Stealth question


Rules Questions


I have not successfully found a definitive ruling on this, so I'd like to get an 'official' PFS ruling if possible for use in our games. How does stealthing help you in combat? Are the effects similar to those of being invisible? If you make a full-attack from stealth, do the benefits of the stealth apply to all your attacks, or just your first? Thanks.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Assuming normal fighting conditions (normal light, no difficult terrain, no random objects in the battlefield obstructing your view), Stealth cannot, by default, be used to make yourself undetectable.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/stealth

Stealthing can be used when you are NOT in normal fighting conditions (low light, objects in the way which give cover). If your opponent is not observing you, you move at half-speed, or at full speed with a -5 penalty to move Stealthily (success presumably means you are Stealthed, which means your opponent is Flat-Footed). If your opponent /is/ observing you (which is the normal condition of a battle) but is momentarily distracted, you can try to hide behind something or somewhere, taking a -10 penalty.

The DC for your Stealth Checks is always an opponent's rolled Perception check (the GM makes the opposed roll every time you attempt to Stealth). Making a Stealth Check is a Free Action made as a part of Movement.

Invisibility gives you +40 to Stealth is you are stationary, and +20 if you are moving.

Liberty's Edge

This is a rules question, and not a PFS specific one. It should be in the rules forum.

You won't get a PFS specific ruling on this, because the core rules cover this fairly well, and expect a large amount of GM discretion on how to adjudicate when and where you can use stealth.

Basically, if you are in plain sight of someone, you can't use stealth unless you have some other ability (i.e. Hide in Plain Sight) that allows you to do so.

Even with invisibility, you only get the first attack unseen. Why? Because there is no facing in Pathfinder, and once you are visible and in plain sight, you no longer gain the benefits of being unseen.

There are abilities and feats that allow you to snipe (take a move action to re-hide after taking a ranged attack as long as you have at least partial concealment).

So Stealth can be used in combat, its just not likely that you'll get to use it much unless you invest in a lot of magic or feats/abilities that allow you to do so.

But unless you have an ability (greater invisibility) to remain unseen throughout your full attack, you will not be able to get more than your first attack as unseen.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Yeah, stealth isn't really a combat tactic. It's for scouting, infiltrating, spying, or escaping. The most combat-related use of stealth is an ambush: if no one spots you, you get a suprise round.


zean wrote:

Stealthing can be used when you are NOT in normal fighting conditions (low light, objects in the way which give cover). If your opponent is not observing you, you move at half-speed, or at full speed with a -5 penalty to move Stealthily (success presumably means you are Stealthed, which means your opponent is Flat-Footed).

Since there's no such thing as Flat-footed against individual targets, this only works if your opponent hasn't yet entered combat. Of course, if he hasn't acted yet, he's flat-footed whether you sneak up on him or not.

All sneaking up on someone who's flat-footed does is let you get into range for the surprise round attack.

There is no mechanical advantage in sneaking up on someone already in combat. Not even sneak attack. Which is weird.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
zean wrote:

Stealthing can be used when you are NOT in normal fighting conditions (low light, objects in the way which give cover). If your opponent is not observing you, you move at half-speed, or at full speed with a -5 penalty to move Stealthily (success presumably means you are Stealthed, which means your opponent is Flat-Footed).

Since there's no such thing as Flat-footed against individual targets, this only works if your opponent hasn't yet entered combat. Of course, if he hasn't acted yet, he's flat-footed whether you sneak up on him or not.

All sneaking up on someone who's flat-footed does is let you get into range for the surprise round attack.

There is no mechanical advantage in sneaking up on someone already in combat. Not even sneak attack. Which is weird.

That isn’t specifically true.

Flat Footed is a term meaning you don’t get your Dex bonus to AC and normally you don’t get AoO’s. Even those classes with Uncanny Dodge, you’d still be flat footed, you just don’t lose your Dex bonus to AC.

