You have opened a can of bees here. Yes, bees, because they're much more painful than worms...
Stealth is not a combat skill. It's not meant for that purpose. The game's basic assumption is that everyone in combat is spending just enough effort to know what is going on around them, just enough that someone walking on their tippy-toes is still going to be spotted, and won't get special attack/damage benefits against them.
There are a few corner cases, like if you're hiding around a corner, using stealth, and someone tactically moves next to you, then Sneak Attack away!
You also should look into the "sniping" rules.
But the Stealth skill specifically says "It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging." This is right there in the text, clearly indicating that Stealth is not generally designed to be a combat skill.
Take the time to read this thread.
I spent a lot of time combing through the book and assembling the pieces of this puzzle and putting them all in one place. The general community disagreed with me on the point of sniping, so I updated that and also added a little more clarification to "being observed", but you have to go to the first post on page 3 for those two updates.
Am I right in saying that as soon as you no longer have cover ie are in line of sight to your target, that they basically have a DC 0 perception check to see you, and therefore you are no longer stealthed with respect to them.
Cover or concealment.
Yeah, generally speaking things would be a lot better if people would just accept that Stealth is for Reconnaisance, not combat. It's not realistic, but neither is Fireball.
I salute you, Blake, for resisting the use of your catchphrase "Badass manga ninja" thus far. :D
LOL, it's "super-deadly invisible ninja", and I usually save that for the 4th or 5th post in a thread where people are arguing and avocating for their character to be, well, exactly that.
This thread was started much more reasonably with a well-voiced question about stealth. No need to get into the ninja bashing yet.
Rather than toss up my hands and say "yay I like unrealistic stealth," I tend to use the 3.5 rule from Complete Adventurer, which in the expanded description of the Hide skill states:
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.
So basically if you want to come out of stealth and dash ten feet out of cover and knife a guy, you take a -10 to your check (assuming you're not having to move fast to do that).
Stealth allows you to avoid detection, hopefully resulting in a situation where you are aware of the target, but the target is unaware of you. If you succeed on stealth, you can gain the benefit of a surprise round, in which you can potentially attack the person flat-footed (since they have not yet acted) for sneak attack damage. At least, this is my understanding. I'm not sure why this becomes so controversial, maybe because WoW players are picturing a middle-of-combat *poof*, virtual invisibility, and then an ambush, which makes little sense and is not how stealth works in DnD. Once your surprise is spent and the target knows you're there, you have finished stealthing and begun fighting.
Whether the target sees you running towards them is irrelevant for determining whether you can sneak attack, and that's why the rules don't address it. If you attack the target before the target is able to act, you have effectively caught them off-guard (flat-footed) and get to deal your sneak damage. Stealth just helps you get the jump on your opponent (surprise round) at the start of combat.
|
It never occurred to me that people believed you couldn't use stealth in combat. I would allow it in the following two situations-
1) Rogue is using Stealth and looks around a corner, he sees a guard facing away from him.
He makes another Stealth check to move up to the guard, naturally the guard gets a Perception check but alas fails.
The Rogue gets to Sneak Attack!
2) Rogue is hidden behind a large rock at the start of combat, none of the enemy see him.
The fight takes place in a large cavern with many shadowy and dark areas. At the other side of the battlefield an Evil Mage casts spells to support his minions.
The Rogue takes the time and makes the Stealth checks to move under the cover of shadows around the edge of the cavern until 2-3 rounds later he's behind the Evil Mage.
Both the Evil Mage and his minions all fail multiple Perception checks (hey the Rogue has a serious high Stealth score).
The Rogue moves up behind the Mage and gets to Sneak Attack!
To me the Rogue should be able to do what the Thief from the video games of the same name could do, Sneak Attack from Stealth.
So would other DMs disallow this?
Reebo
It never occurred to me that people believed you couldn't use stealth in combat. I would allow it in the following two situations-
1) Rogue is using Stealth and looks around a corner, he sees a guard facing away from him.
He makes another Stealth check to move up to the guard, naturally the guard gets a Perception check but alas fails.
The Rogue gets to Sneak Attack!
Not really allowed by the rules.
First, you'll note that there is no facing in combat. There is no such thing as the guard "facing away from him". If we are "in combat" as you said so in your post, then the guard is not stupid enough to face only one direction and hope nothing kills him from behind. He has 6 seconds every round, he can automatically use a fraction of that to look over his shoulder.
That rogue, tip-toeing up behind him, is in plain sight and so he cannot use Stealth because the rules say so.
The guard might fail to observe the rogue. The Perception DC is 0. Lighting could alter this DC. If the guard is fighting in this combat, then he is also distracted which adds +5 to the DC. Bad conditions (like loud combat next to the guard, or shouting, or whatever) could add an additional +1 or maybe +2. All in all, the DC will be somewhere between 0 and about 8, depending on conditions. The rogue might have a zillion ranks in Stealth, but since he cannot use Stealth in this situation, that doesn't matter.
2) Rogue is hidden behind a large rock at the start of combat, none of the enemy see him.
The fight takes place in a large cavern with many shadowy and dark areas. At the other side of the battlefield an Evil Mage casts spells to support his minions.
The Rogue takes the time and makes the Stealth checks to move under the cover of shadows around the edge of the cavern until 2-3 rounds later he's behind the Evil Mage.
Both the Evil Mage and his minions all fail multiple Perception checks (hey the Rogue has a serious high Stealth score).
The Rogue moves up behind the Mage and gets to Sneak Attack!
While he is moving "under cover of shadows" he is allowed to make these stealth checks, although the proper game term is "under concealment of shadows" (yeah, I know, it sounds the same, but the game uses different rules for "cover" and "concealment"). This also assumes he remains in concealment the whole time - if he has to run out in the open to get from one shadow to another, then while he is in the open, everyone can perceive him with a DC of 0 again.
