Q1: Yes with the BUT expect table variation. It is RAW though.
1) You are hidden, but as soon as your turn ends or you attack it breaks that condition.
2) The above is correct, but feats like Hellcats Stealth and abilities like Hide in Plain Sight give you much more utility.
3) This is why spring attack builds are a thing, though I don't really recommend them myself.
Shadowrun actually has an excellent stealth system, you just need a little tech.
The Pathfinder alternate playtest 2 stealth rules are also way better than RAW, and I highly recommend them. Used them for several campaigns now.
There are ways to make targets lose dex to AC through intimidation. That is the best way to go if you dont have a flanking partner.
|
Honestly, Stealth is usually best used as a means of avoiding or initiating combat rather than something done in the middle of it. However if you're concerned about AO's when positioning to flank, try using Acrobatics to tumble into position. Tumbling allows you to avoid AO's.
Other Thoughts, You being stealth-ed does not in itself grant you the ability to sneak attack. See below Emphasis Mine
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.
Stealth
(Dex; Armor Check Penalty)
You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. This skill covers hiding and moving silently.Check: 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 total concealment. You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a -5 penalty. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
Creatures gain a bonus or penalty on Stealth checks based on their size: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Medium +0, Large -4, Huge -8, Gargantuan -12, Colossal -16.
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
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).
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.
Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.
Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.
Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving.
If you have the Stealthy feat, you get a bonus on Stealth checks (see Feats).
Nothing in this triggers Either of of the 2 conditions above.
What you're looking for is this:
Surprise
When a combat starts, if you are not aware of your opponents and they are aware of you, you're surprised.Sometimes all the combatants on a side are aware of their opponents, sometimes none are, and sometimes only some of them are. Sometimes a few combatants on each side are aware and the other combatants on each side are unaware.
Determining awareness may call for Perception checks or other checks.
The Surprise Round: If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round. If no one or everyone is surprised, no surprise round occurs.
Unaware Combatants: Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don't get to act in the surprise round. Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.
You Cannot use Stealth to gain Sneak Attack at any time after the surprise round and the surprise round only happens at the beginning of combat.
There are feats that grant you skill checks and such that cause opponents to lose there dex bonus to AC, You should consider using them.
Also:
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).
Edit: Hilighted relevant points fixed formatting.
You can come out from behind cover or concealment and attack someone as you described, but it warrants a second Stealth check the moment you come out. If you fail the opposed roll, you are spotted prior to your attack. If you succeed, you are spotted only after the attack.
You being stealth-ed does not in itself grant you the ability to sneak attack.
***
You Cannot use Stealth to gain Sneak Attack at any time after the surprise round and the surprise round only happens at the beginning of combat.
You can use Stealth to be effectively invisible to your opponent. Unless your opponent has an ability like Blind Fight or something similar, you being effectively invisible deprives the opponent of their DEX bonus to AC. As you quoted, depriving your opponent of its DEX bonus to AC is precisely when you may use sneak attack.
Using Stealth to sneak attack is not limited to a surprise round. You may make a Stealth check at any point where you are out of an opponent's line of sight (basically, if you have cover or concealment as to that particular opponent). If you may make a Stealth check, you potentially can use that to allow a sneak attack.
|
I just spent an hour reading 3 different posts about stealth.
The reason this topic has generated so much debate (and the reason why posters like Master of Shadows up thread keep debating it erroneously) is because Stealth was only recently errata'd with the 6th Edition of the Core Rulebook. The majority of the threads you've probably read originated before the errata, and most players are simply unaware of it.
Stealth works as Under A Bleeding Sun outlined above. Unfortunately, you will encounter quite a few GMs that are unaware of the change and who won't allow you to use Stealth in that way. Be patient with those GMs (I was one until recently) and show them this thread, or the newest version of the CRB if you have one.
