RAW, attacking from concealment does not deny an opponent his DEX bonus - even total concealment. It does mean assuming the target knows what square you're in and successfully 'hits', he still has a 50% chance to miss you; he also doesn't get AoOs against you, even if he knows exactly what square you're in.
Now, if the fog grants the target the blinded condition and it lacks Blindsight, then it loses its DEX bonus and takes other penalties.
[edit]
That said, some DMs may allow such concealment to allow for a stealth check to move adjacent to the target without its knowledge, and then attack it from an exposed position (i.e., deny the target its DEX bonus).
There's some indication, from a recent stealth playtest that occurred, that the designers agree that RAI stealth\concealment might grant you opportunities to get sneak attack damage, but RAW it does not currently include those mechanics.
The PRD says:
"Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check."
So, like was said, Concealment does not automatically allow you to deny a foe their dexterity bonus, but it allows you to make a Stealth check to do so.
Except that attacking from Stealth doesn't deny your opponent their Dexterity bonus either.
Seems really silly to me that in order to do this, you'd have to be Invisible in the fog cloud, even though your target already can't see you.
To me as well. I know the designers feel it would be too big of a rules change to errata, but I would love to see it nonetheless.
If it's not strictly RAW, it's definitely RAI that attacking from Stealth denies your opponent their Dex bonus.
In any case, I've never met (or heard of) a DM who doesn't play it that way.
Except that attacking from Stealth doesn't deny your opponent their Dexterity bonus either.
Isn't that the point of attacking from Stealth?
Your opponent isn't "flat-footed" in that they can still act and take attacks of opportunity, but they should be denied their dex bonus against any attacker they can't see.
Yes, this was part of the Stealth kerfuffle. Per RAW, Stealth or hidden or concealment does not make your foes lose his DEX. Only Invisibility, being flatfooted, etc.
But as JJ and the blogs have made clear, the devs wanted Stealth to allow Sneak attack. However, it would have taken a huge rules re-write to do so. Its a common houserule.
My Sylph multi-class Monk (Zen Archer) takes the Cloud Gazer racial feat to see through the fog she creates between herself and her enemies with her horn of fog. She has total concealment from them, while they have no concealment from her. Does she get to apply her SA dice to her attacks while within 30ft after the surprise round, as long as she maintains the total concealment?If the target cannot perceive the attacker, then the target is denied their DEX bonus to AC (baring a special ability like Uncanny Dodge).
-James
While I agree RAI, this is not true RAW except at the beginning of combat, in circumstances where one 'side' of the fight would get a surprise round if they were not perceived by their opponents.
The rules for concealment (short of invisibility) - i.e., remaining unperceived by your opponents, either through magic or stealth - say nothing about denying your target its DEX bonus.
Except that attacking from Stealth doesn't deny your opponent their Dexterity bonus either.
Seems really silly to me that in order to do this, you'd have to be Invisible in the fog cloud, even though your target already can't see you.
Indeed it does seem silly. However I don't believe it to be true either.
What precisely leads you to believe that a person who is not observing you, get their dexterity bonus to their AC?
-Nearyn
Except that attacking from Stealth doesn't deny your opponent their Dexterity bonus either.
Seems really silly to me that in order to do this, you'd have to be Invisible in the fog cloud, even though your target already can't see you.
Indeed it does seem silly. However I don't believe it to be true either.
What precisely leads you to believe that a person who is not observing you, get their dexterity bonus to their AC?
-Nearyn
-Numerous previous discussions on the topic; the fact that the rules do not state that retaining your DEX bonus relies upon your ability to observe your attacker (except under the specific circumstance of the surprise round rules); and the fact that if the current rules played this way from an RAW perspective, the stealth playtest would not have been necessary*.
*The playtest rules would have added a new condition called "hidden" that could be achieved using stealth or concealment, but short of invisibility; the (self- or environment-applied) condition would have denied targets of the hidden creature their DEX bonus (and thus would have allowed sneak attack damage directly using stealth).
