Sneak attack from stealth


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 168 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Neithan wrote:

I think this is really just one situation in which the gm has to handle the situation by thumb.

Yes, the rules say that once a character in combat has all round vision. Which I assume is a very sensible rule for most situations.
The rules also say that you can only use stealth when you have cover or concealment.

But in many situations a person does not spin around all the time to check behind his back. And it's the gms job to determine when a character pays attention to things behind him and when not. You can't make a hard rule for that, so the gm has to decide it. That's the very reason the game has a gm. He is not just playing the NPCs in a combat trying to defeat the PCs, but its his explicit job to judge situations that are not covered by hard rules.

Yes, the rules clearly say no as written. But it's one of the situation in which is seems completely clear that the gm is supposed to handle it outside the written rules.
And it actually suprises me that nobody seems to have mentioned this before?

I said it here, but apparently it can simply be labeled as 'house-ruling' and not 'GM doing his job'...

The Wraith wrote:


Now, when this would be possible - especially during a fight ? Well, I believe that this is exactly the work of the GM.
- Is the fight so heated that the Cleric has to turn his attention in a different direction than that of the pillar (and the Rogue) ?
- Are there more impeding dangers that forces him to 'turn around' (again, Facing is not technically included in combat, but a creature without All-around vision CANNOT look contemporaneously in all directions)?
- Maybe the Cleric is casting in a specific direction turning his back away from the Rogue's position - and the Rogue readied an action to 'partial charge' against the Cleric (if you allow for Partial Charge to be used as a Readied action).
- Maybe the Cleric is flanked by two other creatures, so having already to pay attention towards two different opponents he is suffering a major distraction towards his side, and now the Rogue can reach him in a straight line to attack him
OOOROOO
OOOOOOO
OOOOOOO
OOECEOO
(please do not kill me for the horrible graphic... R is the Rogue, C the Cleric, E the new enemies flanking the Cleric, O is an empty 5 ft. square)

What I'm trying to say, a GM could possibly allow the Rogue to use Stealth to move silently towards the Cleric and catch him in a 'denied Dex bonus' situation (maybe with some penalties, if the Cleric turns away his attention only for a brief moment), because the Cleric cannot use sight to pinpoint him anymore (since he is looking in another direction).

And again, I do not believe that 'Facing' is TOTALLY excluded by RAW, but that it's simply 'not codified' in the astract Combat System of 3.5/Pathfinder (which simplifies other things, like the space of a Medium-sized creature, which obviously is not a 5x5x5 ft. solid cube)- if the Stealth rules include

"Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you."
how can you justify the effects of the Bluff check ? You convinced your enemy to close their eyes ? You put a towel on their face ? Or simply you told them 'Look, a hot succubus is pole-dancing RIGHT THERE !' and jump out of sight while he turns away ?

And lastly, if a trying-to-be-Stealthy creature can benefit from the forced distraction of a Bluff check (which basically causes its opponent to turn away, losing sight of him, or to think to its mother-in-law and shudder in fear), why can't he take advantage by a similar condition caused - even involuntarily - by someone else ? Simply because the book doesn't say that ? Please, the GM's job is exactly that, to determine if some situations can be reconduced to written rules, but sometimes he even has to improvise.


Fred Ohm wrote:
I guess he does. That doesn't stop him from interpretating them, nor from being concerned with what he thinks is the best way to play - he did argue a few times that allowing stealth checks in the open would make rogues "super-deadly invisible ninjas" or "deadly killing machines".

This is merely his good humored way of explaining (for the umpteenth time) that people using Stealth are trying to be sneaky, but they are not under the effects of an invisibility potion.

And please don't mistake "most accurate interpretation of the rules as written" for the "best way to play". If you say, "I'm using house rules for Stealth, not the Rules-As-Written (RAW)", then you'll probably not hear any further from him on the matter.

Fred Ohm wrote:
The rules of the pathfinder book are not explicit on what means stealth, and stepping out of cover is not covered by them. More precise rules exist in 3.5, but DM_Blake assumes it works differently in pathfinder.

Well, 3.5 had more rules that expanded upon the rules for Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Search, and other skills that don't exist in Pathfinder. Many of them were merged and the language covering both rules were merged; sometimes in ways that completely defy logic.

For example, Hide and Move Silently were merged and became Stealth. Stealth inherited all the rules from both. In Pathfinder, the rules for vision and light say that one cannot use Stealth in bright light without invisibility or cover. In 3.5, it was perfectly acceptable to Move Silently in bright light. In Pathfinder, by the RAW, this is not allowed.

Quite seriously, if you go by the rules as written (the RAW), the GM is perfectly justified in saying, "No, you can't sneak up behind the guard, because he's holding a torch."

It defies logic. It makes no sense. In some (maybe most?) groups, it is totally un-fun. However, upon reading the rules, one cannot deny that this is exactly what they say, and how a computer would interpret them.


Herr Malthus wrote:


So the question is: can we get to this point? THIS FIRSTLY IMPLY THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE FACT THAT ME AND OTHERS ARE NOT NECESSARILY OUT OF THE RULES.

Sorry, but you are out of the rules. Not sure what else to say to that.

If a rogue is out in the open without cover and without concealment then he is seen by every observer that can possibly see him (not blinded, etc).

Those are the simple rules.

Let's take the rogue behind the pillar example. Imagine it's the cleric's turn rather than the rogue who's using stealth behind the pillar. The cleric moves around the pillar, does he see the rogue or must he beat the stealth check with his perception?

It would seem to me that you are saying that the rogue would still be hidden. The rogue could have rolled a stealth check to enter what you call 'stealth mode' ages ago when he had cover/concealment and then thereafter walk around invisible until he/she attacks.

Doesn't seem right to me, sorry.

You can of course feel free to house rule things as you see fit. I mean if you want to add, say facing into your game more power to you. It's not really realistic that a person walking down a narrow corridor with a polearm can threaten both his front and his rear at the same time. Moreover he could drop one polearm and quickdraw another on his turn and attack opponents on both sides while in such an area.

However those are, indeed, the rules of the game we're talking about here.

-James


1 person marked this as a favorite.
another_mage wrote:
Those unfamiliar with the game rules are often quite surprised to learn just how limited the game rules are when it comes to being sneaky. When personal intuition conflicts with unfamiliar rules, you're going to have a lot of discussion and debate; usually people trying to take the words of the rules and bend them to match personal intuitions.
Herr Malthus wrote:
But why should I be unfamiliar with rules?

One might be unfamiliar with the rules, because the rules are quite literally scattered all over the book.

