Digeo Rossi, i really don´t know what your problem is anymore.
You point out a lot of stuff that is quite obvious, at the same time you argue against many other people.
What´s the question at this point actually?
And this is not offensively meant.
If you think a 5' step is not legal to go into stealth, ok.
Many other people and i think different and several people showed you the written rules for it.
And yes you can not go into stealth if you are observed, you need to create a diversion to hide and have cover/concealment. 20% concealment like from dim light is enough (or blur, stupid as it is in this case by RAW).
Except you have feats that allow you to do this, like hellcat stealth or hide in plain sight. Special over general.
While you can use stealth during a move, so if the rogue wanted to move out of a sorcerer's threatened square, he could make a stealth check to remain unnoticed, and avoid the AOO, BUT he can't gain the benefit of a stealth check while he attacks because you can't use stealth while attacking.The point's relevant because that line in the stealth rules makes a lot of the other discussion moot.
Didnt say something else. You are right about this.
Didnt say something else. You are right about this.
But then you see, that means the rogue actually can't get the sneak attack.
Because to get the sneak attack from the sorcerer being unaware due to stealth, he would have to be able to use stealth with his attack. However, he can't use stealth during his attack.
Same way the roll from the prior move wouldn't carry over to a subsiquent move, the prior roll doesn't carry over his attack. Same way he'd have to roll stealth again to cover a new move action, he would have to roll stealth again to cover his attack. But he can't.
The sorcerer can react to his attack no different then any attack from anyone else. So, he gets his dex bonus for the rogue's attack action same as he would for anyone else, despite the fact that he was unaware of the rogue during the rogues last move action.
That means (after the surprise round) stealth skill is irrelevant to getting sneak attacks.
Without the right means to go into stealth again, yes.
Didnt say something else. You are right about this.But then you see, that means the rogue actually can't get the sneak attack.
Because to get the sneak attack from the sorcerer being unaware due to stealth, he would have to be able to use stealth with his attack. However, he can't use stealth during his attack.
Same way the roll from the prior move wouldn't carry over to a subsiquent move, the prior roll doesn't carry over his attack. Same way he'd have to roll stealth again to cover a new move action, he would have to roll stealth again to cover his attack. But he can't.
The sorcerer can react to his attack no different then any attack from anyone else. So, he gets his dex bonus for the rogue's attack action same as he would for anyone else, despite the fact that he was unaware of the rogue during the rogues last move action.
That means (after the surprise round) stealth skill is irrelevant to getting sneak attacks.
Using stealth while attacking and attacking when you have already used the stealth skill to hide are not the same things.
When the book says you can not "use Stealth while..." it means you can not activate(for lack of a better word) stealth while doing certain things.Not being able to become hidden while doing certain things is not the same thing as not being able to benefit from stealth if you hide first.
I'm with wraith on that one, in my opinion, you can't stealth while using run action, nor in the same action as you attack. But a character could attack, five-foot-step into some form of concealment, then pull off hide in plain sight ability. He's not attacking and stealthing at the same time.
Stealthing and attacking is kinda the same. By the time you strike, you're already denying the target it's dex, because he's unaware of you, and cannot act accordingly. We play it as you breaking stealth the moment you roll to hit. In some situations, that's not happening, such as using a silent blowgun from the brushes with the dart missing the target, and he remained unaware of what had happened.
But that's just how we run it at our table, you are stealthed until detected, taking a stab at someone reveals you one way or the other, cutting the ropes of the bridge over the chasm does not, or pushing a boulder down the hil to get it rolling, much like invisibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with wraith on that one, in my opinion, you can't stealth while using run action, nor in the same action as you attack. But a character could attack, five-foot-step into some form of concealment, then pull off hide in plain sight ability. He's not attacking and stealthing at the same time.
