At wich page it says that if opponent did not noticed rogue he can igrone his DEX bonus to AC? I can only find flat-footed stuff, but if rogue jumps into stealth mid combat enemy still acted in first round so they are not flat-footed.
you're going to be retreading some well worn ground with this question.
Might I suggest you start with this thread
Big stealth thread
and this one
more stealth
cliff notes
Check: 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
You apply your character's Dexterity modifier to:
Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.
as per wraithstrike...
Final Conclusion:If you do not succeed in an opposed check against an opponents stealth then you can not react accordingly.
Since you can not react to the attack by using your dex bonus, due to the fact that you are unaware of the opponent even being there, you lose dex to AC (see above)
Being denied the bonus to AC means you are now a legal target for sneak attack.
you have to start the round under cover or concealment to initiate stealth, if you are already fighting someone you can't.
Thank you, i have checked perception before but did not thought about checking dexterity entry.
Just noticed my post looks like i am implying rogue should not have sneak attack, but i actually was looking for raw justifying my belief of him having it.
The only thing that continues to trouble me is that statement about not being able to use Stealth while attacking, just what does that mean, exactly?
probably they mean that if you attack in current round you must use rules for sniping
You have stealth until you end your turn in an area of no concealment or until you make an attack.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is important to note that the Stealth rules got an edit in the Errata for the 6th Printing of the Core Rulebook - so if you have an older core rulebook, you might not have the latest Stealth rules:
of you and treat you as if you had concealment.
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)
YOu can also find these changes in the PRD.
Immediately following that, there was a big forum thread about Sneak Attack and Stealth. Jason Bulmahn answered this very important question here in post 64: Here is the answer you're looking for. (I wish he had put that into the FAQ somewhere - maybe more people who read this thread can click that link and hit the FAQ button).
In any case, thanks to JB's post, we can now treat anyone who succeeds on a Stealth check as though their enemies are denied DEX bonus to AC, which allows them to be sneak attacked.
In any case, thanks to JB's post, we can now treat anyone who succeeds on a Stealth check as though their enemies are denied DEX bonus to AC, which allows them to be sneak attacked.
But in the meantime, no errata (or FAQ) showed up to clear/modify rules to allow such things.
I respect what the lead designer says, but it has no more official value than another member post if it doesn't lead to an errata, or at least a FAQ (waiting to be errated, like the amulet of mighty fists price modification was).
RAW (errata and FAQ included), Stealth does not deny dex bonus to AC to creatures that fail their perception check, because "react accordingly" is nothing more than fluff text : not a condition or an effect defined by the rules.
As it have been said above (and in a bunch of other topics), a simple modification should be implemented, such as :
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you, treat you as if you had concealment and lose their DEX bonus to AC against your next attack.
[italic text is the modification] .
True, AVH, without a real Errata or at least a FAQ, people have to dig up JB's post to win their case and even then, some GMs (and PFS too?) will disregard a forum post until it's made official.
So, for those who won't (or can't) accept JB's post, there is no RAW way to get a Sneak Attack from Stealth. The best you can do is, pre-combat, use Stealth to get into position then clobber them in the surprise round and maybe even in round 1 while they're still flat-footed.
Wraithstrike's contortions to equate "Unable to defend" to "Losing DEX" might be true, but it ignores the "Cannot use Stealth while attacking" clause and presumes that the attacker is, in fact, using Stealth while attacking and therefore the defender is unable to defend himself while the attacker is stealthily attacking - which is manifestly not true unless we include Jason Bulmahn's post that I linked.
In any case, thanks to JB's post, we can now treat anyone who succeeds on a Stealth check as though their enemies are denied DEX bonus to AC, which allows them to be sneak attacked.But in the meantime, no errata (or FAQ) showed up to clear/modify rules to allow such things.
I respect what the lead designer says, but it has no more official value than another member post if it doesn't lead to an errata, or at least a FAQ (waiting to be errated, like the amulet of mighty fists price modification was).
RAW (errata and FAQ included), Stealth does not deny dex bonus to AC to creatures that fail their perception check, because "react accordingly" is nothing more than fluff text : not a condition or an effect defined by the rules.
As it have been said above (and in a bunch of other topics), a simple modification should be implemented, such as :
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you, treat you as if you had concealment and lose their DEX bonus to AC against your next attack.[italic text is the modification] .
So Rogues in your games never get to sneak attack except for flanks? Ouch.
