Mainly due to the fact that the target would need to make a perception check to see where it's coming from.No, he wouldn't need to make any such check.
Now you could be firing say in the dark outside of darkvision range (which can certainly happen into a nice lit campsite).
But on no account are you talking about needing to make perception checks.
-James
I thought the same thing James, but I can't find any rules to support it. The only rules that talk about it are Stealth, which says you can't stealth after an attack without taking a penalty. However, nothing I can find says you automatically see the person after an attack, only that they don't gain stealth.
I also can't see anything that says you automatically see everyone around you, only that perceiving them is a 0 DC by default.
If you have a rule that explicitly states after an attack you are automatically pinpointed by the defender, I'd appreciate seeing it, 'cause I can't find it.
It´s only about sniping. Rules there are not really explicit.
"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."
This can mean a lot, from they don´t know where its coming from to They only cannot see you, but know where the attack was coming from.
Since you only get one attack and have a -20 penalty i would say the first. There is a special advanced rogue talent to lift this penalty by -10. The fact that it is an advanced talent affirms me of the interpretation that they don´t know where the attack is coming from.
Else it would be the most crappy advanced rogue talent.
What is cool are halfling snipers with their racial trait and this feat, because they then get 0 penalty on sniping hehe.
Also all this weird interpretations of Sneak attack absolutely devalue the rogue/ninja class, what then leads to crying how bad it is and that it needs a fix.
If you play the rules right, it suddenly makes all sense though and its a great, fine and fun class.
Now sniping is only one attack, but it enables you to use stealth while by RAW observed to deny all that without any further feats, what is a fair trade off.
Alernatively you can take skillfocus stealth & hellcat stealth or hide in plain sight and full attack, then take a 5' step and hide again.
This way though oponents may know the direction or field you were.
RAI, I think you are supposed to be easier to see if you're attacking. RAW though, only talks about not being able to stealth.
The problem I think is, the rules simply don't support a graduated effect, they support binary, auto-seen or stealthing. They don't really cover seeing someone that's hard to see, but not stealthing.
Ideally, there should be a bonus on perception for spotting an attacking creature, not a penalty on stealth. Then it would handle things more correctly. The RAW make it easier to be a sniper rogue by simply not hiding than it would be to hide/shoot/hide. Or to hide/shoot/shoot/shoot.
What i agree on is that Paizo could often choose words more carefully.But this is difficult and what may be a perfectly clear formulation for one may be obscure for others. Also i´m sure we all witnessed phenomena like this at school, listening to literature or other interpretations from schoolmates, often wondering if we read the same books or poems, while listening to the fantastic stories they made up and trying to find out where they got those impressions from in the text.
RAI, I think you are supposed to be easier to see if you're attacking. RAW though, only talks about not being able to stealth.
The problem I think is, the rules simply don't support a graduated effect, they support binary, auto-seen or stealthing. They don't really cover seeing someone that's hard to see, but not stealthing.
Ideally, there should be a bonus on perception for spotting an attacking creature, not a penalty on stealth. Then it would handle things more correctly. The RAW make it easier to be a sniper rogue by simply not hiding than it would be to hide/shoot/hide. Or to hide/shoot/shoot/shoot.
Thats not exactly true i guess.
Attacking ends stealth and you are autodetected.In melee you have to go into stealth again then, what is only possible with
-bluff/feint and move action (5'step included)
-vanish/invisibility(greater)/all descendants
-hellcat stealth at -10 penalty in bright or normal light when observed*
-hide in plain sight no penalty in favored terrain
*(his could need some clarification if it works in dim light and darkness too if observed.)
While all of those are true for ranged combat, you have the alternative option of sniping. Sniping has the worst penalty with -20 and offers only 1 attack.
Perception rules offer modifiers, some of which often apply.
Like creature making the check is distracted, distance to source object or creature, favorable or unfavorable conditions or even terrible conditions. Cover and concealment are mandatory for making stealth checks. You need to start and end you move actions with those conditions or your check will fail by RAW. [I think its possible to sneak around someones back and stay hidden, even without cover or concealement, but you cannot start stealth in an observed area, why you need a distraction at least, but that is my opinion and not RAW]. Now Perception has modifiers for this too, but they are not big. Its called "through a wall". A wall is any obstacle in this case big enough for you to hide behind.
Except that there is nothing saying you are autodetected, which is what people keep saying. It only says you are no longer stealthed.
Again, the game sort of assumes that you are in a binary situation, stealthed or seen. But there is a third situation, not stealthed and not seen. The perception skill supports this by giving a DC for noticing a visible creature (0). The farther from you the creature is, the harder it is to see it (distance penalties).
The big problem is the way the stealth skill is written. It implies you are automatically seen if you are not actively hiding, but that's at odds with the perception skill, and also doesn't make any sense.
Honestly, this really needs to be addressed as part of the stealth rewrite. As it is, stealth doesn't fit with perception.
perception skill is reactive to stimulus. A DC of 0 is automatically spotted. So yes its binary stealthed or detected.
