remember, stealth combined spot, search, and listen from the 3.5 skills. It may be impossible to see someone, but you can still hear their movement or breathing if your perception exceeds their stealth.

I know. I'm not saying it should be impossible to perceive them. I'm saying that it should be harder. Like, a lot harder.


Which tells me neither you nor the hypothetical DM even bothered to read the Perception skill, which is the opposed check "opposite side of the coin" to Stealth.

"Distance to the source, object, or creature +1/10 feet"

-3 to Perception for being 30 feet away.

You're being pedantic, a -3 is negligible.


Since they can't see you (even though they know you're there, similar to an invisible creature) while in the Fog Cloud, you still have Total Concealment, giving you every single advantage that making a successful Stealth check gives you in any case.

1. There are abilities that run off of making a successful stealth check, so "every single advantage" is not true.
2. If they didn't know you were there to start with, succeeding at the perception check tells them that you are. And it still makes absolutely no sense that total concealment doesn't give you a bonus to the check.

[Rynjin]

I know. I'm not saying it should be impossible to perceive them. I'm saying that it should be harder. Like, a lot harder.

Your hypothetical is also intensely flawed in another way:


PC: But I'm standing still, not making any noise, and they can't see me.

Your Stealth check is what determines if they can hear you or not. If you're impossible to hear (such as under the effects of Silence, for instance) it's another story, but no creature is ever perfectly silent, and your Stealth check is the determiner for how well you hide those sounds.

[Kayblis]

There are modifiers, yes. Very poor lighting can give a penalty to Perception from -2 to -5, as well as most fights would do to hearing(you're usually not fighting 1v1 in that Fog Cloud, so the sould of battle around you should give a penalty to perception). There's a -1 to perception for every 10 feet of distance too.

Not to mention you only roll when there's a chance of actually noticing something - you don't roll perception to detect an inanimate object on the other side of a wall. Some DMs might rule you're undetectable until you get closer to your enemy, unless it has special senses that can detect you through whatever conditions are set up, like Blindsight or Tremorsense.

[mogonk]

Your Stealth check is what determines if they can hear you or not. If you're impossible to hear (such as under the effects of Silence, for instance) it's another story, but no creature is ever perfectly silent, and your Stealth check is the determiner for how well you hide those sounds.
Sure. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible to hear someone's breathing from 30 feet away. I'm saying it's harder than seeing someone in dim light from 30 feet away. A LOT HARDER. And the rules do not reflect this.

Not to mention you only roll when there's a chance of actually noticing something - you don't roll perception to detect an inanimate object on the other side of a wall. Some DMs might rule you're undetectable until you get closer to your enemy, unless it has special senses that can detect you through whatever conditions are set up, like Blindsight or Tremorsense.

Everything is detectable with a sufficient perception check. A deity with a +300 perception check could hear your heart beating without needing to be able to see through fog. Saying "no check allowed" is another way of saying "the DC is too high for you to succeed". And in order to know if that's true, we need rules that tell us what the DC is. And the existing rules allow a piddly penalty for distance, a -5 for "terrible conditions", and that's it.

I'm not in any way claiming that spot-rulings and house rules can't address this problem. They can, and they can do so easily. I'm saying that the DMs shouldn't have to step in to fix a system with a giant hole in it.

[Kurald Galain]

RAW, not being able to see someone makes basically no difference to whether you can detect them.
The point you're missing is that being out of sight is what allows the a stealth check in the first place. If you're standing in the open without concealment, you're automatically seen; and if you're standing inside a cloud they have to roll for it.


PC: But I'm standing still, not making any noise,
Well you clearly want to avoid making any noise, but to see if you succeed at not making any noise you'll have to roll that stealth check. You can't just declare that you're totally quiet.

[mogonk]

The point you're missing is that being out of sight is what allows the a stealth check in the first place. If you're standing in the open without concealment, you're automatically seen; and if you're standing inside a cloud they have to roll for it.

No, I'm not missing that at all. Read the post again. The issue is that there isn't a difference between partial and total concealment. You're completely misinterpreting me.

[Ellrin]

Stealth when your opponent already knows you're there isn't really about making them think you aren't there anymore, it's about preventing them from knowing more or less where you are.

When you make a stealth check under total concealment, the idea isn't to make yourself harder to see, they already can't see you. The idea is to let yourself move so that they don't know you're moving, much less where you end up. That's why you don't get a bonus; even if they manage to locate you, they still can't see you, and they only have a vague idea of where you actually are (the five foot square you're occupying). You made some mistake--maybe kicked against some unseen obstacle accidentally, or made a sudden, quiet gasp when you almost tripped--that gave your location away to a sufficiently sharp-eared listener who's actively trying to find you--spending almost half his time and effort doing so, in fact. That doesn't mean the gig's up--if you still have total concealment, you try again in the next round, and again, their locating you only means they know what square to aim at.