Then when he gets to the next "concealment of shadow" he can try a stealth check there (but anyone who saw him run into that shadow whill know which shadow he is hiding in even if they can't see him in it).
Now, when the rogue moves up behind the mage and tries a Sneak Attack, this is possible, as long as he can remain in "concealment" the whole way. If the mage is standing next to a shadowy space (note that I didn't say "behind" because there is no facing in combat), and the rogue can stay in shadows all the way to that shadowy space, then the rogue can use Stealth the whole way, and he can sneak attack too.
But if the mage is not adjacent to any shadows, the rogue will have to step out into plain sight in order to get into range to sneak attack the mage, in which case, the mage can try to perceive him at DC 0 (no Stealth for the rogue in plain sight).
To me the Rogue should be able to do what the Thief from the video games of the same name could do, Sneak Attack from Stealth.
Except this isn't a video game. In the real world, Pac-Man gets full of dots and ghosts and has to sleep once in a while...
The rules here are somewhat different than video game rules. And the biggest difference is that the bad guys can use all the rules too. Pac-Man has different rules than Inky, Pinky, Blinky, and Clyde. The game wouldn't have been nearly as fun if Clyde ate all the power-pills to make Pac-Man slow down and turn blue so the ghosts could catch him and eat him.
The Pathfinder rules are balanced to keep a player from dumping points into a skill and becoming a god of the battlefield, and also balanced to keep sneaky monsters and sneaky NPC bad guys from gorking the PCs all the time.
So would other DMs disallow this?
Reebo
I would run these two scenarios the way I just described them, which is according to RAW.
In the end, the skills are just skills. They are not tools to make a character a battle-god. A rogue can no more use Stealth to destroy his opponents than a Fighter can use Swim to destroy his opponents. Skills are just not meant to crush enemies in battle.
That's why we have Feats :)
Scissors Lizard points out the big problem, which is that the magical 'surprise round' is only at the start of a combat and there's no allowance for it within a combat, even though common sense demonstrates there's lots of times that might come up.
I reject the theory that people in a fight suddenly a priori have more "all-around" spatial awareness. Alert guard standing there vs guy getting charged by a greataxe wielding barbarian - suddenly he spots the thief better? Getting rid of the fiddliness of facing rules doesn't mean we have to get silly.
It's funny - in normal situations one might say "Oh go distract that guard so the thief can get him!" But using these rules blindly, it's more "oh dear God don't do anything that might cause the heavenly Initiative Dice to be rolled, because then the thief won't be able to sneak by any more!
|
|
Weirdness.
We've always played that the rogue can restealth if he gets 100% cover, and can move and attack, getting the bonuses on the first attack, if the target failed a perception check.
It makes for some awesome stealthing villains. With spring attack, or shot on the run, move attack move *stealthing as part of the move action*
Rinse and repeat until someone makes the perception roll, or applies a light spell appropriate to bring the ambient lighting up to bright.
Of course, with hide in plain sight, we've assumed that's a negated requirement as well :/
I reject the theory that people in a fight suddenly a priori have more "all-around" spatial awareness.
Nobody is saying that. All I am saying, and the rules are saying, is that they can look over their shoulder, or turn their body, or heck, even while they're ducking and weaving and bobbing and spinning to avoid blows, it's possible, even probable, that they are trying to remain alert for danger in all directions.
Thus, no facing, and thus, they get 360 degree perception.
Which doesn't mean they are guaranteed to see a rogue trying (and failing because it's illegal) to use stealth in plain sight. But it does mean that the rogue gets no Stealth check, and his opponent only needs to beat a DC 0 Perception check, adjusted for conditional modifiers.
Alert guard standing there vs guy getting charged by a greataxe wielding barbarian - suddenly he spots the thief better?
Better? No. Not better. But he certainly can and should spot a rogue standing in plain sight.
Getting rid of the fiddliness of facing rules doesn't mean we have to get silly.
Nothing silly about it. A combatant is looking out for danger. A rogue is standing in broad daylight thinking sneaky thought but not actually doing anything to gain cover or concealment, so he's really just standing there.
Actually, the silly part about it is thinking that a rogue can stand in broad daylight, in plain view of his enemy, and be invisible just because he's thinking happy-sneaky thoughts.
It's funny - in normal situations one might say "Oh go distract that guard so the thief can get him!" But using these rules blindly, it's more "oh dear God don't do anything that might cause the heavenly Initiative Dice to be rolled, because then the thief won't be able to sneak by any more!
Now that is silly.
The stealth rules provide rules for creating a diversion. It's right there in the book. The rogue, or anyone else, can "go distract that guard" in or out of combat, using Bluff vs. the guard's Sense Motive. If it works, feel free to sneak attack him.
It's right there in the RAW.
My wive always plays a Thieve/Rogue.
She was obssessed with that stealth trick of sneaking up an opponent in the back (mostly wizard-types) over several rounds and finally deliver one huge hit.
Until we all explained to her that she could have gotten in 3+ normal hits in the same time, doing roughly the same damage, by simply charging and also threaten AoO and whatnot.
Once full combat is in swing stealth is usually a non factor. Outside of combat stealth can be what makes or breaks an encounter.
Anyways, for the sake of clarity, Sneak Attack should be simply renamed to Flank Attack and all would be well.
So how does stealth work in regards to a rogue trying a ranged sneak attack in combat? I understand the snipping rules (I think). What I'm wondering is whether a rogue, who's made his presence known by firing a bow previously in the combat, can simply step into a different area of concealment or cover, make a new stealth check without penalty and, if successful, sneak attack again.
