Sneak attack from Stealth RAW


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Question unclear. 12 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I have found a solution.
First Piece of Evidence is Sneak Attack:

prd/rogue wrote:

Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter......

Now according to this a denial of dex to AC sets someone up for sneak attack. This is what I call point 1. If anyone refutes point one please address it as point 1 in your counter claim.

Second Piece of Evidence is the Dexterity Ability itself:

prd/dex wrote:

Dexterity (Dex)

Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance. This ability is the most important one for rogues, but it's also useful for characters who wear light or medium armor or no armor at all. This ability is vital for characters seeking to excel with ranged weapons, such as the bow or sling. A character with a Dexterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and is effectively immobile (but not unconscious).

You apply your character's Dexterity modifier to:
.....
Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.

Point 2: In order to not be denied dex you must be able to react to the attack.

If anyone has a counterclaim please address it as point 2.

Third Piece of Evidence is the Perception skill:

Quote:
Check: Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.

Point 3: If you fail this check you can not react accordingly. If anyone refutes this please address it as point 3.

Final Conclusion:
If you do not succeed in an opposed check against an opponents stealth then you can not react accordingly.
Since you can not react to the attack by using your dex bonus, due to the fact that you are unaware of the opponent even being there, you lose dex to AC according to point 2.
Being denied the bonus to AC means you are now a legal target for sneak attack.

PS:I apologize if this has all been combined before, because while I have seen this subject come up before I have not seen these 3 points all put together.


I believe the problem why that one thief can't get the chicken (that's the formulation of the stealth problem around here if I remember well) is that the stealth check has certain prerequisites that require to win a ton of stealth checks before it. And as you have to win every one of those, probability is against you.

You can't just walk in front of someone, make your check, and sneak attack him. But hidden weapon can do that.


More evidence:

combat chapter/prd wrote:
]If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC.

@Richard:I remember the Jack B Quick thread. That is a different issue, and one that I was hoping the new stealth rules will solve if they ever get released.

The RAW that breaking cover/concealment ends stealth makes it really hard to steal the chicken aka sneak up on someone in the middle of combat.

I would probably houserule it so that if you can get from you hidden position to the target and attack him in the same round you keep your stealth. I guess you would need a bluff check to distract people before you can hide.
The question is should one bluff check be allowed to work against everyone or just one enemy.

Edit:Since this is a house rules issue I really don't want to get into it on the rules thread, but I will keep it here in case someone at home can improve on it.


wraithstrike wrote:

I think I have found a solution.

First Piece of Evidence is Sneak Attack:
prd/rogue wrote:

Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter......

Now according to this a denial of dex to AC sets someone up for sneak attack. This is what I call point 1. If anyone refutes point one please address it as point 1 in your counter claim.

Second Piece of Evidence is the Dexterity Ability itself:

prd/dex wrote:

Dexterity (Dex)

Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance. This ability is the most important one for rogues, but it's also useful for characters who wear light or medium armor or no armor at all. This ability is vital for characters seeking to excel with ranged weapons, such as the bow or sling. A character with a Dexterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and is effectively immobile (but not unconscious).

You apply your character's Dexterity modifier to:
.....
Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.

Point 2: In order to not be denied dex you must be able to react to the attack.

If anyone has a counterclaim please address it as point 2.

Third Piece of Evidence is the Perception skill:

Quote:
Check: Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.
Point 3: If you fail this check you can not react accordingly. If...

Nice write-up! Looks pretty good :-)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oh my god, still this old stinking topic.

What wraithstrike cited are the essentials of sneak attack and also the logic behind flanking and a lot of other things like surprise rounds.

And where is that RAW that breaking cover/concealment ends stealth?

By RAW you don´t even need that to go into stealth, only a diversion.
Diversion means someone looking into the other direction or not paying attention.

You can stealth in bright daylight right under ones eyes, no problem.
Since characters occupy 5' fields and its not clear where they are looking, that is also no problem.

