Does attacking from total concealment deny foes dex bonus to AC


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So let me get this straight:
Some folks are saying that since attacking breaks stealth, you can't apply your stealthiness (i.e., target loses DEX to AC) to resolving the attack.
Meanwhile, invisibility also breaks the instant you make an attack, yet you DO get to deny them their DEX to AC on that attack.

So why are we interpreting two "stops when you attack" mechanics in opposite ways?


Technically, no. They don't have the blinded condition. However, I don't see a GM saying no either.


I guess we're doing this here after all.

Bill Dunn wrote:

What you don't seem to be noticing is that the stealth rules also includes statements like:

Core Rules wrote:


You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position.[emphasis mine]

That's clearly the "fluff" text. There is no mechanical detail there to tell you how or when to make that work. The mechanics are found farther down on the page.

In any case, out of combat, you roll a Stealth check and your foes fail their Perception check. Now you do exactly what the "fluff" says, you slip past those foes to an unseen position and once you're in that unseen position, you can strike - but the rule says you cannot attack while using Stealth, so the instant you begin that attack you are no longer using Stealth.

You have already done the "fluff" bit, slipping past the foes to strike from an unseen position, but that doesn't allow you to ignore the RAW mechanical rule that specifically says you cannot attack while using Stealth.

Not buying that it's "fluff". Consider that the rulebook(s) are full of fluff that grants you automatic power that is later explained by rules that limit the power different from the fluff. Consider the Cleave feat as just one of many, many examples:

The fluff says "You can strike two adjacent foes with a single swing." Great, that obviously says I get two attacks, and "with a single swing" means only one attack roll. But then when you read the actual mechanical rule it says something different - you don't always get two attacks since you lose the second one if your first attack misses, and each one needs its own roll. Way different than what the fluff says.

We MUST be able to distinguish between "fluff" text and mechanical rule. The Stealth "fluff" says you can get an unseen position from which to strike, but it doesn't mechanically override the no Stealth while attacking rule.

Even if it did, then you have two rules in direct conflict in the same section (Stealth) which is pretty far-fetched. Even as convoluted as the Core rulebook is, usually you don't get conflicts until you combine rules in two sections. And, if you still think the Stealth "fluff" does directly contradict the Stealth rule, that still doesn't prove that the RAW allows Stealth to be used while attacking, all it does is muddy the water on the issue - you don't get to pick one side of the contradiction and ignore the other.

Fortunately, the "fluff" (not just here but all over the book) doesn't contradict the mechanical rules.

Bill Dunn wrote:
Core Rules wrote:
Sniping: If you’ve already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.
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.

Being a stealthy SOB, yes, that's exactly what it is. Using Stealth while attack, no, that's not what it is.

Sniping specifically says
1. Make your ranged attack
2. "and then" use Stealth again

In that order.

So if you make that Stealth roll in #2, does that mean your attack in #1 was using Stealth? Could it be a sneak attack? But what if you fail that Stealth roll in #2? Does that mean, retroactively, you WERE visible? What if you have already rolled the Sneak Attack damage and now you fail the Stealth Check, does the DM rewind time and make you re-roll a non-sneak attack?

No, you must do these things in order.
1. Make your ranged attack. You cannot use Stealth while attacking. Furthermore you don't know, yet, whether the Stealth roll you will make after this attack will succeed or fail so it cannot influence this attack. During this attack you are not using Stealth.
2. "and then" use Stealth again. The results of this roll have no bearing on the attack you just made, but it can determine which enemies can or cannot see you which will affect their upcoming actions.

Bill Dunn wrote:
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.

There is no such thing as "intent of the RAW" - it's either RAW or RAI, but not both.

Actually, I, like many others, allow sniping to apply Stealth and Sneak Attack. I also allow Stealth to be used to gain the "Invisibility" condition for one attack in melee if the attacker can manage to get close enough with some kind of cover or concealment (I don't allow him to leave cover, run 30' and still get a stealthy attack).

I don't even care if that's RAI or not. It's what I like the skill to do, so I do it that way. It's my preference, regardless of RAW or RAI. But I know that I'm houseruling this. I'll discuss the merits of such a houserule all day long in the houserules forum.

This is not that forum. Here we discuss RAW.


Jiggy wrote:

So let me get this straight:

Some folks are saying that since attacking breaks stealth, you can't apply your stealthiness (i.e., target loses DEX to AC) to resolving the attack.
Meanwhile, invisibility also breaks the instant you make an attack, yet you DO get to deny them their DEX to AC on that attack.

