Several rounds pass with a Rogue making attacks.
With combat raging, the Rogue shoots a smoke arrow into a square, enters that square and attempts to stealth.
Legal, yes?
Yes. As per the rules on Stealth:
Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.
as i understand, yes, but it is exceedingly difficult.
your enemies are considered 'combat aware' so you need to begin the round in stealth from them to gain any benefit, and breaking from concealment to approach an enemy tends to break stealth.
So, in a complex environment, where you can break line of site and move under concealed conditions... maybe, if you are willing to give up a round of actions to hide.
in most situations, not unless your GM is working with you to try to support your play style.
Hide in plain sight might help get around this. But realize, if you are actively engaged in fighting, it is a massive penalty to your stealth check.
The simple answer is yes, you can do it.
But using basic stealth (not including HiPS, etc.), there is very little reason to do this other that escaping combat. The loss of actions trying to find or create the necessary cover/concealment as well as the loss of actions moving and using stealth, don't really leave all that many actions for attacking. And since enemies will KNOW you ran into that small cloud of smoke, they can simply fire arrows into it (50% miss chance, but some might hit) or ready actions to beat the snot out of you when you exit, etc.
Note also that being "in stealth" does not deny Dex to AC (it's total concealment, and total concealment does not deny Dex), so it's not possible to sneak attack from stealth (though other conditions may apply that do allow sneak attack).
Note also that being "in stealth" does not deny Dex to AC (it's total concealment, and total concealment does not deny Dex), so it's not possible to sneak attack from stealth.
I think that's wrong, I thought total concealment does deny dex. (looking for citation)
Note also that being "in stealth" does not deny Dex to AC (it's total concealment, and total concealment does not deny Dex), so it's not possible to sneak attack from stealth.I think that's wrong, I thought total concealment does deny dex. (looking for citation)
Good luck, and I hope you find it (I houserule it in), but the Combat Modifiers table doesn't have superscript 1, and refers to concealment. Concealment says nothing about Dex to AC, the Stealth skill just says "Total Concealment", and sneak attack says denied Dex or flanked.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Feats-- feint, impr. Feint and potion blur are ways to help you get sneak dam. In combat.
you can sometimes find areas that give you cover or concealment in combat but if opp. aware of you, cant stealth. Hide in plain sight would be an ability that would work in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note also that being "in stealth" does not deny Dex to AC (it's total concealment, and total concealment does not deny Dex), so it's not possible to sneak attack from stealth.I think that's wrong, I thought total concealment does deny dex. (looking for citation)
Total Concealment does NOT deny DEX to AC. Invisibility specifically does (yes, Invisibility IS Total Concealment but there are other kinds of Total Concealment that are not Invisibility and therefore do NOT deny DEX to AC)
It's important to note that he official wording of Stealth and of Sneak Attack do not allow you to use Sneak Attack from Stealth. Stealth gives Total Concealment, but that does not deny DEX to AC not does it make the enemy Flat Footed. No Sneak Attack.
But 2 years ago, Jason Bulmahn said this on the subject.
So, the chief has spoken, it was their intent to allow it even if they failed to explicitly include it in the rules.
Attacker it Invisible
Attacker is… Melee Ranged
Invisible +2 +2
* The defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC.
Definition of status
Invisible: Invisible creatures are visually undetectable
Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you.
Probably too much of an extrapolation but our group uses this combination of basic rules to proceed with ("no line of site" = "visually undetectable" = "invisible" for purposes of attack is table)
so, if you can manufacture a condition where you can see your target, but he can't see you. you are functioning as invisible for combat modifiers.
YMMV
If you are unobserved, then they are unaware of you, and they can't use their dexterity modifier to react to you.
Not RAW.
You're making a conclusion, a very valid one, that is actually not stated by RAW. Sometimes a combatant might be aware of an enemy that they cannot observe, such as right after an observed enemy darts into a small cloud of smoke and tries to hide there - the combatant KNOWS his enemy is in there and even if he cannot observe him at this moment, he is certainly aware of him.