That is to say, why accept the -20 snipping penalty while remaining stationary and firing if the rogue can simply move one or two squares over to another concealed spot and suffer no penalty? Am I wrong about this? Can a rogue simply move back and forth behind two hiding spots, being in plain sight in between, and making stealth checks and sneak attacks every round without penalty?
After being detected you can not hide unless having full cover (out of sight). So you have to move into full cover and hide. The moce out of full cover into cover in order to see you opponent again and the you must shoot.
So, if a rogue can move back and forth between say, two adjacent columns that each provides him with full cover then he can make a unpenalized stealth check and sneak attack every round? But if he stays behind one column and fires every round (snipping) then he suffers the -20 penalty to the stealth check?
So how does stealth work in regards to a rogue trying a ranged sneak attack in combat? I understand the snipping rules (I think). What I'm wondering is whether a rogue, who's made his presence known by firing a bow previously in the combat, can simply step into a different area of concealment or cover, make a new stealth check without penalty and, if successful, sneak attack again.
That is to say, why accept the -20 snipping penalty while remaining stationary and firing if the rogue can simply move one or two squares over to another concealed spot and suffer no penalty? Am I wrong about this? Can a rogue simply move back and forth behind two hiding spots, being in plain sight in between, and making stealth checks and sneak attacks every round without penalty?
No.
Rx
C
.
.
.
T
(R = Rogue, C = Cover, T = Target)
In this diagram, the rogue (R) is behind cover (C) with regards to the target, (T). He cannot shoot T from here because he doesn't have line of sight or line of effect (the cover blocks his shot). But he CAN step out to position x (an empty spot adjacent to the rogue) and fire a shot at T.
However, as soon as he steps into x, he is in plain sight. His target can attempt a Perception check against DC 0 to see him there. If the target sees the rogue, then the rogue cannot sneak attack the target. If the target fails that simple Perception check, the rogue may attempt to sneak attack with his bow.
Now, let's assume the target is really bad at Perception. We'll also assume he is distracted by something (maybe he's fighting one of the rogue's allies). Let's give it dim lighting, and remember that we're 25' away. This means the DC is 0 + 5 (distraction) + 1 (lighting) + 2 (25'). DC 8. Our target is really bad, only +2, so he must roll a 6 or higher on his Perception check. He still has a 75% chance to see that rogue standing there in plain sight at x.
What's worse, even if our target fails, and the rogue gets his sneak attack, that's the end of his turn. He moved, and he attacked. He has no actions left to get back into cover. Next round, he will begin his round in plain sight again. If he moves into cover he can attampt to use Stealth again, but then he doesn't have enough actions to move back to x AND fire a shot this round. In other words, the best he can hope for is one attempted sneak attack every two rounds using this technique, with only a 25% chance that he can even sneak attack (and that chance is unrealistically high because we made our target really bad at Perception).
Now, back to sniping.
There are two ways to read the rules for Sniping. I believe both are correct.
First way: The rogue begins his turn in stealth (from last round). Using sniping, he is allowed to pop out to location x, fire off a shot, and pop back into cover - something he cannot do without sniping. However, this is hard to do because he must move fast (that's really 3 actions, right?). So that's why there is a -20 on the Stealth roll. But, if he can make it, he gets to sneak attack.
Let's say our rogue is 5th level, 5 ranks in Stealth and a 20 DEX. His Stealth check is 13. Using sniping, he rolls a d20 + 5 (distraction) + 1 (lighting) + 2 (distance) + 13 (Stealth) - 20 (sniping). The net of all those modifiers is +1, so really, it's a d20 + 1. There is a 65% chance he will roll an 8 or better (remember, 8 is what he gets if he just steps out into plain sight). So, roughly a 2/3 chance of doing as well or better than standing right there in plain sight.
Even better, if he makes it, he ends his turn stealthed again, so next round he can do it again.
Without sniping, he gets 1 attack every 2 rounds with a 25% chance of sneak attack. With sniping, he gets 1 attack every round with a 65% chance of sneak attack. Much much better.
Second way: Assume that the cover (C) is really concealment (C). Maybe it's a bush, or there is darkness there, or a one-way illusionary wall, or whatever. The rogue (R) has Concealment with regard to the the target (T). This means he has both line of sight and line of effect without having to move.
Which means he can sneak attack from right where he is.
But his bow makes noise, so does the arrow, and the target will see/hear/and maybe feel the arrow (if it hits him) so he will have a good idea where the shot came from. The rogue would like to remain hidden, so he does his stealthy best to draw his bow and fire his arrow silently, timing it for when his target blinks, or when his target glances off to the side, or whatever. It's still very hard, and he still takes the -20 for sniping.
All the same modifiers apply, so the rogue can sit there in his concealment and fire one shot every round (maybe even multiple shots if his BAB is high enough, or with Rapid Shot, etc.), without moving. He has a 65% chance that each shot will be a sneak attack if his opponent fails to make that Perception check with each arrow fired.
So there it is, in a nutshell, exactly why a rogue (or anyone else) would accept the -20 sniping penalty.
After being detected you can not hide unless having full cover (out of sight). So you have to move into full cover and hide. The moce out of full cover into cover in order to see you opponent again and the you must shoot.So, if a rogue can move back and forth between say, two adjacent columns that each provides him with full cover then he can make a unpenalized stealth check and sneak attack every round? But if he stays behind one column and fires every round (snipping) then he suffers the -20 penalty to the stealth check?
No.
He can only move between two pillars AND fire a shot if he has the Shot on the Run feat, which lets him move-shoot-move all in one round. I neglected to mention it in my previous post, it works there too.
Rxy
P.P
.
.
.
T
(R = Rogue, T = Target, P = Pillar).
The rogue (R) has cover relative to target (T) from one pillar (P).
