Concealment alone does not mean dex is loss Xar. The opponent has to be unaware of your location. It is possible to have concealment and the opponent still know where you are.
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.
Nope, I'm not. I'm fully aware that there is no such thing as "stealthed" in this game. It is handy to use the word in forum discussions because it's easier to say "Attacker is stealthed" than "attacker is receiving the benefits of rolling a higher stealth check than the defender's perception check".
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.
Yep, that pretty much sums up what the rules say.
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.
And that's pretty much how everyone runs it.
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.
The wording is all you need. "You cannot use Stealth while attacking". Period. If you are attacking then you are not using Stealth. Remember, attacks can miss but they're still attacks, so your example of deliberately missing doesn't make it a non-attack.
The definition of "attacking" is unaffected by the outcome of the attack.
When you attack you are not using stealth. It has already been used. The shiping rules show that.
You hide and then attack. You are not in stealth mode while you are attacking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Great thread. In it I've learned: Common sense is not only not common, it's against the rules.
LOL.
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?
I really do enjoy your sarcasm. Thanks! Keep it up, you make me laugh.
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.
So what are we talking about?
Are we talking RAW? You can't use Stealth while attacking. Maybe that's a bad rule. Maybe it is the worst rule in the whole book. But it's in there. So if we're talking RAW, we cannot just ignore it because we don't like it.
Are we talking "common sense"? Or "should be"? Fine, this is awesome for home games, maybe even PFS, and certainly awesome for just about every other forum. But this is the Rules Questions forum. If the PFCRB was just one page long, containing only one rule "Do what you want when you want and apply common sense to figure it all out." then we could argue common sense in the Rules Questions forum all day long. But the book isn't like that. It has rules. This forum is for discussing those rules.
That doesn't mean we can't say that a rule is bad, or offer suggestions about how to fix a bad rule, or even describe our own houserules in this forum, but we should at least be clear that we're doing that. When someone asks, in this forum, whether he can Sneak Attack from Stealth, the answer is always "No" because that is the rule. The rest is discussion about fixing the rule.
Concealment alone does not mean dex is loss Xar. The opponent has to be unaware of your location. It is possible to have concealment and the opponent still know where you are.
I'm not sure you're claiming that knowing a person's location = retain your dex to AC, but if you are claiming that, it's completely wrong.
Blindsense lets a creature notice things it cannot see, but without the precision of blindsight. The creature with blindsense usually does not need to make Perception checks to notice and locate creatures within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature. 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.
Unless you can see the creature, you still lose dex to AC, even if you know exactly where he is.
SoTS you know I would not say something that silly. Consider the source, especially since the blindsense quote was just made.
Well, I think we all realize normal concealment isn't enough to be unseen (can hide w/ it, though) and you need total concealment to be unseen. So I'm not sure what you were actually trying to say was.
Xar just claimed that was my stance however so I was basically saying I am not supporting concealment as equal to denying dex, but it was on the previous page.
|
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.
The wording is all you need. "You cannot use Stealth while attacking". Period. If you are attacking then you are not using Stealth. Remember, attacks can miss but they're still attacks, so your example of deliberately missing doesn't make it a non-attack.
The definition of "attacking" is unaffected by the outcome of the attack.
You do realize what that means is you can't take an attack and then immediately use Stealth. That's all that means and nothing else.
We use Stealth and then Sneak Attack all the time in our PFS games and we have spoken to lots of other players at different games and conventions and they agree as well.
What you are doing is taking the words out of context.
I didn't say anything about concealment. I was talking about not being able to see. Not being able to see is equivalent to being blind, meaning you can't see anything, including your attacker, and therefore would be denied your DEX.
Concealment is something completely different, as it means you can't see something in particular, but can still see everything else; it doesn't deny DEX, but grants miss chance to the target who has it.
In the example given regarding the magical smoky bong of funness, it says that you can't see in, or through, the smoke created. Therefore, you are effectively blind. So if even blindsense would not be enough to overcome the loss of a DEX penalty, then not having blindsense would most definitely still deny you your DEX n that situation.
You do realize what that means is you can't take an attack and then immediately use Stealth. That's all that means and nothing else.
