mogonk's page

So, just some clarification on the nature of Handwraps to start.
https://www.aonprd.com/EquipmentWeaponsDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Handwraps

Handwraps are light weapons. They do not have a listed damage, or damage type, because they derive their damage and damage type from your unarmed attacks. They are unlike Amulet of Mighty Fists in this crucial way: they do not modify your unarmed strike. Your unarmed strike modifies your handwraps.

So, the question: are Handwraps considered bludgeoning weapons, RAW? For example, for the purpose of the Brawling enchantment.

https://www.aonprd.com/MagicWeaponsDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Brawling

I see two main answers here:

1. Yes, handwraps are bludgeoning weapons. Unarmed strikes deal bludgeoning damage unless modified by feats or abilities, so by default, handwraps will deal bludgeoning damage, therefore they are bludgeoning weapons.

2. No, handwraps do not have a damage type. Whether they deal bludgeoning damage by default is irrelevant, because they are not intrinsically blunt weapons. No damage type is listed in the weapon description, therefore they do not qualify for anything that requires a specific damage type.

Interested to hear your thoughts.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/style-feats/

As a swift action, you can enter the stance employed by the fighting style a style feat embodies. Although you cannot use a style feat before combat begins, the style you are in persists until you spend a swift action to switch to a different combat style.

My reading of this is that you cannot use a style feat outside of combat. That's how my DM interprets it as well. Feel free to disagree, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.

So, let's say I have Veiled Moon Style from Path of War.

Benefit: Whenever you move, you can treat up to 10 feet of that movement as teleportation. This teleportation may be taken at any point during your movement, and cannot exceed the total movement you would normally be allowed to make. You must have line of sight to your destination, and cannot teleport into an occupied space. This is a supernatural ability.

Let's say I'm locked in a jail cell constructed of iron bars with another prisoner. I can see outside the bars. I cannot teleport out of the cell, because I am not in combat. So I punch the other prisoner. Now I'm in combat. So I teleport out of the cell.

If you asked my character why he had to punch that guy to teleport, what would he say? What is the in-universe logic to this?

And before you say "Well, that's Path of War, it's third party", etc., the problematic text is from Ultimate Combat. This is the example that's tying my mind in knots, but you could as easily ask:

"Why can't I use Boar Style to sunder an object?"
"Why can't I use Deadhand Style to resist intimidate?"
"Why can't I use Monkey Style to jump over a chasm?"

If I can do this stuff at will, if I have these abilities, why do I have to wait until someone is trying to kill me to use them?

Quote:

A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.

If you can't see your opponent, you are denied your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from said creature.

==============================

RAW: If you have Total Concealment your opponents will lose their Dex-to-AC since they can't see you. You'd not gain +2 to attacks, since that is a property of being invisible.

RAI: Since there's no difference between being invisible and having Total Concealment, you should really get that +2 when attacking from Stealth.

Agree completely, but that doesn't address the question of what effect it has on Stealth checks. Common sense, and perhaps RAI, would indicate that if it is otherwise the same as invisibility, you should get the +20 per the invisibility description and the perception circumstance modifier table. But I can't find even an oblique reference to that vis a vis total concealment specifically, or just "an opponent you can't see" generally.

So RAW total concealment still doesn't provide a bonus to your stealth check.

????

but the creature in question isn't using stealth.

What are you using then to detect it?

They are using stealth by definition. You are detecting them via sound. Trying not to make sound is one of the things represented by the stealth skill. If you are hiding, and someone is looking for you, it's an opposed stealth-perception check by the rules. If you lose, the DM can rationalize it by saying you sneezed, or stepped on a twig, or whatever. But the rules are not ambiguous about this.

My point remains that invisibility provides a bonus to this, total cover provides a bonus to this, the opponent being blind provides a bonus to this, but total concealment does not.

And of course there's this

"CRB, Using Skills wrote:

Skills can be further modified by a wide variety of sources—by your race, by a class ability, by equipment, by spell effects or magic items, and so on. See Table: Skill Check Bonuses for a summary of skill check bonuses.

Feel free to employ a +20 Circumstance bonus for Total Concealment by Fog Cloud it's perfectly RAW by the above. They didn't even try to list all the places one might get a bonus i.e. "and so on".

Sure, it's very easy to fix this ad hoc. The trouble is that every time you sit down at a new table, you have to ask the GM for his interpretation of the concealment rules, because as written they don't make sense.

Now lets look at the perception skill. It lists how difficult it is to perceive something based on what sense is being used. It is as follows

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

Only one of those is specifically vision based, "Notice a visible creature".

And only one of those has anything to do with the question of whether you can detect someone using stealth: "Notice a creature using Stealth". It is stealth opposed by perception. Period. That's what the rules say.

You keep saying that you can't make a perception check, but you still haven't cited any rules to indicate that. What are you basing this on? I've given you example after example to demonstrate that you can use perception to detect people you can't see. From the actual rules. What do you have to contradict that?

So now that we've established you can make a check, the only question is what the DC is. And the perception skill is clear that the DC is the opposed stealth check, and total concealment does not modify that check RAW.

