This came up last session and looks like it will become a recurring theme.
A rogue in my party decided to sneak-attack my paladin during a combat. His stealth skill is very high and my perception is only +5, so he will beat me at opposed checks almost every time. The DM told me to make a perception roll, and allowed a sneak attack against me because I didn't roll as high as the rogue.
Now reading the description of stealth, it seems clear that the rogue can't do this unless he has something to hide behind. Since we were both standing in the middle of a room, there should have been no way he could have gotten away with this.
I'll point this out next session, but now I'm looking at other ways I might get sneak-attacked later. Am I reading this stuff correctly?
If I am aware of his presence, he needs to make a bluff check opposed by my sense motive roll in order to distract me long enough to use stealth AND this will only work if he has something to hide behind. Additionally, this stealth check will have a -10 penalty because he has to move fast. If he succeeds on his stealth check, he can then make a ranged sneak attack against me, but not a melee sneak attack. If he is makes a ranged sneak attack, he may try to hide again with another stealth check at a -20 penalty.
I'd appreciate it if anyone could double-check my understanding of these rules. Thanks.
If you're ally wants to make a sneak attack against you in combat while you're busy with someone else, he has to meet a couple of criteria :
A) He has to flank you with someone else who's attacking you (he can 'backstab' you by being opposite someone else who's attacking you).
B) He would need someone near him that can logically be the real attacker (in other words, he has to be in combat with someone as well, who's able to attack you).
C) He either has to Bluff you (to distract you), or, alternately, make a slight of hand check to stab you in the back without you noticing. If he bluffs, it's a sense motive check against his bluff. If it's a slight of hand, then it's a perception check vs his slight of hand.
Stealth should not come into it. He should probably use slight of hand, to backstab, rather than bluff. The bluff would go up against your sense motive, which is probably higher than your perception. His slight of hand is probably much higher vs your perception.
Yeah, the Rogue needs to have cover and/or concealment and not being observed by the target in order to hide (barring other abilities). Do a search for Shadowlord, he's covered Stealth rules quite extensively on these boards.
More importantly however... why is this being tolerated? If the Rogue is evil (and it certainly sounds like he is), Smite the bugger. Even more importantly, why oh why is the DM encouraging inter-party conflict? It's just a bad idea.
the game does not take facing into account, also if you have dark vision by rules he can not use "shadows".
Unfortunately, the devs indicated that this is not the case. Apparently 'hide in shadows' doesn't care whether you can see the shadows or not, it works. Blech!
Unfortunately, the devs indicated that this is not the case. Apparently 'hide in shadows' doesn't care whether you can see the shadows or not, it works. Blech!
the game does not take facing into account, also if you have dark vision by rules he can not use "shadows".
Darkvision does not prevent someone from using the Hide In Plain Sight ability, but it most certainly prevents someone from using mundane stealth in mundane concealment begotten by shadows.
Is that what you meant to say?
I didn't see an errata on the "lighting" section stating dark vision does not negate darkness. it SPECIFICALLY states you can not hide in shadows against dark-vision...
I believe what is actually being referred to here is the Hide in Plain Sight ability of the Shadowdancer prestige class. If the Shadowdancer is within 10' of a shadow it can use Stealth while being observed, even if said observer has Darkvision and wouldn't normally care about the shadow. This is because it's supernatural, and therefore magic. The shadow exists, whether or not Darkvision can actually perceive it, and thus the Shadowdancer can use her ability with it.
Edit: Man, ninjas are out in full force tonight...
I didn't see an errata on the "lighting" section stating dark vision does not negate darkness. it SPECIFICALLY states you can not hide in shadows against dark-vision...I believe what is actually being referred to here is the Hide in Plain Sight ability of the Shadowdancer prestige class. If the Shadowdancer is within 10' of a shadow it can use Stealth while being observed, even if said observer has Darkvision and wouldn't normally care about the shadow. This is because it's supernatural, and therefore magic. The shadow exists, whether or not Darkvision can actually perceive it, and thus the Shadowdancer can use her ability with it.
Edit: Man, ninjas are out in full force tonight...
This one, sorry for not being more specific.
EDIT : On this note, to me, it seems that a shadow dancer would NOT be able to hide in plain sight if he was in complete darkness (inside a cave say), because there are no shadows at that point. :) If you're going to get technical about a shadow being there to hide in if it's not perceivable, then you have to go the other way and say if no shadow is there, you can't use the ability. Even if the reason it's not there is that there is no light. :)
The rogue in question does not have the hide in plain sight feat. Also, since he's stabbed others at random in the past, I don't know that it even makes sense for him to try to bluff me because I suspect him in advance.
