| 19 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Now that the stealth mechanic has been errata'd to function in the way that most GMs had it functioning in the first place - i.e., denying a target its DEX if the attacker beats it in an opposed Stealth vs. Perception check - that brings up another possible issue:
Does Uncanny Dodge grant immunity from losing DEX if you fail that opposed roll?
If a rogue already has uncanny dodge from a different class, she automatically gains improved uncanny dodge (see below) instead.
At first glance it would seem pretty silly that Uncanny Dodge would counter the invisible condition but not 'concealment' granted by stealth - but it doesn't function against Feint, which is a roll-based 'maneuver' similar to stealth. But I still think that would be pretty silly.
My assumption is that the class feature would be altered to state the Rogue is immune to losing DEX from stealth as well. Nonetheless, just pointing this out as something to look at for official FAQ\errata.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogue says, "No thanks wizard, don't cast invisibility on me, I want to be able to sneak attack that barbarian when I sneak up on him! You know being actually impossible to see would be counterproductive to that goal!"
No, that is just too silly.
Rogue says, "No thanks wizard, don't cast invisibility on me, I want to be able to sneak attack that barbarian when I sneak up on him! You know being actually impossible to see would be counterproductive to that goal!"
No, that is just too silly.
I agree. But as of right now, that's exactly what RAW says.
But you can still sneak while being invisible...
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Yea, it seems like Uncanny Dodge needs an errata now because of the stealth changes. For now just assume that it counters the new stealth mechanics in addition to invisibility.
Two level dip to become immune to Sneak Attack? That should sound suspicious to everyone.
If you suprise rush through a door and the character with UD sees you, he is not flat footed and you can't sneak attack.
If you sneak up and the character with UD does not know you are somewhere nearby, it doesn't matter if he's flat footed or not. You can sneak attack him.
|
Two level dip to become immune to Sneak Attack? That should sound suspicious to everyone.
Uncanny Dodge does not make you immune to sneak attack. It makes sneak attacks more difficult to pull off.
There are still other mechanisms (flanking, treacherous terrain, feint) that allow a sneak attack to occur.
I agree. But as of right now, that's exactly what RAW says.Rogue says, "No thanks wizard, don't cast invisibility on me, I want to be able to sneak attack that barbarian when I sneak up on him! You know being actually impossible to see would be counterproductive to that goal!"
No, that is just too silly.
No, no it doesn't.
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).
Uncanny Dodge removes the last line of the above condition. That is all. A sneak-attacker can still stealth while having invisibility cast on them and gain big bonuses to stealth (+20). The Uncanny Dodger will not be flat footed because of the invisible condition but because they failed to perceive the sneak-attacker (with the big bonus to stealth).
Don't confuse the invisible condition and the spell called 'invisibility'. They are two different things (unfortunately).
Two level dip to become immune to Sneak Attack? That should sound suspicious to everyone.
It is this way because sneak attack used to actually be powerful back in 3.x. Now sneak attack isn't that good compared to things like Weapon Training and Smite Evil, but still suffers from having to deal with abilities that negate it.
No, no it doesn't.I agree. But as of right now, that's exactly what RAW says.Rogue says, "No thanks wizard, don't cast invisibility on me, I want to be able to sneak attack that barbarian when I sneak up on him! You know being actually impossible to see would be counterproductive to that goal!"
No, that is just too silly.
Really? Please point out the basis for the statement?
As it stands, stealth can now be used to deny a target its DEX bonus to AC.
Uncanny Dodge spells out specific circumstances against which it guards against losing your DEX bonus. Because the stealth errata came after Uncanny Dodge, the class feature doesn't speak to the new stealth mechanics.
RAI? Sure, Uncanny Dodge is probably going to guard against losing your DEX bonus from stealth.
RAW? Again, point it out - keeping in mind that the stealth errata is part of RAW now.
It goes on to specificaly say that they do not lose Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible. The precedent is set forth in the ability quite plainly that the Rogues Uncanny Dodge protects them from the attacks of adversaries that they aren't aware of.
Which is RAI - not RAW. "Setting a precedent" is different from "the rules say this specifically".
The fact that it mentions that they can guard against attackers of whom they are unaware is the same sort of situation that had to clarified by the stealth errata, because "unaware" was not (and in fact still is not, really) a defined term. It's fluff. What Uncanny Dodge does, using the same sort of reading that triggered the stealth errata in the first place, is exactly what it says - and what it does not say is, "Uncanny Dodge guards against the mechanics that came about because of the stealth errata that was written years after Uncanny Dodge was."
FAQ because we all know how this should work, but lets nip this in the bud before it blossoms into a problem.
FAQ'ing. This one needs errata even if most of us do know the intent.
