Also, to counter the whole "if I am dodging that means I get my Dexterity bonus to AC" argument, a "Blinded" character is denied their Dexterity bonus to AC. They could be under attack, even have a good idea of where it's coming from, and be dodging all around. However, they are still denied their Dexterity bonus to AC.
Maybe.
Do you want to go to Sherwood Forest, but a dark thick bag over your head, and run around, hoping not to fall into a ravine, brain yourself on a rock, trip on a root, bounce off of the many trees you will inevitably encounter, or stumble into one of your companions swords?
You would feel carefully with your feet, testing each step as you slowly make your way, groping with your hands to find branches and brambles, enemies and allies.
You would tread lightly, listening for any sign of approaching foe.
And at all costs, with enemies lurking nearby, you would do whatever it takes not to injure yourself, impale yourself on a jagged branch, entangle yourself in a leafy bush, fall into a ravine or down a bluff, or even twist your ankle on a root or divet.
None of that suggests that you would be very mobile or nimble.
I daresay, being blinded, or in total darkness, your dodgy darty springy days are over.
That's a whole world different than having perfectly normal sight in daylight but not knowing exactly where the arrows are coming from.
But after the first arrow, you know the attacks coming from ground level off to the left, not too far ahead, maybe a little behind, and possibly from one of those two or three shady areas in that general direction. Or maybe from behind those couple large trees over there. Or behind that rock. You're scanning the area, eyesight sharp, as you dart from cover to cover, having no fear of any of that stuff I described above because you can see the trees, rocks, ravines, roots, bushes, and divits just fine.
See the difference? (no pun intended)
This is why I cannot mentally relate that because the one (blinded) grants sneak attacks due to loss of DEX, that the other (foe with total concealment) must also grant the same thing.
Actually, the blindsense reasoning still holds up.
Possessing blindsense != being blind.
Just look at all the true dragons. All of them possess blindsense, but are not blind themselves.
That kind of tears a lot of your response apart. ;) The line in Blindsense still indicates that if you cannot see someone, you lose your Dex bonus against them.
This is backed up by being Blind, being Invisible, etc. No, it does not spell it out for you, but it is pretty clear. :)
I think it's safe to assume that they are only using blindsense when they cannot actually see, and are thus blinded.
Dragons don't need to use blindsense to pinpoint someone hiding in shadows at the back of their cave.
If the dragon opens its eyes and looks, with plain old eyesight, at the rogue hiding in shadows at the back of the cave, that rogue is concealed, and the dragon has a 50% miss chance if he attacks that rogue.
If the dragon closes its eyes, it can still sense the rogue there, but now it, wait, gets a 50% miss chance when it attacks the rogue. But because it cannot see its cave, it might brain itself on the wall, or on a stalactite. Or might trip on a treasure chest. Or might simply bite the stone wall and break its teeth.
So it moves carefully, because its eyes are closed, feeling each step, groping for the walls, using its blindsense to keep track of the rogue, and suffering sneak attacks from that rogue because it is keepign its eyes shut.
At least it can still sense the rogue, thanks to its blindsense, which is something most creatures could not do with their eyes shut.
No, the dragon will open his eyes and just deal with the same exact miss chance as it has with its eyes closed, but not deal with any of the other worries about the terrain and environment. It can now see the arrows flying out of the shadowy place, and can try to duck and dodge and twist to avoid them without impaling itself on a stalagmite or tripping over treasure.
No more sneak attacks from the rogue.
But if clever adventurers can blind a dragon, or cast it into deeper darkness where its darkvision won't even work, at least the dragon is lucky enough to have its blindsense to help it fight.
I will grant you one point.
This is the best argument yet that total concealment allows sneak attacks.
This rule is ambiguous.
I am assuming that blindsense is only active when a creature is blind, because if it isn't blind, it will open its eyes and use "visionsense" which is much better than blindsense.
You are assuming that the line "A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see" applies even if that creature has its eyes open and is able to see just fine, with or without blindsense, hence concealed (unseen) creatures are able to sneak attack it since it is denied its DEX.
Given the ambiguity of the statement, I certainly see how you could interpret it that way.
So this, finally, comes down to interpretation. Everything up to this was RAW, but this is interpretation.
