Unless you made it as a snipe attack you would certainly be revealed... as for wether or not the person knows it was you and will take you to court for it that's probably best left up to roleplaying. No hard rules for something of that nature.
|
Skill: Stealth:
Sniping: If you’ve already successfully used Stealth at
least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged
attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take
a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your
obscured location.
Spell: Invisibility
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.
The target can identify the source of the attack. The target dose not instantly and correctly identify the sorce of the attack. That should be a percepetion vs. stealth roll. But rember your at a -20 to your stealth to do somthing like that, and you don't have invisibility as it ended when you attacked. Column of Fire is still cast so it still brakes stealth and invisibility. Machanic there is no difrence thats up to your DM. As a DM I'm incline to leave it as is to keap the machanic of the game in place as a check. Becous I know my players thay wold explote it like a big gaping wound in my side.
Skill: Stealth:
Sniping: If you’ve already successfully used Stealth at
least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged
attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take
a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your
obscured location.
Spell: Invisibility
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.The target can identify the source of the attack. The target dose not instantly and correctly identify the sorce of the attack. That should be a percepetion vs. stealth roll. But rember your at a -20 to your stealth to do somthing like that, and you don't have invisibility as it ended when you attacked. Column of Fire is still cast so it still brakes stealth and invisibility. Machanic there is no difrence thats up to your DM. As a DM I'm incline to leave it as is to keap the machanic of the game in place as a check. Becous I know my players thay wold explote it like a big gaping wound in my side.
Thanks guys.
My question isn't about whether or not the caster is still invisible or even stealthed. I would assume he isn't after casting a spell. My question is specifically about whether the target of the spell knows which one of the completely visible people around him cast the spell that hit him.
I guess you could take the whole stealth/invisibility thing out of the equation and the question remains the same. If there are 2 or 3 casters on each side of a massive combat, can the target of any of their spells automatically know which enemy is responsible for hitting them?
Sounds like there's no rule that addresses this specific issue.
Spellcraft check might do it. Or reading the aura of a detect magic spell.
My question isn't about whether or not the caster is still invisible or even stealthed. I would assume he isn't after casting a spell. My question is specifically about whether the target of the spell knows which one of the completely visible people around him cast the spell that hit him.
I guess you could take the whole stealth/invisibility thing out of the equation and the question remains the same. If there are 2 or 3 casters on each side of a massive combat, can the target of any of their spells automatically know which enemy is responsible for hitting them?
Sounds like there's no rule that addresses this specific issue.
This is the crux of the matter. Ignore stealth amd invisibility (which are violated in any case). Do you intend on having combatants regularly make Perception checks in a large battle to determine who struck them at range?
While in some cases (such as arrow fire or less obvious spells), it might be more realistic to have that sort of 'Fog of War' mechanic, I think it would add needless complexity. In the case of a Scorching Ray, I don't think the issue is even applicable, as there should be a direct, noticable effect running from the caster to the target. In that sort of case, even if a target were using Greater Invisibility, it will be obvious from which square the attack came.
I think the general rule of thumb is that you automatically know who struck you (in melee or at range) unless there are special circumstances involved such as invisibility or sniping.
in a ranged attack situation, yes, for sake of simplicity, the target should automatically know who hit him. if the attacker is not sniping, of course.
in a situation where, say, 3 archers target one target, and if the target is already engaged in chaotic combat, i think it is up to the GM to decide if the target can tell which of the attackers hit him with a sneak attack.
in a situation where, say, 3 casters target one target, with no visible spell effect (something unlike a ray or even a projectile), i'd say it is a spellcraft check for the target to know which caster targeted him, or even if he is targeted.
Unless you made it as a snipe attack you would certainly be revealed... as for wether or not the person knows it was you and will take you to court for it that's probably best left up to roleplaying. No hard rules for something of that nature.
I picture a pissed off hulking barbarian glaring at a cluster of halflings all pointing fingers at each other.
Unless you made it as a snipe attack you would certainly be revealed... as for wether or not the person knows it was you and will take you to court for it that's probably best left up to roleplaying. No hard rules for something of that nature.I picture a pissed off hulking barbarian glaring at a cluster of halflings all pointing fingers at each other.
Said halflings are about to get knocked around like so many bowling pins.
Best Answer: Is there Line of Sight?
If an archer pegs them from a mile away, the answer should be: "no"
If an archer pegs them from arms-reach, the answer should be "What gave it away!"
Ths simple answer is that you always see everything in combat unless there is a good reason not to. There is no facing, nobody attacks you "from behind". Even if you're flanked you get your full AC (the flankers get a bonus to hit, but you don't lose any AC because you still see what they are doing).
So, to answer some questions raised:
Scorching Ray? Absolutely. There is a bright shining beam of energy that went from the caster's finger to the victim, and since he can see everything, he will definitely see that.
Non-linear spell like a column of fire (e.g. Flame Strike)? Well, there's no bright line of energy connecting the caster to the target, but that target could see the caster in the process of casting, and suddenly he's engulfed in flames, so he'll figure it out.