The room was well-lit so there weren't any shadows. But do I understand that any time we're in shadowy lighting, he can use the shadows as concealment?
I wasn't fighting anyone when he sneak-attacked me, so flanking wasn't involved (but I'll have to be aware of that in the future).
According to the DM, he doesn't show up when I detect evil, so I wouldn't be able to smite him, and in the scenario we're playing, I'm trying to keep the party together to accomplish a goal despite having some dubious companions.
Honestly, it just felt like a case of "let's f*** with the paladin." I just want to understand the rules well so I can avoid this stuff in the future.
Bluff covers this situation, not Stealth.
He would take a penalty because you are wary of him, alsthough WHY you were with him is a bit of a 'what the...'.
Dragonslie,
Yeah, but of course, we're all stuck on an island together, so there's really no where for the paladin to go. Just have to make the best of it.
According to the DM, he doesn't show up when I detect evil, so I wouldn't be able to smite him, and in the scenario we're playing, I'm trying to keep the party together to accomplish a goal despite having some dubious companions.
WHOA Tex!
Just because he doesn't 'detect' as Evil doesn't mean he isn't. Smite works on Evil regardless.
Honestly, it just felt like a case of "let's f*** with the paladin." I just want to understand the rules well so I can avoid this stuff in the future.
Trust me, if they just want to "f*** with the paladin" then no rules knowledge is ever going to stop them.
Talk them down peaceably out of game (you obviously aren't enjoying it) or find a new group.
And yes, smite should work regardless, though if you don't detect evil, your character might not think to activate it.
Evil or not, a stabbing is a stabbing. If you let that go by the wayside, than you are only living up to the "lawful stupid" paladin stereotype, which will only egg them on even more.
The rogue in question does not have the hide in plain sight feat. Also, since he's stabbed others at random in the past,......
Why is he not already dead? First there should no PVP or you kill the attacker upon the first violation if it is allowed within the group.
Now if he is charmed or dominated that is different, but other than that he is fair game. If I happened to avoid the fight because I was low on HP I would kill him in his sleep.
PS:Generally speaking PVP leads to bad feelings and only certain groups are capable of it without it spilling outside of the game.
Shifty,
He doesn't have access to anything that would block his alignment, and he's 6th level, so he should show up if he's evil. I think the DM telling me I can't detect him as evil is his way of letting me know that he's not going to allow smiting damage if I go after the rogue. Plus there's that whole "trying to keep the party together long enough to reach our goal" thing.
Dragonslie,
Yeah, but of course, we're all stuck on an island together, so there's really no where for the paladin to go. Just have to make the best of it.
The paladin while not allowed to kill "just because" can do so in self defense, and even without smite normally can handle a rogue. You do provide healing to the party, buffs against fear, and mercies. I think you are more valuable if the party has to choose sides, just saying.
Shifty,
He doesn't have access to anything that would block his alignment, and he's 6th level, so he should show up if he's evil. I think the DM telling me I can't detect him as evil is his way of letting me know that he's not going to allow smiting damage if I go after the rogue. Plus there's that whole "trying to keep the party together long enough to reach our goal" thing.
I would never play under a GM who would screw me like that. If everyone else, including the GM, is promoting inter party conflict (which is exactly what's going on whether or not they will admit to it themselves), then you trying to keep everyone together is just not going to work.
The rogue in question does not have the hide in plain sight feat. Also, since he's stabbed others at random in the past, I don't know that it even makes sense for him to try to bluff me because I suspect him in advance.
The room was well-lit so there weren't any shadows. But do I understand that any time we're in shadowy lighting, he can use the shadows as concealment?
I wasn't fighting anyone when he sneak-attacked me, so flanking wasn't involved (but I'll have to be aware of that in the future).
According to the DM, he doesn't show up when I detect evil, so I wouldn't be able to smite him, and in the scenario we're playing, I'm trying to keep the party together to accomplish a goal despite having some dubious companions.
Honestly, it just felt like a case of "let's f*** with the paladin." I just want to understand the rules well so I can avoid this stuff in the future.
One thing though...you know he stabbed you. He literay attacked you. There is nothing about stealth that allows him to do this in melee without you knowing. And he has done this to others in the group.
Ok 2 things about this.
1) If you co-worker walked up to and stabbed you and your other co-workers...but you had that project due...would 1) let it go till the project is done or 2) defend yourself...call the police...deal with yourself if you have the ability? Good RPing almost demand you atleast confront this guy.