There are spells, abilities and feats that make someone flatfooted to you specifically. The Feint maneuver doesn’t make your opponent flat footed, but it makes them lose their Dex bonus to AC, which is the same net result.

Sneak Attack works against those who have lost their Dex bonus to AC. Not against those who are flat footed. The reason it works against flat footed opponents is because those who are flat footed lose their Dex Bonus to AC. If your opponent can’t see you (whether stealth or invisibility) they lose their Dex Bonus to AC against you.

So Stealth can be used in combat. It is just unlikely after the 1st attack of the 1st (or surprise) round unless you have some other spell, ability, or feat that allows you to remain unseen or rehide or hide in plain sight.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm picturing a bunch of Order of the Paw halfling cavalier/rogues with Ride-By Attack, charging out from stealth, sneak attacking, and stopping in the bushes on the other side; criss-crossing a clearing with some poor schmuck in the middle who can never see anyone on his own turn.

That would be hilarious. :D


I was thinking specifically about Hide in Plain Sight / Hellcat Stealth type scenarios.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Not as funny. ;)


Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:

If your opponent can’t see you (whether stealth or invisibility) they lose their Dex Bonus to AC against you.

So Stealth can be used in combat. It is just unlikely after the 1st attack of the 1st (or surprise) round unless you have some other spell, ability, or feat that allows you to remain unseen or rehide or hide in plain sight.

Is there a rule for that? I see the bit about losing Dex bonus due to invisibility or blindness. Nothing about stealth.


thejeff wrote:
Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:

If your opponent can’t see you (whether stealth or invisibility) they lose their Dex Bonus to AC against you.

So Stealth can be used in combat. It is just unlikely after the 1st attack of the 1st (or surprise) round unless you have some other spell, ability, or feat that allows you to remain unseen or rehide or hide in plain sight.

Is there a rule for that? I see the bit about losing Dex bonus due to invisibility or blindness. Nothing about stealth.

This was sorta my problem. I've seen nowhere that actually says specific benefits (such as denied dex to AC) related to stealth.


Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:


Flat Footed is a term meaning you don’t get your Dex bonus to AC and normally you don’t get AoO’s. Even those classes with Uncanny Dodge, you’d still be flat footed, you just don’t lose your Dex bonus to AC.

There are spells, abilities and feats that make someone flatfooted to you specifically. The Feint maneuver doesn’t make your opponent flat footed, but it makes them lose their Dex bonus to AC, which is the same net result.

a) Uncanny Dodge: "She cannot be caught flat-footed" sounds to me pretty much like a rogue with Uncanny Dodge is not flat footed :)

b) No. Spells, feats etc might make someone lose their Dex bonus to AC against you, but not make them flat-footed towards you.
Flat-footed is a condition on the target, like blinded or dying. You're not just blinded in regard to one person but everyone. Or dying for one person and peachy to the rest. (Ok, you might be dead to one person... thats a different thing though :) ) Same with flat-footed against all or no one. Flat footed is before you acted in combat, nothing else.
A lot of people use flat-footed and lose dex bonus to AC as synonyms. While they're similar (mostly because the former includes the latter) they're not the same.
FF also includes the inability to make AoO, which "lose Dex bonus to AC" does not.


It's interesting that in Pathfinder there is no mechanical benefit of Stealth. It doesn't say that "creatures who don't notice you are flat-footed to you," or anything else along those lines, although one would think there should be something.

My bet is this is just another carried over issue from the 3.5 core rules that Paizo failed to address... in the 3.5 PHB, this exact same issue was present (no defined mechanical benefit of using the Hide skill), and WotC never even addressed it with errata. However, they did address it in the Rules Compendium by adding this to the Hide skill:

If you’re successfully hidden with respect to another
creature, that creature is flat-footed with respect to you. That
creature treats you as if you were invisible (see page 76).

Interestingly, this convenient little edit never made it to the 3.5 SRD because it was never errata'd into the core, and obviously Paizo never caught it either or I have no doubt they would have included it in the Pathfinder core.

