| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
We're having some trouble in our game regarding whether or not a rogue who is hidden (using the stealth skill) catches their opponents at range either flat footed or denies them their Dex bonus to AC (as is needed for a sneak attack).
I know there are various abilities that do allow for this such as:
* Attacker is invisible
* Target is blinded
But we can't find where, if it all, it says that a rogue who hides in the middle of combat is then able to sneak attack from range. The specific situation that brought this about was:
We are in combat, have been for several rounds now. We see a rogue run to a building and enter it through a 20 foot hole in the wall. After we defeat the melee combatants we pause and turn to the hole, ready to go after the rogue. Then our cleric gets shot, the arrow coming from out of the hole in the wall, taking sneak attack damage. I (Paladin, sword and board) raise my shield and advance towards the hole in the wall. I then get shot, taking sneak attack damage with the GM saying that as I was unaware of the exact location of the rogue, he was catching me flat footed.
What rules support/contradict this?
Technically there should be a sniping roll made by the rogue with you all rolling perception checks against the sniping roll (which is found in the stealth rules).
Yes, the rogue followed the stealth rules for sniping (at least 10 feet away, -20 on stealth roll), but we're trying to find out if he should have gotten sneak attack for being hidden and attacking us while we were unaware of his exact location.
Yes, the rogue followed the stealth rules for sniping (at least 10 feet away, -20 on stealth roll), but we're trying to find out if he should have gotten sneak attack for being hidden and attacking us while we were unaware of his exact location.
Forgive me if I misunderstand the situation, but:
1. Was the target (i.e., you) denied their dex bonus?
2. Was the Rogue's attack with a weapon (that is, something that required an attack roll and dealt damage)?
3. Was the Rogue's attack from within 30 feet?
If the answer to all of these questions is "yes", then the rogue indeed should have dealt Sneak Attack damage.
Yeah got to agree with UltimaGabe on this -- if everything was lined up and the p's and q's were minded then it hurts to be you.
Question 1 is where we're coming untied, so I'll go for 2 and three first.
2: Yes, the rogue was attacking with a bow.
3: Yes, the rogue was attacking from 20 feet away.
1: This is what we can't verify. If the defender is unaware of the exact location of the attacker, is the defender denied the dexterity bonus to AC? What in the rules explicitly says so?
Yup, stealth rules. You are unaware of where he is exactly. You can't anticipate an attack that you don't know where it is coming from unless you have uncanny dodge.
Okay, but what rule(s) explicitly states that? Can you please provide a quote or a page reference?
Ugh, do your homework for you? Give me a few minutes to get it all together seesh.
1. Stealth is the important part: This points out that stealth keeps them from noticing you if they fail the perception check. Perception points out if you can't see them with your perception check they have surprise on you and can attack or sneak pass you.
2. Sniping (with the -20 penalty as described by the stealth skill) allows you to attack and retain your hiding place -- something you normally can't do while using stealth.
3. If you are surprised by your opponent or unable to see him he is effectively invisible to you and can take his attack with you being flat footed or denied your dex. Sneak attack tells us this.
Consider this -- if simply saying "I know an enemy is somewhere in there" was enough to keep him from sneak attacking you then you could simply declare at any point, "I know that an enemy is somewhere within 60 feet of me" at any point and that would be enough to keep you from ever being surprised since you "know" where he is.
The fact of the matter is you don't know where the rogue is -- this is exactly what the stealth and perception checks are for. Yes you might have saw him run into that building, but you don't know where he is or what he is doing in there.
As such you don't know when or where to duck or dodge. Now if you wanted to approach carefully you should do one of three things:
1. Use a tower shield for cover against the door way.
2. Get some form of concealment so he can't sneak attack you.
3. Get uncanny dodge.
3. If you are surprised by your opponent or unable to see him he is effectively invisible to you and can take his attack with you being flat footed or denied your dex. Sneak attack tells us this.
I hate to harp on about this, but the problem is that nowhere in any of the rules that I've found does it explicitly state this. Yes it's assumed, but its doesn't actually say so.
