Oh no! Rules Lawyer is going the way of Paizo. "I cover mostly Pathfinder but also make content for DnD players." LOL. Honestly, great video. Thank you for covering this. It is a great example of how different the systems of DnD 5e and PF2 truly are. The only thing I would think to add is explaining the SEEK action. Keep up the good work!
I've played & run both 5E & PF2E. This actually helps clear up both & I intend to share. I also miss 4E's clarity of "No LoS to Hide, partial to maintain stealth."
I appreciate the clarification and homebrew suggestion. I've often been tempted to make a goblin character in 5e for the bonus action hide, but always end up feeling that there is so little benefit to hiding once you're already heavily obscured.
In hindsight I realized I probably should've said a word on surprise (I add a title onscreen about this) As is implied, the States of Awareness cover how to deal with unaware opponents. How to handle it should be clear from the combat demonstration next week. You prompted me to look at Pass Without Trace. Oh wow. What a nightmare for DMs.
I am glad that you made this video, as it was very well-timed for me personally. The reason being that I am a dungeon master in a proper full-length D&D campaign, and problems like this have been increasingly become apparent as I am getting more comfortable with the rules, which drives me mad. While I have never personally played Pathfinder or even read the rulebook, even though I very much consume and adore your content, I sort of intuitively house-ruled a surprisingly similar system in-game, when the problem became very apparent during one of our sessions. I would argue that it speaks very highly of the rule’s intuitiveness and that it feels like a completely sensible and natural, but elegant, way of handling it, while still making it a proper and tangible mechanic that adds depth to outside and inside combat, which is sorely lacking in D&D.
Thanks for the comment! I think 5e was a great evolution for fantasy RPGs in relation to 3.x/PF1, but PF2 has the clear advantage of being later. When 3rd Edition came around, a lot of players said that it used a lot of house rules they had been using. There was something 'natural' to its evolution. I think D&D would be remiss not to incorporate some of the innovations in PF2 in its next edition.
Hey RL, great vid keep the great vids comin... at 28:10 the Seek action in PF2 doesn't use an emanation, I assume you mean emanation when you say "or a 15' radius around yourself" .... the Seek action is either a cone, like you said OR a 15ft Burst starting in a point you can see.
It's either a 15' burst around you or a 30' cone. "If precision is necessary, the GM can have you select a 30-foot cone or a 15-foot burst within line of sight."
@@mrfikss Line of sight doesn't mean centered on you, that burst could be centered 60 feet away. If it had to be centered on the character it would be an emanation.
Looking forward to the second part, because I've been trying to figure out a way for surprise to be utilized a little better. Like I don't believe it should be just "surprise round" but a condition that is used which can give players advantage or lowering the AC of the target for that turn just reward tactics rather than standing there and taking a beating.
5E has it work like that. You don’t have a surprise round but the surprised condition, but since it hasn’t come up at my tables I don’t know exactly what it does beyond giving the surprised condition.
Part 2 should help! Should premiere on Monday or Tuesday! But the TLDR as to your question is to use the States of Awareness that are described in the video.
Thanks for the explainer! One thing that confused me in my PF game yesterday: doesn't the 6 seconds of free speech in a round remove the need for point out sometimes? How do they interact? Example: there was an enemy successfully hidden behind an overturned table when combat started, so undetected by the party. One party member uses two actions to move up to the table and a third to seek; they crit on the perception check and now observe the enemy. The party member is out of actions but hasn't spoken and says "there's a kobold behind the table." There's only one square on the battlemat that corresponds. So shouldn't all party members now know there's an enemy there, making the kobold hidden but not undetected, even though the first party member didn't use point out?
Enjoyed the video and have been enjoying watching the channel (especially as someone from 5e that has been looking into 2e). One interesting thing is that in the beginning of the video one of the thumbnails you showed of videos talking about better DnD combat (the one that said "How to level up your D&D combat"). I only mention this because the youtuber that made that video has actually stated in one of his recent live streams that his home game is switching to PF2e. I just thought that was an interesting coincidence.
I've been wondering about this exact topic (how other systems handle "surprise" and "hiding"). I play D&D 5e, and I feel I understand the rules for surprise/hide (I made a video about it), but I have been wondering about better ways to adjudicate such things without making it too easy to surprise enemies all the time. Thank you for the thorough summary of P2e compared to D&D 5e!
I'm glad it's helpful! I hope you enjoy next week's combat demonstration, which I think shows how to handle surprise in an intuitive way. It applies the States of Awareness and may not be as simple, but it is more intuitive/makes more sense. I try to cover a lot of other thorny situations :) You might enjoy my "12 Rounds of Combat" video for getting sneak attack, btw! It shows some PF2 rules which inspire some ideas for 5e!
I found this supee confusing. What I do, very smply, is Enemies have 2 states: Alert or not alert If they are alert, roll stealth vs their perception or investigation. Usually they are alert when expecting danger. If they are not alert, roll stealth vs passive perception. Success on either allows the winner to observe the other. You dont have to roll stealth again until after you've taken another action other than withdrawing or disengaging.
I went looking into the example of Hiding, Sneaking up to an enemy, then Striking the enemy, and even by PF2e it doesn't seem like that attack would have the benefit of your stealth because of one of the last lines of text for Sneak, "You don’t get to roll against a creature if, at the end of your movement, you neither are concealed from it nor have cover or greater cover against it. You automatically become observed by such a creature." Thus, at the end of your movement to next to the enemy within stabbing range, you immediately become observed before getting to stab (assuming no form of concealment or cover next to the target). Now, if I were GMing, I'd probably let you roll and check at the end of your turn if you still have concealment or cover so that you could ambush someone from stealth with a melee weapon. However, by RAW, it seems only a few circumstance (e.g. invisibility) or a couple high level feats would let you remain undetected after stopping next to an enemy to get a stab in.
I think you're right. I have tried to scan the (extensive) rules again and there seems to always be something preventing you from going into melee and staying hidden *as long as there's no cover/concealment* The TRUE difference between D&D 5E et PF 2E seems to be the ability to move from cover to cover/concealment to cover/concealment and staying hidden even in combat without needing GM generosity (as hiding in 5E seems to say foes in combat are alert and usually find you if you approach).
Cover need not be reciprocal, the classic example being an archer standing behind a low wall. In the case of a creature that you are Undetected to, I think for sure that cover would not apply against you. For example, if you are a Rogue attacking a creature around a corner who doesn't know that you're there, that wall corner has absolutely no effect on you. (I think that if you had bothered to become Hidden in the first place, the cover would not apply, either, unless there's a strong argument for it applying.)