It will take time for the community to completely accept the changes.
|
|
The reason this topic has generated so much debate (and the reason why posters like Master of Shadows up thread keep debating it erroneously) is because Stealth was only recently errata'd with the 6th Edition of the Core Rulebook.
Please explain how I am in error. I have read and copied verbatim the appropriate rules using the copy & paste commands directly from Paizo.com/prd.
Are you saying that the PRD has not been updated to include errata? I really really hope that this is not the case. Being an owner of an earlier printing of the book, I frequently reference the PRD.You can use Stealth to be effectively invisible to your opponent. Unless your opponent has an ability like Blind Fight or something similar, you being effectively invisible deprives the opponent of their DEX bonus to AC. As you quoted, depriving your opponent of its DEX bonus to AC is precisely when you may use sneak attack.
Using Stealth to sneak attack is not limited to a surprise round. You may make a Stealth check at any point where you are out of an opponent's line of sight (basically, if you have cover or concealment as to that particular opponent). If you may make a Stealth check, you potentially can use that to allow a sneak attack.
Please Please show me where you found rules that state Stealth = Invisibility.
The reason this topic has generated so much debate (and the reason why posters like Master of Shadows up thread keep debating it erroneously) is because Stealth was only recently errata'd with the 6th Edition of the Core Rulebook.Please explain how I am in error. I have read and copied verbatim the appropriate rules using the copy & paste commands directly from Paizo.com/prd.
Are you saying that the PRD has not been updated to include errata? I really really hope that this is not the case. Being an owner of an earlier printing of the book, I frequently reference the PRD.Please Please show me where you found rules that state Stealth = Invisibility.You can use Stealth to be effectively invisible to your opponent. Unless your opponent has an ability like Blind Fight or something similar, you being effectively invisible deprives the opponent of their DEX bonus to AC. As you quoted, depriving your opponent of its DEX bonus to AC is precisely when you may use sneak attack.
Using Stealth to sneak attack is not limited to a surprise round. You may make a Stealth check at any point where you are out of an opponent's line of sight (basically, if you have cover or concealment as to that particular opponent). If you may make a Stealth check, you potentially can use that to allow a sneak attack.
Seconded.
Before, you couldn't be hidden when moving from cover to cover without having some camouflage.
An errata changed the rules, allowing a hidden character to have a camouflage when leaving his current camouflage/cover, allowing her to do a stealth check.
Nowhere does the rule allow a hidden character to make her target lose her DEX bonus to AC.
Please Please show me where you found rules that state Stealth = Invisibility.
I think RAW you are correct, since the Total Concealment entry in the PRD only lists what happens if you attack someone with Total Concealment, not what happens if someone with Total Concealment attacks. I think that's why the Stealth playtest gives the "invisible" condition to those that succeed in a stealth check, for simplicity. Total Concealment and Invisibility are the same for the defender, so spelling out that Stealth = the Invisible condition is basically only saying that Total Concealment = Invisible for the attacker (+2 to hit and target is denied DEX).
To be honest, it doesn't make sense that someone with Total Concealment and someone with no concealment at all are treated as the same for attacking purposes. So Total Concealment (Stealth) = Invisibility is coming from the playtest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
when a character cannot detect you, you have total concealment from them.
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 total concealment.
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.
that is all I have got on this matter. up to GM I would say.
|
|
Please Please show me where you found rules that state Stealth = Invisibility.Most groups would agree that a successful stealth check makes you effectively invisible to the opponent. What's the difference between an invisible enemy and an enemy you fail to detect?
That being said, dexterity in the getting started section says it applies to armor class. "provided that the character can react to the attack."
Perception states that if you are successful you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. Meaning if you fail you can't react accordingly.
While you may think it is implicit in the sections your refering to, Implication is not rules.
The great thing about permissive rules like those of Pathfinder is that what you can do is stated explicitly.
No where in the Stealth or Total Concealment rules is it explicitly stated that either condition allows you to deny your opponent their Dexterity score when making attacks against them. Nor do either state that you are rendered Invisible.