Sneak attack states that a target must be either flanked or denied their dexterity bonus to AC in order to get extra sneak attack damage. Neither the Sneak skill or the Perception skill state that a hidden attacker denies their target their Dexterity bonus.To say that they are "effectively invisible" is an extrapolation which has no foundation in the rules.
Here it is stated negatively (my bold and italics):
Blindsense (Ex) Using nonvisual senses, such as acute smell or hearing, a creature with blindsense notices things it cannot see. The creature usually does not need to make Perception checks to pinpoint the location of a creature within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature. Any opponent the creature cannot see still has total concealment against the creature with blindsense, and the creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment. Visibility still affects the movement of a creature with blindsense. A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.
No reason a creature with Blindsense should be more vulnerable to sneak attack than those without.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This is due to the current/old Stealth wording.
There was two Blog posts around the end of this last summer indicating a serious intent at Paizo to go in and over-haul the Stealth rules, to fix things such as they don't actually state major things like this, but that didn't show up in the last Errata/Printing.
To follow up on Joana's point (which similar wording is extended to the Hidden condition per the mooted Blog Stealth revision), BlindSIGHT says while BlindSENSE merely 'notices and locates' (i.e. pinpointed, although it doesn't use that terminology) along with the wording confirming that the Blindsenser is still Denied their Dexterity vs. the Invisible opponent (i.e. subject to Sneak Attack). Only BlindSIGHT is immune to Sneak Attack enabled by invisibility/concealment/stealth, since the invisible/concealed/hidden condition is 'irrelevant' to the Blindsighter, i.e. the condition and everything it does is negated for them.
The current rules are some-what unclear whether Uncanny Dodge should prevent Sneak Attack against a succesful Stealther. UD says 'She cannot be caught flat-footed, even if the attacker is invisible.' THe only problem there is that Invisibility doesn't make the target flat-footed, it just Denies Dexterity bonus to AC. Of course, since UD is explicitly mentioning applying vs. Invisibility, I would assume the INTENT is for it to counter Invisibility's Denial of DEX bonus to AC, and thus prevent Sneak Attack. Hopefully they fix that whenever they put the rest of the Stealth fix into print/Errata/PRD.
Here is the really short simple version.
Your DM says he is hidden and that makes you flat footed to his attack so the rogue gets sneak attack dice against you. If you really think it's that broken or an issue talk to your DM about it. If he wont see it from your point of view then use it against him. Make yourself a rogue sniper and make it work to your advantage all day till he's sick of it, then discuss it again. But when it really comes down to it the DM has final call on rules and the option left is to not play in his games. It's blunt and a little ugly, but it's the way it works.
Asta
PSY
The big problem we've run into is the immediate assumption of: Being stealthed = Catches target flat footed OR Being Stealthed = Denies target Dex bonus to AC.
While I agree that this is a natural assumption, there's no rules that specifically says so. There are a lot that come close or you could say "well, it works for x so it should work for y" but nothing definitive.
right, if you use the current Stealth rules, stealth doesn't actually do much.
the blog post of proposed revision to it actually makes Stealth conform to how the rest of the rules are written,
i.e. actually specify what conditions it applies/negates/etc, and just the Blog rules as-is is 100% clearer to use.
I mention a few things like how Uncanny Dodge has wording issues in both PRD and Blog versions of Stealth,
which if you want you can hit the FAQ button to bring to attention of Paizo for Errata love... :-)
The big problem we've run into is the immediate assumption of: Being stealthed = OR Being Stealthed = Denies target Dex bonus to AC.
While I agree that this is a natural assumption, there's no rules that specifically says so. There are a lot that come close or you could say "well, it works for x so it should work for y" but nothing definitive.
Well then I think you are making an incorrect assumption.
Stealth (Sneak) > Your perception check = Catches target flat footed .
Of course, this is subsequently made more difficult if he was in a dark room and you are standing in the light etc. The odds are reasonably in his favour to be able to launch a sneak attack at a flat footed foe.
Perhaps let the Fighters go first next time :p
Okay, to summarize the thread and everything that has been said.