Dexterity Says,
You apply your character's Dexterity modifier to:
Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.
Rogue Sneak Attack Says,
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC
If they are not aware of you how do they maintain their dexterity to their AC? How are they able to react to you without knowing to react to you?
So Rogues in your games never get to sneak attack except for flanks? Ouch.
Dexterity Says,
You apply your character's Dexterity modifier to:
Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.Rogue Sneak Attack Says,
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to ACIf they are not aware of you how do they maintain their dexterity to their AC? How are they able to react to you without knowing to react to you?
The only ways to "not being able to react" are :
- Stunned- sleeping
- tied
- paralyzed
- blinded
- Flat footed
- pinned
- affected by feint
If a creature is under neither of those conditions, then it does not lose their DEX bonus to AC.
The rogue can deal sneak attack on either 2 conditions :
- their target is denied its DEX bonus
- the rogue flank the target with another ally
In the rules, stealth only help to improve the chances to be the one acting during the surprise round.
I think what we can agree upon, I hope, is that a condition that denies you your Dex modifier to AC is not the same as being Flat-Footed, which is a specific condition that has a specific definition (and includes the restriction of the use of Dex to AC), even if for the sake of sneak attack damage means the same thing, right?
Correct. Nothing makes you flat-footed except the beginning of combat, which makes everyone flat-footed until they act.
Many people forget that.
Dexterity says it right there. If you are not able to react and common sense tells us you can't react to something you aren't aware of, you lose your dexterity bonus to AC.
So Rogues in your games never get to sneak attack except for flanks? Ouch.
My answer: I use Jason's version (see my post above). I always have, even before he posted that (but before, it was a house rule, now it's a lead-designer-clarification, hopefully one day it will be an official errata).
By RAW, your comment is wrong. Flank does work, but also, Flat-footed would work. So would invisibility, and many other conditions that cause a combatant to lose their DEX bonus to AC.
Stealth, by RAW, is not one of those conditions (it's not even a condition). It never has been.
Being unaware of an attacker does not make one helpless. If I am fighting an orc, I am doing my absolute best to duck, weave, dodge, and defend myself in every way. If a sneaky rogue uses stealth to come up behind me, and I fail to observe him so I remain unaware of him, that does NOT mean I stop ducking, weaving, dodging, and defending myself - I am being defensive enough to prevent him from delicately placing his dagger precisely into my kidney.
At least, that is how I explain the RAW - like it or not, my explanation matches RAW.
My problem with that is if the same rogue is invisible, I am still ducking, weaving, dodging, and defending myself but the rogue CAN sneak attack me - in both cases, my defense is the same and in both cases I am unaware of the rogue, so the effect SHOULD be the same. That's why I had my house rule.
But, it IS a house rule, not RAW.
At least Jason's clarification, while still not an official ruling, makes it very easy to justify the house rule.
Dexterity says it right there. If you are not able to react and common sense tells us you can't react to something you aren't aware of, you lose your dexterity bonus to AC.
You can insert common sense any time you want, and the CRB and the Devs highly recommend that you do, but the one thing you cannot do is say that your common sense interpretation is exactly what the RAW says.
It isn't.
The RAW very clearly states that you "cannot use Stealth while attacking" and therefore, when you're attacking, you are NOT using stealth, therefore your opponent is not unaware of you and therefore he is NOT unable to react and therefore he does NOT lose his DEX bonus to AC.
Jason's clarification fixes that, unofficially (but from the Overlord of Paizo himself, so it's official enough for me), but the RAW does not explicitly allow your common sense interpretation.
It should. But it doesn't.
So despite being completely unaware of an attack, you still maintain your dex bonus to ac unless it specifically states you lose it despite Dexterity stating you only get your dex to AC if you are able to react to the attack.
I don't believe you can react to an attack you are not aware of. That rogue could very easily take advantage of your momentum to deal a devastating blow, but since you can maintain the full advantage of your dexterity against an attack you aren't aware of..
Alrighty then. Tucking this stuff away in my handy book of rules beating down on rogues.
Dexterity says it right there. If you are not able to react and common sense tells us you can't react to something you aren't aware of, you lose your dexterity bonus to AC.
Not only commmon sense but also description of perception skill.
There is no headers like "Rules:" and "Fluff:" in the book so if it written then i may as well claim it to be RAW (being kind of rule bending tho)
It's not rule bending, the design team's intention was that Stealth grant Sneak Attack.