There might be a perception check every round.
Skill checks are no auto success on a natural 20 and have no "critical", so only if someone has sky high WIS and perception it gets difficult.

The Jack B Quick problem had a dog involved with scent.
Now scent clearly states that hidden creatures are recognized, but not found. The dog knows you are there, but not where. He has to go and occupy the field next to you to pin you down.
Before nobody knows you are there. A lot of people don´t know how to read that text or just have strange ideas and GM fiat because it doesn´t suit their mind. Just like the rogue and sneak attack haters at all. I remember those big discussions how overpowered sneak attack is.

Now many people think you really need concealment, like hiding behind something. That is plain wrong.
Concealment is already there in dim light. Concealment is also there, if you stay behind someones back, because he has no straight line of sight to you. Thank god and the developers, there is no need to play this out, its solved in the skill itself. And its also good that this is dependant on the victims perception and not a fixed DC. (If your stealth is higher than his perception, you just successfully dodge his attention and eyesight)

Now go read this:
calibrating your expectations. Then think about what someone with a high stealth skill can do or not.

It is even possible to melee snipe. Just take spring attack and something like hellcat stealth or hide in plain sight. Hellcat stealth you could have on level 6. -10 is hard by then, but a ring of chameleon is only 12750gp, negating that.

But indeed its well pointed out for all the nonbelievers wraithstrike.


I am not on the Jack B Quick issue. I said that in my 2nd post. That is an entire different topic. Read the post. Nothing you wrote applies to what I wrote.

edit:Any further implications that I am talking about Jack B Quick will be ignored.

edit2:Once again this is only concerning sneak attack and stealth, not the issues in the Jack B Quick thread, because the implication is still believed that RAW and RAI you can not sneak attack while hidden.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think you we can add a Fourth Piece of Evidence:

Quote:
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.

While the rules don't specify anywhere how a reactive action work, I think that once/turn as a "non action" for each observable stimulus is the limit.

I.e. the creature trying to perceive the stealthy opponent can try once each round for each stimulus, the first time the stealthy character produce that stimulus and is observable, so almost certainly while the stealthy opponent has cover. If that check fail the perceive creature must spend a movement action to try again to perceive the opponent unless he produce further stimuli.

So, if the stealthy character has enough cover to be capable to hide when he start moving/acting and the target fail his perception check, he can reach the target and make a sneak attack.

Attacking is a new stimulus, but as the target don't get to act before the stealthy character start the attack he is still unaware of the opponent until the blow land. After that the perception check usually is a automatic success.


DR that goes into the Jack B Quick issues, and would require a debate on whether you lose stealth of not as soon as you break cover/concealment. Proving that assertion without explicit rules support is also very difficult. I am not saying it is right or wrong, just that it is hard to prove.

PS:I would like for it to work that way.

PS2:This thread and my search for rule support for this thread was inspired by this post.

I also realized I could not find a post I thought existed so I began to look at the rules to see if I was wrong considering my opening post it seemed that I was since I thought there was not RAW support for sneak attacks while hidden.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

If the ambient conditions allow concealment till you reach the target it is a no issue as a consequence of the 4th piece of evidence.

a) You have concealment till you reach the target, so stealth work (if the target fail the check) and the target is denied his dexterity;

b) The attack is a new stimulus but the check is reactive, so it happen in reaction of the attack, not before it. So at the time of the attack the target is lacking his dexterity modifier and still subject to a sneak attack.

Reacting to a action before it is completed is the realm of the ready action, but you can't ready an action against someone you aren't aware is here.


I think wraithstrike is positing the simpler situation of a stealthed character making a sneak attack from range. To take this to a melee situation complicates the issue unnecessarily, as his point is that stealth provides the opportunity for a sneak attack, and not the much more complicated issue of whether stealth can be used for any distance when the character does not have cover or concealment.

