Stealth to a sneak attack


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

In a recent game my player's ninja used a stealth check to hide in a nearby fog cloud, then moved out of the cloud 10 feet and attacked an opponent. He claimed since he had made the stealth check he got to do his sneak attack damage. Is he correct? I let him do so due to my incomplete understanding of how the stealth rules work. Thusly I turn to your infinite reserves of knowledge.

I searched, but failed to find an answer to this question, so I apologize if the answer is elsewere and I missed it. Also if said answer exists feel free to direct me there :)

Sczarni

Anytime a person is attempting stealth they must have some kind of cover/concealment to break line of sight to them, then you have to add in bonus' and negatives based on how they are doing it.

If a person in a closed room runs behind the single column to hide from some monster, then they are going to take a negative to their stealth because the monster knows they are somewhere behind that column, unless of course they have an Int of 2.. then you might fool them.


Coraith wrote:

If a person in a closed room runs behind the single column to hide from some monster, then they are going to take a negative to their stealth because the monster knows they are somewhere behind that column, unless of course they have an Int of 2.. then you might fool them.

and that modifier is a -10 if target is aware your in the area


Generally on stealth, it is an opposed perception check vs their stealth roll. Senses such as low-light vision or tremorsense may change it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As soon as he leaves the fog he is no longer stealthed. That is why stealth sucks in combat.

There is also no penalty to stealth because the enemy knows where you might be at.


Phasics wrote:
Coraith wrote:

If a person in a closed room runs behind the single column to hide from some monster, then they are going to take a negative to their stealth because the monster knows they are somewhere behind that column, unless of course they have an Int of 2.. then you might fool them.

and that modifier is a -10 if target is aware your in the area

The -10 modifier is for using stealth after making a distraction (bluff, etc), not for using stealth when enemies know you're around.


so if he is no longer stealthed when he leaves the fog how can he sneak up on somebody who is in the open?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

He can not sneak attack if he is no longer hidden. If they are observed at all they are no longer hidden. So the Ninja would have to get the person he wants to sneak attack to enter the fog cloud. Even if you use a distraction you need to hind cover or concealment (ie the fog cloud) to use stealth. I think people tend to think of it more as invisibility but really is not.

PRD wrote:


Check: 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.

A creature larger or smaller than Medium takes a size bonus or penalty on Stealth checks depending on its size category: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Large –4, Huge –8, Gargantuan –12, Colossal –16.

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.


Actually, if the target enters the fog cloud, you can't sneak attack him, because he has concealment. If he's just outside the fog, while you're inside you can sneak attack.

I'd also suggest checking out the Stealth changes playtest. It's Paizo's attempt to address some of the issues with stealth, but the changes were to big to roll out as a FAQ, so it's in limbo.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you go back into the blog posts about Stealth, you'll see the proposed way the devs suggest to clarify/enhance the stealth rules. With a bit of luck that will actually be included in the next reprinting of Core.

By those stealth guidelines, the ninja is able to do what you describe.


just adding my vote that stealth could use some clarification. Or maybe the clarification is there and the rules just all need to be brought together in a "here's how stealth works in combat" entry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a GM, I have a houserule that a character with Sneak Attack ability can make a stealth check opposed by his target's perception to remain in stealth against that target for one sneak attack. This is purely a houserule. The actual rules say, "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth." Once an opponent has clear line of sight on the hidden character and the lighting is good, then stealth ends.

Variants of this houserule are moderately common. It mimics some D&D 2nd Edition rules (not 3rd Edition) and reduces the party rogue's dependence on flanking for his sneak attacks.

LoreKeeper wrote:

If you go back into the blog posts about Stealth, you'll see the proposed way the devs suggest to clarify/enhance the stealth rules. With a bit of luck that will actually be included in the next reprinting of Core.

By those stealth guidelines, the ninja is able to do what you describe.

The links to the Paizo blogs on a rethinking of the Stealth rules that might possibly in the distant future be implemented, or maybe it is all a thought experiment:

Stealth Playtest

Stealth Playtest, Round Two

In addition, a classic post, Stealth Doesn't Work or How Jack B. Nimble Doesn't Steal A Chicken, points out that under the current stealth rules, a highly-skilled rogue cannot even sneak unto a chicken coup during daylight hours if the farmer is hoeing a thousand feet away in a field.


