Hobbun: Considering the last sentence ("your stealth immediately ends after you make an attack roll") exists primarily to allow a sneak attack in those circumstances, that's an odd argument to make.
Besides, if you have ended your turn, you can't get a sneak attack anyway (since your turn is over), and the situation will be the exact same next turn.
I still submit that "unaware" does not automagically equate to "flat-footed" at any time.
From the CRB rules on Initiative, Flat-footed, and Surprise (paraphrased).
- At the start of a battle you are flat-footed until you get your first turn.
- When a combat starts, some creatures may be unaware of their enemies.
- When this happens, there is a surprise round.
- During a surprise round, those creatures who are unaware have not acted yet, so they are flat-footed.
All of this explicitly says that flat-footed happens at the start of a combat. Flat-footed creatures can obviously be sneak attacked regardless of whether they are aware of their enemies or not. Once a creature acts, that creature is no longer flat-footed.
At that time, even if he is unaware of a particular enemy, he is no longer flat-footed so he is now acting in combat and trying to stay alive, thus he is defending himself. Being unaware of one enemy does not restore him to being flat-footed because that condition only occurs at the start of combat before he got to act.
"unaware" <> "flat-footed"
"unaware" <> "unable to defend himself"
"stealthy" <> "invisible"
"stealthy" <> "total concealment"
"stealthy" = "concealment" but "concealment" <> "invisible"
Until one of those first three gets implemented in raw, or a separate explicit rules change gets implemented, there is still a gap between being sneaky and being able to sneak attack. All the houserules and all the common sense won't change the fact that this gap exists in RAW. Even if every GM (including me) and every player alive agree that RAI is for rogues to sneak attack from steatlh, RAW still has this gap.
So yeah, fine, house-rule all you want. Use common sense all you want. The CRB says you should use common sense. Paizo says you should use common sense. Even PFS, the nitpickeiest set of Pathfinder rules says you should use common sense.
So use it.
But it's still a good idea to know what the real rules are so that you know you're breaking them for a good reason, and also so you won't be blindsided if you go to a different gaming group and find out that their common sense is different from yours.
Hobbun: Considering the last sentence ("your stealth immediately ends after you make an attack roll") exists primarily to allow a sneak attack in those circumstances, that's an odd argument to make.
Besides, if you have ended your turn, you can't get a sneak attack anyway (since your turn is over), and the situation will be the exact same next turn.
Hm, you bring up very good points, I will need to point that out to my GM.
Thank you, this is exactly what I was trying to relay, but you did so much more effectively. :)
My GM is saying that for the Rogue to remain unobserved (and therefore still be able to sneak attack) he must get to 'point B' of concealment.
Yeah but he becomes observed and stealth is broken when he attacks, so there's no reason to get to point B; there's no more stealth to maintain and no reason to be hidden.
Picture it: You're walking along and a rogue jumps out from behind a column and stabs you in the stomach. Does it do any more or less damage if he ducks back behind the column? Is he still concealed and are you confused about where he must be if he jumps back behind the column? No.
His ability to do sneak attack damage is predicated on STARTING in concealment. His ability to remain stealthed after his turn is predicated on his ability to remain stealthed DURING his turn AND to end in a position that is concealed from view.
Yes, I understand what you are saying. Are already pointed out the flaw logic my GM and I were talking about. As I said, I will bring it up to him.
Thank you.
And you guys do realize that this gave rogues the one Piece they needed to properly Hide from Blind Sense and Blind Sight!Nope.
The creature with blindsense usually does not need to make Perception checks to notice and locate creatures within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature
So the rogue can't beat the bats perception check (without the dampen presence feat or some other trick anyway)
But if I start out of range, I can make the perception check in cover/concealment and then either pass him or close and attack.
Hmmm. What modifiers apply to the Stealth check? Based on where I start, including distance mods? The worst based on where I'm planning to move? Do modifiers for movement speed count? I'm not actually moving when I make the check?
I'd say the moment you enter into a new perception mode's range, a new perception check is made according to that mode's particular details.
For example, you are sneaking past a guard with low-light vision. If you're outside the extended range, he suffers the usual penalty from being unable to see in the dark. However, if you move towards him, or even skirt his lowlight vision ring, the moment you get inside range, he will be better able to see you. He should either get a new roll at the different bonus/penalty structure or change his initial total by the change in penalty (I like option B better).