Wraithstrike, great digging, I think you have proven that by RAW stealth provides the opportunity for sneak attack.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I apologize wraithstrike, seems like i got the intentions wrong. Actually i say you are right. I just don´t understand what is so hard to understand about sneak attack and im tired of all the rogue is so bad talk and suggestions to play an alchemist or something else, because i think rogues(also ninjas) are fine. Also i didn´t follow any of those topics lately because for me its close to trolling.

Probably for many people who didn´t really read the rules you did a good case, so they can see it too.

I just made another answer in which cases you all get sneak attack here:
Help build a Ninja with greatest Sneak Attack chance....

I bet some misunderstandings come from this sentence.
"Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging." (bold mine)

That means you can not stand there and go into stealth on an attack move, run or charge. But it does mean you can attack from stealth. For running and charging you need a rogue talent, fast stealth. It says:"This ability allows a rogue to move at full speed using the Stealth skill without penalty."

"If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast."

This also means that you can spring attack someone and on the move to get there and back use stealth if you have the means to do so.
Some counts for shot on the run and sniping, which you can also combine with bullseye shot to get +4 on it.

"Action
Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action."

If you attack from stealth, your stealth ends, no matter if melee or ranged. You can however use snipe for ranged attacks and get stealthed again. You could also be stealthed, sneak attack, take a move action to get stealthed again, but you probably eat an AoO. Every rogue can do that under all circumstances that allow you to use stealth (feint, bluff, concealment[dim light, blur], etc.)
A stealth check is only made once per move action and using stealth is a move action. Every other creature gets one perception check on that, as said above and in the rules.

Liberty's Edge

The problem seems to me to be point 2 (ignoring the stealth problems). Once you've attacked with your first strike, your opponent can now react to that attack normally. They may not be able to react to your character, per se, but that isn't a requirement.


It is cool Hayato. My boldings were at any future poster, and not directly at you. I just wanted to make it clear what the point of the post was.

How the hidden person is going to use the RAW is another thread altogether. I just wanted to show that it was possible or if I was wrong I wanted to see why it was not RAW.

Even if I could not prove it was RAW I wanted to find strong evidence that it was RAI.


ShadowcatX wrote:
The problem seems to me to be point 2 (ignoring the stealth problems). Once you've attacked with your first strike, your opponent can now react to that attack normally. They may not be able to react to your character, per se, but that isn't a requirement.

I agree that once you make the first attack the enemy is no longer unaware of you. My goal is not to get a full round of sneak attacks in. If I can just get one by sneak attack in then it works by the rules.

Liberty's Edge

wraithstrike wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
The problem seems to me to be point 2 (ignoring the stealth problems). Once you've attacked with your first strike, your opponent can now react to that attack normally. They may not be able to react to your character, per se, but that isn't a requirement.
I agree that once you make the first attack the enemy is no longer unaware of you. My goal is not to get a full round of sneak attacks in. If I can just get one by sneak attack in then it works by the rules.

So you're just wanting to catch a foe flat footed, that works and is generally the preferred (read only) method for ranged rogues (of course range also helps with the stealth issues). With the stealth rules the way they are, you'd probably be better feinting while in melee though.


The primary goal was more to prove you can sneak attack by using stealth by RAW. This is not for any particular build. I would rather depend on winning initiative, and flanking to get sneak attack damage in an actual game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I edited my post.

Stealth and melee have no problem:

1. This is a group game and supposedly you play together. By sneaking behind the enemy and getting a first sneak attack, the rogue opens comabt and is in a flanking position hopefully.
2. There are several possibilities to get SA after the first, not including the ninja archetype and vanishing trick or invisible blade( and with that greater invisibility):
-as shadowcat said feinting.
-kiting your oponent by using spring attack or only attacking once and then use a move action to hide. This requires feats and tricks like hellcat stealth or hide in plain sight. Also great with reach weapons or best a whip, but you can also go into 5' melee. Your acrobatics skill should deny AoO´s.