Mathmuse wrote:

As a GM, I have a houserule that a character with Sneak Attack ability can make a stealth check opposed by his target's perception to remain in stealth against that target for one sneak attack. This is purely a houserule. The actual rules say, "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth." Once an opponent has clear line of sight on the hidden character and the lighting is good, then stealth ends.

Couldn't they just feint? I'd imagine a rogue's bluff skill would be pretty high. If it's only one sneak attack, then wasting a move action (improved feint I believe) would allow them to follow up with a sneak attack.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Low-light vision does not affect stealth. Was probably confused with darkvision, which changes light effects and disables stealth in dim light and darkness.

Line of sight by RAW immeadiately breaks stealth.
But if the character ahs not acted yet, he might be flat-footed and denied his DEX, what gives a sneak attack.

Also on a personal note i think if you were not observed while entering stealth, it should just be opposed checks stealth vs perception with modifiers.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Issue with Line of Sight and combat is that there is no facing in DnD combat, so it's difficult to say if that person is looking that way or not. Clearly, they can't just look around the entire combat at a 360 degree angle. That why I use the Perception skill for when that rogue is leaving concealment to stab someone. It'd represent the target looking around.

It also helps to remember that Stealth is also moving silently, not just hiding. And as for observing, I'm pretty sure the intent was directly keeping an eye on you (like a guard watching over a jail cell), not just using your senses. If there is one language that needs to be changed, it's that. That and emphasizing the Move Silently aspect of Stealth, not just hiding.


cmastah wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:

As a GM, I have a houserule that a character with Sneak Attack ability can make a stealth check opposed by his target's perception to remain in stealth against that target for one sneak attack. This is purely a houserule. The actual rules say, "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth." Once an opponent has clear line of sight on the hidden character and the lighting is good, then stealth ends.

Couldn't they just feint? I'd imagine a rogue's bluff skill would be pretty high. If it's only one sneak attack, then wasting a move action (improved feint I believe) would allow them to follow up with a sneak attack.

A rogue who invested skill ranks in Bluff and two feats in Combat Expertise and Improved Feint could feint instead of flanking, yes. And a rogue or ninja can afford to invest in Bluff. The two feats, on the other hand, are a heavy tax.

Furthermore, sneaking up unseen on an opponent and feinting an opponent are two different methods of gaining a sneak attack and have different flavors. Improved feint is repeatable and requires standing next to an opponent to manage it. Attacking from concealment is a one-time effect unless the rogue retreats and hides again. Which some rogues prefer to do, because they have fewer hit points than the full-BAB melee fighters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Enforcing the "line of sight break stealth" is one of the most hilarious interpretation of the rules. I have yet to see just one DM/grop that play like that.


Odraude wrote:

Issue with Line of Sight and combat is that there is no facing in DnD combat, so it's difficult to say if that person is looking that way or not. Clearly, they can't just look around the entire combat at a 360 degree angle. That why I use the Perception skill for when that rogue is leaving concealment to stab someone. It'd represent the target looking around.

It also helps to remember that Stealth is also moving silently, not just hiding. And as for observing, I'm pretty sure the intent was directly keeping an eye on you (like a guard watching over a jail cell), not just using your senses. If there is one language that needs to be changed, it's that. That and emphasizing the Move Silently aspect of Stealth, not just hiding.

By the rules you do effectively have 360 degree vision. If you can draw a line from the potential victim to the attacker, and there is no cover or concealment then the attacker is not stealthed.


wraithstrike wrote:
Odraude wrote:

Issue with Line of Sight and combat is that there is no facing in DnD combat, so it's difficult to say if that person is looking that way or not. Clearly, they can't just look around the entire combat at a 360 degree angle. That why I use the Perception skill for when that rogue is leaving concealment to stab someone. It'd represent the target looking around.

It also helps to remember that Stealth is also moving silently, not just hiding. And as for observing, I'm pretty sure the intent was directly keeping an eye on you (like a guard watching over a jail cell), not just using your senses. If there is one language that needs to be changed, it's that. That and emphasizing the Move Silently aspect of Stealth, not just hiding.