Except that attacking from Stealth doesn't deny your opponent their Dexterity bonus either.
Seems really silly to me that in order to do this, you'd have to be Invisible in the fog cloud, even though your target already can't see you.
Indeed it does seem silly. However I don't believe it to be true either.
What precisely leads you to believe that a person who is not observing you, get their dexterity bonus to their AC?
-Nearyn
-Numerous previous discussions on the topic; the fact that the rules do not state that retaining your DEX bonus relies upon your ability to observe your attacker (except under the specific circumstance of the surprise round rules); and the fact that if the current rules played this way from an RAW perspective, the stealth playtest would not have been necessary*.
*The playtest rules would have added a new condition called "hidden" that could be achieved using stealth or concealment, but short of invisibility; the (self- or environment-applied) condition would have denied targets of the hidden creature their DEX bonus (and thus would have allowed sneak attack damage directly using stealth).
Helpful. Thank you, that answers that. I was under the impression that being unable to observe a person meant you were denied your Dex to AC against them. This is not the case, I see.
-Nearyn
It actually seems to be a very common table rule to basically allow what you are mentioning. :)
Probably doesn't work in PFS or other extremely literal-strict-RAW environs, but anywhere else... total concealment = they can't see you = either you're invisible to them or they're blind to you = lose dex to AC. The RAW gets into the silly farm, trying to distinguish a difference between unable to be seen and Invisible, as the defined key word.
-Numerous previous discussions on the topic; the fact that the rules do not state that retaining your DEX bonus relies upon your ability to observe your attacker (except under the specific circumstance of the surprise round rules); and the fact that if the current rules played this way from an RAW perspective, the stealth playtest would not have been necessary*.
I would be wary of that logic. It could also indicate a widespread deficiency in the user base as well.
I would be wary of that logic. It could also indicate a widespread deficiency in the user base as well.
-Numerous previous discussions on the topic; the fact that the rules do not state that retaining your DEX bonus relies upon your ability to observe your attacker (except under the specific circumstance of the surprise round rules); and the fact that if the current rules played this way from an RAW perspective, the stealth playtest would not have been necessary*.
A stealth playtest of alternative rules that allow you to use stealth\concealment to deny a target its DEX is a deficiency in the user base? :P
A stealth playtest of alternative rules that allow you to use stealth\concealment to deny a target its DEX is a deficiency in the user base? :P
You're basically saying that the presence of the play test for the alternative stealth rules indicated that he RAW currently doesn't support attacker not seen=sneak attack possible play. But I'm saying that it could also indicate that there's a segment of the user population too hung up on playing the RAW that it fails to fill in fairly obvious blanks. So the alternative rules play test could indicate a need to bring the rules up to speed or certain types of players up to speed - or a mix of the two.
The fact of the matter is - there are groups of players who read the rules as written and came to one conclusion and groups who read them and came to a different one. That Paizo tried to fix the situation with a solution that allowed the hidden or not seen attacker to gain sneak attack indicates to me what the intent probably was all along and that the RAW sticklers have interpreted themselves out of the RAW's intent with their strictness.
If you are hidden the opponent is denied their dex.
It is not due to the stealth skill however. It works because of the wording of the perception skill.
There is no developer quote saying that a hidden character does not get to attack against flat-footed AC.
This was the case in 3.5 as well, hence the stealth rules expansion in the Rules Compendium.
If you are hidden the opponent is denied their dex.
It is not due to the stealth skill however. It works because of the wording of the perception skill.
There is no developer quote saying that a hidden character does not get to attack against flat-footed AC.
I fail to see how the perception skill wording helps clarify matters. Could you perhaps supply a quote?
If you are hidden the opponent is denied their dex.
It is not due to the stealth skill however. It works because of the wording of the perception skill.
There is no developer quote saying that a hidden character does not get to attack against flat-footed AC.
