Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Stealth Skill Playtest

DumbPaladin

First Post
Why would you need to make a roll each round to maintain your stealthy use of Stealth?

"When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10."

If you're sneaking up on someone, or just trying to be quiet as you move around, you aren't in combat, and really only the GM would know if you are in "immediate danger", and there's currently only one skill for which you can't take 10: UMD.

So ... maybe it's just a good idea to take 10 instead of doing a bunch of rolling?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

IronWolf

blank
The second round of the Stealth Playtest is up on the Paizo site. They've added a new condition called hidden with this round.

Stealth Playtest said:
In case you missed it, a few weeks ago the Pathfinder design team previewed some changes we were considering making to the Stealth skill. Like any design endeavor, game design benefits from iteration. After letting all of you playtest the rules and let us know what you thought of the first draft, we went back to the drawing board and made some changes based on that fantastic feedback. In this round of playtesting, you'll find that we've cleared up some action issues. We have opened up the possibilities for using standard actions with the Stealth skill, as long as those standard actions do not attack creatures. In this way, the Stealth skill mirrors the rules found in the invisibility spell; at least as far as what actions you can attempt while you are hidden without automatically ending that condition.

Speaking of hidden, while we have kept the invisible condition, and have even strengthened the wording on that condition a bit, we have also created a lesser, connected condition called hidden. You gain the hidden condition when you benefit from Stealth, and you gain the invisible condition when you use a spell or effect that makes you visually undetectable, like the invisibility spell. Hidden is the base condition, and invisible is an upgrade of that condition.

Lastly, we have added some small language changes to explain how the hidden condition interacts with some universal monster rules dealing with senses—specifically blindsense, blindsight, scent, and tremorsense. Just like the last round of playtesting, keep in mind that these changes are not yet official. While you are free to use them in your home game—and we would like you to do so—these changes are not yet ready for Pathfinder Society play. This time around we are going to give you two weeks to playtest and comment on these proposed changes, so tell us what you think sometime before September 26th. We'll announce the final version in the Design Tuesday blog sometime after the playtest is completed, and make changes to the rules using the Pathfinder RPG FAQ system.

Follow the link for the actual rules.
 

TheAuldGrump

First Post
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."
Then I would have to put in a house rule that unconscious barbarians lose rage.

Sorry, but if you are unconscious you aren't raging. Snoring? Maybe.

A feat that allows raging while in the grip of Morpheus, that I can suspend my disbelief long enough to accept - but it should be the exception, not the rule.

As far as I am concerned it was a really good idea.

The Auld Grump
 

Nightson

First Post
On the Barbarian issues, instead of having rage increase con, they could just have it give temp hp and boost fort saves to what the equivalent amount would be.
 

Walking Dad

First Post
...

Sorry, but if you are unconscious you aren't raging. Snoring? Maybe.

...
This is reality vs playability.

Everyone has to choose his own side.

As for the new article:

No penalty to the bluff check. The changes also require a rewrite of the concealment rules, as 'Ignoring Concealment' references invisibility.
 

StreamOfTheSky

Adventurer
Then I would have to put in a house rule that unconscious barbarians lose rage.

Sorry, but if you are unconscious you aren't raging. Snoring? Maybe.

A feat that allows raging while in the grip of Morpheus, that I can suspend my disbelief long enough to accept - but it should be the exception, not the rule.

As far as I am concerned it was a really good idea.

The Auld Grump

I disagree. Someone could be raging while unconscious. In real life, I livedwith someone that had pretty bad nightmares often. He'd make sudden, very sharp and violent convulsions, growl unintelligible things, and sometimes even YELL words or names out loud. Seemed like he was possessed or something, sometimes scared the crap out of me. I imagine an unconscious raging barbarian would be like that.
 

IronWolf

blank
I disagree. Someone could be raging while unconscious. In real life, I livedwith someone that had pretty bad nightmares often. He'd make sudden, very sharp and violent convulsions, growl unintelligible things, and sometimes even YELL words or names out loud. Seemed like he was possessed or something, sometimes scared the crap out of me. I imagine an unconscious raging barbarian would be like that.

Not that I have anything to convince you, especially since I know from past posts you disagree heartily with barbarians coming out of rage when unconscious, but I agree with Auld Grump on this one.

It just doesn't make sense to me that a barbarian could continue his rage while unconscious by default. I know it seems silly to discuss what makes sense when we talk about a magic filled world of elves, but it is what it is! ;)
 


TheAuldGrump

First Post
I disagree. Someone could be raging while unconscious. In real life, I livedwith someone that had pretty bad nightmares often. He'd make sudden, very sharp and violent convulsions, growl unintelligible things, and sometimes even YELL words or names out loud. Seemed like he was possessed or something, sometimes scared the crap out of me. I imagine an unconscious raging barbarian would be like that.
Then that person had the feat.... :p

Why can't rage also be on a subconscious level, though?
Again, that would be having the feat.


The Auld Grump

*EDIT* I also do not have a problem with barbarians dying when they go out of rage because of the lost hit points when Con drops to normal, or when the go unconscious, lose rage, lose Con gained from Rage, lose the associated HP, and die.
 
Last edited:

Noumenon

First Post
I still have no idea what the new rules are trying to say. I wish they could all be as intuitive and easy to get as the "hidden" condition. Although I'd still like to know why there's a hidden condition -- is it so they can make hiding stronger? I think they should first post what they're trying to do in plain language, then post the rules garbage that backs it up.
 

StreamOfTheSky

Adventurer
I'm guessing it's the opposite -- to make the "mundane invisibility" hard coded to be weaker than the magical kind. But don't mind the pessimist, folks! :D
 

Noumenon

First Post
What I was trying to say was that if the benefit of hiding is weaker (you're not "invisible," only "hidden") then hiding itself can be stronger. For example, a magic item that lets you hide at will can be 50% cheaper because it doesn't also give you total concealment's 50% miss chance.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top