By the rules you do effectively have 360 degree vision. If you can draw a line from the potential victim to the attacker, and there is no cover or concealment then the attacker is not stealthed.

then why not every pc have

All-Around Vision (Ex)

The creature sees in all directions at once. It cannot be flanked.

Format: all-around vision; Location: Defensive Abilities.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Odraude wrote:

Issue with Line of Sight and combat is that there is no facing in DnD combat, so it's difficult to say if that person is looking that way or not. Clearly, they can't just look around the entire combat at a 360 degree angle. That why I use the Perception skill for when that rogue is leaving concealment to stab someone. It'd represent the target looking around.

It also helps to remember that Stealth is also moving silently, not just hiding. And as for observing, I'm pretty sure the intent was directly keeping an eye on you (like a guard watching over a jail cell), not just using your senses. If there is one language that needs to be changed, it's that. That and emphasizing the Move Silently aspect of Stealth, not just hiding.

By the rules you do effectively have 360 degree vision. If you can draw a line from the potential victim to the attacker, and there is no cover or concealment then the attacker is not stealthed.

I can understand that for proactive actions (attacks, casting a spell), but I feel more reactive actions for sight should be delegated to the Perception skill roll.


Nicos wrote:


then why not every pc have

All-Around Vision (Ex)

The creature sees in all directions at once. It cannot be flanked.

Format: all-around vision; Location: Defensive Abilities.

It simplifies combat mechanics is the reason players are given 360 degrees of vision. E.g, not having to deal with facing mechanics in combat. While not giving them the all around vision ability allows for some minor things like flanking bonuses and the like - which are easy to understand rules.

Any competent GM would allow a stealthy character an opportunity or chance to sneak up on a unsuspecting guard or opponent. An opponent that is aware of your presence, but not your current location, is much harder to sneak up on though. The current rules set though is very weak on stealth based abilities and what you can/cannot do.


Nicos wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Odraude wrote:

Issue with Line of Sight and combat is that there is no facing in DnD combat, so it's difficult to say if that person is looking that way or not. Clearly, they can't just look around the entire combat at a 360 degree angle. That why I use the Perception skill for when that rogue is leaving concealment to stab someone. It'd represent the target looking around.

It also helps to remember that Stealth is also moving silently, not just hiding. And as for observing, I'm pretty sure the intent was directly keeping an eye on you (like a guard watching over a jail cell), not just using your senses. If there is one language that needs to be changed, it's that. That and emphasizing the Move Silently aspect of Stealth, not just hiding.

By the rules you do effectively have 360 degree vision. If you can draw a line from the potential victim to the attacker, and there is no cover or concealment then the attacker is not stealthed.

then why not every pc have

All-Around Vision (Ex)

The creature sees in all directions at once. It cannot be flanked.

Format: all-around vision; Location: Defensive Abilities.

I was saying that by the rules every creature can see anyone or anything without cover or concealment. That ability you mentioned just makes it so that you can't be flanked.


Odraude wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Odraude wrote:

Issue with Line of Sight and combat is that there is no facing in DnD combat, so it's difficult to say if that person is looking that way or not. Clearly, they can't just look around the entire combat at a 360 degree angle. That why I use the Perception skill for when that rogue is leaving concealment to stab someone. It'd represent the target looking around.

It also helps to remember that Stealth is also moving silently, not just hiding. And as for observing, I'm pretty sure the intent was directly keeping an eye on you (like a guard watching over a jail cell), not just using your senses. If there is one language that needs to be changed, it's that. That and emphasizing the Move Silently aspect of Stealth, not just hiding.

By the rules you do effectively have 360 degree vision. If you can draw a line from the potential victim to the attacker, and there is no cover or concealment then the attacker is not stealthed.
I can understand that for proactive actions (attacks, casting a spell), but I feel more reactive actions for sight should be delegated to the Perception skill roll.

I knew what you were saying, but since we are in the rules section I wanted to make sure nobody got confused.


bbangerter wrote:
Nicos wrote:


then why not every pc have

All-Around Vision (Ex)

The creature sees in all directions at once. It cannot be flanked.

Format: all-around vision; Location: Defensive Abilities.