And let's not forget how difficult moving silently actually is in a combat situation over terrain you may not be familiar with that you can't even see.

Of course it doesn't quite match up to real life, but that's d20 for you; you get it especially bad with some of Pathfinder's highly abstracted skills like Perception that combines every sense into one check. That sort of thing needs some level of DM adjudication at a built-in level, since it's really checking several things with every roll.

[Rynjin]

No, I'm not missing that at all. Read the post again. The issue is that there isn't a difference between partial and total concealment. You're completely misinterpreting me.

There absolutely is.

If you're using Stealth in Partial Concealment and are pinpointed, you are visible and can be targeted normally; enemies can have Line of Sight and Effect, and you gain no benefits from being concealed save the 20% miss chance. No Sneak Attack or attack Flatfooted AC, or any of that.

With Total Concealment if they detect you you're still HIDDEN. They know which square you occupy but nothing more, and moving gives you another attempt at Stealth. Moreover you can still gain benefits that rely on you being concealed, such as the aforementioned Sneak Attack.

The issue you're having is expecting the Stealth skill to work and make sense in a vacuum rather than how it interacts with the other component rules involved in your scenario.

[mogonk]

When you make a stealth check under total concealment, the idea isn't to make yourself harder to see, they already can't see you. The idea is to let yourself move so that they don't know you're moving, much less where you end up. That's why you don't get a bonus; even if they manage to locate you, they still can't see you, and they only have a vague idea of where you actually are (the five foot square you're occupying). You made some mistake--maybe kicked against some unseen obstacle accidentally, or made a sudden, quiet gasp when you almost tripped--that gave your location away to a sufficiently sharp-eared listener who's actively trying to find you--spending almost half his time and effort doing so, in fact. That doesn't mean the gig's up--if you still have total concealment, you try again in the next round, and again, their locating you only means they know what square to aim at.

All great examples for why you should be detectable. But again, doesn't make any sense that being denied the ability to see you makes no difference in their ability to detect you. It's like the difference between being blind and not being blind. Can a blind person guess exactly where you are? Sure. Is it harder? Of course.

And combat is not the only situation where this matters. Say they have no idea that you're there. Why is there only a tiny circumstance bonus distinguishing "low light" (they can't see well) from "darkness" (they can't see at all)? Particularly when actual invisibility gives such a massive bonus, ostensibly on the exact same basis: that they can't see you?

It's nuts.

[Rynjin]

All great examples for why you should be detectable. But again, doesn't make any sense that being denied the ability to see you makes no difference in their ability to detect you. It's like the difference between being blind and not being blind. Can a blind person guess exactly where you are? Sure. Is it harder? Of course.

And combat is not the only situation where this matters. Say they have no idea that you're there. Why is there only a tiny circumstance bonus distinguishing "low light" (they can't see well) from "darkness" (they can't see at all)? Particularly when actual invisibility gives such a massive bonus, ostensibly on the exact same basis: that they can't see you?

It's nuts.

Because the game is not a fully functional simulation of reality. It's a game. Those things are fiddly and unimportant to the simple mechanics of a Stealth skill in an RPG.

That's why circumstance bonuses exist; it's explicitly up to GM interpretation past the simple can/cannot be seen dichotomy.

Tables upon tables of circumstantial bonuses or penalties to stealth is wasted page space in most scenarios.

TL;DR: it's a game, chill out.

[mogonk]

If you're using Stealth in Partial Concealment and are pinpointed, you are visible and can be targeted normally; enemies can have Line of Sight and Effect, and you gain no benefits from being concealed save the 20% miss chance. No Sneak Attack or attack Flatfooted AC, or any of that.

With Total Concealment if they detect you you're still HIDDEN. They know which square you occupy but nothing more, and moving gives you another attempt at Stealth. Moreover you can still gain benefits that rely on you being concealed, such as the aforementioned Sneak Attack.

See, none of this is actually true. Total concealment doesn't deny your opponent their dex bonus, and therefore doesn't allow sneak attack.

There's actually nothing in the rules that explicitly allows you to sneak attack from stealth. The only support for it is a developer comment on the paizo forums stating that "cannot react to a blow" includes attacks from opponents you are unaware of. And stealth explicitly says that if you succeed, the opponent is unaware of you.

Nothing in total concealment says the opponent is unaware of you, or denied their dex. It should. It should function exactly like invisibility. But it doesn't. Are you starting to see why I object to this so much?