I just wanted to add that with the result of the other thread being that archetypes and alternate classes can be mixed, scout archetype and ninja are certainly a nice combination.
If you want an early boost you still can go for something like ninja (scout) 1/vivisectionist 1/nija (scout) xx though - vivisectionist stacks with it :-)


The alternate class would still need to have the abilities that are called out as being replaced though since that is the only thing stopping certain archtypes from being combined.


Exactly. Scout works, I checked before posting ;-)


Sangalor wrote:
Exactly. Scout works, I checked before posting ;-)

Good man. :)

This might give the rogue a boost.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What would really make the rogue nice were a feat that would allow you to add sneak attack to ranged attacks/count as flanking with ranged attacks without making it a teamwork feat with such high requirements like enfilading fire.

Also cleaning up the weapon finesse/agile maneuvers a little bit more.
The new maneuver rules regarding weapon finesse are a good step in this direction.

And some more finessable reach weapon or possibilites. Giving the rogue proficiency with a whip would be nice too, but could end with all rogues using whips^^.

Removing Combat expertise as a requirement could also help the rogue a lot. Never underestimate the power of gang up!


@Hayato, flanking from range is such a powerful capability that it should have a high cost.

@Wraith, barring some very unusual situations (such as the character literally being denied dex bonus via spell or condition) I don't allow multiple sneak attacks in a round based on stealth alone. Once you hit, the target is aware that he is being attacked, and is no longer unaware. That means my NPC sneak attackers can't do it to the party either.

Nice write-up.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

@Hayato, flanking from range is such a powerful capability that it should have a high cost.

@Wraith, barring some very unusual situations (such as the character literally being denied dex bonus via spell or condition) I don't allow multiple sneak attacks in a round based on stealth alone. Once you hit, the target is aware that he is being attacked, and is no longer unaware. That means my NPC sneak attackers can't do it to the party either.

Nice write-up.

Surely flanking from range is powerful and i didn´t say give it free to everyone. I only said make it available for rogues without a teamwork feat. There is enfilading fire, but its a teamwork feat you need Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, one other teamwork feat.

There should be just more possibilites for ranged rogues.

Adamintine Dragon i hope you are aware that you are successfully crippling rogue players with that? And you know its a houserule?
I can see the point of it if you are sneding a lot of rogues against the other players though^^ But then, sending them a barbarian is also devastating.


@Hayato, I play rogues. I don't think I'm crippling them at all.

I believe the rules support my position. You only get sneak attacks based on stealth if the target is unaware. Once you stab him, he's aware.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

@Hayato, I play rogues. I don't think I'm crippling them at all.

I believe the rules support my position. You only get sneak attacks based on stealth if the target is unaware. Once you stab him, he's aware.

We play it the same way and I also feel that this is correct. At least for melee... For ranged attacks it might be argued that if hit the target gets a perception check, and if it cannot find you you could be counted as hidden and thus get sneak attack on each further attack - as long as you cannot be spotted. Gotta think about that... Well, currently you only get one sneak attack, then you are spotted (unless you got improved invisibility, but that is another thing), no more sneak on further attacks.

Our rogues still deal high damage, they spend quite a few skills and feats on stealth, and they are quite decent in battle :-)


There are plenty of perfectly adequate ways for rogues to gain sneak attack for a full round without trying to claim full round sneak attacks from stealth. Using those techniques provides rogues their sneak attack bonuses to maintain combat parity. You just have to use them instead of relying on a single skill.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Read the Devs blog (but not all the posts, just the designers Blog) and they admit that they have proposed these new rules on stealth etc to allow Stealth getting SA.
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/2011/september/v5748dyo5lcml?Stealth-Playtest-R ound-TwoUniversal-Monster

I am going to cut & paste a few sections:
"Speaking of hidden, while we have kept the invisible condition, and have even strengthened the wording on that condition a bit, we have also created a lesser, connected condition called hidden. You gain the hidden condition when you benefit from Stealth..." "Conditions
Hidden: You are difficult to detect but you not invisible. A hidden creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)....."
Indeed you are right but even in 3.5= "The rules don’t come right out and say this," but they FAQed it there. In PF Stealth and Perception are different skills. You can houserule it if you like, but the designers have made it very clear it is not RAW currently.
There's no condition currently called Hidden and under current PF RAW only Invisible make foes lose their DEX.