It simplifies combat mechanics is the reason players are given 360 degrees of vision. E.g, not having to deal with facing mechanics in combat. While not giving them the all around vision ability allows for some minor things like flanking bonuses and the like - which are easy to understand rules.

Any competent GM would allow a stealthy character an opportunity or chance to sneak up on a unsuspecting guard or opponent. An opponent that is aware of your presence, but not your current location, is much harder to sneak up on though. The current rules set though is very weak on stealth based abilities and what you can/cannot do.

Many GM's use the RAW version of stealth just because it is easier.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well well. Having taken a look into the Advanced Race Guide, there is one feature that questions a lot here.

It is a Monster Trait called "All-Around Vision" costing 4RP.

Advanced Race Guide wrote:

All-Around Vision (4 RP):

Prerequisites: None;
Benefit: Members of this race have some way of seeing all around them, granting them a +4 racial bonus on Perception checks and making them immune to f lanking.

In my humble opinion, this strenghtens the line of sight can still mean opposed checks untill especially noted otherwise or not applyable.

You can´t sneak standing behind someone who stand in front of a door on guard, because there is no room for that.
But you can still sneak through the sight of someone watching over a large area or in a crowd or something similar that offers enough distraction or a large anough angle that cannot be viewed completely all the time.


Hayato the rules say you must have cover or concealment to have stealth, unless they are distracted which is what a bluff check can be used for. Any other ways to distract someone are GM Fiat, and not applicable in the rules section.

The general flanking rules simulate the fact that two opponents on opposing side are harder to deal with. The All around vision ability assumes that you can see both opponents equally well.'

The Jack B Nimble thread explains the issues with stealth in great detail.


Salubri wrote:

In a recent game my player's ninja used a stealth check to hide in a nearby fog cloud, then moved out of the cloud 10 feet and attacked an opponent. He claimed since he had made the stealth check he got to do his sneak attack damage. Is he correct? I let him do so due to my incomplete understanding of how the stealth rules work. Thusly I turn to your infinite reserves of knowledge.

I searched, but failed to find an answer to this question, so I apologize if the answer is elsewere and I missed it. Also if said answer exists feel free to direct me there :)

Alright, let us take it from the top:

The stealth skill is about attempting to remain unobserved when conditions would otherwise have the user become observed.

1. In order to use the skill one must first begin by being unobserved. You cannot remain unobserved if you are currently observed.

2. You must maintain some degree of cover and/or concealment relative to a potential observer. If they have a clear line of sight to you then you become observed (e.g. the ninja completely out of the cloud with nothing between them and the victim).

3. You must succeed in an opposed skill check against each potential observer.

How does that work?

This should begin to give you the idea behind the skill and how to adjudicate it.

-James


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still think the "canonical" interpretarion of stealth is the wors posible interpretation.

I would like to see the rule that says "at every time a character see in 360 degrees"


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:

Hayato the rules say you must have cover or concealment to have stealth, unless they are distracted which is what a bluff check can be used for. Any other ways to distract someone are GM Fiat, and not applicable in the rules section.

The general flanking rules simulate the fact that two opponents on opposing side are harder to deal with. The All around vision ability assumes that you can see both opponents equally well.'

The Jack B Nimble thread explains the issues with stealth in great detail.

I´m aware of that and you are right.

That´s why i said: "in my opinion".


Sneaking into a combat that's already happening should be next to impossible, as it is according to the rules.


Nicos wrote:

I still think the "canonical" interpretarion of stealth is the wors posible interpretation.

I would like to see the rule that says "at every time a character see in 360 degrees"

We do agree that it sucks, but the game has no facing. The fact that it is so hard to stealth in combat was why Paizo was considering changing the rules so that it was possible.

Here is basically how the rules word it. If I can draw a line from character A to character B, and there is no cover or concealment e then character B can't hide.

Such facing rules would also make it so that if someone is charged from all sides in the same round that one of the attackers would count as not being seen if he could not see all of them, since all of the actions in a round are pretty much simultaneous. We take turns in real life, but the characters are fighting the entire time.


Hayato Ken wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Hayato the rules say you must have cover or concealment to have stealth, unless they are distracted which is what a bluff check can be used for. Any other ways to distract someone are GM Fiat, and not applicable in the rules section.