Stealthing and attacking is kinda the same. By the time you strike, you're already denying the target it's dex, because he's unaware of you, and cannot act accordingly. We play it as you breaking stealth the moment you roll to hit. In some situations, that's not happening, such as using a silent blowgun from the brushes with the dart missing the target, and he remained unaware of what had happened.
But that's just how we run it at our table, you are stealthed until detected, taking a stab at someone reveals you one way or the other, cutting the ropes of the bridge over the chasm does not, or pushing a boulder down the hil to get it rolling, much like invisibility.
Since you agree with me I guess I will allow you to use my avatar. :)
No. When he attacks, it's true he looses his stealth. But the victim of the attack is already the victim of the attack and hasn't been able to react to it.
Because to get the sneak attack from the sorcerer being unaware due to stealth, he would have to be able to use stealth with his attack.
Actually it's the opposite. See, if stealth carried over from the prior action to cover attacks, it would likewise carry over for a '5 step or move action. But it doesn't. The way the skill is written, stealth is rolled to cover the action it's used with, not after the action is resolved, and doesn't carry over from action to action. Each move action requires it's own stealth check to see if that action has the benefits it.
There is no exception for attack actions that they work differently in this regard, other than a specific exception that says the exact opposite - that stealth can't be used during an attack at all.
So, there's no sneak attacks from stealth (only from having not yet acted at the begining of combat, which stealth can help you get)
That goes contrary to common sense, so people (including me!) play it otherwise and try to read the rule to fit what it maybe *should* say, but that's actually what the rule says.
Ha?
You take the 5' step as movement to use stealth skill, to get stealth again.
Ha?
You take the 5' step as movement to use stealth skill, to get stealth again.
Point is you do it at the beginning of the action to cover the action, not after the action is resolved. Nothing in the rules say it's different for attack actions, so you don't get the benefit of last action's steath check to cover the an attack.
You can't roll steath to during an attack, and you don't get the benefit of steath from last action for the attack, so no stealth when you attack. SO, target isn't unaware due to stealth,
so no sneak attacks from stealth.
Ha?
You take the 5' step as movement to use stealth skill, to get stealth again.Point is you do it at the beginning of the action to cover the action, not after the action is resolved. Nothing in the rules say it's different for attack actions, so you don't get the benefit of last action's steath check to cover the an attack.
You can't roll steath to during an attack, and you don't get the benefit of steath from last action for the attack, so no stealth when you attack. SO, target isn't unaware due to stealth,
so no sneak attacks from stealth.
Here is the issue. You are assuming stealth directly grants sneak attack, and that is not how it works. Being denied dex is a product of being unaware of the person.
When you are stealthed the person is unaware of you.
When the person is unaware of you they are denied dex to AC because they can not react properly.
When you first make that attack they are unaware, so they are ripe for sneak attack.
Attacking breaks stealth, but you are still unaware until after the attack is made. You would have to be aware before the attack is made in order to keep dex to AC.
you don't get the benefit of steath from last action for the attackI'm not sure what you mean here, but if I'm interpreting you correctly.. then yes you do.
Just as much as you benefit from being invisible prior to attacking. Attacking ends both invisibility and the successful use of the stealth skill. In both cases you can gain sneak attack.
-James
Not as stealth is currently written. Stealth isn't a status condition like invisibility, which breaks after the resolution of an action which would break it. They toyed with the idea of making it a 'hidden' status condition, but haven't yet. Currently, stealth is still only the ability to decrease the liklyhood of an action being noticed. For example, moving unnoticed under cover of darkenss through threatened squares so avoiding attacks of opportunity. However, it's specifically not available for attacks (or running or charging).
If it were written as people assume it should be with respect to attacks, then you could likewise move from hiding and remain unnoticed until after the action was complete, moving through threatend squares without provoking attacks of opportunity without cover/concealment or having to make a new check at all.
It doesn't work that way for moves, likewise doesn't for attacks.
Here is the issue. You are assuming stealth directly grants sneak attack, and that is not how it works. Being denied dex is a product of being unaware of the person.