Jason Bulmahn himself said this is not RAW. He also said they intended for it to be RAW but didn't include it that way. So the best we have is that it's RAI, confirmed by the lead designer, but it's not RAW.
Attacker it Invisible
Attacker is… Melee Ranged
Invisible +2 +2
* The defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC.Definition of status
Invisible: Invisible creatures are visually undetectableTotal Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you.
Probably too much of an extrapolation but our group uses this combination of basic rules to proceed with ("no line of site" = "visually undetectable" = "invisible" for purposes of attack is table)
so, if you can manufacture a condition where you can see your target, but he can't see you. you are functioning as invisible for combat modifiers.
That's been my take on sneak attacking while using stealth since 3e. The invisibility power (via spell, Su, Sp, or whatever) is just one means of becoming visually undetectable.
If you are unobserved, then they are unaware of you, and they can't use their dexterity modifier to react to you.Not RAW.
You're making a conclusion, a very valid one, that is actually not stated by RAW. Sometimes a combatant might be aware of an enemy that they cannot observe, such as right after an observed enemy darts into a small cloud of smoke and tries to hide there - the combatant KNOWS his enemy is in there and even if he cannot observe him at this moment, he is certainly aware of him.
Jason Bulmahn himself said this is not RAW. He also said they intended for it to be RAW but didn't include it that way. So the best we have is that it's RAI, confirmed by the lead designer, but it's not RAW.
This argument always reminds me of this argument if you just replace "law" with "RAW." Technically correct, but pointless, if mildly amusing.
I do say that they would get sneak attack. However, I do give a penalty to stealth when their hiding spot is known. When there's one square of cover and you see the guy enter it, you only have to look for signs in that one square. You might catch a swirl in the smoke an instant before the bolt comes out.
Naturally, if there's room to move around in the cover it will be easier.
This argument always reminds me of this argument if you just replace "law" with "RAW." Technically correct, but pointless, if mildly amusing.If you are unobserved, then they are unaware of you, and they can't use their dexterity modifier to react to you.Not RAW.
You're making a conclusion, a very valid one, that is actually not stated by RAW. Sometimes a combatant might be aware of an enemy that they cannot observe, such as right after an observed enemy darts into a small cloud of smoke and tries to hide there - the combatant KNOWS his enemy is in there and even if he cannot observe him at this moment, he is certainly aware of him.
Jason Bulmahn himself said this is not RAW. He also said they intended for it to be RAW but didn't include it that way. So the best we have is that it's RAI, confirmed by the lead designer, but it's not RAW.
Maybe.
If this were the "Advice" forum, or the "House Rules" forum, it wouldn't matter.
But it's not. It's the "Rules Questions" forum and when people come into this forum and post their house rule in a matter-of-fact tone, as if it were actually a game rule, then it's misleading to everyone who reads this forum to learn the real rules of the game.
Maybe these posters don't even realize it's a house rule. Maybe they think (mistakenly) that they are playing by the rules. It could just be a misunderstanding. Or they could be fully aware of the fact that they're posting a house rule but they simply think it's a better rule and so they post it but fail to label it as a house rule. Or maybe they just think that Jason Bulmahn's endorsement that the developers meant it to work this way is enough justification to call it a rule instead of a house rule.
In any other forum, all of that would be fine.
Just not in the "Rules Questions" forum.
Oh, and Judge Dredd is cool.
|
If a character is stealthed - they count as being invis against those who don't detect them. That is a rule.
It's not technically RAW - it's based upon the invis & stealth rules and using logic.
If you refuse to use logic for such things - there are a lot of stupid rulings you will end up making.
"Your Drunken Master monk drinks beer all of the time and disdains non-alchohalic drinks? Partway through the second day he has to start making Fort saves or take nonlethal damage." Why? Because -
A character can go without water for 1 day plus a number of hours equal to his Constitution score. After this time, the character must make a Constitution check each hour (DC 10, +1 for each previous check) or take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage. Characters that take an amount of nonlethal damage equal to their total hit points begin to take lethal damage instead.