But I think my interpretation makes more sense (no pun intended), that any creature with both blindsense and vision will always use vision because it is much better than blindsense. Therefore, they only use blindsense when they truly cannot see, when are blinded or in total darkness, in which case the rules for being blinded or in total darkness supercede the rules for the rogue (Robin Hood?) being concealed.
You can always sneak attack a blinded creature, or one in total darkness (assuming you can see it normally). That's a given.
So if it is so blind that it is relying on blindsense, your sneak attacks are a given, even if you are standing in broad daylight making no attempt to hide whatsoever.
And that fully-sighted dragon won't be blindsensing you in broad daylight.
It won't be blindsensing you in a shadowy corner of the cave either, since its vision is much more reliable.
Which is why your intrepretation only works if you try to lift that final sentence out of the context of a blind creature relying on blindsense.
As a final point of proof, note that the sentence in question includes the word "still".
This word is very powerful to our debate.
It implies quite vividly that this sentence refers to some other rule that is being invoked.
If it merely said "A creature with blindsense is denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see", well, then you'd have a better chance of being right.
But it doesn't say that.
The word "still" means some other rule is in effect here. The other rule that is in effect here is, most certainly, the rule about losing your DEX when you're blind.
It must be, since there is no rule about losing your DEX because your foe is concealed or unseen.
A better way to reword this sentence so it would lose its ambiguity would be:
"A creature using blindsens is 'still' bound by the rules of being blind, because of which, it is denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from all creatures because, being blind, it cannot see them."
Is that rewording merely my interpretation?
Sure, but I do believe it is quite locically supported. The word "still" is in there for a reason, and if that reason were not a backreference to another rule, the word "still" would not be there. And there are no rules for concealment or unseen foes that fit this sentence, but there is a rule for being blind that does, and being blind goes very much hand-in-hand with using blindsense, so I think, quite demonstrably, that my rewording is exaxtly the RAI that the author of this bit of text had tried to convey.
Still, that's just my interpretation.
Just because I don't know were an archer is really doesn't equal I am flat footed or not able to use speed/dex to make the archer's shot much harder. Weaving in an eractic manner makes a shot very difficult, diving to the ground or behind cover then sprinting out of it, running at varrying speeds all make the shot harder. And they don't make it easy to pick your shot either, ie even a really well trained or skilled sniper can't reliably hit you in a vital spot when you are doing such things. The idea a rogue can sneak attack a target that knows in general where the rogue is and that he is firing at him seems to me a bit extreme. Also thought I would note that the rogue can only be 30 feet away for the first shot, 30 feet, he shot me at 30 feet and after that shot I know in general where he is, first I can overrun his possition in a short burst, second in all honesty at 30 feet he will need to be a god of stealth to hide from a person of below average perception. And with each shot there after well personally I would put increasing difficulting at hiding, at least increasing it by -10 per shot. So quickly he aint hidden anymore. Rules be damned, that's way too close to remain hidden for long while shooting at someone.
Another thought on the same general lines:
What if the rogue in question was hiding behind ramparts on a wall (improved cover). He pops up shoots then hides again according to the sniping rule. Next round he moves down the wall about 30 feet (double move at half movement while using stealth), the round there after (3rd round) he snipes again. Now the players in question thought he was at the original position, however he has moved 30 feet and the characters have no clue where he actually is now. In effect they have no means to know until he acts again, would he be able to basically reset for another surprise round by sniping and moving where he can't be seen?
|
Edit: This post doesn't matter as much now, due to the find in the FAQ in the post below this one.
Fellow Blake, I have to say I think you are wrong on this. In almost every case listed (except the one in question), if you cannot see your attacker, you do not get dexterity bonus to AC. If you are blinded, you don't. If the attacker is invisible, you don't. You could make another *extremely* lengthy post about why a hidden person is different from this, but I think you would be wrong.
No, the RAW does not literally say "you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC if the opponent is hidden" (except in that Blindsense line, which I still think matters). However, it makes sense in context with every other form of 'not being able to see the attacker'.