Alas, unless you're someone who was familiar with the 3.5 Rules Compendium, you wouldn't realize this was a clear oversight. Because of this tid bit, in my Pathfinder game I treat stealthed attackers as having the benefits of invisibility against unaware targets (as well as treating the opponents as flat-footed), and I recommend other Pathfinder GMs to do the same.


The 'oversight' nature of this question is actually why I originally placed this question in the PFS forum rather than the Rules forum... because it is unaddressed and something I need to know how PFS thinks it should be handled in their games. Alas, someone moved it. I don't know if I should repost there for further clarification or not.... don't want to come across all troll-like.

Liberty's Edge

If your thread was moved, reposting it in the spot that you thought it belonged originally is bad form, because it must not have actually belonged there.

"PFS Rules" questions are traditionally moved to the Rules forum, because aside from differences which are clearly called out, the PFS rules are the same as the rules for the rest of us.


DrakeRoberts wrote:
I have not successfully found a definitive ruling on this, so I'd like to get an 'official' PFS ruling if possible for use in our games. How does stealthing help you in combat? Are the effects similar to those of being invisible? If you make a full-attack from stealth, do the benefits of the stealth apply to all your attacks, or just your first? Thanks.

When you are successful in using stealth to remain unseen, then an attack you make will have the opponent denied their dexterity score against you.

Once you make that attack, then you will become observed by them and they will regain their dexterity score against your further attacks that round.

-James


james maissen wrote:
DrakeRoberts wrote:
I have not successfully found a definitive ruling on this, so I'd like to get an 'official' PFS ruling if possible for use in our games. How does stealthing help you in combat? Are the effects similar to those of being invisible? If you make a full-attack from stealth, do the benefits of the stealth apply to all your attacks, or just your first? Thanks.

When you are successful in using stealth to remain unseen, then an attack you make will have the opponent denied their dexterity score against you.

Once you make that attack, then you will become observed by them and they will regain their dexterity score against your further attacks that round.

-James

Source?

I'd love that to be true. It makes sense to me. I don't see any rules justifying it.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I removed a post. Someone disagreeing with you is not automatically an idiot.


I know about a year ago (actually a year ago to the day) Paizo was playtesting new stealth rules. I'm not sure if these rules were ever implemented or errata'd into anything but here is the Blog about the Stealth Playtest.

Stealth Playtest

Hope that helps.

EDIT:
Evidently they have not been officially implemented yet.

James Jacobs wrote:

This is the extent of it for now. We have no plans at this point to put it into the PRD or do much else with it at this point—feel free to use the variant rules of this playtest in your games as you wish... but it's not going to be something we officially adopt into the game, since that type of change goes from errata to re-design.

And the time for re-design is not now.


thejeff wrote:
james maissen wrote:
DrakeRoberts wrote:
I have not successfully found a definitive ruling on this, so I'd like to get an 'official' PFS ruling if possible for use in our games. How does stealthing help you in combat? Are the effects similar to those of being invisible? If you make a full-attack from stealth, do the benefits of the stealth apply to all your attacks, or just your first? Thanks.

When you are successful in using stealth to remain unseen, then an attack you make will have the opponent denied their dexterity score against you.

Once you make that attack, then you will become observed by them and they will regain their dexterity score against your further attacks that round.

-James

Source?

I'd love that to be true. It makes sense to me. I don't see any rules justifying it.

Some rules are found in odd places, best thing to do is read your core rule book and all the relevant rules for what you are questioning. A creature that cannot see you is denied its DEX versus attacks you make (it's in the CRB).

You cannot use stealth when attacking (stealth skill description,CRB again), therefore after the first attack you can no longer benefit from 'stealth.'

The source you are looking for is the PFRPG CRB. If you need everything spelled out the beginners box might be a little more to your liking as it tries to consolidate things.


