IIXHiMXII's page

55 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
I am not a representative of Chris Lambertz or Paizo in any way. Simply a friendly poster who had been around for a few years and is trying to help.

Could you also 'FAQ' the question (as well as anyone else) so we can achieve an amicable conclusion to this thread, please?


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Chris Lambertz is not here to answer rules questions. That is the job of the Design Team. If you want a question answered, hit FAQ on the post that contains the question.

I didn't know you were Chris Lambertz's representative. In any event, thanks for the tip.

Happy Holidays.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a series of posts and posts quoting/in response to them. Folks, the Rules Questions forum isn't the place to dissect the form and function of the English language. It also certainly isn't appropriate to condescend to other users for their use and understanding of the language either—remember that you're discussing a game and we're here in the spirit of fun, not to point fingers at each other. Unless you're attempting to answer/explaining a potential answer to the Rules question in the original post, take it elsewhere.

EDIT: I absolutely agree. My apologies for my part in perpetuating the discord.

Since this is supposed to be about Rule Questions then perhaps you can answer a question for me?

Does a creature's successful Stealth check alone (during combat, after initiative is already rolled--not a surprise round) deny foes, who are 'un-observing' and fail their Perception check(s), their DEX to AC?


Weirdo wrote:
Also, flanking is only for rogues, because it allows Sneak Attack.

That's not true at all.

Flanking
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

There is no mention of Sneak Attack at all. Sneak Attack depends on Flanking. However, flanking does not depend on Sneak Attack.

Weirdo wrote:
IIXHiMXII wrote:
If the opponent that does not have darkvision has no other way to confer 'sight,' he is effectively Blinded.
But he is not actually blinded, in the same way that a character with total concealment is not actually invisible.

EDIT:Total concealment and Invisible are mutually exclusive conditions. I messed up the language. I'm getting irritated, sorry.

Invisible grants total concealment. This makes total concealment the dependent variable.
However, total concealment does not grant invisibility. This makes total concealment an independent variable.
My head hurts.

Weirdo wrote:
Therefore this is an interpretation based on the two conditions being essentially similar.

Except, unfortunately, there are rules for being Blinded and there are rules for Vision and Light.

Blinded
The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.

__________________________
Vision and Light

Dwarves and half-orcs have darkvision, but the other races presented in Races need light to see by. See Table: Light Sources and Illumination for the radius that a light source illuminates and how long it lasts. The increased entry indicates an area outside the lit radius in which the light level is increased by one step (from darkness to dim light, for example).

In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. Some creatures, such as those with light sensitivity and light blindness, take penalties while in areas of bright light. A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover. Areas of bright light include outside in direct sunshine and inside the area of a daylight spell.

Normal light functions just like bright light, but characters with light sensitivity and light blindness do not take penalties. Areas of normal light include underneath a forest canopy during the day, within 20 feet of a torch, and inside the area of a light spell.

In an area of dim light, a character can see somewhat. Creatures within this area have concealment (20% miss chance in combat) from those without darkvision or the ability to see in darkness. A creature within an area of dim light can make a Stealth check to conceal itself. Areas of dim light include outside at night with a moon in the sky, bright starlight, and the area between 20 and 40 feet from a torch.

In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat (all opponents have total concealment), loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and takes a –4 penalty on Perception checks that rely on sight and most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. Areas of darkness include an unlit dungeon chamber, most caverns, and outside on a cloudy, moonless night.

Characters with low-light vision (elves, gnomes, and half-elves) can see objects twice as far away as the given radius. Double the effective radius of bright light, normal light, and dim light for such characters.

Characters with darkvision (dwarves and half-orcs) can see lit areas normally as well as dark areas within 60 feet. A creature can't hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover.


fretgod99 wrote:
You're presuming that the two cannot function simultaneously. Stealth was made to conceal one's presence. A benefit of a Rogue concealing its presence is being able to sneak attack. Nobody claimed that the only reason Stealth exists is to benefit Rogues.

Simultaneously but independent of each other. I can agree with that.

Stealth was made for hiding.

Rogue trying to hide is so that they can... hide.

Sneak Attack is independent of Stealth. There are already rules to support this claim:

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 (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.

The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.

Please show me a line in text in the Stealth skill that supports the claim that Stealth denies an opponent their DEX to AC?

The only skill that does this is Bluff:

Feint: You can use Bluff to feint in combat, causing your opponent to be denied his Dexterity bonus to his AC against your next attack. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent's base attack bonus + your opponent's Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent's Sense Motive bonus, if higher. For more information on feinting in combat, see Combat.

Pathfinder Unchained (should you use the rules), added the class feature (Skill Unlock), Rogue's Edge, to do this as well, should you have sufficient ranks in Stealth:

Stealth Unchained

About This Section Optionally, a character who reaches 5, 10, 15, or 20 ranks in a skill unlocks various bonuses and abilities unique to that skill. The unchained rogue uses these rules extensively, but others can gain access to them with a new feat.

In this system, characters unlock additional abilities when they attain 5, 10, 15, and 20 ranks in a skill. The skill unlocks system interfaces with the unchained rogue to make the rogue the true master of skills.

Skill unlocks give characters new abilities and ways to use their skills upon reaching 5, 10, 15, and 20 ranks in a skill. Any character with the Signature Skill feat can earn skill unlocks for a single skill, and they are a prime feature of the revised version of the rogue who uses her rogue's edge ability to gain skill unlocks for several of her most iconic skills. Alternatively, you might make skill unlocks a universal part of the game, but you should be aware they add significant power and flexibility to skills, so giving them for free to all classes would grant power boosts to other highly skilled classes such as the investigator and bard, particularly in comparison to the rogue. Another alternative is to eliminate access to the Signature Skill feat, limiting skill unlocks to rogues and rogues alone.

With sufficient ranks in Stealth, you earn the following.

5 Ranks: Reduce the Stealth penalty from sniping by 10.

10 Ranks: Stealth check penalties for moving quickly are halved, including the ability unlocked at 5 ranks, moving full speed, and reaching concealment after creating a distraction.

15 Ranks: If you attack after successfully using Stealth, your target is denied its Dexterity bonus against all attacks that you make before the end of your turn.

20 Ranks: If you attack after successfully using Stealth, your target is denied its Dexterity bonus against all attacks that you make before the beginning of your next turn.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Yes, I am still asking that question but you don't understand the word why. Not why would you reach that conclusion but WHY is that rule there What does that rule mean for the bigger picture?

Using 'why' lower-cased or upper-cased still means the same thing. the term is sufficient. whatever implications your use of an all capitalized 'why' could only imply emphasis, which if you notice is completely absent from any of Pathfinder's rules (or any structure of rules for that matter).

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Blindsense points out that you lose your dex bonus against attackers you cannot see.

Either

1) blindsense makes you worse at fighting things with sneak attack in the dark or

2) you lose dexterity bonus to ac against attacks from creatures you can't see is a general rule that blindsense is reminding you of

If someone successfully stealths you cannot see them. They have total concealment.

Option 1 clarification - It is not Blindsense that is to blame for the disadvantage but rather it is the condition of being Blinded. A creature can be Blinded and not have Blindsense.

Blinded and Blindsense are mutually exclusive.

Blinded is a penalty.

Blindsense is a buff.

The rules for Blindsense are a reminder that despite this being a buff, you are still a Blinded creature.

Option 2 clarification - Yes, because you are still Blinded.

Blinded
The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.