[mogonk]

Because the game is not a fully functional simulation of reality. It's a game. Those things are fiddly and unimportant to the simple mechanics of a Stealth skill in an RPG.

That's why circumstance bonuses exist; it's explicitly up to GM interpretation past the simple can/cannot be seen dichotomy.

Tables upon tables of circumstantial bonuses or penalties to stealth is wasted page space in most scenarios.

My solution is actually way less fiddly: treat all instances where a character is not visible as the character being invisible. In other words, I think it SHOULD work the way that you've always thought it DID work. The main reason you're disagreeing with me is that you don't actually understand the way it works RAW.

[Mordaedil]

Note that you are applying "If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you." in reverse case as being true, when it is not.

Having total concealment does not mean the targets do not have line of sight, in every situation. It's just when you lack line of sight, total concealment applies.

[mogonk]

Note that you are applying "If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you." in reverse case as being true, when it is not.

Having total concealment does not mean the targets do not have line of sight, in every situation. It's just when you lack line of sight, total concealment applies.

Yes it is. That is the only definition of total concealment from the combat rules. This is all the Core Rulebook says on the topic of 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.

There is nothing else in that text that defines total concealment, and the text is a mirror of the definition of 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. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover.

The line of effect/line of sight distinction isn't a feature of the terms, it's the definition of them

[Kayblis]

I believe the first example is flawed. Spells give effects such as "total concealment" without hiding you completely, just like the Displacement spell gives the miss chance "as if you had total concealment", instead of just listing an untyped miss chance, which means the total concealment isn't excusively used for when you're not visible. The Fog Cloud spell could very much just delineate general shadows as common dense fog does, and those are visible(even though they're hard to see). You're still treated as "not having line of sight" because the creature can't see you, just a blur on your general location.

Still, I see your point, and to be honest the rules are like they are because of game balance. Stealth already has the game stacked in its favor(not everyone has Perception, but every stealthing character invests heavily on the skill; size bonuses; feats and class abilities apply; etc), adding another extra layer of "you lose" to anyone that doesn't focus on Perception is a kick in the nuts. Say what you want about realism, the moment that someone gets instagibbed because of "realistic house rules" there'll be salt, and you can't complain when the party decides to never ever enter any place in which they can't see very well.

[Mordaedil]

Oh I see, if you redefine the terms to mean whatever you want them to mean, then of course there is a problem!

One does not preclude the other and total concealment is defined as a 50% chance to hit per rules.

[Spore]

Because the game is not a fully functional simulation of reality. It's a game. Those things are fiddly and unimportant to the simple mechanics of a Stealth skill in an RPG.

That's why circumstance bonuses exist; it's explicitly up to GM interpretation past the simple can/cannot be seen dichotomy.

Tables upon tables of circumstantial bonuses or penalties to stealth is wasted page space in most scenarios.

TL;DR: it's a game, chill out.

I agree. Many players of 3.5, Pathfinder and even 5e think the game rules have to be able to replicate EVERY situation EVER. This is not physics groundwork, this is a tabletop RPG. While its rules are extensive that we have quite a few university level physics books that contain less formulae and rules, they are still not meant to allow simulating reality but merely as a way to judge how combat works and how the supernatural cosmos works.

[Selion]

To be honest in a real life situation I would consider hiding in a dim light just as difficult as hiding in thick fog: if you have been in a wood nighttime at 30 ft is hard to distinguish shapes, furthermore if you want to conceal your presence it makes a lot of difference if you can see the guy you want to hide from. Conversely in an empty room with the same lighting conditions the feat would be almost impossible to accomplish. This kind of situations requires rule zero to be applied because there are a lot of factors more relevant than visibility: in a wood nighttime if you could fly you wouldn't make any noise, I would consider that better than ever invisibility at 90ft

[Crake]

This is why 3.5's hide/move silently is infinitely better. Trying to combine it all down to stealth vs perception means things like invisibility apparently also come built in with sound dampening, because +20 stealth from being invisible apparently also makes you quieter.

You're right that pathfinder's stealth system is stupid, it's a result of combining multiple skills that aren't actually related in function, but only in goal. You can be quiet but not sneaky, and you can be sneaky but not quiet, but pathfinder directly correleates the two, as well as the senses used to detect the two.