So why are we interpreting two "stops when you attack" mechanics in opposite ways?

For me, it's because Stealth is not a video game mechanic. It's fine when a WOW character uses Stealth and disappears from the landscape, but real life doesn't work that way. Stealth means sneaking, not disappearing, not vanishing. People CAN see you (although they might not, but at least they CAN), people CAN react to you. They might fail that Perception check, but you're still there, still visible, just hiding. No magic, no breaking physical laws. When your sword starts swinging toward them, maybe they still get to see it out of the corner of their eye, a fraction of a second before it's too late - just enough that they're not defenseless.

Invisibility is a whole new ballgame. Supernatural. Magic. Breaking the laws of physics. It's like Stealth, but to a whole new level. Stealth "squared". Stealth on magical steroids. When your sword starts swinging toward them, they don't get to see it out of the corner of their eye, not even a fraction of a second before it's too late - so they are defenseless (more or less - they lose their DEX and you get +2 to hit them).

OK, that's just interpretation. Since this is a Rules Questions forum, here's a better answer:

Because Stealth rules explicitly say you cannot use Stealth while attacking and Invisibility rules explicitly say you can make one attack that gains the benefit of denying the target his DEX. The RAW is different, so we treat them as different things.


Actually, if 99% of people, developers included, use the rules one way, because they believe that's what the rules say or should say, then that's definitely appropriate for the rules forum. I don't think this forum was truly intended for lawyerlike nitpicking :)

Common sense is allowed (even though some seem to believe that isn't the case for PFS, I'm pretty sure it is).

Sovereign Court

DM_Blake wrote:
For me, it's because Stealth is not a video game mechanic. It's fine when a WOW character uses Stealth and disappears from the landscape, but real life doesn't work that way. Stealth means sneaking, not disappearing, not vanishing. People CAN see you (although they might not, but at least they CAN), people CAN react to you. They might fail that Perception check, but you're still there, still visible, just hiding. No magic, no breaking physical laws. When your sword starts swinging toward them, maybe they still get to see it out of the corner of their eye, a fraction of a second before it's too late - just enough that they're not defenseless.

Gonna set up a bit of a hypothetical here, not disagreeing with you, not trying to embarrass/insult you, just want to point out how my strange brain is thinking.

We have a rogue and the rogue's target. Let's say the rogue somehow has a +21 to her stealth. Let's say the target is rather lacking in the wisdom department and has a -2 to his perception. In that little situation, it's actually mathematically impossible (barring modifiers) for the target to detect the rogue while stealthing. Does stealth work like invisibility then?

Yes, I'm dealing with devil's advocate/minutia here and I suppose eventually the argument still comes down to RAW and RAI, so shame on Paizo for not growing a pair and stepping forward to make a de-facto ruling on stealth and sneak attack.


The Human Diversion wrote:
Yes, I'm dealing with devil's advocate/minutia here and I suppose eventually the argument still comes down to RAW and RAI, so shame on Paizo for not growing a pair and stepping forward to make a de-facto ruling on stealth and sneak attack.

Although I might put it a slightly more polite way ;) I do agree with this sentiment. The designers have communicated how they believe\desire the rules systems to function - and given that this question comes up at least once every two days (in my experience), an official answer would be nice.

Even if they simply errata'd the stealth text to remove the line in question and left it up to the DM to determine the exact mechanics of how it would\should work (because they have stated editing in such a rules revamp is too big for a simple errata in their opinion), it would at least put a kibosh on this particular question.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

DM_Blake wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

So let me get this straight:

Some folks are saying that since attacking breaks stealth, you can't apply your stealthiness (i.e., target loses DEX to AC) to resolving the attack.
Meanwhile, invisibility also breaks the instant you make an attack, yet you DO get to deny them their DEX to AC on that attack.

So why are we interpreting two "stops when you attack" mechanics in opposite ways?

Because Stealth rules explicitly say you cannot use Stealth while attacking and Invisibility rules explicitly say you can make one attack that gains the benefit of denying the target his DEX. The RAW is different, so we treat them as different things.

Source?

I'm not seeing anything in the spell description or the invisibility rules in the glossary specifying that the first attack denies DEX to AC.