Everything else would create a whole lot of other problems.
Like facing direction, how is the DC of not being detected without stealth etc. This would influence combat and other things, making the game much more complex.
Point 2 is an argument based on fluff. All instances of that are defined as the enemy losing their dex bonus, and that does not include failing a perception check.
Rogues still cannot sneak attack off stealth RAW until you can show that the text isn't fluff.
Plus the development admitted that rogues couldn't, iirc.
Point 2 which is under dex is a part of a collection of rules and it is backed up by point 4 which is in another post and is in the combat chapter.
If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC.
The devs never said rogues could not sneak attack. If they did nobody can find the post. This argument was covered in my last post just before this one which is here.
perception skill is reactive to stimulus. A DC of 0 is automatically spotted. So yes its binary stealthed or detected.
Everything else would create a whole lot of other problems.
Like facing direction, how is the DC of not being detected without stealth etc. This would influence combat and other things, making the game much more complex.
No, a DC of 0 is not automatically spotted.
Unless you have at least a 1 in Perception. A character with a wisdom mod of -2 (7 Wis) and no ranks in perception actually has to roll a perception check to notice someone standing in the open, since they can fail a DC 0 check (by rolling 1 on the die).
Additionally, if there are other penalties to perception (such as environmental, distance, cover, etc) then the check is not an automatic success unless your total perception skill check is greater than or equal to the DC of the perception check.
So, from my example above, someone is standing in a tree-line 200 feet from your character, with 80% concealment, but not hiding (not using stealth). Then the DC to see them is 20 (distance) + 5 (terrible conditions due to the 80% concealment) = 25. Unless your perception check is 25 before rolling, you do not auto-see them. You merely have a chance of seeing them. If they shoot you from that concealment, per perception, you still have to make a 25 to see them, you don't auto-see them. Nothing in perception says you do, and nothing in stealth says you do. All either one say is that you can't re-hide after attacking without taking a stealth check penalty. If you did try to hide, the stealth check would be made at a -20, and you'd still be better off (the other guy still has a +25 to the DC to see you).
Example :
Sammy Sniper is in the treeline with a blind setup so he has a 6 inch square hole to fire through, and has 80% concealment. He fires an arrow at Dead Eye Dan, then hides again. Dan has +12 to his perception check. Sammy has +15 stealth. Sammy rolls his stealth, and get's 10 (average) and has a 5 DC for stealth. Dan adds 25 to this (range & concealment penalties) to make a DC of 30. Dan has to roll an 18 or better to see Sammy.
Annie Archer is set up the same as Sammy, but she's got a -2 Stealth (due to wearing full plate) and she doesn't even bother rolling stealth, she full attacks from her blind. Dan's DC to see Annie is 25 (no bonus for stealth because Annie didn't stealth).
Actually, now that I do the examples, I'm thinking maybe I was wrong. Maybe the stealth and perception rules play ok with each other. So long as you roll greater on your stealth than your penalty for sniping. If you don't though, you're better off not hiding. Where the difference comes into it is, if you don't have concealment, once you're spotted, your spotted, and you can't unspot yourself without stealthing. With the stealthing rules, as long as you have concealment, you can keep reattempting to hide, even if the guy knows you're in the blind.
@Wraith, you assert that your interpretation of the RAW in your original post is the final word on this.
And yet I see other respectable figures assert that by RAW stealth on its own does not grant sneak attack. Apparently there has been some developer commentary on this which supports the notion that stealth does not grant sneak attack.
I am not disputing your interpretation. I am asking what a GM would actually rule on this in PFS play. Has there been a specific ruling communicated on this subject to PFS members?
Because otherwise it appears even in PFS play this could be ruled either way.
Anybody can rule something in an incorrect manner. I have yet to see any errata or FAQ or a rules based argument that says I am incorrect. For official purposes those are the only ways a rule can be ignored barring something as silly as trying to argue a dead character can continue to fight because the rules say he can.
I have not even seen an unofficial developer comment saying it does not work. I have challenged people to provide one, but nobody can.
Just to be clear I am not saying stealth on its own is an auto sneak attack. I am saying that because stealth just like invisibility can cause someone to lose dex to AC that sneak attack is permitted.
Even invisibility does not grant sneak attack. It is the fact that the person can not react to you, thereby causing a loss of dex that grants sneak attack.
Why doesn't invis grant sneak attack? Well things like blindsight can negate it. That does not mean you are not still invisible. It just means the advantage of being invisible is taken away.
In short it is the loss of dex through means of ______ such as being flat-footed, not knowing someone, and so on that can cause sneak attack.
Last post unless a new point comes up.
PS:I am still looking for an error in my argument also. I don't really care about the sneak attack so much, but the loss of dex is nice in case I decide to run a skirmish based combat. Sneak attack will just happen to benefit from it.