[mogonk]

I agree. Many players of 3.5, Pathfinder and even 5e think the game rules have to be able to replicate EVERY situation EVER. This is not physics groundwork, this is a tabletop RPG. While its rules are extensive that we have quite a few university level physics books that contain less formulae and rules, they are still not meant to allow simulating reality but merely as a way to judge how combat works and how the supernatural cosmos works.
RAW is actually more complex than the common sense change here: treating all conditions where you can't see someone the same. Why do we have separate rules for magical invisibility and invisibility due to conditions? The simple solution is to treat both the same. I'm not asking for more rules to account for different situations, I'm asking for fundamentally identical situations to use the same rules. I'm saying there should be fewer distinct case rules, not more. See?

Oh I see, if you redefine the terms to mean whatever you want them to mean, then of course there is a problem!

One does not preclude the other and total concealment is defined as a 50% chance to hit per rules.
I'm not redefining anything. That is the one and only definition of total concealment in the rules. There is no other definition. What are you claiming the definition of total concealment is, and what is your source?

This is why 3.5's hide/move silently is infinitely better. Trying to combine it all down to stealth vs perception means things like invisibility apparently also come built in with sound dampening, because +20 stealth from being invisible apparently also makes you quieter.

You're right that pathfinder's stealth system is stupid, it's a result of combining multiple skills that aren't actually related in function, but only in goal. You can be quiet but not sneaky, and you can be sneaky but not quiet, but pathfinder directly correleates the two, as well as the senses used to detect the two.

Yep. This is the fundamental source of the problem. The mission statement of simplification completely broke stealth. But the terrible wording and jumbled definitions aren't helping either. Hell, look at this thread. Half the people defending the system in Pathfinder are defending their houserules without even realizing it, because the RAW is so absurd that most people just gloss right over how it's actually supposed to work and assume it makes way more sense than it does.

I believe the first example is flawed. Spells give effects such as "total concealment" without hiding you completely, just like the Displacement spell gives the miss chance "as if you had total concealment", instead of just listing an untyped miss chance, which means the total concealment isn't excusively used for when you're not visible. The Fog Cloud spell could very much just delineate general shadows as common dense fog does, and those are visible(even though they're hard to see). You're still treated as "not having line of sight" because the creature can't see you, just a blur on your general location.

Still, I see your point, and to be honest the rules are like they are because of game balance. Stealth already has the game stacked in its favor(not everyone has Perception, but every stealthing character invests heavily on the skill; size bonuses; feats and class abilities apply; etc), adding another extra layer of "you lose" to anyone that doesn't focus on Perception is a kick in the nuts. Say what you want about realism, the moment that someone gets instagibbed because of "realistic house rules" there'll be salt, and you can't complain when the party decides to never ever enter any place in which they can't see very well.
Which is why it says "as if you had total concealment" and not "it gives you total concealment". Because total concealment is defined as, and only as, not having line of sight to the target. There is no other definition in the rules.

This is not due to game balance. This is a problem with mundane stealth, with using the stealth skill. Rogue and ninja are among the weakest classes in the game. The strongest classes in the game have access to low level spells that produce magical invisibility, which actually works. If anything, this further unbalances the game in favor of magic users.

[Psyren]

You can be quiet but not sneaky, and you can be sneaky but not quiet, but pathfinder directly correleates the two, as well as the senses used to detect the two.

And?

The benefits of trimming skill bloat by eliminating Hide/Move Silently/Spot/Listen while simultaneously enabling skill checks that use the remaining senses, outweigh the need to throw out an odd circumstance penalty or bonus here and there to cover edge situations where only (a) one sense can be used and (b) that sense has different modifiers to the others at that moment.


TL;DR: it's a game, chill out.

^

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I agree that being denied a key sense should impose a penalty on opposed perception checks. If we're in a house ruling mood, however, there is a closer analogue than invisibility with a less extreme modifier. The Blinded condition imposes a -4 penalty on opposed perception checks and automatic failure on perception checks that rely on sight. In the case of a hiding creature outside of a field of Silence, senses such as hearing are involved, so it's just the -4.

In terms of RAW benefits, there is also the fact that a noticed creature with full concealment is still not observed and therefore may immediately attempt to hide again with no special tricks or penalties.

Also, regarding 3.5's stealth system, let's not pretend that move silently works perfectly as written. Given equal dex and skill, Godzilla and a gecko have the same chance of moving silently. Through consolidation, PF happened to fix that lack-of-size-modifier silliness.

[mogonk]

I agree that being denied a key sense should impose a penalty on opposed perception checks. If we're in a house ruling mood, however, there is a closer analogue than invisibility with a less extreme modifier. The Blinded condition imposes a -4 penalty on opposed perception checks and automatic failure on perception checks that rely on sight. In the case of a hiding creature outside of a field of Silence, senses such as hearing are involved, so it's just the -4.