If he begins his turn with stealth (from a previous round) he can move to x and fire a shot. Without using sniping, this would end his turn, leaving him standing there in plain sight at position x. He would be in plain sight, so he cannot make a stealth check at position x. He would have no actions remaining to either return to his original position at R or to continue moving to position y. This gives him a small chance at being able to pull off a sneak attack this round but not next round (see my previous post).
With sniping, as described in my previous post, he could return to position R but wound not normally be allowed to move on to position y, though I suppose a DM could allow it as a sort of scoot-and-shoot maneuver. This gives him a better chance to pull off a sneak attack (see my prvious post).
With Shot on the Run, the rogue is allowed to move his entire movement and fire one shot at any time in that movement. He may also end his turn at position y, or anywhere else he can legally move to, and if that position offers him cover or concealment, he may make a new Stealth check to become stealthed at the end of his turn.
But note that the Stealth rules explicitly state that "It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging", so using Shot on the Run would make it impossible to use stealth at the same time, which means the rogue cannot sneak attack because he is not stealthed at the time he fires his shot. Although a player might argue that "Shot on the Run" is just a name, and it doesn't mean the rogue is actually running, in which case he is merely stepping into plain sight as described above, giving him a small chance to pull off a sneak attack before he continues on with his movement.
Anyone, not just rogues, can use this feat to move around a battlefield, firing a shot on the run every time they move. It's just not a stealthy maneuver at all.
|
|
I don't know about that evaluation of shot on the run.
You can't use stealth while attacking, running, or charging"
Shot on the run is a move - attack - move action.
Running is a specific type of action that lets you move anywhere from 3x to 5x your speed. Charging and attacking are also specific action types.
JimmyNids, Yesterday, 09:25 PMAlso of note, if you attack from stealth using a full attack(say the guy backed into you hiding around a corner as blake said, or your using a bow at range) you only get sneak attack damage on the first hit, after that hit they are aware of you, WELL aware of you, and the bonus goes poof(unless your flanking in melee somehow or the target has been rendered helpless<pinned, paralyzed, stunned>)
I was always under the impression since 3.5 that Sneak Attack occurs with every attack made against a flat footed/helpless/etc enemy, including additional attacks from Two-Weapon Fighting. Of course it depends on the situation (for example, an invisible Rogue who managed to approach a target, get to an adjacent square and then makes a full attack on the following turn).
A character caught unaware is flatfooted until they act, they are flatfooted until they get a turn. Every character that acts before that flatfooted foe gets the benefit against them with precision damage effects simply because they are flatfooted. Its not a condition that goes away after the first hit. (Anyone is free to houserule whatever they want in their games however). Thats the RAW.
Nowhere in the Core Rulebook did I see that it a character only ever gets Sneak Attack only with the first attack - its with every attack that the character can bring to bear in a combat round where his opponent is flatfooted, etc. Thats how it always worked in 3.5.
Am I missing something? :S
I don't know about that evaluation of shot on the run.
You can't use stealth while attacking, running, or charging"
Shot on the run is a move - attack - move action.
Running is a specific type of action that lets you move anywhere from 3x to 5x your speed. Charging and attacking are also specific action types.
If you're addressing my post, then I think I covered your exact concern in my last post.
|
|
Yeah, they're talking about using stealth to deny the dex bonus, which allows for the first attack to be a sneak attack.
In a situation where you can flank, ect., you can get sneak attacks with all your regular attacks that hit.
But, again, this is specifically about how to use stealth to achieve that effect.
Since stealth denies opponents their dex bonus, you only get that bonus when they can't see you. Thus, after your first attack from stealth, they know where you are and any other attacks you may make aren't against a target who doesn't have their dex to ac.
I was always under the impression since 3.5 that Sneak Attack occurs with every attack made against a flat footed/helpless/etc enemy, including additional attacks from Two-Weapon Fighting. Of course it depends on the situation (for example, an invisible Rogue who managed to approach a target, get to an adjacent square and then makes a full attack on the following turn).
Nowhere in the Core Rulebook did I see that it a character only ever gets Sneak Attack only with the first attack - its with every attack that the character can bring to bear in a combat round where his opponent is flatfooted, etc. Thats how it always worked in 3.5.
There are many ways to get sneak attacks.
Flanking: all your attacks are Sneak Attacks because the opponent stays flanked during your entire round.
Flatfooted: all your attacks are Sneak Attacks because the opponent stays flatfooted during your entire round.
Defender lost DEX mod for a whole round: all your attacks are Sneak Attacks because the opponent remains at his denied DEX during your entire round.
Opponent is not aware of you: This one is different. After your sword ruptures his liver, he becomes instantly aware of you. There is no facing in Pathfinder, so he sees you. No perception check is needed because he sees your sword in his liver and sees your hand holding it, and he sees you pull your sword back and take another swing. So, by the time you take your second attack, your opponent is no longer unaware of you, and so you are no longer able to Sneak Attack.
Note: there are some cases where your opponent can remain unaware of you, such as when you're using Greater Invisibility. These are exceptions that can allow all your attacks to be sneak attacks.
Further note: Being hidden or normally invisible denies your opponent his DEX, but only while he is unaware of you. Sticking your sword in his liver makes him aware of you, at which point he immediately regains his DEX mod, which is why you cannot sneak attack anymore.
|
|
Aye, the issue I had with that was "a player may argue". I think that raw supports the interpretation you relegated into a more disreputable position. After all, if we could interpret the mechanical effect of feats by their names, we could add a lot of fun to feats by implying mechanics that aren't present in the benefits section.
On a side note, I had a LOT of fun with that feat in an underground complex. Dim light everywhere, players without dark vision, and one VERY happy BBEG :p He was a rogue with, among other things, ledge walker and fast stealth. He placed fairly small walkways over a series of pits, and would move towards one, attack, and then move over the pit, using stealth as part of the move action before the attack.