CBDunkerson wrote:

Good quotation. Doesn't it outright disprove your counter-argument?

After all, if a creature with blindsense is "still" denied Dex to AC "against attacks from creatures it cannot see" then that perforce means that creatures WITHOUT blindsense ALSO are denied Dex to AC against attacks from creatures they cannot see. Otherwise, the word "still" wouldn't be in there.

Are you trolling me? You said that total concealment would deny a foe their dex to ac which is not the case. Total concealment has no impact on another creatures ability to dodge an attack. When you are in total concealment the miss chance is 50% for the one in total concealment, it does not do anything except for that.

What don't you understand?

Total concealment, (in Pathfinder Unchained rules, any level of concealment if you're only using Core Rules), actually prevents sneak attacks on the creature benefiting from it.

Sneak Attack
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. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every 2 rogue levels thereafter. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet. This additional damage is precision damage and is not multiplied on a critical hit.

With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (such as a sap, unarmed strike, or whip), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack—not even with the usual –4 penalty.

The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with total concealment.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
XXIHIMXXSI

IIXHiMXII.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
You're not really responding to rules citations or evience, merely dismissing them away as inconclusive without providing any counter arguments. Its dismissive, hard to follow, and really really random.

I believe I have been using the rules as much as possible when making my arguments and in my examples as the situation arises.

If someone else is making a claim without rules to back them up, then it should not be apart of the discussion. That is an opinion and no longer within the confines of the rules for the game.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Total concealment is not required for stealth. Total concealment and unobserved status is. So if a rogue is creeping through the shadows they do not automatically have total concealment but a stealth check says they'll be treated that way

That's not true at all. Show me text that supports that claim.

This is my counter-argument, straight from the rules for Stealth:

(Being Observed) 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.

Where do you see 'total' anything? I agree that you need to be unobserved which means you need to roll a Bluff check if you are currently being observed and want to attempt to use Stealth.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Why would a creature with blindsense lose its dexterity bonus against a creature unless total concealment granted the loss of a dex bonus?

By what you're saying, you could stop an invisible rogue from sneak attacking you by just shutting your eyes. After all, if invibility itself is what grants the sneak attack, invisibility is irrelevant if you're blind.

Its also a conclussion reached by the guy in charge of the game. There's really no counter argument to the idea at this point

What? You seem to be confusing Blindsense with Blindsight.

Blindsense
Blindsense lets a creature notice things it cannot see, but without the precision of blindsight. The creature with blindsense usually does not need to make Perception checks to notice and locate creatures within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature. Any opponent that cannot be seen has total concealment (50% miss chance) against a creature with blindsense, and the blindsensing creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment. Visibility still affects the movement of a creature with blindsense. A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.

That last line pretty much sums up my counter-argument.

I'm sorry, but that's the rules.


Raynulf wrote:

IIXHiMXII, your language tends to be somewhat antagonistic for what is basically a discussion on rules which the developers themselves have stated are not clear-cut.

It's one thing to be passionate about our mutual hobby (we all are), it's another to let that override etiquette.

I apologize. I'm human. I'm asking for people to use logic and instead, all I am getting are interpretations and opinions.

IIXHiMXII wrote:

A question (and an honest one): If this is the interpretation applied at your table, why are you trying to hide from the enemy? The most logical reason is that you want to get down the bottom of the pit that round, but have inadequate movement/actions to attack them in the same round - so you wish to hide from them to avoid being attacked, and attack them on their turn?

(Noting that if another character then dropped into the right position, they could potentially lure the enemy into a position where your rogue could flank, possibly with only a 5-ft step, at which point the tactical value of the maneuver you attempted is understandable).

I don't see how that is relevant information to the situation. Making assumptions of player intent when that information was not provided in the first place, aptly highlights my persistent argument of interpretations--misinterpretations at that, are grossly being misused to define something that does not exist.


Weirdo wrote:
IIXHiMXII, does a goblin rogue standing in complete darkness get to use sneak attack on opponents without darkvision?

Let's look at the scenario:

Two creatures are standing in complete darkness.

Goblin has Darkvision. Opponent does not.

If the opponent that does not have darkvision has no other way to confer 'sight,' he is effectively Blinded.

Blinded
The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.

Answer: Yes, the Goblin is allowed to perform sneak attacks on that opponent.

Additional notes: Though the Goblin could attempt a Stealth check, it is not necessary since the Blinded condition denies the opponent their DEX to AC.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Pathfinder is written in English. For humans. Not code, for a computer.

Really? Did you seriously just say that?


fretgod99 wrote:
So your position is that Unchained Stealth rules allow multiple attacks that deny DEX to AC, but at no point does Stealth allow even one such attack? Doesn't that strike you as odd?

No, this does not strike me as odd. Pathfinder Unchained was just released a few months ago. For a long time, Pathfinder had clearly stated the rules for Stealth. The moment you decide to question the rules is when you start stretching the dimensions of what was intended. Don't ask questions. Follow the rules. That, is logic.

fretgod99 wrote:
And to be clear, nobody has ever said concealment denies opponents DEX to AC. Concealment does allow for Stealth checks, however. Successful Stealth checks grant you Total Concealment against the relevant opponents (you are colloquially invisible to them). That is, in turn, what denies the target its DEX to AC.

The fact that you have to use parenthesis to implicate the invisible condition to Stealth tells me that this is your personal interpretation and by RAW there is no evidence in the Stealth clause supporting this claim.

fretgod99 wrote:

It's clear from Developer commentary (much of which has already been posted) and also from their Stealth play-testing that the intent is now and always has been that Stealth confers the ability to sneak attack by denying the unaware combatant their DEX bonus to AC. Due to space limitations and the alterations they wanted to put in place, they didn't have the space to do so via errata, even though they pretty clearly stated that this was how the rules are intended to function.

Bottom line: If you'd like to play the Stealth rules absolutely strictly as written, good luck with that; they don't work in any legitimate capacity. (For instance, being observed isn't just about sight, it specifically calls out that it's relevant for all senses - so basically, if you're in earshot of somebody, you can't ever attempt a Stealth check because you're "being observed"). If you want the Stealth rules to be in any way workable, fair, and give Rogues and other Sneak Attack reliant combatants any opportunity to actually meaningfully contribute, then recognize that the language isn't as clean as even the Developers themselves have said they want it to be in order to reflect the unquestionable intent that yes, you can in fact deny someone their DEX to AC by being good at Stealth.

None of this is official. If it were, an errata would have been printed.


I really want to continue responding to each of you but there are less arguments using RAW to support claims than personal interpretation.

Whatever you choose to do in your games is on you but the language printed is sufficient. Otherwise, it would have been changed by now.

Stealth was specifically created for concealing one's presence. To think that Stealth was created only for Rogues is the driving force for the popular belief that Stealth also denies an opponent their dex to ac.

For once, I would want everyone who decides to continue this debate to consider that the rules are sufficient before they make an argument. If you don't, then we will get nowhere.

However, I will take the time to address specific questions instead of arguments that rely on interpretations of 'ambiguous' language.


Chemlak wrote:
IIXHiMXII wrote:

Even if you wanted to argue that a creature in Stealth denies opponents their Dex to AC, they should also receive this +2 bonus if they are 'effectively invisible,' according to your logic. Right?

You're conflating the condition Invisible with "cannot be seen because the stealth check exceeded the perception check". "Effectively invisible" =/= "has the invisible condition".

Find us another one-word shorthand for "cannot be seen" that's not "invisible", and people will try to avoid using it.