Beer isn't water. Therefore a character who drinks beer instead of water will quickly die of thirst.
It's RAW!
One day is pushing it.
But see this.
As for logic, I never suggest ignoring logic when considering game rules.
Logically, I agree, if the opponent cannot detect your existence, then you are effectively invisible to him and you should get the benefits of invisibility. Logically, I think it's mechanically unsound that we have "Invisibility" and "Total Concealment" and these are two different things - they should be the same.
Logically, I allow Sneak Attacks from Stealth, just as Jason Bulmahn suggests in his post. I have done so since 3rd edition because it makes logical sense.
On the other hand, I can logically imagine scenarios in which a combatant is unable to see a hidden opponent but yet is still able to make himself an agile, nimble, dexterous target and therefore difficult to attack with precision (e.g. still has his DEX to his AC, no sneak attacks).
But this is still a Rules Question forum, so the Rules Answer is this: In the rules, Stealth does not deny DEX to AC and therefore is not enough, by itself, to allow Sneak Attacks.
^Prepares for the screams of outrage from all Stealth-based characters now in play...
|
|
One day is pushing it.
But see this.
That was beer & water, not beer & food.
During the 16th-18th century in Europe (and later the new world) it was generally considered unhealthy to drink water, so they primarily drank beer instead. Even children drank short beer (low alchohal content) instead of water. It was because of the boiling done in the process of making beer killing the bacteria, but they didn't know that.
|
|
On the other hand, I can logically imagine scenarios in which a combatant is unable to see a hidden opponent but yet is still able to make himself an agile, nimble, dexterous target and therefore difficult to attack with precision (e.g. still has his DEX to his AC, no sneak attacks).
Because as soon as a ninja goes invisible you are forced to stand still dumbfounded?
And old-style beer was full of minerals and protein from the bread and grains they used to make it. Unlike most American beers, which are like making love in a canoe. (Prior to the microbrewery resurgence!)
If this were the "Advice" forum, or the "House Rules" forum, it wouldn't matter.But it's not. It's the "Rules Questions" forum and when people come into this forum and post their house rule in a matter-of-fact tone, as if it were actually a game rule, then it's misleading to everyone who reads this forum to learn the real rules of the game.
Maybe these posters don't even realize it's a house rule. Maybe they think (mistakenly) that they are playing by the rules. It could just be a misunderstanding. Or they could be fully aware of the fact that they're posting a house rule but they simply think it's a better rule and so they post it but fail to label it as a house rule. Or maybe they just think that Jason Bulmahn's endorsement that the developers meant it to work this way is enough justification to call it a rule instead of a house rule.
In any other forum, all of that would be fine.
Just not in the "Rules Questions" forum.
Oh, and Judge Dredd is cool.
True, but like most posts in this forum, the original post's question was answered correctly according to the rules, then spun uncontrollably into an argument about other related rules that weren't even needed to answer the original question, bringing up the eternal RAW vs. RAI debate, to which, unless one is playing in an organized play game, the ultimate answer is always Rule Zero.
On the other hand, I can logically imagine scenarios in which a combatant is unable to see a hidden opponent but yet is still able to make himself an agile, nimble, dexterous target and therefore difficult to attack with precision (e.g. still has his DEX to his AC, no sneak attacks).Because as soon as a ninja goes invisible you are forced to stand still dumbfounded?
No, actually your point is valid and it's a good argument for why even invisibility should not deny DEX to AC when an opponent is already aware that there is a combat.
I personally think the best rule would be that both Invisibility and Total Concealment should be identical. We only need one. And they should only deny DEX to AC when the target does not know there is a combat. Once that target is in combat, even if he doesn't know the invisible attacker is there, he is still moving around and trying to be defensive and should get to keep his DEX bonus - especially, for example, if he's fighting someone else, but perhaps even if he's not.