I think if you really want a raw answer, the closest you'll get is:

Quote:

Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible character.

which is logically equivalent to saying "Sighted opponents may only make Perception Checks against total concealment when who they are perceiving is invisible."

No, it's not equivalent to that at all. That implication is a massive, massive stretch. You mean to say that you don't think people can make perception checks to detect people just because they can't be seen?

Well the RAW directly contradict that, because there ARE rules for the bonus to stealth/penalty to perception when someone has total cover, in the perception rules. So clearly you can make perception checks to detect people you can't see.

Unless you want to try to make the case that you auto-succeed stealth checks inside fog but not behind a castle wall?

Ok, well by the RAW total concealment does not allow someone to make a vision based perception check.

I'm going to stop you right there, because you're making it clear that you're playing by a system of houserules without realizing it. There is nothing in the rules that says the check to detect someone is vision based. There is nothing in the rules to indicate that you automatically fail your perception vs. stealth because you can't see them, or even that there is a penalty. Stealth is opposed by perception, and there is a short list of modifiers. Total concealment is not one of those modifiers. Anything beyond that is not RAW.

There are 4 situations where you can't see a person, and all have different penalties:

They are invisible - You cannot see them, and take an effective -20/-40 to detect them.
You are blind - You cannot see them, and take a -4 to perception to detect them.
They have total cover - You cannot see them, and you take a penalty based on how thick the material obstructing them is.
They have total concealment - You cannot see them, and take no penalty to detect them.

Now, I think we agree that these situations SHOULD be about the same. What I keep telling you is that RAW they aren't. You can clearly use perception to detect people you can't see, and the penalty you take in that situation is completely dependent on the reason you can't see them. It's different in all four cases, and none of the four says you can't make perception checks. If you can't point to a rule that supports your claims, you're talking about houserules, period.

I don't see your additional benefits anywhere under Stealth[/url] so if you want to show me where they are exactly, I'd really appreciate that.

Hm? It's literally the portion you quoted. The second sentence from the link you just posted.

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

If a perception check is being allowed against an opponent with total concealment the concealed character at minimum should get the same bonuses to their stealth check that invisibility provides.

I agree that they "should" in the sense that it would make sense if they did. But no, nothing in the rules says that. Nothing in the rules says that they can't make a perception check to notice someone with total concealment. Nothing in the rules says they take a penalty for doing so, or that their opponent gets a bonus for being totally concealed.

Your logic is slightly backwards. Invisibility is treated as total concealment.

In addition to the other benefits, yes. Read the description again. Invisibility is a special named condition. Invisibility denies targets their dex bonus. Total concealment doesn't. Invisibility provides a stealth bonus. Total concealment doesn't.

The biggest factor is that using Stealth to Hide only gives you Total Concealment. If you already have Total Concealment, stealth doesn't give you any additional benefits. So, clear enough?

Not true. The passage you quoted is explicit on the additional benefit: they are not aware of you. You can be Invisible, which gives you total concealment, and then fail a stealth check, resulting in the opponent being aware of you.

So no, it's not clear unless we treat total concealment as synonymous with invisibility, which we don't have a basis to do RAW.

You are 1)motionless and 2)under total concealment. To me that sounds like a +40 bonus to your Stealth (per RAW).

Where are you getting a RAW bonus to stealth from total concealment?

I'm just going to explain a little bit about why I find the RAW on total concealment so completely unacceptable.

PC: "Okay, I'm standing still inside a Fog Cloud. The enemy has no line of sight to me. I use stealth." *Rolls Stealth with no bonus*

DM:*Rolls Perception with no penalty* "Okay, they see you."

PC: But they literally can't see me.

DM: Well, they perceive you.

PC: But I'm standing still, not making any noise, and they can't see me.

DM: Well, maybe they hear your breathing.

PC: And you're telling me there is no penalty to detect someone exclusively by listening for their breathing from 30 feet away?

DM: Yes.

This is on-face absurd.

Scenario 1: It's twilight, so outdoor conditions are "dim light". I'm sitting motionless on the side of the road as a group of soldiers go by.

Scenario 2: Still twilight, still sitting by the side of the road. I've cast fog cloud and it is 100% impossible to see me.

How is anybody okay with those 2 stealth checks being identical?

Beautiful, thank you sir.

I've spent the last two hours googling this and reading threads on Reddit, GitP, and the Paizo forum, so pardon me if this has been settled. If it has, I haven't found it. I have two questions:

1. Has there been a FAQ/errata/developer post which establishes whether someone retains their DEX bonus against foes of which they are not aware due to use of the stealth skill?

Answered!

Here is a quote from the lead designer, Jason Bulmahn:

Quote:

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.

2. Has there been a FAQ/errata/developer post which delineates how, if at all, total concealment is different from partial concealment for the use of the stealth skill?

Everyone I've ever played with assumes that if you don't know someone is there, you lose your DEX bonus vs. their attacks, and that total concealment is treated as invisibility. But RAW neither of these is the case, and I can't believe after all these years the developers have never touched this issue.