In a Rogue guide, one suggestion for how an Archer Rogue could get sneak attacks in was to take a level of Oracle and combine the Water Sight revelation with the Obscuring Mist spell.
Would it be possible to gain sneak attacks by combining Water Sight and this arrow:
A smoke arrow trails smoke as it flies, and creates a 5-foot cube of smoke where it strikes. It otherwise functions like a normal arrow in terms of damage, range, and so on.
Water Sight sees through mist because mist is water.
Smoke is not water.
In other words, no.
In a Rogue guide, one suggestion for how an Archer Rogue could get sneak attacks in was to take a level of Oracle and combine the Water Sight revelation with the Obscuring Mist spell.
Would it be possible to gain sneak attacks by combining Water Sight and this arrow:
A smoke arrow trails smoke as it flies, and creates a 5-foot cube of smoke where it strikes. It otherwise functions like a normal arrow in terms of damage, range, and so on.
I think whoever wrote that guide is wrong. You can only sneak attack when the target is flat-footed or denied a bonus to dex. The rules for concealment are different than the rules for invisibility. I can't find anywhere that concealment denies a bonus to dex.
In your example it probably wouldn't work anyway because if you create a 5-foot smoke square in a creatures space, nothing is concealed from it because there are no squares providing concealment between the corner of its square and any other, which is how concealment is determined.
eta: I would disagree with Patrick about smoke though, because there are no distinct rules for smoke that I'm aware of, and in the case of smoke-causing items that do make a mechanical reference (smokesticks), they reference fog cloud and obscuring mist to determine the rules. I think smoke and fog are the same mechanically.
@Patrick good answer, thank you.
@Ximen- You might be right about the concealment; but I'd suggest that you could just puff up some smoke in front of them so there is concealment.
@Ximen- You might be right about the concealment; but I'd suggest that you could just puff up some smoke in front of them so there is concealment.
You could get concealment that way. It'd give you a little edge in an archer duel, I suppose, but I doubt it would come into play that often.
I just found this from the Flames mystery
Gaze of Flames (Su): You can see through fire, fog, and smoke without penalty as long as the light is sufficient to allow you to see normally.
So, where is the rule saying that Concealment doesn't allow sneak attacks?
Well, but Concealment would allow a Rogue to use Stealth, which would then allow him to use Sneak Attack. Cool idea, might have to keep that in mind for later :)
AS CGL indicates. The concealment would allow a sneak = sneak attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kazaan, if the target can't see anyone beyond the smoke or fog, then the Rogue would effectively have Concealment from the target even without having to be in the area of smoke/fog. It doesn't matter whether the Rogue could also use Stealth against other enemies not in the smoke/fog since he's not trying to get a Sneak Attack on them.
Target can't see Rogue = Rogue has total Concealment = Rogue can use Stealth = Rogue can use Sneak Attack against target
Kazaan, if the target can't see anyone beyond the smoke or fog, then the Rogue would effectively have Concealment from the target even without having to be in the area of smoke/fog. It doesn't matter whether the Rogue could also use Stealth against other enemies not in the smoke/fog since he's not trying to get a Sneak Attack on them.
That is probably the RAI, its how i do it, But it isn't strictly raw. There is no mechanic for stealth to deny their dex bonus to ac once combat has started.
Target can't see Rogue = Rogue has total Concealment = Rogue can use Stealth = Rogue can use Sneak Attack against target
The problem is that if the target is in a fog cloud then THEY have concealment too. If your opponent has concealment then you can't sneak attack them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BNW, the discussion implies that the Rogue has Water Sight or Gaze of Flames (Oracle revelations) to be able to see through fog or smoke normally.
I checked the rules and you are right, it does not directly say that a successful Stealth check makes your opponent flat-footed against your attacks (or denies him his Dex bonus). However, if you have successfully stealthed, aren't you effectively invisible for them? Same with total Concealment, if they can't pinpoint your location with sight because you have total Concealment, isn't that basically the same as being invisible for them?
I just realised how inconsistent the rules seem to be when it comes to Invisibility and total Concealment (they grant different things although, actually, they have the same effect: you cannot be seen). *sigh* Okay, time to think of a consistent way to rule it in my campaign, I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, if you have successfully stealthed, aren't you effectively invisible for them? Same with total Concealment, if they can't pinpoint your location with sight because you have total Concealment, isn't that basically the same as being invisible for them?
With total concealment yes.
In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat (all opponents have total concealment), loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and takes a –4 penalty on Perception checks that rely on sight and most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. Areas of darkness include an unlit dungeon chamber, most caverns, and outside on a cloudy, moonless night.
Stealth, by raw , doesn't grant you total concealment. It.. doesn't grant you any conditions really.
There's also the problem that its impossible to fight while stealthing. So does your attack break stealth before or after you swing?
I think the rules are intended for rogues to be able to stealth in and out of combat to sneak attack, so i let them do it anyway.
I agree with you on what the RAW say about Stealth. I'm currently brainstorming this with my sweetheart, who's also GMing (I wasn't even aware that Stealth, by RAW, did not allow SAs during a fight since every GM I've played with so far allowed it, so thanks for pointing it out).
You have a valid point with your darkness example. I'd also like your thoughts on the situation of the target being in fog or smoke (since this thread is mostly about this situation). The target isn't effectively blinded since he's able to see 5 ft. around him (even with a miss chance), but someone farther away would still get total Concealment. Would the target still lose his Dex against a Rogue attacking from, let's say, 10 or 15 ft. away?
eta: I would disagree with Patrick about smoke though, because there are no distinct rules for smoke that I'm aware of, and in the case of smoke-causing items that do make a mechanical reference (smokesticks), they reference fog cloud and obscuring mist to determine the rules. I think smoke and fog are the same mechanically.
RAW: "You can see through fog and mist without penalty as long as there is enough light to allow you to see normal." It doesn't say "fog, mist, and smoke." It says "fog and mist." They might function the same, but they are not actually the same.
RAI: WATER sight, not "opaque particles in the air" sight.
Concealment and stealth is your best bet, imho. That can be accomplished without relying on magic spells. It is still difficult to pull this sort of thing off though, because you have to take an action to cause the smoke, fog or other concealment effect to take place, then you have to move while concealed, which usually ends your turn. Most of my NPCs would immediately move away from a sudden fog or dust cloud that erupted beside or around them. If you're going to invest in spells, it's hard to beat the old standby "invisibiity."
You have a valid point with your darkness example. I'd also like your thoughts on the situation of the target being in fog or smoke (since this thread is mostly about this situation). The target isn't effectively blinded since he's able to see 5 ft. around him (even with a miss chance), but someone farther away would still get total Concealment. Would the target still lose his Dex against a Rogue attacking from, let's say, 10 or 15 ft. away?
I believe that the blindness is relative to whether you can see them or not , so yes if you can see into the fog and they can't see out then Id treat the rogue as invisible.
BNW, thanks a lot! At least I'm not alone with my interpretation then :)