*NEW UPDATE: See "Stealth rules in Dnd 5e were never published!" at th-cam.com/video/hdr6VCgaan4/w-d-xo.html PART 2 (COMBAT DEMONSTRATION) AT: th-cam.com/video/xDEHGP4RbcA/w-d-xo.html USEFUL FLOWCHART (creator unknown): media.discordapp.net/attachments/445719915333156864/802265943937122334/unknown.png CORRECTIONS: -Seek lets you target a 15' radius area ("15-foot burst") within line of sight. (It doesn't have to be around yourself.) --Uh oh, a rules contradiction in PF2! Pathfinder 2e's invisibility spell says you become Undetected to creatures. But the Invisible condition says: "If you’re already observing a creature when it becomes invisible, it starts out hidden, since you know where it was when it became invisible, though it can then Sneak to become undetected." The spell description doesn't work within the context of the PF2 system, so I think the latter (and my video!) win out here. :) But alas, it is an instance where PF2 has a contradiction. ADDITION: Would cover protect a defender if you snuck behind cover adjacent to them, thus possibly negating the benefit of catching them Flat-footed? I'd say generally no. Cover is not always reciprocal: If I successfully snuck to behind this wall corner, the wall's not really a problem for me in stabbing you. In general, if something stays at least Hidden, I'd rule no cover for the defender because they're not aware enough. (Also, it doesn't come up often and better to reward the player.) This is supported by the rulebook under 2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=461 I *SING* ABOUT SNEAK-ATTACKING!? You might enjoy my "12 Rounds of Combat" video for getting sneak attack, btw! It shows some PF2 rules which inspire some ideas for 5e! th-cam.com/video/SHcpmgPXxW8/w-d-xo.html
I also saw that the Invisibility spell says you become undetected immediately, but it also references the Invisible condition, which says "If you become invisible while someone can already see you, you start out hidden to the observer". I'm not sure if the text in the spell necessarily overrides the text in the Invisible condition.
I feel it's less a rules contradiction, and more based on whether or not you are observed. Cast Invisibility: become unobserved, or become hidden if someone was watching you.
I think the rules are right. Because you are casting invisibility while observed, you become hidden instead of undetected - though i think that if you would move out of your square, you can become undetected again.
@@DubWubby The Invisibility spell says: "the target becomes invisible. This makes it undetected to all creatures, though the creatures can attempt to find the target, making it hidden to them instead." PF2 is unambiguous about what "undetected means," and it doesn't condition this on not being observed first. So it is contradictory; but I think the Invisibility spell language is wrong and has to cede to in-world logic (and the rest of the book).
This is probably the wrong comments section to suggest this, but as someone who plays both games, i disagree with your thesis. The rules are very similar, and both games have the rules poorly explained in their respective rulebooks, 5e arguably more so (its split up into fragments in about 3 places in the book P.194 - unseen attackers and targets, p.177 - Hiding (bubble), P.192 - hide action) Hidden in P2e is the same as obfuscated (obscured or heavily obscured) in 5e, one is a flat check to overcome, the other imposes disadvantage. Undetected in P2e is the same as hidden in 5e. Cover/Concealment in P2e is the source of obfuscation in 5e (ie if you are behind a dense fog wall and cannot be seen (concealed), or behind a large rock (covered), you are heavily obscured). First 5e misconception: the DM adjudicates, yes, but the rules are clear that you need to be heavily obscured to try to hide (broken LOS). The wood elf has a feature that allows you to try to hide when lightly obscured by natural things (as in your example of branches), but that's it. Second misconception: the rules state that you can be revealed if you remove yourself from whatever is obscuring you (and lose the hidden state). When you do this, its easy for an enemy to see you if they're un occupied, but otherwise you would stay hidden. But if they are distracted (in combat with someone for example) then this auto detect doesn't apply. Misconception the third: invisibility gives advantage, yes, but hiding isn't combat specific. Normal invisibility disappears when attacking. The purpose is to be able to move undetected, not get a combat advantage. Further, you cant lose your heavy obfuscation when using greater invisibility, and therefore the auto detect cant happen. I will give you this: the core of what hidden is in 5e is not explicitly stated, and its infuriating to me. Its heavily implied that being hidden means to be both unseen and unheard, and to lose one of those nullifies the hidden condition; and that when hidden one's location is not known, but otherwise your location is known. But this is never actually expressly stated. Which is stupid. Crawford's take is a dumb one. Also, his twitter/sage advice isn't considered official rulings. See invisibility nullifies the point of obfuscation, therefore the disadvantage no longer applies, and the invisibility condition is nullified between the creature who can see invisibility and the invisible creature.
16:14 Very different from Pathfinder 1e, where you only need to be within cover or concealment at the end of turn, not end of action. I kind of don't like this, because it makes melee sneak attacks from stealth very difficult to achieve. Your target would practically have to be around the corner of a wall you can reach, or directly behind a curtain.
Yeah, there are feats that get around this tho (Goblin "Very Sneaky" at Level 1) or there are ways to use circumstance to get the desired effect (concealment, invisibility, making the target dazzled, grappled, etc.)
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG For real? I was hoping there wouldn't be a feat that did exactly this. For my game, I made it a house rule, except for the extra movement. Guess I'll buff this goblin feat to give 10 feet extra movement. Makes the next feat progression a little weaker on the movement side, but dropping the need for cover or concealment alone at Level 13 is very very strong.
What about invisible PC or creature who does not use sneak but simply a move action. Are there any penalties? And what about cases when said invisible creature is leaving footsteps on snow or sand :)
If you are not Sneaking, what's clear from the rules for Sneak is that you are hidden (Critical Failure effect of Sneak). If they leave footsteps, as a GM I would think they stay Hidden (not Undetected) if they can't overcome that problem. Maaaybe require the attacker to Seek and auto-succeed on it, depending on circumstances.
23:10 for the invisibility section, you say the trickster casts invisibility and that makes them hidden, but doesn't both the invisible condition and the invisibility spell explicitly state that it makes you undetected?
Alas, it does! Adding a correction. (With a caveat, however. This "breaks" the awareness system they set up and doesn't stand up to logic, as they see where you turned invisible. Language under the Invisible condition says you become Hidden. I think it's an artifact.)
He explained it correctly in the video. Text from the invisibility condition states: "If you become invisible while someone can already see you, you start out hidden to the observer (instead of undetected) until you successfully Sneak. You can't become observed while invisible except via special abilities or magic." 2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx?ID=26
Thanks for the Video. My wife and me are just getting started with Pathfinder 2E and she will play a rogue. If we unterstand the rules correct, she cannot hide and sneak up on an enemy for a stealth melee attack, because at the the end of the sneak action she needs to be concealed or in Cover? That would be a shame.
im not familiar with pf2e but playing a one shot tomorrow so want to figure some stuff out. so correct me if im wrong but the example you gave at the very beginning of why 5e's rules are confusing and unintuitive would have played out pretty much exactly the same if using pf2e rules instead? example Player: i use my action to sneak behind the pillar DM; ok you're unobserverd Player: i use my second action to sneak up to the target and my third to attack and because hes flat footed i get sneak attack DM: hold on you dont have cover anymore so the targets not flat footed player: huh?