I don't think I'm conflating anything at all? If anything I'm trying to keep the terms separate by showing how his misuse of the game term, 'invisible,' makes things wonky.

If you need another one-word shorthand for 'cannot be seen,' I'd use unaware--as Paizo did.

It isn't coincidental that 'unaware' didn't become a game term. It's a way to set the conditions apart.


fretgod99 wrote:
You're missing the point of the analogy (one that pretty much everybody is familiar with and accepts). I'm not saying they get the Invisible condition or ability. I'm saying that they are effectively invisible to you for making the attack. I did not say they are identical states - they are similar and the effects of the two states are similar, if not uniformly identical (which isn't required of analogies).

It still isn't a good analogy because the language you're using is not compatible with the logic you're trying to convey.

fretgod99 wrote:
So yes, it is a good analogy. You are unaware of them. They hid and you failed to see them. They are effectively invisible to you. Therefore, you are denied your DEX bonus to their first attack.

There's no text to support that Stealth denies an opponent their dex to their ac from your attacks. That is specifically stated in the rules for being invisible. From all the text Paizo has printed, they never once mention it is 'effectively' anything else other than what they said it is. Anything more is a house-rule/(mis)interpretation.

fretgod99 wrote:
Now, whether the idea was actually to confer all of the benefits of Invisibility for the duration of that state is a fair question. But ultimately that's not the point of this discussion.

It shouldn't even be a question! When you start questioning the rules, you've stepped into (mis)interpretation territory and I won't follow you there.

And you're surely making it the discussion by using that analogy. Do you see what I'm saying? You're opening up a whole can of worms by using that language. You can't say you're going to use it and only apply anecdotes of it as it applies to your argument without accepting the rest of it as well.

If you can do that, than I can as well to support my argument and what happens after that is, we continue to keep misinterpreting each other until someone caves or agrees to disagree. The truth remains lost because of the unwillingness to accept reality (of the rules) as it is.

fretgod99 wrote:
What the "Observed" language means in the Stealth rules has long been debated. The intent is that being in concealment and/or cover (not even so far as total concealment and total cover) break observation and allow for Stealth checks. Successful Stealth checks give you total concealment with respect to those who failed their Perception checks. It is unfortunately not spelled out clearly (as has been noted, even within the context of developer commentary) because of space limitations, but this granting of total concealment is intended to also provide the benefit of denying those unaware of your presence their DEX bonus to AC, meaning you can sneak attack them.

I agree with everything here except there is no text to support concealment = opponents are denied their dex to their ac. That would then, open a can of worms with the blur spell or displacement spell. As soon as a rogue uses UMD, they can use blur/displacement and Stealth in place and make full-sneak attacks. It makes no sense. You argument quickly falls apart when used in other situations.

Show me the text that states that concealment = opponents are denied their dex to ac? Because all I found is this:

Concealment and Stealth Checks
You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.

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).

You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

And I repeat, concealment doesn't deny opponents dex to ac. It allows you to use Stealth. And from what we know using Stealth also does not deny opponents their dex to ac (unless you're using Stealth Unchained rules).


fretgod99 wrote:

I appreciate the attempt to clarify, but there's no lapse in my logic. Invisibility is the analogy we used to explain what happens when a person's Perception check fails to meet or exceed the relevant Stealth check. And it's a good analogy. Why? Because if you fail to perceive somebody who is hiding, they are, in effect, invisible to you.

Of course there is the opportunity to see a character in Stealth by sight, that's the whole point of a Perception check. But if you fail your Perception check, that means you didn't see them. That's the whole point of Stealth. To keep someone from seeing you.

Also, the chance of detecting someone who is Invisible (even by sight) is >0%. You may notice them because of other indicia, but...

I'll explain to you why it isn't a good analogy.

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 the invisibility special ability.

Even if you wanted to argue that a creature in Stealth denies opponents their Dex to AC, they should also receive this +2 bonus if they are 'effectively invisible,' according to your logic. Right?

EDIT: Nevermind the part about 'Invisible creatures are visually, undetectable.

Not to be confused with undetected or makes someone unaware or unobserved, undetectable. Meaning, impossible to be detected (by sight).


ShieldLawrence wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
IIXHiMXII wrote:
If we follow your logic, then someone with Uncanny Dodge is still susceptible by Sneak Attacks that rely solely on Stealth and not Invisibility.

Nope, that's not my logic you are following if that is where you end up.

I treat Uncanny Dodge as protecting against sneak attack from stealth too. That's what makes it 'uncanny'... they can "react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so". They get their AC bonus to Dex even against attacks they can't see coming... which includes attacks from stealth.

I agree that the react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so would mean that they are able to react to an attacker they are not aware of, such as a Stealthed character.

We already get clarity on what Uncanny Dodge does and doesn't do. To assume they meant it to be also against Stealth and also against enemies on the Shadow plane, that is a house rule and can exist only in the realm of (mis)interpretations. I'm sorry.


CBDunkerson wrote:
IIXHiMXII wrote:
Don't you see the problem? You're inferring.

That's not a problem. That's a necessity.

The only form of communication which doesn't involve inference is computer programming. I assure you, the Pathfinder rulebooks are not written to the strict logic standards of computer code. Nor would I want them to be.

That's a scary thought.

Do you read a manual or any textbook for that matter and feel as though you are being communicated with?

The problem is that you actually think games are fundamentally written in any other way.

Any game, Pathfinder rulebooks included, are written with logic in mind, I can tell you that for sure.

If you don't want them to be then... I've got news for you.


CBDunkerson wrote:
IIXHiMXII wrote:
If we follow your logic, then someone with Uncanny Dodge is still susceptible by Sneak Attacks that rely solely on Stealth and not Invisibility.

Nope, that's not my logic you are following if that is where you end up.

I treat Uncanny Dodge as protecting against sneak attack from stealth too. That's what makes it 'uncanny'... they can "react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so". They get their AC bonus to Dex even against attacks they can't see coming... which includes attacks from stealth.

The moment you said, "I treat...," you threw your argument into the world of interpretations instead of remaining grounded in logic.

Uncanny Dodge nowhere states it protects against Stealth (Hiding). Although, it does specifically state that those with UC can't be caught flat-footed and they retain their Dex to AC from attacks by invisible attackers. It continues to state that immobility and feints still work. There is nothing that supports your argument besides your own interpretations aka House Rules.

I think we need to face it. We have been house ruling because of our misinterpretations of the rules due to the complexity of the logic surrounding this facet of the game.

It's no one's fault besides our own and it's about time we take this moment to accept our shortcomings in navigating through the rationale and correct our mistakes.


Weirdo wrote:
IIXHiMXII wrote:
I still disagree that Stealth denies a defender of their Dex to AC but if you can quote a developer that intended that of the Stealth skill, please do because that is nowhere in the Stealth skill description. Remember, as you've said, this is not a surprise round. Which I must remind you it's still not Stealth that denies a Surprised combatant their Dex to AC but because Surprised combatants are considered flat-footed.
Stealth gives you total concealment. It's pretty clear from a few reasonable inferences as described by other posters that total concealment denies opponents their Dex to AC.

Don't you see the problem? You're inferring. The rules are enough. They contain the key. There is no need to infer anything.

Why else would you be inferring that Stealth meant to deny a foe their dex to ac instead of just producing the text to support your argument?