Everything that grants Invisibility states that it does so explicitly. Invisibility grants Total Concealment, it also Grants a +2 bonus on attack rolls and denies dexterity bonus to AC. Concealment (like that granted by invisibility) allows you to make Stealth checks. Successful Stealth Checks grant total Concealment against opponents who fail their perception, but as I said neither allows you to become Invisible.
|
Please Please show me where you found rules that state Stealth = Invisibility.Most groups would agree that a successful stealth check makes you effectively invisible to the opponent. What's the difference between an invisible enemy and an enemy you fail to detect?
That being said, dexterity in the getting started section says it applies to armor class. "provided that the character can react to the attack."
Perception states that if you are successful you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. Meaning if you fail you can't react accordingly.
While you may think it is implicit in the sections your refering to, Implication is not rules.
The great thing about permissive rules like those of Pathfinder is that what you can do is stated explicitly.
No where in the Stealth or Total Concealment rules is it explicitly stated that either condition allows you to deny your opponent their Dexterity score when making attacks against them. Nor do either state that you are rendered Invisible.
Everything that grants Invisibility states that it does so explicitly. Invisibility grants Total Concealment, it also Grants a +2 bonus on attack rolls and denies dexterity bonus to AC. Concealment (like that granted by invisibility) allows you to make Stealth checks. Successful Stealth Checks grant total Concealment against opponents who fail their perception, but as I said neither allows you to become Invisible.
And the dev clarification post by Jason up above doesn't mean anything to you?
|
|
Not particularly, no.Since subsequent to his post there has been no further errata or FAQ on the subject, I have to summarily dismiss his post as a statement of personal opinion.
Honestly, since it is already incredibly easy for a character with sneak attack to take advantage of it to deal extra damage nearly every round, I honestly can't say as there is any reason why it should work that way. Between attacks in the surprise round, feats, flanking, and invisibility all of which are generally easy for a well played rogue to come by, to me its a non-issue.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to swing the nerf-bat at rogues, I love rogues and have played one in every iteration of the game since AD&D. I just don't see why people feel the need to look beyond the Explicit for more ways to use an already easily used ability.
Edit:
Not that I'm trying to be belligerent, or to disregard the insight from a designer. Its just that I cannot expect myself or my players to go digging through thousands of posts in a forum for solution every time there is a dispute about how something works. Its for that reason that I always request that someone point me to a Rule, Errata of a Rule, or Paizo FAQ whenever I see dubious posts about how things work. This way I can see what the rule explicitly allows.
|
|
Not particularly, no.Since subsequent to his post there has been no further errata or FAQ on the subject, I have to summarily dismiss his post as a statement of personal opinion.
Honestly, since it is already incredibly easy for a character with sneak attack to take advantage of it to deal extra damage nearly every round, I honestly can't say as there is any reason why it should work that way. Between attacks in the surprise round, feats, flanking, and invisibility all of which are generally easy for a well played rogue to come by, to me its a non-issue.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to swing the nerf-bat at rogues, I love rogues and have played one in every iteration of the game since AD&D. I just don't see why people feel the need to look beyond the Explicit for more ways to use an already easily used ability.
Edit:
Not that I'm trying to be belligerent, or to disregard the insight from a designer. Its just that I cannot expect myself or my players to go digging through thousands of posts in a forum for solution every time there is a dispute about how something works. Its for that reason that I always request that someone point me to a Rule, Errata of a Rule, or Paizo FAQ whenever I see dubious posts about how things work. This way I can see what the rule explicitly allows.
It's fine if you, personally, want to ignore it. That being said, if you ever GM a PFS game, you will not be allowed to ignore it.
It's fine if you, personally, want to ignore it. That being said, if you ever GM a PFS game, you will not be allowed to ignore it.Not particularly, no.Since subsequent to his post there has been no further errata or FAQ on the subject, I have to summarily dismiss his post as a statement of personal opinion.