In PF2, there is the Sneak action. If you end your Sneak in cover or concealment you can become undetected or at least stay hidden. (There are feats that remove the requirement to have cover or concealment at the end.) (Not mentioned, but also in 5e unless you're a Rogue it's an action to Hide and you have to wait until next turn to make an attack.)
amazing video still I have a question about deception - create a diversion first is: what is, if you use that as your first action, can you reach with 2 sneak action cover instead of needing only 1? and how does "Lengthy Diversion" work as it gives you hidden 1+ as duration, so how does the enemies doesn't notice you until at the end of your turn? further now; are concentrate or manipulate action ok during that time? like can you even cast like a spell, if it doesn't have any loud verbal componments?
I think that everything works well except that 20% and 50% roll on every attack that can ruin the flow of combat. Would it be a nice house rule to give -2 penalty on slightly concealed an -4 on totally concealed?
Say I cast invisibility before combat and thus am undetected to the enemies. If I cast another spell while invisible (say I cast dimension door), do the verbal components of the spell cause me to become hidden instead of undetected? I'm having a hard time finding an answer
First of all, remember that you need to maintain the undetected condition and not give yourself away before combat. But besides that, I'd say that the verbal spellcasting made you Hidden during the spell, but then you end up somewhere else and become Undetected.
not sure if this will get a reply but I'm so confused, isn't an enemies perception DC 10 + modifiers? I'm confused when you say the gm rolls the perception DC. There are so many ways I'm interpreting it. 1. PC Rolls D20 + Stealth modifier against enemy Perception DC (10 + Perception modifier), 2. PC rolls D20 + Stealth modifier against enemy roll D20 + Perception modifier, 3. PCs Stealth DC( 10 + Stealth Modifier) against enemy D20 roll + Perception modifier i honestly don't know what's correct or if its a combination of the examples listed. I heard that you only roll for things on your turn as well example of this.
One thing still remains unclear to me from this video. If a creature only has vision as a precise sense, and a second creature runs behind a wall that fully obscures the visuals of their bodies, are they instantly hidden?
Here's a question... Let's say for example that a human wizard is in a pitch dark room with an undedected creature (lets say ratkin for flavour) .. The ratkin is sneaking and he wants to sneak attack the wizard who is flat footed.. now the Wizard casts a spell with a light flash effect (which lasts just seconds) like Lightning Bolt. in that flash the room lights up and the Ratkin is missed but clearly seen in the flash...I'm guessing the Ratkin would be Hidden once the spell ends even thoe the flash gives the Wizard the exact location.. is this correct?
1. Ratking is Undetected but not Unnoticed in darkness? 2. Wizard without darkvision makes a blind guess where the Ratking is and casts Lighting Bolt? 3. Lighting Bolt spell does not state it illuminates the area so Ratking is undetected. 4. Spells like Light and Illuminate state they "shed bright light" or "emits" which would reveale the Ratking. 5. But yes, if DM rules Lighting Bolt made the Ratking Observed for that second of BLINDING BRIGHT LIGHT IN DARKNESS (flash bang!) the Ratking would drop from Undetected to Hidden. But I might be wrong
@@xezzee Yes and no... Even though it doesn't state as RAW that a lightning bolt gives of a light flash. Although this is common knowledge to be true.. the casting of the spell gives off a lowlight spell rune effect (Dr Strange Style) as mentioned in the the Lost Omens Travellers Guide PF2 book pages 76 and 77. So the ratking would be seen.
Hey ronald, how do you rule "disappearing behind a corner" types of situation? Do the character automatically become hidden? Or do they still have to roll hide check with greater cover bonus? Also unrelated to it, how about ranged attack from a corner? Do you make them take 1 action to lean out to negate the cover bonus? I'm playing a ranged rogue in pf2e and my group have some hick up about these, so i would greatly appreciate if you could help me!
If the enemy has line of sight to you you would follow the rules, find somewhere to hide (around the corner = cover which is a requirement of Hide unless you have it from a spell effect). Success = you're hidden = they're flat footed. If you're hidden to them , you can apply sneak attack damage. Apply cover as usual for being around the corner (they would get +* to AC but you would also get +* to your stealth check to hide).
The creature definitely ceases being observed. As to whether they're Hidden or Undetected? Well, the observer can't directly see what square they're in anymore. But it seems like an unimportant question because there are no abilities I'm aware of where you can target something that you don't have direct line of effect to. EDIT: If they're simply AT the corner (maintaining line of sight to the observer), yes they could Hide using the wall as cover bonus as Digger Old Mate says. Ranged attack around a corner: the Core Rulebook strongly suggests you spend 1 action to lean out. I personally have not been running it that away, as I think that characters that Sneak up behind cover adjacent to an enemy should not have to worry about cover bonus to AC of their flat-footed target. I just want to stay thematically consistent and it doesn't strike me as overpowered (and it makes terrain more important).
If they're not heard, the master is definitely undetected. The familiar would become hidden or observed, as I think the origin point of the spell should be obvious
I'm not sure I'd add any of this into 5e; what's written isn't in the PHB great, but everyone is used to the common-sense homebrew that has emerged to improve it. I can't see most of my groups wanting to try something new even if it is an improvement. Were that the case, I would have succeeded in convincing them to switch to PF2!
7:10 - ...That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, and more proof that the 5e "designers" at WotC have no idea what the hell they're doing. The sheer number of times you used some variant of "it's up to the DM" is why I dislike 5e...
Unaware would describe the observer instead of the 'stealthing' creature. But I agree, I would've preferred an easier word to distinguish. (Not sure what it could've been though.)
Watching through this, I don't really see the problem, D&D 5e stealth is similar to a lot of ways to Pathfinder 2e, which alot of the same sort of "issues" and counter intuitive plays. Here's what I mean Invisible in 5e = hidden. They know the exact square but are harder to hit with attacks and can't be targetted by abilities that require sight. It clearly states on the condition that a creature's location is discernable. Anyone who runes invisible as undetected is using homebrew rules. 5e handles "hard to hit" differently than 2e and that's pretty much the only difference. Hiding goes from seen to undetected with a successful hide action. Undetected is played pretty much identical. You have disadvantage on the attack roll, and you have to guess the square. The only difference is the attack roll is not a secret, which is a design decision where 5e pretty much doesn't do secret rolls at all. The issue is 5e lumped unseen via invisible and unseen via hiding in the same section, and while they tried to specify there IS a difference in the next paragraph, the damage was done. See invisible does not prevent invisible attackers from having advantage against you. This was obvious day 1, and the whole "common sense" ruling, is just that - a homebrew rule for the sake of consistency/comfort. The original RAW ruling was clear from the start. See invisible also allows you to target invisible creatures with spells and abilities that require sight, which alot of them require sight so that spell is hardly useless when applying the correct ruling. Surprise not granting advantage from a successful stealth check: This is true, but as far as I can tell switching to Pathfinder 2e's stealth rules doesn't fix this. Rolling initiative with stealth in 2e doesn't seem to accomplish anything other than using a different initiative modifier unless you have the rogue's surprise attack feature. At least in 5e succeeding gives you an actual advantage. And both systems seem to have an equal disdain for attacking out of initiative so that's a toss up as well. Melee stealthing: Once again I struggle to see a benefit of switching to Pathfinder 2e. In order to melee someone in stealth you have to make another stealth roll, then move to a place that both provides standard cover AND is within melee range. I believe rogue's get a feat that makes this easier, but once again solutions for 1 class =/= solutions in general. Also if you have cover against a guy in melee range, they likely have cover against your melee strike, so you're flatfoot bonus is at best stopped by standard cover or at worst is a net minus for greater cover (rogues get sneak attack so it's still a benefit for them). Compared this hullaboo with just striding + potentially tumble through to get flanked and you quickly realize melee stealth in pathfinder 2e is as much of an afterthought as it is in 5e. I do like how the sneak rules are hammered out for repositioning through, THAT is something 5e needs, but it's clearly more a benefit for ranged characters creeping to a better position than a melee character trying to sneak up to a person a attacking from stealth.