For example, one might think that the section on the skill Stealth on pp.106-107 cover the rules on Stealth. However, turning to p.172 a small paragraph under the Vision and Light section reads:

Vision and Light p.172 wrote:

A creature cannot 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.

Thus the GM is perfectly justified in saying, "As soon as you reach four squares behind the guard, your Stealth was broken. You can't use Stealth in an area of normal light without invisibility. The guard is carrying a torch, and you don't have invisibility. The guard's DC to notice you is 2 and he will Take 10. You have been spotted."

It's mind-bendingly illogical and unintuitive, but it is completely accurate within the RAW. Playing it in any other way is making a house rule exception for using Stealth in normal light without invisibility. (Yes, the rules as written for Stealth are *that* harsh on being sneaky! F***** up, isn't it?)

Herr Malthus wrote:
Who decides which interpretation was the right one associated to the words written? The majority? The one who speaks more about the subject?

As my chemistry professor was fond of saying "Science is not a democracy."

Herr Malthus wrote:
I could take all the rules written in the book about stealth and plain sight and argument about them showing that there's no conflict with the easy scenario I presented before. And then someone will come out telling "no you are wrong because it is written something else" BUT THIS IS ALWAYS ACCORDING TO AN INTERPRETATION.

Some interpretations are correct, and others are not. I can say that "ice cream" means "chocolate ice cream", but I am going on a interpretive limb by making that assumption. In some buckets, ice cream is chocolate ice cream, but in many buckets, it is not.

If I make an argument that depends on ice cream being chocolate ice cream, others are fair to call out my interpretation as a special case that doesn't always apply, no matter how tasty chocolate ice cream may in fact be.

Herr Malthus wrote:

I've been so harsh with DM_blake because he's sure about his interpretation as being exactly what rules were meant to say. And whoever says something else is wrong. And we already discussed with him those things before more than once. I can assure I've read all his posts and I've NEVER SEEN the slightest doubt about such position.

Since I want to discuss, clashing with someone who tries to kill any discussion is an obvious consequence.
So I'm willing to discuss with someone who can conceive other interpretations about THE RULES. It's not HOUSE RULING. That's why I'm in the Rule section.

I think he's fairly confident in his assessment of the rules, because he's been over the rules and Stealth situations so very many times.

You call for people to consider other interpretations about the rules. That begins when we ourselves think about other interpretations about the rules.
Since DM_Blake is so confident, his interpretations are as good a place as any to start.

Is there anything in particular about his interpretations that don't fit with the rules?

Has he said something that makes you say, "But wait a minute, on page XX it says 'Blah blah blah' and that's totally different than what you said about the rule?"

Assuming that we are talking about "The Rules as Written" (the RAW), and not house rules, it should be fairly easy to use the text of the book to settle any disputes, no?


Herr Malthus wrote:
So the question is: can we get to this point? THIS FIRSTLY IMPLY THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE FACT THAT ME AND OTHERS ARE NOT NECESSARILY OUT OF THE RULES.

This depends entirely on you.

---

If by "OUT OF THE RULES" you mean, "My group is not playing outside of a reasonable set of rules." then no, you are not out of the rules. Whatever your group decides is a reasonable set of rules is a reasonable set of rules, and anybody else would be remiss to tell you differently.

i.e.: You are playing well within reasonable limits of your house rules.

---

If by "OUT OF THE RULES" you mean, "My group is playing according to the rules as written in the book (the RAW)." then this remains to be seen. What exactly are you trying to do and how are you ruling it?

---

Edit: Just to make it perfectly clear, I do not look down upon house rules. In my game, I let my players discuss and vote for the rules I would run for handling Stealth.

My players voted to use house rules for Stealth:
- Combat is very close to (but not quite) the RAW.
- Out-of-Combat is pure GM adjudication.

This is why RAW vs. House Rule is very important to me as a GM.
In combat situations, I need to play it very conservatively close to the book.
Outside of combat, I need to throw the book rules away and go with intuition and the rules of exciting cinema.


Neithan wrote:

Yes, the rules clearly say no as written. But it's one of the situation in which is seems completely clear that the gm is supposed to handle it outside the written rules.

And it actually suprises me that nobody seems to have mentioned this before?

Believe me, it's been mentioned before on plenty of threads covering Stealth.

The main point is that those new to The Stealth Debates are often adamant that their intuitions about Stealth are what is encoded into the rules. They are quite shocked to find out differently, and argue vociferously that the rules don't say what they say.

If I may paraphrase the first of your two sentences that I have quoted above: "The RAW doesn't let you do that. It seems pretty obvious the GM should make a house rule exception."

This is what 99% of the 400+ post debates on Stealth are all about. "No, the RAW matches my intuition about sneakiness!" vs. "No, you are using a house rule and don't want to say so."


another_mage wrote:
Well, 3.5 had more rules that expanded upon the rules for Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Search, and other skills that don't exist in Pathfinder. Many of them were merged and the language covering both rules were merged; sometimes in ways that completely defy logic.

If we're to follow the answer of James Jacob on this, they don't defy logic, they just assume the DM follow logic on its own.

That's why we're discussing this in the rules forum. Rules as written, rules as intended, and "rules as interpretated" are what we're discussing. Not houserules, and not RAW alone - in fact in my other posts I assumed that we didn't try to make a distinction between the intent and the wording of the rules.


Until I don't see an official answer on this subject I'll never consider my reading as an house-rule.


I think the issue is that stealth worked intuitively in 3.5, people merely did not like the "skill tax" of having to put ranks in two skills to accomplish the goal of being stealthy. When PF combined the skills to reduce the skill tax, people assumed they worked the same as before. Unfortunately, sloppy editing by PF has resulted in the mechanics of the stealth skill not only being different from 3.5 but also completely unintuitive. That was obviously not the goal of PF.

So you can either be a rules lawyer and use the PF rules exactly as written, ie. unintuitive and arguably mechanically worse than 3.5; or you can play by rules that make sense. I personally would never play with a GM that adjudicated the stealth rules like DM_Blake proposes.


calvinNhobbes wrote:
So you can either be a rules lawyer and use the PF rules exactly as written, ie. unintuitive and arguably mechanically worse than 3.5; or you can play by rules that make sense. I personally would never play with a GM that adjudicated the stealth rules like DM_Blake proposes.

This feeling is exactly why I gave my players a vote on the matter.

It's also why they didn't vote for strict RAW.