Actually, that's incorrect. What it means is what it says - you cannot roll a stealth check while attacking. Meaning that while you are attacking a target, if you are visible, they know where you are. If you have some form of concealment from the target, then immediately following the completion of the attack, you can roll a DEX check to essentially 'vanish' - at least from a ranged attack.
btw, having done some reading over this, I've come to the conclusion that RAW in this case is pointless. A poorly-worded rule that gets tossed out by 99% of the players, (apparently) the designers, and even the moderated game sessions like PFS, is effectively not a rule at all. It's just writing in a book that is ineffective under strict interpretation, and so beating the RAW horse is just dumb.
Sneak attack from stealth for all! Viva la sneak!
When you attack you are not using stealth. It has already been used. The shiping rules show that.
You hide and then attack. You are not in stealth mode while you are attacking.
What does Sniping actually say?
"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 let's break that down:
Sniping specifically says (assuming you succeeded with Stealth previously)
1. Make your ranged attack
2. "and then" use Stealth again
The words "and then" are actually in the sniping rule. It works 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 when you did #1 but now you fail the Stealth Check in #2, 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.
|
|
When you attack you are not using stealth. It has already been used. The shiping rules show that.
You hide and then attack. You are not in stealth mode while you are attacking.
What does Sniping actually say?
"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 let's break that down:
Sniping specifically says (assuming you succeeded with Stealth previously)
1. Make your ranged attack
2. "and then" use Stealth againThe words "and then" are actually in the sniping rule. It works 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 when you did #1 but now you fail the Stealth Check in #2, 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.
It's actually pretty simple and does exactly how it reads.
You are hidden and attack, right after the attack you roll to see if you remain hidden. If you fail that roll then you are hidden anymore. It says nothing about him noticing you yet.
When you attack you are not using stealth. It has already been used. The shiping rules show that.
You hide and then attack. You are not in stealth mode while you are attacking.
Because there is no meaning to "stealth mode" in RAW?
:)
So, if I'm driving my car down the freeway, am I using my driving skill or did I only use that skill when I turned on the ignition back in my garage?
I think you're reading too much into what "using" means. Further, I submit that if the authors had intended your interpretation, they would have said "You cannot make any stealth checks while attacking", since "make X check" is the terminology they use EVERYWHERE when they're talking about attempting a skill. Once the check is made, you are "using" the skill for as long as you can, as sdjudicated by each each skill (one Survival check can mean you're using your survival skill all day long to forage for food).
In other words, nowhere in the book is "using" synonymous with "making a check" so it's unlikely that the authors made such a mistake here.
|
Great thread. In it I've learned: Common sense is not only not common, it's against the rules.LOL.
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?
I really do enjoy your sarcasm. Thanks! Keep it up, you make me laugh.
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.So what are we talking about?
Are we talking RAW? You can't use Stealth while attacking. Maybe that's a bad rule. Maybe it is the worst rule in the whole book. But it's in there. So if we're talking RAW, we cannot just ignore it because we don't like it.
Are we talking "common sense"? Or "should be"? Fine, this is awesome for home games, maybe even PFS, and certainly awesome for just about every other forum. But this is the Rules Questions forum. If the PFCRB was just one page long, containing only one rule "Do what you want when you want and apply common sense to figure it all out." then we could argue common sense in the Rules Questions forum all day long. But the book isn't like that. It has rules. This forum is for discussing those rules.
That doesn't mean we can't say that a rule is bad, or offer suggestions about how to fix a bad rule, or even describe our own houserules in this forum, but we should at least be clear that we're doing that. When someone asks, in this forum, whether he can Sneak Attack from Stealth, the answer is always "No" because that is the rule. The rest is discussion about fixing the rule.
Go for it, if it's what makes you happy. I don't see the point in nit-picking over minutiae. Interestingly enough, the developers rarely seem to, either, making sure to include things like 'adjudicate with common sense' in the books as if it was a rule. Maybe it is, and all the excess pickiness is just a waste of time. Then again, maybe gaming is a waste of time...I've certainly been told it is.
The rules say a rogue can't get a sneak attack by sneaking. I sincerely hope nobody ever adheres to that with a rogue in the game.
When you attack you are not using stealth. It has already been used. The shiping rules show that.