Thanks for your detailed comment. Some responses: "It clearly states on the condition that a creature's location is discernable." I would argue that is not clear from the Invisible condition's language: "The creature’s Location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves." PHB "Invisibility... can't be targetted by abilities that require sight... See invisible also allows you to target invisible creatures with spells and abilities that require sight, which alot of them require sight so that spell is hardly useless when applying the correct ruling." If an invisible creature's location is clearly discernable, as you say, why is it not possible to target it until you cast see invisibility? I'm not understanding your distinction "that requires sight" if it includes "a lot" of abilities. "See invisible does not prevent invisible attackers from having advantage against you. This was obvious day 1, and the whole "common sense" ruling, is just that - a homebrew rule for the sake of consistency/comfort. The original RAW ruling was clear from the start." Many would argue that the "Specific beats general" principle means that See Invisibility's language "you see invisible creatures as if they were visible," negates the Invisible condition. It is counterintuitive, and violates the lore, to say that Invisibility is a condition inherent to a creature, without regard to whether the observers can see invisible creatures. "Surprise not granting advantage from a successful stealth check: This is true, but as far as I can tell switching to Pathfinder 2e's stealth rules doesn't fix this... " It does; it makes the target Flat-footed against the attacker. While it doesn't give them an additional "Surprised" condition to make them not act during the first round, yes. (Which some 5e players will agree is a clunky rule.) "Melee stealthing: Once again I struggle to see a benefit of switching to Pathfinder 2e. " At least it's clearly possible as written in PF2. As written in 5e's PHB, you can't do this without the DM handwaving it, and it gives no examples to give the DM guidance. "Also if you have cover against a guy in melee range, they likely have cover against your melee strike" Many GMs would not make cover both ways. Arrow slits are the classic example. If a character hides behind a building corner to be adjacent to their mark, I think the DM would make a bad call to say that cover applies to the rogue. Even if they did, flat-footed still gives a Rogue sneak attack damage.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG "The creature’s Location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves." To me that's clearly the equivalent of hidden, you know which square they are at, and nothing more than that. Hidden uses a similar language but uses the word "space", probably due to the fact that 2e is to be played on a grid and therefore can afford more "map based" language. But I can see "Location" as being rather vague, especially when compared to how specific "space" is. As for why you can't target a creature with a spell that's invisible even though you know their location, spells in 5e differentiate between target you can see vs just target. Hold Person requires a target you can see Destruction Wave only requires a target. You can destruction wave an invisible creature without see invisibility, you cannot hold person an invisible person without see invisibility. I might be wrong, but as far as I can tell, you don't get flatfoot from ambusing in 2e unless you are a rogue or a dedication with surprise attack class feature. Sure some people have creatures start out as hidden in 2e before initiative starts, but that's an out of combat interaction that is just as valid in 5e. If 2e characters can hide/sneak before combat to get hidden, there's no reason 5e characters can't hide before initiating the surprised round to get unseen AND surprise. Arrow slits are meant to be used on people that are still crossing the field to the wall. attacking someone from cover that you two are sharing is the equivalent of shooting someone from an arrow slit when they have already reached the wall and you are essentially trying to shoot parallel along the wall rather than forward into open ground. In this case, the creature hugging the wall should absolutely benefit from cover. The problem with melee is by design unless you have reach, any cover that you are using to gain stealth from the user is probably also shared by that creature. Shooting a guy in the open from chest high wall is cover for you and no cover for him. But if that guy is 5ft from you on the other side of wall, then that cover applies both ways. Maybe I'm just REALLY jaded, but when I look at the hullaboo of sneaking into melee (requiring cover, another stealth roll, etc) and comparing it to just trying to get flanked, I see it as Pathfinder 2e telling me "we don't really want this to happen often if at all, so we're just going to make it extremely complicated", and to me there's not just too much difference in practice between a bunch of hard to accomplish rules, and just saying "let the DM figure it out". Because after playing PFS for a while, I learn quickly that when there are this many levers of failure, it pretty much boils down to "the DM decides if this works or not" anyway. You say this is not intended and/or bad DMing, and I won't disagree with you, it just doesn't feel like there's that much of a benefit aside from porting over the sneak rules, which actually does help iron things out.
We are giving different meanings to "clear." The tax code is very clear in that it is unambiguous when a tax attorney looks at it. If you take the time to read it, it answers your questions in every instance. But to the vast majority of people, it isn't "clear" at all. Thankfully, PF2e's rules on stealth and hiding are less confusing than the tax code! Once one plays with PF2's rules a little while, they thankfully become intuitive. PF2 has a "learning curve," but as with learning a language around a specific purpose, once you learn it it comes naturally and becomes preferable because it adheres with what you're talking about. If the rules are confusing at first, it's because the topic (stealth and visibility) is complex!
Ngl, I was really drawn in by the concept. But then seeing that 30 minute video is PART 1 concerning ONLY sneaking/hiding, I'm out. Like in school, be succinct. Also 4 fonts on the thumbnail is a bit much.
Jeremy Crawfords take on See Invisibility is frankly a bad take and I'd never run it that way.
agree. Absolutely ridiculous.
yeah see invisibility is a circus and JC is a clown
Oh no! Rules Lawyer is going the way of Paizo. "I cover mostly Pathfinder but also make content for DnD players." LOL.
Honestly, great video. Thank you for covering this. It is a great example of how different the systems of DnD 5e and PF2 truly are. The only thing I would think to add is explaining the SEEK action.
Keep up the good work!
It's at 27:04 . Was there anything else about it I should've covered?
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG sorry, I guess I just missed that part somehow.
I've played & run both 5E & PF2E. This actually helps clear up both & I intend to share.
I also miss 4E's clarity of "No LoS to Hide, partial to maintain stealth."
I appreciate the clarification and homebrew suggestion. I've often been tempted to make a goblin character in 5e for the bonus action hide, but always end up feeling that there is so little benefit to hiding once you're already heavily obscured.
I went into this thinking you would cover surprise and how silly Pass without trace is.
In hindsight I realized I probably should've said a word on surprise (I add a title onscreen about this) As is implied, the States of Awareness cover how to deal with unaware opponents.
How to handle it should be clear from the combat demonstration next week.