The dev’s blog is very clear. They are *proposing* to ADD “hidden” as a condition that makes foes lose their DEX. Which means that it currently does NOT do so. If it did do so, there’d be no need for the rules change.


I just read that link to the new proposals. That was several months ago, have they said anything else about them? Are they going to be implemented, or are we still waiting on that?


That is not what that means DR.Deth.
What they were going to to do is create a condition called hidden so you can get the +2 like an invisible charater would without actually being invisible, and make it more apparent. The hidden condition was also going to be able to be gained in the middle of combat.

Unless errata or an FAQ comes out I am correct. So far only one person has FAQ'd it. That is a pretty unanimous vote of confidence in my version.


AdamMeyers wrote:
I just read that link to the new proposals. That was several months ago, have they said anything else about them? Are they going to be implemented, or are we still waiting on that?

No, it seems to be stalled. This opened a huge can of worms, read the threads.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
wraithstrike wrote:

That is not what that means DR.Deth.

What they were going to to do is create a condition called hidden so you can get the +2 like an invisible charater would without actually being invisible, and make it more apparent. The hidden condition was also going to be able to be gained in the middle of combat.

Unless errata or an FAQ comes out I am correct. So far only one person has FAQ'd it. That is a pretty unanimous vote of confidence in my version.

Actually, this same question has had dozens of threads and likely hundreds of FAQ over the last year or so. And until the blog, many agreed with you.

BUT- the Devs made it very clear in their blog. Now, since they are thinking of changing the rules, there's no reason at all from them to FAQ this, since the new rules will over-ride the FAQ.

You can play how you wish, but in PFS or any game I play in, that's not how it works.


This thread was made after the blog, and other than you nobody is really questioning it. By RAW I am right so barring a dev saying I am wrong that means I am right.
As for the new stealth rules they were never said to be a guaranteed thing, just something they were looking into.
PFS would be required to use my evidence unless they can counter it by the rulebook. I have yet to see any counters to it. As for home games, all I can do is inform people.


Two FAQ's now. <coats FAQ button with poison> :)


Well, I haven’t bothered hitting the FAQ button, and the rest of you might as well not bother also. Look,this question both WILL not and CAN not be FAQed.

This question has been around since the first days. Your answer has been thought of about a dozen times before. You’re not the first. Some Dev very likely spotted it, and was trying to do a FAQ, then found out that it was going to take more than a short answer. Hence, Blog #1. That opened a huge can of worms, thus Blog #2.

It WON”T be FAQed because quite frankly it is clear that the Devs agree with you , and want the rules to say exactly that. But why would they FAQ the way the RAW is NOW, when they so clearly are working on changing the rules to make it work your way? Doing a FAQ would just confuse the issue. Still, they don’t allow it your way in current PFS, but they are not gonna do a FAQ when they are working towards a rules change. Waste of time.

They CAN’T FAQ it as a FAQ has to be a short clarification of the RAW. Take a look at Blog #2. It’s a well written clearly well thought out multi-page 14 paragraph (note that- FOURTEEN paragraphs!) set of rules CHANGES. Stephen Radney-MacFarland did a great job there. Still, even tho he did a great job, there were 353 posts of quibbles, arguments, demands for clarifications, and so forth. This can of worms was colored purple. Good try, Steve.

Thus, it can’t and won’t be FAQed. Now, you can take solace in the fact that the Devs are on your side, they clearly would like the rules to say what you think they say. But it just isn’t that simple.

I suppose I could ask Sean to drop by here and answer this, but I won’t. Anyway, what would he say? “DrDeth is right but we’re working on changing the rule son this”. About a zillion posters would jump all over him, and frankly a team of “top men” *are* working on this.


