Rogue with Blur - How often can I stealth?


Rules Questions

51 to 90 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Quote:
Are you going to argue that a character that is not trying to hide can sneak attack you, but one that is just not seen because of poor perception can sneak attack?

A character who can sneak attack gets the benefits of that ability as long as their opponent is denied their dex mod to AC or that character is flanking their opponent regardless if they're trying to hide or not. This is what the description of sneak attack states.

The fact the ability is called 'sneak attack' is really a misnomer compared to how it works mechanically. There are several conditions and abilities which deny an opponent their dex mod to AC so one can only assume they have it unless one of those conditions or abilities are put on an opponent or used.

Concerning surprise rounds:

Quote:
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.

Once combat begins and you do something you're no longer flat-footed. Given this, you must become flat-footed again due to some ability being used on you or otherwise be denied your dex bonus to AC to become victim to sneak attack. Blur does neither to an opponent and stealth doesn't do it either. Invisibility, on the other hand, works exactly like this so therefore you gain the full benefits of sneak attack when using that.

Quote:
Invisible: Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See Invisibility, under Special Abilities.

Blur only gives you partial concealment and not full like invisibility does so you're still plainly visible. The only caveat is that part of you is obstructed not to mention that since blur is an illusion effect your opponent gets a chance to save on every attack which would remove any benefit blur would grant.


Stealth is a mess, that's for sure, and the reason is that there are no rules for being unaware of someone once combat has gone past the surprise round. It is assumed that after the surprise round everyone is aware of anyone who participates. There aren't even rules what happens if new opponents join the fight (perception? new surprise round?).

This is the main problem of Stealth.

So while it has usually been houseruled that stealthed = surprised (eg flat-footed) or even stealthed = invisible the rules do not supoport this.

So it is in vain to discuss how stealth can be gained, maintained or whatnot in combat because, RAW it doesn't do anything there!

ON TOP of this there is one sentence to rule them all:

Quote:
It’s impossible to use Stealth while attacking...

So RAW (eg without funky interpretations of what "use stealth" and "while attacking" actually means) this sentence basically says "forget about stealth in combat (except when sniping or scurrying away)".

....

Now there has been a blog post that clears up most of this and can be used in house games but not in organized play (afaik).


Buri wrote:
Quote:
Are you going to argue that a character that is not trying to hide can sneak attack you, but one that is just not seen because of poor perception can sneak attack?

A character who can sneak attack gets the benefits of that ability as long as their opponent is denied their dex mod to AC or that character is flanking their opponent regardless if they're trying to hide or not. This is what the description of sneak attack states.

The fact the ability is called 'sneak attack' is really a misnomer compared to how it works mechanically. There are several conditions and abilities which deny an opponent their dex mod to AC so one can only assume they have it unless one of those conditions or abilities are put on an opponent or used.

I did not say anything about the name being a factor. In short I don't use fluff to justify rules. You also did not answer my question. :)

I also agree that blur does not work by itself. I will also add that being flat-footed is not what makes you a victim of sneak attack. Being denied dex, which does not require you to be flat-footed is what makes you a potential victim of sneak attack. By failing to perceive your opponent you are denied dex, and that is why you can be hit with sneak attack.


MicMan wrote:

Stealth is a mess, that's for sure, and the reason is that there are no rules for being unaware of someone once combat has gone past the surprise round. It is assumed that after the surprise round everyone is aware of anyone who participates. There aren't even rules what happens if new opponents join the fight (perception? new surprise round?).

This is the main problem of Stealth.

So while it has usually been houseruled that stealthed = surprised (eg flat-footed) or even stealthed = invisible the rules do not supoport this.

So it is in vain to discuss how stealth can be gained, maintained or whatnot in combat because, RAW it doesn't do anything there!

ON TOP of this there is one sentence to rule them all:

Quote:
It’s impossible to use Stealth while attacking...

So RAW (eg without funky interpretations of what "use stealth" and "while attacking" actually means) this sentence basically says "forget about stealth in combat (except when sniping or scurrying away)".