Weirdo wrote:
I specified it wasn't a surprise round in order to emphasize the fact that stealth, and not the surprise round, was responsible for the ability to sneak attack in this situation.

Sure, which goes to say you definitely need evidence to support that Stealth is capable of conferring such benefits.

IIXHiMXII wrote:
EDIT: Now, if you do have text that covers that caveat then I have no problems with your example except the presumptions that the Ogre has failed each and every free Perception check vs the Rogue's Stealth DC and has not made any further move action Perception check attempts against the Rogue so he can be considered aware/observing the Rogue while remaining engaged with the rest of the party.
When I say that the rogue has successfully used stealth against the ogre, I do in fact mean that the ogre has failed its reactive perception check and has not used a move action perception check to find the rogue (because it's fighting the rogue's allies).

Sure. I was just stating for clarification. I agree with this part under the assumption you were right in your inference.

But.. it's still an inference (RAI) and not RAW.


ShieldLawrence wrote:

It isn't contingent on a house rule. It's is contingent on a member of Paizo's staff clarifying their intent of the rules.

Again, your GM can do what he likes. GM is God.

If your GM rules that someone can react to the attack of someone he is unaware of, then sneak attacks will not stem from Stealth.

Well, yeah. But that's not the argument. However, if you're done arguing, you're free to leave?


fretgod99 wrote:

You don't need total concealment to make a Stealth check. You just need concealment.

Stealth wrote:
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.
Though Stealth doesn't use the magic word "invisible", as was noted above, the intent was for the stealthed creature to be effectively invisible against the creature that failed its Perception check. But once that one attack is made, you lose your status (just like you do with the Invisibility spell). Unchained Stealth allows the benefits to extend beyond just the first attack (through the end of your turn with 15 ranks, through the entire round until your next turn with 20). Weirdo walked through how that works two posts above.

Thanks for your input but there appears to be a lapse in your logic.

This is my argument: Stealth does not deny a foe their dex to ac.

The rules clearly state that concealment/cover allows a creature to use Stealth.

Your argument: "...the intent was for the stealthed creature to be effectively invisible..."

If that were the case, then what is the point of Invisibility? That actually uses the game term, 'Invisible,' that has its own set of rules?

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 the invisibility special ability.

I'll tell you the point of having a game term for Invisibility:

Being invisible, has 0% chance of being discerned by sight.

What is that akin to? Being Blinded (as it pertains to the one that invisible).

There's no surprise that being Blinded has it's own set of rules.

Blinded
The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.

Again, there is 0% chance that you can perceive anything by sight.

As far as Stealth goes, the chance of being discerned by sight is still intact. Thus the retention of their Dex to AC.


ShieldLawrence wrote:

If you are not aware of the attacker, you cannot react to the attack.

This follows common sense. Unfortunately, the above sentence isn't spelled out explicitly in any section of the rules. We can see from developer comments that the above sentence was the intent.

Stealth wrote:
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.
Armor Class 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.
Dexterity wrote:

You apply your character's Dexterity modifier to:

-Ranged attack rolls, including those for attacks made with bows, crossbows, throwing axes, and many ranged spell attacks like scorching ray or searing light.
-Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
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).

unaware of attack->unable to react->dex denied

If you do not like unaware of attack->unable to react->dex denied, you don't have to include it in your games. The GM has every right and authority to interpret the rules in the way they like.

Edit: added in the developer comment

You can't say it's 'Common Sense' when the rules are codified in logic.

Otherwise, interesting. I like it. It's a compelling argument. But it is still contingent on a house rule, which Jason Bulmahn provided, meaning it's still just another interpretation of the rules.

And it's important to note my DM is a rule-nazi, so let's not defer to house-rules and instead put in the work to flesh out the scenarios so we can see how they were written to apply.


CBDunkerson wrote:
IIXHiMXII wrote:

EDIT: Are you sure CBDunkerson?

I agree with most of what you said except the part about losing their Dex to their AC against any attacks made by the one in Stealth.

I'll start by pointing out that I didn't actually say anything about losing Dex to AC... but as you ask, yes I believe the intent was always that targets don't get their Dexterity (or Dodge) bonus to AC against attacks from people they are unaware of.

Please quote text or a developer. Your or my interpretation is debatable.

CBDunkerson wrote:
IIXHiMXII wrote:
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 an attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful [i](except when sniping as noted below).

Stealth ends AFTER your first attack roll (unless you are sniping and make the check). That means you are still in stealth for the first attack (Note: Unchained skill unlock allows you to get multiple attacks, rather than just one).

"Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment."

So, when they make the attack they are still in stealth and have total concealment from the target. The only 'leap' in the logic, though confirmed by things like the dev comment cited earlier, is that the loss of Dex to AC when attacked by an invisible opponent (see the combat attack modifiers chart and/or Blind-Fight feat) should also apply to an opponent who has total concealment for some reason other than invisibility (i.e. stealth).

Let's not talk about Invisibility's clause and try to apply it to Stealth. Because in that same breath, I can quote the text for Uncanny Dodge:

Uncanny Dodge (Ex)
Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. A rogue with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses the feint action (see Combat) against her.

We can all agree Uncanny Dodge is to prevent someone from being Sneak Attacked. If we follow your logic, then someone with Uncanny Dodge is still susceptible by Sneak Attacks that rely solely on Stealth and not Invisibility.

I don't think so.


Weirdo wrote:
IIXHiMXII wrote:
Your Stealth immediately ends after you make an attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).

Yes, Stealth ends after the attack. That means you are considered to have stealth for the one attack, which means you have total concealment and can sneak attack.

IIXHiMXII wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Right, so

no ranks: your first attack sneaks

15 ranks you can dual wield sneak attack

20 ranks you can sneak attack till the cows come home

That depends, I don't think your normal action economy would allow that. Give me a normal situation and I'll proof it for you.

Rogue has ducked behind a wall and successfully used Stealth against an ogre. Ogre is still in normal combat with the rest of the party - this is not a surprise round.

Rogue 5ft steps out from behind the wall and uses a full attack with a ranged weapon.

No ranks: Rogue's first attack gets Sneak Attack. The rest of the full attack is normal.

15 ranks: Rogue's entire full attack gets Sneak Attack.

20 ranks: Rogue's entire full attack gets Sneak Attack, and if the rogue has the ability to make extra attacks off turn (such as making Attacks of Opportunity via Snap Shot) those attacks are also Sneak Attacks.

I still disagree that Stealth denies a defender of their Dex to AC but if you can quote a developer that intended that of the Stealth skill, please do because that is nowhere in the Stealth skill description. Remember, as you've said, this is not a surprise round. Which I must remind you it's still not Stealth that denies a Surprised combatant their Dex to AC but because Surprised combatants are considered flat-footed.

EDIT: Now, if you do have text that covers that caveat then I have no problems with your example except the presumptions that the Ogre has failed each and every free Perception check vs the Rogue's Stealth DC and has not made any further move action Perception check attempts against the Rogue so he can be considered aware/observing the Rogue while remaining engaged with the rest of the party.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Barachiel Shina wrote:
So I can close a door, make a Stealth check, open the door and attack as a surprise attack? Assuming the enemy is standing by the door and doesn't follow me? lol come on

Yes, if you split it up over 2+ rounds.

Round 1: Close door (move action). Cannot 'stealth' because did not begin the round in stealth. Thus, re-opening the door at this point would be observed... and leave you with no attack action remaining and not in cover (observed again) in any case. Maybe use remaining move action to go to a different door into the same room.