PS:I am still looking for an error in my argument also. I don't really care about the sneak attack so much, but the loss of dex is nice in case I decide to run a skirmish based combat. Sneak attack will just happen to benefit from it.
I'm don't see anything, honestly. I went out and looked up the rules you stated, then reread perception, stealth, and combat, and sneak attack. I can't find any holes in your theory, it looks solid.
It also made me realize about the spotting a creature = 0 I commented on (sorry for the thread jack).
It is ok. I don't mind the sniper discussion.
|
@mdt
First, you are changing the question to win an argument.
All (beside the guy hiding behind the tree line) your examples are thing that give total concealment through other effects than stealth.
Initially you were claiming that someone starting an attack from a stealthed position (and so essentially befitting from partial cover) could shot multiple times in a round and still benefit from his hidden position, now you claim that someone benefiting from things that give total concealment and whose effect isn't broken by initiating combat will still get the benefit of those effects, independently from using stealth.
I thought better of you.
Second, we are playing a game with a lot of abstractions. Sure, in RL the guy hiding behind the treeline 500' away would not be immediately detected.
But he would be not firing a bow whose arrow travel those 500' in no time, in a straight line, hitting with full force regardless of the distance.
In RL after detecting the general direction of a similar attack you could still use your dexterity simply giving him a moving target. Moving laterally in a random pattern would be the best thing, but, as
his arrows would be making a parabola, so even running toward the firer would affect his chance to hit.
Using a large shield would have a impact way larger that those depicted by the rules.
And so on ad libitum.
The rules say, explicitly, that if you attack from range and still want to maintain your hiding position [barring other special effects not dependant on stealth] you have to spend a movement action hiding. If you don't do that you are no longer stealthed and detected.
The rules are binary, independently by how it work in RL.
[Actually, now that I do the examples, I'm thinking maybe I was wrong. Maybe the stealth and perception rules play ok with each other. So long as you roll greater on your stealth than your penalty for sniping. If you don't though, you're better off not hiding. Where the difference comes into it is, if you don't have concealment, once you're spotted, your spotted, and you can't unspot yourself without stealthing. With the stealthing rules, as long as you have concealment, you can keep reattempting to hide, even if the guy knows you're in the blind.
If am reading this right you have somewhat rethought your position while I was writing my piece and now you see what is the problem of your initial stance.
The rules have a lot of abstractions and we should be very careful when we chose to disregard only some of the abstractions.
@Diego
Not really a change, just that I'm expressing what I was saying better. If someone is in a tree line, the DC to notice them is 22 to 25. If they attack, that doesn't (per perception) change the perception check to notice them. If they sniped, they could make it harder if they're good at stealth, but only if you're stealth skill is near 20 to begin with. Otherwise you're likely to make yourself more noticeable trying to hide rather than just full attacking from concealment and letting the bush do the work.
EDIT : And no, you aren't automatically detected if you're not stealthed. Stealth skill implies you are, but Perception Skill explicitly says you aren't. If your statement were true, the DC to notice a creature standing 9 feet away would be 'Automatic', not 0. Because perception gives a DC for noticing a visible creature at 9 feet, the creature is not automatically noticed.
Line of sight, by RAW, works off of your square, not your eyeballs. By raw, soft cover provided by creatures does not block line of sight, and that would include you blocking your own line of sight.
There is no "behind" a creature. This is to prevent someone from simply walking behind another character and stabbing them in the back during the combat round without having to worry about the other persons ability to turn and look at the rogue even when its not their turn.
Well, in addition to this discussion i heavily recommend reading Ravingdorks Should the only aware person always go first in an encounter thread. Its all about perception and spotlights some facts about it. This will answer questions about sniping.
Be aware untill you get the expensive sniper goggles [high play item] sniping is within 10' to 30', if you take the appropriate feat [insert name i forgot, but its on roguetalent list] +10' or if you take it twice +20'. But then you are a real specialist sniper.
Also you still need cover or concealment.
And if you all forgot, PAIZO streamlined the rules, a major fact about Pathfinder, and reason why its fun to play.
Else you would find yourself in a super complicated game where every action needs about 20 min to determine.
It is ok. I don't mind the sniper discussion.
Seems to me the real problem isn't whether an unaware target is a sitting duck (no dex bonus), allowing a vital spot to be targetted (sneak attack).
The problem is more that the combat rules only imagine being unaware as happening in the beginning of the combat, during the surprise round. There's no rules for becoming unaware after that. And the rules that are there, further confuse things by tying things to whether something "has acted yet".
The closest thing they give is imply ... something... in the sniping application of the stealth skill, and the bluff skill option to allow a stealth check after becoming observed. But the rules don't tell you exactly what you get for it - it specifically fails to say you get a do-over of the surprise round or your enemies remain flat footed to you despite having acted in the round. Niether does it say you get to be treated as per invisible ....because you're not. Invisibility is it's own state, limited to only not being seen (as opposed to not heard or smelled or detected with other senses) - it gives you sme advantages you'd think you'd have if you were unnoticed, but does not make you unnoticed, rather it gives you a bonus to use stealth to be unnoticed (which is not the same thing).