....

Now there has been a blog post that clears up most of this and can be used in house games but not in organized play (afaik).

The word "while" has a specific meaning in the english language, and since it is in the book it is a part of RAW so "forgetting it" would not allow you to follow RAW.

Also as I said before being denied dex is a matter of perception, not stealth. My example upthread of someone not being able to perceive an opponent even though they are not even using stealth is an example of that.


I am not an english speaker, so maybe I am reading this wrong, but can you fail to notice something that you were keenly aware of just a second ago?

It seems to me that this can not happen. You can only fail to notice something that you were not aware of to begin with.


MicMan wrote:

I am not an english speaker, so maybe I am reading this wrong, but can you fail to notice something that you were keenly aware of just a second ago?

It seems to me that this can not happen. You can only fail to notice something that you were not aware of to begin with.

I am not talking about blur being used if that is what you mean. That question has already been answered and myself and Buri agree about that.

We are actually discussing a different issue which is whether or not you can use stealth to sneak attack someone. To answer your question about being aware, by the rules you only need to fail a perception check to not be aware, but I also said upthread that it is almost impossible to not be aware of someone that you know is there.

The devs might have meant you are not aware of where they are, but that is not what is in the book so I can't use that definition.

If you are asking do I think you can use stealth in the middle of combat after you have already been seen then I think it is reasonable to say that stealth does not work in the middle of combat.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
By failing to perceive your opponent you are denied dex, and that is why you can be hit with sneak attack.

Citation needed.

While I generally accept what you say, the surprise rules explicitly state that the reason you are denied your dex bonus while unaware of opponents is because you are still flat-footed.

Once you have acted (your first turn in a given combat) you are no longer flat-footed, and thus do not lose your dex bonus to AC, even against opponents you are still not aware of.


wraithstrike wrote:

I did not say anything about the name being a factor. In short I don't use fluff to justify rules. You also did not answer my question. :)

I also agree that blur does not work by itself. I will also add that being flat-footed is not what makes you a victim of sneak attack. Being denied dex, which does not require you to be flat-footed is what makes you a potential victim of sneak attack. By failing to perceive your opponent you are denied dex, and that is why you can be hit with sneak attack.

Nothing states that simply failing to notice your opponent denies you your dex to AC outside of the surprise round rules.

Your question came across to me as you trying to change the tone of the discussion in a leading manner which is something I don't enjoy as all I've been stating is the rules text and is why I simply reiterated what qualifies for sneak attack. Only those two qualifying events let sneak attack operate.

As stealth can not be used while attacking outside of sniping, as soon as you go to make that attack your stealth is broken and you're immediately noticed.


Buri wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
James Jacobs on the topic.
See my quote about attacking. A rule that attacking and benefiting from stealth and a rule that stealth can not be used while attacking can not co-exist together.
The perception skill weighs in on this too:
Perception wrote:
Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.

Stealth itself doesn't allow sneak attack but what stealth does force is a perception check, and a failed perception check DOES allow sneak attack.

Edit: removed the surprise round stuff, I think everyone understands that.


Then, upon that attack, stealth ends because it describes itself as being impossible to be used while performing that action.


I don't think anyone has a problem with sneak attack working in surprise situations. However, after that single surprise round, it is impossible to use stealth alone to gain another sneak attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
Then, upon that attack, stealth ends because it describes itself as being impossible to be used while performing that action.

Right.

I believe the sequence would be move action (stealth), opposed perception check (fail), end move action (end stealth but still unobserved and in striking position), attack (opponent denied dex)--> sneak attack. Opponent is now aware of rogue, combat begins per usual.


Buri wrote:
I don't think anyone has a problem with sneak attack working in surprise situations. However, after that single surprise round, it is impossible to use stealth alone to gain another sneak attack.

I disagree. It would be impossible (debatable) using Blur alone; however, if the rogue moves behind cover and is unobserved, he could begin the process over again within the same combat.

