Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Stealth Skill Playtest

[Madeiner]

Yeah, but Hide in plain sight allows you to well, hide in plain sight.

I always thought that once you hide (behind cover) at least for the first round that you are moving out of cover, you still retain that stealth.
Otherwise melee rogues could almost never get a sneak attack from stealthing, unless the enemy happens to pass nearby your cover.

 

[tylermalan]

But you cannot 'get the worse condition' (able to hide) anymore. And making it bluff -10 vs Perception makes it practically impossible to do, without having already improved invisibility cast on you.

BTW, what was the old official condition for being hidden? Total Concealment?

Am I missing something?

Before: you make a stealth check and they can't see you.

Now: you make a stealth check and they can't see you.

...? The only difference seems to be that it is against perception instead of sense motive.

 

[Walking Dad]

the "-10" on the roll is also new. I just wanted to make clear that invisible is no new and more powerful condition.

 

[Reynard]

Dear Paizo: Incremental rules changes and patches are part of the problem of 4e. Please don't start aping that behavior. Pathfinder is fun and playable as is. Spend time and resources on a secondary setting, a strong non-AP module line or other "fluff" instead. Thanks.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I don't mind them fixing things, I actually like that they're willing to. I do, after all, harp on them constantly to just admit, "We screwed up. Monks can have full BAB and get their bodies enhanced as weapons." Or... "Ok, Barbs losing rage when they go unconscious was a really bad idea, and instead of feat taxing the problem away with Raging Vitality, we're going to be responsible adults and admit we were wrong and promptly eratta the issue away."

So I have no issues with revisiting Stealth rules. My issue is that they seem poised to make the skill even worse and riddled with really dumb/odd kinks, like rerolling your check each round when you're just hidin' behind some crate, or the bluff vs. perception thing.

 

[enrious]

I don't mind them fixing things, I actually like that they're willing to. I do, after all, harp on them constantly to just admit, "We screwed up. Monks can have full BAB and get their bodies enhanced as weapons." Or... "Ok, Barbs losing rage when they go unconscious was a really bad idea, and instead of feat taxing the problem away with Raging Vitality, we're going to be responsible adults and admit we were wrong and promptly eratta the issue away."

So I have no issues with revisiting Stealth rules. My issue is that they seem poised to make the skill even worse and riddled with really dumb/odd kinks, like rerolling your check each round when you're just hidin' behind some crate, or the bluff vs. perception thing.

^^ this.

I'd rather they worked on some of the more obvious (and apparently easier to fix) issues than stealth (I will never play a barbarian and we all laugh at the monk in our kingmaker campaign).

Oh and listen to the feedback Paizo, kthxbai.

 

[Noumenon]

It's definitely not an elegant solution, in that reading it I have no idea how it's supposed to work.

One thing that always bugged me in 3.5 was that you couldn't use Hide to get away from a combat because (it seemed to me) you needed to break line of sight and make your enemies distracted from you. Are these rules better for that?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's definitely not an elegant solution, in that reading it I have no idea how it's supposed to work.

One thing that always bugged me in 3.5 was that you couldn't use Hide to get away from a combat because (it seemed to me) you needed to break line of sight and make your enemies distracted from you. Are these rules better for that?

As of the additional info from Complete Adventurer, how it seemed to work in 3E was:

- You use Bluff to distract people if you're being observed
- If you are within 1 ft per rank in Hide of suitable cover/concealment to hide in, you're able to then move there and make your hide check. If you lack a suitable hiding area within range, you're out of luck.

 

[Arevashti]

It's a bit clearer, in terms of putting all the details out there. But it still needs work.

 

[1Mac]

I appreciate the clarification on the invisibility status, despite the somewhat clumsy wording. I agree that the Bluff vs. Perception thing is just weird. I'm not sure about needing to make Stealth checks even when not moving, though I'm leaning against the idea.