What I'm saying is, the problem isn't whether an unnoticed attacker can sneak attack a target, and it's not about whether stealth can help you be unnoticed by your target so they can be caught unaware. The problem isn't even with the stealth rules, per se, at all....
The real problem is with the combat rules, that there are no clear rules for unawareness *after* the surprise round.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
@mdt
If you want to get really nitpicky about the rules, you could argue that the Perception rules make a distinction between creatures and opponents.
Noticing a visible creature is DC 0, but once they make an attack roll against you, they become an opponent, and noticing an opponent is an opposed Perception vs Stealth roll. If they don't choose to Stealth, you notice them.
Personally I think obsession with RAW is counter productive. :)
I'd rule that you don't autodetect an attacker, but I'd apply the sniping modifier (-20) to the DC of Perception checks to notice creatures shooting at you. That seems consistent, makes it so that attackers who aren't sniping are almost always detected at the start of combat, but at the same time allows them remain unnoticed if visibility is especially poor.
Heck, if we want to get technical, the RAW is specific “It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.”
I'd rule that you don't autodetect an attacker, but I'd apply the sniping modifier (-20) to the DC of Perception checks to notice creatures shooting at you. That seems consistent, makes it so that attackers who aren't sniping are almost always detected at the start of combat, but at the same time allows them remain unnoticed if visibility is especially poor.
That on the other hand is a little bit overdone too, don´t you think?
It gives the sniper actually a -40 on his stealth check.Seriously guys, whats all your problem with stealth and sneak attack and sniping about?
Nobody comes along and tries to argue you get a higher AC against raging barbarians because you are a get along well character or you have a high reflex save. And why do barbarians get uncanny dodge?
Or monks evasion? Those guys just sit in a monastery all day, urbi et orbi and drinking a lot of wine and ale. Their reflex saves should be way worse actually too, because they never get out often and the slightest breeze could actually get them a cold. Who cares?
Subsummized all that is to see is a lot of rogue hate here and hey im so much more clever than a lot of developers, thats why i say stealth and DEX to AC denial and perception and sniping all don´t work.
But they do actually.
And im glad i made my perception check to avoid being polymorphed from halfling to troll^^
To add something:
If you see a wizard casting something at you, you don´t get a perception check and even if you make a successful knowledge arcana check you get no boni on your will save or whatever. Think about that!
Heck, if we want to get technical, the RAW is specific “It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.”
Maybe consider that again.
Anyone said im going to attack and while im attacking i use stealth?No. You use it before, then attack. Or run. Or charge. What ends stealth.
But they are still flat footed for one round, even if you run away from them.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I'd rule that you don't autodetect an attacker, but I'd apply the sniping modifier (-20) to the DC of Perception checks to notice creatures shooting at you. That seems consistent, makes it so that attackers who aren't sniping are almost always detected at the start of combat, but at the same time allows them remain unnoticed if visibility is especially poor.That on the other hand is a little bit overdone too, don´t you think?
It gives the sniper actually a -40 on his stealth check.
Sorry, I should have been specific.
I mean for attackers who aren't trying to hide, but might be difficult to see due to environmental or other conditions, apply the same -20 to the DC to see them.
For Stealthing snipers, just the normal -20.
That way it's the same penalty for shooting, no matter whether they're actively trying to be sneaky or not.
Heck, if we want to get technical, the RAW is specific “It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.”
Yea it's kind of a mess, because it then states you can snipe just a paragraph down from that.
All of what the OP talks about is fine in the context of the surprise round, though. Order of combat 1) roll init 2) check who notices whom. Stealth affects that determination. If the steather is unnoticed and noticed the target, they get a surprise round, with the target flat footed. Period. Easy peezy done. As long as they can cover the distance to target, they can use their special surprise round application of charge to just run right up there as a standard action and sneak attack. If they won initiative, then get the full round attack follow up of all sneak attacks, because the target hasn't acted yet.
The real issue is what happens after the surprise round, when the stealther tries to make the now observant target *again* unaware of them (either through sniping, or a bluff check, or whatever other means the DM may allow). There are no rules for a mid-combat surprise round, or being caught flat footed by being unaware, outside the context of the begining of combat.
Just note, an opponent can still be a creature. All dolphins are whales. Not all whales are dolphins.
If you wanted to get that technical about it, you can't ever perceive a clockwork opponent, since they aren't creatures. :)
And again, I wasn't even talking about sniping. I was talking about just standing in the bushes 200 feet away and firing a bow full attack. The stealth rules only apply when you are trying to stealth. When you're not, perception rules apply, and they're very straight forward and don't mention a bonus for spotting someone attacking you, just spotting a creature who's visible at a specific distance.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Just note, an opponent can still be a creature. All dolphins are whales. Not all whales are dolphins.
