Very specific Sneak Attack Question.


Rules Questions


I've looked around but have not seen this scenario and want some advice.
Info:

Rogue 1 / Oracle 1

Oracle has the Water Mystery with the Water Sight revelation, so she can see through mist.

Scenario:

She casts obscuring mist, about 50 feet from the target. She has total concealment, but can easily see the target using water sight.

The opponent does not have water sight. Can you make a ranged sneak attack on your target before/after a successful stealth check?


No sneak attacks max range is 30ft


Deffmonk wrote:

I've looked around but have not seen this scenario and want some advice.

Info:

Rogue 1 / Oracle 1

Oracle has the Water Mystery with the Water Sight revelation, so she can see through mist.

Scenario:

She casts obscuring mist, about 50 feet from the target. She has total concealment, but can easily see the target using water sight.

The opponent does not have water sight. Can you make a ranged sneak attack on your target before/after a successful stealth check?

Yes, with 1 caveat. Without a special ability to extend the range, you can only use ranged sneak attack within 30' of a target. As long as you have total concealment, you should be fine otherwise.


Ok, 30 feet it is then! Thanks for the quick repsonses!


Anime style!
Always nifty

Shadow Lodge

Rogues can take the ninja talent to increase the ranged sneak attack by 10' per time you take it, and rogues can take ninja talents multiple times.

The ninja trick is called deadly range.


Or you can just buy some Sniper Goggles.

Shadow Lodge

Yes, or you can just spend 20k on the lesser sniper goggles or 50k on the greater.

Liberty's Edge

Concealment does not grant sneak attack. Victim must be denied dex bonus or flanked. If either of those two criteria are not in effect, it doesn't how much concealment YOU have. To the exception of invisibility as it specifically says enemy opponents are denied their dex against you.


Yure wrote:
Concealment does not grant sneak attack. Victim must be denied dex bonus or flanked. If either of those two criteria are not in effect, it doesn't how much concealment YOU have. To the exception of invisibility as it specifically says enemy opponents are denied their dex against you.

Yure is correct.

There is still a disconnect in the rules.

Just being in the mist doesn't make your target vulnerable to sneak attack, which is fine, but the disconnect is that Stealth doesn't either - all you get from a successful Stealth check is Total Concealment (which you already have from the mist anyway) and that doesn't cause the target to be flanked or to be denied his DEX bonus.

Some will hang an entire argument on the bit in the stealth rules that says you are "unobserved", but that is not a game term and doesn't have any game mechanics that deny the target his DEX bonus, so while it seems clear that the intent might be to cause him to lose the DEX bonus (and Jason Bulmahn made an unofficial forum post acknowledging this intent), still, the RAW doesn't grant that.

So by RAW, you cannot sneak attack here - but most GMs will let you do it anyway, assuming you within the correct range and you make a successful Stealth check.


Considering the number of published Paizo modules that mention rogues and other creatures with sneak attack using it from Stealth (e.g., Feast of Ravenmoor), it's pretty much a done deal, enough that I wouldn't think twice before playing with a GM that doesn't allow a rogue to attack from Stealth.

Of course, the first attack breaks Stealth as their primary strategy, and sniping to automatically re-Stealth is pretty difficult if you aren't actually invisible.

Liberty's Edge

blahpers wrote:

Considering the number of published Paizo modules that mention rogues and other creatures with sneak attack using it from Stealth (e.g., Feast of Ravenmoor), it's pretty much a done deal, enough that I wouldn't think twice before playing with a GM that doesn't allow a rogue to attack from Stealth.

Of course, the first attack breaks Stealth as their primary strategy, and sniping to automatically re-Stealth is pretty difficult if you aren't actually invisible.

From stealth as in hiding in ambush before combat begins? Definitely totally legal.

There is so many ways out there already to deny someone their dexterity, or at least to be able to flank. Invest in feats and tactically plan your attack.

Honestly the only about the rule that needs to be modified, is on how it relates to range. I have it house ruled that if a range person is directly on the opposite side of an ally, he gains the ability to flank (without bonuses, and without providing flank for ally.) Just because I honestly believe range based rogues got short changed on that deal, and I think it would be almost impossible to see an arrow coming straight at you from directly behind.


blahpers wrote:
Considering the number of published Paizo modules that mention rogues and other creatures with sneak attack using it from Stealth (e.g., Feast of Ravenmoor), it's pretty much a done deal,

Paizo gets a lot of things right in their published stuff, but they get some things wrong. And they have stated (unofficially) that it was their intent for Stealth to work this way, but unfortunately, the RAW still doesn't and they haven't made an official errata.

Yes, I allow it. So does nearly every GM I know or know of. But, "pretty much a done deal" is not the same as RAW,and it's good to know that and good to clarify with your own GM before making the assumption.

Yure wrote:
Honestly the only about the rule that needs to be modified, is on how it relates to range. I have it house ruled that if a range person is directly on the opposite side of an ally, he gains the ability to flank

I do this too. I even give him the attack bonus, but not granting flank to his ally.

To clarify, both of these things are house rules at my table (and many others), not RAW.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Why would you not consider a creature you attacked from stealth flat-footed?


Flat-footed only happens at the start of combat, so I guess if I used stealth out of combat to get into striking position and then attacked them with a surprise round, then they would be flat-footed. And they would remain flat-footed until they get to take their first action, then they will never be flat-footed again in this combat.

I suppose you meant to ask why I wouldn't consider them to be denied their DEX bonus? If that's what you meant, then it's simple. Nowhere in the Stealth rules does it say that a successful Stealth check causes your target to lose his DEX bonus. All it says is that you gain Total Concealment and you're "unobserved".

Total Concealment also does not say that your enemies lose their DEX bonus.

And since "unobserved" is not a game term and has no game mechanics to tell us what to do with someone who is "unobserved", all we can do is create house rules that extrapolate from things like Invisibility to create our own game mechanics for what that means.

Sure, it's easy to do. We all do it. As far as I know, everyone does it, except for maybe a few fanatical rules lawyers. But the RAW doesn't say to do it, so it's GM Fiat and House Rules when we do it.


DM_Blake wrote:

Flat-footed only happens at the start of combat, so I guess if I used stealth out of combat to get into striking position and then attacked them with a surprise round, then they would be flat-footed. And they would remain flat-footed until they get to take their first action, then they will never be flat-footed again in this combat.

I suppose you meant to ask why I wouldn't consider them to be denied their DEX bonus? If that's what you meant, then it's simple. Nowhere in the Stealth rules does it say that a successful Stealth check causes your target to lose his DEX bonus. All it says is that you gain Total Concealment and you're "unobserved".

Total Concealment also does not say that your enemies lose their DEX bonus.

And since "unobserved" is not a game term and has no game mechanics to tell us what to do with someone who is "unobserved", all we can do is create house rules that extrapolate from things like Invisibility to create our own game mechanics for what that means.

Sure, it's easy to do. We all do it. As far as I know, everyone does it, except for maybe a few fanatical rules lawyers. But the RAW doesn't say to do it, so it's GM Fiat and House Rules when we do it.

It's not a creation of houserules. If there is no game term, it assumes the usual definition of the word.

Unobserved means not observed.

Observed means to "notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant."

If they do not notice you, they lose their Dexterity bonus to AC, by simple process of extrapolation, since Invisibility (inability to be observed by sight) and Blindness (ditto) do the same thing.

Logically extrapolating extant mechanics to fill a gap the devs obviously thought was self-explanatory by the term used is also not a houserule.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, if attacking from Total Concealment, then what effect does this create in regards to the attack, and the one attacked?


Yure wrote:
Concealment does not grant sneak attack. Victim must be denied dex bonus or flanked. If either of those two criteria are not in effect, it doesn't how much concealment YOU have. To the exception of invisibility as it specifically says enemy opponents are denied their dex against you.

Nope. Nor spell or ability says that you deny dex bonus just because you're invisible, at least after a quick search.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

blahpers wrote:

Considering the number of published Paizo modules that mention rogues and other creatures with sneak attack using it from Stealth (e.g., Feast of Ravenmoor), it's pretty much a done deal, enough that I wouldn't think twice before playing with a GM that doesn't allow a rogue to attack from Stealth.

Of course, the first attack breaks Stealth as their primary strategy, and sniping to automatically re-Stealth is pretty difficult if you aren't actually invisible.

You get sneak attack in those circumstances because your target is flat-footed. The purpose of Stealth in those cases is to initiate a surprise round, but the Stealth does not immediately indicate sneak attack, it just created the situation that leads to the target being flatfooted, which in turn allows the sneak attack.

Note that if you ambushed a character with Uncanny Dodge, you would not be able to sneak attack them no matter how good your Stealth check was, because the target is immune to the flatfooted condition.

Really folks, the description of the conditions leading to a sneak attack are pretty damned clear, and have been since the year 2000 when they first appeared in D&D 3.0. Pathfinder's minor changes to them have nothing to do with the conditions that allow a sneak attack-- so why they are causing confusion 13 years later really baffles me.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Blackstorm wrote:
Yure wrote:
Concealment does not grant sneak attack. Victim must be denied dex bonus or flanked. If either of those two criteria are not in effect, it doesn't how much concealment YOU have. To the exception of invisibility as it specifically says enemy opponents are denied their dex against you.

Nope. Nor spell or ability says that you deny dex bonus just because you're invisible, at least after a quick search.

Look at the description of the invisible condition in the core rulebook glossary. This is the entry under conditions, not the separate "invisibility" description. If you search the PRD for "invisible" you should also find it easily. It very clearly states when invisible, your enemies lose their Dex bonus to you. Another 13 year old rule, but in fairness this one may be more confusing because it is described differently in different places.


If someone can't see, it shouldn't matter why they can't see you. Blindness, invisibility, darkness, stealth, fog, smoke, brick wall... If there's any confusion, it's because the rules violate common sense.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Matthew Downie wrote:
If someone can't see, it shouldn't matter why they can't see you. Blindness, invisibility, darkness, stealth, fog, smoke, brick wall... If there's any confusion, it's because the rules violate common sense.

The difference between invisibility and concealment in my mind is that if you are invisible, you truly cannot be seen. when concealed, by fog or poor light, you can be seen, it's just difficult to make out details so it's hard to target you effectively. I think the rules could be refined (see the aborted Stealth play test) but the effort to distinguish between concealment, cover, and invisibility makes sense to me.


Total Concealment (for example from ten feet of obscuring mist) means you can't be seen. They can't even tell by sight what square you're in.

Shadow Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I'd allow it. Total concealment from fog is as good as invisibility in effect. Your foe can't see you. Even if they know you're there they can't predict your movements and attacks. Of course doing it every round, over and over could become bothersome. Mind you a sylph with cloud gazer could do this as well, although less range.


Just a few quotes relating to the subject (in case anyone hasn't seen them).

Wraithstrike on how RAW supports denying targets DEX to AC after successfully using stealth, or at least that's what he's arguing.

The post:
wraithstrike wrote:

I think I have found a solution.

First Piece of Evidence is Sneak Attack:
prd/rogue wrote:

prd/rogue wrote:

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:
prd/dex wrote:

prd/dex wrote:

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:
Quote:

Quote:
Check: Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.

Point 3: If you fail this check you can not react accordingly. If anyone refutes this please address it as point 3.

Final Conclusion:
If you do not succeed in an opposed check against an opponents stealth then you can not react accordingly.
Since you can not react to the attack by using your dex bonus, due to the fact that you are unaware of the opponent even being there, you lose dex to AC according to point 2.
Being denied the bonus to AC means you are now a legal target for sneak attack.

PS:I apologize if this has all been combined before, because while I have seen this subject come up before I have not seen these 3 points all put together.

Jason Bulmahn (basically) stating that using stealth denies target its DEX to AC. Emphasis mine.

The post:
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

Shadow Lodge

Not sure if this has been raised before, but from the RAW on Blindsense:

A creature with blindsense is STILL [emphasis added] denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.

To me, the use of "still" means that the ordinary condition is that you lose your Dex bonus against attacks from creatures you can't see (not just when they are "invisible".) So Total Concealment (officially, no line of sight) ought to qualify.


Yure wrote:
Concealment does not grant sneak attack. Victim must be denied dex bonus or flanked. If either of those two criteria are not in effect, it doesn't how much concealment YOU have. To the exception of invisibility as it specifically says enemy opponents are denied their dex against you.

The victim cannot see the attacker, thus they are denied their DEX (baring uncanny dodge).

-James

Liberty's Edge

1- Were the changes actually made? If they have known about the issue, why hasn't "pen been put to paper". Instead of leave us guessing and arguing. But since he is the Lead Designer I will retract my previous statements and I will tell my players AND NPCs so that they know that they can sneak attack if in stealth mode.

2- Way I saw it was Invisibility is a magical ability that if you were to see someone in front of you go invisible, you would not be able to see them. Where as stealth you couldn't.

3- People bring up the whole thing were they say well he didn't have concealment so he couldn't stealth. But I would bring this point up. Two combatants are in a room. They are staring at each other. The rogue is behind a mid-level wall, or barrel. Rogue ducks to gain concealment, and makes a stealth check. You mean to tell me that the other guy is flat footed just because he doesn't see the rogue? He obviously knows where he is? An invisible character could move from that position. A rogue would have to remain in such a position. Unless your telling me the rogue could very well jump out and attack...even though the other guy was expecting it? Just doesn't make sense.


Knowing someone's position isn't enough. Blindsense, for example, reveals general position within a couple of feet, but not well enough that they can see attacks coming.
A rogue popping out from behind a bit of cover and getting sneak damage isn't much different from them getting sneak damage in the first round of combat because they won initiative. It's not like rogues are overpowered if you allow it.

Liberty's Edge

Yes I guess it could be situational. I think the biggest thing I am trying to avoid, is characters can move around like a stealthed character does in World of Warcraft. "Hey am right in front of you, but you can't see me!"

So looking over stealth rule again, I see

Quote:
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).

Does this mean that when a character breaks stealth to attack, the opponent gets a perception check? I mean I guess that would make sense I would see it more in line with the scenario I had given earlier.


Rynjin wrote:

It's not a creation of houserules. If there is no game term, it assumes the usual definition of the word.

Unobserved means not observed.

Observed means to "notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant."

If they do not notice you, they lose their Dexterity bonus to AC, by simple process of extrapolation, since Invisibility (inability to be observed by sight) and Blindness (ditto) do the same thing.

Logically extrapolating extant mechanics to fill a gap the devs obviously thought was self-explanatory by the term used is also not a houserule.

"process of extrapolation" = "house rule". It definitely is not RAW - you never have to "extrapolate" RAW because, well, the "W" stands for "Written". What you're talking about here is RAE: "Rules as Extrapolated".

Very different.

Matthew Downie wrote:
If someone can't see, it shouldn't matter why they can't see you. Blindness, invisibility, darkness, stealth, fog, smoke, brick wall... If there's any confusion, it's because the rules violate common sense.

Oh, I totally agree. The RAW should include sneak attacks from stealth. Explicitly. I already said there's a disconnect in the rules.

Sadly, so far, the RAW doesn't allow it.

Cat-thulhu wrote:
I'd allow it.

Me too. So does just about everyone. Still, the RAW does not, no matter how much it should.

Honorable Goblin wrote:
Just a few quotes relating to the subject (in case anyone hasn't seen them).

I've seen them.

1. Wraithstrike nimbly used disparate sections of the rules to cobble together his own accurate and well-argued reasoning to house rule that it should be possible to sneak attack from stealth. Still, nothing in his argument is actually supported by RAW, just a bunch of "extrapolation" to justify "RAE" (see my earlier reference in this post).

2. Jason Bulmahn's unofficial post buried deep in one thread of one question on the forums, that only states that the DEV intended to do something but failed to do it, is not the same thing as an official rules errata or FAQ which would not only be easier to find as well as official, but it would also actually change the rules rather than just admit that the DEVs failed to make their intent clear.

Side note: Why would Jason Bulmahn even post that unless he, too, is aware that the RAW fails to state that Stealth denies DEX bonus? This post that you quote is PROOF that even the DEVs know the RAW lacks this rule or else they wouldn't be posting about how they regret not including it.

james maissen wrote:

The victim cannot see the attacker, thus they are denied their DEX (baring uncanny dodge).

-James

You state this as if it were fact, but according to the RAW, you're only stating your own house rule, which doesn't make if a fact for everyone else.

I can do the same thing with one of my houserules:

A ranged attacker whose line of effect passes through an opponents square in the same way that would grant flanking if it were a melee attack will still receive the benefits of flanking even though he is not adjacent to the target.

-DM_Blake

See? Anyone can state a house rule as fact.


Yure wrote:
Yes I guess it could be situational. I think the biggest thing I am trying to avoid, is characters can move around like a stealthed character does in World of Warcraft. "Hey am right in front of you, but you can't see me!"

No. WOW stealth works just like Pathfinder invisibility. In WOW, a character using Stealth literally disappears from all "game" sight as if the character were magically invisible. But in Pathfinder, the Stealth skill is just a skill, not magic, and works far more like sneaking around in the real world - when you, the human you, not your character, sneak around in the real world, you know you are not invisible, you know you must still hide behind things or hide in darkness, etc., and if you don't hide, if you just walk around in front of anyone in plain sight in broad daylight, it doesn't matter how sneaky you are or how much you practice being stealthy, you will be seen.

Yure wrote:

So looking over stealth rule again, I see

Quote:
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).
Does this mean that when a character breaks stealth to attack, the opponent gets a perception check? I mean I guess that would make sense I would see it more in line with the scenario I had given earlier.

When you use Stealth, your chance to succeed is ALWAYS opposed by the Perception check of anyone who MIGHT see/hear/perceive you. Always.

According to the same post that Honarable Goblin linked, Jason Bulmahn clarified that the opponent makes his Perception check at the time most favorable to him, not you.

So following the Breaking Stealth rules:

You must begin your turn "using Stealth". This means that last turn you needed to make a successful Stealth check, and nothing happened on everyone else's turns to ruin it for you, so you still have stealth at the start of your turn.

Now you burst out of your cover/concealment and run up to an enemy and attack him. You are now in plain sight, which would normally give him a DC 0 Perception check to see you, but you did begin your turn with Stealth so you can make your opposed check, your Stealth vs. his Perception. If he equals or beats your roll, he sees you and you are perfectly visible to him - no Total Concealment, no chance of a Sneak Attack (assuming your GM allows it in the first place).

But, if he fails to at least equal your Stealth check (you beat his roll), then you can finish your approach and make one attack with the benefit of Total Concealment. Argue with your GM about what that benefit is (the RAW doesn't give you any benefit for attacking from Total Concealment, it just gives your enemies a miss chance when you're defending with Total Concealment.

Liberty's Edge

Yure wrote:

Yes I guess it could be situational. I think the biggest thing I am trying to avoid, is characters can move around like a stealthed character does in World of Warcraft. "Hey am right in front of you, but you can't see me!"

So looking over stealth rule again, I see

Quote:
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).
Does this mean that when a character breaks stealth to attack, the opponent gets a perception check? I mean I guess that would make sense I would see it more in line with the scenario I had given earlier.

I re-read what I typed and I don't think it was clear. What I meant to say when an stealthed character MOVES out of cover to make an attack, does the victim (or any who have the ability to see him) get to make a perception check? If the perception check passes, that character does not get to make a sneak attack?


Yure wrote:
I re-read what I typed and I don't think it was clear. What I meant to say when an stealthed character MOVES out of cover to make an attack, does the victim (or any who have the ability to see him) get to make a perception check? If the perception check passes, that character does not get to make a sneak attack?

Now re-read my answer. I covered this exact scenario.

In case my use of the word "burst" was not clear, I meant that to mean exactly what you're asking, he moves out of his cover/concealment and runs up to attack an enemy - sorry if my using vibrant verbs confused the issue.


DM_Blake wrote:

"process of extrapolation" = "house rule". It definitely is not RAW - you never have to "extrapolate" RAW because, well, the "W" stands for "Written". What you're talking about here is RAE: "Rules as Extrapolated".

Very different.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that anything not RAW (including RAI, which it is as per the post by Jason Buhlman) is a houserule.

This is not the case. A houserule is an addition of something the rules definitely do not allow for, RAW, RAI, or otherwise, or the changing of how something in the RAW works.

A houserule is NOT using your head and reading between the lines.


Note we cannot play the game without interpreting the rules. RAW isn't really Rules as Written, its Rules as Written which we have to interpret as closely to the developer's intent.

Liberty's Edge

DM_Blake wrote:
Yure wrote:
Yes I guess it could be situational. I think the biggest thing I am trying to avoid, is characters can move around like a stealthed character does in World of Warcraft. "Hey am right in front of you, but you can't see me!"

No. WOW stealth works just like Pathfinder invisibility. In WOW, a character using Stealth literally disappears from all "game" sight as if the character were magically invisible. But in Pathfinder, the Stealth skill is just a skill, not magic, and works far more like sneaking around in the real world - when you, the human you, not your character, sneak around in the real world, you know you are not invisible, you know you must still hide behind things or hide in darkness, etc., and if you don't hide, if you just walk around in front of anyone in plain sight in broad daylight, it doesn't matter how sneaky you are or how much you practice being stealthy, you will be seen.

Yure wrote:

So looking over stealth rule again, I see

Quote:
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).
Does this mean that when a character breaks stealth to attack, the opponent gets a perception check? I mean I guess that would make sense I would see it more in line with the scenario I had given earlier.

When you use Stealth, your chance to succeed is ALWAYS opposed by the Perception check of anyone who MIGHT see/hear/perceive you. Always.

According to the same post that Honarable Goblin linked, Jason Bulmahn clarified that the opponent makes his Perception check at the time most favorable to him, not you.

So following the Breaking Stealth rules:

You must begin your turn "using Stealth". This means that last turn you needed to make a successful Stealth check, and...

Yes, that is what I meant about Pathfinder stealth. I DON'T want PCs thinking that they could move around in stealth as if they were invisible.

I agree with you that by RAW Total Concealment does not give a PC the ability to sneak attack.

It is however a tough rule to abide by when the Lead Designer himself says that it was meant to be that stealth could provide a PC with the ability to sneak attack.

And your absolutely right, they SHOULD make an official announcement. For all we know the lead designer got VETOED by the owner of the company. :-p (Hey sh*t like that happens all the time.) I mean this question has came up a thousand times since the first book came out, and still no official change? Does sound a little fishy... premium price for words of not.

I will house rule it so that it could be done. I must say though. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. :-)

Liberty's Edge

So the next question would be is can AoO be made on such a stealthed character?


DM_Blake wrote:

james maissen wrote:

The victim cannot see the attacker, thus they are denied their DEX (baring uncanny dodge).

-James

You state this as if it were fact, but according to the RAW

they are denied their DEX baring uncanny dodge.

If you cannot react to an attack, then you are denied your DEX score.

It's really simple, and it's been there all along.

There are a ton of threads, one even where wraithstrike goes through and proves that it works by RAW.

You know it I believe as you were on that thread claiming that the sky had fallen. If I mistook you for someone else, then I apologize for the mixup.

-James


Yure wrote:
So the next question would be is can AoO be made on such a stealthed character?

Check out the rules for cover and concealment in the Combat section.

What you're looking for is this:

Pathfinder Core Rulebook, Combat, Total Concealment wrote:
You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

So if the opposed Stealth/Perception check is made by the stealthy guy, then he gains Total Concealment and can then perform all the provocative acts he wants on his turn without provoking any AoO - as long as he doesn't break his Stealth.


james maissen wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

james maissen wrote:

The victim cannot see the attacker, thus they are denied their DEX (baring uncanny dodge).

-James

You state this as if it were fact, but according to the RAW

they are denied their DEX baring uncanny dodge.

If you cannot react to an attack, then you are denied your DEX score.

It's really simple, and it's been there all along.

There are a ton of threads, one even where wraithstrike goes through and proves that it works by RAW.

You know it I believe as you were on that thread claiming that the sky had fallen. If I mistook you for someone else, then I apologize for the mixup.

-James

You're right, I was on those threads. I wasn't claiming any such thing about the sky; it hasn't fallen. I've explained the RAW on dozens of these Stealth threads and most of the time, as I have here, I've said I houserule the same way everyone else does and allow the sneak attacks, so why would I "claim the sky has fallen"?

In any case, your argument, and Wraithstrike's, hinge on the idea that a combatant cannot react to an attack from a stealthed attacker. I disagree. I've given numerous examples of how it might be possible to keep ones defenses up, since one is actually in combat, keep dodging, ducking, and slashing around as if to defend oneself, perhaps just enough to not be considered "unable to react to an attack", even by a stealthy enemy.

I also suggest that, while an invisible enemy could literally stand right in front of your eyes and swing for the fences, a stealthy enemy has to be more sneaky, more subtle, and in doing so, once he begins his attack at you, he blows that sneaky subtlety and you can react. Or more accurately, you are not unable to react.

Since the whole RAW argument hinges on an enemy who cannot react to a stealthy attack, and since the RAW never says they cannot react to the stealthy attack, then your (and Wraithstrike's) argument still requires GM fiat to interpret the rules as you see fit.

Find me the RAW that supports your claim. Find me the RAW that says if you make your Stealth check the enemy is unable to react to your attack, and I'll stop arguing that you cannot sneak attack with stealth.

Until you find that in the RAW, or at least in an official errata or FAQ, then it's all just extrapolation and house rules - which, as I've said before, is just fine, I make the same extrapolation and same house rule (and it would be just fine even if I didn't - your game, your rules).

Just don't claim it's RAW, especially when we even have Jason Bulmahn himself saying, basically, "Gee, we meant to put that in but we forgot. Our bad." (paraphrased, of course - he was much more professional than that).


DM_Blake wrote:
I disagree.

Your call. But the RAW was given to you in the other thread. It's done and gone. Go back and raise that thread if you want.

-James


DM_Blake wrote:
I also suggest that, while an invisible enemy could literally stand right in front of your eyes and swing for the fences, a stealthy enemy has to be more sneaky, more subtle, and in doing so, once he begins his attack at you, he blows that sneaky subtlety and you can react. Or more accurately, you are not unable to react.

Seeing as you are objecting to when the attacker has full concealment and the target has no way to see the attacker, I'd say that this argument misses the mark dramatically.

-James

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Ferka wrote:

Not sure if this has been raised before, but from the RAW on Blindsense:

A creature with blindsense is STILL [emphasis added] denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.

To me, the use of "still" means that the ordinary condition is that you lose your Dex bonus against attacks from creatures you can't see (not just when they are "invisible".) So Total Concealment (officially, no line of sight) ought to qualify.

The wording of blindsense refers to the fact that normally, a creature with the blind condition loses Dex bonus to AC, as if everyone around it were invisible.


DM_Blake wrote:
Yure wrote:
I re-read what I typed and I don't think it was clear. What I meant to say when an stealthed character MOVES out of cover to make an attack, does the victim (or any who have the ability to see him) get to make a perception check? If the perception check passes, that character does not get to make a sneak attack?

Now re-read my answer. I covered this exact scenario.

In case my use of the word "burst" was not clear, I meant that to mean exactly what you're asking, he moves out of his cover/concealment and runs up to attack an enemy - sorry if my using vibrant verbs confused the issue.

You're looking at the wrong rule here.

Jason's post (part 1, explaining the rule) was about *staying* in stealth, and the concept of being able to sneak from cover to cover. Before the 6th printing changes, RAW you were immediately seen if you broke cover. No way to sneak from bush to bush, in the classic manner.

With the new rules, you remain in stealth until end of your movement, or until you have attacked. So with the example above, having successfully stealthed the previous round, you can attack denying your target Dex (+ usual caveats). No new check is required.


DM_Blake wrote:
1. Wraithstrike nimbly used disparate sections of the rules to cobble together his own accurate and well-argued reasoning to house rule that it should be possible to sneak attack from stealth. Still, nothing in his argument is actually supported by RAW, just a bunch of "extrapolation" to justify "RAE" (see my earlier reference in this post).

That's not extrapolation, despite someone in the thread erroneously using that word to describe it. Extrapolation is predicting other data points based on the pattern of existing data, assuming that the pattern more or less accurately describes the data in its entirety.

This, on the other hand, is simple propositional logic. If A implies B, and B implies C, and B implies D, then A implies D, full stop, no exceptions. That's not cobbling together, that's simple reasoning, and completely compatible with RAW--and, in fact, you could not follow RAW without it.

For example you wouldn't be able to use Weapon Finesse with a dagger, since while "dagger" implies "light weapon" and "light weapon" implies "Weapon Finesseable", you wouldn't be able to logically connect "dagger" to "Weapon Finesseable".

The book is full of these and assumes you have a first-grader's understanding of logical implication--that is, if I drop my ice cream, it'll get dirty, and if ice cream gets dirty, it won't taste as good, therefore I should avoid dropping my ice cream because I want it to taste good.


Yes... per RAW you do not get Sneak Attack damage against a creature even when you have Total Concealment.

Per Raw you can sneak attack if you are invisible OR if your target is Blinded, but not when "your target can't see you".
Arguing, even for 1 minute, that this makes sense or that anyone should ever play this way is ridiculous though, so go ahead with your build. It sounds fun.

You could also do this as an Ifrit Ninja with smoke bombs and the 'Fire Sight" feat


Lord_Malkov wrote:

Yes... per RAW you do not get Sneak Attack damage against a creature even when you have Total Concealment.

The rules don't say it directly. Yet, it still follows from the rules.

-James

Shadow Lodge

DeathQuaker wrote:
Ferka wrote:

Not sure if this has been raised before, but from the RAW on Blindsense:

A creature with blindsense is STILL [emphasis added] denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.

To me, the use of "still" means that the ordinary condition is that you lose your Dex bonus against attacks from creatures you can't see (not just when they are "invisible".) So Total Concealment (officially, no line of sight) ought to qualify.

The wording of blindsense refers to the fact that normally, a creature with the blind condition loses Dex bonus to AC, as if everyone around it were invisible.

Actually, it isn't because it is "as if everyone around it were invisible", it explicitly says that it is because it can't see them. It's referring to the common sense explanation about how this is supposed to work, which unfortunately isn't clearly stated elsewhere. But at least here, it is RAW, which might help some folks who need things spelled out for them.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Very specific Sneak Attack Question. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.