My RAI is that you would get sneak attack from being Hidden. I think it takes a lot out of being a Rogue to deny them that. I have been over the 3.5 boards again and again, and there is a constant assumption that being hidden grants you sneak attacks, even if the battle has already begun. I cannot find a single ruling on those boards that says against this. No, RAW does not state explicitly it does, but a lot of people seem to think so. :) Maybe it's in one of the splatbooks, I should check.
I will admit that the RAW does not support me on this matter. However, I will not admit that you are correct. ;)
|
|
Hah! I knew I missed something in the FAQ.
If a rogue has successfully hidden behind some bushes and fires an arrow at a target less than 30 feet away from her, does she deal sneak attack damage?Yes. The rules don’t come right out and say this, but a character who has successfully hidden from an opponent is considered invisible for the purpose of rendering that foe flatfooted, and thus deals sneak attack damage.
Yes, it is 3.5. But I am satisfied. No, this is not RAW for Pathfinder Beta Core. As all the Pathfinder Beta really did was copy the PHB 3.5 and add in their changes, they did not really include a lot of the things the FAQ covered (though I hope they do in the final version). I would hope that most DMs considered a fix to 3.5 to be applicable to Pathfinder Beta as well, assuming it made sense.
No, it is not RAW for Pathfinder Beta. I can safely say that being hidden, making your opponent flat-footed, etc. IS RAW for 3.5.
So I would guess that it is RAI for Pathfinder as well, though you can feel free to dispute that as long as you wish. ;)
Another thought on the same general lines:
What if the rogue in question was hiding behind ramparts on a wall (improved cover). He pops up shoots then hides again according to the sniping rule. Next round he moves down the wall about 30 feet (double move at half movement while using stealth), the round there after (3rd round) he snipes again. Now the players in question thought he was at the original position, however he has moved 30 feet and the characters have no clue where he actually is now. In effect they have no means to know until he acts again, would he be able to basically reset for another surprise round by sniping and moving where he can't be seen?
He would need to hide and move silently to pull that off but assuming he can yeah he's moved his possition enough that he should get another sneak attack shot in.
So the rogue in my party with the magical talent - ray of frost can sneak attack for 1d3 (ray of frost) plus 6d6 (sneak attack damage). That seems wrong, but I haven't found a rule that says she can't. Pretty good damage for a zero level spell.The rule you are looking for is....Your the DM, if you feel it is wrong, talk to your players, explain your thoughts, allow them input then make the ruling you can all live with.
That would be the rule you are looking for in this situation.
My biggest issue is that this ignores most defense your opponet might have. Sneak attack means he's flat footed so no dex, but because it's a touch spell no armor either.
I would not be inclined to allow it, don't care what the rules say, it's over powered in my veiw. My players and I would have to talk it out, but I know them, I feel certain this would not get into our game as is. A hand crossbow, knife, bow would all have to hit the armor of the foe, but this bypasses all of that.
I'd rule that you would have to hit the flatfooted AC to qualify for sneak damage.
Just hitting the touch AC would cause the energy of the spell to discharge for normal spell damage, but it would not be precise enough to do sneak attack damage.|
|
So the rogue in my party with the magical talent - ray of frost can sneak attack for 1d3 (ray of frost) plus 6d6 (sneak attack damage). That seems wrong, but I haven't found a rule that says she can't. Pretty good damage for a zero level spell.The rule you are looking for is....Your the DM, if you feel it is wrong, talk to your players, explain your thoughts, allow them input then make the ruling you can all live with.
That would be the rule you are looking for in this situation.
My biggest issue is that this ignores most defense your opponet might have. Sneak attack means he's flat footed so no dex, but because it's a touch spell no armor either.
I would not be inclined to allow it, don't care what the rules say, it's over powered in my veiw. My players and I would have to talk it out, but I know them, I feel certain this would not get into our game as is. A hand crossbow, knife, bow would all have to hit the armor of the foe, but this bypasses all of that.
I'd rule that you would have to hit the flatfooted AC to qualify for sneak damage.
Just hitting the touch AC would cause the energy of the spell to discharge for normal spell damage, but it would not be precise enough to do sneak attack damage.
It's not just hitting the touch AC, it's hitting the Touch and Flat-Foooted AC. Even with a touch spell, the target still needs to be denied their Dexterity for the sneak attack damage to apply.