There are a lot of things the developers don't say. For example, there is no developer quote that says your character doesn't get a permanent +8 increase in their Charisma every time they eat a strawberry, but that doesn't mean you can start ratcheting up your Charisma in the next strawberry patch you find.
What you need is a developer saying that the RAW does allow a hidden character (or better yet, a character who has successfully used Stealth) to deny his target its DEX modifier - you find that quote, and we're golden.
There is nothing in the Perception skill that says your enemy loses his DEX if it fails to perceive you.
Arguably, we can look at the rules for "Blind" and then we can say that if you cannot see your attacker, you are blind with regards to that attacker so all the penalties apply, but that's just making a liberal interpretation of the Blind condition that is not supported by RAW.
Still, most DMs do it, RAW or not. I dunno if PFS DMs do it; I've never tried.
Stealth can't be played in any meaningful way by RAW, because by RAW, stealth doesn't actually do anything. RAW has the rules to determine whether or not you succeed at using the stealth skill, but there's no straightforward description of the consequences of successfully using the stealth skill.
A stealth playtest of alternative rules that allow you to use stealth\concealment to deny a target its DEX is a deficiency in the user base? :PYou're basically saying that the presence of the play test for the alternative stealth rules indicated that he RAW currently doesn't support attacker not seen=sneak attack possible play. But I'm saying that it could also indicate that there's a segment of the user population too hung up on playing the RAW that it fails to fill in fairly obvious blanks. So the alternative rules play test could indicate a need to bring the rules up to speed or certain types of players up to speed - or a mix of the two.
The fact of the matter is - there are groups of players who read the rules as written and came to one conclusion and groups who read them and came to a different one. That Paizo tried to fix the situation with a solution that allowed the hidden or not seen attacker to gain sneak attack indicates to me what the intent probably was all along and that the RAW sticklers have interpreted themselves out of the RAW's intent with their strictness.
I understand your point.
However, based on the description of this forum, the posts here are primarily to focus on RAW. And RAW is very important in this case because the original poster shows up as involved in PFS, so RAW is all that matters (outside of specific rulings made that apply to PFS); they might be asking regarding an unmoderated game unless they say that, I usually assume they're talking about PFS.
Because interpretation can differ from table to table, RAI boils down to "house rules", which are called out in the forum description as belonging on the forum dedicated to those.
Do a search of old threads... he started a thread that essentially showed that while this was not clearly spelled out, it was the RAW position.
If I remember the thread in question, there was no consensus on that. Wraithstrike made a compelling argument, but I still point to the stealth playtest as the best evidence that even the designers believe that the core interpretation of RAW in this case does not allow for using stealth to deny DEX.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wraithstrike wrote:
I think I have found a solution.
First Piece of Evidence is Sneak Attack:
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:
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:
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.
The problem comes in that the moment that you begin to make an attack, you are no longer hidden, no longer stealthed, and (assuming combat is currently going on) can be reacted-to.
Stealth states that you cannot use stealth while attacking. You can use it while moving into position to attack, but the moment that you begin to swing the weapon, the person becomes aware of you - no perception check necessary, because you cannot use stealth while attacking. To them it may seem like you just materialized beside them, but because there is no 'facing' in Pathfinder, they know you're there.
If the target is not currently engaged in combat, then this would be covered by the surprise round rules; he would be caught flat-footed, and you would get your sneak attack damage.
However, if the target is engaged in combat, then the target becomes aware of you as you are attacking, and can therefore react to your attack and actively defend against it.
Now, if the rules said that in order to defend you must be aware of your attacker before he begins his attack, then it would be different. But they don't; they simply say that you must be able to react to him - and since stealth breaks the moment the attack starts, the target immediately becomes aware (without a perception check) and therefore can react.