Jason Bulmahn said this about it:
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).
And even before that, back in D&D 3.5, WotC FAQ answers had stated that people who had successfully hidden were to be treated as if they were invisible for the purpose of gaining Sneak Attack.
So despite being completely unaware of an attack, you still maintain your dex bonus to ac unless it specifically states you lose it despite Dexterity stating you only get your dex to AC if you are able to react to the attack.
I don't believe you can react to an attack you are not aware of. That rogue could very easily take advantage of your momentum to deal a devastating blow, but since you can maintain the full advantage of your dexterity against an attack you aren't aware of..
Alrighty then. Tucking this stuff away in my handy book of rules beating down on rogues.
Going purely on RAW, I think what is going on is that you are unaware of the rogue as she sneaks up on you. However, once the rogue starts to attack, she loses stealth and you become aware of her, and thus her attack, thereby granting you that split second to react. The problem, per RAW, is that you cannot stealth AND attack unless some other ability/power/item/etc. lets you. In other words, the rogue has to break stealth prior to the attack at which point the defender becomes aware of said attack and able to react.
All that being said, I don't have a problem with ruling that the rogue gets the sneak attack damage. Just that per RAW the rogue should not. Certainly the RAI as stated by one designer says differently, but until its officially adopted into errata, RAI (according to one guy) and RAW are not the same.
He is the Lead Designer for PF.
And it was resolved in FAQ answers in D&D 3.5, which PF came from.
.....
Going purely on RAW, I think what is going on is that you are unaware of the rogue as she sneaks up on you. However, once the rogue starts to attack, she loses stealth and you become aware of her, and thus her attack, thereby granting you that split second to react. The problem, per RAW, is that you cannot stealth AND attack unless some other ability/power/item/etc. lets you. In other words, the rogue has to break stealth prior to the attack at which point the defender becomes aware of said attack and able to react.
This is not a statement of RAW, this is just an interpretation; a very common one. However, it is not RAW, it's just an opinion, and it isn't in line with the designer's intent. This is RAW:
Sometimes you can't use your Dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC. If you don't have a Dexterity bonus, your AC does not change.
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment.
A LOT of people share your interpretation of the RAW but that doesn't make it RAW. It just makes it a common opinion and interpretation. Stealth says if you aren't detected then people are unaware of you. If someone is unaware then how can they react?
Then people say, "well you become visible just before you attack giving people a split second to react." Well, that exact same thing happens when you attack from Invisibility, it ends when you attack. Invisibility just happens to be detailed better than Stealth but the two effects are the same, you go from being unnoticed to plainly visible when you attack.
That main premis of the argument was actually made obsolete by part of PF Stealth Errata:
Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll
People with your interpretation always say you become visible the moment before an attack. Errata'd RAW says you become visible immediately after the attack roll. If the roll is being made then your character is already attacking before you become noticed.
Just because an interpretation is common doesn't make it right, and certainly doesn't make it RAW. The actual RAW is pretty heavily stacked against that common interpretation. And Pathfinder's lead designer has outright said it's not accurate.
Oh Lord of Shadow, we pray to thee in our times of need, that our blades strike true against our foes and may they never see our pass.
But yeah Stealth ends after you make your attack.
Which actually means that there won't be sneak attacks after your first stealthed attack.
That has always been the case unless your opponent can't see or you have Greater Invisibility. You can still attack multiple times, you just don't get Sneak Attack on the additional attacks. That said, if you can find a way to regain Stealth you can make another Sneak Attack next turn.
However the good thing is, snipers only need one attack at an extremely long range and a lot of time :P
Sniping works a bit outside normal Stealth rules. If you are a successful sniper you never actually break Stealth at all. However, without special abilities even a Sniper can only get Sneak Attack at 30' or less.
The difference is that there is no facing in combat. Everyone sees everything, all the time, in all directions. RAW.
To see an "observed" guy standing in plain sight is DC 0. You cannot use stealth while "observed" by RAW. Normally you need cover or concealment to use stealth. By RAW. And you cannot use stealth while attacking. By RAW.
Adding all of this together, if you are in melee range to hit an enemy, he can "observe" you and the Perception check is pretty much automatic for everyone who doesn't have vision disabilities, so you cannot use stealth. If you have cover between you, maybe you can use stealth and then try to strike, with sneak attack, but you lose stealth when you attack. If you have concealment, then (usually) so does your enemy because concealment (and cover) usually worth both ways, so you might try to strike but not sneak attack since you cannot sneak attack an opponent with concealment, and you lose stealth when you attack.