Round 2: Open door (move action). Roll stealth vs perception to do so without being noticed. If target is within reach (or if using ranged) you can then use a standard action to attack.

Congratulations! You've developed a way to get one stealth attack every two rounds. If you make the stealth rolls. And no one ever follows you.

Of course, if the target(s) were watching the right (only?) door and had no other distractions I'd have the sneak attempt automatically fail... you'd still be able to get one attack every two rounds, but it wouldn't be from stealth.

EDIT: Are you sure CBDunkerson?

I agree with most of what you said except the part about losing their Dex to their AC against any attacks made by the one in Stealth. There just isn't any rule that specifically states that except for Stealth Unchained.

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 an attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).

It still does not say anything about the enemy losing their Dex to AC for the attack, unless at that point, you're referring to the Stealth skill unlock for 15th and 20th level users.

This is supported earlier in the Stealth description:

Stealth (Hide)
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.

This clearly states you can't make a melee attack while in Stealth. Sniping is the only exception to the clause (as mentioned above).

Only if you're using Stealth Unchained, does it provide additional exceptions to the clause of the inability to attack (in melee) in conjunction with the Stealth skill.

Stealth Unchained
With sufficient ranks in Stealth, you earn the following.

5 Ranks: Reduce the Stealth penalty from sniping by 10.

10 Ranks: Stealth check penalties for moving quickly are halved, including the ability unlocked at 5 ranks, moving full speed, and reaching concealment after creating a distraction.

15 Ranks: If you attack after successfully using Stealth, your target is denied its Dexterity bonus against all attacks that you make before the end of your turn.

20 Ranks: If you attack after successfully using Stealth, your target is denied its Dexterity bonus against all attacks that you make before the beginning of your next turn.


At this point, we're talking more about Perception than we are about Stealth. The chart of Perception modifiers further explains the possible instances that would confer a free Perception check.

I'd say it was implied up until now that the creature hiding is doing nothing but being still.


Rub-Eta wrote:
IIXHiMXII wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:

A few examples:

" Hider runs behind an open door (move action). He does not roll a bluff for diversion. Hider closes door (standard action). Hider gains total cover. If Hider has additional movement, Hider can roll a Stealth check. Hider moves 5ft aside of door, effectively Stealthed from Enemy. "
This can not be done in Pathfinder. I suggest that you read up on the action rules.

You're right. I stretched the rules there. When I mentioned additional movement, for some reason I was thinking of a possible exception to the rule. Like, Travel Devotion (3.5) for instance, moving as a Swift Action, would allow him to move again, which he may attempt a Stealth check to Hide.

In respect to reflexive (free) Perception checks, of course it's free. You either notice it or fail to notice anything. In either case, it comes down to how confident you are in your character's abilities--meaning if you are sure you noticed what you did (which could be nothing at all or if the something you noticed was in fact, all there was to notice).

If you don't trust your free Perception and want to spend more time trying to notice something, it requires a move action because at that point, the window of opportunity has passed.

That would mean that every time someone rolls a new Stealth check (which is normally every round/instance that involves a new range of movement), the DM should be allowing a free Perception check.


Chemlak wrote:

We had designer input on this at some point (I'll try and find it later): the intention is absolutely to allow rogues to sneak attack from stealth, even though the rules are ambiguous on whether they can. The basics of it are what BNW says: attackers in total concealment deny Dex to AC.

Edit: Found it. It's less clear than it could be, perhaps, but read the whole thread and the context is pretty obvious (to me, at least).

Thanks for that Chemlak. It further makes me point that people are misinterpreting even the Lead Designer's words.

So here's what the Lead Designer you posted said:

"Couple of notes I want to add here...

1. For simplicities sake, it should be assumed that those making Perception checks get to do so at the most favorable point during the movement of a character using Stealth, to avoid making checks every time the condition changes. Technically, I think you would get a check whenever the conditions change, but that might make things overly complicated during play.

2. Creatures are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC "if they cannot react to a blow" (CR pg 179 under AC). It was our intent that if you are unaware of a threat, you cannot react to a blow. I think we probably should have spelled this out a wee bit clearer, but space in the Stealth description was extraordinarily tight and ever word was at a premium. That said, I think these changes clear up the situation immensely (compared to where they were.. which was nebulous at best).

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer"

From what I can understand, he was reiterating (not so much clarifying) the conditions (albeit in a general/broad way, that may be the reason for the misinterpretations) that would deny a creature their Dex to AC.

It seems that people took the part of their 'intent' as meaning that Stealth denies Dex to AC because he used the word 'unaware'. But you have to understand 'unaware' is not a game term. You won't find it. However, there are game terms where it specifically states a creature's Dex is denied to AC.

When looking at the Stealth skill, it specifically states you can't use it while attacking!

Stealth (Hide)
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.

I further argue, that there would be a gross amount of redundancy for a company that is bent on only printing what is necessary and saving every dollar, to allow enemies that fail their Perception vs a creature using Stealth to be denied their Dex to AC and then print the Skill Unlock for the Unchained Rogue:

Stealth Unchained
With sufficient ranks in Stealth, you earn the following.

5 Ranks: Reduce the Stealth penalty from sniping by 10.

10 Ranks: Stealth check penalties for moving quickly are halved, including the ability unlocked at 5 ranks, moving full speed, and reaching concealment after creating a distraction.

15 Ranks: If you attack after successfully using Stealth, your target is denied its Dexterity bonus against all attacks that you make before the end of your turn.

20 Ranks: If you attack after successfully using Stealth, your target is denied its Dexterity bonus against all attacks that you make before the beginning of your next turn.

It just doesn't make sense seeing it any other way. It's a bunch of pieces to a puzzle but when you have it all assembled it makes perfect sense. There isn't one wasted piece.

Of course, if you want to house rule any of it, go ahead. Like the Lead Designer said: "For simplicity's sake."


BigNorseWolf wrote:

IIXHIMXII

: 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

Total concealment= Sneak attack.

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.

Now it should be pretty self explanatory that you can't get your dex against creatures you can't react to, but this is spelled out under blindsense of all places.

Any opponent that cannot be seen has total concealment (50% miss chance) against a creature with blindsense, and the blindsensing creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment. Visibility still affects the movement of a creature with blindsense. A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.

Now, unless blindsense went and made dragons WORSE at fighting hidden things, it stands to reason that if something has total concealment against you you lose your dex bonus.

In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat (all opponents have total concealment), loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and takes a –4 penalty on Perception checks that rely on sight and most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. Areas of darkness include an unlit dungeon chamber, most caverns, and outside on a cloudy, moonless night.

Again, can't see the thing, lose your dex bonus

BNW, you are grossly misinterpreting the rules when it comes to concealment. You said Total Concealment = Sneak Attack but offered no rule that specifically states that it does.

That is because (total) concealment, alone, has nothing to do with others without said concealment.

Let me rephrase, (total) concealment is solely for the creature who is in concealment.

Let me rephrase it yet again, the creature that has total concealment gain a benefit of a miss chance from attacks by others.

That's it. There is no text that specifically stating that this miss chance also negates a potential enemies dex to AC from the creature with said concealment.

Also, you're funny using Blindsense/Blindsight, allow me to get the rules for you.

Blindsight
Some creatures possess blindsight, the extraordinary ability to use a non-visual sense (or a combination senses) to operate effectively without vision. Such senses may include sensitivity to vibrations, acute scent, keen hearing, or echolocation. This makes invisibility and concealment (even magical darkness) irrelevant to the creature (though it still can't see ethereal creatures). This ability operates out to a range specified in the creature description.