What, exactly, is the current PFS approved ruling on this?


@ Adamantine Dragon-->PFS follows core rules. The core rules that I quoted say it works.
-----------------------------------------------
Dr.Deth you are bring no proof to the table that says "it does not work". All your post say is that they are trying to improve stealth so it works in combat. That does not mean it does make someone lose dex. RAW they lose dex. In order to overturn the RAW errata or an FAQ needs to be on file. So far there is nothing official to contradict my quotes, which are official(from the book).

Even SKR has misremembered a rule on the boards so even if SRM said stealth does not work, which he did not, he would still be incorrect barring a rules change.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Just a note...

APG wrote:


Sniper Goggles
Aura faint divination; CL 5th
Slot eyes; Price 20,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.

Description
The leather strap attached to these bulbous lenses allows their wearer to fit them to his head. The wearer of these goggles can make ranged sneak attacks from any distance instead of the normal 30 feet. When making ranged sneak attacks within 30 feet, the wearer gains a +2 circumstance bonus on each sneak attack damage die.

Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, true strike; Cost 10,000 gp

I bring these up due to a post or two above about sneak attack only on the first attack. I would submit that a rogue using sniper's goggles to attack an opponent from, say, 200 feet away could get more than one sneak attack on a full attack action. Mainly due to the fact that the target would need to make a perception check to see where it's coming from. Even though the rogue wouldn't get stealth (he broke that by attacking), the distance penalties all on their own would make him hard to spot.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

No mdt, if the rogue don't use the rules about sniping, using a move action after each shot, he is automatically detected after the first shot, independently from the range modifiers to the target perception.

PRD wrote:


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.
...
Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.

I could agree that there is not a rule explicitly stating that (at least I don't recall one) but there are plenty of rules taking that as an implicit assumption.

If not we could have character with bad perception failing to notice that they have repeatedly been stabbed or not seeing a person teen foot away on a featureless plain.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Diego,
You completely missed my point. On a featureless plain, yes, I'd agree, it's hard to hide on a flat open level ground. That doesn't even exist though in the real world other than the yucca salt flats.

If you're in a tree-line firing at someone 200 feet away, that person does not auto-track onto you like in a video game. There's no magical hud that pops up and points out the persons location. Even if they aren't hiding, you still have to make a perception check to see them.

Under most circumstances, that is automatic (the default assumption of being on the yucca flats), however, you no more automatically track the attacker when he fires than you do when he walks in the treeline without stealth. You get a perception check to notice him. Otherwise, there'd be no need to ever make perception checks. You'd just automatically know everything around you.


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.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
mdt wrote:

Diego,

You completely missed my point. On a featureless plain, yes, I'd agree, it's hard to hide on a flat open level ground. That doesn't even exist though in the real world other than the yucca salt flats.

If you're in a tree-line firing at someone 200 feet away, that person does not auto-track onto you like in a video game. There's no magical hud that pops up and points out the persons location. Even if they aren't hiding, you still have to make a perception check to see them.

Under most circumstances, that is automatic (the default assumption of being on the yucca flats), however, you no more automatically track the attacker when he fires than you do when he walks in the treeline without stealth. You get a perception check to notice him. Otherwise, there'd be no need to ever make perception checks. You'd just automatically know everything around you.

No, you are trying to argue something that is not in the rules.

The rules are: "You attack - you are detected" unless you are capable to use an ability that allow you to avoid detection.

It is not: "if you attack you can be detected if the other guy make a perception check."

The rules don't care if there is some level of concealment or not.

You attack, you don't take an action to hide, you are detected.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So, Diego, let me get this straight, it is your stance that if someone attacks you pinpoint them no matter what?

Please identify how that can be if :

A) You cannot possibly perceive them (let us say they are firing at you from through an illusion they cast), you automatically know where they are because an arrow appears over the illusion and a sign says 'Enemy R Here?'

