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. FlankingWhen 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:
EDIT: 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
__________________________
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:
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
CBDunkerson wrote:
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
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:
What? You seem to be confusing Blindsense with Blindsight. Blindsense
That last line pretty much sums up my counter-argument. I'm sorry, but that's the rules.
Raynulf wrote:
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:
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
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.
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:
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:
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
Total 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'll explain to you why it isn't a good analogy. Invisible
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
Well, yeah. But that's not the argument. However, if you're done arguing, you're free to leave?
fretgod99 wrote:
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
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
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:
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:
Please quote text or a developer. Your or my interpretation is debatable. CBDunkerson wrote:
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)
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:
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:
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)
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
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.
Rub-Eta wrote:
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:
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
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)
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
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:
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
Blindsight never allows a creature to distinguish color or visual contrast. A creature cannot read with blindsight.
Blindsense
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:
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:
That is exactly how the rules work: Perception (Notice Someone/Something)
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
Perception Modifiers DC Modifier
Perception (Action Type)
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:
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:
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
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?
BigNorseWolf wrote:
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:
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)
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)
Stealth (Hide)
Stealth (Action Type)
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)
EDIT: 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)
Bluff (Feint in Combat)
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)
Are we getting somewhere with this?
Barachiel Shina wrote:
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:
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:
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:
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).
(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:
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:
I'm the player that made the initial argument the OP was looking for clarity about.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
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. |