So, yeah, if you're unseen for any reason AND your opponent is just standing there, sneak attack away. But once he knows he's in danger, in a battle, he'll defend himself by moving and being agile, the very definition of what DEX AC bonus represents, so he won't lose his DEX bonus at that point, so no more sneak attacks.
That's what I might do if I revised the rules myself. But it's a house rule. Actually, I don't even do that because it's also contradictory to some RAW. In actuality, I follow the RAW and houserule that Stealth works like Invisibility but Total Concealment still does not.
the ultimate answer is always Rule Zero.
Not in this forum. It shouldn't be.
If THAT is the final answer on everything, then just delete this forum and, while we're at it, throw those pesky rule books into the nearest recycle bin.
The books have rules.
THIS forum is to discuss them.
Saying "Yeah, but 'Rule Zero' means the ACTUAL rules don't matter" is contradictory and counterproductive to actually understanding what the books really say.
|
|
Once that target is in combat, even if he doesn't know the invisible attacker is there, he is still moving around and trying to be defensive and should get to keep his DEX bonus - especially, for example, if he's fighting someone else, but perhaps even if he's not.So, yeah, if you're unseen for any reason AND your opponent is just standing there, sneak attack away. But once he knows he's in danger, in a battle, he'll defend himself by moving and being agile, the very definition of what DEX AC bonus represents, so he won't lose his DEX bonus at that point, so no more sneak attacks.
That's what I might do if I revised the rules myself. But it's a house rule. Actually, I don't even do that because it's also contradictory to some RAW. In actuality, I follow the RAW and houserule that Stealth works like Invisibility but Total Concealment still does not.
Wow - that houserule is a pretty big nerf to those with SA, especially ninjas - if going invis doesn't make their foes flatfooted.
For fluff reasons - I figured that because your opponent can't actively defend by blocking with his blade etc - it made him flatfooted.
After all - not moving at all such as when you're asleep makes you Dex count as 0, not just down to 10.
I disagree - because the game is balanced around invis/stealth working that way. Ninjas would need something else to make them not suck. (Kind of like how I like the idea of armor = DR in theory - but it doesn't work in Pathfinder as you'd have to design a system with that in mind from the ground up.)
the ultimate answer is always Rule Zero.Not in this forum. It shouldn't be.
If THAT is the final answer on everything, then just delete this forum and, while we're at it, throw those pesky rule books into the nearest recycle bin.
The books have rules.
THIS forum is to discuss them.
Saying "Yeah, but 'Rule Zero' means the ACTUAL rules don't matter" is contradictory and counterproductive to actually understanding what the books really say.
*sigh* Yes, and as I said the ultimate answer, meaning after everything has been covered, quoted, repeated, and run round just one more time to the point of nausea, is going to be Rule Zero, because no one is going to play a game strictly by the rules as written if those rules don't provide the experience you want from the game. Either the GM sticks with the rules as they are, or makes the change necessary to make the rules work the way they need to work to keep the game fun and playable for all concerned.
Wow - that houserule is a pretty big nerf to those with SA, especially ninjas - if going invis doesn't make their foes flatfooted.
Well, to quibble, going invisible does not make their foes flat-footed; it simply removes their DEX bonus to AC.
Not the same thing.
I don't claim to know how the devs balanced the game around invisible sneak attacks. I think it's a stretch to assume the entire game is balanced around this. However, clearly, invisibility is a great way to get sneak attacks, no question about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the Combat chapter/Combat Statistics/Armor Class: "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."
That seems to be a piece of RAW to justify a successful stealth denying dex bonus.
As far as stealthing after combat begins, why not hold your action until some distracting event happens (like a fire ball). "If your your observers are temporarily distracted (such as by Bluff check) you can attempt to use Stealth." Note Bluff is just one example, doesn't say that's the only thing that can be used. Anything as distracting as "hey look, trolls" should be considered. Untimately this would be a GM call on what is and isn't distracting enough.
|
Remember, the sixth printing of the stealth rules allows for the following.
Start turn in cover, stealth.