Simply put, in the specific example where:
IF:
1: During combat when everyone has already acted (thus not being caught surprised and as such flat-footed),
2: A rogue has made a successful stealth check (whether by cover or concealment),
THEN:
3: The target of their ranged attack should be either caught flat footed or denied their dexterity bonus to their AC, thus granting the rogue sneak attack damage (assuming they are within 30 ft).
HOWEVER:
4: There is no specific rule that explicitly says so.
As such, it would have to be an accepted house rule or you get rules lawyers (like me) pointing out that there is not rule that allows for it. If there is a rule that says so, please directly quote it. It would have to include the phrase "catches target flat-footed" or "denies them their dexterity bonus to AC".
Once Paizo actually erratas or releases an official patch for those rules, great, but until then, its surprisingly grey as opposed to black and white.
Do you routinely tell your GM you can act when dead?
Because being dead does nothing too you by the rules. Dying and disabled do but not death.
Hardly helpful
|
Do you routinely tell your GM you can act when dead?
Because being dead does nothing too you by the rules. Dying and disabled do but not death.
+1
The entire point of the flat-footed condition is to catch a person when they are unable to react, which includes (by common sense) when they are unaware that they need to react (uncanny dodge means you don't need this awareness). Stealth is there to prevent the opponent from being aware.
Therefor, by the common sense ruling, a successful stealth check enables a sneak attack. The blog post about rewriting the stealth rules makes it even more obvious that this is the intent.
PS: The only real difference that I know of between flat-footed and "denied dexterity to AC" is that flat-footed *also* denies your ability to make AoOs. Outside of that they are exactly identical.
Don't see how it's helpful if your rules lawyering this then why do it when you know that common sense says you can't react as well to something you can't see.
Okay, time to start quoting.
Core Rulebook, page 178:
Unaware Combatants: Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don’t get to act in the surprise round. Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.
Core Rulebook, page 567:
Flat footed: A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.
This was not the situation though. Everyone involved, including the rogue, had already acted in combat. Therefore the targets were not flat footed unless the rogue hiding caused them to become flat footed.
I'm sure by now everyone thinks I'm being overly pedantic, but I want someone to actually point out the rules that I can reference, rather than make assumptions about how things should work.
They aren't flat footed they are denied their dex bonus.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Armor-Class
Sometimes you can't use your Dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC. If you don't have a Dexterity bonus, your AC does not change.
Here is the relevant part
|
|
Okay, time to start quoting.
Core Rulebook, page 178:
Unaware Combatants: Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don’t get to act in the surprise round. Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.
Core Rulebook, page 567:
Flat footed: A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.This was not the situation though. Everyone involved, including the rogue, had already acted in combat. Therefore the targets were not flat footed unless the rogue hiding caused them to become flat footed.
I'm sure by now everyone thinks I'm being overly pedantic, but I want someone to actually point out the rules that I can reference, rather than make assumptions about how things should work.
Had that rogue already been seen? No? Then the opponents may not be flat-footed, but they are definitely denied their dexterity bonus because they cannot see their attacker. If the rogue HAD already been seen, well, there are rules for becoming unseen again.
(In the blog post re-write, stealth grants a "hidden" condition that denies your opponent their dexterity bonus to AC, implying that this is the intent of stealth right now but that the rules, as you've pointed out, aren't up to snuff.)
TL;DR - RAI is that failing perception versus stealth means "lose dexterity bonus to AC against that opponent". RAW is that stealth doesn't do anything at all and can thus be errata'd out. We're pretty sure that the RAI is correct given the implications of RAW.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure by now everyone thinks I'm being overly pedantic, but I want someone to actually point out the rules that I can reference, rather than make assumptions about how things should work.
OK, this is one of those cases that it isn't spelled out in rules as written one way or the other (in the core rulebook) in the rules as intended, one of the designers, Stephen Radney-MacFarland, had this to say:
"For purposes of Stealth, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Actions directed at an unattended object do not end Stealth. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. If during your last action you were hidden to a creature, you are still considered hidden when you make the first attack of that new action."and hidden is defined as:
"Hidden: You are difficult to detect but you not invisible. A hidden creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). You do not have line of sight to a creature or object that is hidden from you."