Multiple casters who are all casting? The bright beam still tells him exactly where the Scorching Ray eminated. The Flame Strike would take some skill (Spellcraft) to recognize which guy cast which spell, and if multiple casters all cast Flame Strikes all over the battlefield, no one target is very likely to know which caster fried his bacon specifically.
Archers? No bright shining beams, but still a visible and noisy arrow that can be easily seen.
Multiple archers? It's still reasonable to assume the target(s) could see which archers were pointing at which target(s). If all the archers are pointing at one guy, and they all miss except one lucky archer, that guy might have trouble knowing which archer shot him - although in real life those arrows would likely not have been fired at the exact same instant (initiative count), even though in the game they usually are - so if we drop that abstraction and give each archer his own initiative count, it would be vastly easier to know who hit and who missed.
Any of the above can be altered with Concealment of any kind, and with sniping. Though the bright scorching ray is still certainly a dead giveaway. In many cases, a Perception check to see someone who is not standing in plain sight (hiding, invisibility, greater invisbility, cover, concealment, sniping, whatever) may be required, but if the attackers are just standing in the battlefield making their attack, the DC to spot them is zero (modified by range, distraction, and maybe other circumstances).
If you just got burned by a horrible big ray of fire, then spun around to find some weedy looking magician holding a bag of components with his arm outstretched towards you, I'm not sure it would be very difficult to realize he might've done it.
The other thing to consider is that the combat rules assume you aren't just standing in one place with your back wide open. The reason characters have a five foot square to themselves is because that's how much potential space they take up. Likewise, it's assumed that in the middle of combat, you know it's generally a bad idea to just stare straight ahead and ignore everything else around you. That's why stealth is there, after all - it's so you remain hidden despite someone staring right at you.
Ths simple answer is that you always see everything in combat unless there is a good reason not to. There is no facing, nobody attacks you "from behind".
Your answer here may be contained in the "good reason not to", and I readily admit this is picky anyway, but I disagree that the rules indicate that "nobody attacks you 'from behind'".
As you correctly point out, there is no distinct combat advantage to it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Over the course of a six second melee round, you are not locked into a facing, but neither are you imbued with 360 degree facing vision. And the other guys turn in initiative may come before or after yours in a given round, but really you both have the same six seconds of action going.
So an attack could certainly come "from behind". Again, you gain no combat advantage from this. So at least 9 times out of 10 it is just flavor.
But non-combat-specific advantages do not need to go away, just because it happens to be during combat. And one halfing blending in to a crowd of halflings is such an advantage that could apply. So, the barbarian knows that the halflings are there, knows they are a threat, etc..., etc... But he doesn't automatically know WHICH halfing attacked.
Even under the best of circumstances a stealth check would be required at a minimum. And the barbarian should freely know that the halfling who was whirlling the sling, or the one who was chanting and gestering right before I got burned, is the one who hit me. No Stealth will cover that.
But maybe it was a quickened spell. Maybe the mob of halflings are all pretending to cast as a clever tactic to keep their one wizard alive.
Are those corner cases? Yes, very much. I think your answer applies correctly the great majority of the time.
But, I (light-heartedly) bristle at comments like: "you can't be attacked from behind". Quite simply, that is an irrational position and if the expediencies of the rules create an irrational position then the expediency must be recognized for what it is and rejected where needed, not declared as a truth.
You absolutely can attack "from behind". There is just no combat advantage to it.
Use the rules, never, ever, let the rules use you.
I actually do use facing as I just cannot accept the head on a swivel 360 degree field of vision thing.
So OP's questions would work in my game as such (assuming the attacke comes from behind out of LOS):
Scorching Ray: Invisibility by the attacker is lost and while you do not see the attacker immediately you do know that he is behind you (due to a cinged backside). On the victim's turn he can turnaround and respond accordingly.
Arrow: again while you would not see the attcker immediately you would know the attacker is behind you (due to an arrow in your backside).
I do allow advantages for facing. You can use Stealth in plain sight is no one has LOS to you. You still have to make a stealth check verses perception (they could hear or smell you). If successful you gain the benefits normally entitled to stealth.
Thanx!
Hawk
My Rule of Thumb on something like this is really simple....
Would a PC know if someone did it to them? If so, then the bad guys get to know also.
How I handle these situations
Unless you specified a snipe you pop up and are noticed as, "hey that dude with the bow wasn't there ebefore and I have an arrow sticking from my kidney."
If you sniped then it's a opposed skill check and if you win a "I just got shot and I have no idea where the hell it came from or who the hell shot me."
With a spell and invisibility you are noticed as "Hey that dude in the robes just appeared and now I'm on fire."
Multiple casters are near each other and a spell hits someone the response is "Hey that one dude was gesturing and mumbling and then I got hit with a spell"
If the spell is still cast, a perception check would be needed to notice the caster speaking the spell.
Silent cast a perception check needed to notice the flailing of somantic components.
If both still and silent: "I have no idea where the hell that spell came from but it hurt."
Scorching Ray? Absolutely. There is a bright shining beam of energy that went from the caster's finger to the victim, and since he can see everything, he will definitely see that.