In terms of RAW benefits, there is also the fact that a noticed creature with full concealment is still not observed and therefore may immediately attempt to hide again with no special tricks or penalties.
That's fair, but you're missing the fact that blindness actually makes you auto-fail vision based checks. So does the -4 fully represent the difficulty of detecting someone without vision at all? Or is detecting them in that circumstance a "vision based check"?

At my table, all of these conditions are treated the same. If someone is not visible, they are invisible, period. Doesn't matter if it's due to blindness, concealment, or invisibility. If you can't see them, you can't see them. This is the strongest ruling from the standpoint of verisimilitude and simplicity, in my opinion. But I could totally understand someone taking a different position. What I can't understand are the people defending RAW.

Regarding trying to hide again, that's a very contentious point. True, the stealth skill says you can't hide while being observed. But the partial concealment rule says you can hide in partial concealment. When rules contradict you favor specific over general, right? But does that mean concealment rules trump stealth rules? Or does it mean the clause related to being directly observed trumps the concealment rules? Evaluating which of these is more specific is not clear cut.

And again, this is the fault of the developers. It would have been so easy to add the words "except when being directly observed" to the concealment entry, or the words "except when concealed" to the stealth entry. It's just sloppy and poorly thought out. I'd totally forgive it in a first printing, but there have been something like 6 revisions of the core rulebook at this point. It's crazy.

[Elkad]

3.5's isn't much better.
Just adding MS vs listen doesn't fix much.
Moreover, why doesn't flying give a move silent bonus? Or size?

And feats like Darkstalker make it even worse, because they just NOPE certain abilities.


We really need an overcomplicated grid arrangement if we want accuracy. With 4 possible results. Undetected, Detected (it's in the area), Located (what square(s) it's in), Aware (you are fully aware of it's actions - so aren't flatfooted, avoid miss chance, etc).

Stealther would have a difficulty based on degree of visibility, noise, odor, if he displaces air, vibrates the ground, etc.
Observer would get a bunch of bonuses based on abilities in sight, hearing, scent, tremorsense, etc.
All of course modified by ambient conditions. Absolute darkness? No vision bonus. Noisy? Listen penalty (this one is weird, because you can actually detect a perfectly silent corporeal creature via hearing, via either echolocation or occlusion of background noise).

If a wolf can locate a human by smell, a human should be able to locate a troglodyte by smell.
If a stealthing poison dusk lizardfolk is observed via darkvision, why should his chameleon ability apply?

[mogonk]

We really need an overcomplicated grid arrangement if we want accuracy. With 4 possible results. Undetected, Detected (it's in the area), Located (what square(s) it's in), Aware (you are fully aware of it's actions - so aren't flatfooted, avoid miss chance, etc).

And this is where the criticism that doing better than Pathfinder requires being "too fiddly" comes in.

We don't have to make a perfect stealth system to do better than Pathfinder. I'm not asking for perfect. I'm asking for consistent. All it takes is a single rule for all conditions where you can't see someone that applies in all conditions where you can't see someone. All it takes is one line in the entry for the invisible condition:


If a creature is not visible, it is invisible.

Boom. Problem solved. Not perfect, but at least sane.

[Psyren]

We really need an overcomplicated grid arrangement if we want accuracy. With 4 possible results. Undetected, Detected (it's in the area), Located (what square(s) it's in), Aware (you are fully aware of it's actions - so aren't flatfooted, avoid miss chance, etc).

Funny you mention that, because that's exactly what Starfinder ended up with via their "States of Awareness" system. They have all four of the states you mentioned, just with different names: "Unaware", "Aware of Presence", "Aware of Location" and "Observing."

[Rynjin]

My solution is actually way less fiddly: treat all instances where a character is not visible as the character being invisible. In other words, I think it SHOULD work the way that you've always thought it DID work. The main reason you're disagreeing with me is that you don't actually understand the way it works RAW.


And this is where the criticism that doing better than Pathfinder requires being "too fiddly" comes in.

We don't have to make a perfect stealth system to do better than Pathfinder. I'm not asking for perfect. I'm asking for consistent. All it takes is a single rule for all conditions where you can't see someone that applies in all conditions where you can't see someone. All it takes is one line in the entry for the invisible condition:



Boom. Problem solved. Not perfect, but at least sane.

Okay, assume you're correct. Then what? What purpose does this thread serve?

Your insight on this matter is to point out that the clear RAI, backed up by developer commentary and the "houserule" of almost literally everyone who plays the game doesn't match the RAW. This is true for a multitude of things.

Maybe this thread serve a purpose if you come up with a novel and interesting solution, but your master plan only reiterates the houserule that everybody else ALREADY USES, meaning even your proposed solution has no value; it is already in play at most tables.