2) I allow PvP in my games as long as it is kept in game and handle maturely and there is actual reasons for it( I don't allow insane characters who just kill for fun and do it stupidily). This player does not seem to be doing this. Talk to the other players to see if they are ok with it...talk to DM...and talk to this player. Tell them this is not fun. If they just blow you off or whatever just find a new game.
As a sidenote...if you are going to attack him I would use smite anyway...he might have something that conceals his alignment...as I don't see how he is non-evil.
But this sounds like a trouble.
The rogue could be CN, or NN. He would still not show up on detect evil. NN and CN can still be jerkoffs. Even assassins. It could be he has a perfectly valid reason to stab the paladin (fear the paladin will find out he's a slaver for example, or something).
More likely, he's CN and being a jerk and the DM is letting him get away with it because they're friends.
Shifty,
He doesn't have access to anything that would block his alignment, and he's 6th level, so he should show up if he's evil. I think the DM telling me I can't detect him as evil is his way of letting me know that he's not going to allow smiting damage if I go after the rogue. Plus there's that whole "trying to keep the party together long enough to reach our goal" thing.
Then the douche is CN. What a load of cheeze.
Randomly stabbing people 'for the lulz' is not CN, it's CE.
The rogue could be CN, or NN. He would still not show up on detect evil. NN and CN can still be jerkoffs. Even assassins. It could be he has a perfectly valid reason to stab the paladin (fear the paladin will find out he's a slaver for example, or something).
More likely, he's CN and being a jerk and the DM is letting him get away with it because they're friends.
A N or CN character that goes around stabbing people will become evil before long.
If he doesn't, then the GM is a deutchbag (which I think has already been confirmed in any event).
Actually, I was just asking about the sneak attack rules.
As far as the inter-party conflict, I don't have a problem at all with that. This particular campaign is all about messed up characters and I knew what I was getting into playing a paladin. It actually creates a lot of funny moments.
In other campaigns with these same players, we have characters who get along really well.
Just realized the OPs sacreen name...'trainwreck' I think that is apt desciption of where this game is going...
Actually, I was just asking about the sneak attack rules.
As far as the inter-party conflict, I don't have a problem at all with that. This particular campaign is all about messed up characters and I knew what I was getting into playing a paladin. It actually creates a lot of funny moments.
In other campaigns with these same players, we have characters who get along really well.
Ok that is cool than...still somebody who stab party members at random times is not helping the goal(which I am guessing is to survive on this island and get off?)...I , to put in pop culture reality TV lang. , Vote Him Off The Island. With your sword of course...
Just realized the OPs sacreen name...'trainwreck' I think that is apt desciption of where this game is going...
Yeah, this particular campaign is a complete mess-- but in a fun way. Most of the players usually play really intelligently-played characters who work together effectively as a team. In this one, though, it seems like almost everyone put together a character concept that has some sort of personality disorder. As I said, it's a very funny campaign because all these highly-competent players can barely get their characters out the door in the morning without getting distracted and going off in six different directions.
Troll?
How did I get that aimed at me?
I just wanted to get some information about stealth and sneak attack. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned the part about playing a paladin.
I'm playing in a campaign with a rogue who stabs my paladin, and still having fun. I certainly don't have a problem sharing a forum with someone who calls me a troll.
Edit: And in case my sense of humor wasn't apparent in my post, I wasn't bothered at all by either 'dork's or kretzer's comments.
I have found some posts to be of a questionable nature and have removed them. Play nice everyone.
I have found some posts of a questionable nature and removed them. Play nice everyone.
Don't know what you're talking about.
@RavingDork: Whoa...what? I did not mean to implied anything beyond what I said....which is sceen name was ironic to the campaign he was descibing. No mention of him being a troll.
@trainwreck: I really did not mean to implied you are a troll. I am sorry if you felt that way.
As for this campaign...it does sound like something I might enjoy...now that you described it better. A trainwreck can be funafter all. And as I always say...
A RPG is like sex as long as everybody is having fun you are doing it right.
Yeah, I added an edit to a post up-thread. I didn't get my feelings hurt. As I said, if I can enjoy that campaign, I can enjoy a little back-and-forth on a forum!
By the by, back on the original topic. There was mention somewhere up above that if everyone was in dim lighting, would that provide concealment to allow Stealth? Yes, sort of, with a caveat. The concealment would allow stealth, but only if not already being observed. A bluff check could be made to create a distraction ("hey, what's that over there?!") to then allow the use of Stealth. However, unless the Rogue has Darkvision or is using a ranged attack within 30' in conjunction with the Sniper's Eye talent from the APG, concealment will prevent sneak attacks.