For example,

-rogue using natural cave formations to sneak up on a monster. Sneak attacks beginning combat.
-fighter charges in and engages monster.
-rogue runs off, re-establishes stealth using full rules while fighter continues melee.
-rogue stealths in, monster fails perception check (too busy fighting).
-rogue sneak attacks.

The rogue could use Blur and a Bluff (distraction) to rehide behind cover or something as well. Note this depends on the cave formations remaining in place so that the rogue is unobserved while re-attempting stealth.

What makes this tricky is that I don't think the rules ever define what constitutes a "combat" so the rogue could "leave" the fight to re-stealth and get another surprise. I don't believe you're going to have any RAW about when/how a "combat" ends (they assume it's after someone dies or something). 4th edition would define it after a short rest (5 minutes) but that's not Pathfinder.


As I said, using stealth alone will not get a sneak attack. You're talking about moving behind cover and using very situational tactics which is outside stealth itself.

Bluff alone used to feint states it makes someone lose their dex to AC so that works.


Buri wrote:
As I said, using stealth alone will not get a sneak attack. You're talking about moving behind cover and using very situational tactics which is outside stealth itself.

Moving behind cover and situational tactics IS stealth. You cannot have stealth w/o cover/concealment so if you're defining this as not needing any outside situation other than a move-action stealth check, then you're setting stealth up to fail.


It's not sufficient to say any amount of concealment or cover lets you use stealth. For example, blur grants you concealment yet you can't use stealth if you're being observed. You would have to completely break line of sight to ensure you can actually become stealthed to your target.


Buri wrote:
It's not sufficient to say any amount of concealment or cover lets you use stealth. For example, blur grants you concealment yet you can't use stealth if you're being observed. You would have to completely break line of sight to ensure you can actually become stealthed to your target.

Yep, no arguments about that.

If I'm understanding you right, you're saying that it's impossible to use stealth to gain a sneak attack other than the surprise round in a combat.

I would correct that to say, other than the opening surprise round, it is frakking hard to use stealth to gain another sneak attack, but not impossible. It is so difficult that it not worth attempting in most situations. There are other, better methods of gaining sneak attacks after the surprise round.


Even in a surprise round it's not guaranteed. Stealth simply improves your chances by basically acting like a huge neg to someone's perception. In a surprise round initiative is most important as everyone starts being flat-footed. Stealth does nothing to ensure that either that your enemies are denied dex or flanked or even that you act first in a surprise round.

For rogues, there is one talent that let's you treat surprise round initiative as if you rolled a 20 but also states you can only make a ranged attack. So, I guess you could potentially snipe and re-stealth.

You can still be detected even with invisibility but you still gain sneak attack because having the invisible condition states your opponents are denied dex to AC and not simply by virtue that you can't be seen.


Buri wrote:

Even in a surprise round it's not guaranteed. Stealth simply improves your chances by basically acting like a huge neg to someone's perception. In a surprise round initiative is most important as everyone starts being flat-footed. Stealth does nothing to ensure that either that your enemies are denied dex or flanked or even that you act first in a surprise round.

For rogues, there is one talent that let's you treat surprise round initiative as if you rolled a 20 but also states you can only make a ranged attack. So, I guess you could potentially snipe and re-stealth.

You can still be detected even with invisibility but you still gain sneak attack because having the invisible condition states your opponents are denied dex to AC and not simply by virtue that you can't be seen.

I think some of us are making two assumptions that you are not Buri.

1) We assume the enemy is failing the perception check that stealth forces, ergo, the enemy is unaware of the rogue. The allows the rogue to sneak up as long as he maintains cover/concealment. This gets us into position.

2) In 3.5, being unaware of your opponent made you open to sneak attack (Reaver linked to it above). James Jacobs said that they didn't intentionally change this, so we assume it to be true. You may be right that the exact language for this is not included in Pathfinder, and that'd be an oversight. To me, since Pathfinder comes from 3.5, anything that was true in 3.5 but not specifically changed by PF is still true but it may not be RAW.

So we assume two things, stealth can make your opponent unaware (because they failed the perception check), and being unaware makes you vulnerable to a sneak attack. That is JJ's interpretation and I agree with it considering PF's legacy use of 3.5 rules.


If number 2 is true then I'm at a huge and fundamental disadvantage here on the boards and in every game session as is every other person who doesn't have a D&D background. I have no option but to assume that if it's not in the Pathfinder core rules then it doesn't exist.

Here's a litmus test I'm holding myself to: would you try to argue this in PFS game? I'd ask you the same.


Buri wrote:

If number 2 is true then I'm at a huge and fundamental disadvantage here on the boards and in every game session as is every other person who doesn't have a D&D background. I have no option but to assume that if it's not in the Pathfinder core rules then it doesn't exist.

Here's a litmus test I'm holding myself to: would you try to argue this in PFS game? I'd ask you the same.

I don't mean this in any, way, shape or form to be insulting, but you are at a disadvantage. Pathfinder is great, but it was built on something else and there quite a few of these little issues. For example, 3.5 considered all of a monk's unarmed attacks to be from one weapon source but that language was dropped from Pathfinder and caused all sorts of weirdness (see the monk threads). The CRB here has some issues with wording a prime example is the two-weapon fighting with natural weapons language. The CRB says one thing, the Bestiary says another. Paizo has said that the Bestiary is the correct version.

The Paizo team didn't build Pathfinder from the ground up like most systems are, it's essentially a collection of "house" rules to be added to 3.5. That was the vision, the goal when they made it. They made it because people wanted to keep playing a 3.5 like system instead of 4th edition; however, in time, it grew in popularity until it brought in people like yourself.

There are calls to make PF v 2.0 for this reason. They did their best (and an awesome job indeed) to try to cover everything, but a few things slipped through the cracks and when that happens most people fall back to 3.5 (like JJ did/assumed).

And to answer your question, I would try to argue it in PFS and I would use 3.5 as my evidence. Whether the judge would buy my evidence or not, I can't say. I guess it'd depend on if he played 3.5 or not.

I think your position may be right (without looking into it more myself) RAW with the Pathfinder CRB, but don't be surprised if GMs who played 3.5 (like myself) ruled otherwise.


I know Pathfinder was originally founded to extend the lifespan of 3.5 but I highly doubt that's their current view of the system. This is why there's a "Core" Rulebook. It defines what Pathfinder is. Lastly, I do believe Pathfinder is marked as "3.5 OGL" compatible and not simply 3.5 compatible.

Here's the text from the D20 3.5 SRD:

Quote:

Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.

Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.

A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

Here the wording as to what qualifies for sneak attack is the same.

What stealth came from:

Quote:

HIDE (DEX; ARMOR CHECK PENALTY)

Check: Your Hide check is opposed by the Spot check of anyone who might see you. You can move up to one-half your normal speed and hide at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than one-half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty. It’s practically impossible (–20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging.

A creature larger or smaller than Medium takes a size bonus or penalty on Hide checks depending on its size category: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Large –4, Huge –8, Gargantuan –12, Colossal –16.
You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check. Total cover or total concealment usually (but not always; see Special, below) obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway.
If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide. You can run around a corner or behind cover so that you’re out of sight and then hide, but the others then know at least where you went.

If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check; see below), though, you can attempt to hide. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Hide check if you can get to a hiding place of some kind. (As a general guideline, the hiding place has to be within 1 foot per rank you have in Hide.) This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.

Sniping: If you’ve already successfully hidden at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack, then immediately hide again. You take a –20 penalty on your Hide check to conceal yourself after the shot.

Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to help you hide. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Hide check while people are aware of you.

Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. However, hiding immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.
Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Hide checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Hide checks if you’re moving.
If you have the Stealthy feat, you get a +2 bonus on Hide checks.
A 13th-level ranger can attempt a Hide check in any sort of natural terrain, even if it doesn’t grant cover or concealment. A 17thlevel ranger can do this even while being observed.

Quote:

MOVE SILENTLY (DEX; ARMOR CHECK PENALTY)

Check: Your Move Silently check is opposed by the Listen check of anyone who might hear you. You can move up to one-half your normal speed at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than one-half but less than your full speed, you take a –5 penalty. It’s practically impossible (–20 penalty) to move silently while running or charging.

Noisy surfaces, such as bogs or undergrowth, are tough to move silently across. When you try to sneak across such a surface, you take a penalty on your Move Silently check as indicated below.

Surface Check Modifier
Noisy (scree, shallow or deep bog, undergrowth, dense rubble) –2
Very noisy (dense undergrowth, deep snow) –5

Action:None. A Move Silently check is included in your movement or other activity, so it is part of another action.

Special: The master of a cat familiar gains a +3 bonus on Move Silently checks.

A halfling has a +2 racial bonus on Move Silently checks.
If you have the Stealthy feat, you get a +2 bonus on Move Silently checks.

The relevant portion that perception came from:

Quote:

SPOT (WIS)

Check: The Spot skill is used primarily to detect characters or creatures who are hiding. Typically, your Spot check is opposed by the Hide check of the creature trying not to be seen. Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it.

A Spot check result higher than 20 generally lets you become aware of an invisible creature near you, though you can’t actually see it.
Spot is also used to detect someone in disguise (see the Disguise skill), and to read lips when you can’t hear or understand what someone is saying.

Spot checks may be called for to determine the distance at which an encounter begins. A penalty applies on such checks, depending on the distance between the two individuals or groups, and an additional penalty may apply if the character making the Spot check is distracted (not concentrating on being observant).

Condition Penalty
Per 10 feet of distance –1
Spotter distracted –5

Read Lips: To understand what someone is saying by reading lips, you must be within 30 feet of the speaker, be able to see him or her speak, and understand the speaker’s language. (This use of the skill is language-dependent.) The base DC is 15, but it increases for complex speech or an inarticulate speaker. You must maintain a line of sight to the lips being read.

If your Spot check succeeds, you can understand the general content of a minute’s worth of speaking, but you usually still miss certain details. If the check fails by 4 or less, you can’t read the speaker’s lips. If the check fails by 5 or more, you draw some incorrect conclusion about the speech. The check is rolled secretly in this case, so that you don’t know whether you succeeded or missed by 5.

Action: Varies. Every time you have a chance to spot something in a reactive manner you can make a Spot check without using an action. Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action. To read lips, you must concentrate for a full minute before making a Spot check, and you can’t perform any other action (other than moving at up to half speed) during this minute.

Try Again: Yes. You can try to spot something that you failed to see previously at no penalty. You can attempt to read lips once per minute.
Special: A fascinated creature takes a –4 penalty on Spot checks made as reactions.

If you have the Alertness feat, you get a +2 bonus on Spot checks.
A ranger gains a bonus on Spot checks when using this skill against a favored enemy.

An elf has a +2 racial bonus on Spot checks.
A half-elf has a +1 racial bonus on Spot checks.
The master of a hawk familiar gains a +3 bonus on Spot checks in daylight or other lighted areas.
The master of an owl familiar gains a +3 bonus on Spot checks in shadowy or other darkened areas.

No mention of the quote from the JJ thread above nor "dexterity bonus" in the combat sections of the SRD reveal anything about failing a perception check means you're denied dex to AC.

Where else would it be?

While I'm not offended at your response I do scoff at the idea that I some how need to go out and buy all the 3.5 books before I know how to play Pathfinder since it's just a collection of house rules on top of another system. I won't buy that for one second. That might have been true but it's its own system now built on some OGL content.


Buri wrote:
I don't think anyone has a problem with sneak attack working in surprise situations. However, after that single surprise round, it is impossible to use stealth alone to gain another sneak attack.

You obtain full cover or full concealment at which point you become unobserved.