Blindsight never allows a creature to distinguish color or visual contrast. A creature cannot read with blindsight.
Blindsight does not subject a creature to gaze attacks (even though darkvision does).
Blinding attacks do not penalize creatures that use blindsight.
Deafening attacks thwart blindsight if it relies on hearing.
Blindsight works underwater but not in a vacuum.
Blindsight negates displacement and blur effects.

Blindsense
Blindsense lets a creature notice things it cannot see, but without the precision of blindsight. The creature with blindsense usually does not need to make Perception checks to notice and locate creatures within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature. Any opponent that cannot be seen has total concealment (50% miss chance) against a creature with blindsense, and the blindsensing creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment. Visibility still affects the movement of a creature with blindsense. A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.

This basically means that Blindsense is not as accurate as Blindsight.

Blindsight clearly states that concealment does not matter.

Blindsense clearly states that they still lose their dex bonus to AC because they are 'sensing' oppose to 'seeing.'

Blindsense means you're still blind.

Think of Blindsense like the 'typical' Blind Swordsman trope.

Blindsight is an improved version of Blindsense that practically gives a blind person a way to 'see,' while bypassing typical 'sight' altogether.


Rub-Eta wrote:

A few examples:

" Hider runs behind an open door (move action). He does not roll a bluff for diversion. Hider closes door (standard action). Hider gains total cover. If Hider has additional movement, Hider can roll a Stealth check. Hider moves 5ft aside of door, effectively Stealthed from Enemy. "
This can not be done in Pathfinder. I suggest that you read up on the action rules.

Stealth (Action Type)

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.

Rub-Eta wrote:

"Enemy is also not observing hider since he did not roll an 'active' perception check as a move action vs an 'active' Stealth check, due to exhausted action economy"

This is just not how the rules work. Re-read your quoted perception rules.

Please make sure that it is you who understand before calling someone else out.

That is exactly how the rules work:

Perception (Notice Someone/Something)
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.

Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment. The DC to notice such details varies depending upon distance, the environment, and how noticeable the detail is. The following table gives a number of guidelines.

Detail - Perception DC
Hear the sound of battle –10
Notice the stench of rotting garbage –10
Detect the smell of smoke 0
Hear the details of a conversation 0
Notice a visible creature 0
Determine if food is spoiled 5
Hear the sound of a creature walking 10
Hear the details of a whispered conversation 15
Find the average concealed door 15
Hear the sound of a key being turned in a lock 20
Find the average secret door 20
Hear a bow being drawn 25
Sense a burrowing creature underneath you 25
Notice a pickpocket Opposed by Sleight of Hand
Notice a creature using Stealth Opposed by Stealth
Find a hidden trap Varies by trap
Identify the powers of a potion through taste 15 + the potion's caster level
Perception Modifiers DC Modifier
Distance to the source, object, or creature +1/10 feet
Through a closed door +5
Through a wall +10/foot of thickness
Favorable conditions1 –2
Unfavorable conditions1 +2
Terrible conditions2 +5
Creature making the check is distracted +5
Creature making the check is asleep +10
Creature or object is invisible +20

Perception Modifiers DC Modifier
Distance to the source, object, or creature +1/10 feet
Through a closed door +5
Through a wall +10/foot of thickness
Favorable conditions1 –2
Unfavorable conditions1 +2
Terrible conditions2 +5
Creature making the check is distracted +5
Creature making the check is asleep +10
Creature or object is invisible +20

Perception (Action Type)
Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.

You could argue that sound is observable. Which means, as soon as the door closes, you're reflexively listening. The perception modifiers above make it easy to determine how difficult it is for Enemy to 'reflexively sense' Hider. A move action, would simply be a retry.

In my example, I skipped addressing this part as I implied Enemy failed his 'reflexive' Perception check.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Right, so

no ranks: your first attack sneaks

15 ranks you can dual wield sneak attack

20 ranks you can sneak attack till the cows come home

That depends, I don't think your normal action economy would allow that. Give me a normal situation and I'll proof it for you.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Post stealth errata, a stealth check will give you full concealment, which will allow a sneak attack.

Concealment allows a rogue to Stealth not Sneak Attack.

The confusion is that people believe Stealth = Sneak Attack, and they're wrong.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

You guys who are thinking that being in Stealth allows Sneak Attacks are completely wrong. There is no stipulation in the Stealth skill that it allows Sneak Attacks (AFTER THE SURPRISE ROUND). Stealth is used to simply Hide from the enemy.

Post stealth errata, a stealth check will give you full concealment, which will allow a sneak attack.

15 Ranks: If you attack after successfully using Stealth, your target is denied its Dexterity bonus against all attacks that you make before the end of your turn.

Right, so

no ranks: your first attack sneaks

15 ranks you can dual wield sneak attack

20 ranks you can sneak attack till the cows come home

That is not errata for Stealth, that is Unchained Rogue that the DM has the liberty to allow or disallow in their games. The skill unlock of the Rogue class specifically allows what you're asking about. But levels were never discussed by the OP and neither in my example so I wouldn't assume the rogue was level 15 or higher. In fact, since I am the rogue that the OP was talking about, I can assure you I am level 13 where I still would not be able to Sneak Attack after Stealth, since I don't even have that skill unlock in the first place.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

You guys who are thinking that being in Stealth allows Sneak Attacks are completely wrong. There is no stipulation in the Stealth skill that it allows Sneak Attacks (AFTER THE SURPRISE ROUND). Stealth is used to simply Hide from the enemy.

Post stealth errata, a stealth check will give you full concealment, which will allow a sneak attack.

Cite where concealment on a rogue allows him to Sneak Attack.

Because I know there is none.


You guys who are thinking that being in Stealth allows Sneak Attacks are completely wrong. There is no stipulation in the Stealth skill that it allows Sneak Attacks (AFTER THE SURPRISE ROUND). Stealth is used to simply Hide from the enemy.

The Confusion:

The OP is thinking the rogue (btw I'm his player) going into Stealth from an 'unaware' enemy will allow a Sneak Attack. That only occurs before combat begins in the surprise round (not particularly due to a successful Stealth but rather because the majority of enemies will be flat-footed in a surprise round, unless they have uncanny dodge or another ability that prevents that).

In the OP example and my previous post example with the Hider and Enemy, it is clearly stated that initiative has already been rolled.

Otherwise, you're saying is that a rogue can get multiple 'surprise rounds' within a single encounter.

What you're talking about is Feinting in Combat of the Bluff skill, plain and simple.

Stealth is simply for Hiding. Period. (Otherwise, Sniping outside of a surprise round, would continuously allow Sneak Attacks against flat-footed AC)

The Stealth of your dreams:

Stealth Unchained
With sufficient ranks in Stealth, you earn the following.

5 Ranks: Reduce the Stealth penalty from sniping by 10.

10 Ranks: Stealth check penalties for moving quickly are halved, including the ability unlocked at 5 ranks, moving full speed, and reaching concealment after creating a distraction.

15 Ranks: If you attack after successfully using Stealth, your target is denied its Dexterity bonus against all attacks that you make before the end of your turn.

20 Ranks: If you attack after successfully using Stealth, your target is denied its Dexterity bonus against all attacks that you make before the beginning of your next turn.

A bit redundant if we go by your 'interpretations,' don't you think?