The power of this tactic is pretty limited. First of all, the Rogue would need to lose levels to pick up some spellcasting. Second, the spells per day are limited as it is.
I've had a Rogue do it before, and it really isn't as bad as one would think. The 3.5 Clerics and Druids still outshone any attempts. :)
Hah! I knew I missed something in the FAQ.
If a rogue has successfully hidden behind some bushes and fires an arrow at a target less than 30 feet away from her, does she deal sneak attack damage?Yes. The rules don’t come right out and say this, but a character who has successfully hidden from an opponent is considered invisible for the purpose of rendering that foe flatfooted, and thus deals sneak attack damage.
Yes, it is 3.5. But I am satisfied. No, this is not RAW for Pathfinder Beta Core. As all the Pathfinder Beta really did was copy the PHB 3.5 and add in their changes, they did not really include a lot of the things the FAQ covered (though I hope they do in the final version). I would hope that most DMs considered a fix to 3.5 to be applicable to Pathfinder Beta as well, assuming it made sense.
No, it is not RAW for Pathfinder Beta. I can safely say that being hidden, making your opponent flat-footed, etc. IS RAW for 3.5.
So I would guess that it is RAI for Pathfinder as well, though you can feel free to dispute that as long as you wish. ;)
Well, there we go. Fianally something official to support the rogue getting to sneak attack from stealth.
So, based on this obscure line in the 3.5 FAQ, clearly a rogue can sneak attack from stealth, despite having no rules in the 3.5 or Pathfinder books to support that.
Still, it's enough to win the day for the rogues.
I'm glad there is something official for this. I think I even have that FAQ printed out on my shelf in my gameroom, somewhere.
Too bad it's just a FAQ. It would be nice to see it in print somewhere, preferably in a core rulebook.
As for me, knowing what we now know, I think I'll still stick to my houserule. If the rogue wants to sneak attack, he must include a stealth roll with his attack roll, and his target may, with a good perception roll, still spot the attack in time to retain his DEX.
It just makes more sense to me, cinematically, that what a sniper does in the instant he attacks is far more crucial to determining whether his target can dive for cover, or whether someone can heroically push the target to safety or jump in front of the target.
With that FAQ, it's possible for a rogue to hide behind a log, or a window sill, hours before their target walks by. When the target does walk by, they get no perception check to see the rogue because he is completely down behind his log or windowsill - there is nothing to see. Then he pops up and plunks an arrow into his target's eye. And the target never has any chance to make a last second cinematic recovery to avoid taking an arrow in his eye.
I don't like robbing the target of his chance at a cinematic resource.
To me, it's similar to takign away the saving throw from a fireball spell - let the mage autmatically deliver the spell to the target with no chance for the target to dive to safety. Not much different than letting the rogue deliver the arrow to the target with no chance for the target to dive to safety.
So, now that you've found incontrovertible proof that a rogue can sneak attack from Stealth, I'll no longer claim that the RAW says he cannot (even though the RAW says he cannot).
I'll put this to rest, for me, by simply saying it's un-cinematic and unfair to the targets to give them no chance to spot the attack at the last second and react to it, so I'll stick to my houserule.
I'd rule that you would have to hit the flatfooted AC to qualify for sneak damage.
Just hitting the touch AC would cause the energy of the spell to discharge for normal spell damage, but it would not be precise enough to do sneak attack damage.It's not just hitting the touch AC, it's hitting the Touch and Flat-Foooted AC. Even with a touch spell, the target still needs to be denied their Dexterity for the sneak attack damage to apply.
The power of this tactic is pretty limited. First of all, the Rogue would need to lose levels to pick up some spellcasting. Second, the spells per day are limited as it is.
I've had a Rogue do it before, and it really isn't as bad as one would think. The 3.5 Clerics and Druids still outshone any attempts. :)
I'd can't be sure but I think he meant to say that the rogue would have to hit his touch AC, yes without dex since the target is flat footed, but he would need to hit his flat footed AC too for it to be a sneak attack. Ie I am in full plate with a dex of 12. My flat footed AC is 18, my touch AC is 11, but my flat foot touch is 10. For a sneak attack I think he is saying you need to hit my normal flat footed AC of 18, not my flat footed touch AC of 10, the 10 would get you the spell hit, but to do extra damage you need to hit the 18. I think that is what he is saying anyway.