The rule says invisibility breaks when you attack. There are combat modifiers for creatures attacking from invisibility or defending against invisible attackers, and these rules are not milted to Greater Invisibility. There is no rule saying you cannot use invisibility "while attacking" so you can. You can attack while invisible, and get those combat modifiers, but invisibility breaks when you attack - ergo, it must break after the attack, not before. By RAW.
The rule says stealth ends when you attack. There are no combat modifiers for attacking from stealth or defending against stealthy attackers. There IS a rule saying you cannot use stealth while attacking so you can't. You cannot attack while stealthed and stealth breaks when you attack - ergo, it must before the attack, not after. By RAW before the errata.
Now, in the 6th printing, they work the same, regarding whether you can attack while stealthed. None of the above says you can Sneak Attack while stealthed, except Jason Bulmahn's clarification that they meant for it to work that way.
It's also worth noting that using Stealth to become stealthed is usually a "non-action" rolled as part of another action, but the "you cannot use stealth while attacking" rule still applies, so there is no way to become stealthed while making an attack - you must begin already stealthed before you try to make an attack.
(edited because I hadn't been clear)
It says Stealth ends after you make your attack mate. The errata you posted even says it.
Stealth ends after you make your attack roll.
True, but only if you can get it in the first place, I should go back and clarify.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adding all of this together, if you are in melee range to hit an enemy, he can "observe" you and the Perception check is pretty much automatic for everyone who doesn't have vision disabilities, so you cannot use stealth.
I disagree. The errata added two important things regarding this type of situation. Lets say I am in the shadowy (dim light) corner of a room mostly filled with normal light. I can begin my turn in Stealth and as long as my possible observer doesn't beat my check with Perception they:
are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment.
Now I decide to stalk out from my concealment up to my opponent who is standing in normal light and attack him. I can absolutely do so without being detected.
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).
1. The Breaking Stealth rules explicitly say I can leave cover/concealment and still use Stealth and be undetected.
2. If I begin my turn in Stealth, according to the first quote, I am treated as having concealment.
That says to me that if I start my turn in c/c under Stealth and then leave c/c under Stealth to approach an enemy: 1. The rules say I can keep using Stealth even without c/c until the end of my move or until I attack and 2. Unless their Perception beats my Stealth I am treated as having concealment which allows me to keep my full Stealth check.
If you have cover between you, maybe you can use stealth and then try to strike, with sneak attack, but you lose stealth when you attack. If you have concealment, then (usually) so does your enemy because concealment (and cover) usually worth both ways, so you might try to strike but not sneak attack since you cannot sneak attack an opponent with concealment, and you lose stealth when you attack.
I disagree for the reasons stated above. RAW says I can leave cover/concealment, maintain my Stealth check, and remain unnoticed until the end of my movement or until I attack.
Additionally, JB says THIS about it:
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.
.....
The rule says invisibility breaks when you attack. There are combat modifiers for creatures attacking from invisibility or defending against invisible attackers, and these rules are not milted to Greater Invisibility. There is no rule saying you cannot use invisibility "while attacking" so you can. You can attack while invisible, and get those combat modifiers, but invisibility breaks when you attack - ergo, it must break after the attack, not before. By RAW.
Fair enough, sounds accurate.
The rule says stealth ends when you attack. There are no combat modifiers for attacking from stealth or defending against stealthy attackers. There IS a rule saying you cannot use stealth while attacking so you can't. You cannot attack while stealthed and stealth breaks when you attack - ergo, it must before the attack, not after. By RAW (although Jason Bulmahn's clarification overrides this).
I know this was the common interpretation of RAW before the errata but I think there is enough RAW now to overturn that way of thinking. I will post relevant RAW for my train of logic.
Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).
Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.
This tells me there is at least one scenario under which you CAN use Stealth during an attack.
..
Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round... If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
So if "attack roll" represents your "attempt to strike" and your Stealth ends immediately after your "attack roll" then:
Your Stealth immediately ends after your attempt to strike = RAW.
Not before, not during, AFTER.
..
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 anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC
Sometimes you can't use your Dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC. If you don't have a Dexterity bonus, your AC does not change.
Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment.
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.