So yes, rules as intended, and soon to be rules as clarified by errata, an attack when hidden ignores its opponents' dex bonus, and thus is valid for sneak attack.
I found a book rule for it here.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/getting-started
"Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs."
Yes! Finally! This is the something that I've been looking for. Thank you, thank you very much! A direct rule (well, errata, but I can live with that) specifying that a hidden creature denies its targets its Dex bonus.
Hidden: You are difficult to detect but you not invisible. A hidden creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). You do not have line of sight to a creature or object that is hidden from you.
This is what I've been after this whole time. Thank you.
I found a book rule for it here.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/getting-started
"Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs."
God I hate it when people yank out rule 0 in a rules forum. Rule 0 is for house-rules, homebrew, and customizations. It has no business in the Rules Forum.
God I hate it when people yank out rule 0 in a rules forum. Rule 0 is for house-rules, homebrew, and customizations. It has no business in the Rules Forum.I found a book rule for it here.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/getting-started
"Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs."
It IS, however, a rule in the book. Or do you deny RAW? Trololo.
Well, thank you again everyone who contributed, thank you especially to Cpt_kirstov for the specific errata quote and link, question answered.
/thread
Yes, it's a rule in the book. But it has no bearing on the other rules in the book, other than to say, you can house-rule or homebrew. Which means that when discussing the actual rules in the book it's a meaningless rule that's usually trotted out by people who have nothing useful to contribute and just want to prove they are snarky.
Unless, as in this case, the actual rule is either burried somewhere else, hidden, or otherwise doesn't exist. In which case, common sense and rule zero come in. If there is no rule or nobody can find the rules, the next rule is to make up a rule.
Old Bones, I think you are coming at this all wrong. If your DM is using the stealth rules "as written" then you're kind of at his mercy because they aren't complete. However, I think you have a valid point, you're just not approaching it from the right angle. The thing that sticks out to me here is this:
The paladin discovers the hole in the wall that the sniper is firing through and advances towards that hole. The size of that hole is really the crux of the situation. That and how the paladin discovered the hole.
Either the hole is large enough for the rogue to see through, or all of his targets have total concealment from him because he can't see you. If the hole is large enough for him to see through, the paladin should be able to see him looking through it.
If the DM is telling you that the hole is anything smaller than your head, I call shenanigans on your DM. You can't be targeted effectively enough to warrant SA damage if the rogue is firing blindly, even if he passes his miss chance.
If the hole is larger than that, then the only explanation is that the rogue is playing something akin to whack-a-mole, popping up and shooting when he can and ducking off to hide, in which case you only have one thing in your favor: you have noticed this hole in the wall.
How did you find the hole? Did the DM give you a check? You see this is important because you the player could not have known about the hole if the DM hadn't told you about it. If the only place this attack could be coming from is this [relatively smallish?] hole in the wall, then as a DM, I would find it hard to justify making a PC flat-footed against an attack from there if they have determined by ANY means that there is a threat there.
Also: if you are observing the hole and it is large enough to see through, the the rogue was being observed when he shot you, because as I understand it, you were already advancing on the hole to deal with a perceived threat. EDIT: RAW, stealth does not work if you are being observed, therefore the rogue is no-longer hidden and you CAN'T be flat-footed against him.
Rule 0 prevails. But I think your concern is more legitimate than others here do, I just think you have chosen the wrong approach, and that is rubbing them the wrong way.
I don't believe any rules rules state that a hidden rogue gets sneak attack.
|
|
I don't believe any rules rules state that a hidden rogue gets sneak attack.
Cheapy, see my quoted text. "A hidden creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)." whenever your target is deniedd Dex bonus, the rogue gets sneak attack damage
I don't believe any rules rules state that a hidden rogue gets sneak attack.Cheapy, see my quoted text. "A hidden creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)." whenever your target is deniedd Dex bonus, the rogue gets sneak attack damage
the hidden condition is only in the stealth playtest. If I remember the post you linked to, it's from his explanation of those rules to be tested. I am on my phone, so I can't check.