So where exactly are you getting the idea that invisibility and stealth work differently from each other in this respect? You say "RAW is different, so we treat them as different things". Well, where is that difference? Where's the key line from invisibility that's missing from stealth?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Any chance that Ultimate Campaign clarifies some of these odd rules sort of like Rules Compendium did when it brought rules from various locations into one concise location?

Maybe not, but it would nice.


The Human Diversion wrote:
We have a rogue and the rogue's target. Let's say the rogue somehow has a +21 to her stealth. Let's say the target is rather lacking in the wisdom department and has a -2 to his perception. In that little situation, it's actually mathematically impossible (barring modifiers) for the target to detect the rogue while stealthing. Does stealth work like invisibility then?

No.

Specifically, because the rules say so.

But for interpretation, we first have to decide whether we're in combat or not. In combat, the defender is whirling around, trying to watch every threat at the same time, looking over his shoulder, etc. Hence, there is no facing in combat. No such thing as "behind". Next, we have to assume that the rogue is using cover or concealment to get close to the enemy if this is a melee attack because Stealth requires that or you can't normally use Stealth.

So, is the rogue behind a tree? Hiding under a bed or behind a sofa? As the rogue, in combat, leaps/lunges out from behind his cover, he becomes visible to the defender who is never looking the wrong way. Now he attacks. The defender sees the attack and he defends himself. But if they are not in combat, the rogue leaps/lunges out from behind his cover and becomes visible but he gets a surprise round where he can act and the defender cannot. Also the defender is flat-footed because he has not acted in this combat.

As for being mathematically impossible, don't forget that when the Stealth stops working, the DC to see the rogue is 0. Can we apply modifiers, such as distraction, unfavorable conditions, terrible conditions, etc., so that the DC gets into the impossible range? Maybe. But I think the most we can get that up to is about a 10 DC.

Now that takes us into the area I think you wanted to get into. Let's say that the dimwitted target fails the DC 10 Perception check. Clearly he has failed to notice the rogue. All the stuff that Wraithstrike said earlier is applicable, such as not being able to apply DEX against an attacker he cannot see. Also, the rule about not using Stealth in combat is not applicable because we're not using Stealth. So now we DO have an unseen attacker and a defender who cannot use his DEX, none of which is dependent on any Stealth check.

In this case, the RAW does support denying the DEX but not actually treating it like invisibility (which gives the attacker +2 to his attack rolls, not normally a benefit associated with losing DEX but rather with the actual magical/Supernatural invisibility condition).

TL;dr: Still not a "yes" answer to your question "Does stealth work like invisibility then?", but a practical RAW application of a failed Perception check against an attacker not using Stealth.


Jiggy wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

So let me get this straight:

Some folks are saying that since attacking breaks stealth, you can't apply your stealthiness (i.e., target loses DEX to AC) to resolving the attack.
Meanwhile, invisibility also breaks the instant you make an attack, yet you DO get to deny them their DEX to AC on that attack.

So why are we interpreting two "stops when you attack" mechanics in opposite ways?

Because Stealth rules explicitly say you cannot use Stealth while attacking and Invisibility rules explicitly say you can make one attack that gains the benefit of denying the target his DEX. The RAW is different, so we treat them as different things.

Source?

I'm not seeing anything in the spell description or the invisibility rules in the glossary specifying that the first attack denies DEX to AC.

So where exactly are you getting the idea that invisibility and stealth work differently from each other in this respect? You say "RAW is different, so we treat them as different things". Well, where is that difference? Where's the key line from invisibility that's missing from stealth?

It's in the combat section. This is a case where all the rules we need to know are not conveniently located in one section but scattered around the book.

The Combat Modifiers table has:

Attacker is Invisible: +2 on Melee and Ranged attacks with a footnote that says "The defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC."

There is no such text for "Attacker is sneaky".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

But invisibility explicitly says that if you attack, you're no longer invisible, so that wouldn't apply, right? If you're naturally invisible or are under greater invisibility etc, then sure. Is there any reason why your "The attack breaks stealth before the attack is resolved, therefore your benefits are already gone" logic would not also apply to the rule you cite? After all, it says "attacker is invisible", not "attacker recently was invisible".

So again, what's the difference? Why is stealth broken *before* the attack while invisibility is (apparently, according to you) broken *after* the attack? Where's the difference?


Because the RAW says so.

There is a combat modifier for "Attacker is invisible". There is not one for "Attacker is Stealthed". Why? Because RAW says you cannot use Stealth while attacking.