It was a very thematically pleasing scenario :P
Yeah, they're talking about using stealth to deny the dex bonus, which allows for the first attack to be a sneak attack.
In a situation where you can flank, ect., you can get sneak attacks with all your regular attacks that hit.
But, again, this is specifically about how to use stealth to achieve that effect.
Since stealth denies opponents their dex bonus, you only get that bonus when they can't see you. Thus, after your first attack from stealth, they know where you are and any other attacks you may make aren't against a target who doesn't have their dex to ac.
From a realism point of view I can understand that, can someone point me to the RAW where it says after the first attack that the target is no longer flatfooted
As far as I can see from reading it, a Rogue who successfully stealths up to a target who is unaware of them can make a single attack in that round OR if they opt to, wait until the next round and hopefully if the target still doesnt notice them (possibly because the Rogue may have Invisibility active from a potion or effect, which makes the Perception test difficult) they could make a full round actions worth of attacks including TWF attacks and gain Sneak Attack with all of them.
I am aware that facing doesnt exist in the game, so a character may become AWARE of the attacker after the first hit but he is STILL flatfooted regardless because he hasnt acted yet. He STILL has the flatfooted condition until he acts, thats my point. It doesnt matter if hes AWARE yet, until he acts hes vulnerable. (Unless he has Uncanny Dodge, etc.)
In 3.5 Characters could make sneak attack with all attacks as long as the target was flatfooted, etc.
In Pathfinder, the flatfooted condition doesnt go away after the first hit UNLESS the character only made one attack in that round if they moved as well. Also, since Initiative is then rolled the following round (assuming the Rogue wasnt spotted first which initiates combat)the Rogue may infact go faster than the target...who is STILL flatfooted and can get pincushioned with another full rounds worth of attacks.
Because 3.5 explored the whole Druid and Rogue combo in many Dragon magazines and ALL natural attacks gain Sneak Attack on a full attack vs a flatfooted opponent, etc. as long as the flatfooted condition remains.
While logically a character is AWARE of someone after being struck, they are STILL flatfooted. In truthfulness, if several Rogues acted against one target they ALL gain Sneak Attack as long as the target is flatfooted.
Remember that until a character acts, even if they are aware, they are FLATFOOTED, which means any and all sneak attack attempts made on them until they act are valid. Flat-Footed isnt a condition that goes away in any other cicumstance (such as being hit), ONLY when the character acts on their turn.
----Example Situation----
Rogue 5th No.1 Init 9
Rogue 5th No.2 Init 14
Warrior 8th Init 10
In this example, assume both Rogues move on the same target, Rogue 1 approaches the victim under an Invisibility effect (lets assume the Warrior is in a brightly lit room with little cover rendering regular stealth tests nigh impossible) while another hang back and waits for the signal (the target being struck, they take a Delay action to wait for his partner to attack and use the action to move into the room closer to the Warrior)l, the Warrior doesnt notice the Invisible character (who being invisible has concealment and can use Stealth to approach to make the Perception DC even harder)
Lets assume Rogue 1 successfully makes a full rounds worth of sneak attacks (legitimately allowed, since Target doesnt notice the Rogue and is flatfooted until he acts, which isnt until initiative is rolled), Rogue 2 at that point just moves in straight at the target, lets assume he doesnt quite make it (hes 10 ft away).
Now initiative is rolled, (lets assume the "warrior" survived the initial mauling). With the numbers rolled above, the `second` Rogue that delayed previously makes a 5ft step to flank the Warrior and AGAIN makes a full round attack against a flanked AND flatfooted enemy.
The warrior (if he lives) still hasnt acted, and is STILL flatfooted by the rules and RAW because hes not acted yet. Luckily, he goes before Rogue 1 and lets say he full attacks Rogue 2 and kills them outright (criticals, etc). Rogue 1 doesnt get to sneak attack on their initiative because (1) his partner is longer flanking and (2) the warrior has acted and is thusly no longer flatfooted.
Lets assume Rogue 1 now takes a 5ft step back from the Warrior, out of his reach and uses a wand of summon monster with a UMD check to summon a creature to flank the warrior again.
The warrior acts again, and 5 ft steps away from the summoned creature toward the Rogue and makes a full attack, lts assume for whatever reason the Rogue didnt die from the assault. The summoned monster moves in and attacks (lets assume they miss) and the Rogue then acts again, because hes flanking again he gets sneak attack but not because the Warrior is flatfooted, only because of the flank.
At this point lets assume the Warrior goes down, finally succumbing to the damage.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
No.Rx
C
.
.
.
T(R = Rogue, C = Cover, T = Target)
In this diagram, the rogue (R) is behind cover (C) with regards to the target, (T). He cannot shoot T from here because he doesn't have line of sight or line of effect (the cover blocks his shot). But he CAN step out to position x (an empty spot adjacent to the rogue) and fire a shot at T
This isn't strictly accurate. Cover doesn't block line of sight or line of effect. It grants bonuses. Only total cover blocks line of sight and line of effect.
|
|
What we're talking about here is a single rogue using stealth to make a sneak attack after combat has already been initiated.
Thus the specific sniping stuff, and movement through open squares.
Or, in other words, everything you posted, while mostly correct, isn't about the discussion we're having about taking sneak attacks after combat is initiated.
As in, the cleric is aware the rogue is there already, so initiative has gone off already, neither party is flat footed.
In your example, the rogue who attacked first, initiating the surprise round, would only be able to make a single attack. This is because you can only take a standard action or a move action during a surprise round.
So rogue the first moves in and takes his first attack, which happens in the surprise round. Initiative is rolled for both rogues. We'll assume that rogue the first rolled highest.
Rogue two can't take an initiative action until initiative starts, so he can't delay his initiative. However, he's been warned, so during the surprise action, he takes a move action to get closer to the fighter. In doing so, he comes into full view.