You hide and then attack. You are not in stealth mode while you are attacking.
What does Sniping actually say?
It says "If you've already successfully used Stealth .
That means once you roll the stealth check you are no longer using stealth. That action is over.
So you are not attacking while stealthing. You are attacking after you have used stealth to hide.
Now since the opposing opinion keeps saying "while" using stealth which is simultaneous, and the sniping defines the attack as taking place after which shows past tense. and stealth as a completed action not one taking place during the attack, there is no reason to say dex is not denied.
DM_Blake, the way I see it, you missed two things in that breakdown. First, you don't begin with the attack. The sequence goes like this:
1. Make a Stealth check.
2. Attack (likely next turn).
3. Make a new Stealth check to "maintain your obscured location".
Second, if you weren't obscured during the attack, you couldn't "maintain" the obscured location, so the only way the sniping rule makes sense is if the original Stealth check also keeps you hidden during the attack.
Are, I included what you say as point one in my original post by saying "(assuming you succeeded with Stealth previously)". This is assumed and it is also necessary since you cannot snipe if this didn't happen, in which case there would be no discussion of sniping.
Since we were only talking about whether the Stealth applied during the Sniping attack, and since successful previous Stealth is required to attempt it, I thought the parenthetical inclusion would suffice.
And since we're playing that game:
So, if you were obscured during the attack, then you don't need to roll a Stealth check at -20, or even at all, since your attack didn't affect your obscuredness (obscureditiy? obscurement? obfuscation?), so the only way the sniping rule makes sense is if the original Stealth check ends when you attack, just like the rule that says you can't use Stealth while attacking indicates.
I want to try this from a different angle.
Is it your opinion (anyone who believes Stealth does not allow for sneak attack) that a rogue using ranged weapons can only apply sneak attack if they're invisible, or when attacking a flat-footed or blind (or another loses-Dex-to-AC-condition) target?
Are, I included what you say as point one in my original post by saying "(assuming you succeeded with Stealth previously)". This is assumed and it is also necessary since you cannot snipe if this didn't happen, in which case there would be no discussion of sniping.
Since we were only talking about whether the Stealth applied during the Sniping attack, and since successful previous Stealth is required to attempt it, I thought the parenthetical inclusion would suffice.
And since we're playing that game:
So, if you were obscured during the attack, then you don't need to roll a Stealth check at -20, or even at all, since your attack didn't affect your obscuredness (obscureditiy? obscurement? obfuscation?), so the only way the sniping rule makes sense is if the original Stealth check ends when you attack, just like the rule that says you can't use Stealth while attacking indicates.
They still would not need word "after".
They could have said "during" if so it would match the word "while" if you were correct since you think they are both taking place at the same time.
So, if you were obscured during the attack, then you don't need to roll a Stealth check at -20, or even at all, since your attack didn't affect your obscuredness (obscureditiy? obscurement? obfuscation?), so the only way the sniping rule makes sense is if the original Stealth check ends when you attack, just like the rule that says you can't use Stealth while attacking indicates.
That's not a way in which the sniping rule makes any sense at all, because that interpretation ignores the word "maintain".
The only interpretation that makes sense to me is, that the obscurity achieved by the original stealth use is only broken when and if you fail the post-attack stealth check that's at -20 to the roll.
And even if that goes against the general rule that you can't use stealth while attacking (regardless of whatever that's even supposed to mean), the more specific rule for sniping says you can. Specific trumps general.
If that specific rule carries with it the implication that stealth isn't "broken" until after an attack, so much the better!
So continuing to read the thread, what I really see is this:
1. In other areas outside of stealth, the rules state that a target must be aware of its attacker in order to include its DEX bonus to its AC.
2. Invisibility, which is perhaps the ultimate method of ensuring that an attacker is not aware of you, breaks (unless it is greater) upon an attack, yet that first attack is still against a target that is denied its DEX bonus.
3. Stealth states that you cannot use it while attacking, but from a design standpoint the designers seem to indicate that what they intended the whole time was for you to be able to use stealth to remain unseen while getting into position, and if successful, to deny the target its DEX bonus.