It is a bit less clean but makes up for it in reasonable interpretation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DM Blake, I at least am not saying that you are wrong but to argue a point just for the sake of arguing it seems like a waste of time and energy.
Do the rules say "hidden" or "stealthed" or "unobserved" equals to "invisible"? No, but I don't think they need to as the rules do not spell every single permutation or possibility out as well.
Would I like for Paizo to come down and say that any situation that leads to an individual being hidden from another's view grants the hidden individual the same condition as invisible? Yes, that would be great as that is how it is run on almost every table that I have seen.
Is Paizo going to do that? Obviously not as they have not done so even in the face of all of the requests over the past half-decade. Why? I don't know, but maybe they see that it is so implied in the rules as written that they do not feel it needs further explanation. Maybe they feel that if they rule on it then some forum user may come up with a variety of different scenarios that stands the rule on its head so it isn't worth the effort.
I can't speak for Paizo but I can say that I respect your opinions on the message boards and I understand that you are not arguing against this in an RAI way but I don't think it helps anyone to keep the "It is not RAW" dogma running any further. I am not trying to silence you but I just see it as a waste of our efforts to keep barking up that tree. Just my humble opinion...
Yes, I understand what you are saying. Are already pointed out the flaw logic my GM and I were talking about. As I said, I will bring it up to him.
Thank you.
Good luck!
You're not trying to remain unobserved. In fact, you're taking an action that will make you quite observed (if for only the time it takes the hapless guard to expire). So I don't see how the 'end in concealment' has any affect on the situation.
You *started* stealthed and thus get to stab someone with sneak attack. You probably can argue that you don't even need to make a stealth check to move up to the guy before the attack, so long as the target is unaware of you at the start of your turn.
Lead Designer
|
| 74 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Question unclear. 96 people marked this as a favorite. |
Couple of notes I want to add here...
1. For simplicities sake, it should be assumed that those making Perception checks get to do so at the most favorable point during the movement of a character using Stealth, to avoid making checks every time the condition changes. Technically, I think you would get a check whenever the conditions change, but that might make things overly complicated during play.
2. Creatures are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC "if they cannot react to a blow" (CR pg 179 under AC). It was our intent that if you are unaware of a threat, you cannot react to a blow. I think we probably should have spelled this out a wee bit clearer, but space in the Stealth description was extraordinarily tight and ever word was at a premium. That said, I think these changes clear up the situation immensely (compared to where they were.. which was nebulous at best).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Yes, I understand what you are saying. Are already pointed out the flaw logic my GM and I were talking about. As I said, I will bring it up to him.
It says "end of turn" not "end of action." So stepping out from shadows itself won't break the stealth until the end of the characters turn or until after the character attacks, etc.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Couple of notes I want to add here...
1. For simplicities sake, it should be assumed that those making Perception checks get to do so at the most favorable point during the movement of a character using Stealth, to avoid making checks every time the condition changes. Technically, I think you would get a check whenever the conditions change, but that might make things overly complicated during play.
2. Creatures are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC "if they cannot react to a blow" (CR pg 179 under AC). It was our intent that if you are unaware of a threat, you cannot react to a blow. I think we probably should have spelled this out a wee bit clearer, but space in the Stealth description was extraordinarily tight and ever word was at a premium. That said, I think these changes clear up the situation immensely (compared to where they were.. which was nebulous at best).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Thanks Jason!
So lets look at this as it is written for a second...
We are leaving out Several other Factors and I think this will clear things up for Blake
Both of your points are correct.
Scene 1, you can sneak attack the flat-footed enemy. Interestingly enough, you would not even need to use stealth, you could just run up there and swing at him, he's still flat-footed and you still get sneak attack -stealth did not create that benefit nor did it help it. To look at it another way, a fighter with no ranks in stealth and noisy armor and bells on his boots can start 20' away (more if he can move faster) and still charge in the surprise round and the enemy is still flat-footed when the fighter attacks him.
Scene 2, you made a good point, concealment grants you immunity from provoking, so you can easily move into flanking position and then sneak attack, but you get this sneak attack because of flanking, not because of stealth. To look at it another way, the rogue could have simply walked without stealth into the same flanking position and assuming he survives any AoO he provokes by walking, he could then sneak attack because of flanking.
Remember without a Surprise round this will not help you except make getting into a good flanking position possible where it was very difficult in the past.