You do raise a valid point. The Invisibility spell says "The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature" but it doesn't say whether the spell ends before the attack or after it. So I guess any DM could rule that someone using this spell (or a magic item based on the spell, or a special ability that says it works like this spell) becomes visible when they start their attack and therefore cannot gain the benefit of being invisible even on one attack.

However, this is not Magic: The Gathering. Nowhere in this game do we have rules for stacking effects and resolving them in reverse order, except maybe for readied actions in combat. So, unless we want to invent a reverse-order-stacking mechanic (which wouldn't be RAW), we need to resolve the invisibility spell in the order of the events:

1. Invisible creature attacks.
2. When the invisible creature attacks, Invisibility ends.

Since the spell cannot predict an attack is coming, it must trigger the spell ending off of an attack that has happened, not off of the intent of being about to start one. To rule it any other way would need different wording that doesn't exist. For example, the spell could have said "The spell ends if the subject begins an attack against any creature, causing the attacker to be visible during his attack" - but it doesn't say that, so it doesn't work like that. Note that if it did say that, then the "Attacker is Invisible" line in the chart would not work unless we were using Greater Invisibility or some similar effect that doesn't end with attacking.

Note that Stealth does say "You cannot use Stealth while attacking". This is very different wording than what Invisibility uses and it is quite clear that the Stealth effect is not applicable during attacks. Clearly, being Stealthed and attacking are mutually exclusive. This is why there is no entry for it in the Combat Modifiers table.

Sovereign Court

DM_Blake wrote:

No.

Specifically, because the rules say so.

But for interpretation, we first have to decide whether we're in combat or not. In combat, the defender is whirling around, trying to watch every threat at the same time, looking over his shoulder, etc. Hence, there is no facing in combat. No such thing as "behind". Next, we have to assume that the rogue is using cover or concealment to get close to the enemy if this is a melee attack because Stealth requires that or you can't normally use Stealth.

So, is the rogue behind a tree? Hiding under a bed or behind a sofa? As the rogue, in combat, leaps/lunges out from behind his cover, he becomes visible to the defender who is never looking the wrong way. Now he attacks. The defender sees the attack and he defends himself. But if they are not in combat, the rogue leaps/lunges out from behind his cover and becomes visible but he gets a surprise round where he can act and the defender cannot. Also the defender is flat-footed because he has not acted in this combat.

As for being mathematically impossible, don't forget that when the Stealth stops working, the DC to see the rogue is 0. Can we apply modifiers, such as distraction, unfavorable conditions, terrible conditions, etc., so that the DC gets into the impossible range? Maybe. But I think the most we can get that up to is about a 10 DC.

Now that takes us into the area I think you wanted to get into. Let's say that the dimwitted target fails the DC 10 Perception check. Clearly he has failed to notice the rogue. All the stuff that Wraithstrike said earlier is applicable, such as not being able to apply...

Ya know, you could have simply not omitted my final paragraph and just agreed with me that I was getting into minutia and that in the end it's all about RAW/RAI. :-P


The Human Diversion wrote:
Ya know, you could have simply not omitted my final paragraph and just agreed with me that I was getting into minutia and that in the end it's all about RAW/RAI. :-P

LOL, true, but we already know that.

Besides, it's an interesting detail that RAW allows a combatant to lose his DEX mod (and then be sneak attacked) if he fails to perceive a non-stealthy enemy, but RAW doesn't provide for a stealthy enemy to actually try to use Stealth to achieve the same effect - in both cases, the non-stealthy enemy and the stealthy enemy have to rely on good luck and/or bad Perception checks for their target to lose their DEX.

I thought that was worth including in my reply to your question.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

DM_Blake, connecting people's arguments to other games that they never mentioned, and then dismissing said arguments because this isn't that game, doesn't help a discussion at all. All it does is make you look like you don't have enough of a case to stand on its own, while simultaneously forcing anyone trying to respond to you to wade through an overly-long post to dig out the tiny bits of relevant commentary to reply to.

Stop it.

I made no allusion to Magic: the Gathering. I did not try to claim that any Pathfinder rules worked like Magic: the Gathering. I said nothing about resolving things in reverse order. You setting up arguments that I never made and then knocking them down might make you feel like you're defeating opposing arguments, but no one else is fooled, and it's also very rude.