You are in stealth until either target sees you (Perception vs. Stealth) or you end your turn out of cover or attack.
Three days after that rule change happened, I stealthed from around the corner, came around and walked right up to the target and did my sneak attack.
Much better than what has come before, and simple to remember.
So if a foe is not aware of you (and you are unobserved by them) can they react to your attack?
I'm going to say no.
Don't make me throw a book at you. :P
Nah, don't throw a book at me. I'm on your side. I'm going to say "no" too. I always have.
I'm just going to call it a house-rule because that's what it is (or at best it's RAI since the lead developer outright admitted as much in his post I quoted above).
Just out of curiosity, will you also deny the targets their DEX bonus? Stealth doesn't say that, either.
So, a rogue (etc.) sneaks up on an opponent, already in combat so he's not flat-footed. Do you:
1. Disallow any sneak attack because RAW doesn't support sneak attacks from stealth?
2. Allow sneak attack but also allow the victim to keep his DEX bonus?
3. Deny the victim his DEX bonus?
If your answer is #1, you've got the RAW on your side, but rogues (etc.) won't like you very much. If #3, you're making Stealth into a super-power and even the devs haven't (to my knowledge) supported this interpretation as RAI. And if your answer is #2, the middle road, then the question really becomes [i]Why does the sneak attack work if the target is not flat-footed, not flanked, and not denied his DEX bonus - what is the (RAW) justification for the sneak attack?
None. None at all. Per the SNEAK ATTACK rules themselves, you need one of those situations. You're adding a 4th one that isn't listed.
All cool, I do it too. Have fun with it. But call it what it is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
DM_Blake when I read the post from Jason B you linked to, I take away the opposite message. He says that it could have been clearer, but nothing about stealth denying dex being an incorrect interpretation of the rules. I remember this post from back when he first made it and made a note in my hard copy rules that this includes stealth. I went back now and reread it again a couple times.
This IS a piece of the rules, yes it is a lttle vague, but it is there. Byakko just layed out how putting together with other rules language gets us to stealth denying Dex. A developer has said that is how this meant to be interpreted. How is is interpreting a piece of the rules in a way the developers intended a house rule? To me ignoring the piece of text in question would be a house rule at this point.
And if the target is denied their dex bonus, why couldn't a character with Sneak Attack use it? "The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would denied a Dexterity bonus to AC" from the rogue's Sneak Attack description.
No, it really shouldn't. Flat-footed is a very specific condition which massively affects the character (FF AC, no AoOs).
However when a character is denied Dex to AC, they use their flat-footed AC (term should have been changed).
Personally I'm a fan of "considered to be invisible when making attacks or being attacked" as a shorthand for how being unobserved due to stealth interacts. The extra verbiage is to avoid silly questions about "do I get +20 stealth for being already stealthy?"
Almost works, but:
Invisible attackers get +2 to hit... a bonus, I believe most of agree, stealthy characters don't receive.
Also, there's also a whole slew of abilities and powers which reference the invisible state. They shouldn't generally apply for someone who is merely hiding, imho.
Which leads to the questions what should apply? and why?. There is no hidden status. Invisibility works as a status for quite a few of us since the explanation "visually undetectable" should apply to anyone who successfully makes their stealth roll.
|
|
Three rules all seemed to forget, that explains it all.
Stealth Skill
"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.
...
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."
Source:
Stealth Skill
Total Concealment
"Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment)."
Source:
Total Concealment
Invisible
"Invisible: Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See Invisibility, under Special Abilities."
Source:
Invisible
To summarize, in general, with a successful stealth attempt, the target/targets will be unaware of Mr. Hero so the target lose his Dex-bonus vs Mr. Hero's attack.
|
|
And everything (90%) of what you need to know about Invisibility;
"Invisibility
The ability to move about unseen is not foolproof. While they can't be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt.
Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision, including darkvision.
Invisibility does not, by itself, make a creature immune to critical hits, but it does make the creature immune to extra damage from being a ranger's favored enemy and from sneak attacks.