When you are stealthed the person is unaware of you.
When the person is unaware of you they are denied dex to AC because they can not react properly.
When you first make that attack they are unaware, so they are ripe for sneak attack.
Attacking breaks stealth, but you are still unaware until after the attack is made. You would have to be aware before the attack is made in order to keep dex to AC.
See above post. That anaylsis breaks down during the attack action. Since stealth isn't a status condition like invisibilty and doesn't carry over from prior to subsiquent actions, and because you can't use stealth with an attack, in the resolution of an attack action, stealth is off the table. The Skill is unavailable for that action to help create or maintain that necessary unawareness.
You're right that stealth does indirectly help you get a sneak attack, but only by helping you attack before they've acted:
Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.
Now understand, I agree how counter-intiative all that sounds, and it's only because of this discussion that I understand it all now myself, but looks like that is the way the rule's actually written. Seems the rules really don't want Steath Skill as a means to enable sneak attacks after the first round. Invisibility, yes, blindness, yes, stealth, not so much.
The perception skill says you can be aware via stealth. Other rules say if you are unaware you are denied dex.
Nowhere does it say that being made unaware by losing the opposed perception vs stealth check negates the rules stating unaware character lose dex to AC.
Once you are unaware you are unaware.
That quote does you have does not mean that is the only way to become unaware. Perception list another way to become unaware which lead to being denied dex.
As unaware is not a defined game term and two places give different ways to achieve it you must take it both examples on their own.
One way to be unaware is to lose init. The other way is to not roll high enough on a perception check.
In order to say the perception check quote does not apply you need rules specifically saying it does not.
That's not the problem. Consider these examples:
1) Fin leaves hiding and moves though Bob's threat range. Bob gets an AOO on Fin despite the fact that Fin was hidden a moment before, because Bob can react to the move. Fin's hiding doesn't travel with him until the end of his action.
2) Fin announces his presence by casting a defensive spell adjacent to Bob. Bob gets an AOO on Fin despite Bob being unaware of Fin a moment before because Bob can react to the casting. Fin doesn't stay hidden until after his action.
3) Fin attacks Bob. The same rules apply. Bob can react to the attack just as he could to the move or the casting. Since Bob can react, he gets his dex bonus.
That's not the problem. Consider these examples:
1) Fin leaves hiding and moves though Bob's threat range. Bob gets an AOO on Fin despite the fact that Fin was hidden a moment before, because Bob can react to the move. Fin's hiding doesn't travel with him until the end of his action.
2) Fin announces his presence by casting a defensive spell adjacent to Bob. Bob gets an AOO on Fin despite Bob being unaware of Fin a moment before because Bob can react to the casting. Fin doesn't stay hidden until after his action.
3) Fin attacks Bob. The same rules apply. Bob can react to the attack just as he could to the move or the casting. Since Bob can react, he gets his dex bonus.
I think you got the hiding point wrong.
You need cover or concealment to use the stealth skill.You can then do a move action or whatever.
If you end your turn without cover or concealment, you loose stealth.
So:
1. Fin leaves hiding and moves. Bob gets a perception check oposed by Fins stealth check.
-either Fin is higher, nothing happens. No AoO for Bob.
-Bob is higher, sees Fin and gets an AoO.
2. Bob only gets an AoO if Fins defensive spellcating fails.
3. Same as point 1. Stealth check from fin oposed by Bob perception check. Fin wins gets sneak attack, Bob wins Fin gets no sneak attack, but also Bob gets no AoO on Fin for Fin moving in and attack. AoO is only when leaving threatend square.
That's not the problem. Consider these examples:
1) Fin leaves hiding and moves though Bob's threat range. Bob gets an AOO on Fin despite the fact that Fin was hidden a moment before, because Bob can react to the move. Fin's hiding doesn't travel with him until the end of his action.