Now I'll give this one more go before just writing you off:

First, it's my understanding (but correct me if I'm wrong; I had a lot of catching up to do and may have missed an earlier post) that your belief that stealth does not enable sneak attack is centered solely on the "can't stealth while attacking" line, yes? Meaning that if you could still be considered "stealthed" during the attack, you'd say that the target loses DEX to AC, right?

(If not, stop here and let me know. I'll go ahead and proceed under the assumption I've understood that point correctly.)

So we have two conditions: successful stealth (I'll just say "stealth" hereafter), and invisibility.

We know that stealth denies DEX to AC if you're still stealthy during the attack (based on "must be aware, able to react, etc").
We know that invisibility denies DEX to AC if you're still invisible during the attack (based on the rule you cited).

Furthermore:
We know that attacking ends your stealth.
We know that (if the source of your invisibility is invisibility or vanish) attacking ends your invisibility.

Looks to me like these conditions are equal so far. Both conditions would deny DEX to AC, and both end when you attack.

But you seem to be saying that one of them ends and fails to grant its benefit, while the other one ends while still granting said benefit. And unless I'm misreading you, it appears that the only reason you have for thinking that they end at different times is because you decided that the invisibility spell has to wait until the attack has happened before ending (despite no such wording anywhere).

So from what text (since, as you so frequently point out, this is the Rules forum and not the "how it should obviously be" forum) do you draw the conclusion that invisibility ends any later than stealth does?

"The spell can't anticipate the attack so it has to end afterwards" doesn't work because that's not in the rules; if we allow that, then we can also allow "the target can't react within the fraction of a second between being completely unaware and realizing they're being attacked, so much so that having been surprised makes no difference". If the latter doesn't count without a rule saying so, then neither does the former.

So what RULE says that invisibility ends after the attack (or more specifically, after the attack is locked in as denying DEX to AC, if there's a difference)?


First, I didn't say that you or anyone referenced Magic: the Gathering. I referenced it. Just me. That game has a rule for applying effects in reverse order. Pathfinder doesn't. That's all I said.

I would agree that if you were able to use Stealth while attacking, and if you succeeded, that your opponent wouldn't see you and therefore would lose his DEX. All of that is in the RAW, except for using Stealth while attacking.

I further agree that starting unseen with Stealth and making an attack is mechanically identical to starting unseen with Invisibility and making an attack.

The reason I say we treat them differently is straight out of the RAW.

Invisibility ends when you make an attack. It cannot predict when you're about to make an attack and unlike M:tG, we don't apply these things in reverse order, so you must lose Invisibility if you attack but it must be done in the order of 1) attack and 2) lose Invisibility - you cannot lose Invisibility before attacking because you haven't yet done the thing that makes you lose Invisibility.

I also would say the same thing about Stealth except that the RAW says you cannot use Stealth while attacking. Invisibility doesn't say that but Stealth does. Since you "cannot" use Stealth while attacking, it must end before the attack. That is the specific grounds for losing Stealth before the attack but not losing Invisibility until after the attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

RAW is not cut and dry (nothing expressed in a language other than math ever is). A very good argument can be made that invisibility is achieved when you meet all the criteria for the invisible condition. In 3E we had the luck of Skip Williams outright saying that in Wizard's articles making it pretty much RAW, but that disappeared and now we are back with silly buggers who say "you're not visible, but you're not invisible".

Unfortunately PFS seems to be full of silly buggers :(

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Take your badwrongfun labels elsewhere, please.

Sovereign Court

Jiggy wrote:
Take your badwrongfun labels elsewhere, please.

You're right. By comparing people who insist on playing stealth/sneak attack as written by the letter of law to lawyers I'm really giving lawyers a bad name.

But seriously, apologies for offending you. Every playstyle has its place, and if I ever get someone who insists on running stealth RAW over RAI at a table I GM, I will do so for that character and that character only.

On the flipside if I'm ever running a rogue and I sit down at a table where the GM announces my character can't sneak attack after making a stealth check far beyond the bad guy's perception check I will remind them that the vast majority of folks (including some of the Paizo developers, apparently) say it's a perfectly acceptable "home rule" and if they still insist, I will probably get up and leave said table.


It's all good. I'm usually silly, rarely a bugger, and I prefer playing to rules lawyering any day, any time.

Rogues in my game stealth and sneak attack, but then I'm not a PFS DM so I can make whatever rules I want, or better yet, whatever rules the group wants. I don't know if I would leave a a group because they insist on not using a houserule I like, but I am pretty sure I wouldn't play a rogue with a DM who enforced RAW with Stealth - rogues are too gimpy already, I can find another way to find and disable devices without having to be a gimpy rogue with gimpy stealth.