I was speaking from RAW in the CRB. I noticed it awhile ago, and I love to use it as an example of the folly in using RAW. :-)
|
@Foghammer;
I've gotta disagree with you on one point, Fog; just because the rogue can see the party through the hole does *not* mean that they can also see him. If the party is in a well-lit area and the interior of the building is unlit, then the party very well might not be able to see him. A smaller sized hole is actually an advantage to the rogue. His field of view would be largely unhindered if he was standing just inside the hole, allowing him to target anyone on the well-lit street while remaining both concealed by the darkness in the building and in cover from the walls. Smart rogue.
Of course, targeting an AOE through the opening [provided it's large enough for that] would leave the rogue precious little room to escape.
Also, just because they know which hole the fire is coming from doesn't mean that they know when he's making an attack until the arrow comes flying at them. It's like fighting an invisible foe; sure, you might know which square he occupies, but you still can't pinpoint him. And as soon as he does his whack-a-mole act and pops back down, he's no longer being observed, and is free to make another Stealth check.
Smart PCs would be holding actions until he takes his next shot, looking for the telltale glint of an arrowhead or shifting shadow through the hole. Then they unleash magical fiery doom.
Again, very clever rogue. Could only be clever-er if he had a stock of poisoned ammo stashed in the building with him and a small crew of buddies moving in from the flanks and rear to finish the job.
@Foghammer;
I've gotta disagree with you on one point, Fog; just because the rogue can see the party through the hole does *not* mean that they can also see him. ... A smaller sized hole is actually an advantage to the rogue. His field of view would be largely unhindered if he was standing just inside the hole, allowing him to target anyone on the well-lit street while remaining both concealed by the darkness in the building and in cover from the walls. Smart rogue.
I do not disagree with most of what you are saying, but the size of the hole has not been disclosed to us, nor the circumstances that lead to the notice of the hole in the wall.
I am not saying that the DM in this case was wrong, merely that we cannot assume the OP is wrong because he has chosen a single rule to beat down.
Also, something I didn't think of until now is the rogue's field of fire. He would not be able to fire at everything in the room effectively, even if he could see and not be seen. Other factors would be the distance of the paladin from the hole when he noticed it, the number of rounds it took him to get there, his relative position to the sniper's hole, and the sniper's field of fire (which would be DM fiat, but it should be less than a 180 degree view; I would say 90 for simplicity's sake, but your level of simulationism may vary).
Again: I'm not saying the OP is right. I'm just saying, there are a lot more questions to be asked and things to be considered.
We are in combat, have been for several rounds now. We see a rogue run to a building and enter it through a 20 foot hole in the wall. After we defeat the melee combatants we pause and turn to the hole, ready to go after the rogue. Then our cleric gets shot, the arrow coming from out of the hole in the wall, taking sneak attack damage. I (Paladin, sword and board) raise my shield and advance towards the hole in the wall.
Seems to me the whole was both plenty big and they were approaching directly towards it.
We are in combat, have been for several rounds now. We see a rogue run to a building and enter it through a 20 foot hole in the wall. After we defeat the melee combatants we pause and turn to the hole, ready to go after the rogue. Then our cleric gets shot, the arrow coming from out of the hole in the wall, taking sneak attack damage. I (Paladin, sword and board) raise my shield and advance towards the hole in the wall.Seems to me the whole was both plenty big and they were approaching directly towards it.
Hm. Seems I completely glossed over that by the time I got to the bottom of the thread. That'll teach me to post without going back and rereading the OP.
Well I reckon it's legit.
The hole is a bit of a red herring, as all it has really allowed is the rogue to get out of sight and into 'cover', presumably to set up an ambush.
Once the party come around to a position to view the Rogue he is 'unseen', hole or no hole, and they will need a perception check to spot him - presuming he has cover available inside to maintain his concealment.
Should he be 'unseen' through an opposed check, then he's entitled to a Sneak Attack.