No, no it doesn't.I agree. But as of right now, that's exactly what RAW says.Rogue says, "No thanks wizard, don't cast invisibility on me, I want to be able to sneak attack that barbarian when I sneak up on him! You know being actually impossible to see would be counterproductive to that goal!"
No, that is just too silly.
Really? Please point out the basis for the statement?
Because this is Pathfinder, not 3.5. Your argument is based upon a tortuous and strained reading of the rules, which is not how Pathfinder works. Your argument is invalid, not to mention fatuous. And, you know it is. Not to mention Tempestorm’s well considered and concise reasoning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ because we all know how this should work, but lets nip this in the bud before it blossoms into a problem.
Why would this become a problem? If you're playing with a GM that's so anal about RAW that this becomes an issue, that GM is a problem that no amount of FAQs is going to solve.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ because we all know how this should work, but lets nip this in the bud before it blossoms into a problem.
I am not going to FAQ this as I dont want SKR & the rules team laughing or rolling their eyes at me.
We all know darn well what the rules are. Common sense and RAI rules over any strained and tortuous legalistic points. And, I don't want them wasting time or electrons over nonsense like this.
Because this is Pathfinder, not 3.5. Your argument is based upon a tortuous and strained reading of the rules, which is not how Pathfinder works. Your argument is invalid, not to mention fatuous. And, you know it is. Not to mention Tempestorm’s well considered and concise reasoning.No, no it doesn't.I agree. But as of right now, that's exactly what RAW says.Rogue says, "No thanks wizard, don't cast invisibility on me, I want to be able to sneak attack that barbarian when I sneak up on him! You know being actually impossible to see would be counterproductive to that goal!"
No, that is just too silly.
Really? Please point out the basis for the statement?
3.5 has nothing to do with it. His basis is incorrect because he is failing to differentiate RAW(what the books says) from RAI(what the book intends).
FAQ because we all know how this should work, but lets nip this in the bud before it blossoms into a problem.Why would this become a problem? If you're playing with a GM that's so anal about RAW that this becomes an issue, that GM is a problem that no amount of FAQs is going to solve.
Because new people and those who don't have enough of a grasp on the rules have trouble knowing when to say "ignore this nonsense" vs "it does not make sense, but it is here for balance".
Because this is Pathfinder, not 3.5. Your argument is based upon a tortuous and strained reading of the rules, which is not how Pathfinder works. Your argument is invalid, not to mention fatuous. And, you know it is. Not to mention Tempestorm’s well considered and concise reasoning.No, no it doesn't.I agree. But as of right now, that's exactly what RAW says.Rogue says, "No thanks wizard, don't cast invisibility on me, I want to be able to sneak attack that barbarian when I sneak up on him! You know being actually impossible to see would be counterproductive to that goal!"
No, that is just too silly.
Really? Please point out the basis for the statement?
Thank you for the ad hominems, they definitely strengthen your position. Now, did you have anything to point to in RAW to back up your statement?
Thank you for the ad hominems, they definitely strengthen your position. Now, did you have anything to point to in RAW to back up your statement?Because this is Pathfinder, not 3.5. Your argument is based upon a tortuous and strained reading of the rules, which is not how Pathfinder works. Your argument is invalid, not to mention fatuous. And, you know it is. Not to mention Tempestorm’s well considered and concise reasoning.No, no it doesn't.I agree. But as of right now, that's exactly what RAW says.Rogue says, "No thanks wizard, don't cast invisibility on me, I want to be able to sneak attack that barbarian when I sneak up on him! You know being actually impossible to see would be counterproductive to that goal!"
No, that is just too silly.
Really? Please point out the basis for the statement?
RAW=literal reading of the rules.
The feat says nothing about a character that you have no noticed. It only references invisible characters. Yeah we know the intent, but that is not what is written, and that is what DrDeth was alluding to. Why he thinks the philosophy of reading the rules has changed from 3.5 is beyond me. I read both systems the same way and often got the rules right no matter which forum I was active on.
Thank you for the ad hominems, they definitely strengthen your position. Now, did you have anything to point to in RAW to back up your statement?
The Most Important Rule
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible.
Let's look at the conditions chapter:
A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC and Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD) (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat or Uncanny Dodge class ability.
Characters with Uncanny Dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat.
So being flat footed means you are denied dex. But being denied dex does not mean you are flat footed. They are two separate concepts. Why is this distinction important? Because a target can be denied its dex through a multitude of ways of which stealth is one of them and still not be flat footed.
Also from the conditions chapter:
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 the invisibility special ability.
That means, just for being invisible, a character can ignore its targets dex bonus to AC. But with Uncanny Dodge it is not automatic: a stealth check is required which gains a +20 bonus for being invisible. Does that make the second part of Uncanny Dodge a little less useful? Yes, but it does force the stealth roll which the Uncanny dodger *might* make.