B) You are an oracle who cannot see more than 60 feet, and the enemy is 200 feet away on the yucca salt flats. Your stance is the rules say you are detected automatically.

C) Someone is standing 500 feet away in a tree line, with a one foot square opening in the foliage they are shooting through. Your stance is, they are autodetected at 500 feet by the target, instantly on the first shot.

D) Someone has greater invisibility cast on them, and fires an attack from 100 feet away. Your stance is they are automatically detected, because the rules say you have to hide. Even though they aren't hiding, just standing there invisible shooting a bow, so therefore, they are auto-detected.

No, sorry. Perception is all about noticing things and searching for them.

Perception wrote:


Notice a visible creature : 0
Distance to the source, object, or creature : -1/10 feet
Unfavorable conditions : +2
Terrible conditions : +5

If someone fires at you without stealth, the DC to notice them is 0 (per Perception, visible creature), + 20 (200 feet away), + 2 or 5 (unfavorable or terrible conditions if they are standing in a tree-line with partial concealment) = 22/25.

If you automatically knew where someone was when they attacked you from range, the perception skill would state so, or give a huge bonus to the perceptor. It doesn't. It merely gives the DC to notice someone (0) who's standing out in the open within 10 feet. If they are within your perception skill * 10 feet, you automatically see them (assuming they are standing out in the open). Beyond that, you have to make a (usually very easy) perception check to see someone.

I see nothing in the combat rules that state you are automatically seen if you attack. I see only that you end your stealth. That means that the perception check needed to find you is MUCH easier, but it's not automatic.


@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.


mdt wrote:
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


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Dudes, you are all overseing one point:
Coming out of stealth and doing an attack denies DEX to AC.

"You apply your character's Dexterity modifier to:
.....
Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack."

This is like a status effect, therefore it counts for the whole round where the attacker is active. Or since when do you change your status just so during others rounds? Can you spend an immediate action? I´m don´t know of any like that.

Of course you are detected, but the result of this only grips in the next round, where DEX to AC is granted again and you no longer get SA.

Same is true for ranged attacks.
The sense of sniping is to grant an easy way to kill poeple froma distance.

You should really look at the conditions that deny DEX to AC.
ALL of those grant SA.

To spell it again: Perception says:
"opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised"

Surpise says:
"Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don't get to act in the surprise round. Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC."

Anyone wanna questions surprise round mechanics?
They are actually the same.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Because otherwise it appears even in PFS play this could be ruled either way.

No judge is perfect if that's where you are going.

That said, wraith has found a very reasonable line of evidence in the rules that justify what everyone before 'assumed' was certainly the case.

In 3.5 this was 'fixed' by a FAQ entry.

In PFS which took the SRD there isn't that FAQ entry.. however there are the rules that justify that 3.5 FAQ entry still in place and he's presented them here.

I find no holes in his argument. Moreover it is certainly the intent of the rules to allow such.

Thus I don't see a problem, where do you?

The only developer commentary was saying that they hadn't found the chain of rules that wraith has put together. It was not saying that it didn't do this, but rather that they didn't see this procession of rules.

-James


This was the comment I was thinking about, and apparently it wasn't quite what I remembering. It's by SMR.

Also, while looking through his posts, he defines immobile as "staying in the same square". So I guess that answers the question of when you get that +40 from Invisibility.

All the actions that deny dex explicitly say so.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
james maissen wrote:
mdt wrote:
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.


mdt wrote:


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.

I'll look when I get the chance, but I'm away from my books right now. As I recall they were lax about defining line of effect/sight assuming that most would take outside knowledge for it being a common term.

Following this line to it's reasonable conclusion would have PCs making perception checks before each and every attack, which certainly cannot be the intention.

But off the top of my head I would go with the difference between noticing a visible figure in the distance and being painfully made aware of their presence via an arrow or streaking fireball that came from them hitting you..

-James

1 to 50 of 222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Sneak attack from Stealth RAW All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.