From that, is not the simplest solution what I mentioned earlier - to restate that losing your DEX bonus is dependent on being undetected by your target at the initiation of your attack?
In fact, that concept is backed-up by the way that invisibility mechanics are handled. I disagree that the reason it denies your target its DEX is because the invisibility is not 'sentient' and doesn't know you're getting ready to attack; I think that a much more common sense interpretation, given all the pieces to the puzzle, is that stealth\invisibility breaking upon attack is to be expected - but by that time it's too late, because the fact the attack was initiated before the target was aware of you has already denied it its DEX against that attack.
That does not break any RAW, it is supported by RAW, and it fits with the seeming intentions of how stealth\invisibility\DEX denial was meant to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This why it's so dangerous to understanding - putting too much focus on the minutiae of individual passages in the text. A broader view can synthesize a better model of the rules.
Look, I have said this over and over. I don't know how many more times you want to hear it but I'll say it this one more time:
You cannot use Stealth while attacking.
It's black and white RAW.
I'm not the one picking apart minutiae of passages in the RAW. I'm reading a simple, cut and dry, flat denial of the ability to use Stealth while attacking.
Still, many people, myself included, don't like that rule. They (we) ignore it, houserule it away, equivocate on grounds of common sense, or on grounds that sneak attackers are weak and need every advantage they can get, or simply on grounds of that's how they want it to work.
Fine. Whatever. I do it too. I'm on YOUR side. I think stealthy rogues (etc.) should be able to use stealth to sneak attack. I think the ability needs more love and so do the classes. I like the trope, I like the idea, and I like the mechanics of overcoming a target's defenses without having to make everything in the game about AC and HP (in this case, Perception is his "defense" against being sneak attacked).
It's just not RAW, no matter how much everyone else wants to debate the minutiae (good word, Bill, I like that word) or the intent of the rules. "You cannot use Stealth while attacking" is about as clear and concise as any rule in the book. Wishing it away doesn't make it go away.
So, for at least this one forum, "Rules Questions", the distinction between actual rules (you can't do it) and what we all want to do (allow it) must be made.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I went to my local gaming store and asked if there was a PFS group...there was. So I came in on the day they meet and asked the GM how they run sneak attack with stealth since (in the opinion of a few people) by RAW you cannot get SA from stealth...his response quoted perfectly was..
"I'm not sure what you are asking."
From here I said some of the things stated here in this thread. He actually stopped me in the middle of one of my sentences and said...
"Ok wait...of course you get sneak attack if you attack from stealth. I, as well as the other PFS GM's that GM here, I have never come across anyone that doesn't allow it and I've been role playing for 34 years."
I mentioned some more of the views from the thread, acting as if I were arguing that it shouldn't, and he followed with...
"Well then you would never be able to GM here, or probably in PFS period. We have to uphold the rules as they are written but with common sense and hopefully to the enjoyment of the players. If a player came in to play a rogue and was told he could not get sneak attack off if he successfully beat the perception roll of an enemy. Not only would he probably get up and leave but I would more than likely here about this from the VC"
I had to ask him what VC was :)
After talking with this guy I am actually going to try PFS...I had mistakenly based my opinion of it on so many people heresy of it, saying that they make stupid calls simply because "its the RAW", but I brought up a few things that I had heard and he said...
"That's usually someone that was a GM that came into GMing from being a rules lawyer and either got kicked from his groups, or had all of his players leave. They become PFS GMs because they want the power and figure that their interpretation of the rules cannot be questioned in PFS. They are very wrong and I've seen quite a few have to quit after MANY players left their games for good."
EDIT:I asked him afterwards if I could quote him in the threads and he was fine with it.
My opinion of PFS has been changed :)
I did this to find out WHY arguments like this one are even needed, now maybe my local gaming area was just lucky and got some good GMs, but after speaking with him I have no reason to ever argue this, if PFS GMs rule it that way, and by god every home game I've ever been in has as well, then I see no reason to argue the RAW when the RAI beats the RAW in this situation with a natural 20.
Oh and if anyone was reading the Barbarian not getting sneak attack thread, the PFS GM I spoke with laughed at this wholeheartedly and said he hopes they get a new GM.
|
I don't know much really but I tend to be rules lawyer a lot when I can.