However, I don't blame DM_Blake for adjudicating the rules that way, as that's how they are written. I'm thankful to have somebody that knowledgeable about the rules to ask for advice.


another_mage wrote:
However, I don't blame DM_Blake for adjudicating the rules that way, as that's how they are written. I'm thankful to have somebody that knowledgeable about the rules to ask for advice.

I agree, I completely appreciate DM_Blake's expertise because I totally failed to notice the huge effect that bit of editing had on an important part of the game.

However, DM_Blakes failure to concede the only reason the RAW happen to be that way is simply due to bad editing, and not by a conscious effort to improve the game over 3.5, is just silly in my opinion.

Maybe he just likes to argue...

Liberty's Edge

calvinNhobbes wrote:
However, DM_Blakes failure to concede the only reason the RAW happen to be that way is simply due to bad editing, and not by a conscious effort to improve the game over 3.5, is just silly in my opinion.

You had me up until this point. How in the nine hells is anyone (other than James, Jason, and a few others) supposed to know why the RAW are what they are? Paizo wrote a pretty amazing Core Rulebook. Why would we assume that the Stealth rules being written as they are is the result of an editorial mistake? Especially given that stealth is a core mechanic for a staple Class - one might say two classes, counting the Ranger? No, I'd rather assume that the rules were written the way they wanted them written, since that's what they published, and they've now had several goes at Errata releases without addressing this in any way.

Look, approaching an opponent via Stealth is not even remotely the most efficient way of gaining Sneak Attack. Flanking an opponent grants a bonus to hit and Sneak Attack. Use that. Take Mobility at first level, and fly your Ninja flag. Your opponents will be baffled as you nimbly dodge around their AoO's and slip a knife into their back. They will see you coming the whole time, and still won't be able to do a gosh-darned thing about it.

Really, I wish James or Jason would just clarify the darned thing. I think the rules - as written and as intended - are fairly clear, but I get that there are scads of people who don't, and I hate that there is this level of animosity among the community about this subject. It's freaking stupid.


First, let me apologize. In every Stealth thread and, in fact, in every rules-discussion thread, when I spout RAW I try to also prefact that by saying I am merely trying to clear up any confusion in the discussion related to knowing what is RAW and what is houserule.

That's all I've been trying to do here, but because I was responding to several different Stealth threads concurrently, I overlooked my usual disclaimer on this thread. For that, I'm sorry.

So here it is:

My sole purpose here is not to say "I'm right" or to say "You're wrong". All I want to do is say "This is RAW and that is houserule". By doing this, I am hoping that everyone reading this thread should know which is which; I would consider it unfortunate if anyone reads a thread like this and goes back to their Saturday game mistakenly believing that some houserule they read online is really the RAW. Much better if they know which is which and then can make informed decisions as to whether they want to play by RAW or make houserules.

Second, let me also state that I love houserules. I have a 200 page typewritten book of 3.5 houserules that I developed over half a decade playing 3.5. My word-count in that book is very close to the word count of the 3.5 PHB. And my list of Pathfinder houserules is growing, too, though it is comparitively in its infancy.

So I am definitely not criticizing anyone for using houserules, or for finding flaws in the Pathfinder RAW.

In fact, I encourage everyone here to evaluate all the rules and find ways to improve on them for your home games. But, in saying that, I also implore everyone here that, when you discuss the rules in these forums, especially in the Rules Questions forum, to please clarify whether you are discussing RAW or houserules.

Also please remember that some players and DMs run Pathfinder Society games and characters. Those games are not open for houserules. It's important for everyone in those games to have a clear understanding of RAW, since that is the foundation for the entire PFS.

And, finally, I also ask you to please accept the fact that when someone posts on the Pathfinder Rules Questions forum, and I respond, that I will do my best to respond with RAW, and only RAW, unless I clearly indicate otherwise in my response. This does not mean that I defend the RAW, or advocate the RAW or play by the RAW myself, nor does it mean that I have any disrespect for houserules. I will simply assume that anyone using this forum to ask about rules questions wants RAW answers.

That does seem appropriate, yes?


The Wraith wrote:

And lastly, if a trying-to-be-Stealthy creature can benefit from the forced distraction of a Bluff check (which basically causes its opponent to turn away, losing sight of him, or to think to its mother-in-law and shudder in fear), why can't he take advantage by a similar condition caused - even involuntarily - by someone else ? Simply because the book doesn't say that ? Please, the GM's job is exactly that, to determine if some situations can be reconduced to written rules, but sometimes he even has to improvise.

I submit that the RAW already provides for this.

1. We know a rogue cannot just stand there, in the open one-on-one, and Sneak Attack his opponent. I'm sure all agree the rules don't provide for that.
2. We know that a rogue (or anyoene else) can use Bluff to create a Diversion so they can use Stealth to hide - these rules appear under the Stealth skill.
3. We know that a rogue (or anyone else) can use Bluff to Feint, which allows them to deny their target his DEX modifier on that attacker's next attack. This allows for Sneak Attacks. These rules appear under the Bluff skill and also in the Combat section.

You'll note the rules for Feint require the feint to be undertaken by the same attacker that gets the benefit of denying the DEX. In other words, if you and I are attacking an ogre, and you execute a successful Feint, the ogre still has his DEX against my attacks, but he won't have his DEX against your next attack. But, this is true of Feint, which is a "solo" combat trick.

You'll also note that there is no such restriction on creating a Diversion. The exact wording is here:

Pathfinder Core Rules, Stealth, Creating a Diversion wrote:

Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.

The second line "A successful Bluff check". It does not say "Your successful Bluff check" or "If you make a successful bluff check" or anthing else that limits it to you. Sure, the first line says that you can be the one to make this check, but it also doesn't say that "only" you can do it.

Ergo, if you want to Feint and then attack, you have to do it. But if you want to take advantage of a diversion in order to use Stealth to hide, anyone can cause the diversion, even you.

So, back to the Wraith's quoted post here.

I will first note that the Wraith said "distraction" but it is very important that we say "diversion" instead, lest we confuse the situation with "distraction" as it is presented in the Percetpion skill - note that this rule very specifically uses the word "diversion". More to the point, "diversion" and "distraction" are two different things in the RAW.

So, "if a trying-to-be-Stealthy creature can benefit from the forced distraction of a Bluff check"

-he can-

"(which basically causes its opponent to turn away, losing sight of him, or to think to its mother-in-law and shudder in fear), why can't he take advantage by a similar condition caused - even involuntarily - by someone else ?

-he can-

Simply because the book doesn't say that ?

-Actually, the book does say that he can-

Please, the GM's job is exactly that, to determine if some situations can be reconduced to written rules, but sometimes he even has to improvise.