This says to me: I can use Stealth to attempt an attack on you from an unseen possition. Perception can be used to detect me, if it's successful my opponent will be able to react accordingly to my attack. However, if it fails, my opponent will NOT be able to react accordingly to my attack. The combat section of rules says if an opponent is unable to react to a blow they lose their dexterity bonus. Sneak Attack says if you lose your Dex bonus you are vulnerable to extra damage.
Just because it isn't spelled out to the lowest common denominator for Stealth the way it is for Invisibility doesn't mean the RAW isn't there.
Tons of stuff
I guess I was still unclear. I was describing the situation before the Errata for the 6th Printing. I acknowledged that what I had said was altered by the Errata.
I agree with all you say, since the Errata and Jason Bulmahn's clarifications, except maybe the perception stuff since that's ambiguous on the RAW, but not worth arguing here.
I did leave out the start with stealth, move through plain sight, attack, break stealth scenario as well as the start with stealth, move through plain sight, end in cover/concealment and retain stealth scenario, both of which really only became possible with the Errata and was impossible before. Thanks for bringing them up.
I guess I was still unclear. I was describing the situation before the Errata for the 6th Printing. I acknowledged that what I had said was altered by the Errata.
I did leave out the start with stealth, move through plain sight, attack, break stealth scenario as well as the start with stealth, move through plain sight, end in cover/concealment and retain stealth scenario, both of which really only became possible with the Errata and was impossible before. Thanks for bringing them up.
I had been waiting and hoping for something like this errata and those comments from JB for a while now so I've been all over them.
I agree with all you say, since the Errata and Jason Bulmahn's clarifications, except maybe the perception stuff since that's ambiguous on the RAW, but not worth arguing here.
I would be interested in your opinion. I think the Stealth, Combat, Sneak Attack, and Perception RAW indicate that Stealth should allow for Sneak Attack. When paired with old 3.5 FAQ and JBs statement you see that is exactly how RAW was meant to be interpreted. I don't see any way using this selection of RAW that you could interpret a victim being able to "react accordingly" to an attack from Stealth and avoid Sneak Attack damage.
PRD / Sneak Attack wrote:
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 anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC
PRD / Combat wrote:
Sometimes you can't use your Dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC. If you don't have a Dexterity bonus, your AC does not change.PRD / Stealth wrote:
Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment.PRD / 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.PRD / Stealth wrote:
Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successfulPRD / Combat wrote:
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round... If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
Unless you have additional RAW to consider, what this says to me is:
If your successful in Stealth the observer doesn't know you're there. If you attack the observer your Stealth isn't broken until after your attempt to strik, regardless of hiting or missing. If the observer doesn't know you're there and your Stealth doesn't break until after the attack then there is no way they can see the attack coming. If they can't see an attack coming how could they react to it?
Perception says if your check is successful you can react accordingly, therefore: if your check fail you CAN'T react accordingly. Combat says if you can't react to a blow you can't use your Dex bonus to AC. It's not as blatantly explicit as Invisibility, but it still seems rather explicit to me.
Well, since you asked.
First, Jason Bulmahn's clarification overrides this, saying the devs intended "that if you're unaware of a threat then you cannot defend yourself against it" but since it isn't officially in the RAW, the RAW still denies the chance to sneak attack purely from Stealth.
Side note: If a developer has to write that they intended to say something but didn't, isn't that sufficient evidence that they didn't write it in the RAW?
Back to the RAW.
Concealment and Total Concealment are two different things. For comparison, check out Blindness, Darkness, Obscuring Mist, and many other things throughout all the rulebooks. Stealth is the ONLY one that I know of that equates "unobserved" with "Concealment" rather than with "Total Concealment". It is VERY inconsistent with everything else.
Even just sticking with the rules for Concealment and Total Concealment:
1) You have line of sight to a creature with Concealment.
2) You can attack a creature with Concealment.
3) You can target a creature with Concealment.
But.
1) You do NOT have line of sight to a creature with Total Concealment.
2) You CANNOT attack a creature with Total Concealment - you must attack its square.
3) You CANNOT target a creature with Total Concealment.
So, clearly (no pun intended), when a creature only has "Concealment", you CAN see the creature. Sure, not well, hence the 20% miss chance, but you CAN see it. And when a creature has "Total Concealment", you CANNOT see that creature.
As you quoted, "Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment".
That line from the Stealth rules is internally inconsistent. "unobserved" seems to mean that the opponent cannot see you but "concealment" definitely means that he can.