The surprise round ends, and the fighter rolls his initiative. Having taken only one sneak attack, he's just fine.
If the fighter wins initiative, then the rogues will have to flank him to get sneak attack damage.
If the rogues win initiative, he's still flat-footed, and would eat some serious sneak attack damage.
If his initiative is in-between the two rogues, one rogue will get sneak attack damage from the fighter being flat-footed. Then, if the fighter attacks, the second rogue will get sneak attack damage when he attacks from flanking. If, however, the fighter just beats the pavement out of there *being over 7th level, he doesn't lose speed in armor*, then you've got a pursuit action and probably no more sneak attacks.
However, take out one of the rogues in your situation, add two points of cover, and make both players aware of each other. That's closer to what we're discussing atm :P
Understood...lol
If the combatants are aware of each other, then the Rogue can only get away with one sneak attack assuming he manages to approach his foe.
The only way the Cleric in this situation could be flatfooted is if the Rogue somehow could introduce a mechanic (such as Invisibility) and that the Cleric didnt notice the Rogue. While hes aware that there is a threat around, if the Rogue gets close enough and waits till his next round and the Cleric doesnt notice him still, THEN the Rogue can make a Full Round`s worth of attacks but only the first is a Sneak Attack. Of course if Greater Invisibility or Blink was in play on the Rogue, then every attack would catch the Cleric Flat-Footed by virtue of the Concealment from those spells.
Quick question.
Fighter is walking by and doesn't notice a rogue behind cover using stealth...
Could the rogue not FIRE, beginning a surprise round, and score sneak attack should he hit since he's flat footed(as long as the Fighter doesn't have any funky feats preventing flat footedness), and then, should he win initiative, gain sneak attack again because of flat footedness of the fighter?
Can you take a 5 foot step in a surprise round?
If you can, then you can just wait until whoever is within 5 feet while under cover, start a surprise round (since they didn't "percept" you under cover of course), and get a possible two sneak attacks that way.
Weirdness.
We've always played that the rogue can restealth if he gets 100% cover, and can move and attack, getting the bonuses on the first attack, if the target failed a perception check.
It makes for some awesome stealthing villains. With spring attack, or shot on the run, move attack move *stealthing as part of the move action*
Rinse and repeat until someone makes the perception roll, or applies a light spell appropriate to bring the ambient lighting up to bright.
Of course, with hide in plain sight, we've assumed that's a negated requirement as well :/
I think we're a lot out there interpreting things in this way (following perhaps not "rules" but what I consider a kind of common sense)... and I've recently discovered there are also many people interpreting things in another way (which it is said to be following "rules")...
So, just choose which one you prefer.
In the end, the skills are just skills. They are not tools to make a character a battle-god. A rogue can no more use Stealth to destroy his opponents than a Fighter can use Swim to destroy his opponents. Skills are just not meant to crush enemies in battle.
That's why we have Feats :)
The assumption skills are only meant for out of combat is a faulty one. Look at Acrobatics and AoO, Bluff and Feint, Escape Artist and Grappling, Fly for Maneuverability, Handle Animal if you have an Animal Companion or Animal Summons, Perception and invisible or stealth, Spellcraft, Use Magic Device.
The very crux of your argument is faulty. Personally the worst thing introduced in 3.0 was this innate all-around sight given to everyone.
|
Personally, I think it depends on the situation and the circumstances...remember the rules are only guidlines to having fun. they are not absolutes,( tho with some munchkins you have to be strict that way). In one of the statements above it was mentioned that the axe weilding barb would cause a distraction, and because of all around vision that was denied...If some nut was swinging a shiny 3 foot axe at me and frothing at the mouth I'm not sure i would see a rogue who is moving slow and calmly (stealthy without concealment) coming at me, honestly the barb would prolly have my undivided attention.this doesnt fit well with the current rules, but the object is to have fun. players dont have fun if you nerf them all the time.so again depending on the situation I would allow some of it to happen.Its a DM call.
|
|
If some nut was swinging a shiny 3 foot axe at me and frothing at the mouth...
...then you would be a prime candidate for a flank, for which the Rogue would receive Sneak Attack whether you see him coming or not. Furthermore, would the Rogue not be better served to flank just to get the bonus on his attack roll?
The broader question for people who do things this way (and I'm not making judgements, if you have fun then great!) is: Does anyone in any of your games ever actually take the Hide In Plain Sight feat? If so, why do they? It would seem to be a waste. What benefit do you permit it to afford them that they are not already receiving?
|
|
this was mostly in reference to the statement that as soon as the rogue breaks cover/concealment he is seen. I personally disagree with that, having played a lot of paintball games IRL, you dont always notice someone in the heat of battle, they arent automatically seen when not under cover/conealment.Even when you are adrenalized and looking everywhere! So.....
As for Hide In Plan Sight it still gets used as it allows a character who hasnt yet hidden when things start to do so. The rogue in the previous statement, was already being stealthy, but would suddenly become unstealthy just by breaking cover.bleh.
Again the point is to have fun partially by doing the cinematic thing and ambushing the guy even after having broken cover/concealment. characters are supposed to do somewhat impossible things, thats part of what makes them the heroes.
The broader question for people who do things this way (and I'm not making judgements, if you have fun then great!) is: Does anyone in any of your games ever actually take the Hide In Plain Sight feat? If so, why do they? It would seem to be a waste. What benefit do you permit it to afford them that they are not already receiving?
Hide in plain sight gives enormous advantages...
Just a first consideration:
Really, all this story of coming out from stealth is not so devastating for players, it's not necessarily a TPK, I mean as a DM it is not my task to create ambushes by 8 high level rougues because this would bring party death even without the story of coming out from stealth.