No improvising necessary. It's all in the RAW.


The Wraith wrote:
I said it here, but apparently it can simply be labeled as 'house-ruling' and not 'GM doing his job'...

In my understanding of RPGs, this is exactly what the gm is there for. You can't play any RPG by RAW.

Of course you can, but then it seems not much else than an overly complex chess game.


Actually I continue not to understand who or what gives to someone (and thus not to another) the power of divinely stating: "this is what the RAW truly and unquestionably means!". I mean even if we take words literally as machines...


Herr Malthus wrote:
Actually I continue not to understand who or what gives to someone (and thus not to another) the power of divinely stating: "this is what the RAW truly and unquestionably means!". I mean even if we take words literally as machines...

It's not to say "you must do this", rather it's so that we all have a common baseline to work from. And this is the Rules Questions forum.

Stating whether what you're saying is RAW or HR makes it easier to know what is able to be argued legitimately or not.


Herr Malthus wrote:
Actually I continue not to understand who or what gives to someone (and thus not to another) the power of divinely stating: "this is what the RAW truly and unquestionably means!". I mean even if we take words literally as machines...

Don't confuse RAW ("Rules as Written") and RAI ("Rules as Intended").

Rules as Written are black and white. There is no room for guessing, or interpreting. And if there is a misunderstanding, it can only be because the reader didn't pay attention to the words, or the author didn't write the words clearly enough.

Rules as Intended are very much NOT black and white. It's all guessing or interpreting; basically saying "I don't believe these words here on the page are correct, so I am going to guess what the author really meant to say." Which of course means there can be a whole lot of misunderstanding for a great number of reasons.

Now, in the case of the RAW that I have quoted here, the rules are quite clear. There is no flaw in the rules, other than the fact that they're scattered all over the book and it's a nuissance to have to look them up all over the place and then put them all together into a coherent whole. But once you've done that, once you've assembled the coherent whole, the Rules as Written are quite plainly there on the pages for everyone to see, and we don't need to guess what they mean.

As I have said before, you're quite within your rights to apply your own interpretation, create as many houserules as you'd like, and play the game however you want to. I don't presume to tell you that you cannot do this.

However, I do answer Rules questions on these forums, to the best of my ability, by reading the RAW and providing answers to the Rules questions people ask. I don't interpret. I don't guess. I merely quote the rules and offer epxlanations or clarifications or examples when people ask for it, or when the answer seems to call for it.

So the short answer is Paizo is both the "who" and the "what" that gives me, you, and everyone else who buys their product, the "power" to state (divinely or otherwise) "This is what the RAW truly means because it is written right here in the book."

And, for what it's worth, words are meant to be taken literally. That's what the word "literal" literally means.

Here's some definitions of the word "literal""

literal - Word for word
literal - with reference to the first meaning of a word
literal - Without hyperbole or slang;
literal - without interpretation or embellishment; "a literal depiction of the scene before him"
literal - limited to the explicit meaning of a word or text; "a literal translation"
literal - avoiding embellishment or exaggeration (used for emphasis); "it's the literal truth"

Given what "literal" means, I am not sure it's a good method of communication to NOT take words literally. If we do that, it means we would look at every word in the book, assume they are all slang, exaggerated, or untrue, and assume we have to redefine and interpret every word in the book.

Me, I would much rather take the words literally.


That's funny, i always thought RAI meant 'Rules As Interpreted'.

As far as what literal means; it's one of the most abused words in the English dictionary. I once had someone tell me that 'they literally shat themselves'.

LOL


It depends on how much you boast yourself to be able to know the writers real thoughts.


Jeremiziah wrote:
You had me up until this point. How in the nine hells is anyone (other than James, Jason, and a few others) supposed to know why the RAW are what they are?

Read the whole thread, someone already posted a response by James, I believe, on the topic.

Quote:
Why would we assume that the Stealth rules being written as they are is the result of an editorial mistake?

The evidence for this has also been posted in the this thread several times now, but I will state it again for your benefit. When PF combined other skills like balance, tumble and jump in to acrobatics, they simply cut and paste those three skills into separate sub-topics of the acrobatics skill under "cross narrow surface" (ie balance), "move through threatened square" (ie. tumble) and "jumping and falling" (ie jump). Similar for Diplomacy, where they stuck the whole Gather Information skill under the sub heading "Gather Information". Disable device and open locks, same thing. However, for Stealth they did not make any distinction between hiding and move silently. The requirement for cover or concealment was ONLY necessary to hide in 3.5, not to move silently. By this little act of editing they completely changed how the rules work. Was this their intent? The post referenced earlier in the thread would indicate not.

Quote:
No, I'd rather assume that the rules were written the way they wanted them written, since that's what they published, and they've now had several goes at Errata releases without addressing this in any way.

Well ignorance is bliss I suppose. The fact is, I never even notice the change until DM_Blake so adamantly addressed it because I can't think of a reason why'd they change something to make it worse...

Quote:
Look, approaching an opponent via Stealth is not even remotely the most efficient way of gaining Sneak Attack.

It's not just about sneak attack. In fact sneak attack is the least important thing since as you mention, sneak attack is barely affected by the new rules. What IS screwed is everything else.

Quote:
Really, I wish James or Jason would just clarify the darned thing. I think the rules - as written and as intended - are fairly clear, but I get that there are scads of people who don't, and I hate that there is this level of animosity among the community about this subject. It's freaking stupid.

I also agree the stealth RAW are clear, AND worse than 3.5, so why use them unless you have to?


A final comment by James Jacobs on the Stealth situation (you can read the entire post here):

James Jacobs wrote:

Stealth is a HIGHLY situational skill, and it's one that really requires the GM to make decisions and arbitrate at times. The other option: providing tables of situation what-if scenarios with rules for each, is not attractive at all.

EDIT: and for those who lost the link on the first page, this was his response on the Stealth skill, as well:

James Jacobs wrote:


Stealth and Perception do indeed work on things other than sight. What those rules are saying (although perhaps not as clearly as they can) is that you can't use Stealth in bright light when the target can see you.

If you're sneaking up on someone who's looking away from you, you CAN use Stealth (and they can use Perception) since a visual element of the situation doesn't apply. But when that situation can work is up to the GM.


The Wraith, basically are you telling me that James Jacobs is house-ruling the game?


The Wraith wrote:

A final comment by James Jacobs on the Stealth situation (you can read the entire post here):

James Jacobs wrote:

Stealth is a HIGHLY situational skill, and it's one that really requires the GM to make decisions and arbitrate at times. The other option: providing tables of situation what-if scenarios with rules for each, is not attractive at all.