Although weirdly it doesn't address the gripe about sound based Perception being (supposedly) too easy you kept complaining about up thread.

Of course, an easy argument can be made that you're not correct in any case; a Blind creature is defined as one that "cannot see" (full text below).


The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength– and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.

Most of these drawbacks are complete mirrors of the benefits an invisible creature gains:


Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents’ Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See the invisibility special ability. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/special-abilities/#TOC-Invisibility)

And there is strong precedent in the rules for one condition being used for multiple effects to consolidate similar effects (drunk characters have the Sickened condition, for example), so it is at least perfectly clear that a creature who CANNOT SEE (such as having their eyes closed, or being in a Deeper Darkness field) is Blinded.

From there it is no large leap to say that by some conjunction of the two rules, if one creature cannot see another creature, the latter is either treated as Invisible (hereby defined as "undetectable by vision") or the former is treated as Blind against the latter; the result is identical in any case.

And if that ends up not being perfectly RAW...well quite frankly who gives a ****? Everyone understands what is meant, and it will never be changed since Pathfinder is now the defunct edition of the game. You missed the boat on trying to get something actually changed, so what does complaining about such an insignificant discrepancy between RAW and RAI actually accomplish.

TL;DR: Same as last time.

[mogonk]

Okay, assume you're correct. Then what? What purpose does this thread serve?

Your insight on this matter is to point out that the clear RAI, backed up by developer commentary and the "houserule" of almost literally everyone who plays the game doesn't match the RAW. This is true for a multitude of things.

Maybe this thread serve a purpose if you come up with a novel and interesting solution, but your master plan only reiterates the houserule that everybody else ALREADY USES, meaning even your proposed solution has no value; it is already in play at most tables.
1. There is no such developer commentary. There is no FAQ/errata/developer comment to address this issue. There is a dev comment to establish that sneak attack works from stealth, there is no dev comment to indicate that total concealment gives any bonus to stealth. It would make me really happy if that were true, but it isn't.
2. If the RAI were clear, everybody would agree on it. They don't. Everybody isn't using the same houserule. A ton of people consider total concealment true invisibility. But even more people give the bonus to stealth from invisibility, but don't deny targets their dex based on concealment. Google "does total concealment deny dex bonus" and read a few threads from various forums. There is total confusion on this. And many PFS DMs still play it RAW, btw.
3. I think if you apply the "what purpose does this thread serve" standard to most threads on this forum, they'll fail. What purpose do your posts in this thread serve? See what I mean? I'm pointing out a problem in the Pathfinder rules, no more, no less. Why does that bother you?

[Ellrin]

All great examples for why you should be detectable. But again, doesn't make any sense that being denied the ability to see you makes no difference in their ability to detect you. It's like the difference between being blind and not being blind. Can a blind person guess exactly where you are? Sure. Is it harder? Of course.

And combat is not the only situation where this matters. Say they have no idea that you're there. Why is there only a tiny circumstance bonus distinguishing "low light" (they can't see well) from "darkness" (they can't see at all)? Particularly when actual invisibility gives such a massive bonus, ostensibly on the exact same basis: that they can't see you?

It's nuts.

I had a long reply written, but it got eaten when I tried to confirm something in another tab, so I'll try to boil it down to tl;dr. I apologize if any of it seems abrupt because of that, and I'm dropping most of my examples.

As I stated previously, the Perception skill encompasses too many functions to list every possible situational adjustment in its description, which is why DM adjudication is required. You can call that house rules if you like, but I believe that by RAW that kind of highly situational on-the-fly judgment call is built into the entire game, which is the entire reason we have a DM in the first place. Skill adjustments in their descriptions are meant as examples, not a full list of every possible situation. Making a flat adjustment based on, e.g. total concealment is impossible because of the wide variety of superhuman (and subhuman) senses that the game includes; so adjustments must be made based on several variables (a dog or even an alert, trained human would get little to no penalties, while a drunk dwarf not looking for anyone with no training or bonuses might get a severe penalty).

If anything, the invisibility bonus is the real issue, since it's merely a legacy left over from when the bonus was to your Hide check (opposed by your opponent's Spot check), and conferred zero bonuses against other methods of detection. In fact, in 3.5, it was less effective than total concealment, since by definition a completely concealed creature could not be seen, period, while an invisible creature theoretically could, even while standing still for the full +40 bonus. With the streamlined Perception vs Stealth mechanic, giving the invisible creature the same flat bonus is actually kind of stupid.