Now about the subject. Don't want to put surprise in the story so imagine there's the famous pillar and the bad guy 2 squares away. Me the good rogue I'm hidden behind the pillar and the bad guy KNOWS it but unfortunately he's distracted by something (a fight, I don't know) and we've already rolled initiative, he's not flat footed, not flanking, full light, no invisibility, and so on.
It's my turn as rogue, come out, winning the stealth check against perception cover 2 squares (in plain sight at half speed) and hit with ONE sneak attack (ONE sneak attack is not necessarily devastating). Now it's the guy turn, he hit me. Now my turn again, I'm in plain sight I cannot hide, to hide I've to go again towards the pillar. If I do so I could face an attack of opportunity or maybe not, it depends on reach, anyway I loose all my round to get to the pillar and hide behind the cover.
My next round I could reiterate the story. So balance: 1 round every 2 I potentially could do 1 sneak attack... this is not catastrofic... and to just get this sneak attack I face I full attack and maybe an AoO -> conclusion I do this just 1 time...
If I'm dumb and want to do it over and over, the guy could get tired of this story and:
1) follow me behind the pillar
2) just move away 2 squares from the pillar (and so I'm done because at half speed I can cover just 3 squares)
What happens if someone has hide in plain sight? now simply if there's a damn shadow near the guy (even his own shadow) I can hide in plain sight in front of him without getting to a cover and the next round I'm ready to sneak him over and over and yes now he cannot do anything to avoid this whole situation except perhaps try to destroy all shadows around him... that's the advantage, in my opinion.
But please, tell me really if this reasonment is shocking because I'm willing to discuss the subject openly
But please, tell me really if this reasonment is shocking because I'm willing to discuss the subject openly
Shocking? Not in the least.
However, the RAW don't support using stealth in plain sight, so when you move out from behind that pillar, the cleric will want to see you. He will get a perception check to see you, but you won't get a stealth check. And if he sees you, then you won't get any Sneak Attack at all.
But if he blows that amazingly easy perception check, then you can sneak attack, just as you described.
But please, tell me really if this reasonment is shocking because I'm willing to discuss the subject openly
Shocking? Not in the least.
However, the RAW don't support using stealth in plain sight, so when you move out from behind that pillar, the cleric will want to see you. He will get a perception check to see you, but you won't get a stealth check. And if he sees you, then you won't get any Sneak Attack at all.
But if he blows that amazingly easy perception check, then you can sneak attack, just as you described.
Please, DM_blake, don't lose time repeating yourself. I've read (as everybody) all your posts and know BY HEART your interpretation of the rules about the subject.
And again don't lose time answering telling that it is not YOUR INTERPRETATION but is the ABSOLUTE RULE which is so clear that doesn't need discussion.Because then you've to explain why 100 people are debating about this matter since so long... perhaps the absolute clear rule as you see it is not so clear.
About my sentence: "But please, tell me really if this reasonment is shocking because I'm willing to discuss the subject openly."
Was addressed only to the ones that are willing to discuss the subject openly not to the ones that tells me "no you're wrong because your interpretation is wrong and mine is correct". Thanks.
About my sentence: "But please, tell me really if this reasonment is shocking because I'm willing to discuss the subject openly."
Was addressed only to the ones that are willing to discuss the subject openly not to the ones that tells me "no you're wrong because your interpretation is wrong and mine is correct". Thanks.
Ah, well then. My sincerest apologies. I seem to have been misguided as to the meaning of "discuss the subject openly".
Because then you've to explain why 100 people are debating about this matter since so long... perhaps the absolute clear rule as you see it is not so clear.
This one is easy. The rules for Stealth do not approximate the reality of being sneaky. 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.
So the final question is: Do you want to play by the rules printed in the book, or do you want to create some exceptions and adjudicate those exceptions differently (i.e.: play by house rules)?
If you want to play by the rules written in the book, listen to DM_Blake. He really knows his stuff.
If you want to play by house rules, then have at it. Nobody is going to tell you what rules are the most fun for your gaming table.
(I let my players vote for the Stealth rules they wanted to use.)
About my sentence: "But please, tell me really if this reasonment is shocking because I'm willing to discuss the subject openly."
Was addressed only to the ones that are willing to discuss the subject openly not to the ones that tells me "no you're wrong because your interpretation is wrong and mine is correct". Thanks.
DM_Blake knows the rules. Quite honestly, I skim a thread to look for his interpretations first, and then read other posts. Just to be clear, he's never said you can't have your own interpretation or your own house rules .. he's just telling you what the RAW (the rules as you find them written in your book) are saying.
If I were you, I would apologize for the "When I said I was willing to discuss it, I didn't mean you DM_Blake" thing; but it's your call.
However, the RAW don't support using stealth in plain sight, so when you move out from behind that pillar, the cleric will want to see you. He will get a perception check to see you, but you won't get a stealth check. And if he sees you, then you won't get any Sneak Attack at all.
But if he blows that amazingly easy perception check, then you can sneak attack, just as you described.
- sigh - it seems that nothing can sway you from your initial reading of the rules. Because this is what seems to me, your personal reading of the rules.
NOTE: these quotes are all from this thread.
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.
I already told you this, but it seems that you really just want to ignore it.
Then I showed that IN A WAY I agree with you - you cannot rely on 'visual-based' Stealth in such a situation. But I also showed another possibility:
In my opinion, the Cleric cannot miss to see the Rogue if he is actively looking in that direction and doing nothing else at all. 10 ft. of plain sight is 10 ft. of plain sight, even for me - and so the Rogue cannot use Stealth to cover that space relying on hiding skills (unless we use the 3.5 Complete Adventurer's rules, but this is not the point for the discussion of strict Pathfinder Rules - although I admit that they are interesting). Having said that, however, for me there are two ways the Rogue can effectively reach the Cleric in a 'denied Dex bonus' situation:1) Rogue stays behind the pillar and doesn't move. At all. For a LOONG time. Basically, until the fight is over and characters are no more into Initiative Count (GM decision). Then, after being motionless for a while, basically tries to gain Initiative against the Cleric in order to catch him flat-footed. This is the most annoying situation - if the Cleric is ABSOLUTELY sure somebody is behind the pillar, it would be silly for him to stay motionless and not moving on to look behind the pillar. This method is, of course, irrilevant to the Stealth discussion.