2) Fin announces his presence by casting a defensive spell adjacent to Bob. Bob gets an AOO on Fin despite Bob being unaware of Fin a moment before because Bob can react to the casting. Fin doesn't stay hidden until after his action.
3) Fin attacks Bob. The same rules apply. Bob can react to the attack just as he could to the move or the casting. Since Bob can react, he gets his dex bonus.
1. Fin is no longer unobserved once the leaves his cover, and since that can happen well before he gets into threat range of course an AoO takes place.
2. I disagree. Attacks of opportunities interrupt other activities if applicable. Bob becomes aware once the casting begins, but barring a ready action or certain other special exceptions you can't interupt another person's action.
3. When the attack is made stealth is broken. From a fluff point of view when the sword begins swinging it comes into Bob's view, but it is no different than if I yell your name and you turn around to see a baseball coming toward you face that is in midflight. You are not able to move. You are free to avoid any further baseballs I throw your way.
Even the perception skill says the stealth individual may attack the unaware person. It never says they don't get the benefit of catching them unaware when doing so.
I agree with James also. The new hidden condition that is not official would allow you to maintain stealth if you end up with new cover or concealment.
Stealth is hard to maintain if you commit to another action.
By this interpretation you would be unable to sneak from one cover to the next and thus stealth would become completely useless.
"You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. ... If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth."
I take this sentences from Stealth skill description as key.
I strongly disagree with James Maissen here. While you are doing your move action you don´t loose stealth. Only if you don´t have that condition at the end of your turn, any stealth breaking actions not considered. How else would you sneak past someone?
Literally its that scene where the guard turns his head and you use the time to slip through the door.
Its an abstract situation and fluffwise a lot is possible.
The oponent gets a perception check, when he beats you he saw you in the corner of his eye or whatever. If he doesn´t, he was just too occupied with himself.
And no, there is no AoO on someone you are not aware of.
Casting triggers AoO´s that is right, but he wrote a defensive spell and i interpreted that as casting defensively. I´m sure most here are aware of the differences.
I know some people rule that you can always only have the benefit of stealth while under cover or concealment, but this is a very harsh ruling, at the edge of legalistic rules lawyering and surely not as RAI.
Perhaps with a lot of bad will you could see it as RAW.
I think skills should function and if they potentially function like something, its not necessary to explicitly spell that all out like in a law text.
So what i want to say is for example 1.
Its not like everyone is all the time staring at the potential spot where a potential intruder would loose cover or concealment. If you do that its a move action and you should be paying one, but you don´t get any boni on perception. Also perception says:
"Notice a creature using Stealth ... Opposed by Stealth"
This is surely true for anyone trying to get from point a to point b in one move action.
Once you get out in the open you are seen.
The weakness of stealth is why they(Paizo) were trying to rewrite the rules. It is pretty much made of weaksauce in its current form.
Once you get out in the open you are seen.
The weakness of stealth is why they(Paizo) were trying to rewrite the rules. It is pretty much made of weaksauce in its current form.
If you insist on the legalistic view, yes.
I didn´t find any sentence stating this though.
Moreover the rules for occupying space and flanking help you out here.
You never know which direction someone is looking, so its absolutely possible to sneak behind someone´s back, using stealth on a move action.
Same logic you can cross some open space with a move action before attacking someone you catch thus unaware and get a sneak attack.
Not as stealth is currently written. Stealth isn't a status condition like invisibility, which breaks after the resolution of an action which would break it.Is there a reference for this?
-James
Actually I think the question should be what's your rules reference for considering it a status condition. Stealth isn't listed in the list of status conditions, and it's not described elsewhere in the rules as that. It not currently being status condition was even cited in the playtest for revised stealth rules which included a new status condition called 'hidden' - in response to players playing stealth as though it was one, but isn't one by RAW.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I think you got the hiding point wrong.
You need cover or concealment to use the stealth skill.
You can then do a move action or whatever.
If you end your turn without cover or concealment, you loose stealth.