He is also saying that is how it would work in his game, not that the rules support his method either way.
As for me, knowing what we now know, I think I'll still stick to my houserule. If the rogue wants to sneak attack, he must include a stealth roll with his attack roll, and his target may, with a good perception roll, still spot the attack in time to retain his DEX.
Well that rogue sitting behind the window sill would not be completely free and clear. A passerby would get a listen roll, because if he hears someone he gets to react, and that means when our rogue pops up to take his shot he may not have surprise. If he doesn't then it's all an intiative roll, if the rogue looses that he's 10 yards away, wall or not wall he's about to get a face full.
|
|
Hah! I knew I missed something in the FAQ.
If a rogue has successfully hidden behind some bushes and fires an arrow at a target less than 30 feet away from her, does she deal sneak attack damage?Yes. The rules don’t come right out and say this, but a character who has successfully hidden from an opponent is considered invisible for the purpose of rendering that foe flatfooted, and thus deals sneak attack damage.
Yes, it is 3.5. But I am satisfied. No, this is not RAW for Pathfinder Beta Core. As all the Pathfinder Beta really did was copy the PHB 3.5 and add in their changes, they did not really include a lot of the things the FAQ covered (though I hope they do in the final version). I would hope that most DMs considered a fix to 3.5 to be applicable to Pathfinder Beta as well, assuming it made sense.
No, it is not RAW for Pathfinder Beta. I can safely say that being hidden, making your opponent flat-footed, etc. IS RAW for 3.5.
So I would guess that it is RAI for Pathfinder as well, though you can feel free to dispute that as long as you wish. ;)
Well, there we go. Fianally something official to support the rogue getting to sneak attack from stealth.
So, based on this obscure line in the 3.5 FAQ, clearly a rogue can sneak attack from stealth, despite having no rules in the 3.5 or Pathfinder books to support that.
Still, it's enough to win the day for the rogues.
I'm glad there is something official for this. I think I even have that FAQ printed out on my shelf in my gameroom, somewhere.
Too bad it's just a FAQ. It would be nice to see it in print somewhere, preferably in a core rulebook.
As for me, knowing what we now know, I think I'll still stick to my houserule. If the rogue wants to sneak attack, he must include a stealth roll with his attack roll, and his target may, with a good perception roll, still spot the attack in time to retain his DEX.
It just makes more sense to me, cinematically, that what...
I am glad we can start putting this debate to rest, though I do think that your ambushed guy should still get a roll. All the FAQ says is that when a rogue is 'hidden', which I would think still means he needs to roll his Stealth check opposed by the viewer's Perception, even when they walk by. There's been plenty of scenarios, both WotC and Paizo, where ambushers did exactly that and the PCs still got checks to notice them.
Also, I did find something interesting in Complete Adventurer that, while it didn't change how ranged hiding/sneak attacking work, completely changes how melee sneak attack works. In short, the rogue takes penalties on his Hide/Move Silently for every 5 feet out of cover/concealment he moves towards his target.
I'll throw it up later, along with I think a summary on how RAW handles sneak attacks, at least 3.5.
I do hope, like you, that Paizo includes some of the FAQ rulings in Core. It's frustrating to go through an entire rule setting, get a lot of FAQs, Explanations, etc. and basically have them be erased when the rules get re-made, even when they're still basically the core of PRPG>
I'd rule that you would have to hit the flatfooted AC to qualify for sneak damage.
Just hitting the touch AC would cause the energy of the spell to discharge for normal spell damage, but it would not be precise enough to do sneak attack damage.
That would be a PHENOMENAL rule! I disagree that it is how things are now, but wow that is a great idea!
If a rogue has successfully hidden behind some bushes and fires an arrow at a target less than 30 feet away from her, does she deal sneak attack damage?Yes. The rules don’t come right out and say this, but a character who has successfully hidden from an opponent is considered invisible for the purpose of rendering that foe flatfooted, and thus deals sneak attack damage.
It says that the rogue must "successfully" hide from an opponent. The inclusion of "successfully" means a successful stealth role. There are no free shots. The opponent gets a chance to spot them, but in failing to do so will take an arrow in the eye.