You prompted me to look at Pass Without Trace. Oh wow. What a nightmare for DMs.
I am glad that you made this video, as it was very well-timed for me personally. The reason being that I am a dungeon master in a proper full-length D&D campaign, and problems like this have been increasingly become apparent as I am getting more comfortable with the rules, which drives me mad.
While I have never personally played Pathfinder or even read the rulebook, even though I very much consume and adore your content, I sort of intuitively house-ruled a surprisingly similar system in-game, when the problem became very apparent during one of our sessions.
I would argue that it speaks very highly of the rule’s intuitiveness and that it feels like a completely sensible and natural, but elegant, way of handling it, while still making it a proper and tangible mechanic that adds depth to outside and inside combat, which is sorely lacking in D&D.
Thanks for the comment! I think 5e was a great evolution for fantasy RPGs in relation to 3.x/PF1, but PF2 has the clear advantage of being later. When 3rd Edition came around, a lot of players said that it used a lot of house rules they had been using. There was something 'natural' to its evolution. I think D&D would be remiss not to incorporate some of the innovations in PF2 in its next edition.
Hey RL, great vid keep the great vids comin... at 28:10 the Seek action in PF2 doesn't use an emanation, I assume you mean emanation when you say "or a 15' radius around yourself" .... the Seek action is either a cone, like you said OR a 15ft Burst starting in a point you can see.
Correct on all counts. PF2 rules are better but, yes, much of the CRB is laid out/explained in a less-than-ideal way.
A clarification on Seek, it's not a radius around yourself it's a burst within line of sight.
It's either a 15' burst around you or a 30' cone.
"If precision is necessary, the GM can have you select a 30-foot cone or a 15-foot burst within line of sight."
@@mrfikss Line of sight doesn't mean centered on you, that burst could be centered 60 feet away. If it had to be centered on the character it would be an emanation.
Thanks! Adding a correction
Hang on a sec, you're doing another overly long combat tutorial going over the minutia of the rules?
Hell yeah!! Sign me up.
Well summarized, and a great idea for a video. Preach it! :D
Bats have great vision..lol. Great video i love PF2E rules. A little convoluted at times but thorough.
Looking forward to the second part, because I've been trying to figure out a way for surprise to be utilized a little better. Like I don't believe it should be just "surprise round" but a condition that is used which can give players advantage or lowering the AC of the target for that turn just reward tactics rather than standing there and taking a beating.
5E has it work like that. You don’t have a surprise round but the surprised condition, but since it hasn’t come up at my tables I don’t know exactly what it does beyond giving the surprised condition.
Part 2 should help! Should premiere on Monday or Tuesday!
But the TLDR as to your question is to use the States of Awareness that are described in the video.
I personally find it clunky that you can be surprised and be unable to act on your turn in Round 1, AND the enemy has advantage in attacking you.
Thanks for the explainer! One thing that confused me in my PF game yesterday: doesn't the 6 seconds of free speech in a round remove the need for point out sometimes? How do they interact?
Example: there was an enemy successfully hidden behind an overturned table when combat started, so undetected by the party. One party member uses two actions to move up to the table and a third to seek; they crit on the perception check and now observe the enemy. The party member is out of actions but hasn't spoken and says "there's a kobold behind the table." There's only one square on the battlemat that corresponds. So shouldn't all party members now know there's an enemy there, making the kobold hidden but not undetected, even though the first party member didn't use point out?
Enjoyed the video and have been enjoying watching the channel (especially as someone from 5e that has been looking into 2e).
One interesting thing is that in the beginning of the video one of the thumbnails you showed of videos talking about better DnD combat (the one that said "How to level up your D&D combat"). I only mention this because the youtuber that made that video has actually stated in one of his recent live streams that his home game is switching to PF2e. I just thought that was an interesting coincidence.
I've been wondering about this exact topic (how other systems handle "surprise" and "hiding"). I play D&D 5e, and I feel I understand the rules for surprise/hide (I made a video about it), but I have been wondering about better ways to adjudicate such things without making it too easy to surprise enemies all the time. Thank you for the thorough summary of P2e compared to D&D 5e!
I'm glad it's helpful!
I hope you enjoy next week's combat demonstration, which I think shows how to handle surprise in an intuitive way. It applies the States of Awareness and may not be as simple, but it is more intuitive/makes more sense. I try to cover a lot of other thorny situations :)
You might enjoy my "12 Rounds of Combat" video for getting sneak attack, btw! It shows some PF2 rules which inspire some ideas for 5e!
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG I'll check it out! And I look forward to the demo.
Thanks for doing this, nice video!
Thank you for the video. Wow that was good. I am just just a new PF2e GM comming throught btw.
I found this supee confusing.
What I do, very smply, is
Enemies have 2 states:
Alert or not alert
If they are alert, roll stealth vs their perception or investigation. Usually they are alert when expecting danger.
If they are not alert, roll stealth vs passive perception.
Success on either allows the winner to observe the other.
You dont have to roll stealth again until after you've taken another action other than withdrawing or disengaging.
Target is the word your looking for whilst describing Undetected.
What a great video, this is so much more clear
long live the concealed pickle goblin!
I went looking into the example of Hiding, Sneaking up to an enemy, then Striking the enemy, and even by PF2e it doesn't seem like that attack would have the benefit of your stealth because of one of the last lines of text for Sneak, "You don’t get to roll against a creature if, at the end of your movement, you neither are concealed from it nor have cover or greater cover against it. You automatically become observed by such a creature." Thus, at the end of your movement to next to the enemy within stabbing range, you immediately become observed before getting to stab (assuming no form of concealment or cover next to the target).
Now, if I were GMing, I'd probably let you roll and check at the end of your turn if you still have concealment or cover so that you could ambush someone from stealth with a melee weapon. However, by RAW, it seems only a few circumstance (e.g. invisibility) or a couple high level feats would let you remain undetected after stopping next to an enemy to get a stab in.
I think you're right. I have tried to scan the (extensive) rules again and there seems to always be something preventing you from going into melee and staying hidden *as long as there's no cover/concealment*
The TRUE difference between D&D 5E et PF 2E seems to be the ability to move from cover to cover/concealment to cover/concealment and staying hidden even in combat without needing GM generosity (as hiding in 5E seems to say foes in combat are alert and usually find you if you approach).
Cover need not be reciprocal, the classic example being an archer standing behind a low wall. In the case of a creature that you are Undetected to, I think for sure that cover would not apply against you. For example, if you are a Rogue attacking a creature around a corner who doesn't know that you're there, that wall corner has absolutely no effect on you. (I think that if you had bothered to become Hidden in the first place, the cover would not apply, either, unless there's a strong argument for it applying.)
*NEW UPDATE: See "Stealth rules in Dnd 5e were never published!" at th-cam.com/video/hdr6VCgaan4/w-d-xo.html
PART 2 (COMBAT DEMONSTRATION) AT:
th-cam.com/video/xDEHGP4RbcA/w-d-xo.html
USEFUL FLOWCHART (creator unknown): media.discordapp.net/attachments/445719915333156864/802265943937122334/unknown.png
CORRECTIONS:
-Seek lets you target a 15' radius area ("15-foot burst") within line of sight. (It doesn't have to be around yourself.)