Honestly, since it is already incredibly easy for a character with sneak attack to take advantage of it to deal extra damage nearly every round, I honestly can't say as there is any reason why it should work that way. Between attacks in the surprise round, feats, flanking, and invisibility all of which are generally easy for a well played rogue to come by, to me its a non-issue.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to swing the nerf-bat at rogues, I love rogues and have played one in every iteration of the game since AD&D. I just don't see why people feel the need to look beyond the Explicit for more ways to use an already easily used ability.
Edit:
Not that I'm trying to be belligerent, or to disregard the insight from a designer. Its just that I cannot expect myself or my players to go digging through thousands of posts in a forum for solution every time there is a dispute about how something works. Its for that reason that I always request that someone point me to a Rule, Errata of a Rule, or Paizo FAQ whenever I see dubious posts about how things work. This way I can see what the rule explicitly allows.
Actually, since it's not a FAQ, errata, or a post by campaign leadership, there is no requirement to give it any strength in PFS.
You can choose to use it as a guideline in interpreting the rules, but you do not have to.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
JB's clarification is just that - a clarification.
The current Stealth rules work as outlined above (contrary to what Master of Shadows keeps claiming). You needn't pour over thousands of threads to find the answer - it's already in the PRD. JB was simply confirming everything, even going so far as to mention that it could have been made clearer.
There's a difference between personal opinions of how a rule should be run and a clarification of how a rule actually works.
|
|
Actually, since it's not a FAQ, errata, or a post by campaign leadership, there is no requirement to give it any strength in PFS.
You can choose to use it as a guideline in interpreting the rules, but you do not have to.
I always assumed that meant Paizo staff. Where does it say who campaign leadership is?
I always assumed that meant Paizo staff. Where does it say who campaign leadership is?Actually, since it's not a FAQ, errata, or a post by campaign leadership, there is no requirement to give it any strength in PFS.
You can choose to use it as a guideline in interpreting the rules, but you do not have to.
It actually says "the campaign coordinator and campaign developer".
The titles of the employees as they post on the messageboard gives you an idea as to who they are.
The campaign coordinator is Mike Brock. The current campaign developer is John Compton.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, Stealth works for sneak attack using RAW. There aren't any questionable interpretations needed to figure it out, just grade-school implication.
Yes, Stealth works for sneak attack using RAW. There aren't any questionable interpretations needed to figure it out, just grade-school implication.
You ninja'd me. I just posted that. LOL
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Such a great example of positive rules lawyering and system mastery, that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
JB's clarification is just that - a clarification.
The current Stealth rules work as outlined above (contrary to what Master of Shadows keeps claiming). You needn't pour over thousands of threads to find the answer - it's already in the PRD. JB was simply confirming everything, even going so far as to mention that it could have been made clearer.
There's a difference between personal opinions of how a rule should be run and a clarification of how a rule actually works.
+1
Yes, basically Jason was not changing a rule. He was saying ""This is how I intended for it to be read. It just was not explained well enough for everyone to easily understand."A person not understanding it does not make it "not a rule".
Yes, Stealth works for sneak attack using RAW. There aren't any questionable interpretations needed to figure it out, just grade-school implication.You ninja'd me. I just posted that. LOL
: D If I could order my favorites, that post of yours would be very, very near the top.
|
|
There aren't any questionable interpretations needed to figure it out, just grade-school implication.
Implication
That word right there says it all.
Rules are Explicit never Implicit.
If you have to string together numerous pieces of different rules to make a case for what you can do, That's a really good indication that you can't do it. If Paizo wanted you to be able to sneak attack from stealth, they wouldn't dance around the issue. there are easy clear concise words they can use to express that you can.