2) Rogue stays behind the pillar and tries to use Stealth based on move silently skills to move near the Cleric WHEN the Cleric is not looking in that specific direction (of course, he has to move carefully - he cannot try to move silently while whistling, speaking or singing, the equivalent of 'plain hearing' as you stated above).
And already people started to agree with me IN A OUT-OF-COMBAT situation. Good, this is a beginning (it's not simply a 'no-no').
Per the RAW, If we're in a combat situation, the Rogue in the OP's example CANNOT sneak attack the Cleric. If you're doing it differently, you're house-ruling, regardless of what James says or (more to the point in this case) doesn't say. If we're in a non-combat situation, the Rogue CAN sneak attack the cleric, assuming the DM has just read some flavor text to the effect of:"As you round the corner, you see a tall, heavily armored man. He is facing East, and is picking his nose intently while rivoted on what appears to be a Svirfneblin Go-Go-girl dancing against the far wall."
...and the rogue makes a stealth check opposed by a perception check on the past of the Cleric - which he would still get, even while distracted, albeit at a penalty.
People who are entrenched behind the 'No Cover = No Stealth' continue to ignore the fact that Stealth is not used only for visual Stealthing, and Perception is not used only for visual Perception. Is a person moving quietly in the Inn 'Stealthing' ? Well, an inn is a crowded place, people are usually on their own business. If such person moves quietly behind someome who is having a conversation, can he try to garrote him (like in spy movies) ? The position of these people is 'NOOO, he is in plain sight'. Plain sight about who ? Facing is not present in Combat (I do not agree, otherwise the Bluff skill could not be used AT ALL to provide a distraction for Stealth - what do you do, put a towel over your opponent's head ??? - ; and All-Around vision would not put the 'allows to see in all directions' into the crunch section, where the description of the special ability is, but it would put only the 'no Flanking part') - but people OUT OF COMBAT surely cannot look all around everyvere at the same moment. The are not Beholders.
A last question, if you do not allow for people who start in a hiding position and move near their victim in a plain sight position because, well, during the 6-second round the possible victim has 6 seconds to try to see him, what is your answer for Perception checks made all against a Stealthed person into concealment and that moves near his possible victim?
Because, well, into the 6-second round such Stealthy character can move 30 feet if making a double move (and nothing else) at half movement. Which means, lowering three times the DC for Perception of the possible victim (each 10 ft. covered lowers the penalty for distance by -1).
Would you ask for THREE Perception checks ? If your answer would be 'NO' then I ask you to ponder the fact that people who want to allow Stealth 'in plain sight' actually are speaking of somebody who didn't start in plain sight at the beginning of the round - at all. If your answer would be 'YES', uh, I think Stealth would never work at your table - at all.
DM_Blake knows the rules.
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".
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.
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.
But why should I be unfamiliar with rules?
In the rule book we have rules made of words.
Everybody reads and interpret words in different ways. When things are straightforward generally people agree on the interpretation.
If not we have debates. But passing from words to reality requires always interpretation. Who decides which interpretation was the right one associated to the words written? The majority? The one who speaks more about the subject?
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.
Everything just starts in this sentence: "hide in plain sight".
to me, it means "make a stealth check when someone is already perceiving you and you are in plain sight". Why the need of "when someone is already perceiving you"? because hide means, to me, passing from a situation of not hidden to a situation of hidden.
I've no need to hide if my initial status is already hidden.
And I'm deeply convinced of that. Who can tell I'm wrong? is it written somewhere?
When I come out from the pillar being already hidden I don't need to hide again because I'm already hidden and I keep this status.
Now since I move (I do something else than only stay hidden) and the other has the all around vision and I've not cover, he must make a perception check to make me pass from my status of hidden to not hidden.
For others "hide in plain sight" could mean "make a stealth check when you are in plain sight".
For others "hide in plain sight" could mean "keep the status of hidden when I get to plain sight".
For others "hide in plain sight" could mean "when you are in plain sight I don't care about you initial status but you're not hidden any more and so you have to do your damn check to gain your status of hidden".
And, at the end of the day, all of our discussions starts from this plain sentence.
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.
For instance Jeremiziah asked:
The broader question for people who do things this way (and I'm not making judgements, if you have fun then great!) is: Does anyone in any of your games ever actually take the Hide In Plain Sight feat? If so, why do they? It would seem to be a waste. What benefit do you permit it to afford them that they are not already receiving?
And this is an open approach (he's not telling I'm right making me happy, he's probably stating the he doesn't agree anyway) but at least he asks in order to evaluate another point of view.
Thanks for the contribution even if it's not adding much to what we already knew:
Someone is interpreting things in a way, someone else in another.
If we could get to the point that the rules about stealth and plain sight are not univocally interpreted, probably we could start to evaluate this two main different mechanics and the implications in a game.
Now, I'm eager to get to this point.
Because it can be that my preferred mechanic is really unbalanced and I wouldn't want this to happen. That's the main reason why I'm still here.
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.
If someone can accept this, we could get to the main subject.
If not, we cannot go on.
what designers have explained the rules as saying, and what supplemental things have expanded the rules from
Could you point to what you are referring to ?
what designers have explained the rules as saying, and what supplemental things have expanded the rules fromCould you point to what you are referring to ?
Yes please, absolutely.
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?