If you wanted to get that technical about it, you can't ever perceive a clockwork opponent, since they aren't creatures. :)
And again, I wasn't even talking about sniping. I was talking about just standing in the bushes 200 feet away and firing a bow full attack. The stealth rules only apply when you are trying to stealth. When you're not, perception rules apply, and they're very straight forward and don't mention a bonus for spotting someone attacking you, just spotting a creature who's visible at a specific distance.
Opponents are creatures, yes, but that doesn't alter my point. I'm saying the argument can be made that Perception has specific rules for noticing opponents that override the general rules for noticing creatures.
It would be the same as if I said to you "Here are some animals. Put the Dolphins in tank D and the Whales in tank W". Even though dolphins are whales, there are different rules for handling them.
And Clockwork monsters are still creatures. :) (or if they aren't creatures, they're traps, and you can perceive those too).
You're right that sniping isn't mentioned in the Perception DC table, but it makes sense to me to apply it, that's why I brought it up.
Shooting arrows at people is a great way to grab their attention. It should be easier to notice someone shooting at you from the bushes 200 ft. away than it would be to notice the same person just standing in the bushes. That's why I would apply the same penalty snipers get on their Stealth check, even though the table doesn't mention it.
(Edited for clarity)
I agree there should be a penalty, but I don't know that -20 is the correct penalty. The stealth penalty is to re-hide if you're observed, and you have to have concealment. I have a problem with 'you auto detect' someone 200 ft away in the woods. The rules don't support it, as written. Perhaps as intended, but not as written.
It's not like a sniper rifle nowdays, where there is a 6 foot thermal plume when it fires. There's no noise, in fact, the only way you know about the arrows is when they hit. The interpretation that you automagically see someone 200 feet away standing in the bushes that you couldn't see on a 20 with a perception roll before they fired smacks of MMO magical pop-up huds that blink 'Enemy Here'.
The big issue is, as I said earlier, the stealth and perception skills aren't written as a pair, and they really need to be. That was actually brought up in the stealth rewrite playtest, even by the Dev working on it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I agree there should be a penalty, but I don't know that -20 is the correct penalty. The stealth penalty is to re-hide if you're observed, and you have to have concealment. I have a problem with 'you auto detect' someone 200 ft away in the woods. The rules don't support it, as written. Perhaps as intended, but not as written.
It's not like a sniper rifle nowdays, where there is a 6 foot thermal plume when it fires. There's no noise, in fact, the only way you know about the arrows is when they hit. The interpretation that you automagically see someone 200 feet away standing in the bushes that you couldn't see on a 20 with a perception roll before they fired smacks of MMO magical pop-up huds that blink 'Enemy Here'.
The big issue is, as I said earlier, the stealth and perception skills aren't written as a pair, and they really need to be. That was actually brought up in the stealth rewrite playtest, even by the Dev working on it.
If it's not clear, I'm playing devil's advocate on the 'auto detect' thing. I'm saying it's possible to read the rules in such a way that it is supported, whether or not that's the way it's really supposed to work. Like I said, I personally still require Perception checks to spot an attacker 200 ft away in the bushes, I just make those checks easier by lowering the DC once they start shooting.
I use the sniping penalty because even though it mechanically plays out that way, sniping isn't re-hiding after you've been observed (they don't see the sniper for half a second before he becomes invisible again, that would be pretty video-gamey). Sniping is remaining unnoticed despite doing something that draws attention to yourself. That's exactly what's going on in the bushes scenario. The only difference is, one person is trying to remain unnoticed, the other person is remaining unnoticed by accident.
I also agree with you that -20 is too high a penalty for this situation, but I think that argument holds true for the Stealthy sniper too, doesn't it? By making a Stealth check, does his bow suddenly start making loud bangs and emitting muzzle flash? If you're going to apply the -20 penalty to one, I think you should apply it to the other.
I agree there should be a penalty, but I don't know that -20 is the correct penalty. The stealth penalty is to re-hide if you're observed, and you have to have concealment. I have a problem with 'you auto detect' someone 200 ft away in the woods. The rules don't support it, as written. Perhaps as intended, but not as written.
It's not like a sniper rifle nowdays, where there is a 6 foot thermal plume when it fires. There's no noise, in fact, the only way you know about the arrows is when they hit. The interpretation that you automagically see someone 200 feet away standing in the bushes that you couldn't see on a 20 with a perception roll before they fired smacks of MMO magical pop-up huds that blink 'Enemy Here'.
The big issue is, as I said earlier, the stealth and perception skills aren't written as a pair, and they really need to be. That was actually brought up in the stealth rewrite playtest, even by the Dev working on it.
Don't u know? All ranged attacks in pathfinder have 6-foot thermal plumes when you fire them. That's why it's 0 dc perception check to spot them and -20 to stealth ; )
I really just don't understand how this was not obvious?
If you're successfully Stealthing (ie: beating an opponent's Perception check) then they are unaware of your presence, and therefore unable to react. This applies to ranged and melee equally (unless the opponent has some sort of 360° Sight/Blindsight/etc.)