To answer the OP: No. Uncanny Dodge does not stop denied dex from stealth.
Ok, I must have missed that, but where was Stealth errata'd? Can't find it in the FAQ
I can't seem to find the passage right now where it states what happens to a target's AC that doesn't notice you. I've been looking at Stealth, Perception and Combat rules. I would like to read the exact wording, can anyone help?
Only thing I have been able to find that has changed is that if you successfully stealth, you gain total concealment. Am I missing something? Quotes regarding this thread topic would be awesome.
A quote of the rule that says stealthing denies a target its dex bonus in combat is essentially what I'm after.
Only thing I have been able to find that has changed is that if you successfully stealth, you gain total concealment. Am I missing something? Quotes regarding this thread topic would be awesome.
__
A quote of the rule that says stealthing denies a target its dex bonus in combat is essentially what I'm after.
Not being seen has always denied dex and the information you are looking for is in a qoute from a rules dev. I am on my phone now but when I get hor I will get the link for you.
Feinting and Stealthing are entirely different. I think of Uncanny Dodge like Spidey Sense. Spiderman is very hard to sneak up on because he gets that funny feeling and is able to dodge out of the way just in time. Once in combat though, a sly opponent could trick him with a feint to get a punch in. I think the operative word there is "trick".
Here is the relevant quote from Jason.
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.
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment.
See here.
Though seeing this means that rogues don't get sneak attack from Stealth?
That ruling definitely makes sense, thanks. Uncanny Dodge shouldn't be bypassed by stealth if it works on invisibility though. It looks like it could be interpreted to bypass Uncanny Dodge, but applying it in-game would require the GM to run it that way.
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment.See here.
Though seeing this means that rogues don't get sneak attack from Stealth?
No. It doesn't and when you use rules text it is good to explain which part of the rules text supports your opinion because we can all read it and get different interpretations.
With that aside read this:
This is a breakdown by me before the errata was even in place, and remember that if you are unaware, according to the devs you can not react accordingly.
That ruling definitely makes sense, thanks. Uncanny Dodge shouldn't be bypassed by stealth if it works on invisibility though. It looks like it could be interpreted to bypass Uncanny Dodge, but applying it in-game would require the GM to run it that way.
The only point of being invisible is to not be seen, so whether you are not seen because you are invisible or not seen because you are hiding the effect is basically the same. Yeah I know they probably should errata it, but most people know what the intent is, and I don't know anyone that would say a hidden rogue can jump you, but a hidden invisible rogue can not.
|
That ruling definitely makes sense, thanks. Uncanny Dodge shouldn't be bypassed by stealth if it works on invisibility though. It looks like it could be interpreted to bypass Uncanny Dodge, but applying it in-game would require the GM to run it that way.The only point of being invisible is to not be seen, so whether you are not seen because you are invisible or not seen because you are hiding the effect is basically the same. Yeah I know they probably should errata it, but most people know what the intent is, and I don't know anyone that would say a hidden rogue can jump you, but a hidden invisible rogue can not.
Actually the point of Invisibility is to not be SEEN while the point of Stealth is to not be PERCEIVED. One only affects a single sense while the other is trying to hide you from ALL senses. That's the question being asked here.
Since Uncanny Dodge is specifically referencing the Invisible condition which only affects sight (you detect the target via non or semi visual clues) and Stealth actively hides those clues does Uncanny Dodge still work?I'd very much like the answer to that myself since I'm one of the many who believes a 2 level dip shouldn't invalidate multiple classes whole role in combat.
@ Mathwei ap Niall:
Actually the point of invis is to not be perceived also, if you want to get technical.
Anyway I propose the following scenario in which an assassin(rogue) has entered in the king's chamber so he can assassinate him. This is how it plays out under your interpretation of the rules.
Rogue:<rolls a 23 stealth check before you even look at the modifier from invisibilty>
King:<rolls a 20> therefore he does not notice the rogue.
Rogue:<waits for the opportunity and goes for a sneak attack>
King:<quickly moves out of the way>
Rogue:How did you do that?
King: Well sir had you not been invisible you would have had me.
Rogue: So you have some ability to detect invisible creatures, or magic instantly?
King: Not at all. Your invisibility actually makes you worse at your job.
Rogue: I am not following. I had 23 before you include invisibility, and with it I had at least a 43 for my stealth check.
King: Well I only rolled a 20, but as a former adventurer with a few levels in barbarian I have super senses against invisible creatures.
Rogue: So what you are saying is that if I hide mundanely you have no way to know I am there, but once I cast a spell that makes me better at what I do you just get to know I am there?
King: Well, something like that. I don't really know you are there, but I do get to apply my dex bonus to my AC, so maybe next time how about trying to not be invisible.
Rogue: That makes no sense at all.