EDIT: and for those who lost the link on the first page, this was his response on the Stealth skill, as well:

James Jacobs wrote:


Stealth and Perception do indeed work on things other than sight. What those rules are saying (although perhaps not as clearly as they can) is that you can't use Stealth in bright light when the target can see you.

If you're sneaking up on someone who's looking away from you, you CAN use Stealth (and they can use Perception) since a visual element of the situation doesn't apply. But when that situation can work is up to the GM.

James' first comment, about looking the other way, referenced a question that was not a combat situation. I think it's pretty clear to most of us that Stealth works differently in combat than it does out of combat.

His second comment is, unfortunately, quite true. Due mainly to the lack of clarity in the RAW, and the scattered nature of the rules throughout the book (instead of being consolidated into one handy place like, oh maybe the Stealth skill description), DMs will find themselves arbitrating at times.

Nevertheless, it seems that arbitrating with a clear understanding of the RAW is far, far preferable than arbitrating willy-nilly without understanding the RAW. Judges in legal courtrooms are professional arbitrators; it's what they do for a living. But before they can get their job, they have to be extremely knowledgeable about the law. More knowlegeable than lawyers (lawyers get the benefit of using teams of colleagues and researchers to comb through libraries of legal material; judges don't get that luxury but are expected to know it more or less offhand).

I don't expect my DM, or any DM, to know every rule in the book. But I would be disappointed in any DM who makes arbitrary rules on the fly without making any attempt to learn the RAW, or without any attempt to base their spurious arbitration on the RAW.


DM_Blake wrote:

You'll also note that there is no such restriction on creating a Diversion. The exact wording is here:

Pathfinder Core Rules, Stealth, Creating a Diversion wrote:

Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.

The second line "A successful Bluff check". It does not say "Your successful Bluff check" or "If you make a successful bluff check" or anthing else that limits it to you. Sure, the first line says that you can be the one to make this check, but it also doesn't say that "only" you can do it.

Ergo, if you want to Feint and then attack, you have to do it. But if you want to take advantage of a diversion in order to use Stealth to hide, anyone can cause the diversion, even you.

So, back to the Wraith's quoted post here.

I will first note that the Wraith said "distraction" but it is very important that we say "diversion" instead, lest we confuse the situation with "distraction" as it is presented in the Percetpion skill - note that this rule very specifically uses the word "diversion". More to the point, "diversion" and "distraction" are two different things in the RAW.

So, "if a trying-to-be-Stealthy creature can benefit from the forced distraction of a Bluff check"

-he can-

"(which basically causes its opponent to turn away, losing sight of him, or to think to its mother-in-law and shudder in fear), why can't he take advantage by a similar condition caused - even involuntarily - by someone else ?

-he can-

Simply because the book doesn't say that ?

-Actually, the book does say that he can-

Please, the GM's job is exactly that, to determine if some situations can be reconduced to written rules, but sometimes he even has to improvise.

No improvising necessary. It's all in the RAW.

All right, let's try to find a commond ground from this.

From the starting situation of Charlie the Cleric near the pillar, and Rick the Rogue behind it (with 10 ft. of clear ground between them), would you allow another character (let's say, Bill the Bard) to try a Bluff check to draw the attention from Charlie the Cleric (and so, diverting it from Rick's position)? And in such a situation, would you allow Rick - if his action comes before that of Charlie, maybe due to a Delay action and entering Initiative Order immediately after Bill - to try a Stealth check (maybe with the -10 penalty from the 'divertion to hide') to come near Charlie and Sneak Attack him ?

I know that, if Bill comes from the opposite side of Charlie, Rick would have no need to use Stealth (it would be a flanking situation), but maybe Bill simply cannot come in that specific position. Maybe there's a chasm between him and Charlie, maybe Fred the Fighter (an ally of Charlie's) is already occupying that square. What I want to ask is, would you consider RAW such a use of the Stealth skill, even in battle, due to your readings of the application of Bluff noticed above ?

Scarab Sages

I *shouldn't* step on this landmine, but I can't help myself.

RAW: 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.

RAW: If people are observing you using any of their sense (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.

Now, these two RAW statements directly contradict each other. One says, without noting any exceptions, that in bright light I cannot use Stealth without invisibility or cover. The other says, without noting any exceptions, that if I distract an opponent (such as with a Bluff check) I can.

That means if I am in bright light and use Bluff to distract an opponent, these rules disagree about my ability to use Stealth. Any effort to make those two sentences not contradict each other is an interpretation. By RAW, the rules disagree.

My interpretation: When in bright light a character is assumed to be observed unless it had cover or invisibility. Thus, Stealth is impossible. As an exception, I may make Stealth if my observer is distracted, such as by Stealth.

That "such as" is important.

It is within the power of the GM to decide a foe is distracted. Bluff is not the only way to distract someone. If a situation suggests to me a foe is distracted, even in bright light, it is within my power to allow Stealth in bright light. Yes, that's an interpretation, but so is EVERY case when bright light and distraction are both in play. Those two rules don't allow for each other as exceptions, so when both conditions are in play, the GM must interpret the rules.

Scarab Sages

Meh, I see condition statements.

As in, you can't use stealth in an area of bright light. Additionally, you can't use stealth if you're being observed.

However, if you're in an area of dim light and being observed, you still can't stealth.

In that situation, you would be able to make a bluff check in order to enter stealth.

Not a direct contradiction, since both requirements can be fulfilled at the same time. Merely the sets of conditions in which you can and cannot stealth.

Scarab Sages

Magicdealer wrote:

Meh, I see condition statements.

Not a direct contradiction, since both requirements can be fulfilled at the same time. Merely the sets of conditions in which you can and cannot stealth.

That's a legitimate interpretation. But the RAW just says if my observer is distracted, I can use Stealth. That rule, as written, would allow me to do it under any circumstances my observer is distracted. It's a positive statement. If A, Then B. That's a condition under which I can use Stealth, which does not allow for exceptions as written.

Which just means you need to interpret the rules. Yours is a fine interpretation. Mine is different.

Scarab Sages

That's another incorrect statement. Each rule has to be applied within the context of the other rules.

The way you're attempting to apply each rule as separate and absolute would allow me to take a single line from, for example, the combat text and use it to justify something that isn't correct.

The specific details under attack bonus say "Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier"

If I decide this is absolute, I've negated magical bonuses to hit, feats, spells, and so on.

Since rules must be applied within the context of the other rules, applying the "you can't use stealth while observed" would directly contradict the hide in plain sight ability.