Stealth
(Dex; Armor Check Penalty)
You are skilled at avoiding detection and may slip past foes or strike from hiding. [Redacted]This skill covers hiding and moving silently.[/Redacted]
Check: 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 total concealment. Additionally, They are denied their Dexterity Bonus to AC for your attacks this round. You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a -5 penalty. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
Creatures gain a bonus or penalty on Stealth checks based on their size: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Medium +0, Large -4, Huge -8, Gargantuan -12, Colossal -16.
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
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).
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.
Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.
Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.
Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving.
If you have the Stealthy feat, you get a bonus on Stealth checks (see Feats).
This is a simple fix and well within the character count of the actual text.
Edit: Fixed bolding for clarity.
Maybe you should wait for when the playtest 2 get faq'ed...
we are going to give you two weeks to playtest and comment on these proposed changes, so tell us what you think sometime before October 3rd. We'll announce the final version in the Design Tuesday blog sometime after the playtest is completed, and make changes to the rules using the Pathfinder RPG FAQ system.
We've played for years (decade for some :p ) with clunky stealth rules, we can wait 3-4 weeks more for decent rules non ? ;)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you have to string together numerous pieces of different rules to make a case for what you can do, That's a really good indication that you can't do it.
So now you're arguing that these individual rules don't add up to the outcome that everybody but you is saying already works? Isn't that what Pathfinder as a whole is, a sum of rules?
There aren't any questionable interpretations needed to figure it out, just grade-school implication.Implication
That word right there says it all.
Rules are Explicit never Implicit.If you have to string together numerous pieces of different rules to make a case for what you can do, That's a really good indication that you can't do it. If Paizo wanted you to be able to sneak attack from stealth, they wouldn't dance around the issue. there are easy clear concise words they can use to express that you can.
...
Stealth
(Dex; Armor Check Penalty)
You are skilled at avoiding detection and may slip past foes or strike from hiding. [Redacted]This skill covers hiding and moving silently.[/Redacted]
Check: 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 total concealment. Additionally, They are denied their Dexterity Bonus to AC for your attacks this round. You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a -5 penalty. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
Creatures gain a bonus or penalty on Stealth checks based on their size: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Medium +0, Large -4, Huge -8, Gargantuan -12, Colossal -16.
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
Breaking Stealth:
I don't know if you have noticed but quiet a few rules are not written as well as they could be, and before erratas there were more. An unclear rule makes it "unclear". It does not make it "not a rule".
3.5 had the rule working the same way, but they had a blog to break it down. I would show you the blog but within the last 60 days WotC took down all of the 3.5 blogs.
Unless you have a counter to what is written, and 10+ years of developers saying otherwise not many people are going to take you seriously on this.
Also "Additionally, They are denied their Dexterity Bonus to AC for your attacks this round." does not work because that makes it look like you can sneak attack for the entire round, but in actuality you only get ONE sneak attack because you are only denied dex for that first attack if someone has used stealth to hide.
Part of the problem here is one that I have stated before. People have a habit of assuming people understand like they understand things when they explain things. Putting the information in several parts of the book seems like a good way to make sure people notice it, like they do with reminder rules text, but in hindsight they should have also put it the sneak attack section. I am sure there are also other solutions.
With all of that said people often want to know how the rules are intended to work, and that has been clarified. It is nice when RAW perfectly matches RAI, but that does not happen. At that point a GM can go by the letter of the rules or the spirit of the rules. Many choose the spirit, if it can be proven. If you wish to say "I won't go by intent until RAW does so in perfect clarity" that is fine, but that is far different from, "That is not the rule".
You do realize that's a post from 2011, right?Maybe you should wait for when the playtest 2 get faq'ed...
we are going to give you two weeks to playtest and comment on these proposed changes, so tell us what you think sometime before October 3rd. We'll announce the final version in the Design Tuesday blog sometime after the playtest is completed, and make changes to the rules using the Pathfinder RPG FAQ system.We've played for years (decade for some :p ) with clunky stealth rules, we can wait 3-4 weeks more for decent rules non ? ;)
He has an emoticon there with the ;)
I almost missed it too. He was not being serious.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There aren't any questionable interpretations needed to figure it out, just grade-school implication.Implication
That word right there says it all.