So even for melee rogues/ninjas/what-have-you, even if you're totally visible, if you're out of line-of-sight and beating their perception rolls, then you still deny them Dex on your first attack, and whenever you deny Dex, you get SA damage.
Sometimes, common sense just has to get a say. And it's important to remember that Stealth =/= Hide. Stealth = Stealth (Hide + Move Silent + Cover Yourself in mud so the dogs can't smell you + etc).
I really just don't understand how this was not obvious?
If you're successfully Stealthing (ie: beating an opponent's Perception check) then they are unaware of your presence, and therefore unable to react. This applies to ranged and melee equally (unless the opponent has some sort of 360° Sight/Blindsight/etc.)
Because there is nothing specifically denying you your dex bonus by raw. YES , rai it makes sense. I run successful stealth exactly like invisibility.
Flat-Footed: A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.
One the character acts and this condition goes away there's nothing preventing them from acting normally just because a creature is hidden. What you've cited so far is the means for gaining a surprise round which is what grants you flat footed which is what gets you back stabbed.
Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed. You can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. Barbarians and rogues of high enough level have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which means that they cannot be caught flat-footed. Characters with uncanny dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat. A flat-footed character can't make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat.
So even for melee rogues/ninjas/what-have-you, even if you're totally visible, if you're out of line-of-sight and beating their perception rolls, then you still deny them Dex on your first attack, and whenever you deny Dex, you get SA damage.
And that by definition is the surprise round.. where you're limited in your ability to make attacks.
Sometimes, common sense just has to get a say. And it's important to remember that Stealth =/= Hide. Stealth = Stealth (Hide + Move Silent + Cover Yourself in mud so the dogs can't smell you + etc).
Whether stealth works on scent or not is hotly debated. I don't think it does. The devs themselves seem split on the issue.
James Jacobs: People who treat Scent as "autodetect anything within 30 feet" aren't reading the rules for scent properly; nowhere in the rules for scent does it say something like "...most kinds of concealment are irrelevaqnt..." like it does for blindsight. It only says "you can detect opponents by sense of smell, generally within 30 feet." The word "automatic" does not appear in there at all.This is not a rules problem as much as people not paying attention to the words or making assumptions about things that aren't really there
poster asking question: You still need to make clear how someone/thing with Scent can detect a scent (DC? Automatic?)and how and if Stealth affects that.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland (Designer) If it is within range, it is automatic. Stealth doesn't help you when going up against a creature that has scent. That's the long and short of it.
________
I haven't seen an interpretation where stealth works on scent and scent actually DOES anything.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to add that TONS of people keep mixing flat footed with simple Dex denyed condition.
Flat footed is only on start of combat and denys your Dex on all attacks.
A normal Dex denyed is usually for 1 attack unless creature has some other specific condition like Stun.
Note that JJ is not a developer and that he himself has said that his answers should not be taken as official.
Which conditions in this game make you unable to react but do not explicitly list, or refer to a condition that does, that they deny your dexterity bonus?
Until it can be proven that "react" is a specific game term, this argument has no weight. Is that utter pedantry? Yes. Of course. That's the whole point of the "can rogues sneak attack from stealth?" debate.
I really just don't understand how this was not obvious?
Common sense, sure, RAW not so much. There's lots of language that muddies the waters. Stuff like this:
Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.
This I believe is the only rule that specifically says what being an unaware combatant means, and says you lose your dex bonus for being unaware *because* you haven't acted yet, so are flat footed.
That implies that being unaware is more about not yet being on guard for a fight - not about simply not realizing there's a rogue in the darkness lining up a shot. As in the difference is whether you're 'on your toes' bobbling and weaving to present a moving target, as opposed to 'flat footed' standing relatively still, allowing one to line up a shot at a vital area.
Of course, this contradicts the concept behind the dex denial due to invisibility, but that at least is an explicit exception, some feats and the feint maneuver also explicitly render an opponent flat-footed.
Stealth, however, doesn't make this explicit statement. The OP makes a good argument that it implicitly does - but that could also just be referring to the combat rule, meaning it only comes into play in the context of the surprise round at the beginning of combat, not later on. The fact that surprise simply doesn't happen after the beginning of combat (or at least the the combat rules don't address it at all, and only speak of surprise at the start of combat) is a big crux of the problem, since when you're taking about stealth later on, you are talking about surprise attacks after combat is in progress.
... basically the rules are a bit of a mess on this issue, which is why there's always a million posts whenever it comes up.
Heh, in the spirit of pedantry...
The description of AC says that the dex bonus to AC is applied only if the target can react.
The description of sneak attack says sneak attack damage is applied if the dex bonus is denied.
So, if the dex bonus doesn't apply then it can't be denied.
Ergo the target of a stealth attack can not be denied a dex bonus that doesn't apply, therefore stealth will not allow sneak attack.