I made sure to edit the post. Thanks for your input, BNW. Let me know if you see any errors.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Ii... randomish letter guy.

The rules for staying stealthed without cover and concealment are a little funny. They kinda look into the future and see if you're going to end your turn in cover or 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).

From a RAI stand point thats not the rule is for. The rule is for creeping from shadow to shadow sly cooper style without being seen.

From a RAW perspective Since the Shoanti Rogue "DeathBehindtheDoor" did not end his turn in cover or concealment then he needs cover and concealment the entire time to maintain stealth.

(actually now that i think about it, throw that on the pile for times observed is an integral part of the rules)

I can accept that. Hence why my example for that part of the Stealth rule doesn't confer any advantage for doing so. It makes sense why it doesn't now, thanks to your input. Stealth is solely for hiding. (Unless you are 15+ level with the Unchained Rogue skill unlock but that's another story entirely--which really clarifies why Stealthing once combat begins does not confer any advantage besides masking where you are (with the help of Bluff for diversions if necessary).

I want to say that not even with HiPS it would not be possible to fix that situation of 'Breaking Stealth,' unless you were already fighting within the terrain selected for HiPS. Otherwise, as soon as you left concealment/cover to venture to terrain for HiPS, Stealth would break.


Rub-Eta wrote:
IIXHiMXII wrote:
Barachiel Shina wrote:

So I can close a door, make a Stealth check, open the door and attack as a surprise attack? Assuming the enemy is standing by the door and doesn't follow me? lol come

on
There was no movement. So I don't know how you can Stealth without movement. You're already using the move action to open the door. How can you still be Stealthed? You're right. That CANT happen.

But you said he gets a free stealth check!

But no, it can't happen. Even if you get a stealth check: If you succeed your stealth check they'll assume that you didn't move away from the other side of the door (if you fail they'll know it). Removing cover (by opening the door) is well enough to make them aware of you (they'd notice it even if you where invisible).

I don't think you're understanding the order of events AND you're not understanding that you need to give clear examples as they may be different depending on the individuals and the different abilities involved. Since you're offering none, I'll make a few up with the door example:

Hider (no special abilities)
Enemy (no special abiltiies)

Hider is faced with Enemy. Combat begins. No Surprise Round. Hider wins initiative. He is being observed. Hider runs behind an open door (move action). He does not roll a bluff for diversion. Hider closes door (standard action). Hider gains total cover. If Hider has additional movement, Hider can roll a Stealth check. Hider moves 5ft aside of door, effectively Stealthed from Enemy.

Stealth (Being Observed)
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.

Stealth (Hide)
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.

Stealth (Action Type)
Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action.

Enemy observed Hider run through door. Enemy approaches door (move action). Enemy opens door (standard action). Enemy does not see Hider. Enemy is also not observing hider since he did not roll an 'active' perception check as a move action vs an 'active' Stealth check, due to exhausted action economy. Enemy turn is over.

EDIT: Perception (Action Type)
Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.

EDIT: Hider rolls a Stealth check to remain stealthed and moves towards Enemy (move action). Hider makes a melee attack against enemy (hider does NOT confer any bonuses to attack for Enemy being unaware because unaware =/= (does NOT equal) flatfooted condition.

EDIT: Hider has multiple options at this point. On Hider's turn he could feint as a standard action (wow, does not require LoS/LoE) and as a move action, roll a Stealth check and venture to additional cover. Enemy still would lose dex to ac as normal (if Enemy failed a Sense Motive check), and on Hider's next turn he could make a melee or ranged sneak attack (wow, I didn't know you can make ranged feints in PF).

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 an attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).

Bluff (Feint in Combat)
You can also use Bluff to feint in combat, causing your opponent to be denied his Dexterity bonus to his AC against your next attack. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent’s base attack bonus + your opponent’s Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent’s Sense Motive bonus, if higher. For more information on feinting in combat, see Combat.
Action: Feinting in combat is a standard action.

On the enemy's next turn, he pauses and tries to roll a perception check to beat Hiders Stealth score OR he can pass through the door to try and gain LoS. He attempts to use his senses to see if he can hear something (move action). Enemy fails the perception check. He then decides to charge into the next room and gain LoS (standard action). He goes in and does not see anyone. TURN OVER.

Hiders turn comes. He can either try to Snipe at this point (with necessary penalties), run up and attack (which requires no kinds of roll at this point and the attack does not allow dex to AC for the single attack, or he could continue to hide, use a potion, etc, etc.

Perception (Action Type)
Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.

Are we getting somewhere with this?


Barachiel Shina wrote:
ShieldLawrence wrote:

However, this leaves the Ranger's Camouflage and HiPS as redundant abilities, as they do the same thing in this case.

Right. These abilities are pointless, well mainly HiPS, if you simply need to break observance by diving into total cover to make Stealth.

HiPS: Benefit: A rogue with this talent can select a single terrain from the ranger’s favored terrain list. She is a master at hiding in that terrain, and while within that terrain, she can use the Stealth skill to hide, even while being observed.

How is this redundant? It absolves the need for a bluff check to hide as long as you're already within the terrain you selected? You still could not Stealth from the square you started in if it wasn't the terrain you selected. And without a bluff check to create a diversion, you will still be giving the knowledge of where you went---at least up until you reach said terrain and rolled a Stealth check, the knowledge of where you went would stop at that point on a failed perception check by potential observers.


Barachiel Shina wrote:

So I can close a door, make a Stealth check, open the door and attack as a surprise attack? Assuming the enemy is standing by the door and doesn't follow me? lol come

on

EDIT: There was no movement. So I don't know how you can Stealth without movement. You're already using the move action to open the door. How can you still be Stealthed? You're right. That CANT happen.

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).

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.

Further proving my point that the rules are clear.


Barachiel Shina wrote:
IIXHIMXII, btw, how about also checking out Jack B Nimble Can't Steal a Chicken thread because it's a thread on how messed up the Stealth rules are so it has always been left to interpretation. Until Paizo, one day, finally gives it some kind of clean up or overhaul. Which James Jacobs said won't happen unless they redesign the system entirely.

The rules aren't mess up. It's that the application of the rules are highly contingent on the situation and those involved. Stop being lazy and looking for a silver bullet answer for every situation.


Rub-Eta wrote:
You still don't get a "free" check, they need to specifically note that they're doing it and have resources to do so. There is no rule that says that you can make a stealth check as soon as you reach cover. To call it free is missleading. A perception check vs stealth is free.

Stealth (Modifiers): Being Observed 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.

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.

Get over it, your interpretation is moot.


Barachiel Shina wrote:

So I can use a Standard Action to gain Total Cover behind a Tower Shield, and now that I have Total Cover I can make a Stealth check and now I'm hidden...the enemy has to make a Perception check to sense me behind the Tower Shield.

Really?

Tower Shield: Benefit: In most situations, a tower shield provides the indicated shield bonus to your Armor Class. As a standard action, however, you can use a tower shield to grant you total cover until the beginning of your next turn. When using a tower shield in this way, you must choose one edge of your space. That edge is treated as a solid wall for attacks targeting you only. You gain total cover for attacks that pass through this edge and no cover for attacks that do not pass through this edge (see Combat). The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.

When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield's encumbrance.

Get over it, your example is moot.


Rub-Eta wrote:

You're both wrong. He doesn't get a free check. Though since he's no longer in plain sight and has cover, he can attempt a stealth check as normal. The enemies will then assume that he's where they last saw/was aware of him, if he succeeds. But he can't stealth around the pillar to get the drop on them, as they'll be aware of him as soon as he leaves cover and is in plain sight.