Rules are Explicit never Implicit.If you have to string together numerous pieces of different rules to make a case for what you can do, That's a really good indication that you can't do it. If Paizo wanted you to be able to sneak attack from stealth, they wouldn't dance around the issue. there are easy clear concise words they can use to express that you can.
Rules can and do require the reader to be able to understand basic logical implication all the time. Logical implication is unambiguous and every bit as weighty as a direct assertion.
For example, a fighter is proficient with all martial weapons. The longsword is a martial weapon. Ergo, a fighter is proficient with the longsword. Nowhere do the rules explicitly state that a fighter is proficient with the longsword; nevertheless, they are. This is the same thing, only the rules in question were arranged very poorly so that it becomes difficult to identify the chain of implications.
If the lead rules developer explicitly says "this is what I meant" then it seems that is the intent.
Otherwise you are saying "he said "yes" and provided proof, but he really meant no".
Two scenarios after a misunderstanding. Which one makes more sense?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Parents: Here is your new car and here is the registration with your name on it. Drive it all you want. Here is some gas money too.
Parent(thinking to themselves): Why is he out there driving that car. I really do not want him to drive it.
These two do not match up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Parents: Here is your new car and here is the registration with your name on it. Drive it all you want. Here is some gas money too.
Parent(thinking to themselves): Now he knows we really wanted him to have that car and drive as he wants to.
|
|
What I'm saying is that a properly written rule is encompasses all it was meant to allow in an explicit fashion. you should not have to cobble together things that are not obvious. There are dozens of opportunities for the designers to state in the rules themselves a trigger for sneak attack based of stealth that is explicit.
They could add it to Sneak Attack itself:
Add Or has total concealment from the target of the attack. to the sentence about flanking or denying dex bonuses.
They could add it to Concealment:
Characters with total Concealment from an opponent treat that opponent as flat-footed for all attacks.
They could add it to Perception:
If you fail a perception check oppose an opponents Stealth, you are flat-footed against all their attacks.
They didn't, or haven't yet.
What I'm saying is that a properly written rule is encompasses all it was meant to allow in an explicit fashion. you should not have to cobble together things that are not obvious. There are dozens of opportunities for the designers to state in the rules themselves a trigger for sneak attack based of stealth that is explicit.
They could add it to Sneak Attack itself:
Add Or has total concealment from the target of the attack. to the sentence about flanking or denying dex bonuses.They could add it to Concealment:
Characters with total Concealment from an opponent treat that opponent as flat-footed for all attacks.They could add it to Perception:
If you fail a perception check oppose an opponents Stealth, you are flat-footed against all their attacks.They didn't, or haven't yet.
Whether or not a rule is written as well as it could be has nothing to do with the intent of how it is supposed to be played. Nobody is disagreeing that it could have been written better. We are just saying what the intent was.
The grapple + grab rules are a mess. You have dead people that can still take actions by RAW.
If your argument is that they could have done better then we(most posters here) already agree, but they have also said beyond the errata and explanation they won't be changing them again.
If your argument is that rules that have ambiguity don't count then we(most posters here) won't agree.
I don't think the rules are all that hard to figure out once I found all of those quotes including one in the combat chapter that I did not find until later. However I do not think I should have had to search across 4 chapters to put together an argument.
IIRC it was the getting started chapter, skills, combat, and class chapters.
What I'm saying is that a properly written rule is encompasses all it was meant to allow in an explicit fashion. you should not have to cobble together things that are not obvious. There are dozens of opportunities for the designers to state in the rules themselves a trigger for sneak attack based of stealth that is explicit.