Yes, I'm playing a rogue at the moment. How can you tell? =)
If a rogue has successfully hidden behind some bushes and fires an arrow at a target less than 30 feet away from her, does she deal sneak attack damage?Yes. The rules don’t come right out and say this, but a character who has successfully hidden from an opponent is considered invisible for the purpose of rendering that foe flatfooted, and thus deals sneak attack damage.
It says that the rogue must "successfully" hide from an opponent. The inclusion of "successfully" means a successful stealth role. There are no free shots. The opponent gets a chance to spot them, but in failing to do so will take an arrow in the eye.
Yes, I'm playing a rogue at the moment. How can you tell? =)
Yes, but under the FAW (FAQ As Written), the rogue can roll his stealth check hours before his target even gets there.
Robin Hood could find a nice comfy hollow tree stump and climb into it, then duck down so it is impossible to see him from the road.
Impossible.
Then along comes the Sheriff's tax collector, and the DM doesn't even give the guy a Perception check since Robin is all the way down in the hollow tree stump.
Then Robin pops up, fires his shot, and shoots the tax collector in the eye, rolling all his impressive sneak attack damage, and there isn't a thing in the world that tax collector can do to save his eye.
Well, technically, that's by RAW too, since Robin would have a surprise round and the tax collector would be flatfooted.
But, suppose Robin's Merry Men charge out of the trees, attacking the tax collector's guards. Melee ensues. Many rounds go by and nobody is still flatfooted.
But Robin bides his time in the hollow tree stump.
Meanwhile, everyone is running around, fighting for their lives, using all their DEX to avoid being killed (adding their DEX mod to their AC).
Now Robin pops up and shoots the tax collector in the eye.
By RAW, the tax collector is not flatfooted and Robin is not concealed nor is he invisible, so the tax collector gets his DEX and Robin gets no sneak attack.
But the FAW overrides that, and according to that FAW, Robin gets a sneak attack and the tax collector is going to lose an eye, and there's nothing he can do about it, even though he's running around like a madman trying to avoid any and all blows from Robin's Merry Men.
That's the objection I have, and the reason my houserule would require Robin Hood to make a stealth check when he pops up to shoot.
Sure, the DM could rule that the tax collector gets a perception check when Robin pops up, but neither the RAW nor the FAW suggest that Robin needs to roll a stealth check here. So does the tax collector roll against the stealth check Robin made hours ago when he climbed into the hollow stump?
If so, wouldn't that be a houserule in and of itself?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the rogue getting his sneak attacks. I just want their victims to get a chance to protect themselves.
|
|
Just to be clear, by RAW, Robin Hood could already do the first bit (hide, take 20, until the tax collector came along). There is no paragraph covering "Try Again" under Stealth, so we go with this rule:
If this paragraph is omitted, the
skill can be retried without any inherent penalty other
than the additional time required.
Now if Robin Hood was in Total Cover, you're right, the tax collector doesn't have a change to see him. If he was just in Cover though, the tax collector still has a Perception roll he can make (though it's against Robin Hood's Stealth +20, which is probably nigh-impossible).
As for the rest of it, I still think the example is a bit flawed. "Dodging" is only effective if you know what you are dodging from. Jumping around like a moron shouldn't give you any effective bonus to your AC unless you know what you are actively avoiding. This is why Blind people are always denied their Dexterity bonus to AC. They could jump around and try to dodge Robin Hood's Merry Men as much as they wanted, even if they know they are there, and they're still denied their Dex bonus since they can't *see* their attackers. Fighting an invisible opponent is the exact same way. Take an invisible stalker, permanently invisible. You may *know* they are there, you may even have a high Perception and be dodging around away from their 'general' direction, but you still lose your Dex bonus to AC since you can't see them. You may have the best Dexterity in the world, but it manes jack if you can't use it effectively.
As it is, the FAQ backs this up. I'm not sure why you don't think it makes sense, but if Robin Hood wants to hide the whole battle then pop up and get a sneak attack against mister tax collector, that makes perfect sense to me. There is no real difference in 'blind guy that can't see Robin Hood' and 'non-blind guy that can't see Robin Hood'. Both of them could be jumping around, dodging, etc. Neither of them see him. That's the real point.
