|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
While you all were busy talking Monks again, the 6th printing errata of CRB just went live:
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware
of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.
Creatures gain a bonus or penalty on Stealth checks
based on their size: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8,
Small +4, Medium +0, Large –4, Huge –8, Gargantuan
–12, Colossal –16.
Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth,
you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved
as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn
in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends
after you make an attack roll, whether or not the attack is
successful (except when sniping as noted below)
Where is the source for this? I couldn't find it and really don't know where to look.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its on the GRD http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/stealth.html#_stealth
"Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).
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 can already see people arguing over whether stealth is broken when sniping however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Awesome, just starting a campaign and my wife is a ninja, she will love this!
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
At the very least, it's now in the Official PRD skill description for Stealth.
The moving from cover part is very nice as this is basically how I was arguing it worked.
I have to say it still doesn't seem to technically grant a rogue the ability to use stealth to gain sneak attack once they're already in combat, which is unfortunate.
I think the "after" you make an attack roll is enough to let the rogue or ninja make an attack from stealth and get sneak attack. This is how I have always run it so it feels good to be right for a change.
Edit: FYI the PRD has a typo "Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below)."
It should probably be "ends after you make 'AN' attack roll" not AND.
I think the "after" you make an attack roll is enough to let the rogue or ninja make an attack from stealth and get sneak attack. This is how I have always run it so it feels good to be right for a change.
Well, only before combat starts. I don't see any rules to justify sneak attack from being hidden in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The argument/rules work around for it is:
You apply your character's Dexterity modifier to:
Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.
And
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.
Which basically adds up to being unable to react to attack an attack that you are unaware of and, thus, being denied Dex-to-AC.
It would just be nice if there was something explicitly in Stealth/Perception that allowed for it.
There's really not any argument left.
The base description of stealth remains that if you beat their perception, they are unaware of you. The addition to stealth states that you can break cover and continue remaining unobserved. If a target is unaware of you, and you are unobserved by the target, you cannot react.
This exactly does allow a character to use stealth to deny a target its DEX, as long as you start from concealment and beat their perception. It would only apply to the first attack, because after you stab them once they become aware of you - but that's still a pretty big boon to the rogue.
As long as it doesn't explicitly say "you can sneak attack a creature that is unaware of you due to a successful stealth check" in the sneak attack section, people will argue against it.
;) People would argue even if they did that.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
No we wouldn't.
The only thing more contrary than an Internet forum poster is...
...nothing. I actually cannot think of anything.
At the very least, it's now in the Official PRD skill description for Stealth.
Great!
I've never cared for the Stealth/Perception work around because:
If you are not successful, you ... cannot react accordingly.does not logically follow from the conditional statement:
If you are successful, you ... can react accordingly.
My games use the house rule that having total concealment denies your targets DEX, and we also used a rule that was the equivalent of the Stealth errata.
We got one rule change, now let's see the other.
| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, since an argument was predicted, I'll go ahead and be predictable.
Disclaimer: Rogues in my game CAN and DO use Stealth for sneak attacks. So this is not me arguing because I want it to be a certain way - I actually WANT rogues (etc.) to be able to use Stealth for sneak attacks.
That said, these changes don't quite get us there yet, unless I missed something else in the new printing?
They added "concealment", that isn't even total concealment, but it doesn't matter. The rules for Concealment do not grant sneak attacks. They added "Breaking Stealth" which now clearly allows rogues to move through plain sight as long as the start and stop with cover/concealment - this was debatable before.
I don't see any changes to the Concealment rules or the Sneak Attack rules to allow Concealment to grant sneak attacks. It never has, and it apparently still doesn't.
I know, I know, I have seen all the arguments:
"Invisibility grants sneak attack and total concealment is like being invisible".
"If you can't see an attacker you can't defend yourself".
"Unobserved is like being invisible".
Fine.
But Concealment doesn't say "Foes can't defend themselves" and it doesn't say "It's like invisibility." And "unobserved" is not yet a condition with rules. In fact, nowhere in the old or new rules can I find a link between "sneak attack" and "having concealment" or "being unobserved".