The general flanking rules simulate the fact that two opponents on opposing side are harder to deal with. The All around vision ability assumes that you can see both opponents equally well.'

The Jack B Nimble thread explains the issues with stealth in great detail.

I´m aware of that and you are right.

That´s why i said: "in my opinion".

I thought you were saying "in my opinion the rules really say..."

I see what you mean now though.

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:

I still think the "canonical" interpretarion of stealth is the wors posible interpretation.

I would like to see the rule that says "at every time a character see in 360 degrees"

That's not necessary.

You're thinking like a character. Think like a GM instead. If you award a monster precision damage or a surprise round for attacking a character that has a clear and direct line of sight to the monster, and claim that the character was just looking in the wrong direction, the response you're going to get EVERY SINGLE TIME is "No way, I could have been looking over there! He's in plain sight!"...and that's going to be very, very difficult to argue with.

Now, if the player describes his watch actions as "I'm staring listlessly into the fire thinking about the beautiful princess", it's clear that the character is distracted (voluntarily), so you can absolutely stipulate that the beastie could sneak up (with a modified opposed roll, of course). Likewise, if the GM describes the monster as distracted:

Rogue: What's he doing?
GM: He's staring fixedly at his computer screen, and he has headphones on.
Rogue: Stealth up and sneak attack!

...then yeah, that works, too. The best common-sense fix for the Stealth problem is simply a liberal application of the distracted clause, in my opinion.


Jeremiziah wrote:
Nicos wrote:

I still think the "canonical" interpretarion of stealth is the wors posible interpretation.

I would like to see the rule that says "at every time a character see in 360 degrees"

That's not necessary.

You're thinking like a character. Think like a GM instead. If you award a monster precision damage or a surprise round for attacking a character that has a clear and direct line of sight to the monster, and claim that the character was just looking in the wrong direction, the response you're going to get EVERY SINGLE TIME is "No way, I could have been looking over there! He's in plain sight!"...and that's going to be very, very difficult to argue with.

Now, if the player describes his watch actions as "I'm staring listlessly into the fire thinking about the beautiful princess", it's clear that the character is distracted (voluntarily), so you can absolutely stipulate that the beastie could sneak up (with a modified opposed roll, of course). Likewise, if the GM describes the monster as distracted:

Rogue: What's he doing?
GM: He's staring fixedly at his computer screen, and he has headphones on.
Rogue: Stealth up and sneak attack!

...then yeah, that works, too. The best common-sense fix for the Stealth problem is simply a liberal application of the distracted clause, in my opinion.

I am thinking like a DM, last sesion a rogue stabed in the back the fighter/rogue of the party. The Player did not complain because she was allowed a perception check, i think she would complain more if i tell her that basically her stealh skill is wothless.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:


I am thinking like a DM, last sesion a rogue stabed in the back the fighter/rogue of the party. The Player did not complain because she was allowed a perception check, i think she would complain more if i tell her that basically her stealh skill is worthless.

Rules aside what I have done in the past is allow the stealthed character to get the sneak attack off, if they can get to the victim in one turn. I do it by group though. Some prefer to use the rules in the book. Others have preferred to give stealth some assistance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Nicos wrote:

I still think the "canonical" interpretarion of stealth is the wors posible interpretation.

I would like to see the rule that says "at every time a character see in 360 degrees"

We do agree that it sucks, but the game has no facing. The fact that it is so hard to stealth in combat was why Paizo was considering changing the rules so that it was possible.

Here is basically how the rules word it. If I can draw a line from character A to character B, and there is no cover or concealment e then character B can't hide.

Such facing rules would also make it so that if someone is charged from all sides in the same round that one of the attackers would count as not being seen if he could not see all of them, since all of the actions in a round are pretty much simultaneous. We take turns in real life, but the characters are fighting the entire time.

You have to admit the stalh skill do not say that.

Stealth says that against morst creatures finding cover and concelemanet allow to use the skill.

it also says that if a creature is distracter (such by a bluff check*) then the character can use stealth.

in nowhere i read that cover and bluff are the only way to use stealth, there are just options.

* or looking to anohter side.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
i think she would complain more if i tell her that basically her stealh skill is wothless.

It's not worthless. It's just not the ability to become invisible.