Anyhoo, I'm talking less 'rules' here and more 'this sounds right'. I think what you're having trouble understanding is that flat-footed isn't a static condition, but a situational one. If I'm a fighter up against three opponents, one of which is invisible, I only lose my dexterity modifier against the Invisible guy. To the other two, I can still make good use of it. Saying I'm 'flat-footed' is a misnomer since only one of them has that advantage. So while the tax collector still has all his Dexterity against the guys he can see, he is 'flat-footed' against the one he can't.
Anyhoo, I'm talking less 'rules' here and more 'this sounds right'.
Which usually makes for a better game anyway...
Since you have to be flat footed to get the sneak attack, and it is still a ranged touched attack (with a spell) it would be your flat footed touch AC that the rogue would need to hit in order to get sneak attack damage with a spell... unless it is an actual touch attack spell (instead of ranged touch attack) then all he has to do is flank and get you with the spell as normal.
You can dodge around all day without knowing someone is about to attack you and make it harder to hit you, even if you don't know for certain that someone is attacking, same as you can (try) to take cover without knowing for certain someone is going to attack you (or where from). Just moving a lot helps make it harder for someone with a ranged attack to get the proper bearing in order to connect with the shot (it is harder to hit a moving target, even if the target has no dex bonus).
|
|
Here is my judgment on how Stealth works, both with the core Pathfinder rules and with 3.5 rules.
-
-
-
-
All of the below is covered in the Pathfinder RPG Beta, pg.73
- To use Stealth, you must be in some kind of cover or concealment.
- Your Stealth roll is opposed by anyone's Perception check in the area who could see you, regardless of whether it is at the time you Stealth or later.
- A viewer can attempt to re-roll their Perception checks to notice you on their turn, as a move action.
- A ranged attacker may choose to "Snipe", immediately use Stealth after an attack with a -20 to their Stealth check.
- The text does not explicitly state that someone using Stealth catches opponents flat-footed on any round past the Surprise round, regardless of whether or not they find a way to 're-stealth'.
- If you can be seen at any time, you cannot Stealth.
Sources are listed after each ruling. All of these quotes are from 3.5, and it is up to each individual DM to decide whether or not to apply these to the Pathfinder RPG rules. As Pathfinder RPG is based off of 3.5 I would recommend using rulings in areas they still seem to make sense. In the case of Stealth (or Hide/Move Silently), not much has changed.
Again, the below is not RAW as per Pathfinder RPG Beta. It is RAW for D&D 3.5, and it is up to the DM to decide if they should apply each rule to their game or not.
- If you have successfully Stealthed, you are treated as Invisible in regards to your opponents, and they are caught flat-footed.
If a rogue has successfully hidden behind some bushes and fires an arrow at a target less than 30 feet away from her, does she deal sneak attack damage?
Yes. The rules don’t come right out and say this, but a character who has successfully hidden from an opponent is considered invisible for the purpose of rendering that foe flatfooted, and thus deals sneak attack damage.
- Spells may be used to sneak attack (assuming they meet the normal conditions for sneak attack) and the damage the sneak attack deals is the same type as the spell.
Any weaponlike spell can be used to make a sneak attack, including ranged spells used against targets within 30 feet (just as with any other ranged sneak attack).
A successful sneak attack with a weaponlike spell deals extra damage of the same type as the spell normally deals. For example, a 10th-level rogue/3rd-level wizard who makes a successful sneak attack with Melf’s acid arrow deals 2d4 points of acid damage, plus an extra 5d6 points of acid damage for the sneak attack (with the spell continuing to deal acid damage as normal in subsequent rounds). The exception is spells that deal energy drain or ability damage, which deal negative energy damage on a sneak attack, not extra negative levels or ability damage. For example, a 5th-level rogue/8th-level sorcerer who makes a successful enervation sneak attack bestows 1d4 negative levels and deals 3d6 points of negative energy damage.
- You must stay within cover or concealment to Stealth. If you want to move between cover/concealment, you must make another Stealth roll with penalties.