Does the spell actually say that though? (It's been a while since I've read it.) If not, what's to prevent me from saying that my sorcerer is shooting semi-invisible waves of heat to scorch the target?
(I'm fully aware of the nitpickyness of this post.)
You blast your enemies with a searing beam of fire
Since it says fire and not heat, I would say the beam is very visible as fire is visible though the heat it produces may not be.
Ths simple answer is that you always see everything in combat unless there is a good reason not to. There is no facing, nobody attacks you "from behind".an attack could certainly come "from behind". Again, you gain no combat advantage from this. So at least 9 times out of 10 it is just flavor.
You want to "flavor" getting attacked from behind, that's just good fun. But when you put mechanical advantages/disadvantages on the combats based on attacking "from behind", then you are making houserules.
It's all fine and good to make houserules. But since this post was placed in the "Rules Questions" forum, it seems like it should be answered with actual rules, rather than houserules.
But non-combat-specific advantages do not need to go away, just because it happens to be during combat. And one halfing blending in to a crowd of halflings is such an advantage that could apply. So, the barbarian knows that the halflings are there, knows they are a threat, etc..., etc... But he doesn't automatically know WHICH halfing attacked.
Making an unseen/anonymous attack is a tactical advantage. Again, the RAW doesn't support this.
While I fully agree that what you say makes sense, and I completely support any DM who wants to houserule this, it should be made clear on this forum that you're discussing houserules, or at best, DM Judgment Calls, and not discussing actual RAW game mechanics.
Even under the best of circumstances a stealth check would be required at a minimum.
I completely disagree. You MUST have the class ability "Hide in Plain Sight" to even be able to roll a Steatlh check in this situation. Or else you MUST have concealment or cover (using sniping). If you're just standing there, in plain sight, pretending to hide from a barbarian while you're attacking him, he absolutely will see you - according to the game mechanics presented in the core rulebook.
The best a DM can do, without resorting to houserules, is call for an UNOPPOSED Perception check against DC 0 (person in plain sight), perhaps adding some modifiers (+5 for distraction of combat, maybe some modifier for the distance). That's the DC for the Perception check, and those little halflings do not get to roll a Stealth check to oppose it.
Anything else is a houserule.
And the barbarian should freely know that the halfling who was whirlling the sling, or the one who was chanting and gestering right before I got burned, is the one who hit me. No Stealth will cover that.
I agree.
But maybe it was a quickened spell.
Doen't matter. Vision operates at the speed of light; Quickened spells are not that fast.
Now, if the spell was a Still Spell, that *should* make it harder to figure out, but oddly enough, the feat doesn't give any modifier to the Perception DC, so even though it seems blatantly obvious that Still Spell should make it hard for observers to see you cast a spell, there isn't a mechanical advantage given in the RAW.
Maybe the mob of halflings are all pretending to cast as a clever tactic to keep their one wizard alive.
Ahh, this qualifies in the Perception rules as a "Diversion". These halfings then can use their Bluff skill to create a diversion, allowing the caster to use Stealth (which he normally could not do), so now he can oppose the Barbarian's Perception check with his own Stealth roll.
May not help him if he's casting a bright beam of searing fire, but for less flashy spells, it might work very nicely.
Are those corner cases? Yes, very much. I think your answer applies correctly the great majority of the time.
But, I (light-heartedly) bristle at comments like: "you can't be attacked from behind".
Bristle all you want. It's the simple mechanics presented in the rules. I didn't write the rules, so go bristle at Paizo; I'm just the messenger.
Quite simply, that is an irrational position and if the expediencies of the rules create an irrational position then the expediency must be recognized for what it is and rejected where needed, not declared as a truth.
I fully agree. I do it all the time. For the record, I bristle at many rules too.
All I'm saying is, this is a Rules Questions forum, and such qustions should get answers that reflect the acutal rules of the game. Houserules belong in a different forum, and if you want to present houserules here, in answer to a legitimate rules question, you should make it abundantly clear that you are doing so.
You absolutely can attack "from behind". There is just no combat advantage to it.
I stand corrected. You are, of course, quite right. It's very easy for a DM to say "you get hit from behind" without tacking any mechanics to it.
Use the rules, never, ever, let the rules use you.
Good rule; mind if I use it?
I completely disagree. You MUST have the class ability "Hide in Plain Sight" to even be able to roll a Steatlh check in this situation. Or else you MUST have concealment or cover (using sniping). If you're just standing there, in plain sight, pretending to hide from a barbarian while you're attacking him, he absolutely will see you - according to the game mechanics presented in the core rulebook.
The best a DM can do, without resorting to houserules, is call for an UNOPPOSED Perception check against DC 0 (person in plain sight), perhaps adding some modifiers (+5 for distraction of combat, maybe some modifier for the distance). That's the DC for the Perception check, and those little halflings do not get to roll a Stealth check to oppose it.
Anything else is a houserule.
Not necessarily. In this case, a slight of hand vs stealth check may actually be more applicable.
Discretely draw a hand crossbow, fire it, then reconceal it under you cloak without anyone noticing.
If you were going to use anything bigger than a hand crossbow, you would have to come up with some houserules for the penalties.