I tend to agree with both sides of argument. Wraith proved that something is within RAW that qualifies for denying DEX to AC, but honestly, I mean in all due truth of RAW you have Occam's Razor for me.
Do you believe really that all three points that Wraith pulled out from rules trumph the pure fact that nothing says directly in the rules that target is denied her DEX to AC due to her attacker using Stealth? (except in the suprise round)
And if there was anything that would say about it being denied DEX it would have been written.
I however agree that sniping rules were designed to most likely allow rogues to actually Sneak Attack. I would allow it in PFS games as many other points which even Wraith pulled out prove that it was meant to be like that.
|
|
Look, I have said this over and over. I don't know how many more times you want to hear it but I'll say it this one more time:
You cannot use Stealth while attacking.
It's black and white RAW.
I'm not the one picking apart minutiae of passages in the RAW. I'm reading a simple, cut and dry, flat denial of the ability to use Stealth while attacking.
Still, many people, myself included, don't like that rule. They (we) ignore it, houserule it away, equivocate on grounds of common sense, or on grounds that sneak attackers are weak and need every advantage they can get, or simply on grounds of that's how they want it to work.
Fine. Whatever. I do it too. I'm on YOUR side. I think stealthy rogues (etc.) should be able to use stealth to sneak attack. I think the ability needs more love and so do the classes. I like the trope, I like the idea, and I like the mechanics of overcoming a target's defenses without having to make everything in the game about AC and HP (in this case, Perception is his "defense" against being sneak attacked).
It's just not RAW, no matter how much everyone else wants to debate the minutiae (good word, Bill, I like that word) or the intent of the rules. "You cannot use Stealth while attacking" is about as clear and concise as any rule in the book. Wishing it away doesn't make it go away.
So, for at least this one forum, "Rules Questions", the distinction between actual rules (you can't do it) and what we all want to do (allow it) must be made.
No it's not RAW. You are actually reading the rules incorrectly and now you have convinced yourself that you have been reading it right.
I'm on the European circuit for PFS and nobody that I know, and that's lot's of people, read Stealth the way you describe.
I'm sorry but you really need to go and reevaluate your position on the matter.
You cannot use Stealth while attacking.
There are no less than 2 problem with that phrase.
For starters, it appears in a paragraph completely devoted to stealth checks and circumstances surrounding them. Compounded by the fact that there's not even a hint anywhere in the rules that "use stealth" could mean anything other than "make a stealth check", there's no reason to assume it means anything else than just that.
"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.
(Whatever happens when I try to use stealth when moving at exactly my normal speed, by the way?)
Furthermore, when making a single attack, there's no such thing as "while attacking". You go straight from not attacking to having completed your attack. There are no timing rules that deal with the moment in between. That's why attack-augmenting powers and such are presented as something that happen "as part of an attack".
Would you allow someone to ready an action to move away from an attacker after the moment he started his attack but before it hits, causing the attacker to waste his action, a tactic that if allowed would make it possible to evade melee-exclusive opponents indefinitely? I guess you wouldn't. Readied actions either trigger before an attack, or after an attack, depending on how they are declared.
If the moment between initiating an attack and completing an attack would exist in a meaningful way that would allow a defender to react to it, wary defenders could ready actions to move away from attackers dropping from stealth "while attacking". If that trick could be done vs. stealthy attackers, surely it could be done vs. non-stealthy attackers, and the game would turn to cheese.
So, with "while attacking" having no useful meaning under the rules, and "use stealth" not by RAW meaning what you claim it means, the phrase "You cannot use Stealth while attacking." has no value at all in determining what happens when someone attacks after having successfully used stealth against its target.
|
|
So I went to my local gaming store and asked if there was a PFS group...there was. So I came in on the day they meet and asked the GM how they run sneak attack with stealth since (in the opinion of a few people) by RAW you cannot get SA from stealth...his response quoted perfectly was..
"I'm not sure what you are asking."
From here I said some of the things stated here in this thread. He actually stopped me in the middle of one of my sentences and said...
"Ok wait...of course you get sneak attack if you attack from stealth. I, as well as the other PFS GM's that GM here, I have never come across anyone that doesn't allow it and I've been role playing for 34 years."