I partially agree. Stealth before combat was ALWAYS a great way to get into position for a surprise round with a sneak attack, and was ALWAYS a great way to get into flanking position, or at least close enough that you could move to flanking position easily. But now, stealth is much easier to use since you can stealth right through wide open spaces as long as you end your move back in cover/concealment or with your first attack against the enemy - you couldn't do that before.
...Good stuff...
You rock.
|
Creatures are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC "if they cannot react to a blow" (CR pg 179 under AC). It was our intent that if you are unaware of a threat, you cannot react to a blow.
And there it is. Stealth allows sneak attacks, from the man himself. Thanks, Jason!
Now everybody click "FAQ" on his post, so we can get it added to the FAQ to avoid more long threads debating this in the future. :D
Couple of notes I want to add here...
1. For simplicities sake, it should be assumed that those making Perception checks get to do so at the most favorable point during the movement of a character using Stealth, to avoid making checks every time the condition changes. Technically, I think you would get a check whenever the conditions change, but that might make things overly complicated during play.
2. Creatures are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC "if they cannot react to a blow" (CR pg 179 under AC). It was our intent that if you are unaware of a threat, you cannot react to a blow. I think we probably should have spelled this out a wee bit clearer, but space in the Stealth description was extraordinarily tight and ever word was at a premium. That said, I think these changes clear up the situation immensely (compared to where they were.. which was nebulous at best).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Awesome, that's what we needed.
Now we can point at the supreme leader's very words to clear up the missing link (that's a genuine compliment, even though re-reading it, it sounds like sarcasm).
I clicked FAQ as have several others, I hope this clarification can go into the FAQ to make it extra official and easier to find.
It says "end of turn" not "end of action." So stepping out from shadows itself won't break the stealth until the end of the characters turn or until after the character attacks, etc.Yes, I understand what you are saying. Are already pointed out the flaw logic my GM and I were talking about. As I said, I will bring it up to him.
There is a requirement to remaining stealthed while not having cover/concealment and that is that you must move to another area with cover/concealment and make a stealth check. If you don't move to an area of cover/concealment then your movement does not stay stealthed.
This new wording doesn't allow players to start from stealth and walk out into an open field and stab someone in the back. It just allows you to move around without breaking stealth as long as you start and end with cover/concealment. You no longer need the distraction mechanism to stealth between areas.
|
Lead Designer
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
It says "end of turn" not "end of action." So stepping out from shadows itself won't break the stealth until the end of the characters turn or until after the character attacks, etc.Yes, I understand what you are saying. Are already pointed out the flaw logic my GM and I were talking about. As I said, I will bring it up to him.
There is a requirement to remaining stealthed while not having cover/concealment and that is that you must move to another area with cover/concealment and make a stealth check. If you don't move to an area of cover/concealment then your movement does not stay stealthed.
This new wording doesn't allow players to start from stealth and walk out into an open field and stab someone in the back. It just allows you to move around without breaking stealth as long as you start and end with cover/concealment. You no longer need the distraction mechanism to stealth between areas.
Not really correct here. The wording was intentionally put together to specify "at the end of your turn". That is the moment when you check your status to see if you can maintain Stealth. This does allow you to move from cover, use Stealth to approach a target, and make a single attack, at which point, Stealth is broken, regardless of the outcome. Now, if you slay that target with one hit, and still could maintain Stealth from all other foes in the area (if say, it is dark and they cannot see you), a GM might reasonably interpret that you could maintain Stealth from other foes, but that requires GM interpretation and is not really the point of this particular situation.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Yay for us! I feel like the forum has made a difference and we have closure here, now what about...??
Edit: That was just a joke Jason :), there was no way I was going to throw a wrench in the works or derail anything. Thanks!!
|
Lead Designer
|
Yay for us! I feel like the forum has made a difference and we have closure here, now what about...??
One step at a time.. we have lots of things to keep juggling, but we try to tackle issues as we can. That said, please do not derail this thread by bringing them up
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Creatures are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC "if they cannot react to a blow" (CR pg 179 under AC). It was our intent that if you are unaware of a threat, you cannot react to a blow.And there it is. Stealth allows sneak attacks, from the man himself. Thanks, Jason!
Now everybody click "FAQ" on his post, so we can get it added to the FAQ to avoid more long threads debating this in the future. :D
And funnily enough, he used the exact same reasoning that some people were dismissing. Intriguing, no?
So basically if you are stealthed at the beginning of your turn you can
a) Move your stealthed movement without cover/concealment before breaking stealth at the end of your turn.
b) Move at your stealthed movement without cover/concealment and attack from stealth. At which point stealth breaks.
c) Move at your stealthed movement without cover/concealment and re-stealth as long as you end your turn in cover/concealment.