They could add it to Sneak Attack itself:
Add Or has total concealment from the target of the attack. to the sentence about flanking or denying dex bonuses.They could add it to Concealment:
Characters with total Concealment from an opponent treat that opponent as flat-footed for all attacks.They could add it to Perception:
If you fail a perception check oppose an opponents Stealth, you are flat-footed against all their attacks.They didn't, or haven't yet.
Flat-footed is not the same as denied dex. That is a common mistake around here. Neither concealment nor failing a perception check makes you flat footed.
Concealment alone should not be in the sneak attack section because concealment alone does not deny you dex to AC. You can use concealment to make a stealth check. If the opponent fails, then you have denied them dex to AC. Then you can sneak attack.edit: also the phase "all of their attacks" is misleading as I already said. You are only denied dex for the first attack not for all of their attacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I learned when myself and a few posters tried to write a rule for how negative energy affinity worked was that it is very hard to write a rule so that almost nobody gets it wrong. At that point, the PDT team earned even more of my respect. I was just trying to make one rule. They have to try to write and reference several other rules at the same time.
Even now you just tried to change two rules, and got them wrong. It does not mean you don't have a good grasp on the rules, but it does show that the job is not as easy as some of us think it is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess what I'm saying is that the rule already is unambiguous, there is nothing there that allows it. If the design intent was otherwise, as Jason's post suggests, then I would welcome an FAQ or an Errata.
Until then, RAW does not allow it.
I think you are really disliking that the rules are not conveniently in one place, and spread too far out. That is different from RAW not allowing it. So far nobody has been able to use RAW to dispute the thread where I said it was RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please Please show me where you found rules that state Stealth = Invisibility.You can use Stealth to be effectively invisible to your opponent. Unless your opponent has an ability like Blind Fight or something similar, you being effectively invisible deprives the opponent of their DEX bonus to AC. As you quoted, depriving your opponent of its DEX bonus to AC is precisely when you may use sneak attack.
Using Stealth to sneak attack is not limited to a surprise round. You may make a Stealth check at any point where you are out of an opponent's line of sight (basically, if you have cover or concealment as to that particular opponent). If you may make a Stealth check, you potentially can use that to allow a sneak attack.
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.
Also, note I didn't say you are invisible, I said you're "effectively" invisible. Because that's what total concealment means.
But I see that everything has generally been covered.
I understand your frustration that rules should be covered by implication, but that isn't a thing that actually exists. For one, as wraithstrike noted, it is ridiculously difficult to write rules that are patently clear to everybody. Two, it is an assumption that there are things that are clear by indication - it's even a legal maxim (the exception that proves the rule). That something is a rule by implication, rather than explicit statement, does not make it less of a rule; at most it simply makes it a little more difficult to discern.
It looks like this has already been covered really well but...
I just spent an hour reading 3 different posts about stealth.
I have one question that I still don't know the answer to.
Q1: Can I as a rogue make a stealth check when hiding behind something that gives cover like a wall or a large barrel etc. and then on the next turn leave that cover and go attack an enemy that is standing in bright light with line of sight to me and still get a bonus as if he did not know I am there?
Yes. That is covered under the most recent eratta for Stealth:
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).
Note where it says your Stealth ends after your attack roll. That means, the travel from cover/concealment to your opponent is covered under Stealth. It also means the attack is covered under stealth, however, you will be noticed when you strike. Just like striking from invisibility.
Follow ups depending on the answer above.
1) Am I "stealthed" when I leave the cover if the enemy previously had LOS to me before I hid behind the cover?
2) How do you successfully use stealth as a melee character if the example above is not correct?
3) How can I get sneak attack if don't have the opportunity for flanking without always taking an AOO and with no way to surprise/stealth to an enemy?
1. Yes
2. It can be dificult. Your above example seems right. There are also several methods of attaining HiPS that can help.3. Attacking from Stealth does grant Sneak Attack. It is written into RAW, not as clearly as some would like but it's there, and the lead designer has said as much.
Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage. The rogue's attack deals extra damage 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.
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.
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.
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).