King: Maybe so, but I am still alive aren't I? :)
You can use stealth while being invisible. It actually makes it better, and there is no stealth condition so the only that matters is whether or not the enemy knows you are around or not.
PS:Flanking still works until you get greater uncanny dodge.
|
|
@ Mathwei ap Niall:
Actually the point of invis is to not be perceived also, if you want to get technical.
Anyway I propose the following scenario in which an assassin(rogue) has entered in the king's chamber so he can assassinate him. This is how it plays out under your interpretation of the rules.
** spoiler omitted **
You can use stealth while being invisible. It actually makes it better, and there is no stealth condition so the only that matters is whether or not the enemy knows you are around or not.
PS:Flanking still works until you get greater uncanny dodge.
I see what your saying but I think one of us is misinterpreting part of it.
Taking your example to the conclusion I THINK it might work as should go like this:Rogue:<rolls a 23 stealth check and with invisibility bumps it to a 63>
King:<rolls a 20> therefore he does not notice the rogue.
Rogue:<waits for the opportunity and goes for a sneak attack dropping his stealth to a 43>
King:<Barbarian training kicks in letting him ignoring the invisibility making him loose his dex bonus but still loosing it by failing to beat the Rogues Stealth>
Rogue:<swings and hits the king for SA damage>
King: OWWW!! That hurt, good thing I have Barbarian levels to absorb that damage.
Rogue: Uh-Oh, hey, do you always sleep with a greatsword by your bed?
King: Absolutely, here let me show you how to make a rogue cry?
Rogue: I don't think so <quaffs a potion of invisibility and stealths again before moving gets a 22 stealth with invis making it a 42>
King: Great <Closes his eyes and rolls a 27 perception which beats the rogues 23 and ignores the Invisibility boost since he's blind now>, AHH, There you are <and swings at the square where the invisible Rogue is standing and misses due to the 50% miss chance the rogue has.>
At this point in the example above the rogue gets to keep his SA attack style while the Barbarian gets to keep his tactical advantage but the fight stays mostly fair. Any other way and one class is demonstrably and completely better then the other at doing the exact same job.
Now I'm not advocating 4E's need for all classes to be equal but it shouldn't be so insanely one-sided that the other player should just give up and walk away.
That is not how it works. Stealth and invis both operate together. If the invis is what makes the barbarian use uncanny dodge then he gets to use it(uncanny dodge). Otherwise he does not get to use it.
Also there is no rule saying uncanny dodge ignores the stealth bonus to the actual stealth check, which is what you are suggesting. The ability only says the barbarian keeps his dex bonus when dealing with invisible attackers.
|
|
Nothing in what I wrote says he ignores the Stealth bonus from being invisible, only that he ignores the losing his dex bonus BECAUSE the attacker is invisible. He still needs to exceed the attackers stealth check with his perception check to maintain his dex bonus.
There are now two conditions that cause him to lose his dex bonus:
Target is invisible (Uncanny Dodge invalidates this one)
Target made a valid Stealth check (higher Perception score defeats this one)
If the king had rolled a 44 on the first perception check he would not have gotten the initial SA damage (or 34 if the king had been in bed asleep, that's the part you should be arguing with).
Now these are just IDEAS I have on how it should work but I'm still faq'ing this to get some clarity on how these two abilities now interact.
You said the dex check dropped because uncanny dodge ignore invisiblity, but he gets to keep his check minus invis. That amounts to him ignoring the +20 from invis.
PS:I thought we were discussing how it does work. If we are discussing how it should work then I think if it can detect creatures hiding by magic, then it can definitely avoid mundane hiding. Invis is an automatic +20 without any effort, it is so good.
PS2: I also don't think uncanny dodge stops sneak attack. It only stops people from getting jumped, so it will only stop one attack if someone is hiding. It(uncanny dodge) also means that even if win initiative then you have to wait for the flank, but as a class ability which are stronger than feats normally, it is basically a better blind fight.
Blind-Fight (Combat)
You are skilled at attacking opponents that you cannot clearly perceive.
Benefit: In melee, every time you miss because of concealment (see Combat), you can reroll your miss chance percentile roll one time to see if you actually hit.
An invisible attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you in melee. That is, you don't lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, and the attacker doesn't get the usual +2 bonus for being invisible. The invisible attacker's bonuses do still apply for ranged attacks, however.
You do not need to make Acrobatics skill checks to move at full speed while blinded.
Normal: Regular attack roll modifiers for invisible attackers trying to hit you apply, and you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC. The speed reduction for darkness and poor visibility also applies.
Special: The Blind-Fight feat is of no use against a character who is the subject of a blink spell.
Both of these need to reference opponents they are unaware of instead of calling out invisible opponents, but I can understand the assumption that if someone can dodge an invisible attack the reader would understand that someone who is not invisible can also be dodged.