By the by, back on the original topic. There was mention somewhere up above that if everyone was in dim lighting, would that provide concealment to allow Stealth? Yes, sort of, with a caveat. The concealment would allow stealth, but only if not already being observed. A bluff check could be made to create a distraction ("hey, what's that over there?!") to then allow the use of Stealth. However, unless the Rogue has Darkvision or is using a ranged attack within 30' in conjunction with the Sniper's Eye talent from the APG, concealment will prevent sneak attacks.
Thanks. That was one of the situations I wasn't certain on.
I say, even though I believe him to be evil (but that's besides the point), that you should confront him in-game, with a more diplomatic version of "WTF d00d!!??? I kill you dead if you do that shit again to me, comprende senor?"
I mean, he stabbed you for no apparent reason? Do the same as you would a rabbid dog?
Once = warning, keep your eye on him
Two = slaying time.
---
If he doesn't respect you, then let him FEAR you. You have the AC, the healing, the hitpoints and probably the attack/damage. He's going to get *** if you confront him in open combat!
Stealth requires concelment or cover to initiate. No-one (except Hide In Plain Sight) can just 'poof' and be hidden. (barring Magic)
Low light conditions, physically out of sight are both ways to *start* being hidden. Once hidden, a sneaker could approach you and sneak attack. except...
In order to Sneak Attack...
1) anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC
1a) Flatfooted
1b) Feint combat action using the Bluff Skill
2) when the rogue flanks her target
So, *if* the rogue is Stealthed, he still has to be able to get you with either 1 or 2 above. If at anytime you have rolled initiative and taken a turn in the combat you are not flatfooted. (Uncanny Dodge (Rogue4, Barb2) also effectively prevents Flatfooted.) Bluff used to Feint can catch you 'without DEX' but is a Bluff check (DC 10+BAB+WIS, or 10+Sense Motive whichever is greater). However, that is a Standard Action so that would mean /bluff>wait til next turn>stab/ unless he had Improved Feint feat (allows feint as Move Action).
In short, you aint Sneak Attackin' no one, unless they are surprised or have a flanking partner.
Have fun with your game.
GNOME
In short, you aint Sneak Attackin' no one, unless they are surprised or have a flanking partner.
Note he doesn't have to have a partner per se, he just has to have someone on the other side of the paladin attacking the paladin.
The guy on the other side doesn't have to know or like the rogue, heck, it could be an animal if the rogue wanted.
Now, if he wants to keep the Paladin from knowing in character that he stabbed him in the kidneys, then he needs a bit more. He needs a reasonable patsy (another combatant within arms reach of both the rogue and the paladin), and he'd need to make a slight of hand check to stab the paladin without being caught.
Otherwise, agree 100% with your post.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Talk to the DM and see if your character can turn pyschotic and become an antipaladin. For your reason, the fact no one is stopping the rogue and you feel betrayed by those around you. And next time he attacks you, all your abilities that affect enemies will affect him from that point forward.
If I was playing your character, never help him and don't have him count as an ally for your abilities. I also would have killed his character long ago or found a DM that polices the group and knows the rules.
Note he doesn't have to have a partner per se, he just has to have someone on the other side of the paladin attacking the paladin.
The guy on the other side doesn't have to know or like the rogue, heck, it could be an animal if the rogue wanted.
lol Yeah, true that. A bit of a semantic argument, but true regardless :) As long as the target is being threatened on the 'flank'
GNOME
If you're ally wants to make a sneak attack against you in combat while you're busy with someone else, he has to meet a couple of criteria :
A) He has to flank you with someone else who's attacking you (he can 'backstab' you by being opposite someone else who's attacking you).
B) He would need someone near him that can logically be the real attacker (in other words, he has to be in combat with someone as well, who's able to attack you).
C) He either has to Bluff you (to distract you), or, alternately, make a slight of hand check to stab you in the back without you noticing. If he bluffs, it's a sense motive check against his bluff. If it's a slight of hand, then it's a perception check vs his slight of hand.Stealth should not come into it. He should probably use slight of hand, to backstab, rather than bluff. The bluff would go up against your sense motive, which is probably higher than your perception. His slight of hand is probably much higher vs your perception.
You forgot "You don't expect your allies to suddenly attack you" giving them the automatic surprise round and sneak attack.
or the ULTIMATE PALLY KILLER... dust of disappearance... yup... NOT EVEN TRUE SEEING helps you there my friend... ring of invis.. scroll, wand...
Actually the feat blind fighting saves you from invisible attackers. Blind fighting is the feat to have if you think invisible rogues may be around.