[BassoonHero]

It sounds like the root of the problem isn't stealth, exactly, but rather perception. 3.PF doesn't have a very robust system for handling senses. Instead, the rules for humanlike senses are largely unwritten and operate by common-sense, which provides unclear guidance when it comes to high skill bonuses and magical effects. The rules for "extraordinary" senses like scent or blindsight are special cases that don't work well with the core stealth/perception mechanics; they're often arbitrary trump cards versus stealthy PCs who then have to pick up their own arbitrary trump cards (e.g. Darkstalker) just to compete.

This is one case where I think the designers tried to make the system too simple, and as a result it's overcomplicated. That is, it works fine for a party of PCs with no inherent extraordinary senses who occasionally run into a creature with tremorsense, but when PCs and monsters alike are packing magical senses and magical concealment, then a more sophisticated system might actually be less complicated and easier to work with.

A robust perception system should explicitly answer the following questions:

- What is a sense? What senses do typical humans have?
- How does each sense work individually? How does perception work when several senses may apply?
- How is perception affected when one sense is impaired or inapplicable?
- How does perception work for a creature that lacks a typical human sense or has extraordinary senses?

Mutants and Masterminds has a very sophisticated system that could handle any D&D sense with ease and fidelity. In fact, a D&D sensory framework could be much simpler while still nailing the common cases and handling the tricky ones.

[Psyren]

If the specific circumstance is that invisibility's +20 bonus to Stealth wouldn't make sense (because e.g. invisible subject A is being perceived in that circumstance by observer B using a nonvisual sense) then you simply apply a -20 circumstance penalty to negate A's bonus respective to B, and proceed with the game as normal. Seems easy enough to me.

(Circumstance.)

[Dr_Dinosaur]

It sounds like the root of the problem isn't stealth, exactly, but rather perception. 3.PF doesn't have a very robust system for handling senses. Instead, the rules for humanlike senses are largely unwritten and operate by common-sense, which provides unclear guidance when it comes to high skill bonuses and magical effects. The rules for "extraordinary" senses like scent or blindsight are special cases that don't work well with the core stealth/perception mechanics; they're often arbitrary trump cards versus stealthy PCs who then have to pick up their own arbitrary trump cards (e.g. Darkstalker) just to compete.

This is one case where I think the designers tried to make the system too simple, and as a result it's overcomplicated. That is, it works fine for a party of PCs with no inherent extraordinary senses who occasionally run into a creature with tremorsense, but when PCs and monsters alike are packing magical senses and magical concealment, then a more sophisticated system might actually be less complicated and easier to work with.

A robust perception system should explicitly answer the following questions:

- What is a sense? What senses do typical humans have?
- How does each sense work individually? How does perception work when several senses may apply?
- How is perception affected when one sense is impaired or inapplicable?
- How does perception work for a creature that lacks a typical human sense or has extraordinary senses?

Mutants and Masterminds has a very sophisticated system that could handle any D&D sense with ease and fidelity. In fact, a D&D sensory framework could be much simpler while still nailing the common cases and handling the tricky ones.

The important caveat here is that this expanded ruleset for sensory awareness cannot require multiple skill investments, else it nerfs skill users compared to the already-superior magic users

[VelociRapture12]

So I think this was overlooked.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/perception

It doesn't give the check a +20 to the DC but, it does make it harder for a creature to see in terrible conditions.
Also if the check to see a stealthing creature happens in the middle of a combat I would say that the other +5 from being distracted fits. I do think that under the circumstances listed in your first post that the total DC to find someone attempting to stealth in a fog cloud would be =The total roll +5 for terrible conditions (+another 5 if combat it occurring at that time.)

[mogonk]

It sounds like the root of the problem isn't stealth, exactly, but rather perception. 3.PF doesn't have a very robust system for handling senses.

Fair criticism, but this particular point could be addressed very easily by just changing the circumstance penalty in the perception entry that reads "creature or object is invisible" to "creature or object is not visible". RAI may very well have been that invisible in that context means "not visible", but there's no way to tell for sure.

So I think this was overlooked.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/perception
Subjectively, I feel it's too small a penalty. More substantively, what happens when actual circumstances are "terrible" in addition to the creature not being visible? You have to go off chart and start making up numbers. Relying on your GM to make ad hoc calls like that in a consistent, fair way without table bickering over details sucks. Robust, clear rules prevent that.

[Elkad]

Funny you mention that, because that's exactly what Starfinder ended up with via their "States of Awareness" system. They have all four of the states you mentioned, just with different names: "Unaware", "Aware of Presence", "Aware of Location" and "Observing."

I'll have to take a look at it.

Of course 3.5/pf have all those states as well, they just aren't listed so you have to infer them.