You bolded the "not aware" part. However, sadly, that is NOT a Game Term. It's not in the glossary, it's not defined anywhere, it has no game mechanics, it doesn't mean anything but whatever we assume based on our comprehension of the English language. Fine. We all know what that means in English.
But the kicker is that "Concealment" IS a Game Term, it has a specific definition and specific rules that we use in combat. We are not obliged to assume its meaning based on English comprehension because we have explicit rules and game mechanics for it.
Now, you, and many others, take the "not aware" part and ignore the rest of that sentence, but for me, I think the RAW requires us to use the RAW before we ignore RAW and default to English assumptions.
Therefore, by RAW, we MUST treat the successful Stealth check as if the stealthy guy has "Concealment".
Nowhere in any rules for "Concealment" are there any explicit rules that you lose your DEX when attacked by an opponent with "Concealment". Not even a little bit. Nowhere does it say you "cannot react" to a blow from an opponent with "Concealment". Not even a little bit.
Ergo, by RAW, if you succeed at an opposed Stealth vs. Perception check, you have "Concealment" against your opponent. Concealment lets you use Stealth, Stealth lets you use Concealment, round and round we go, but NONE of that says you deny your opponent his DEX bonus - we only get to that NON-RAW conclusion if we ignore the "Concealment" bit and only focus on the "not aware" bit which forces us to ignore game concepts and rely on English comprehension - something we should never do when the game concept is explicitly stated in the very same rule where we are choosing to ignore it.
Now, ignore everything I just said in this whole post if you want to accept Jason Bulmahn's unofficial clarification, but without that, everything I just said is RAW.
Well, you can't be a sniper without sniper goggles! :P Use that with a rifle 400 ft away and you've got your stealth + 40 they have to roll for perception. Haha...
True but you do not get a sneak attack either.
We are not ignoring game concepts. I believe there's a section of the game book that tells us we should apply common sense to things.
Dexterity says if you can't react to an attack, then you don't get your dexterity bonus to AC.
I would find it impossible to react to an attack you are not aware of therefore sneak attack.
This isn't a huge jump in logic. There are things we simply assume about our gameworld.
Normally, most people can't react to things they don't know are there.
|
Well, you can't be a sniper without sniper goggles! :P Use that with a rifle 400 ft away and you've got your stealth + 40 they have to roll for perception. Haha...True but you do not get a sneak attack either.
I believe he meant the magic item, not the fashion statement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scavion, I totally agree with you (except for the part about ignoring game concepts, which you are doing).
Well, I totally agree with letting a successful Stealth Check deny an opponent his DEX bonus. I believe that's how it should work, and it's how I've done it since 3.0, regardless of RAW and FAQs and anything else.
But...
Pathfinder RAW definitely didn't allow any of this before the 6th printing errata, but even now, the RAW still says you have Concealment. No matter what English terminology they insert into the same sentence, the fact that they explicitly provide a game term in the rule means we must use the game term. By RAW.
For example, if they edit that sentence to say "Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check think you are really cool and treat you as if you had concealment", how would you handle the rules now?
In my edited sentence, we have an explicit "Game Term" and some other English slang terminology, so what do we do? We use the Game Term and then resolve the situation according to all the rules that are provided in the combat section where that term is defined and its rules are explained.
Likewise, in the unedited RAW sentence, we have an explicit "Game Term" and some other English terminology, so what do we do? Some people jump all over that English terminology and completely ignore the game term despite the fact that the game term is explicitly provided in the exact same sentence in the exact same rule.
In a discussion of RAW, we CANNOT just ignore explicit game terminology and make assumptions about the surrounding English non-game words. We MUST begin with the RAW, begin with the Game Terms, and only fall back on English assumptions or common sense when there is no clear answer from the RAW. In this case, the RAW is explicit and clear: you get "Concealment". Period.
Taking the "are not aware of you" part, building your own game mechanics to explain what that means, all the while pretending the rest of the sentence doesn't exist, is purely a matter of house rules - you are changing the rules to make them say what you want, not what they actually say.
Yes, you're right, "the game book tells us we should apply common sense to things". But it doesn't tell us to replace explicit game terminology with common sense, nor does it tell us to ignore rules and make up whatever we want.
We absolutely CAN do that. We absolutely CAN make a house rule for anything and everything that we want to.
But the core book does not tell us to do that, not even in the name of common sense - it simply tells us that we can do that. And even if we do, it's now a house rule, not RAW.