I love pedantry... ;-)
LOL
I think another manybe more actually applicable bit of pendantry is about "if the target can react" -
1) react to what, the steather or the attack?
2) The thing they want to react to is the attack
3) You can't stealth while attacking (see stealth skill)
Therefore 4) While stealth may allow *you* to be unobserved, it does't allow *your attack* to be unobserved - the second you attack, the jig is up. Stealth state is irrelevant to the incoming blow, or the incoming missile, which is they can react to just as they could if no steath was involved.
Therefore 5) No sneak attack after the surprise round
C.F. Invisibility - where the attack itself is invisible, unlike stealth, where by RAW, the *attack* cannot gain the benefit of stealth.
@Aspherestos, I suspect that formulation is why the initial developer response was to create the "hidden" condition, but that opened up a whole new can of worms.
I think this whole thing is hilarious. The developers need to fix this. While I mostly agree with Wraith's analysis on this, if he is going to rely on literal interpretation of the RAW to support his view, then he has to accept pedantic arguments which do a more stringent literal interpretation to rebut it.
This is why contract attorneys drive Maseratis...
@Setzer, it sounds like your interpretation boils down to saying that stealth has nothing to do with attacking at all. Stealth only allows you to gain surprise.
That means you can never get a full round of sneak attacks through stealth alone, even with a ranged weapon, because once the surprise is declared, you can only make a standard attack in the surprise round.
@Setzer, it sounds like your interpretation boils down to saying that stealth has nothing to do with attacking at all. Stealth only allows you to gain surprise.
That means you can never get a full round of sneak attacks through stealth alone, even with a ranged weapon, because once the surprise is declared, you can only make a standard attack in the surprise round.
I agree with what you said above, but @Setzer is also right by RAW. Check it:
Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.
By RAW, you get the advantage because they're still flat footed, not because they are unaware of you, per se.
So yea, you make your one standard action and either use the short charge option allowed in the surprise round to close and get your sneak attack, or get them ranged if you're within 30 feet. If you moved up, and win initiative, you can then take you full round of sneak attacks, since they still haven't acted, but there's no guarantee.
Seems that's also the intent, since all this is also the only interpretation that does seem to explain everything stated in the rules without there being a contradiction. YOU can stealth, your attack can't. So, for example, sniping isn't about rendering your target dexless for future attacks, it's merely to remain untargettable yourself. They can see/hear the arrow flying toward them and duck or raise a shield, even if they have no idea who or what is shooting them or from where. You can dart up from behind and backstab as an initial attack, but after that, when they're now on guard for incoming attacks, they'll see/hear/sense the blow and can react before it lands, even if they weren't aware of you a moment before.
OK, I agree that if you win initiative you can full round attack with sneak attack if the target hasn't acted yet, but that is true regardless of if stealth was involved, so I'll just say we're both right. ;-)
I am really looking forward to the final resolution of this. I think they should change the "denied dex bonus" terminology and just replace it with "if the target's dex bonus (if any) would not be applied to AC."
I agree, and personally I want a mechanic for surprise rounds *after* the begining of combat - since that's also needed for situations where new combatants enter an existing combat. Doesn't have to be a stealther; what if it's just some guards turning the corner unexpectedly? Seems both sides could be surprised by that, but the rules don't cover it. If it did, that could be two birds with one stone.
Note that JJ is not a developer and that he himself has said that his answers should not be taken as official.
Which conditions in this game make you unable to react but do not explicitly list, or refer to a condition that does, that they deny your dexterity bonus?
Until it can be proven that "react" is a specific game term, this argument has no weight. Is that utter pedantry? Yes. Of course. That's the whole point of the "can rogues sneak attack from stealth?" debate.
Not every word in the book that is repeated is a game term. The statement is a rule. When a word is not a game term we use the common english definition.
If your suggestion of a word not being a game term makes it not matter then the entire game falls apart. Is that how you think every rule in the game should be interpreted RAW and RAI?
If so I am sure the community can come up with a lot of questions to ask you about your interpretation of a lot of common rules.
Stealth, however, doesn't make this explicit statement.
Perception makes the statement of you being unaware due to stealth. The fact that it is not in the stealth section does not diminish the value of the argument.
It is no different the the touch attack rules for spells being in the combat chapter for instead of the magic chapter.
The dex section I quoted and the AC section of the combat chapter tell you what the results of being unaware was. They never say only in during the surprise rounds or only when flat-footed. We already know the you can lose dex without being flat-footed since the two are not the same thing. That makes it a hard stretch to say that the situation only applies when flat-footed and during the surprise round when there is no wording to even make "only" a likely possibility, and the fact that being denied dex alone is all it takes. That just makes it more open for different ways to lose dex to AC. If they wanted it to be so limited they would have said you had to be flat-footed.
3) You can't stealth while attacking (see stealth skill)
Nobody said one should stealth while attacking. Just like no one is saying you can stealth while running which is also a rule.