Assistant Software Developer

I removed a post. Don't abuse the quote function.


DM_Blake wrote:
There is not one for "Attacker is Stealthed". Why?

Because there is no meaning to 'stealthed' in RAW?

You might be confusing it with some of these video games that have some 'stealth' mode or some such, I don't know because I don't play any of them.

In PF, stealth is a skill that allows a character to remain unobserved when otherwise they would be observed. Should they attack, then they will become observed.. however I fail to see any rules that come out and say that this will happen before the attack is resolved. Could you supply some references to it?

Now if you wish to claim that the wording of the stealth skill is poor and needs work for clarity, then I'm certain that you will find a great deal of support.

-James


"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."

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

I take these 2 snippets to imply that you can't make a check while attacking, running or charging. First off, "using stealth" only appears under sections specifically talking about making stealth checks. Secondly, "using stealth" can't in fact mean anything else than "making a stealth check" because there isn't a lasting effect or condition that's initiated by making a stealth check. When you've made your check, you're done. The rest is up to the observer.

And what does "while attacking" mean in that context? "While" in the given context is obviously supposed to mean "during the time that" or "at the same time as". "Attacking", I think we can all agree, has to refer to the process of making an attack, as defined in the rules.

So, we can't "make a stealth check" "at the same time as" we "make an attack". That's what the rules tell us. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nothing concrete can in fact be inferred by that. There is no meaningful way to use stealth in combat at all under RAW.

Deciding when exactly the effects of stealth end when the stealthy one attacks...

That's trying to decide when an effect that doesn't exist ends, using timing rules that don't exist either.

Good luck.


james maissen wrote:
In PF, stealth is a skill that allows a character to remain unobserved when otherwise they would be observed. Should they attack, then they will become observed.. however I fail to see any rules that come out and say that this will happen before the attack is resolved. Could you supply some references to it?

So what of the total concealment issue and the issue of whether being blind does or does not make you blinded? Any chance of some official word on that? (This shouldn't be an issue, but unfortunately it is.)


Bestiary, page 300 wrote:


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). The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent.


Troubleshooter wrote:
Bestiary, page 300 wrote:


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). The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent.

The PFS crowd will still say that doesn't constitute being blinded (ie. you retain DEX to AC).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Core rulebook, page 561 wrote:


Any opponent that cannot be seen has total concealment (50% miss chance) against a creature with blindsense, and the blindsensing creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment. Visibility still affects the movement of a creature with blindsense. A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.

?


I suppose if a PFS player tried that argument on me, I'd just tell him that the inside of his eyelids are an area of darkness, so he's effectively blinded. Dohohoh.

I thought there was some common sense rule in play here, though?


Ah, that's a more useful quote ... it sidesteps "invisible" as a condition keyword and just says in plain English creatures you can not see deny you dex.

It's a bit of a roundabout argument, but still relatively solid ... thanks.


Nefreet wrote:
It certainly is difficult, especially when the majority of your parties don't help you out with flanking.

Get better players.


I'm confused. How do you turn your back on someone?


So...has this thread changed direction from people complaining that RAW clearly doesn't allow sneak attacks from stealth and everyone agreeing that it probably should allow for 1?

Here is the way I see it personally, you're stealthy hiding behind something whilst in a combat situation. If combat has not officially started, when you leap out you get a surprise round, but you are no longer in stealth because you're not behind something. If you win initiative you can move to your enemy on your surprise round and then full attack with sneak attack because they're still flat footed, unless they have Uncanny Dodge.

If you're mid combat, you can use stealth to hide from your enemies, but they know you're there, somewhere. They aren't surprised by you anymore. If you're hiding behind somehting, which you must be unless you have Hide in Plain Sight or something similar, then the moment you leave cover to attack you're visible, no matter how stealthy you were before you can be seen once you start moving again. You wont get a sneak attack here.

Now, how it should work IMO and would probably be fair, is that if you're hiding being all stealthy like even mid combat around a corner a corner or something and the enemy walks by close to that wall you can attack them and get a sneak attack, but just one. If you move to attack the enemy from your position to where you would be in line of sight you stop being hidden. All this would really mean though, is that mid combat everyone who isn't a rogue is going to avoid going near places where someone could be hidden, which makes sense to me.