In fact, the invisible condition explicitly denies DEX (concealment does not) and grants a +2 on attack rolls (concealment does not) so there is a clear distinction between them.
Everyone who asserts otherwise is making assumptions that aren't printed in the RAW. True, they are logically sound assumptions, they may even be RAI, and they are the way I play it at my table.
But I'm not sure it's yet RAW.
I would love to have more clarity in the rules, or at least a FAQ, but for now, RAW still has a disconnect between Stealth and Sneak Attack.
Side note:
Sheesh, Paizo, when you wrote this change, would it have been too far out of the way to add a little sentence fragment to the Sneak Attack rules, oh, say "When an opponent is unable to observe an attacker or is otherwise unable to defend himself from an attack" so we could have been done with this once and for all? That would have made Stealth and Sneak Attack rules internally consistent and intuitive, for the first time since 3.0 hit the stores.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I wonder how this errata interacts with the Hellcat Stealth line of Feats.
Huh, that's what my group has been doing for years.
I guess all that is missing at this point is a rule that flat out states that you lose your dex to defense vs attacks from an attacker who has total concealment (which stealth now grants). After all, if you have total concealment you're technically invisible.
I guess for the moment it is just a common sense house rule?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess some people just want to argue because it is not spelled out in so many words, call it RAW, RAI, house rule, but just understand that being unseen through stealth or invisibility or the foe is blinded is all part and parcel of the same effect and let's just move on...
Forums are great for understanding different ideas and presenting new things but when we get bogged down like this it makes me want to just give up on the community. It is due to issues like this that so many people roll their eyes when I say, "I read on the messageboards that..."
Sorry for the rant, next!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I must be missing something on the whole Stealth and Sneak Attack issue, because arguments for and against don't even seem related to each other.
Folks who say you can use Stealth to enable Sneak Attack keep referencing "If you can't react, you lose DEX to AC; and you have to succeed on your Perception versus their Stealth to be able to react; therefore, if you fail Perception, you can't react, and lose DEX to AC."
And then the response from the other side seems to be "But concealment doesn't say it denies DEX". Okay... but what's that got to do with the above argument? How is that even a reply, let alone a rebuttal? Or is it supposed to be refuting some other argument that I haven't seen? If so, then why no replies to the argument I *did* see?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stealth errata now says this:
"Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment."
If they are unaware of you, they cannot react accordingly. If they cannot react accordingly, they lose their Dex (according the AC rules). And if you lose your Dex, you can sneak attack. It's... common sense. Like literally obvious. I can't understand why people are still arguing the pedantics of this. Is everyone taking crazy pills or something?
I suppose there is no wording that specifically says attackers get to sneak attack unaware enemies.
I also suppose the rules aren't the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica yet either.
Hey we're asking for rules on how to role-play why is the surprising to anyone?
It does bring up a question about Hide in Plain sight. They don't need concealment to enter stealth, does it still require it to stay in stealth?
I know this thread is about the Stealth Errata, And if you don't mind a slight hi-jack, I have a question since I don't have my book in front of me right now.
What sentence did they remove from the adding spells section?
"Page 219—In the Adding Spells to a Wizard’s Spellbook section, in the Spells Gained at a New Level paragraph, delete the last sentence of the paragraph."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Woohoo! Only took 4 years to word a rule, the way most people were already doing it.
Stealth errata now says this:
"Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment."
If they are unaware of you, they cannot react accordingly. If they cannot react accordingly, they lose their Dex (according the AC rules). And if you lose your Dex, you can sneak attack. It's... common sense. Like literally obvious. I can't understand why people are still arguing the pedantics of this. Is everyone taking crazy pills or something?
For the first time that I can remember... I feel like trolling. I'm sorry ;)
[trolling]"Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don't get to act in the surprise round. Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC."
The rules state that unaware combatants are flat-footed only because they haven't acted yet. Logically, this means that if a person is unaware of someone but has already acted (due to it being in mid combat) then he is not flat footed.[/end trolling]
More seriously though, I don't actually believe what I stated up there. I'm just going to go with the Unaware = Total Concealment = Invisible interpretation.