See the problem? I'd go on, but I've gotta run :)

In bright light rule applies. Additionally, feint applies.

Check for conditions that would otherwise negate. For feint, that condition would be bright light, or blindsight, possibly tremorsense, and so on.

Scarab Sages

Magicdealer wrote:
Each rule has to be applied within the context of the other rules.

Of course they do. And doing that is a form of interpretation. Which is all I was claiming -- the rules are not clear-cut RAW with only one way of reading them.

Magicdealer wrote:
Since rules must be applied within the context of the other rules, applying the "you can't use stealth while observed" would directly contradict the hide in plain sight ability.

The same applies both ways. The "you can't use Stealth when in bright light" must be interpreted with the rule "you can use Stealth if your observer is distracted." Since neither rule gives any indication whatsoever which is dominant, the GM must decide how to apply them.

In other words, saying "When in bright light, the rules for light take prescedence over the skill rules for using Stealth on distracted observers"

is no more RAW than saying "When making Stealth checks on distracted observers in bright light, the Stealth skill rules take precedence over the bright light rules."

Which context you decide to apply, and how they interact, IS interpretation. That's why you need a GM.


The Wraith wrote:
From the starting situation of Charlie the Cleric near the pillar, and Rick the Rogue behind it (with 10 ft. of clear ground between them), would you allow another character (let's say, Bill the Bard) to try a Bluff check to draw the attention from Charlie the Cleric (and so, diverting it from Rick's position)?

Absolutely. The RAW allows this. Either Rick or Bill could make this bluff check to create a diversion, which would allow Rick to use Stealth, even without cover.

Note the key difference here:

Without the bluff check, Charlie is free to do whatever he wants. Included within that freedom is the desire to stay alive. Ergo, he is looking around, making sure nobody is sneaking up from any direction (behind or otherwise) and using his eyes and ears to try to detect any threat that makes itself visible to him. This includes Rick, but is not limited to Rick.

With a successful bluff check, Charlie's attention is diverted to the bluff. It creates a mechanical black hole, as it were, that draws Charlie's attention to the bluff, preventing him at this moment from taking all those precautions that he would take if he had not fallen victim to this bluff.

The Wraith wrote:
And in such a situation, would you allow Rick - if his action comes before that of Charlie, maybe due to a Delay action and entering Initiative Order immediately after Bill - to try a Stealth check (maybe with the -10 penalty from the 'divertion to hide') to come near Charlie and Sneak Attack him ?

Yes indeed. He has to move quick. Charlie's attention would only be momentarily diverted. This diversion doesn't last an entire round, for example (otherwise if Charlie had 8 enemies, then only one of them would need to create a diversion and all 8 of them could gork him, which might be allowed per RAW, but doesn't seem to the be the intent of the rule - it seems to be applied as one diversion = one stealth).

Because he is moving quick, there is a -10 to the Stealth roll. It's hard to move quick, effectively charging at someone with lethal intent, and get away with it, even if they are momentarily glancing over their shoulder for a dragon (e.g. the bluff was "Look out! There's a dragon behind you!".

The Wraith wrote:
I know that, if Bill comes from the opposite side of Charlie, Rick would have no need to use Stealth (it would be a flanking situation),

Agreed. No diversion is necessary, as long as Bill threatens Charlie.

The Wraith wrote:
but maybe Bill simply cannot come in that specific position. Maybe there's a chasm between him and Charlie, maybe Fred the Fighter (an ally of Charlie's) is already occupying that square. What I want to ask is, would you consider RAW such a use of the Stealth skill, even in battle, due to your readings of the application of Bluff noticed above ?

Yep.

But remember, timing is everything. Rick the Rogue would have to time his attack to coincide with the Diversion. If Bill's initiative is on 18 and Rick's is on 15, then it's a no-go, because of the momentary nature of the diversion. But if Bill delayed to 15, or readied an action ("The intant I see Rick Make his move on this cleric, I will create a diversion so he can succeed."), then we're in business.

Or Rick the Rogue can just create his own diversion.

Note that the Stealth skill doesn't indicate what kind of action "Creating a diversion to hide" is. But we know that Feint, a very similar combat application of Bluff is a standard action, so I would suggest that creating a diversion is also a standard action. Which means that if Rick the Rogue does it, then he only has a move action left, and therefore he can move to Charlie the Cleric and attempt a Stealth check during this movement, but that would end his turn without any actions left for the attack. And since he would be ending his turn in plain sight, Charlie won't have much trouble finding him standing there, in the open, in good light, in plain sight, in an adjacent square.

So it probably would work best if Rick lets Bill create the diversion.

Yes, I know this is DM interpretation to determin the action type. Other DMs might rule that it's a free action since the diversion is really just a brief verbal lie, and speaking is a free action. But we should also note that the Bluff skill says "Deceiving someone usually takes a full round". Turning it into a free action contradicts the Bluff skill. So does turning it into a Standard action. But leaving it as a full-round action means that nobody can create their own diversion because they need time to create the diversion and to "move quick" to try to hide with the -10 penalty. Therefore, creating a diversion and hiding is clearly meant to be possible in one round, which means creating a diversion cannot take more than a standard action. Since that is the same time needed for a Feint, it seems the best interpretation. I do note that it is just an interpretation since the RAW is remiss on providing the action type.

I will also suggest that making it less than a standard action (especially making it free or swift) would allow any rogue (or anyone else) to use a Diversion to gain Stealth and then use Stealth to gork an enemy, all in one round, even if they are not adjacent to that enemy. In which case Feint would be broke: who would use a standard action to Bluff against their enemy's BAB and then not be able to attack until next round, when all they have to do is use a free or swift action to Bluff against Sense Motive and then can still attack this round?

Whatever ruling a DM makes to address the action type for creating a diversion, it should take into account the mechanics of Feint, and not make Creating a Diversion a better mechanic than Feint.

Scarab Sages

Eh, that seems to me like the classic "All rules applications are rai, there is no such thing as raw" argument.

I'm not interpreting that I apply rule one here, and rule two there. I'm applying both rules constantly as stated, without interpretation, and allowing stealth to function when both rules requirements are fulfilled.

You can't use stealth in bright light. I'm applying that equally. You can't. I'm not interpreting how it interacts with rule two because I don't need to. Stealth in bright light doesn't work.

You can use feint to get a stealth check. I'm not interpreting that either.

You use feint. You get a stealth check. You're in bright light. The stealth check doesn't allow you to enter "stealth mode".

It really isn't a matter of interpretation.