Skylancer4 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
james maissen wrote:
DrakeRoberts wrote:
I have not successfully found a definitive ruling on this, so I'd like to get an 'official' PFS ruling if possible for use in our games. How does stealthing help you in combat? Are the effects similar to those of being invisible? If you make a full-attack from stealth, do the benefits of the stealth apply to all your attacks, or just your first? Thanks.

When you are successful in using stealth to remain unseen, then an attack you make will have the opponent denied their dexterity score against you.

Once you make that attack, then you will become observed by them and they will regain their dexterity score against your further attacks that round.

-James

Source?

I'd love that to be true. It makes sense to me. I don't see any rules justifying it.

Some rules are found in odd places, best thing to do is read your core rule book and all the relevant rules for what you are questioning. A creature that cannot see you is denied its DEX versus attacks you make (it's in the CRB)

The source you are looking for is the PFRPG CRB.

That's very helpful. It's 500+ pages. Any hints on where it might be?

It's not in the Stealth skill section. It's not in the Rogue's Sneak Attack section. I couldn't find it in the Combat section.
There's a bit on Unaware Combatants, but it specifically says "at the start of battle" and "because they have not acted yet".

I've already searched the PDF for anything I thought would be relevant. I suppose I could sit down and read the whole thing cover to cover again, but I've got better things to do with my time.
I'm also aware that many people, probably including me, are sure they've seen rules that don't actually exist.


I tend to be 'a little less helpful' with posters that have apparently overly aggressive or 'bad' attitudes.

As well as posting from a phone and not having a CRB to actually check on at the moment, my desire to do leg work for someone has limits.


thejeff wrote:


Source?
I'd love that to be true. It makes sense to me. I don't see any rules justifying it.

Mainly the core rule book, scattered therein.

You can search the threads here... Wraithstrike did an exposition on all the relevant rules and their locations in the book.. find it if you want.

-James


All right, that post was a little too snippy. Sorry. I'll try to watch that.

Or were you talking about the post you originally responded to, because I don't see anything overly aggressive about that. Asking for a source in a mechanics thread is pretty standard.

Given the nature of this thread and what I and others have already posted, I found "best thing to do is read your core rule book" very condescending. I'd already commented on finding rules for Invisibility and Blindness. Others have mentioned the Stealth playtest, which does have such a rule and a 3.5 rule that didn't make it to PF. Several posters seemed to agree that stealth wouldn't deny Dex.
Then James made an authoritative pronouncement that it did, so I asked for a reference and got told to look in the rules, like a kid who hadn't done the reading.

I assumed that asking for a source would be understood as wanting a actual reference. Maybe that was wrong.

And I didn't ask you to do my leg work for me. I asked James, assuming that since he'd made the claim he knew the source. If you happened to know of one, I'd be grateful to hear it. If not, or you don't have the time to find it, replying to a request for a source without actually having a source is kind of silly.


There are several rules that get A LOT of attention due to a necessary ambiguity for them to work. Looking too closely at the rules and they fall apart. That being said, these 'hot topics' tend to pop up repeatedly and a quick search of the forums will provide a few pages of results that you can find your answers in, as James said Wraithstrike was the one who did the OP.


Quatar wrote:


b) No. Spells, feats etc might make someone lose their Dex bonus to AC against you, but not make them flat-footed towards you.
Flat-footed is a condition on the target, like blinded or dying. You're not just blinded in regard to one person but everyone. Or dying for one person and peachy to the rest. (Ok, you might be dead to one person... thats a different thing though :) ) Same with flat-footed against all or no one. Flat footed is before you acted in combat, nothing else.

It isn't the general rule, but a counter example is Shatter Defenses: "Any shaken, frightened, or panicked opponent hit by you this round is flat-footed to your attacks until the end of your next turn."


Well, I found Wraithstrike's thread. I was hoping for something a little more definitive. 200+ posts arguing about shows pretty clearly it isn't a settled question.

I dislike the approach he took. It's a very rules-lawerly one. I don't think the rules really support that level of analysis. As you say, they fall apart.

I wish the devs had found a way to weigh in that didn't raise more questions than it answered or required a major rewrite.