--Uh oh, a rules contradiction in PF2! Pathfinder 2e's invisibility spell says you become Undetected to creatures. But the Invisible condition says: "If you’re already observing a creature when it becomes invisible, it starts out hidden, since you know where it was when it became invisible, though it can then Sneak to become undetected." The spell description doesn't work within the context of the PF2 system, so I think the latter (and my video!) win out here. :) But alas, it is an instance where PF2 has a contradiction.
ADDITION: Would cover protect a defender if you snuck behind cover adjacent to them, thus possibly negating the benefit of catching them Flat-footed? I'd say generally no. Cover is not always reciprocal: If I successfully snuck to behind this wall corner, the wall's not really a problem for me in stabbing you. In general, if something stays at least Hidden, I'd rule no cover for the defender because they're not aware enough. (Also, it doesn't come up often and better to reward the player.) This is supported by the rulebook under 2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=461
I *SING* ABOUT SNEAK-ATTACKING!?
You might enjoy my "12 Rounds of Combat" video for getting sneak attack, btw! It shows some PF2 rules which inspire some ideas for 5e!
th-cam.com/video/SHcpmgPXxW8/w-d-xo.html
I also saw that the Invisibility spell says you become undetected immediately, but it also references the Invisible condition, which says "If you become invisible while someone can already see you, you start out hidden to the observer". I'm not sure if the text in the spell necessarily overrides the text in the Invisible condition.
@@PatrickSon14 Hmm thanks, I think that's a rules contradiction. Updating my correction!
I feel it's less a rules contradiction, and more based on whether or not you are observed. Cast Invisibility: become unobserved, or become hidden if someone was watching you.
I think the rules are right. Because you are casting invisibility while observed, you become hidden instead of undetected - though i think that if you would move out of your square, you can become undetected again.
@@DubWubby The Invisibility spell says: "the target becomes invisible. This makes it undetected to all creatures, though the creatures can attempt to find the target, making it hidden to them instead." PF2 is unambiguous about what "undetected means," and it doesn't condition this on not being observed first.
So it is contradictory; but I think the Invisibility spell language is wrong and has to cede to in-world logic (and the rest of the book).
This is probably the wrong comments section to suggest this, but as someone who plays both games, i disagree with your thesis.
The rules are very similar, and both games have the rules poorly explained in their respective rulebooks, 5e arguably more so (its split up into fragments in about 3 places in the book P.194 - unseen attackers and targets, p.177 - Hiding (bubble), P.192 - hide action)
Hidden in P2e is the same as obfuscated (obscured or heavily obscured) in 5e, one is a flat check to overcome, the other imposes disadvantage. Undetected in P2e is the same as hidden in 5e. Cover/Concealment in P2e is the source of obfuscation in 5e (ie if you are behind a dense fog wall and cannot be seen (concealed), or behind a large rock (covered), you are heavily obscured).
First 5e misconception: the DM adjudicates, yes, but the rules are clear that you need to be heavily obscured to try to hide (broken LOS). The wood elf has a feature that allows you to try to hide when lightly obscured by natural things (as in your example of branches), but that's it.
Second misconception: the rules state that you can be revealed if you remove yourself from whatever is obscuring you (and lose the hidden state). When you do this, its easy for an enemy to see you if they're un occupied, but otherwise you would stay hidden. But if they are distracted (in combat with someone for example) then this auto detect doesn't apply.
Misconception the third: invisibility gives advantage, yes, but hiding isn't combat specific. Normal invisibility disappears when attacking. The purpose is to be able to move undetected, not get a combat advantage. Further, you cant lose your heavy obfuscation when using greater invisibility, and therefore the auto detect cant happen.
I will give you this: the core of what hidden is in 5e is not explicitly stated, and its infuriating to me. Its heavily implied that being hidden means to be both unseen and unheard, and to lose one of those nullifies the hidden condition; and that when hidden one's location is not known, but otherwise your location is known. But this is never actually expressly stated. Which is stupid.
Crawford's take is a dumb one. Also, his twitter/sage advice isn't considered official rulings. See invisibility nullifies the point of obfuscation, therefore the disadvantage no longer applies, and the invisibility condition is nullified between the creature who can see invisibility and the invisible creature.
16:14 Very different from Pathfinder 1e, where you only need to be within cover or concealment at the end of turn, not end of action. I kind of don't like this, because it makes melee sneak attacks from stealth very difficult to achieve. Your target would practically have to be around the corner of a wall you can reach, or directly behind a curtain.
Yeah, there are feats that get around this tho (Goblin "Very Sneaky" at Level 1) or there are ways to use circumstance to get the desired effect (concealment, invisibility, making the target dazzled, grappled, etc.)
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG For real? I was hoping there wouldn't be a feat that did exactly this. For my game, I made it a house rule, except for the extra movement. Guess I'll buff this goblin feat to give 10 feet extra movement. Makes the next feat progression a little weaker on the movement side, but dropping the need for cover or concealment alone at Level 13 is very very strong.
What about invisible PC or creature who does not use sneak but simply a move action. Are there any penalties? And what about cases when said invisible creature is leaving footsteps on snow or sand :)
If you are not Sneaking, what's clear from the rules for Sneak is that you are hidden (Critical Failure effect of Sneak).
If they leave footsteps, as a GM I would think they stay Hidden (not Undetected) if they can't overcome that problem. Maaaybe require the attacker to Seek and auto-succeed on it, depending on circumstances.
23:10 for the invisibility section, you say the trickster casts invisibility and that makes them hidden, but doesn't both the invisible condition and the invisibility spell explicitly state that it makes you undetected?
Alas, it does! Adding a correction. (With a caveat, however. This "breaks" the awareness system they set up and doesn't stand up to logic, as they see where you turned invisible. Language under the Invisible condition says you become Hidden. I think it's an artifact.)
He explained it correctly in the video. Text from the invisibility condition states:
"If you become invisible while someone can already see you, you start out hidden to the observer (instead of undetected) until you successfully Sneak. You can't become observed while invisible except via special abilities or magic."
2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx?ID=26
Thanks for the Video. My wife and me are just getting started with Pathfinder 2E and she will play a rogue. If we unterstand the rules correct, she cannot hide and sneak up on an enemy for a stealth melee attack, because at the the end of the sneak action she needs to be concealed or in Cover? That would be a shame.
im not familiar with pf2e but playing a one shot tomorrow so want to figure some stuff out.
so correct me if im wrong but the example you gave at the very beginning of why 5e's rules are confusing and unintuitive would have played out pretty much exactly the same if using pf2e rules instead?
example
Player: i use my action to sneak behind the pillar
DM; ok you're unobserverd
Player: i use my second action to sneak up to the target and my third to attack and because hes flat footed i get sneak attack
DM: hold on you dont have cover anymore so the targets not flat footed
player: huh?