I'm interpreting if I'm making a decision based on the two rules working together.

I'm not interpreting if I let both rules work separately and apply their effects without interpretation.

The underlying assumption here, and the thing that may be the root cause of our difference of opinion, is this:

When attempting to take an action, check for rules that prevent this action from occurring. If nothing prevents this from occurring, then it occurs.

So I look at stealth in bright light and say to myself, while in bright light, a character cannot stealth because of this rule.

Then I look at stealth and feint in combat, and say to myself, feinting in combat allows a character to attempt a stealth roll when otherwise the character couldn't because (s)he is being directly perceived.

When I look at stealth and combat in bright light, I think rule two allows stealth in combat, but does not address bright light. Since the bright light rule isn't affected by feinting as worded, it doesn't negate the bright light penalty.

I'm not interpreting additional effects. I'm using the rules as worded. Feint doesn't address lighting factors, and thus has no effect on them. If feint were to interact with lighting, it would be part of the rules as worded.

So there is nothing that prevents me from applying the lighting rule as worded. Since the lighting rule prevents stealth, and feinting doesn't address lighting, the character cannot stealth.


Magicdealer wrote:
Eh, that seems to me like the classic "All rules applications are rai, there is no such thing as raw" argument.

Absolutely not. Heck, if you have ever read my posts, if there's one thing I am not, then that thing would be ambivalent about RAI.

I use the RAW, and I use Houserules. I don't use RAI except as a passing consideration when trying to "fix" a RAW that I feel needs to be houseruled.

Magicdealer wrote:
You can't use stealth in bright light. I'm applying that equally. You can't. I'm not interpreting how it interacts with rule two because I don't need to. Stealth in bright light doesn't work.

Agreed.

Magicdealer wrote:
You can use feint to get a stealth check. I'm not interpreting that either.

Actually, you're misinterpreting it. Or misreading it.

Feint does not grant a Stealth check. Never has. Feint is a combat technique to deny one enemy his DEX bonus against your next attack. He can still see you, you cannot use Stealth against him (at least not because of any special opportunity granted by the Feint).

Magicdealer wrote:
When attempting to take an action, check for rules that prevent this action from occurring. If nothing prevents this from occurring, then it occurs.

A good plan.

Magicdealer wrote:

When I look at stealth and combat in bright light, I think rule two allows stealth in combat, but does not address bright light. Since the bright light rule isn't affected by feinting as worded, it doesn't negate the bright light penalty.

I'm not interpreting additional effects. I'm using the rules as worded. Feint doesn't address lighting factors, and thus has no effect on them. If feint were to interact with lighting, it would be part of the rules as worded.

So there is nothing that prevents me from applying the lighting rule as worded. Since the lighting rule prevents stealth, and feinting doesn't address lighting, the character cannot stealth.

You've come to the correct conclusion, albeit by dubious route. You're quite right; the character cannot use Stealth in bright light, and Feint has no bearing on this rule.


Now, let the Cleric have initiative.

On her turn, she says, "I'm going to Ready an Action; if anybody I don't see right now enters my line of sight, I'm going to cast Hold Person on them if they are within the 100' range of the spell."


another_mage wrote:

Now, let the Cleric have initiative.

On her turn, she says, "I'm going to Ready an Action; if anybody I don't see right now enters my line of sight, I'm going to cast Hold Person on them if they are within the 100' range of the spell."

Well, I hope she doesn't have a friend behind a rock somewhere who is about to move out into the battle...

For me, I have no problems with your scenario. The hidden rogue rushes forward to stabbity-stab the cleric. When the rogue enters plain sight, the cleric makes a perception check against DC0 (I am assuming anyone readying a hold person against a hidden enemy is not being ripped apart by that enemy's barbarian ally right at this moment, so the cleric probably is not in combat).

The cleric cannot fail unless she has some kind of ocular impairment, because even with no ranks in Perception, on a natural 1 this is an automatic success (I'm also assuming she doesn't have a negative wisdom score, being a cleric and all).

So she casts her Hold Person on the rogue. If he makes his Will save, he avoids the Hold Person and can continue with his turn. Move the remaining 10' and stab the cleric (normal stab, not stabbity-stab sneak attack). Run back behind his rock to hide again. Move somewhere else. Stop where he is ans throw a dagger. Whatever he wants - unless he wants to make a Stealth check right there in plain sight. That he cannot do.

Scarab Sages

Don't worry blake, I wasn't referring to your post. I was continuing the discussion I was having with the previous poster :P


DM_Blake wrote:
another_mage wrote:

Now, let the Cleric have initiative.

On her turn, she says, "I'm going to Ready an Action; if anybody I don't see right now enters my line of sight, I'm going to cast Hold Person on them if they are within the 100' range of the spell."

Well, I hope she doesn't have a friend behind a rock somewhere who is about to move out into the battle...

Shhhh.. don't steal my thunder!

You didn't even give the "Stealth around the corner to get a Sneak Attack" crowd a chance to deny the Cleric her interrupting Ready action yet! :-)


another_mage wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
another_mage wrote:

Now, let the Cleric have initiative.

On her turn, she says, "I'm going to Ready an Action; if anybody I don't see right now enters my line of sight, I'm going to cast Hold Person on them if they are within the 100' range of the spell."

Well, I hope she doesn't have a friend behind a rock somewhere who is about to move out into the battle...

Shhhh.. don't steal my thunder!

You didn't even give the "Stealth around the corner to get a Sneak Attack" crowd a chance to deny the Cleric her interrupting Ready action yet! :-)

Sorry. My bad.

Scarab Sages

Magicdealer wrote:

I'm not interpreting that I apply rule one here, and rule two there. I'm applying both rules constantly as stated, without interpretation, and allowing stealth to function when both rules requirements are fulfilled....

The underlying assumption here, and the thing that may be the root cause of our difference of opinion, is this:

When attempting to take an action, check for rules that prevent this action from occurring. If nothing prevents this from occurring, then it occurs.

Your underlying assumption is an interpretation of how to apply the rules. Either it's stated somewhere in the rules (it's not), or it's your interpretation of how rules should be applied.

Which means this is your interpretation of how the rules interact.

Scarab Sages

yup. classic "everything is rai" argument :p

Scarab Sages

Magicdealer wrote:
yup. classic "everything is rai" argument :p

Really?

So, in the rules question "If I am in bright light, can I use Bluff to distract a character and then use Stealth to jump to cover?" you are saying both:

1. The answer is no.
2. That is the only possible RAW answer without claiming there is no RAW, and there is no other possible interpretation using the rules as written.