Oh well, I'm really happy house-ruling it. I just hoped someone had something concrete to point at.


@Skylancer: I'm not sure how 'necessary' this ambiguity actually is, given the Playtest Blog seemed to be able to implement Perception/Stealth rules without such a level of ambiguity (i.e. to the same standard that the rest of the rules are written by). In any case, however one chooses to 'implement' the RAW of Stealth, as long as it's done in a consistent manner, that 'system' itself COULD be codified by a non-ambiguous rule-set.

Honestly, at this point I think the most productive thing to be done on this forum would be to take the Stealth Playtest Blog as a starting point, and just 'refine' it to cover all use cases and corners. How it should interact with Life Sense, other similar senses isn't much different from some of the special senses already discussed in the blog, just some minor stuff is all that's needed to have a 100% solid Stealth implementation. Well, perhaps Perception itself could be improved/updated to match the new Stealth, but I think the Stealth Blog is a pretty good place to start.

I do wonder what the official stance is for PFS... Use a broken RAW for Stealth, or is the Stealth Blog OK as well?


thejeff wrote:

I don't think the rules really support that level of analysis. As you say, they fall apart.

I wish the devs had found a way to weigh in that didn't raise more questions than it answered or required a major rewrite.

That Paizo's Rules Team found it justifiable to start an Errata/new Rule structure for Stealth tells me that they don't think the current Stealth/Perception RAW is sufficient either... if they did they a FAQ would have sufficied along with minor Errata (possibly).


Stealth is very difficult to use in combat, and even then you need perfect conditions. However, HiPS changes that pretty substantially. If you qualify for your HiPS (within 10' of shadows as an assassin or shadowdancer / in bright or normal light for Hellcat Stealth) you can pretty much roll stealth at any point and do exactly what the skill says, "Hide in Plain Sight." There are several good thread discussions I can point you too if you like.

As for Stealth and Sneak Attack, it is largely up to your GM. PF did work at a Stealth re-write but it will be too massive to do at this point. So without new rules I go back to a lot of the rulings that governed the 3.5 rules where PF Stealth came from in order to make these rulings. In all my games the GM allowed Sneak Attack from Stealth. I allow Sneak Attack from Stealth. Here is why: The PF Stealth rules are a carryover from the 3.5 Hide rules. In 3.5 the rules didn't specifically state that Stealth allowed Sneak Attack, but the later FAQ answers did come out and say it clearly.

Nethys posted this here: http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz1jw4?Can-rogues-Sneak-Attack-when-stealthed-Or- not#20

3.5 FAQ wrote:

If a rogue has successfully hidden behind some bushes and fires an arrow at a target less than 30 feet away from her, does she deal sneak attack damage?

Yes. The rules don’t come right out and say this, but a character who has successfully hidden from an opponent is considered invisible for the purpose of rendering that foe flatfooted, and thus deals sneak attack damage.

Discuss it with your GM, YMMV.


*sighs* Clearly this has gotten out of hand. My original post was made in the PFS forum to find out how PFS wants it handled since there clearly is no unambiguous 'right way' as the Stealth Playtest rules were never made official. This forum, of course, is not the place to find out such an answer, and as my post was moved by someone and I've been told it is bad form to repost to the original forum, this is all sort of a moot point to me now. I think it's pretty clear that if one was to house rule, then starting with the stealth playtest would be a great idea. Unfortunately... not PFS legal.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Want to stealth in PFS?

Greater Invisibility, combined with Negate Aroma, and Boots of the Soft Step.

Blindsense is the only thing you can't get around.


DrakeRoberts wrote:
*sighs* Clearly this has gotten out of hand. My original post was made in the PFS forum to find out how PFS wants it handled since there clearly is no unambiguous 'right way' as the Stealth Playtest rules were never made official. This forum, of course, is not the place to find out such an answer, and as my post was moved by someone and I've been told it is bad form to repost to the original forum, this is all sort of a moot point to me now. I think it's pretty clear that if one was to house rule, then starting with the stealth playtest would be a great idea. Unfortunately... not PFS legal.