You use stealth first. Then you attacking.I can also stealth and then run.
Doing something and then doing something else is not the same thing as doing them simultaneously which is what the word "while" represents.
Example:I am tying this post while watching a movie is not the same as I will type then post and then watch a movie.
------------
Setzer the book says that if you fail your perception check you are unaware of them.
Just because combat started that does not mean you know where they are either.
Example:
The party is fighting the BBEG. They are shadowdancer/rogues who were hidden before the party entered the room. The room has dim light. It is now round two, and nobody had made the perception check to notice them. Obviously the surprise round is over. I am pretty sure you are still ripe for a sneak attack from the minions.
I agree it ends when you attack, just like it does for invisibility.
So either that attack breaks invis and stealth before or after the attack is resolved.
The perception skill does say that if you fail that check the stealthed character can attack while you are unaware of them.
I quoted this before, but did not bold it
"If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you."
Notice that with the way perception is written the attack is made after the results of the checks are finalized.
Two different places in the book say you lose dex if you are unaware.
I would say those shadowdancer get to sneak attack in the example from the previous post.
Just to be clear I think they only get one sneak attack.
It’s really not as simple as you think it is.
The problem is you are reading into normal combat stuff that only occurs in the first and/or surprise round of combat. Then & only then is anyone flatfooted. And yes, Stealth does help there, it could institute a surprise round for the sneaky guys. Yes, when you are flat-footed you lose your DEX bonus. BUT- losing your DEX bonus does not nessesarily mean you are flatfooted. The two are not synonymous in PF.
Let me repeat- after the first and or surprise round of combat- no one, no where, under no conditions, even Invisible is “flat footed”. In PF this can only exist in first and or surprise round of combat. The whole thing about “reacting” only occurs in first and or surprise round of combat. Never after. (I have to say “first and or surprise round of combat” as it can occur that sneaky guys get a surprise round and then if their Init is higher another round where their foe is flat-footed.”
After then, the RAW is that Stealth or hidden does not make your foe lose his DEX. Only being Invisible does. So then no. You are NOT “ripe for a sneak attack from the minions”.
Yes, the rules are confusing on this. It is clear from the Blogs that the Devs do indeed want to have a Hidden condition where Stealth can result in foes losing their DEX. They have proposed rules changes that do so, so it’s perfectly OK to houserule those proposed rule changes. But before you do, you need to see that doing so opens a HUGE can of worms, and it doesn’t answer all the questions, such as how Darkvision inter-reacts with HiPS.
Now see, one can also argue the specific meaning of “It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking…”. Note the word “while” The way you are interpreting this is that you aren’t stealthed AFTER you attack. But it doesn’t say “It's impossible to use Stealth AFTER attacking…” it says “while” .
Look how they re-wrote this in the blog “Usually, making an attack against a creature ends the hidden condition. For purposes of Stealth, …. If during your last action you were hidden to a creature, you are still considered hidden when you make the first attack of that new action.”
Note that when they were proposing a rule change which allows Hidden/Stealth to make you foes lose their DEX, they dropped the line “It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking…”. If your interpretation is correct, they didn’t need to drop that line, since yes, “making an attack against a creature ends the hidden condition”. Why put that in?
Why even have a Blog with 14 paragraphs of proposed rules CHANGES if the rules were so clear?
|
|
Well, in addition to this discussion i heavily recommend reading Ravingdorks Should the only aware person always go first in an encounter thread. Its all about perception and spotlights some facts about it. This will answer questions about sniping.
Be aware untill you get the expensive sniper goggles [high play item] sniping is within 10' to 30', if you take the appropriate feat [insert name i forgot, but its on roguetalent list] +10' or if you take it twice +20'. But then you are a real specialist sniper.
Also you still need cover or concealment.And if you all forgot, PAIZO streamlined the rules, a major fact about Pathfinder, and reason why its fun to play.
Else you would find yourself in a super complicated game where every action needs about 20 min to determine.
Actually you can snipe at any distance (i.e. negate your target Dex modifier), but to get the benefit of sneak attack you need to be within 30'.
Getting the sneak attack damage is a secondary effect (albeit a very important one) of sniping, not what sniping do.
What are you talking about? I am the first person to tell you that being flat-footed and denied dex are not the same.
You need read my post because by going by the first and second paragraph you have either not read them or did not understand them. The idea that I don't know the difference between FF and denied dex shows that.
I also handled the stealth issue in an earlier post. Actually it was about 2 post ago.
The "hidden" condition which does not exist is going to be used to restealth in combat which is nigh impossible to do right now unless you are a ranger.
Why even have a Blog with 14 paragraphs of proposed rules CHANGES if the rules were so clear?
Nobody even looked at this combination of rules before before they are spread out across 3 chapters so obviously it is not clear.
There is also no way to sneak up on someone in combat unless you have something like "hide in plain sight".They wanted to change that. The second reason is the main reason. The lack of facing pretty much kills combat stealth barring special cirsumstances.