Karpo's page

Even though I disagree with the BAB idea, and would rather simply give a stealthing Rogue the +2 to hit from being effectively invisible to the victim...

How many times you as a rogue find yourself in a situation when you are stealthing and able to hit? Your suggestion mainly affects a rogue using ranged weapon and even then within 30' range and highly situational as well (need cover).

To be able to hit while stealthing you should be standing next to your target while at the same time hiding behind cover or get concealment of some sort. And on top of that after your first strike you're not stealthing anymore anyways.

While that ruling is correct (as James verified) I wouldn't exactly say it is correct to assume rules in Pathfinder are the same as 3.5 unless stated. They don't call out where they intentionally left out rules. While I still raid 3.5 for monsters and other useful bits, the rules of play should come straight from a Pathfinder book or FAQ.

Isn't it part of Pathfinder rules that if a ruling is unclear, one should roll back to 3.5 rules?