Well, there is a claim out there that attacking from stealth denies Dex by RAW. It's not something that I'd argue at a PFS table since it's neither simple nor obvious, but it would be worth asking the GM before the game starts. It's more how you interpret the RAW than a house rule.

It's pretty clear that it only works on the first attack of a full attack routine.

Greater Invisibility is obviously the way to go, but it takes awhile to get there.


DrakeRoberts wrote:
*sighs* Clearly this has gotten out of hand. My original post was made in the PFS forum to find out how PFS wants it handled since there clearly is no unambiguous 'right way' as the Stealth Playtest rules were never made official. This forum, of course, is not the place to find out such an answer, and as my post was moved by someone and I've been told it is bad form to repost to the original forum, this is all sort of a moot point to me now. I think it's pretty clear that if one was to house rule, then starting with the stealth playtest would be a great idea. Unfortunately... not PFS legal.

If you want to use the Stealth / HiPS = Sneak Attack all day in PFS there is a way you can do it and be perfectly legal.

1. Stealth based Rogue with the Scout Archetype.
2. Skill Focus Stealth.
3. Hellcat Stealth feat (not sure if this is allowed in PFS actually).
4. Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack.
5. Shadowdancer (1st lvl gains HiPS but I would go at least three for boost in Darkvision and the Shadow companion).
6. Gain proficiency with the Elven Curve Blade.
7. Power Attack
8. An optional suggestion would be to take 7 or 8 levels in Two-Handed Fighter archetype, if you have at least a 14 STR. If you're an Elf and do this you will have proficiency in Elven Curve Blade automatically, plus you get Composite Long Bows which would also work well with this build.

Tactics:
You are a Shadowdancer/Rogue, hopefully with Hellcat Stealth, so you can pretty much use HiPS anywhere. You could also augment your HiPS ability with the HiPS advanced rogue talent if you need more coverage. You can pretty much disappear into any environment at that point. This alone may not be enough to grant you Sneak Attack in PFS or with certain GMs, which will lead me to the next part here.

You have Spring Attack. Stealth has NO ACTION REQUIREMENT, but is generally used as "part of a movement." Spring Attack is a movement; actually it is two movements with an attack in the middle.

With the Scout archetype, any time you charge or move more than 10' in your turn you get Sneak Attack as if your target were flat-footed.

Add that all together: You are pretty much always covered by stealth. You begin your turn in Stealth. Use Spring Attack against a target, roll Stealth for the closing movement. You will be attacking out of Stealth and your Scout archetype grants you Sneak Attack no matter what as long as you move 10' before your attack. Then, as you make your second movement away from your target, roll Stealth again and end your turn in Stealth. That is IF no one sees you with Perception.


thejeff wrote:

Well, I found Wraithstrike's thread. I was hoping for something a little more definitive. 200+ posts arguing about shows pretty clearly it isn't a settled question.

I dislike the approach he took. It's a very rules-lawerly one. I don't think the rules really support that level of analysis. As you say, they fall apart.

I wish the devs had found a way to weigh in that didn't raise more questions than it answered or required a major rewrite.

Oh well, I'm really happy house-ruling it. I just hoped someone had something concrete to point at.

You wanted rules justification for it, that thread provides it in the first post. People may wish to disagree with it, but it is there. Done.

As to how to work this in the rules, it's fairly straight forward how they operate here-

When an attacker is non-perceived by the subject then the subject is denied their DEX bonus to their AC. At which point the attacker is perceived by the subject.

There are special cases, but they are not hard to ascertain and adjudicate.

Now could they be worded more clearly and succinctly? Sure, but in a large part that's due to 3.5 wording and layout, much of which was ported over to PF in order to lessen people's adjustments to the new system.

But that was not your issue. Your issue was seeing what I described and wondering if that was RAW. It is. No house ruling needed. House explanations perhaps, but not rulings.