In PF2, there is the Sneak action. If you end your Sneak in cover or concealment you can become undetected or at least stay hidden. (There are feats that remove the requirement to have cover or concealment at the end.)
(Not mentioned, but also in 5e unless you're a Rogue it's an action to Hide and you have to wait until next turn to make an attack.)
amazing video
still I have a question about deception - create a diversion
first is: what is, if you use that as your first action, can you reach with 2 sneak action cover instead of needing only 1?
and how does "Lengthy Diversion" work as it gives you hidden 1+ as duration, so how does the enemies doesn't notice you until at the end of your turn?
further now; are concentrate or manipulate action ok during that time? like can you even cast like a spell, if it doesn't have any loud verbal componments?
I think that everything works well except that 20% and 50% roll on every attack that can ruin the flow of combat.
Would it be a nice house rule to give -2 penalty on slightly concealed an -4 on totally concealed?
Say I cast invisibility before combat and thus am undetected to the enemies. If I cast another spell while invisible (say I cast dimension door), do the verbal components of the spell cause me to become hidden instead of undetected? I'm having a hard time finding an answer
First of all, remember that you need to maintain the undetected condition and not give yourself away before combat. But besides that, I'd say that the verbal spellcasting made you Hidden during the spell, but then you end up somewhere else and become Undetected.
not sure if this will get a reply but I'm so confused, isn't an enemies perception DC 10 + modifiers? I'm confused when you say the gm rolls the perception DC. There are so many ways I'm interpreting it.
1. PC Rolls D20 + Stealth modifier against enemy Perception DC (10 + Perception modifier),
2. PC rolls D20 + Stealth modifier against enemy roll D20 + Perception modifier,
3. PCs Stealth DC( 10 + Stealth Modifier) against enemy D20 roll + Perception modifier
i honestly don't know what's correct or if its a combination of the examples listed. I heard that you only roll for things on your turn as well example of this.
One thing still remains unclear to me from this video. If a creature only has vision as a precise sense, and a second creature runs behind a wall that fully obscures the visuals of their bodies, are they instantly hidden?
Here's a question... Let's say for example that a human wizard is in a pitch dark room with an undedected creature (lets say ratkin for flavour) .. The ratkin is sneaking and he wants to sneak attack the wizard who is flat footed.. now the Wizard casts a spell with a light flash effect (which lasts just seconds) like Lightning Bolt. in that flash the room lights up and the Ratkin is missed but clearly seen in the flash...I'm guessing the Ratkin would be Hidden once the spell ends even thoe the flash gives the Wizard the exact location.. is this correct?
1. Ratking is Undetected but not Unnoticed in darkness?
2. Wizard without darkvision makes a blind guess where the Ratking is and casts Lighting Bolt?
3. Lighting Bolt spell does not state it illuminates the area so Ratking is undetected.
4. Spells like Light and Illuminate state they "shed bright light" or "emits" which would reveale the Ratking.
5. But yes, if DM rules Lighting Bolt made the Ratking Observed for that second of BLINDING BRIGHT LIGHT IN DARKNESS (flash bang!) the Ratking would drop from Undetected to Hidden.
But I might be wrong
@@xezzee Yes and no... Even though it doesn't state as RAW that a lightning bolt gives of a light flash. Although this is common knowledge to be true.. the casting of the spell gives off a lowlight spell rune effect (Dr Strange Style) as mentioned in the the Lost Omens Travellers Guide PF2 book pages 76 and 77. So the ratking would be seen.
Hey ronald, how do you rule "disappearing behind a corner" types of situation? Do the character automatically become hidden? Or do they still have to roll hide check with greater cover bonus?
Also unrelated to it, how about ranged attack from a corner? Do you make them take 1 action to lean out to negate the cover bonus?
I'm playing a ranged rogue in pf2e and my group have some hick up about these, so i would greatly appreciate if you could help me!
If the enemy has line of sight to you you would follow the rules, find somewhere to hide (around the corner = cover which is a requirement of Hide unless you have it from a spell effect). Success = you're hidden = they're flat footed.
If you're hidden to them , you can apply sneak attack damage. Apply cover as usual for being around the corner (they would get +* to AC but you would also get +* to your stealth check to hide).
The creature definitely ceases being observed.
As to whether they're Hidden or Undetected? Well, the observer can't directly see what square they're in anymore. But it seems like an unimportant question because there are no abilities I'm aware of where you can target something that you don't have direct line of effect to.
EDIT: If they're simply AT the corner (maintaining line of sight to the observer), yes they could Hide using the wall as cover bonus as Digger Old Mate says.
Ranged attack around a corner: the Core Rulebook strongly suggests you spend 1 action to lean out. I personally have not been running it that away, as I think that characters that Sneak up behind cover adjacent to an enemy should not have to worry about cover bonus to AC of their flat-footed target. I just want to stay thematically consistent and it doesn't strike me as overpowered (and it makes terrain more important).
I wonder if people would let a spell casting Familiar Master using Familiar Conduit out of earshot stay hidden or undetected?
If they're not heard, the master is definitely undetected. The familiar would become hidden or observed, as I think the origin point of the spell should be obvious
D&D as well as any system built on microtransactions and no free main rules is dead to me, even though I started DMing in 1983
DND fix
when flying up it is considered difficult train or
Minus flying speed with falling speed .
it will work or flop ?
So you're calling for a check of some kind to succeed at flying upward?
In 2e you automatically can, but it is considered difficult terrain
I'm not sure I'd add any of this into 5e; what's written isn't in the PHB great, but everyone is used to the common-sense homebrew that has emerged to improve it. I can't see most of my groups wanting to try something new even if it is an improvement. Were that the case, I would have succeeded in convincing them to switch to PF2!
7:10 - ...That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, and more proof that the 5e "designers" at WotC have no idea what the hell they're doing.
The sheer number of times you used some variant of "it's up to the DM" is why I dislike 5e...
I wish "unnoticed" was called "unaware" because it seems much more obvious. Maybe not.
Unaware would describe the observer instead of the 'stealthing' creature. But I agree, I would've preferred an easier word to distinguish. (Not sure what it could've been though.)
Ugh are you trying to fix D&D now as a cheeky way to stick by your words in the last video about Paizo selling out?
This video was literally in production before paizo announced that stuff...
You could just go back to 3.5 or Pathfinder first edition. Or if you want even better developed, AD&D 2nd was even more developed.
Watching through this, I don't really see the problem, D&D 5e stealth is similar to a lot of ways to Pathfinder 2e, which alot of the same sort of "issues" and counter intuitive plays. Here's what I mean
Invisible in 5e = hidden. They know the exact square but are harder to hit with attacks and can't be targetted by abilities that require sight. It clearly states on the condition that a creature's location is discernable. Anyone who runes invisible as undetected is using homebrew rules. 5e handles "hard to hit" differently than 2e and that's pretty much the only difference.
Hiding goes from seen to undetected with a successful hide action. Undetected is played pretty much identical. You have disadvantage on the attack roll, and you have to guess the square. The only difference is the attack roll is not a secret, which is a design decision where 5e pretty much doesn't do secret rolls at all. The issue is 5e lumped unseen via invisible and unseen via hiding in the same section, and while they tried to specify there IS a difference in the next paragraph, the damage was done.