Then you can use stealth to remain unobserved even when others gain LOS to you as long as you can maintain some (smaller) degree of cover and/or concealment relative to them.

Were a rogue on the edge of fog (20% concealment) they could be unobserved by someone with LOS to them by the rogue using the stealth skill (and succeeding vs Perception).

They attack, upon that attack they become observed.

Then they move deeper into the fog (total concealment) and become unobserved.

They then move back to the edge of the fog (20% concealment). If they were not using stealth to do so then they would become observed there. But via stealth they can remain unobserved and repeat the process.

How effective this is in a combat is something else, but it is NOT impossible.

Now if you are trying to say that you can't use the stealth skill to disappear, then you are correct. But then again you cannot use the stealth skill alone in the first place.. you need some degree of cover and/or concealment and starting as unobserved.

I think that the wording of the stealth skill would be more intuitive if it reinforced that the skill was about remaining unobserved rather than becoming unobserved that many seem to expect it to be.

-James

Grand Lodge

Basically, if you want to use Blur to use stealth in combat, you need Hide in Plain Sight, or Hellcat Stealth.


Eh, I read along JJs line of comments following the above question so I'm a bit deflated on the issue as they don't care to clarify these things. So... whatever.

All I'll say is that if things like this are, in fact, possible without 'being in the rules' then they should be put there in content updates. Someone flipping through the classes should know what's capable and what's an option. The perception of what's fun can vary wildly from person to person. The rules text is the middle ground that we all conform to and base our expectations from. Things like this make the rogue much more nifty that the published material makes it seem.

And with that, I'm out.


Buri wrote:

No mention of the quote from the JJ thread above nor "dexterity bonus" in the combat sections of the SRD reveal anything about failing a perception check means you're denied dex to AC.

Where else would it be?

Umbral Reaver wrote:

I have discovered where the confusion stems from.

3.5 has the following text:

Quote:
If you're successfully hidden with respect to another creature, that creature is flat-footed with respect to you. That creature treats you as if you were invisible.

If you are hidden, they are flat-footed; if they are flat-footed, they are denied dex bonus to AC; if they are denied dex, you can sneak attack.

I'm not sure where in 3.5 Umbral Reaver got the quote from seeing as I do not have access to it all now.


i don´t mean to derail this but, going back to HIPS+spring attack, what about the darkness spell? ir a zone of shadowy illumination, the rogue should be able to move while hiding attack and hide again because of the shadows

if this does not work either, then theres really no point in being a rogue :/


Ismodai wrote:

i don´t mean to derail this but, going back to HIPS+spring attack, what about the darkness spell? ir a zone of shadowy illumination, the rogue should be able to move while hiding attack and hide again because of the shadows

if this does not work either, then theres really no point in being a rogue :/

Its actually very simple, but you need to approach it the right way.

Stealth is about remaining unobserved rather than disappearing. Understand that.

So should the rogue start as unobserved, they can use stealth to let less than total cover/concealment keep them unobserved from those that have LOS to them.

Once a rogue attacks they become observed.

Stealth does not let them disappear.

So they need to block LOS to a given observer to become unobserved.

At which point the whole routine can begin again.

If your character is in an area that grants mere concealment then you might be able to maintain being unseen, but you cannot disappear there while being watched.

Does that distinction make sense?

-James


Cibulan wrote:
I'm not sure where in 3.5 Umbral Reaver got the quote from seeing as I do not have access to it all now.

3.5 Rules Compendium.


Umbral Reaver wrote:
Cibulan wrote:
I'm not sure where in 3.5 Umbral Reaver got the quote from seeing as I do not have access to it all now.
3.5 Rules Compendium.

Ah, I checked the SRD and couldn't find it (like Buri). I didn't doubt it for a second because it jived with what I remember, but citing sources and all...


Thanks, UR. I think I'll buy it and go over it with my GM to see what I've been missing out on.


I don't think the 3.5 SRD ever got updated to include rules clarifications and errata.