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
Invisible creature is... Perception
In combat or speaking –20
Moving at half speed –5
Moving at full speed –10
Running or charging –20
Not moving +20
Using Stealth Stealth check +20
Some distance away +1 per 10 feet
Behind an obstacle (door) +5
Behind an obstacle (stone wall) +15
A creature can grope about to find an invisible creature. A character can make a touch attack with his hands or a weapon into two adjacent 5-foot squares using a standard action. If an invisible target is in the designated area, there is a 50% miss chance on the touch attack. If successful, the groping character deals no damage but has successfully pinpointed the invisible creature's current location. If the invisible creature moves, its location, obviously, is once again unknown.
If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves). The only exception is if the invisible creature has a reach greater than 5 feet. In this case, the struck character knows the general location of the creature but has not pinpointed the exact location.
If a character tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has pinpointed, he attacks normally, but the invisible creature still benefits from full concealment (and thus a 50% miss chance). A particularly large and slow invisible creature might get a smaller miss chance.
If a character tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has not pinpointed, have the player choose the space where the character will direct the attack. If the invisible creature is there, conduct the attack normally. If the enemy's not there, roll the miss chance as if it were there and tell him that the character has missed, regardless of the result. That way the player doesn't know whether the attack missed because the enemy's not there or because you successfully rolled the miss chance.
If an invisible character picks up a visible object, the object remains visible. An invisible creature can pick up a small visible item and hide it on his person (tucked in a pocket or behind a cloak) and render it effectively invisible. One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour falls off or blows away).
Invisible creatures leave tracks. They can be tracked normally. Footprints in sand, mud, or other soft surfaces can give enemies clues to an invisible creature's location.
An invisible creature in the water displaces water, revealing its location. The invisible creature, however, is still hard to see and benefits from concealment.
A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.
A creature with the Blind-Fight feat has a better chance to hit an invisible creature. Roll the miss chance twice, and he misses only if both rolls indicate a miss. (Alternatively, make one 25% miss chance roll rather than two 50% miss chance rolls.)
A creature with blindsight can attack (and otherwise interact with) creatures regardless of invisibility.
An invisible burning torch still gives off light, as does an invisible object with a light or similar spell cast upon it.
Ethereal creatures are invisible. Since ethereal creatures are not materially present, Perception checks, scent, Blind-Fight, and blindsight don't help locate them. Incorporeal creatures are often invisible. Scent, Blind-Fight, and blindsight don't help creatures find or attack invisible, incorporeal creatures, but Perception checks can help.
Invisible creatures cannot use gaze attacks.
Invisibility does not thwart divination spells.
Since some creatures can detect or even see invisible creatures, it is helpful to be able to hide even when invisible."
Source:
Invisibility and mods
Not sure why we're now getting a treatise on invisibility, but...
Powder (1cp 1/2 lb): Powdered chalk, flour, and similar materials are popular with adventurers for their utility in pinpointing invisible creatures. Throwing a bag of powder into a square is an attack against AC 5, and momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there. A much more effective method is to spread powder on a surface (which takes 1 full round) and look for footprints.
|
|
Not sure why we're now getting a treatise on invisibility, but...
Powder (1cp 1/2 lb): Powdered chalk, flour, and similar materials are popular with adventurers for their utility in pinpointing invisible creatures. Throwing a bag of powder into a square is an attack against AC 5, and momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there. A much more effective method is to spread powder on a surface (which takes 1 full round) and look for footprints.
Because parts of the rules concerning invisibility generally applies to anything being invisible.
Smoke, fog, mists and the spell invisibility and (big-ass wall-) cover will all make you invisible.Based of the above clarifications, RAW allows rogues to sneak attack from stealth.
Concealment of the target negates sneak attacks (total concealment for unchained rogue). So that's no to smoke, mist, and fog. And you have not shown that stealth makes you visually undetectable which is a requirement for invisibility.
For the record, I absolutely agree that attacking from stealth denies Dex, but I don't pretend it's RAW.