You said:
I would find it impossible to react to an attack you are not aware of therefore sneak attack.
But I disagree, not with your sentence, but I disagree that you're not aware of the attack. Sure, Stealth says both "you are not aware" and "has concealment". These are in total contradiction with each other. But as my previous post says, when debating RAW, we have to use RAW, not assumptions based on English grammar. RAW says "concealment", and the concealment rules are very clear that the opponent CAN see you. If he can see you, he can and should be aware of your attack. Therefore he can react to the attack because he is aware.
If you disagree with this, then you don't need Stealth at all - every rogue (etc.) can always sneak attack ALL THE TIME as long as they have "concealment" and they don't even need to roll a Stealth check at all. I doubt you agree, so clearly you need Stealth, but the only thing Stealth gives you when you succeed is "Concealment".
So, by RAW, you cannot just use Stealth (and nothing else) to deny an opponent his DEX bonus to AC because all you really get is "Concealment".
But as I said earlier, this isn't the place to debate it. I only answered since I was asked. Since this is the "Advice" forum, my advice is to do the opposite of what this post says - ignore RAW, ignore the game term in the Stealth rules, give the successful stealther Total Concealment, and let him sneak attack anyone who misses the Perception check.
I see that sentence quite differently:
When I look at this sentence I see two things, what's in bold and what's in italics.
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment.
In bold: I see the original language of Stealth. This part is saying that if someone doesn't beat your Stealth with their Perception they don't see you, don't know where you are, can't target you.
In Italics: I see a portion of text that was added with the new Stealth errata. I believe this portion of the sentence is setting the stage for the addition of "Breaking Stealth." Before RAW included this it was commonly argued that you MUST always have c/c to use Stealth. The moment you leave, or otherwise lose, c/c you become plainly visible. The Perception check to notice a plainly visible creature is 0, so you are automatically detected. This new portion is just saying you don't become plainly visible. If your Stealth beats the observer's Perception then you are treated as having concealment even if you don't actually have it. Which, is exactly what allows you to "Break Stealth."
Breaking Stealth allows you to pass through areas where you don't have cover/concealment and still remain unobserved with Stealth. I believe the part above in Italics is the reason for this. If someone doesn't beat your Stealth with Perception then you are treated as having concealment which allows you to maintain your Stealth score rather than become plainly visible and go straight to Perception DC 0.
Under no circumstance do I think that sentence was meant to indicate that you can still see and attack someone you can't detect.
Well, since you asked.
First, Jason Bulmahn's clarification overrides this, saying the devs intended "that if you're unaware of a threat then you cannot defend yourself against it" but since it isn't officially in the RAW, the RAW still denies the chance to sneak attack purely from Stealth.
IMO, his statement doesn't have to be official. He isn't changing or adding any language into existing RAW. All he did was quote existing RAW and confirm the correct way to interpret it.
Side note: If a developer has to write that they intended to say something but didn't, isn't that sufficient evidence that they didn't write it in the RAW?
No, I don't think it is. His quote is only evidence of most people's English comprehension and analytical skills having severe deficiencies.
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).
That is not a revamping of RAW or an addition to RAW. He is quoting RAW and telling people point blank you didn't interpret this correctly. That is not a problem with the RAW it's a problem with poor comprehension and falty interpretations becoming the majority understanding.
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.
.....
Perhaps before the errata RAW was stacked against Stealth granting sneak attack and it was those who believed strugling to come up with RAW to support it. However, at this point, RAW is stacked for it and I think people who continue to support denying Sneak Attack should be the ones who have to produce RAW. It takes a whole lot more "interpretation/opinion" to say Stealth doesn't grant SA than to say it does.
.....
I will add more later if I have time but; if your whole argument for strict RAW still not granting SA is based on the word Concealment, read my previous post and see what you think. I think that word was added in errata to allow "breaking stealth" and counter the argument that you are plainly visible with a Perception DC 0 the second you step out of cover/concealment.
In a discussion of RAW, we CANNOT just ignore explicit game terminology and make assumptions about the surrounding English non-game words. We MUST begin with the RAW, begin with the Game Terms, and only fall back on English assumptions or common sense when there is no clear answer from the RAW. In this case, the RAW is explicit and clear: you get "Concealment". Period.