I agree it's commonly played like that, but that's not what the rules say (which is why Paizo toyed with the idea of changing the rules to make it play like a status condition, but they so far haven't)
See the above, and see the text of the skill - the rules actually don't make it a status condition like invisibility, and don't say it lasts until the end of your next action. Cover or concealment are requirements to make the roll in the first place, and the roll is made along with an action - usually a move action, never an attack action. Also, notice how, unlike skills like bluff, no place in stealth does it say the skill's purpose is to deny your target a dex bonus or render them flat footed, nor does it define a status condition. The rules on surprise echo this.
Then there's the explicit rule "It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking". (not 'you lose stealth after you attack')
As written, Stealth is defensive - a means to avoid being targeted - not offensive. Not a means to gain dex denial.
[couterpoints to the three examples]
Trouble with those counterpoints is they each presume different things. In 1 you assume the game's conceit that creatures have 360 awareness (don't have facing, can instantly react to things), but then drop it to get to a different result in C. Apples to apples, you or I might get hit with the baseball rather than insitincivly duck (we might also fail to notice the rogue run by, or not realise what that noise was until after the spell was cast), but that's because our rection time (our dex bonus) is crap and we got hit, not because we were unaware of the attack until after it occured so couldn't employ our reflexes at all.
Point is, same way the rogue can't take his hideness with him until after his move action's resolved, he can't do the same to get around the rule that he can't use stealth "while" attacking.
Once you get out in the open you are seen.
The weakness of stealth is why they(Paizo) were trying to rewrite the rules. It is pretty much made of weaksauce in its current form.
I agree with that. I don't know if it would make sneak attack too powerful to just take out the line "It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking" and replace it with something like the language in Bluff "You can use stealth to make a sneak attack under such and such conditions". They currently use flanking to serve that function, which could be why they wrote stealth to exclude it's use in attacks. Problem with flanking is you always need a flanker. What about the lone stealth assassin? Might be better if they buffed up stealth to what it should be, and got rid of the flanking option.
I'm not seeing why you couldn't use stealth to quietly approach someone from your cover and then stab them. It's just harder.
While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
This would imply that you wait for them to turn thier backs and you sneak up to the unobserved location (which is right behind them). Sure you need to make your attack that round or you are auto discovered next round, plus you have to do it at a -10 but as I read the skill it can be done.
Also on perception:
If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.
This would imply you can indeed move unoticed if they fail to spot you. It also suggests they can attack you freely if you fail to spot them.
Given these two caveats, I would argue that you can indeed make an attack from stealth and you can also move up and strike them, but at a -10.
Might be better if they buffed up stealth to what it should be, and got rid of the flanking option.
What not just allow both?
If you have successfully used stealth to get into a position from which you may make an attack on someone, they don't suddenly get spider-sense tingles to alert them to your presence simply because you are going to attack them.
You are NOT "using stealth while attacking;" your target is REMAINING UNAWARE of you until that sharp pain in the ribs clues them in to your presence.
[couterpoints to the three examples]Trouble with those counterpoints is they each presume different things. In 1 you assume the game's conceit that creatures have 360 awareness (don't have facing, can instantly react to things), but then drop it to get to a different result in C. Apples to apples, you or I might get hit with the baseball rather than insitincivly duck (we might also fail to notice the rogue run by, or not realise what that noise was until after the spell was cast), but that's because our rection time (our dex bonus) is crap and we got hit, not because we were unaware of the attack until after it occured so couldn't employ our reflexes at all.
Point is, same way the rogue can't take his hideness with him until after his move action's resolved, he can't do the same to get around the rule that he can't use stealth "while" attacking.
I agree with that. I don't know if it would make sneak attack too powerful to just take out the line "It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking" and replace it with something like the language in Bluff "You can use stealth to make a sneak attack under such and such conditions". They currently use flanking to serve that function, which could be why they wrote stealth to exclude it's use in attacks. Problem with flanking is you always need a flanker. What about the lone stealth assassin? Might be better if they buffed up stealth to what it should be, and got rid of the flanking option.Once you get out in the open you are seen.