I mentioned some more of the views from the thread, acting as if I were arguing that it shouldn't, and he followed with...
"Well then you would never be able to GM here, or probably in PFS period. We have to uphold the rules as they are written but with common sense and hopefully to the enjoyment of the players. If a player came in to play a rogue and was told he could not get sneak attack off if he successfully beat the perception roll of an enemy. Not only would he probably get up and leave but I would more than likely here about this from the VC"
I had to ask him what VC was :)
After talking with this guy I am actually going to try PFS...I had mistakenly based my opinion of it on so many people heresy of it, saying that they make stupid calls simply because "its the RAW", but I brought up a few things that I had heard and he said...
"That's usually someone that was a GM that came into GMing from being a rules lawyer and either got kicked from his groups, or had all of his players leave. They become PFS GMs because they want the power and figure that their interpretation of the rules cannot be questioned in PFS. They are very wrong and I've seen quite a few have to quit after MANY players left their games for good."
EDIT:I asked him afterwards if I could quote him in the threads and he was fine with it.
My...
Thank you.
Exactly what I was saying when I got shut down.
Look, I have said this over and over. I don't know how many more times you want to hear it but I'll say it this one more time:
You cannot use Stealth while attacking.
It's black and white RAW.
And as I have shown you, you are not attacking while using stealth, but you seem to keep ducking my post. You are attacking after you have used stealth and sniping supports that.
... awesomsauce...
You sir, have restored my faith in humanity :D
Good Stuff
Yep. Don't judge PFS based off of extreme RAW arguments on the boards. While PFS does follow RAW it does not do so to the extreme extent that game features no longer work. In this thread, DM Blake is by far the most adamant that sneak attacks don't work with stealth but he does not GM in PFS. So don't take his extreme position as an example of PFS play.
Where does the book say total concealment equals being invisible? I am sure that rules does not exist.
Yeah I know being invisible grants total concealment, but that does not mean that the two are the same, just like being denied dex is not the same as being flat-footed.
Can you see someone with total concealment?
If you are in an area of pitch dark and cannot see in it, but the rogue has darkvision, are you sneak attacked? He's not technically "invisible" as the literal condition then, either.
Total Concealment blocks line of sight, but not line of affect. That is why it works. It is not invisibility which is what I was questioning.
Just to throw a wrench in things, I'm seeing things about how you can cause an AoE effect that effectively renders someone blind (which I totally disagree with but that's a different discussion) using heavy smoke, etc. However, if that makes it so that you cannot be percieved by your opponent, it would also mean you cannot percieve your opponent either. As sneak attack is precision based, I would argue that you cannot make a precision attack against someone you cant see either. Which is why total concealment invalidates the ability to perform a sneak attack anyway.
|
|
Just to throw a wrench in things, I'm seeing things about how you can cause an AoE effect that effectively renders someone blind (which I totally disagree with but that's a different discussion) using heavy smoke, etc. However, if that makes it so that you cannot be percieved by your opponent, it would also mean you cannot percieve your opponent either. As sneak attack is precision based, I would argue that you cannot make a precision attack against someone you cant see either. Which is why total concealment invalidates the ability to perform a sneak attack anyway.
Total concealment doesnt always mean your vision is blocked as well. The OP already stated that he/she is able to see through magic fog.
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...
The chain of logic falls apart somewhere between Points # 2&3. True, if you make your perception roll you can ‘react”. But there’s nothing that sez if you don’t make your perception roll you can’t react.
When you highlighted the rules section you neglected to highlight “avoid being surprised”. Here, the term “react” is talking about the surprise round, where indeed, if your foe doesn’t make their Perc roll, you get a surprise round and they don’t . On a surprise round, and on the first round- BUT AT NO OTHER TIME IN A COMBAT- your foes can be caught ‘flatfooted”, which does make them lose their Dex.
After the surprise and initial round, you are always ‘reacting”. This is why you can never be flatfooted.
The chain of logic falls apart somewhere between Points # 2&3. True, if you make your perception roll you can ‘react”. But there’s nothing that sez if you don’t make your perception roll you can’t react.
"If" statements like you see in the text imply the converse. "If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly" implies "If you are not successful, you do not notice the opponent and cannot react accordingly."