I have begun my argument with multiple entries of RAW and given the logic train that leads to a RAW based conclusion. I also have the advantage of knowing I am more or less correct in that interpretation based on multiple designer statements. So how can anyone say at this point that my argument is not RAW?
DM Blake:
If I understand correctly, your entire argument hinges on the idea that stealth grants "concealment" rather than "total concealment". But this is false, by RAW, according to the latest errata:
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.(emphasis mine)
Wow... I just double checked him and that is accurate. The PRD left out the word "total" but it's in the errata. It's actually in both 4.1 and 5.0; thank you for brining attention to that discrepancy altontanglefoot.
.....
EDIT: I have added this discrepancy to the PRD Feedback thread so hopefully it will be corrected soon. Thanks again altontanglefoot.
DM Blake:
If I understand correctly, your entire argument hinges on the idea that stealth grants "concealment" rather than "total concealment". But this is false, by RAW, according to the latest errata:
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.(emphasis mine)Wow... I just double checked him and that is accurate. The PRD left out the word "total" but it's in the errata. It's actually in both 4.1 and 5.0; thank you for brining attention to that discrepancy altontanglefoot.
.....
EDIT: I have added this discrepancy to the PRD Feedback thread so hopefully it will be corrected soon. Thanks again altontanglefoot.
I was under the impression that hat had been revised to only say "concealment" and that the PRD is correct and future errata would revise the incorrect errata. I don't remember exactly why I thought that - I think a dev posted it somewhere but I could be wrong - in any case, I remember thinking that they almost got right (Total Concealment) and then screwed it back up by changing it to be just Concealment.
I clearly remember thinking that even though I don't know the source of my info anymore.
Maybe I'm entirely wrong and it rally should say "Total Concealment". If that's the case, then the game mechanics (total concealment) match the English ("unobserved") and all is right with the world - and I can stop house ruling it to do what it should.
DM Blake:
If I understand correctly, your entire argument hinges on the idea that stealth grants "concealment" rather than "total concealment". But this is false, by RAW, according to the latest errata:
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.(emphasis mine)Wow... I just double checked him and that is accurate. The PRD left out the word "total" but it's in the errata. It's actually in both 4.1 and 5.0; thank you for brining attention to that discrepancy altontanglefoot.
.....
EDIT: I have added this discrepancy to the PRD Feedback thread so hopefully it will be corrected soon. Thanks again altontanglefoot.
I was under the impression that hat had been revised to only say "concealment" and that the PRD is correct and future errata would revise the incorrect errata. I don't remember exactly why I thought that - I think a dev posted it somewhere but I could be wrong - in any case, I remember thinking that they almost got right (Total Concealment) and then screwed it back up by changing it to be just Concealment.
I clearly remember thinking that even though I don't know the source of my info anymore.
Maybe I'm entirely wrong and it rally should say "Total Concealment". If that's the case, then the game mechanics (total concealment) match the English ("unobserved") and all is right with the world - and I can stop house ruling it to do what it should.
Ah, well now at least I know what you were talking about when you said Total Concealment was revised. I was completely unaware of the discrepancy and had no idea what you meant when you said that. If you do find the post that lead you to think that will you link it here please? It will sorely disappoint me if that's the case but I would like to be aware.
DM Blake
Did you ever find anything indicating the Total Concealment revision to Concealment you thought was going to happen?
I looked at SKRs, JJs, and JBs post, did a search for anything including Stealth, Total Concealment, and Concealment, and didn't find anything indicating a plan to change the Total Concealment in 4.1 and 5.0 Errata.
No, frankly I didn't look.
I assume the Errata is more official than the PRD which makes me think the Errata would be the correct wording.
I also assume someone, if they care, could change the PRD in about 1 minute (I work on websites, I know what it takes to edit a page like this). It would be a large undertaking to fix the Errata and larger to fix the printed book.
The subject was raised back when the errata was printed, nearly 5 months ago, in the same thread that JB was posting in - so Paizo knows about the discrepancy. One presumes they do care. So the fact that they have failed to make that one-minute effort to correct their PRD strikes me as extremely odd - or it's a sign that the PRD is correct and they haven't made the much more intensive effort to fix the Errata/Book.
All just assumptions.
I will go on playing as if it says Total Concealment (following the Errata and disregarding the PRD). If that is also Paizo's offical stance, then all of my discussion here is moot. If Paizo's official stance is the opposite, then I stand by my discussion here.
In any case, too busy to spend the time to look. I'll let others do that.