-James

Shadow Lodge

OK, its really hard to find because it is so assumed but here is a reference from the special abilities section.

"A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see."

Taking that to its logical conclusion if you cannot see then the creature is denied its dexterity towards you.


james maissen wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Well, I found Wraithstrike's thread. I was hoping for something a little more definitive. 200+ posts arguing about shows pretty clearly it isn't a settled question.

I dislike the approach he took. It's a very rules-lawerly one. I don't think the rules really support that level of analysis. As you say, they fall apart.

I wish the devs had found a way to weigh in that didn't raise more questions than it answered or required a major rewrite.

Oh well, I'm really happy house-ruling it. I just hoped someone had something concrete to point at.

You wanted rules justification for it, that thread provides it in the first post. People may wish to disagree with it, but it is there. Done.

As to how to work this in the rules, it's fairly straight forward how they operate here-

When an attacker is non-perceived by the subject then the subject is denied their DEX bonus to their AC. At which point the attacker is perceived by the subject.

There are special cases, but they are not hard to ascertain and adjudicate.

Now could they be worded more clearly and succinctly? Sure, but in a large part that's due to 3.5 wording and layout, much of which was ported over to PF in order to lessen people's adjustments to the new system.

But that was not your issue. Your issue was seeing what I described and wondering if that was RAW. It is. No house ruling needed. House explanations perhaps, but not rulings.

-James

My biggest problem with that kind of justification is that if a GM says no, you can't just point to a rule, you have to walk him through this long contrived argument. That's not usually a good idea, unless you both enjoy such things.

It's probably better to just say that it makes sense and suggest house ruling. Mention this argument if it looks like he wants an excuse.


thejeff wrote:

My biggest problem with that kind of justification is that if a GM says no, you can't just point to a rule, you have to walk him through this long contrived argument. That's not usually a good idea, unless you both enjoy such things.

It's probably better to just say that it makes sense and suggest house ruling. Mention this argument if it looks like he wants an excuse.

But you can. You can say to your DM, "This has been a problem since 3.5, and these rules are just brought over from 3.5 and even then they weren't written as clearly as they should have been but here is how WotC addressed this same situation in the 3.5 FAQ: 'If a rogue has successfully hidden behind some bushes and fires an arrow at a target less than 30 feet away from her, does she deal sneak attack damage? Yes. The rules don’t come right out and say this, but a character who has successfully hidden from an opponent is considered invisible for the purpose of rendering that foe flatfooted, and thus deals sneak attack damage.' This FAQ statement + PFs desire to rewrite the Stealth rules to clearly include Sneak Attack + Writhstrike's logical argument should be enough to convince a reasonable GM that Sneak Attack should be allowed from Stealth.

The only assumption here is that you are talking about a reasonable GM.


My post above was supposed to point to this thread:
Rogues can Sneak Attack from Stealth


thejeff wrote:

My biggest problem with that kind of justification is that if a GM says no, you can't just point to a rule, you have to walk him through this long contrived argument. That's not usually a good idea, unless you both enjoy such things.

It's probably better to just say that it makes sense and suggest house ruling. Mention this argument if it looks like he wants an excuse.

But it's NOT a house rule. It's the RAW.

If you can sit down with your DM to discuss 'house rules' then you can agree that it is already the rules.

So I really don't see the point here,

James


james maissen wrote:
thejeff wrote:

My biggest problem with that kind of justification is that if a GM says no, you can't just point to a rule, you have to walk him through this long contrived argument. That's not usually a good idea, unless you both enjoy such things.

It's probably better to just say that it makes sense and suggest house ruling. Mention this argument if it looks like he wants an excuse.

But it's NOT a house rule. It's the RAW.

If you can sit down with your DM to discuss 'house rules' then you can agree that it is already the rules.

So I really don't see the point here,

James

It may be RAW, but if I have to spend an hour (or a couple of hundred post thread) convincing him of that, just saying it's RAW isn't very helpful.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Stealth question All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.