Otherwise, what would you say would be the opposite of the statement? It states a success condition, therefore it absolutely implies a failure condition, which must sensibly follow from "perception allows reaction".
In regards to flat-footed, you are correct that stealth will not render someone flat-footed. But that is a specific condition that is irrelevant here, since sneak attack only requires denial of DEX (which is not the same as being flat-footed).
Thanks for handling that Xar.
I am surprised that first part of the argument was even made.
It should be obvious that if a condition must be filled in order for you to do something, then not filling that condition means the benefit won't be received.
I notice he cut off the "if you fail.." section which says
" If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you."
So we know failing check means you can't react, and you can be attacked, and what happens when you are being attacked, while you can't react? Sneak attack if there is a rogue around.
As Xar pointed out being denied dex is not the same as being flat-footed which is a condition that can make someone be denied dex just liked being stunned can.
However sneak attack does not require you to be flat-footed or stunned. It only requires you to lose dex to AC, and failing that perception check against a hidden opponent can do that also.
PS:You are not always reacting against that opponent. Being denied dex takes that away.
PS2: The combat chapter, the getting started chapter, and the perception skill both refer to not being able to react.
The combat chapter and getting started chapter tie these into being denied dex.
No, we know nothing of the sort. PF uses words in several different ways, such as “level”. The spot you quoted under Perception is referring only to being surprised. "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."
Note that word "AND". Not "such as".
Indeed if are surprised due to you failing your perception check, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.
The section quoted there applies only and solely to the surprise round. Thus the term ‘and’ as opposed to ‘such as”.
And, if the RAW was clear that one could get a Sneak from merely stealthing, then they wouldn’t have needed to Stealth blog. Of what use is adding the ‘hidden” condition, when the rules already give you that.
Note to mention the rules for Stealth which state clearly "It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging." Thus, when you attack, you are no longer stealthed.
Replacing the word "and" with "such as" does not form a grammatically-correct sentence.
"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 such as avoid being surprised."
Could you please clarify what you mean, because at it stands what you've said is sort of incoherent (not meaning to be insulting there, it just is).
Failure on a stealth check allows an opponent to sneak past you at any point, not only on a surprise round, so to interpret that text as an indication of the surprise round rules is a huge stretch.
As for the blog, there is an alternative to what you pose: As the constant discussions on the forums indicate, the various pieces of the RAW add up to various interpretations of the mechanics. My guess? The designers probably even had variation among themselves on how it worked. And so even though that's how they always roughly intended it to function, a play test was still useful\necessary to codify how it should work.
(And yes, I readily admit that I'm now arguing against my former standpoint that the stealth play test was 'evidence' that the RAW did not support the idea denying an opponent his DEX using stealth).
Note to mention the rules for Stealth which state clearly "It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging." Thus, when you attack, you are no longer stealthed.
Because denying your opponent his DEX does not require stealth during the attack - only up to the initiation of the attack. This is why invisibility, even though it breaks upon starting an attack, still denies the target its DEX. In order to react to an opponent's attack, the target must be aware of the target before it initiates its attack.
I'm now of the mind that said phrase was never intended to justify the "you can't deny an opponent his DEX using stealth". What it was meant to do was to indicate that if you stab someone in the kidney, at the moment you stab them they know where you are; you cannot attempt to go completely unnoticed when you physically assault someone, but you can hide from them before the attack, and attempt to hide from them again the moment the attack resolves.
Yes, you can’t just take out the word “and’ and paste in ‘such as” which is exactly my point. The Devs used “and’. That means if you fail your perception check you do not avoid being surprised, which means you cannot react. The “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" refers ONLY to being surprised. That's why the word "and' is in there. Insert "such as' which is what you guys are arguing and it makes no sense at all.
As you said earlier, the Stealth blog makes that very clear. Otherwise, why do it? And, why not answer this, which has to be the most FAQ Q on the boards? (the reason is simple- the RAW disagrees with the RAI, thus there is no real answer to the FAQ)
Invisibility breaks upon completing an attack. Stealth upon starting. They wanted to bring in a "hidden' condition where sometimes stealth woudl not break upon starting, but would act like invisibility.