See invisible does not prevent invisible attackers from having advantage against you. This was obvious day 1, and the whole "common sense" ruling, is just that - a homebrew rule for the sake of consistency/comfort. The original RAW ruling was clear from the start. See invisible also allows you to target invisible creatures with spells and abilities that require sight, which alot of them require sight so that spell is hardly useless when applying the correct ruling.
Surprise not granting advantage from a successful stealth check: This is true, but as far as I can tell switching to Pathfinder 2e's stealth rules doesn't fix this. Rolling initiative with stealth in 2e doesn't seem to accomplish anything other than using a different initiative modifier unless you have the rogue's surprise attack feature. At least in 5e succeeding gives you an actual advantage. And both systems seem to have an equal disdain for attacking out of initiative so that's a toss up as well.
Melee stealthing: Once again I struggle to see a benefit of switching to Pathfinder 2e. In order to melee someone in stealth you have to make another stealth roll, then move to a place that both provides standard cover AND is within melee range. I believe rogue's get a feat that makes this easier, but once again solutions for 1 class =/= solutions in general. Also if you have cover against a guy in melee range, they likely have cover against your melee strike, so you're flatfoot bonus is at best stopped by standard cover or at worst is a net minus for greater cover (rogues get sneak attack so it's still a benefit for them). Compared this hullaboo with just striding + potentially tumble through to get flanked and you quickly realize melee stealth in pathfinder 2e is as much of an afterthought as it is in 5e. I do like how the sneak rules are hammered out for repositioning through, THAT is something 5e needs, but it's clearly more a benefit for ranged characters creeping to a better position than a melee character trying to sneak up to a person a attacking from stealth.
Thanks for your detailed comment. Some responses:
"It clearly states on the condition that a creature's location is discernable."
I would argue that is not clear from the Invisible condition's language: "The creature’s Location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves." PHB
"Invisibility... can't be targetted by abilities that require sight... See invisible also allows you to target invisible creatures with spells and abilities that require sight, which alot of them require sight so that spell is hardly useless when applying the correct ruling."
If an invisible creature's location is clearly discernable, as you say, why is it not possible to target it until you cast see invisibility? I'm not understanding your distinction "that requires sight" if it includes "a lot" of abilities.
"See invisible does not prevent invisible attackers from having advantage against you. This was obvious day 1, and the whole "common sense" ruling, is just that - a homebrew rule for the sake of consistency/comfort. The original RAW ruling was clear from the start."
Many would argue that the "Specific beats general" principle means that See Invisibility's language "you see invisible creatures as if they were visible," negates the Invisible condition. It is counterintuitive, and violates the lore, to say that Invisibility is a condition inherent to a creature, without regard to whether the observers can see invisible creatures.
"Surprise not granting advantage from a successful stealth check: This is true, but as far as I can tell switching to Pathfinder 2e's stealth rules doesn't fix this... "
It does; it makes the target Flat-footed against the attacker. While it doesn't give them an additional "Surprised" condition to make them not act during the first round, yes. (Which some 5e players will agree is a clunky rule.)
"Melee stealthing: Once again I struggle to see a benefit of switching to Pathfinder 2e. "
At least it's clearly possible as written in PF2. As written in 5e's PHB, you can't do this without the DM handwaving it, and it gives no examples to give the DM guidance.
"Also if you have cover against a guy in melee range, they likely have cover against your melee strike"
Many GMs would not make cover both ways. Arrow slits are the classic example. If a character hides behind a building corner to be adjacent to their mark, I think the DM would make a bad call to say that cover applies to the rogue. Even if they did, flat-footed still gives a Rogue sneak attack damage.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG
"The creature’s Location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves." To me that's clearly the equivalent of hidden, you know which square they are at, and nothing more than that. Hidden uses a similar language but uses the word "space", probably due to the fact that 2e is to be played on a grid and therefore can afford more "map based" language. But I can see "Location" as being rather vague, especially when compared to how specific "space" is.
As for why you can't target a creature with a spell that's invisible even though you know their location, spells in 5e differentiate between target you can see vs just target. Hold Person requires a target you can see Destruction Wave only requires a target. You can destruction wave an invisible creature without see invisibility, you cannot hold person an invisible person without see invisibility.
I might be wrong, but as far as I can tell, you don't get flatfoot from ambusing in 2e unless you are a rogue or a dedication with surprise attack class feature. Sure some people have creatures start out as hidden in 2e before initiative starts, but that's an out of combat interaction that is just as valid in 5e. If 2e characters can hide/sneak before combat to get hidden, there's no reason 5e characters can't hide before initiating the surprised round to get unseen AND surprise.
Arrow slits are meant to be used on people that are still crossing the field to the wall. attacking someone from cover that you two are sharing is the equivalent of shooting someone from an arrow slit when they have already reached the wall and you are essentially trying to shoot parallel along the wall rather than forward into open ground. In this case, the creature hugging the wall should absolutely benefit from cover. The problem with melee is by design unless you have reach, any cover that you are using to gain stealth from the user is probably also shared by that creature. Shooting a guy in the open from chest high wall is cover for you and no cover for him. But if that guy is 5ft from you on the other side of wall, then that cover applies both ways.
Maybe I'm just REALLY jaded, but when I look at the hullaboo of sneaking into melee (requiring cover, another stealth roll, etc) and comparing it to just trying to get flanked, I see it as Pathfinder 2e telling me "we don't really want this to happen often if at all, so we're just going to make it extremely complicated", and to me there's not just too much difference in practice between a bunch of hard to accomplish rules, and just saying "let the DM figure it out". Because after playing PFS for a while, I learn quickly that when there are this many levers of failure, it pretty much boils down to "the DM decides if this works or not" anyway. You say this is not intended and/or bad DMing, and I won't disagree with you, it just doesn't feel like there's that much of a benefit aside from porting over the sneak rules, which actually does help iron things out.
not presented well is the same as not clear.
We are giving different meanings to "clear." The tax code is very clear in that it is unambiguous when a tax attorney looks at it. If you take the time to read it, it answers your questions in every instance.
But to the vast majority of people, it isn't "clear" at all. Thankfully, PF2e's rules on stealth and hiding are less confusing than the tax code!
Once one plays with PF2's rules a little while, they thankfully become intuitive. PF2 has a "learning curve," but as with learning a language around a specific purpose, once you learn it it comes naturally and becomes preferable because it adheres with what you're talking about. If the rules are confusing at first, it's because the topic (stealth and visibility) is complex!
Ngl, I was really drawn in by the concept. But then seeing that 30 minute video is PART 1 concerning ONLY sneaking/hiding, I'm out. Like in school, be succinct. Also 4 fonts on the thumbnail is a bit much.
How to fix D&D...
.
Go play FATE like a real human being.
.
Profit.
.... or just play straight PF2 with the proficiency without level variant rule
all problems solved