That's much better than what I first read. Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, now I have a fun question (I'm asking just for fun, I already know the answer). Here's the scenario:
Combat is raging. A rogue hides behind a tree and succeeds at a Stealth check. Next round he moves from his tree to a different tree. The new rules allow this, even though between the trees he is in plain sight. Awesome. The following round he moves from his tree to run up and attack an Ogre. Sneak attack, as per the new rules and Jason's clarification. The nifty part is that the ogre cannot even take an AoO against the rogue because the rogue has concealment until AFTER his attack.
So here's the question. Suppose the rogue just runs right up next to the ogre without attacking. One reason might be that he already used his standard action, say, to drink a potion, but now he wants to run up and give flanking to a friend. The rule says "When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment."
But in this example, the rogue did NOT end his turn in cover or concealment, nor did he attack. So that means he did not remain unobserved because he did not meet the conditions for using Stealth to remain unobserved.
So does the ogre get to make his AoO in this case?
But the more interesting question is, how could the ogre know whether he would be attacked or not (if he gets attacked then he couldn't make an AoO but if he doesn't get attacked then he could - but the ogre has to decide and make the AoO before the rogue is even close enough to attack him).
The answer is: the player (or GM) controlling the rogue needs to declare his intent before he moves so the GM (or other players) can determine AoOs based on what the rogue is doing.
Or the houserule answer (which I prefer): It doesn't matter. The rogue could have run up there and attacked with a weapon without being observed until after he attacked, so he should be able to run up there and not swing a weapon, just as easily, with the same exact ability to remain unobserved.
Awesome, the answers from the man himself. *Highlights Jason's post and chooses "print" to show to GM later on.*
I refuse to play with rules that require a paradox to function.
Stealth should break at the end of the turn if you don't regain cover/concealment. This is the only way to allow for attacks as Jason described without running into paradoxes like the one you described.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So basically if you are stealthed at the beginning of your turn you can
a) Move your stealthed movement without cover/concealment before breaking stealth at the end of your turn.
b) Move at your stealthed movement without cover/concealment and attack from stealth. At which point stealth breaks.
c) Move at your stealthed movement without cover/concealment and re-stealth as long as you end your turn in cover/concealment.That's much better than what I first read. Thanks!
Or to shorten this:
If you are stealthed at the beginning of your turn you can... move at your stealthed movement without cover/concealment. Period. What happens next is irrelevant to that part of the statement. You start stealthed, you move, you're still stealthed during the movement.
If you can maintain the stealth afterward, then go for it. If not, then you're no longer stealthed when your turn ends. If you do something that breaks stealth during your turn (attacking being the big obvious choice), then stealth is broken. The point is that if you're hiding behind a tree successfully, then jumping out from behind the tree happens so fast that you're still considered hidden until the end of your turn, or until you do something to draw attention to yourself. Which answers DM_Blake, among other things.
Sure, it could be shortened...but not by you. You doubled my word count. :P
Um. Has anyone read the actual pdf?
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.
versus
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment.
I think there's a typo in the prd. . .
While you're at fixing it Paizo:
This:
Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).
should say this:
Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make an attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).
Stealth does break at the end of the turn if you don't regain cover/concealment... that was the change we put into the book.
Does this mean that a character who takes 2 move actions on their turn doesn't need to "recheck" for Stealth during the second move action?
A nicely done errata. Kudos, Paizo people, and thank you for making the game a better place to be. To me, this bodes well for the future...
I think I counted like 10 times where we all said Stealth Breaks at the end of turn... I think I wrote in an example too...
But back on a Comment I made Earlier... Blind sense and Blind Sight are now Officially NERF-ED... DIE DRAGON DIE... Please dont see me Please dont see me... EEEPP
Runs
You mentioned this before. Please explain how Blind Sense and Sight are nerfed?
Am I missing the obvious?
I'm confused on this as well. Blindsight and Blindsense ignore Invisibility and concealment (to one extent or another). How does this somehow nerf them? If anything, it makes them more useful, because it denies a Rogue (or other sneak attack class) the ability to gain sneak attack using stealth.
You are not considered to have concealment while using stealth but you need concealment or cover to use stealth. I think you may have it backwards. If you use Stealth and are not detected, then your foe is just unaware of you. There is no concealment once you have stepped out and are going in for the attack, just stealth. Does that make sense?