Rather it's the chance to remain unnoticed.

This is perfectly achievable in combat.

You, as the DM, should simply not be lazy about having flat, featureless terrain as that is something that is RARE.

-James

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:


I am thinking like a DM, last sesion a rogue stabed in the back the fighter/rogue of the party. The Player did not complain because she was allowed a perception check, i think she would complain more if i tell her that basically her stealh skill is wothless.

Do you force a character who wants to pick an apple to make a perception check when there is an apple tree directly in front of him? Or would you just tell him there's a tree, have at it?


james maissen wrote:
Nicos wrote:
i think she would complain more if i tell her that basically her stealh skill is wothless.

It's not worthless. It's just not the ability to become invisible.

Rather it's the chance to remain unnoticed.

This is perfectly achievable in combat.

You, as the DM, should simply not be lazy about having flat, featureless terrain as that is something that is RARE.

-James

I think is more lazy to say taht every enemy PC/NPC have 360 degree of freedom.

and besides any time she would attempt to move the stealth would break because if she abandon cover the enemy would notice her presence and do not matter what she does later because she can use stealth if the enemy already notice her.


james maissen wrote:


This is perfectly achievable in combat.

Disagree with that, certainly in the the "sneak up on someone while they're fighting" - combat is the most heithened state of awareness characters will ever be in...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeremiziah wrote:
Nicos wrote:


I am thinking like a DM, last sesion a rogue stabed in the back the fighter/rogue of the party. The Player did not complain because she was allowed a perception check, i think she would complain more if i tell her that basically her stealh skill is wothless.

Do you force a character who wants to pick an apple to make a perception check when there is an apple tree directly in front of him? Or would you just tell him there's a tree, have at it?

Every group play as they like, if you like to play by the "RAW" (and i do not think in this case the RAW is taht clear as presented in the forum) then enjoy your sesions.

I and my group (and ever person i have played with) prefer a more realistic aproach.

and to anwer directly your question, the PC have only one front and the atacker was not directly in front of her.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From gaze attack

Gaze (Su)

A gaze attack takes effect when foes look at the attacking creature’s eyes. The attack can have any sort of effect; petrification, death, and charm are common. The typical range is 30 feet. The type of saving throw for a gaze attack is usually a Will or Fortitude save (DC 10 + the 1/2 gazing creature’s racial HD + the gazing creature’s Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s text). A successful saving throw negates the effect. A monster’s gaze attack is described in abbreviated form in its description. Each opponent within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw each round at the beginning of his or her turn in the initiative order. Opponents can avoid the need to make the saving throw by not looking at the creature, in one of two ways.

Averting Eyes: The opponent avoids looking at the creature’s face, instead looking at its body, watching its shadow, tracking it in a reflective surface, etc. Each round, the opponent has a 50% chance to avoid having to make a saving throw against the gaze attack. The creature with the gaze attack, however, gains concealment against that opponent.

Wearing a Blindfold: The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one’s back on the creature or shutting one’s eyes) and does not have to make saving throws against the gaze. However, the creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent.


Funky Badger wrote:
Sneaking into a combat that's already happening should be next to impossible, as it is according to the rules.

Why? Combat is messy, fast moving, chaotic and confusing. As players we see it in slow motion from above. In the thick of it it's hard to keep track of anyone you're not directly engaged with.

People get taken by surprise in the middle of a fight all the time. People get mistakenly attacked by others on the same side.

And that's without assuming people who are superhumanly good at being sneaky.


thejeff wrote:


People get taken by surprise in the middle of a fight all the time. People get mistakenly attacked by others on the same side.

Not in hand-to-hand combat they don't. Human peripheral vision is insanely good, certainly - in game terms - in the surrounding squares.

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:

Every group play as they like, if you like to play by the "RAW" (and i do not think in this case the RAW is taht clear as presented in the forum) then enjoy your sesions.

I and my group (and ever person i have played with) prefer a more realistic aproach.

and to anwer directly your question, the PC have only one front and the atacker was not directly in front of her.

Yeah, I totally agree, do whatever makes you have fun. And cool, you have facing in your game. I think that's really neat, and would prefer that Pathfinder did have facing out of the box.