If they never where aware of him or assumed that he's nowhere in their vicinity and dropped their guard, his stealth check is to determine surprise round.

EDIT: Be careful with your language. You just contradicted yourself when you said, he doesn't get a free check. Although, he would because he's behind the pillar and has total cover to the 'observing party.'

For instance, hider is observed by 2 enemies (Enemy A and Enemy B). hider bluffs both for diversion. Enemy A passes, Enemy B fails. Hider uses 20 of 30 ft of movement to run to total cover. Hider uses 5 ft (half of remaining 10ft) to use Stealth. Enemy A turn comes. Enemy A tells Enemy B that hider went behind corner 'over there.' (Enemy B now has the same knowledge as enemy A, as if he also passed his check against Hider's Bluff attempt to create a diversion).
Enemy A runs to the only chamber room door and locks it. Enemy B turn comes. Enemy B wants to pursue in direction hider went but requires a double move to make it around the obstacle providing total cover so Enemy B instead readies a ranged attack action incase Hider pops out and uses a move action to roll an active perception check vs hider's Stealth. Enemy B perception check fails.

(Unless Enemy B circumvents the total cover OR successfully passes a Perception check vs Hider Stealth, then Hider is still considered unobserved and actively in Stealth)

Hider turn comes. Hider can either:
1) continues to use Stealth to get to another position that provides concealment or total cover (effectively keeping Stealth intact and uncompromised)

2) break stealth after rolling a Stealth check to remain in Stealth before he attacks Enemy A or Enemy B (important to note, this attack does not prevent enemies from using dex to their ac. basically, NO SNEAK ATTACKS, that requires FEINTING IN COMBAT from Bluff).

3) Sniping either Enemy A or Enemy B but is essentially just option 2 since they know his position already. Sniping is only beneficial from a spot they have no knowledge of you being in.

Knowledge of the hider aka 'Observed' status is what is tentative and is left up to DM discretion in who knows what depending on an individual character's abilities. Most of which is unknown to another, ally or enemy, a majority of the time.


Diego Rossi wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Otherwise you need to make the (non action specificed so i assume standard action) bluff check to make them not look and THEN get to concealment.

For the bluff check, as there aren't specifications I think it a normal bluff check, so normally it is a standard action but there are abilities that make it faster.

The type of action necessary for using the Bluff skill is contingent on what you're trying to do.

If you're using Bluff to specifically 'Feint in Combat' (which is not to be confused with Stealth's rule to 'Create a Diversion to Hide') that is usually a standard action, as we know Improved Feint and some class features will modify that use of the Bluff skill.

If you are trying to Create a Diversion to Hide that is apart of the Stealth skill and from what I can see, there is no action that supports this in the Stealth skill. However, in the Bluff skill "Deceive or Lie" seems to fall under this category, albeit as a full round action which to me, seems to be a grossly misinterpretation of its use. Despite this, there are penalties for failing to deceive enemies in this way (-10 on a retry). I tend to think of this use of the Bluff skill akin to the other main uses of the other 'social skills,' Diplomacy and Intimidate. So a full-round action may not be appropriate for Creating a Diversion to Hide as this option states this is a 'momentary diversion' and not something elaborate as convincing someone of a lie or 'deception'.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Your assertation is that cover or concealment blocks observation. This is patently false. You can see creatures that have cover. You can target creatures that have cover with spells. You do not suffer a 50% miss chance against creatures with cover.

2) Making a successful bluff check does NOT allow it on its own. Making a successful bluff check AND getting to cover/concealment allows it. This part would be totally nonsensical if you could just hit concealment and make the stealth check.

Read the paragraph, not the sentences. The paragraph makes sense, the sentences make no sense otherwise.

I agree with Diego on this one except that you would immediately benefit from Stealth after your bluff is successful against possible observers. This is further clarified in the second option for Stealth, 'Create a diversion to HIDE,' HIDE being the active word. This explicitly would refer back to the Hide option use of the Stealth skill after the diversion is successful.

IMPORTANT TO NOTE THIS IS NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH FEINTING IN COMBAT OPTION OF BLUFF.

If one was trying to use the Create a Diversion to Hide option to attack, they would misusing that option of the Stealth skill and would be instead be attempting a Feint in Combat option of the Bluff skill which would require a Standard (or whatever improvements upon Feinting in Combat they have).

This is further clarified with this stipulation of the Hide option of the Stealth skill:

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).

"WHEN YOU START YOUR TURN USING STEALTH" is important to note, as well as 'REMAINING UNOBSERVED.' This allows you to cross areas that are being observed (terrain not masked by concealment or cover from possible enemies) and remain in Stealth, completely unobserved. Sniping mid-turn after Creating a Diversion to Hide would not be possible unless you had additional standard/move actions to attack and return to hiding as the Sniping option states. The ranged attack would simply be a normal ranged attack that would immediately defeat the purpose of your diversion and you will be considered 'observed' after your attack. More importantly, no where in the Stealth skill options does it ever state that the unsuspecting enemy loses Dex to AC, again, that is the Feinting in Combat of the Bluff skill. So if a rogue tried to use Creating a Diversion to Hide to make a Sneak Attack, they would be misusing that option of the Stealth skill and would need to refer to Feinting in Combat of the Bluff skill.

All that said, the action for Creating a Diversion to Hide falls under the Stealth skill and the Stealth action required for clearly says, 'Usually none, as it is made apart of movement (with penalties as appropriate due to how fast you're moving, armor penalties, etc).

Lastly, I do believe it possible for a rogue to roll a Bluff check to Create a Diversion to Hide (against observing enemies) as a free/move action (apart of the movement basically), to make observing enemies UNobserving, then roll a Stealth check against UNobserving enemies to hide without them knowing where I am (as a move action or whatever movement you have available to you) and if I wanted to Feint that same enemy (enemies? group fake-out etc), I can roll a Bluff check as a standard action (or whatever improvement you have to Feint in Combat). Note, failing the diversion against some enemies and not all shouldn't make it impossible to Stealth afterward. Enemies that passed the Bluff attempt (observers) will simply be able to alert those that failed to where the hider went. The hider still gains Stealth if he ends his turn in cover/concealment.

Which reminds me: Concealment and Stealth Checks

You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.

Cover and Stealth Checks

You can use cover to make a Stealth check. Without cover, you usually need concealment (see below) to make a Stealth check.

There's your answer about needing TOTAL or not.

I'm the player that made the initial argument the OP was looking for clarity about.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
redundant dog name[/url wrote:

The issue seems to be more what "observed" means. I would hold that observed means able to pinpoint the square (when vision is not an option or the main sense used in the scenario). For example, a dog might know something is nearby because scent has a range, but until you get next to it, it can't pinpoint your square and you can stealth anywhere else (should it not be able to see or hear you).

since there's no game terms for it it probably means the same thing as it does in english

: to watch and sometimes also listen to (someone or something) carefully

: to see and notice (someone or something)

: to make a comment about something you notice

You can very easily do all of that to someone in fog , standing behind another person, or standing behind a waist high wall.

That and the rules read i na paragraph make perfect sense together. Parse them apart and you get contradictions

EDIT: Why? Does people keep forgetting that there is a check to be made?

'Observed' is a status that is determined by the 'possible observer's' Perception check vs the Hiders Stealth check.

BNW Seriously dude, +1.


bump


bump


bump