[edit]
Note: I prefer the RAI. And while Wraithstrike's arguments are compelling, I still feel that from an RAW perspective the line in stealth about not being able to use it while attacking means that no matter how stealthy you are, your target becomes aware of you the moment you begin your attack (and can therefore react to you).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All that serves to prove is that if you succeed on a Stealth vs. Perception check, out of combat, you can sneak past and attack an enemy. This lets you get a surprise round. During the surprise round, the enemy is flat-footed and cannot react to you.
This still has no combat application. The fact that the Stealth rule says, explicitly, that you cannot use Stealth while attacking is the only thing you need to know - when you are attacking, you do not have Stealth. Therefore, while you are attacking, your opponent can see you. Ergo, the only application of that three-part proof that doesn't violate what Stealth says about Stealth in combat is that you can use Stealth to get a surprise round.
So if you want to know when Stealth works in combat, instead of following that flawed three-part proof that uses three non-Stealth sections of the book and ignores what Stealth says about Stealth in combat, just look at the Stealth rule itself.
Again, I allow Stealth to work in combat. So does every DM I know. And I'm not going to tell any DM not to allow it. However, this is a Rules Questions forum so it's important to know what's in the Rules before discussing house rules.
Hmm... @DM_Blake (or anyone else): Can you poke holes in this as a potential 'solution'?
What if the section in the Dexterity description simply said something like, "Armor Class (AC) provided that the character is aware of the attacker before he begins his attack"?
Again, not suggesting that is RAW - just trying to think of 'elegant' ways to re-word it so that it works as RAI.
If you are hidden the opponent is denied their dex.In a home game, please feel free to rule it this way. I do, and many others do as well. But here in the Rules Forum, this is incorrect.
I made a thread showing how it was correct by RAW.
If I remember the thread in question, there was no consensus on that. Wraithstrike made a compelling argument, but I still point to the stealth playtest as the best evidence that even the designers believe that the core interpretation of RAW in this case does not allow for using stealth to deny DEX.As I recall he proved it, but some people preferred not to accept it, enjoying their own cries of the sky is falling instead. That's their call, but I'll stand by his RAW argument, especially when it goes hand in hand with RAI.
As to the current devs.. I see the idea of revamping stealth to be the frank admission that the way the rules are written is not clear for a reader. That is separate from saying that RAW does not allow for this. It does not mean that the rules do not exist, but rather as pertains to a game that they are not written well to easily convey their meaning.
It can be readily thought that the RAW do not include the rules for it. However if you go through Wraithstrike's argument you will see where all from he needs to take. Individually these are not really in dispute and the consequence is more than reasonable.
The problem is that the rules do not spell it out well. It becomes a hidden consequence of the RAW rather than clearly and succinctly stated as befits a rulebook for a game.
But then again there are many places where the rules do this, mainly stemming from the fact that they were not written from scratch with a tabla rosa starting point for the reader in mind.
-James
Nobody showed me a dev quote that disagreed wit my statement.
Nobody showed me a dev quote that disagreed wit my statement.If I remember the thread in question, there was no consensus on that. Wraithstrike made a compelling argument, but I still point to the stealth playtest as the best evidence that even the designers believe that the core interpretation of RAW in this case does not allow for using stealth to deny DEX.As I recall he proved it, but some people preferred not to accept it, enjoying their own cries of the sky is falling instead. That's their call, but I'll stand by his RAW argument, especially when it goes hand in hand with RAI.
As to the current devs.. I see the idea of revamping stealth to be the frank admission that the way the rules are written is not clear for a reader. That is separate from saying that RAW does not allow for this. It does not mean that the rules do not exist, but rather as pertains to a game that they are not written well to easily convey their meaning.
It can be readily thought that the RAW do not include the rules for it. However if you go through Wraithstrike's argument you will see where all from he needs to take. Individually these are not really in dispute and the consequence is more than reasonable.
The problem is that the rules do not spell it out well. It becomes a hidden consequence of the RAW rather than clearly and succinctly stated as befits a rulebook for a game.
But then again there are many places where the rules do this, mainly stemming from the fact that they were not written from scratch with a tabla rosa starting point for the reader in mind.