Unfortunately, it does not. But I agree, if you have a set of rules (or, as it sounds, a lack of them, which is fine too) that you and your players enjoy, by all means have fun.

To clarify, though, this is the rules forum, where we generally limit the discussion to what the rules say. That's why you're hearing some of the things you're hearing. And those things aren't wrong at all, because we're in the rules forum.


Jeremiziah wrote:


To clarify, though, this is the rules forum, where we generally limit the discussion to what the rules say. That's why you're hearing some of the things you're hearing. And those things aren't wrong at all, because we're in the rules forum.

Ok, then lets do a purely RAW discussion. in the gaze attack it is statd that one of the method to avoid a gze attack is

Wearing a Blindfold: The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one’s back on the creature or shutting one’s eyes) and does not have to make saving throws against the gaze. However, the creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent.

So,

1) A PC/Npc have blind spots.
2) creatures in the blind spots are consireder to have total concealement

By RAW you can use stealth if you have any form of concealement (like standing in the back of the enemy, see above)

Ergo, by the rules a creature in the blind spots of a Npc could use Stealth to not be noticed.


Nicos wrote:
Jeremiziah wrote:


To clarify, though, this is the rules forum, where we generally limit the discussion to what the rules say. That's why you're hearing some of the things you're hearing. And those things aren't wrong at all, because we're in the rules forum.

Ok, then lets do a purely RAW discussion. in the gaze attack it is statd that one of the method to avoid a gze attack is

Wearing a Blindfold: The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one’s back on the creature or shutting one’s eyes) and does not have to make saving throws against the gaze. However, the creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent.

So,

1) A PC/Npc have blind spots.
2) creatures in the blind spots are consireder to have total concealement

By RAW you can use stealth if you have any form of concealement (like standing in the back of the enemy, see above)

Ergo, by the rules a creature in the blind spots of a Npc could use Stealth to not be noticed.

But, by RAW, they only have blind spots if they're deliberately avoiding looking at someone. In combat, you are assumed to be constantly shifting your position and trying to be aware of everything around you, unless you specifically do otherwise: like not looking at the medusa.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Funky Badger wrote:
thejeff wrote:


People get taken by surprise in the middle of a fight all the time. People get mistakenly attacked by others on the same side.
Not in hand-to-hand combat they don't. Human peripheral vision is insanely good, certainly - in game terms - in the surrounding squares.

Human peripheral vision is good, but you underestimate the focus on the guy you're fighting. You also don't have eyes in the back of your head. And if you're constantly throwing glances over your shoulder the guy in front of you will take advantage of that distraction.


thejeff wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Jeremiziah wrote:


To clarify, though, this is the rules forum, where we generally limit the discussion to what the rules say. That's why you're hearing some of the things you're hearing. And those things aren't wrong at all, because we're in the rules forum.

Ok, then lets do a purely RAW discussion. in the gaze attack it is statd that one of the method to avoid a gze attack is

Wearing a Blindfold: The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one’s back on the creature or shutting one’s eyes) and does not have to make saving throws against the gaze. However, the creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent.

So,

1) A PC/Npc have blind spots.
2) creatures in the blind spots are consireder to have total concealement

By RAW you can use stealth if you have any form of concealement (like standing in the back of the enemy, see above)

Ergo, by the rules a creature in the blind spots of a Npc could use Stealth to not be noticed.

But, by RAW, they only have blind spots if they're deliberately avoiding looking at someone. In combat, you are assumed to be constantly shifting your position and trying to be aware of everything around you, unless you specifically do otherwise: like not looking at the medusa.

I do not see the rule that says that the only blind spot are "if they're deliberately avoiding looking at someone"

a quote please.


Nicos wrote:
thejeff wrote:

But, by RAW, they only have blind spots if they're deliberately avoiding looking at someone. In combat, you are assumed to be constantly shifting your position and trying to be aware of everything around you, unless you specifically do otherwise: like not looking at the medusa.

I do not see the rule that says that the only blind spot are "if they're deliberately avoiding looking at someone"

a quote please.

You are attempting to derive this RAW from the quote " The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one’s back on the creature...)"

"Turning one's back" is deliberately not looking at someone.

1 to 50 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Stealth to a sneak attack All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.