Liberty's Edge

Great thread. In it I've learned: Common sense is not only not common, it's against the rules.

Silver Crusade

Ok DM Blake, stealth ends when you attack. When does the attack occur, when you start swinging the sword or when you connect with your target? What if I start swinging at my target and stop my blade an inch before striking him. Did I attack him? Am I still stealthed? I would say you haven't attacked someone until you have struck them and therefore you don't lose the benefits of stealth until after the first attack resolves.

Liberty's Edge

Just an idiotic observation, but if a rogue can't SNEAK attack by being SNEAKY...why did rogues get left in the game at all?

Do they really need being nerfed into non-existence?

It's obvious to anybody with a vague understanding of the English language that a rogue should be able to use sneak attack by being stealthy, and if that means that RAI must be different from RAW, adjudicate with a reasonable amount of logic.


EldonG wrote:
Great thread. In it I've learned: Common sense is not only not common, it's against the rules.

No, just some people want to believe it's against the rules.

I will grant you that the rules don't clearly state this piece of common sense, but it is obliquely stated and is a consequence of the rest of the rule set.

-James

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pinky's Brain wrote:
The PFS crowd will still say that doesn't constitute being blinded (ie. you retain DEX to AC).

PFS can kick me out/ban me/whatever, but when I run PFS adventures for PFS players, I run stealth rules such that rogues can sneak attack from stealth, but then so can the bad guys.

AFAIK, I've never had any complaints, and I'm getting close to my 4th DM star.


Nothing in the PFS rules say anything about not using common sense when DM'ing. In fact, I believe they say the exact opposite. So there's no need to fear being kicked out. I'd wager a guess that those in charge of PFS also run their games that way :)

Edit: I just checked the PFS Guide, and that's actually the very first sentence under The Core Assumption:
"The leadership of this campaign assumes that you will use common sense in your interpretation of the rules."

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
DM_Blake wrote:
Note that Stealth does say "You cannot use Stealth while attacking". This is very different wording than what Invisibility uses and it is quite clear that the Stealth effect is not applicable during attacks. Clearly, being Stealthed and attacking are mutually exclusive. This is why there...

OK then.

Can an Arcane Trickster with Surprise Spells who casts Magic Missle get Sneak Attack dice under that condition? They are using Stealth, but they are not 'attacking' (there is no attack roll).


pH unbalanced wrote:
Can an Arcane Trickster with Surprise Spells who casts Magic Missle get Sneak Attack dice under that condition? They are using Stealth, but they are not 'attacking' (there is no attack roll).

The Arcane Trickster doesn't need to use the stealth skill to benefit from Surprise Spells. They simply need the target to be flat-footed and the spell used damage dealing.

Personally the rules on surprise spells is bad imho. Why can the fireball add the sneak dice to everyone in the blast, but a magic missile targeting multiple foes not also do so? But that's neither here nor there.

As to Mr Blake.. there's no such thing as 'Stealthed' so his problems with the rules begin there.

He is also faced with two choices in how to try to read some of the rules:

Choice 1: That 'while attacking' means that a creature becomes completely visible prior to the attack and thus allows the target to properly react to the attack just as if they had been visible all along.

Choice 2: That 'while attacking' means that once a creature makes an attack then that creature becomes observed (as much as the use of the stealth skill prevented it at least), but that the given attack does not allow the target to react as they did not see it coming.

Choice 1 contradicts the RAI, the stated intent by the current group of devs, the accepted manner of play for the last decade, many other rules in the core rule book, and basically flies against common sense.

Choice 2 does not contradict anything, and fits with the rest of the rule set.

There really isn't much choice here in how you should be reading this. None of the rules in this game should be taken in a vacuum. They should always have a place within the entire framework of the system. If you should ever find yourself coming to a crazy or unpalatable conclusion, then you should take a step back and see if you've forgotten to do this.

The rules for the stealth skill need to be rewritten because they are not as clear as they could be. However, if the goal is to make the core rule book into a book of law that can be parsed line by line, then it needs to be completely rewritten line by line. Just don't ask me to do so, or to read whatever that might look like.