-James
Does the writing in the book count as a dev quote? If so, then the fact is that stealth cannot be used while attacking. It can be used while moving into position to attack, but breaks the moment you start to swing your blade.
Therefore, while it may appear that you just materialized beside your target, they become aware of you before your attack resolves without needing a perception check - and can react to it, unless combat has not yet begun (which is covered by surprise round rules).
Since this is far afield from the OP's question, I'll spoiler it and let everyone ignore it unless they're interested:
The fix is to change the Stealth section.
Something like "Stealth can be used in combat - if your target's Perception check fails to beat your Stealth check, you may make one attack against your opponent as if you are invisible. Whether that attack hits or misses, you immediately lose any benefit of Stealth until you are able to reattempt Stealth according to the rest of Stealth rules (which include needing cover or concealment to even make a Stealth check)."
That's off the top of my head and a hundred people could find a hundred holes in it, so I'm sure it needs refinement. My first hole to refine it would be to include something about the fact that you still need to have cover or concealment when you start your attack. Starting out hidden 30' away and then running up in plain sight and trying to count your first melee attack as Stealthed makes no sense to me (the enemy watched you run towards him from 30' away, in plain sight, and with no facing you couldn't be "behind" him and he's not "looking the wrong way", so he automatically sees you when you leave cover/concealment, or at least needs a DC 0 Perception check), though some people want to do exactly that - so the rules should either clearly provide for it or clearly disallow it.
Nobody showed me a dev quote that disagreed wit my statement.
And Nobody showed me a dev quote that disagreed with my statement that my character can get a permanent +8 increase in his Charisma every time he eats a strawberry, but I bet you wouldn't let me do that in any game you would run.
What devs don't say is a lot. In fact, for every one thing they do say, they don't say about a billion more things. Or maybe a trillion more. Probably more than that.
Anyone can make up any arbitrary rule and claim it must be a valid rule because "Nobody showed me a dev quote that disagreed wit my statement" (like my Strawberry rule). That doesn't make it true, even if the rule is a good one (unlike my Straberry rule).
You want to argue that Stealth works while attacking, take it to the house rules section or find an Errata or official DEV quote that DOES overturn the explicit rule that says you cannot use Stealth while attacking.
Using stealth while attacking while verus attacking when you have already used the stealth skill to hide are not the same things.
This still has no combat application. The fact that the Stealth rule says, explicitly, that you cannot use Stealth while attacking is the only thing you need to know - when you are attacking, you do not have Stealth. Therefore, while you are attacking, your opponent can see you. Ergo, the only application of that three-part proof that doesn't violate what Stealth says about Stealth in combat is that you can use Stealth to get a surprise round.
What you don't seem to be noticing is that the stealth rules also includes statements like:
You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position.[emphasis mine]
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.
So, it seems that you technically can't roll the stealth check while rolling the attack, under some conditions you can not only strike from an unseen position (a stealthy position) and immediately regain the unseen position. If that's not being a stealthy SOB throughout the sniping shot, I don't know what is.
What all of this says to me is that you, like many others, have stuck so rigidly to one statement in the rules that you have interpreted away the intent of the RAW.
Perception also says "If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you."
This is one of those things that isn't explicitly stated but is heavily implied by the rules text. You're denied your dex vs an attack whenever you can't react to it. Perception lets you see something. Stealth gives you the potential to make someone not see something. Thus, if they can't see it, they can't react to it, and, therefore, are denied dex vs that attack.
The blinded condition specifically states you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC, so regardless of what one may think about Stealth, someone who is blind can almost always be sneak-attacked :)
Why couldn't you sneak attack a blinded person?
Blinded: The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any),[...]
|
Why couldn't you sneak attack a blinded person?
Blinded: The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any),[...]
Ok, pretty clear you can sneak attack a blind person ... bear with me a sec here ...
Say that same target closes his eyes and keeps them closed, can the rogue sneak attack him then?