Does StarFinder address the many kinds of perception?
Sight, touch, taste, smell, hearing, radar, lifesense, telepathy, etc?

Of course some of those could actually be condensed. Hearing is just super-sensitive touch perception concentrated in a couple holes in your head, tremorsense is the same (possibly in your feet?).
Taste/smell are very closely intertwined as well.
Radar is related to vision (electromagnetic spectrum). So is darkvision. Or the 1e/2e infra and ultra vision.
Lifesense? Who knows what that is?(emission of Positive energy?)

Does invisibility work on high and low frequencies? Are you immune to sunburn and x-rays? Can you feel the warmth of the fire on your face when you stand near it?

[Ellrin]

Does invisibility work on high and low frequencies? Are you immune to sunburn and x-rays? Can you feel the warmth of the fire on your face when you stand near it?

Invisibility is an illusion, so you probably aren't immune to sunburn and x-rays, unless electromagnetic radiation isn't immune to illusions. (I'm pretty sure all energy is, though I couldn't tell you a page number offhand.)

[upho]

I've spent more hours than I care to admit researching this, and I can't find any FAQs/errata/or dev posts to contradict what I'm about to say. If you have, please tell me! It would make my day.Uh... So your problem is that the rules don't explicitly spell out that if you don't have line of sight to a creature it's invisible to you? I mean, that's the very definition of the word "invisible (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/invisible)", so why do you assume the rules say otherwise when nothing implies they do?

And that the game term "total concealment" also (usually) translates into the game term "invisible" is at the very least strongly implied in the rules for concealment (https://www.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Concealment&Category=Combat%20Modifiers) and the Perception skill (https://www.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ItemName=Perception), not to mention the invisible condition (https://www.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Conditions&Category=Combat) and special ability (https://www.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Invisibility&Category=Special%20Abilities) (my emphasis):

"Invisible (https://www.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Conditions&Category=Combat): Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against a sighted opponent, and ignores its opponent’s Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). See Invisibility, under Special Abilities."

Invisibility (https://www.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Invisibility&Category=Special%20Abilities)
"A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something’s there” but can’t see it or target it accurately with an attack. It’s practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature’s location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity."

So yes, if a creature cannot see you, you're invisible to that creature, just as IRL according to the normal definitions of the words. In the game, it means the creature doesn't have line of sight to you, which in turn means you (typically) have total concealment from that creature. Whether the invisibility/lack of line sight/total concealment is provided by mundane means (dense fog, a blizzard, darkness, a curtain, whatever) or magic means (invisibility, fog cloud, etc) is completely irrelevant; it still grants a +20/40 to the Stealth check/Perception DC. Invisibility isn't something only granted by supernatural or magic abilities, but also by the very same simple mundane methods and circumstances as IRL.

Perhaps most importantly, all related rules mechanics work well in accordance with the above, while many of them work poorly or not at all if you assume that "mundane" invisibility doesn't grant the +20/40 Stealth bonus/Perception DC modifier, as your own example shows.

So no house rules needed.


So IOW:
Total concealment is completely different in concept. Total concealment means it is impossible to see you. There is literally no line of sight to you. You can't be targeted in most cases. When you can be targeted, there's a 50% miss chance, just like invisibility. And that makes sense, because you are literally not visible.Precisely.

So what exactly are you if you're not visible?

Two (https://www.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Conditions&Category=Combat) hints (https://www.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Invisibility&Category=Special%20Abilities).


But the perception check to "see" you in total concealment is exactly the same. The stealth check is exactly the same. RAW, there is no benefit to stealth from the fact that nobody can see you.No:

Perception DC modifier table "Creature or object is invisible: +20"
Stealth skill rules: "If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you’re moving."
Concealment rules: "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)."
Above quoted invisible (https://www.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Conditions&Category=Combat) and Invisibility (https://www.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Invisibility&Category=Special%20Abilities) rules.
Various parts/tables in the combat general rules and specific rules for related spells/abilities/powers etc.


I think the reason you're confusing this is because there are plenty of means to gain invisibility in the game which aren't possible IRL, and thus the related +20 Stealth bonus/Perception DC modifier are spelled out in those supernatural exceptions which are referenced by other parts of the rules, assuming that players understand that things which IRL grant invisibility (=removes line of sight) do so also in the game. And possibly because a successful Stealth check against creatures means they "treat you as if you had total concealment total concealment", while being invisible (https://www.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Conditions&Category=Combat) is per definition total concealment (https://www.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Concealment&Category=Combat%20Modifiers) and vice versa. So you only gain the +20 (or +40) if you actually have total concealment (= creatures lack line of sight to you = you're invisible).