-James

Sovereign Court

I guess I should have been a bit more specific in this pathfinder society forum thread. My Pathfinder Society Syplh multiclass Zen Archer needs a way "within the RAW" to use sneak attack dice at range, after the surprise round, without using any kind of invisibility spell/ability/item. Here's what I came up with:

While wearing the Vox Mask, the sniper's Goggles and the Necklace of Adaptation, she then opens her Eversmoking Bottle. The Item is based on the Pyrotechnics, Smoke Cloud effect which states:

"All sight, even darkvision, is ineffective in or through the cloud. All within the cloud take –4 penalties to Strength and Dexterity..." ,core pg 328

The Blind condition states:

"The creature cannot see[b]. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a [b]–4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail...", core pg 565

According to Raw, would this let me make ranged sneak attacks? Because it looks close enough to me.

Shadow Lodge

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

I'll let other people address other issues, but do remember that you can only use Sneak Attack on a ranged attack if you are within 30 feet.

Sovereign Court

pH unbalanced wrote:
I'll let other people address other issues, but do remember that you can only use Sneak Attack on a ranged attack if you are within 30 feet.

The Sniper's Goggles from ultimate equipment let you use ranged sneak attack at any range, and if you use them from within 30' you get +2 dmg to each sneak attack die you roll. quite a bargain at only 20,000g.


Bill Dunn wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:


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:

Core Rules wrote:


You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position.[emphasis mine]
Core Rules wrote:
Sniping: If you’ve already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.

I am just building off of your post. I am not disagreeing with you.

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.

Since sniping allows you to sneak attack and sniping requires you to use stealth I don't get the "you can't use stealth to do a melee attack" argument which is what I see being made unless the position is you can't sneak attack during a snipe also.

I still have yet to see anyone give me quote where the rules say you are attacking while using stealth.

Going back to sniping

Quote:
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.

That bolded area seems to imply that once you use stealth the use of the skill is done. Which in turn means you stealth and then attack, and that you are NOT attacking while stealthing.


Troubleshooter wrote:
Core rulebook, page 561 wrote:


Any opponent that cannot be seen has total concealment (50% miss chance) against a creature with blindsense, and the blindsensing creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment. Visibility still affects the movement of a creature with blindsense. A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.
?

I pointed this out in my original thread, but not here. Thanks..


Luna Foghorn wrote:

I guess I should have been a bit more specific in this pathfinder society forum thread. My Pathfinder Society Syplh multiclass Zen Archer needs a way "within the RAW" to use sneak attack dice at range, after the surprise round, without using any kind of invisibility spell/ability/item. Here's what I came up with:

While wearing the Vox Mask, the sniper's Goggles and the Necklace of Adaptation, she then opens her Eversmoking Bottle. The Item is based on the Pyrotechnics, Smoke Cloud effect which states:

"All sight, even darkvision, is ineffective in or through the cloud. All within the cloud take –4 penalties to Strength and Dexterity..." ,core pg 328

The Blind condition states:

"The creature cannot see[b]. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a [b]–4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail...", core pg 565

According to Raw, would this let me make ranged sneak attacks? Because it looks close enough to me.

No, because the Eversmoking Bottle =/= Pyrotechnics spell, the item is made using the spell, it is not the same thing. The eversmoking bottle does not impose a strength or dexterity penalty, it merely obscures vision. Ever more importantly, Pyrotechnics only gives a penalty, it does not deny your dex modifier and is not the same as being blind. Not only that, but the Pyrotechnics spells has a save to avoid the strength and dex penalty.


Luna Foghorn wrote:


While wearing the Vox Mask, the sniper's Goggles and the Necklace of Adaptation, she then opens her Eversmoking Bottle. The Item is based on the Pyrotechnics, Smoke Cloud effect which states:

"All sight, even darkvision, is ineffective in or through the cloud. All within the cloud take –4 penalties to Strength and Dexterity..." ,core pg 328

The Blind condition states:

"The creature cannot see[b]. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a [b]–4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail...", core pg 565

According to Raw, would this let me make ranged sneak attacks? Because it looks close enough to me.

No, firstly a magic item does exactly what it says it does, no more and no less. The fact that a particular spell is used in creating an item does not mean that the item creates exactly the same affect as the spell does. (A Robe of Arcane Heritage requires Speak With Dead for construction but does not let you communicate with corpses)

Even if it did do Pyrotechnics a -4 penalty to Dex is different from losing dex bonus to AC.


I think Luna's question was rested more on the fact that it says that all sight is ineffective. If all sight is ineffective, the target is effectively blind, cannot perceive its opponent, and therefore (by wraithstrike's argument) would lose its DEX.

51 to 100 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does attacking from total concealment deny foes dex bonus to AC All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.