The weakness of stealth is why they(Paizo) were trying to rewrite the rules. It is pretty much made of weaksauce in its current form.
You are not using stealth while attacking. I think that is our main point of contention.
I see it as stealth was already used, and now the opponent is unaware. You stab him in the face or try, and he is definitely aware of you now.In short you have to be aware of him when the attack begins to use dex.
You are not using stealth while attacking. I think that is our main point of contention.
I see it as stealth was already used, and now the opponent is unaware. You stab him in the face or try, and he is definitely aware of you now.In short you have to be aware of him when the attack begins to use...
THIS!!!
Once you get out in the open you are seen.
That's somewhat true. I totally agree about the attack from stealth discussion (which is how I've always played it).
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.
Would you argue that if people are not observing you (none of their senses detect you), you could use stealth?
If a guard is required to face a specific direction and remain motionless unless they either see someone or hear something, that guard can't see what's going on behind him. Therefore, assuming the guard hasn't heard you (not observing you by sound), you should be able to sneak past him if you're behind him. The facing rules don't assume special circumstances like guards facing a specific direction motionless.
There are no facing rules, and that is one of things that makes stealth so weak. Mechanically the guard has all around vision to an extent. To answer the question if none of the senses are noticing you I would say you can use stealth, but I would not try to say a guard is facing a certain way, because to include facing would be a houserule.
Changing the rule so that you remain stealthed if you can make it to cover before the of your turn would make it a lot more useful without having to add facing rules. <---This is something I am thinking about trying for the next game I run.
Including facing as part of a special circumstance isn't exactly a "houserule" in the sense that you are simply imposing a special restriction on a creature. That's not exactly a rule. . . more like an exception.
And by "facing rules", I'm simply saying that there is no facing. Maybe "lack of facing rules" is better than "facing rules". A better way of putting it is simply to rely on the GM to determine what the creature is observing. If a guard is facing one direction and your character is trying to sneak behind said guard, the GM should make it clear that the guard is only looking one direction. Allowing a guard to "see" you even when his back is turned just because there's no facing rule in PF is silly though.
The rules assume no facing on purpose though. Even the devs have stated that. I think a lot of it is because it is hard to say which way a PC might be facing, what is his field of vision, and so on.
You could have facing rules that only apply to NPC's, but that would not well for many groups that expect for all creatures to play be the same rules.
I see your point Meabolex, but a special restriction like that would be a houserule since the game assumes no such rule exist, and since we are in the rules section we should be using the book rules unless specifically stating the possibility of a solution that a rule is causing.
There are no facing rules, and that is one of things that makes stealth so weak. Mechanically the guard has all around vision to an extent. To answer the question if none of the senses are noticing you I would say you can use stealth, but I would not try to say a guard is facing a certain way, because to include facing would be a houserule.
Changing the rule so that you remain stealthed if you can make it to cover before the of your turn would make it a lot more useful without having to add facing rules. <---This is something I am thinking about trying for the next game I run.
But you dont need to change the rule to make this work.. It's in the rules already.
While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast
This sentance from the stealth rules implies that it is possible for you to be right out in the open and get to a place to hide, provided the opponents attention is away from you. AKA fighting another opponent, or a bluff check to cause distraction. I would argue that a person who doesn't notice you already has thier attention away from you.
Moving past/to an opponent who hasn't detected you is implied in the perception skill vs stealth.
If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.
There is no "auto-detection" of a stealthed opponent once they start moving out in the open. He is only detected if they do not make it to cover by the end of thier turn. And moving like this means a -10 to the stealth roll.
So a stealthed opponent could in fact start his turn from stealthed cover, take a -10 on the move up to his opponent and attack, gaining the benifits of sneak attack for that first strike.
There is no facing rules, however facing is implied in the rules cited.
But you dont need to change the rule to make this work.. It's in the rules already.
While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast
That relies upon using the bluff skill. I don't think that should be neccesary, and that is what the rules change was aiming at.
The entire sentence which you did not quote is:
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.
I think that would make sense with the way you interpreted it, but it seems the devs do not know it. If they do know it, then I am confused as to the purpose of the hidden condition they were trying to create, and I may need to read that blog again. I would create a second rules thread since that is another issue. It would bring it to the devs attention, and allow them to clarify it if it means something different than the way the Jack B Nimble thread clarified it.
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
This entire paragraph is based off of the assumption that the observers already know you are there, and gives instruction on how to get back to stealth.
If you start from stealth, the obsever must make a perception check to discover you, if they fail, you can "sneak past them" as stated in the skill. Perhaps based on the perception skill description alone it could be argued that the -10 is not necessary as they were never observed.
However, the interpretation (and perhaps liberty) i'm taking here is that "momentarily distracted" would render the same result as "unaware". Both situations imply ignorance to what is going on with the stealthed person.
If you are unaware of the the stealthed person before they move from cover to cover, you make a perception check vs thier stealth - 10
They are not distracted. That is the only way to be out in the open without being seen.
A momentarily distraction and unaware are not the same thing. Being momentarily distracted would not deny dex, and being unaware would not allow someone to move from point A to B with no cover in between.
If I am watching the entire battlefield, and I can due to no facing, and you move across an open area you will be seen.
The only way to make it across that open area is if I am not looking that way, which is what the distraction represents.
They are not distracted. That is the only way to be out in the open without being seen.
A momentarily distraction and unaware are not the same thing. Being momentarily distracted would not deny dex, and being unaware would not allow someone to move from point A to B with no cover in between.
If I am watching the entire battlefield, and I can due to no facing, and you move across an open area you will be seen.
The only way to make it across that open area is if I am not looking that way, which is what the distraction represents.
Well, I'll just agree to disagree. I don't read it that way, and find it rather silly to not allow it. They way I read Perception, it says you can do it.. The way I read Stealth, it says you can if they are distracted.. I argue that being unaware and distracted are similar in effect. It would be great to get some clarity behind it, i'm sure thats why they were looking into the hidden condition.
Have a good evening!
While I agree that it was definately rules as intended to allow Stealth to grant Sneak Attack in some fashion I disagree that this is rules as written. That is why I believe they created the blog and the proposed change in the rules so that they could allow the RAW to meet their RAI. I applaud this change and look forward to it being solidified so these silly endless debates can end.
We haven't heard anything from Paizo on the status of those changes in a very long time and it would be nice to get some kind of status update.
I strongly agree with wraithstrike about facing rules though, they are not included in the rules and do not dictate what a person can observe. While I agree with most of Hayato Ken is stating for what qualifies for Stealthing, Sneak Attacks, etc (and honestly, bow to his/her? superior knowledge on the subject as he/she? has played more rogue types than I have) I do disagree with their continued statements about facing granting sufficient cover/concealment to hide. That simply isn't in the rules and honestly I hope Pathfinder's waters are never muddied by facing rules as the system is just simply not built for that.
But not being able to Sneak Attack from Stealth is silly. Its one of those scenarios that I think the RAI is far more important than RAW.
Also, seperate, yet related question for the boards here:
If a character is hidden at the start of an encounter and enters the encounter after his party does but with all enemies being unaware of them would they get a full round of sneak attacks, or only their first attack as a sneak attack?
My logic dictates that they should get the full round but I am curious as to other's opinions on this.
You only get the first attack for sneak attack. Once you stab someone they are aware of you. That is why being invisible only works for the first attack.
PC(1st attack):Crap I'm bleeding. Where did that guy come from?
PC(2nd attack):I ain't so easy to hit now. :)