Just so you know though the reason why I personally make a bit of a deal about this sometimes is probably because I am a programmer. I am the most comfortable when a set a rules/instructions can be mapped out with a logical flow chart. That's why I have to make that Total Concealment = Invisibility distinction... to get the 'flowchart' working correctly in my head.
Edit: Also, similarly to what Josh M. stated above: I simply prefer it when the wording of the rules follows the way that I run the rules in game.
Wow, either Paizo used my suggestion, or they and I are on similar wave lengths.
WoooOOOOoooOOOOOOT!
|
|
I know this thread is about the Stealth Errata, And if you don't mind a slight hi-jack, I have a question since I don't have my book in front of me right now.
What sentence did they remove from the adding spells section?
"Page 219—In the Adding Spells to a Wizard’s Spellbook section, in the Spells Gained at a New Level paragraph, delete the last sentence of the paragraph."
Seems to be the "must choose at least one spell from your specialty school" sentence.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And "unobserved" is not yet a condition with rules. In fact, nowhere in the old or new rules can I find a link between "sneak attack" and "having concealment" or "being unobserved".
The word used under stealth isn't "unobserved" it's "not aware of you". Which is another way of saying "unaware". Which is specifically described in game terms in the combat section under the heading for "Surprise".
Unaware combatants are flat-footed
So if a person is unware of you, they are flat-footed against your attacks. A flat-footed person is denied their Dexterity to AC, which is a condition that lets you sneak attack them.
The concealment bit just justifies how you can move about without any other external concealment and still remain hidden from the person who failed their perception check. If you are hiding around a corner and they walk past you, which gives them an unobstructed line of sight to you, you can still remain hidden because they failed their perception check.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Matrix Dragon. Which is what happens when you stop to answer a phone in the middle of a post. Matrix Dragons ninja you.
And you guys do realize that this gave rogues the one Piece they needed to properly Hide from Blind Sense and Blind Sight!
Nope.
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
So the rogue can't beat the bats perception check (without the dampen presence feat or some other trick anyway)
I spoke with my GM about the new Stealth revision and he likes it. We did talk about if this change allows a Rogue to come out of concealment and sneak attack someone.
He said yes and no. No in the sense if you come out of cover or concealment and try to sneak attack him in the open, you will be seen, because you are not able to fulfill the
end your turn in cover or concealment
requirement.
However, if the target is next to a bush, table or some location that grants cover or concealment, the Rogue can use that to fulfill the requirement of ending in cover or concealment.
Would the rest of you agree?
I see... you're talking about "Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below)."
It suggests that you only get sneak attack if you go from point A to B where in you make your stealth check and both A and B are places with concealment.
For Sneak Attack, you're willfully ignoring point B and enacting the 'attacking breaks stealth' clause. The rule above speaks of remaining "stealthed" after your turn even though you moved through an open area.
For example, if there's a guard standing in front of an archway, facing away from the opening. You are sneaking along the left inside wall and see the guard. In order to move from the left side to the right side, you will have to make a stealth check while moving across the open archway (and 3 feet from the guard). If you succeed, you remain stealthed on the right side of the arch and the guard has no idea you were there.
Instead, if you attack the guard, you still start off unobserved and get the first attack as a sneak attack. That immediately breaks stealth and you can no longer "remain unobserved" after your turn ends.
So you still move out of cover, make the check, and if successful get to stab the guard in the back with full sneak attack bonus. You will end your turn 'in the open' and visible to anyone who can see the archway.
I see... you're talking about "Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below)."
It suggests that you only get sneak attack if you go from point A to B where in you make your stealth check and both A and B are places with concealment.
For Sneak Attack, you're willfully ignoring point B and enacting the 'attacking breaks stealth' clause. The rule above speaks of remaining "stealthed" after your turn even though you moved through an open area.
Thank you, this is exactly what I was trying to relay, but you did so much more effectively. :)
My GM is saying that for the Rogue to remain unobserved (and therefore still be able to sneak attack) he must get to 'point B' of concealment.