So after skimming through some of the items in the Ultimate Equipment, one of the items actually grants (concealment 20%) and is described as the user being "almost invisible." Apparently Paizo's vision of what concealment means does not line up with several other opinions in this thread. Which, would of course, explain some of the disagreement on the topic.


Chemlak wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
By failing to perceive your opponent you are denied dex, and that is why you can be hit with sneak attack.

Citation needed.

While I generally accept what you say, the surprise rules explicitly state that the reason you are denied your dex bonus while unaware of opponents is because you are still flat-footed.

Once you have acted (your first turn in a given combat) you are no longer flat-footed, and thus do not lose your dex bonus to AC, even against opponents you are still not aware of.

I provide the link upthread, but I will provide it again.

Click me


Buri wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I did not say anything about the name being a factor. In short I don't use fluff to justify rules. You also did not answer my question. :)

I also agree that blur does not work by itself. I will also add that being flat-footed is not what makes you a victim of sneak attack. Being denied dex, which does not require you to be flat-footed is what makes you a potential victim of sneak attack. By failing to perceive your opponent you are denied dex, and that is why you can be hit with sneak attack.

Nothing states that simply failing to notice your opponent denies you your dex to AC outside of the surprise round rules.

Your question came across to me as you trying to change the tone of the discussion in a leading manner which is something I don't enjoy as all I've been stating is the rules text and is why I simply reiterated what qualifies for sneak attack. Only those two qualifying events let sneak attack operate.

As stealth can not be used while attacking outside of sniping, as soon as you go to make that attack your stealth is broken and you're immediately noticed.

I was not trying to lead anything. I was trying to make you realize how silly it was to think that a character that is not trying to hide can sneak attack someone, while one that is trying to hide can not.


Buri wrote:

If number 2 is true then I'm at a huge and fundamental disadvantage here on the boards and in every game session as is every other person who doesn't have a D&D background. I have no option but to assume that if it's not in the Pathfinder core rules then it doesn't exist.

Here's a litmus test I'm holding myself to: would you try to argue this in PFS game? I'd ask you the same.

I would. The GM would have to show me that stealth is a continuous action because that is the only way your "While" idea works. I see it as stealth means you have hidden. In short the action of stealthing has been completed. This also goes back to my idea of you not being able to perceive someone and how they can get sneak attack, but someone trying to hide can not. That is simply not logical at all.


Umbral Reaver wrote:
I don't think the 3.5 SRD ever got updated to include rules clarifications and errata.

It didn't. They just made the 3.5 rules compendium, which does answer a lot of questions, but it should have been free.


The rules compendium really should have been taken into account when Pathfinder was being written. While its text is not OGL, the lessons therein could have been useful.


I didn't read the whole thread so I am not sure if this was brought up before or if the matter was already settled.

Stealth and Sneak Attack, it is largely up to your GM. PF did work at a Stealth re-write but it will be too massive to do at this point. So without new rules I go back to a lot of the rulings that governed the 3.5 rules where PF Stealth came from in order to make these rulings. In all my games the GM allowed Sneak Attack from Stealth. I allow Sneak Attack from Stealth. Here is why: The PF Stealth rules are a carryover from the 3.5 Hide rules. In 3.5 the rules didn't specifically state that Stealth allowed Sneak Attack, but the later FAQ answers did come out and say it clearly.

Nethys posted this here: http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz1jw4?Can-rogues-Sneak-Attack-when-stealthed-Or- not#20

3.5 FAQ wrote:

If a rogue has successfully hidden behind some bushes and fires an arrow at a target less than 30 feet away from her, does she deal sneak attack damage?

Yes. The rules don’t come right out and say this, but a character who has successfully hidden from an opponent is considered invisible for the purpose of rendering that foe flatfooted, and thus deals sneak attack damage.

Discuss it with your GM, YMMV.


My post above was supposed to point to this thread:
Rogues can Sneak Attack from Stealth

51 to 90 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Rogue with Blur - How often can I stealth? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.