Magicdealer wrote:
yup. classic "everything is rai" argument :p

<Fails Will save to avoid entering this thread.>

If anything Owen is saying the contridiction in this specific set of rules requires a GM to decide which has priority.

Edit: Ninja'd.

Edit 2: As Fred Ohm links above (and I will quote below), the bright light rule applies if someone can see you. This seems to imply that you can use Bluff to distract someone into looking away (and thus allowing a Stealth check), even in bright light.

James Jacobs wrote:

Stealth and Perception do indeed work on things other than sight. What those rules are saying (although perhaps not as clearly as they can) is that you can't use Stealth in bright light when the target can see you.

If you're sneaking up on someone who's looking away from you, you CAN use Stealth (and they can use Perception) since a visual element of the situation doesn't apply. But when that situation can work is up to the GM.

Liberty's Edge

Doesn't the line that states "You cannot use stealth while attacking, running, or charging" fundamentally prevent stealth from being used as a method of generating sneak attacks, outside of generating suprise rounds and flat-footedness?

Diversions are for running away. Feinting is for offensive action.

Even if you've got a character with hide in plain sight and/or camoflauge, the enemy is not denied their dex bonus the moment your first attack lands. Or possibly the moment you attempt strike them, preventing even one sneak attack. I'm not sure.


Quelian wrote:

Doesn't the line that states "You cannot use stealth while attacking, running, or charging" fundamentally prevent stealth from being used as a method of generating sneak attacks, outside of generating suprise rounds and flat-footedness?

Diversions are for running away. Feinting is for offensive action.

Even if you've got a character with hide in plain sight and/or camoflauge, the enemy is not denied their dex bonus the moment your first attack lands. Or possibly the moment you attempt strike them, preventing even one sneak attack. I'm not sure.

Technically, you are quite right. The rule that says "You cannot use stealth while attacking" is in direct contradiction to "You are denied your DEX against attacks made by unseen attackers". The stealth guy is unseen, he makes an attack, therefore denying DEX, but he cannot do this using stealth because stealth cannot be used while attacking.

It's a circular contradiction that cannot be resolved in the rules.

I don't know if anyone official chimed in, but the overwhelming majority of the players have given voice in countless threads unanimously allowing the first attack from stealth to count as if the attacker is invisible (which, by the way, also goes away when the first attack is made). This first attack ends the stealth, but it gains the benefit of being unseen. If you have more than one attack in the round, the rest of your attacks are normal attacks made while visible to the target.

This is the generally accepted resultion of the rules contradiction you pointed out, and it was also supported the same way in 3.5 by the official FAQ (which doesn't apply to Pathfinder, but does lend the solution a little credibility).

Liberty's Edge

Ok. That makes this entire discussion make more sense.

Now for question 2:

If you've got hide in plain sight (Say, from shadowdancer) and you start making attacks, can you stealth between attacks? You're certainly allowed to make stealth checks regardless of being observed. Assuming you're in an appropriate amount of shadow.


Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Magicdealer wrote:
yup. classic "everything is rai" argument :p

Really?

So, in the rules question "If I am in bright light, can I use Bluff to distract a character and then use Stealth to jump to cover?" you are saying both:

1. The answer is no.
2. That is the only possible RAW answer without claiming there is no RAW, and there is no other possible interpretation using the rules as written.

The RAW is saying yes, though we should be clear that you would use Bluff to create a "diversion", not a distraction.

This rule is specifically for when you are being observed. If you already have cover or concealment, then you don't need to create a diversion; you can simply use stealth where you are. But when you lack cover or concealment, you create a diversion, as described in the Stealth skill section, which allows you to move to cover or concealment and attempt a Stealth check at -10 to become hidden.

If you are still in doubt, remember that if you have cover or concealment, then lighting doesn't matter. You can use stealth with cover or concealment, even in the brightest of lighting conditions. The Diversion allows you to reach cover or concealment, and the cover or concealment is what allows you to use stealth. All perfectly legitimate in the RAW.

As for me, I claim there is a RAW, and I scoff at the RAW-atheists.


Quelian wrote:

Ok. That makes this entire discussion make more sense.

Now for question 2:

If you've got hide in plain sight (Say, from shadowdancer) and you start making attacks, can you stealth between attacks? You're certainly allowed to make stealth checks regardless of being observed. Assuming you're in an appropriate amount of shadow.

Not according to this:

Pathfinder Core Rules, Stealth Skill wrote:
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.

This says that using your Stealth skill doesn't usually require its own separate action. Normally it's part of movement. However, nowhere does it say that it can be used as part of attacking.

When you combine that with the rule that says:

Pathfinder Core Rules, Stealth Skill wrote:
It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking

The two of them together paint a pretty complete picture, and nothing in the Hide In Plain Sight rules contradicts this.

Liberty's Edge

That's what I thought.

So given that the shadowdancer is basically taking spring attack the level they enter the class or the level after that... in most cases, you're spring attacking and stealthing as part of the move away from your target.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

DM_Blake wrote:

Technically, you are quite right. The rule that says "You cannot use stealth while attacking" is in direct contradiction to "You are denied your DEX against attacks made by unseen attackers". The stealth guy is unseen, he makes an attack, therefore denying DEX, but he cannot do this using stealth because stealth cannot be used while attacking.

It's a circular contradiction that cannot be resolved in the rules.

I don't know if anyone official chimed in, but the overwhelming majority of the players have given voice in countless threads unanimously allowing the first attack from stealth to count as if the attacker is invisible (which, by the way, also goes away when the first attack is made). This first attack ends the stealth, but it gains the benefit of being unseen. If you have more than one attack in the round, the rest of your attacks are normal attacks made while visible to the target.

This is the generally accepted resultion of the rules contradiction you pointed out, and it was also supported the same way in 3.5 by the official FAQ (which doesn't apply to Pathfinder, but does lend the solution a little credibility).

I always forget half the damn stealth rules while running (which doesn't help when I have a Shadowdancer in the party) but overall that's generally what I try to when I actually remember... you're stealthy to the point you make that attack, do your sneak attack if you get it, but from then on you're not unseen until you move to restealth (and are not attacking).

Scarab Sages

DM_Blake wrote:
The RAW is saying yes, though we should be clear that you would use Bluff to create a "diversion", not a distraction.

I disagree. I reference here the Stealth rules, page 106.

"If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth."

To distract someone, you create a distraction. Such as with Bluff, but anything the GM rules a distraction qualifies.

51 to 100 of 168 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Sneak attack from stealth All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.