Stealth Errata


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 214 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pinky's Brain wrote:
Except of course if you rolled high and you're higher level and/or optimized for stealth a 20 won't be enough, no amount of BS will cover it ... it's temporary invisibility.

If you're THAT good that's the sort of thing you're SUPPOSED to be able to pull off because its a game of heroic fantasy, not a heist simulator.

Couldn't have said it better myself.


where does it say that total concealment (a defensive bonus listed on table 8-6, concealed or invisible) grants an attacking bonus such as being invisible (listed on table 8-5) or say that total concealment grants invisibility? I can see where invisibility grants total concealment, I just can't see how it works in reverse?


This TOTALLY couldnt have been for the up coming Vigilante now could it...


It's over two years old, probably not.

Grand Lodge

You never know. Paizo is cunning like a fox. A stealth errata to stealth two years before releasing a stealth focused vigilante class? It's a conspiracy man!

this message brought to you by the voices in your head. Have a nice day.


lol Paizo cast Foreshadow 2 years ago :P


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Terquem wrote:
where does it say that total concealment (a defensive bonus listed on table 8-6, concealed or invisible) grants an attacking bonus such as being invisible (listed on table 8-5) or say that total concealment grants invisibility? I can see where invisibility grants total concealment, I just can't see how it works in reverse?

there isn't


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
where does it say that total concealment (a defensive bonus listed on table 8-6, concealed or invisible) grants an attacking bonus such as being invisible (listed on table 8-5) or say that total concealment grants invisibility? I can see where invisibility grants total concealment, I just can't see how it works in reverse?

It never says that. Anywhere. Any book.

But (nearly) everybody plays it that way because it makes sense - Total Concealment means "you can't see me" and Invisibility means "you can't see me" so they probably should be mechanically identical even though they aren't.

I think most of them don't even realize they're playing by house rules.

I also think that if (nearly) every house makes the same house rule, it should be incorporated into RAW (kind of like how slang words become official English once everybody is saying them).

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
(kind of like how slang words become official English once everybody is saying them).

fo'shizzle!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
(kind of like how slang words become official English once everybody is saying them).
fo'shizzle!

I refuse to recognize that as a word.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

was from what i heard it's actually intended to work that way and they simply forgot to include it because they thought it was in there somewhere. at the very least the devs play the game with it like that, if that means anything.

The Concordance

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Couple of notes I want to add here...

1. For simplicities sake, it should be assumed that those making Perception checks get to do so at the most favorable point during the movement of a character using Stealth, to avoid making checks every time the condition changes. Technically, I think you would get a check whenever the conditions change, but that might make things overly complicated during play.

2. Creatures are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC "if they cannot react to a blow" (CR pg 179 under AC). It was our intent that if you are unaware of a threat, you cannot react to a blow. I think we probably should have spelled this out a wee bit clearer, but space in the Stealth description was extraordinarily tight and ever word was at a premium. That said, I think these changes clear up the situation immensely (compared to where they were.. which was nebulous at best).

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Does it means "stealth-losing any Dexterity bonus to AC" should replace "invisible-losing any Dexterity bonus to AC" in Attack Roll Modifiers?(CRB pg.195)

For instance, if a rouge in invisible condition who was detected by his target (fail in the opposed check versus perception), can he still make sneak attack?


Invisible Condition wrote:


An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents’ Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See the invisibility special ability.

Even if you detect the invisible creature using perception(pinpointing their square for example), they still get bonuses against their target because you can't actually see them.

So yes, an invisible Rogue would still sneak attack.


If you try your stealth vs. their perception and you're not invisible then failing means they see you.

If you try your stealth vs. their perception and you are invisible (with +20 or so to stealth) then failing means they know where you are, but you're still invisible and they can't see exactly where the blade you're about to stab them with is. Sneak attack will still work.

Edit: in combat invisible characters often don't bother with the stealth checks IME for this reason.

201 to 214 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Stealth Errata All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion