Hi all!
In the last game we had this situation: three drow archers were in an area of darkness shooting against the pc's. The pc's were in an illuminated area. I ruled that the drows had total concealment since they were in darkness, and since one of them was a rogue I thought of making sneak attack. But I was unsure if this was possible, since the drows weren't using Stealth or were invisible and total concealment doesn't mean automatically losing dex bonus to AC, so I decided not to make sneaks. Did I rule right? The way I see, even if the drows are in total-concealed area, it's necessary to be invisible or hidden (via Stealth) to qualify to make sneak attacks...
|
Are the PCs flat footed? If so, by RAW then that ranged attack is a sneak attack. This'll probably only work on either the first round or surprise round. Getting consecutive ranged sneak attacks is difficult as trying to remain hidden once you enter combat, even if stealth-ed is a -20 to the roll, so usually the PCs get a chance to do a perception to find their attacker. Even if the attacker succeeds their stealth check, the PCs would be aware of their presence, and not flat footed.
I would say yes, you did right. Without any reference in front of me, I am remembering the rogue (any Sneak Attacker) needs the *TARGET* to be 1) Flanked, or 2) unaware of the attacks, or 3) denied thier DEX bonus to AC.
Regardless of the shooters having concealment, if the target knew any arrows were coming its way, the target would deny the SA.
GNOME
Thank you both. That's what I thought. I know there's some controversy about using Stealth and making sneak attacks - but i normally use the rules compendium 3.5 rule in which a hidden opponent is considered invisible. So, if drows make a succesful stealth check -since they have total concealment they can- they could then fire and apply sneak attacks. But as mentioned earlier, that's only a sort of houserule since 3.5 material is not exactly canon in Pathfinder.
If the pc's didn't know the drow where there then i rule yes the first round of combat they would get sneak attacks
I would say that opponents cannot react to the attack coming from darkness unless they have something like Uncanny Dodge, but by raw i guess you ruled right.
If the drow had used stealth, then the attacks could have been sneak attacks. Without using stealth I don't believe they are denied dexterity or "unaware" necessarily. Though on the first round of combat or in a surprise round they would be flat-footed.
Also, if any of the PCs had darkvision they would not have been impacted by the dark and the drow could not have used stealth to hide form them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So with the drow in darkness with total concealment, they were in essence invisible?
Last time I checked, an invisible attacker not only gains +2 on the attack, but denies the defender any Dex bonus to AC...which qualifies for Sneak Attack.
But maybe I'm missing something.
I agree with Elbedor...if the drow are totally concealed, then they are invisible, which denies the PCs their Dex, which qualifies the drow for sneak attack, unless a PC has darkvision (and is close enough to see them).
Now, there is also the matter of whether the drow were within sneak attack range, but you probably should have been rolling sneak attack dice.
The drow should definitely be able to get sneak attack. At worst, it would require Sniping (so just one shot per round).
It's not exactly well-defined in the rules, but it's hard not to deny Dex when you have total concealment. Even blink gives the +2 bonus (while not denying Dex). The party can't see the threat to react to it. They need to find cover, or even the light situation.
So with the drow in darkness with total concealment, they were in essence invisible?
Last time I checked, an invisible attacker not only gains +2 on the attack, but denies the defender any Dex bonus to AC...which qualifies for Sneak Attack.
But maybe I'm missing something.
The problem is, and while I agree in theory, I can't find supporting evidence that total concealment automatically denies dex to AC.
Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
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.
Ignoring Concealment: Concealment isn't always effective. An area of dim lighting or darkness doesn't provide any concealment against an opponent with darkvision. Characters with low-light vision can see clearly for a greater distance than other characters with the same light source. Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible character. An invisible character gains a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if moving, or a +40 bonus on Stealth checks when not moving (even though opponents can't see you, they might be able to figure out where you are from other visual or auditory clues).
Can you post with the relevant rule. I believe it's true, but I don't have anything to support it. I do know that with total concealment they could use stealth, which would grant the unaware conditon and deny dex to AC, thus enabling sneak attack.
We need to shed light on this problem.
Sneak attack works as long as its conditions are met. With total concealment from darkness they are more lor less invisible. No sniping or stealth required. If they had used sniping th PFS would not even know dirdction.
So with the drow in darkness with total concealment, they were in essence invisible?
Last time I checked, an invisible attacker not only gains +2 on the attack, but denies the defender any Dex bonus to AC...which qualifies for Sneak Attack.
But maybe I'm missing something.
The problem is, and while I agree in theory, I can't find supporting evidence that total concealment automatically denies dex to AC.
Can you post with the relevant rule. I believe it's true, but I don't have anything to support it. I do know that with total concealment they could use stealth, which would grant the unaware conditon and deny dex to AC, thus enabling sneak attack.
You quoted the rules, but they're from the wrong side. The rules you quoted refers to what happen if you attack an opponent with total concealment, not what happen if they attack you. They have total concealment, so you can't effectively see them. So they're invisible for you.
The problem is:
In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded.
but PC themselves are non the the darkness - their attackers are. I believe intention was something like "all creatures without darkvision treat areas of darkness as if they are blinded" but it does not say so clearly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget that ranged sneak attacks are limited to 30'.
Unless some special ability/feat/talent/trait/magic item/spell allows a greater range.
The problem is:
In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded.but PC themselves are non the the darkness - their attackers are. I believe intention was something like "all creatures without darkvision treat areas of darkness as if they are blinded" but it does not say so clearly.
That's my point. IF the pc's are in the darkness area themselves, and they dont't have darkvision, then yes, as per the rules, they lose their DEX bonus to AC and so drow would qualify to use sneak attack, since being in darkness is effectively being blinded. But Pc's are outside darkness, so they know approximately from where the attacks are coming and more important, they are aware and ready to avoid them. Total concealment gives the drow a whopping 50% chance to avoid any attack and even more, pc's have to select what square they attack, again per the rules of concealment. But since they are not hidden or invisible, pc's retain their AC DEX bonus, so they cannot be "sneaked".
On a side note, the rogue drow could have tried a Stealth roll to become hidden, since he was in total concealment, and in that case I do believe he could have used sneak attack.
Again he does not need to stealth the pc could not see their attackers and were flat footed as long as that is met the rogues get sneak attack.
It rewuires one single question is the target flst footed or otherwise denies dex. This shouldn't be difficult.
Again he does not need to stealth the pc could not see their attackers and were flat footed as long as that is met the rogues get sneak attack.
It rewuires one single question is the target flst footed or otherwise denies dex. This shouldn't be difficult.
Sorry Mojo, but the pcs cannot be flat-footed. That condition only applies at the beginning of combat, specifically before you are allowed to act. When you act, you are not flat-footed anymore.
In rules compendium from 3.5 edition, though, was stated that if someone was hidden using Stealth from any other creature, that creature was considered flat-footed respect to him/her. I've always applied this rule. But this is not the case here, anyway.
As per previous answers, I think that there's no rule covering this and it's pretty much a "Dm's call". Some of us believe total concealment is not the same as being invisible, others do. Maybe I should send this to FAQ and let the developers shed some light on this.
That's my point. IF the pc's are in the darkness area themselves, and they dont't have darkvision, then yes, as per the rules, they lose their DEX bonus to AC and so drow would qualify to use sneak attack, since being in darkness is effectively being blinded. But Pc's are outside darkness, so they know approximately from where the attacks are coming and more important, they are aware and ready to avoid them.
So, if a rogue with greater invisibility on himself attack you in melee with a full round attack of, let's say, 5 attacks (twf and greater plus haste), he don't get the sneak attack damage from attacks other than the first? It's exactly the same situation: you cannot see him but you approximately know from where the hits are coming. In this case you know better than the op situation where he is. So if you were right, all the attacks of such rogue aside 1st wouldn't be sneak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blackstorm is correct and I stand by my previous post. Although the PC's are not blind, the attackers are basically invisible because they cannot be seen. So follow the rules for invisible attackers.
Even if I can locate the square an invisible creature resides in, I still lose my Dex bonus against its attacks as per the rules. So unless the PCs move outside the 30ft range, find a way to reveal their targets, or gain some means of nullifying SAs against them, they are subject to such attacks.
Again he does not need to stealth the pc could not see their attackers and were flat footed as long as that is met the rogues get sneak attack.
It rewuires one single question is the target flst footed or otherwise denies dex. This shouldn't be difficult.
Sorry Mojo, but the pcs cannot be flat-footed. That condition only applies at the beginning of combat, specifically before you are allowed to act. When you act, you are not flat-footed anymore.
In rules compendium from 3.5 edition, though, was stated that if someone was hidden using Stealth from any other creature, that creature was considered flat-footed respect to him/her. I've always applied this rule. But this is not the case here, anyway.
Sigh, I'll try this again not on my phone.
Sneak attacks requires the target be denied its dexterity somehow, this is often through being flat footed or other conditions such as the target cannot see its attacker I used 'flat footed' eearlier for brevity and you jumped on that but seriously? Look if you cannot see your attacker you are flat footed. Your attacker if within 30' get sneak. This isnt rocket science. Awareness of the attack has no bearing on it if you cannot see your target. IF the drow are in darkness for all intents they are effectivly invisible.
If the rogue was invisible would you have let himn sneak on every attack? being in darkness gives him 50% concealment which as far as the games mechanics are concerned works out to the same thing.
Ok, this is an interesting question that takes a lot into consideration.
First, darkness is not invisibility. They are similar but not the same.
Being invisible does not equal stealth. Those that are unseen can still be noticed with hearing and scent.
A character in darkness (Drow) has total concealment from its target. But the rules don't appear to mention what happens when the attacker has concealment but not the target.
I would say the target is not flat-footed. The attack coming from the darkness is not invisible. If the Drow is not using stealth, then he can be heard. If he can be heard, it is easy enough to dodge the arrow coming from that location.
The PCs were not in darkness and therefore were not suffering the effects of concealment. The Drow must actually stealth to gain the benefits of stealth.
The PCs are not blinded. They can see the arrows. Therefore they can catch them (with feat) or dodge them as appropriate.
That said, the Drow have a huge advantage on the PCs.
Imagine this:
A rogue stands behind a curtain 30' away. You know he is there because you watched him run there and you are having a conversation with him, but you can't see him. He sees you because he is looking through a hole 2" from his face.
Would you dream of giving him sneak attack without stealth for each and every attack?
Mechanically it is the same exact thing.
I think the OP ruled correctly by not giving the Drow sneak attack damage. All that he would have needed to do was to make a stealth check.
Ok, this is an interesting question that takes a lot into consideration.
First, darkness is not invisibility. They are similar but not the same.
Being invisible does not equal stealth. Those that are unseen can still be noticed with hearing and scent.A character in darkness (Drow) has total concealment from its target. But the rules don't appear to mention what happens when the attacker has concealment but not the target.
I would say the target is not flat-footed. The attack coming from the darkness is not invisible. If the Drow is not using stealth, then he can be heard. If he can be heard, it is easy enough to dodge the arrow coming from that location.
So, a rogue that you have seen becoming invisible (via greater invisibility) and thrown to you a bunch of daggers in the next round, doesn't get the sneak attack unless it make the stealth check? You can see the daggers, as they become visible when leaves the rogue hand.
The rogue that is invisible gains the benefits of being invisible. Invisible states that the target is denied dexterity.
The rogue that is not invisible does not gain the benefits of being invisible.
Just because I cannot see you does not mean I am denied my dexterity against all of your attacks. That is what stealth does. You don't get stealth for free, you must make the roll.
Uhh acrually yes that is the case if you cannot see yiur opponent you are denied your dexterity.
Komodo, that was basically my train of though.
The Drow can all very easily achieve deny the PCs dex to AC, but they must use stealth to do so. Because they are in darkness they do not need cover, but a stealth check must still be made because the PCs could potentially detect them with hearing (or other non-sight based senses) and not be denied dex.
Uhh acrually yes that is the case if you cannot see yiur opponent you are denied your dexterity.
But where does it say that? I agree it seems like it should be the case but I can't find the rule.
I'll see if i can find it the problem seems to be using keyword searches. is that there is no actual 'denied dexterity' condition. Its a side effect of other conditions.
It is not the case, and should not be the case. Situational awareness is so much more than just vision. The kid playing Picky-boo behind a blanket does not make you denied to your dexterity.
Not knowing the enemy is there is what does that.
Stealth does it.
Concealment, even total concealment, gives you the chance to stealth. It does not give you free stealth.
You are usually denied your dexterity when you are physically unable to move (pinned, etc.) or do not know the attacker is there (stealth, etc.).
Not seeing your attacker does not automatically mean you do not know the attacker is there.
It is simple application of the rules.
While the defender may not be able to see the Drow, he knows where the Drow is. He knows where the attack comes from. He can see those attacks as they get closer.
He is in no way blind.
The Drow is not invisible. Any action made outside of that darkness is seen. The PCs knows the Drow is not standing next to him. That is as important in combat as knowing where your enemy is.
Are you really saying that a guy holding up a sheet in front of himself can kick you and you are denied your dexterity? Monks Rejoice! Especially those with Blind Fight!
Yes, if the Drow were invisible it would be different. I am not talking about flavor or thematics, I am talking about mechanics.
Just like a person with a two-handed weapon can't use it and armor spikes while two-weapon fighting to gain extra attacks. Mechanics trumps thematics on this part of the forums.
I think I agree with the "need to Stealth" camp - i.e. the drow are effectively sniping, with a single attack plus a move action to re-Stealth each round. I think I'd allow an "invisible"-type bonus to Stealth, rather than enforcing the -20 penalty as after all the sniper is not at any point visible.
(Irrelevant rationale: the drow are repositioning to make their sneak shots from unexpected places.)
Just because I cannot see you does not mean I am denied my dexterity against all of your attacks.
...you might want to rethink that statement. Because if you can't see me, it means exactly that you lose your dex against my attacks.
A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.
It doesn't say "invisible creatures". It doesn't say "stealthing creatures". It says "creatures it cannot see".
If you cannot see the creature, you lose your dex bonus against its attacks. And not even Blindsense is enough to protect you. ;)
The rogue that is invisible gains the benefits of being invisible. Invisible states that the target is denied dexterity.
Invisible doesn't mean you don't make noise.
The rogue that is not invisible does not gain the benefits of being invisible.
Just because I cannot see you does not mean I am denied my dexterity against all of your attacks.
If you cannot see me, I'm invisible for you.
That is what stealth does. You don't get stealth for free, you must make the roll.
So, let me understand what you're saying: an invisible creature can make sneak attack even if you know where it is, while a creature that you cannot see can't make sneak attack even if you don't know where it is? So an invisible creature by spell deny your dex, but a creature you cannot see don't, even if invisibility has the effect of don't let you be able to see a creature?. Interesting. So, you're basically saying that a creature that is invisible for you (that is you cannot see), deny your dex if and only if is subject of an invisibility spell or similar effect? So, a camouflaged opponent doesn't deny your dex because it's not invisible by spell?
It would be a hard sell to convince me that those inside a darkness spell would not get SA against those who could not see them, regardless of if the targets are outside or inside darkness.
Darkness provides Total Concealment
Invisibility provides Total Concealment
The invisible condition states you ignore a targets dex to AC
The invisible condition states "Invisible creatures are visually undetectable"
Stated simply, if you can't see then, they are invisible to you.
Creatures inside darkness are invisible to those outside the darkness. Creatures inside the darkness who cant see due to the effect are in effect blind (another condition that denies dex)
Being stealthed does not give you the benefit of being invisible. Undetected is not the same as being invisible. A creature using stealth does not get the +2 bonus to attack a creature that can't see it. That being said, attacking from stealth denies the target their dexterity bonus to AC.
Sometimes you can't use your Dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC. If you don't have a Dexterity bonus, your AC does not change.
You cannot react to an attack that you cannot see, therefore you are denied your dex bonus to AC. This does not give you the effects of being invisible. You are simply denied your dex bonus to AC. If you were inside the darkness, you would have -2 to your AC in addition to losing your dex bonus for being blinded.
Out of curiosity, what happens when I'm a greater invisible Rogue and I shoot an arrow at a target 30ft away that can't see me?
What if that target has Deflect Arrows?
The Feat says "aware of the attack", not "aware of the weapon or projectile".....
It's one thing to see some guy nock an arrow, draw, aim, and fire.
It's another to first have nothing and then have an arrow suddenly appear out of nowhere in mid flight.
Hmm...
Elro,
Sniping only matters insofar as not ever knowing where the Drow was. There is no reason for him to snipe, he need only stealth.
Elbedor,
That may be a relevant find. Only problem is, there doesn't appear to be anywhere else that states not being able to see the atacker means denied dexterity from it. Maybe it is a copy/paste leftover, but it also my be the RAI. I really can't tell.
Blackstorm,
Yes, the rules state, if you are invisible, your target is denied their dexterity. They do not say that for firing from concealment. Maybe they should, but they don't.
Dr. Grecko,
What about my sheet/curtain examples? They follow the same exact mechanics as the Drow.
Mr. Matthews,
You can see the attack. You cannot see the origin of the attack, but you know where the origin of the attack is. These are different.
All,
Stealth would make the attack undetectable and sneak attack would apply.
Not seeing someone is COMPLETELY different that not having the ability to see someone. If I don't see someone, but have the ability to, I can tell where they are not. If I don't have the ability to see them at all, I can not tell where they are, or where they are not.
Out of curiosity, what happens when I'm a greater invisible Rogue and I shoot an arrow at a target 30ft away that can't see me?
What if that target has Deflect Arrows?
The Feat says "aware of the attack", not "aware of the weapon or projectile".....
It's one thing to see some guy nock an arrow, draw, aim, and fire.
It's another to first have nothing and then have an arrow suddenly appear out of nowhere in mid flight.
Hmm...
Good question,
I would rule* that if the target has perceived the attacker with a perception check, i.e. pinpointed the square, then he could block it. Otherwise I would not give him the chance to.
*Disclaimer: Based on experience DMing, not a hard rule.
I was searching on the SRD for the rule that states that stealthed attackers make the defenders denied of their dex bonus to their AC, but couldnt find anything of the sort. Anyone?
@ Komoda. I was wondering because shooting from darkness and shooting from greater invisibility behave the same way.
I've never heard of a ruling anywhere that says attacking ranged while under greater invisibility allows the target his dex because the arrow appears. I've only heard that if I shoot 5 arrows from the same square while greater invisible, each arrow hits without any dex bonus...meaning they all land sneak damage.
But basically rule one the same as the other.
Mr. Matthews,
You can see the attack. You cannot see the origin of the attack, but you know where the origin of the attack is. These are different.
So would you rule that you keep your Dex bonus against an invisible creature attacking with a ranged weapon?
"Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See Invisibility, under Special Abilities."
Thats invisible, i dont see anywhere that a stealthed character becomes invisible, they gain concealment. But the concealment rules also dont state that the character becomes invisible.
Dr. Grecko,
What about my sheet/curtain examples? They follow the same exact mechanics as the Drow.
Well, let me go find what you wrote...
Imagine this:
A rogue stands behind a curtain 30' away. You know he is there because you watched him run there and you are having a conversation with him, but you can't see him. He sees you because he is looking through a hole 2" from his face.
This scenario pertaining to concealment is invalid.. And I'll tell you why,
You are no longer using concealment rules here and are instead using the cover rules. Anytime you put a physical barrier in front of you... Use cover rules, not concealment.
Elberdor,
Is there anywhere that states concealment works as per greater invisibility? I have not found such.
Mr. Matthews,
No, Invisibility explicitly states that a target is denied dex. As it explicitly states that, I would not counter that.
Shadowkras,
You are correct. Stealth states that others are "not aware". The Devs have stated that when attacking from stealth Sneak Attack should be applied. There has been a lot of discussion about this and many agree that per RAW, stealth actually does very little. Attempts have been made to adjust it, but the Devs appear to feel a rewrite is too much.
There is no "not aware" case for being in concealment. There is no indication that the target is unaware of the attacker. If that were the case, I would rule that sneak attack applies.
If the targets were in the concealment, they also would be denied their dexterity and suffer sneak attacks. All I am saying is that concealment itself does not equal denied dexterity. The fact that we have to combine something like 3 rules to come to the conclusion that it does should be suspect. It would be such a short line that means so much. It is used in so many other parts of the book, yet left out here.
Invisible = not able to be seen visually.
All I am saying is that concealment itself does not equal denied dexterity. The fact that we have to combine something like 3 rules to come to the conclusion that it does should be suspect. It would be such a short line that means so much. It is used in so many other parts of the book, yet left out here.
I disagree, the fact that we can find multiple rules to support the supposition that is lacking in the direct rule is the only way one can play this game with any sense of sanity.
If total concealment means you have no line of sight, and invisible states that you are visually undetectable. Then if granted total concealment, it doesn't take a genius to realize you are visually undetectable and therefore invisible.
Arguing otherwise is a logical breakdown that quite frankly I just can't handle. Play it your way if you wish, but the evidence is clear.
Would I love for it to be pointed out in bold letters in every applicable situation in the book, sure. But it doesn't need to be.