Move between Cover: If you're already hiding (thanks to cover or concealment) and you have at least 5 ranks in Hide, you can make a Hide check (with a penalty) to try to move across an area that does not offer cover or concealment without revealing yourself. For every 5 ranks in Hide you possess, you can move up to 5 feet between one hiding place and another. For every 5 feet of open space you must cross between hiding places, you take a -5 penalty on your Hide check. If you move at more than one-half your speed, you also take the normal penalty on Hide checks when moving quickly (-10 for moving faster than normal speed, or -5 for moving between half speed and normal speed).
You can also use this option to sneak up on someone from a hiding place. For every 5 feet of open space between you and the target, you take a -5 penalty on your Hide check. If your Hide check succeeds, your target doesn't notice you until you attack or make some other attention-grabbing action. Such a target is treated as being flat-footed with respect to you.
Nethys
They could jump around and try to dodge Robin Hood's Merry Men as much as they wanted, even if they know they are there, and they're still denied their Dex bonus since they can't *see* their attackers.
This is untrue. If I just took an arrow from the bushes over there, I don't need to see you to move so that a tree, shield, wall, whatever blocks line of sight temporarily or mimimized my profile to someone using those bushes for cover. I don't need to see you directly to know where to reduce my chances of taking hits from you. If I can move so as to reduce your chances of getting a clean shot, I can use my dex.
If you move between shots and I don't know that ok. Otherwise, not bloodly likely.
|
|
They could jump around and try to dodge Robin Hood's Merry Men as much as they wanted, even if they know they are there, and they're still denied their Dex bonus since they can't *see* their attackers.This is untrue. If I just took an arrow from the bushes over there, I don't need to see you to move so that a tree, shield, wall, whatever blocks line of sight temporarily or mimimized my profile to someone using those bushes for cover. I don't need to see you directly to know where to reduce my chances of taking hits from you. If I can move so as to reduce your chances of getting a clean shot, I can use my dex.
If you move between shots and I don't know that ok. Otherwise, not bloodly likely.
You're mistaking Dexterity for cover. You can do all kinds of the things you say, they *do* help. But not in the way you think.
You could take cover yourself behind a tree or bush to help minimize your profile (+4 cover bonus to AC), put up some kind of fog or smoke (concealment, 20% miss chance), drop prone (+4 AC vs. ranged attacks), etc. Doing those actions, like you said, give their *own* bonus that has nothing to do with keeping your Dexterity.
To use your Dexterity effectively, you need to be able to tell where the attack is coming from. A guy with 10 Dexterity could dodge all he wants as well, but he doesn't get a bonus even if he *can* see his opponent. This is perfectly illustrated by a guy with a Dexterity penalty. If a guy has an 8 Dexterity, he takes a -1 penalty to Armor Class at *ALL* times. He could see his opponent perfectly and dodge as best he's able, but the thing is, he doesn't really know how. In fact, his ability to maneuver is so horrible that his AC is reduced because of it.
Dexterity represents your ability to avoid incoming blows when you can tell which way to dodge. As it is, if you can't see them, you can't use your Dexterity effectively enough for it to count. The 3.5 FAQ even says so. Whether or not you really want to use it is another story. :)
Edit: Also, I realized the part you quoted was me talking about a Blind person. There isn't even a question here.
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 Dexteritybased skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and sight-based Perception checks)
automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) to 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.
I want to create a 'dodging walk' so that I dodge wherever I go and never get caught flat-footed again. :)
dodging only gives you your dodge bonus, that's why it is seperate from the Dex bonus. You can dodge all day long and always have that dodge bonus... you can't always have that dex bonus though.
|
|
I want to create a 'dodging walk' so that I dodge wherever I go and never get caught flat-footed again. :)dodging only gives you your dodge bonus, that's why it is seperate from the Dex bonus. You can dodge all day long and always have that dodge bonus... you can't always have that dex bonus though.
I'm with you, I was failing at making a sarcastic point. ;)
I'm with you, I was failing at making a sarcastic point. ;)I want to create a 'dodging walk' so that I dodge wherever I go and never get caught flat-footed again. :)dodging only gives you your dodge bonus, that's why it is seperate from the Dex bonus. You can dodge all day long and always have that dodge bonus... you can't always have that dex bonus though.
No no the mistake was all mine, it's that pesky Sense Motive check with a wisdom of 8 and no ranks... just can't seem to make it work...