Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Should be working as expected, but to start with you both have minimum Stealth and Perception so your visibility distance should be approximately 55% of normal visibility while stealthed (which is still pretty far). If the stealthing character buys up Stealth, that distance should decrease, and if the viewing character buys up Perception, that distance should increase.
I think those skills aren't as limited by achievements as craft skills, so please play around with it this week's test if you're curious. I'm sure our QA would appreciate any reproduceable cases where is doesn't appear to be working :) .
The formula is* (Perception - Stealth + 300) x 0.15% + 10% (penalties should not be able to reduce Perception or Stealth below 0).
For example, if the Stealthed character had Stealth 250 vs. a viewer with Perception 100, the Stealthed character would only be visible and targetable at 32.5% ((100 - 250 + 300) x 0.15% + 10%) of the normal ranges.
* This is slightly different from the formula posted in a previous blog, mostly because I forgot the specifics at the time ;) .
CEO
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally ran around the world solo last weekend and used Stealth quite a bit on the various PVE encounters. It seemed to be working pretty well. I was able to sneak past some pretty large encampments of monsters that would have squashed me flat if I wasn't in stealth mode. Of course, one time I was actually spotted by some goblins while inside a large encampment of bandits and wolves. That took some nifty running to survive and get into town in one piece!
-Lisa
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks Stephen. Do any previous posts tell what governs your ability to enter stealth? Such as sight line of a player not in your party.
Some useful links on the subject:
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Incoming wall'o'text!
Should be working as expected, but to start with you both have minimum Stealth and Perception so your visibility distance should be approximately 55% of normal visibility while stealthed (which is still pretty far)....
It did seem very far. But then again, the players I was with were in my party (even though the party interface was not working too well), so that raises a good question:
If a person is in your party, do they perceive you normally, or will you eventually disappear to your party members as well?...For example, if the Stealthed character had Stealth 250 vs. a viewer with Perception 100, the Stealthed character would only be visible and targetable at 32.5% ((100 - 250 + 300) x 0.15% + 10%) of the normal ranges....
This still seems rather far. And by rather far, I mean that I'm used to games like World of Warcraft where stealthed characters were only visible from maybe a maximum of 60ft out (and that's probably a huge exaggeration).
But, I guess this is to be somewhat based on the tabletop game, correct?
In a sparse forest, the maximum distance at which a Perception check for detecting the nearby presence of others can succeed is 3d6 × 10 feet. In a medium forest, this distance is 2d8 × 10 feet, and in a dense forest it is 2d6 × 10 feet.
So, in a medium forest (as I would describe the forests in PFO), the average maximum distance that a player could perceive another player would be 90ft. That is, beginning at 90ft (on average rolls), the player could begin making opposed stealth checks. A character that has extremely high stealth skill would still have a fairly good chance at not being spotted for a while at this range.
I don't know if these mechanics really efficiently and effectively apply directly to an MMO - at least not as-is.
I see a problem with how Skills (tabletop) for the rogue translate to XP and feats (PFO) for the rogue (and, really any character subsequently due to any character being able to train the rogue feats).
- You see, in the tabletop, the Rogue can easily afford to dump plenty of skill points into the Stealth skill every level, much easier than many other character types, simply due to the high number of skills he receives.
- Further, the Rogue gains the Class Skill bonus in this area, which is a huge bonus, particularly for low level characters that have to cap each skill at their character level (e.g. a lvl 4 Rogue can't put more than 4 ranks into Stealth, but with the class skill bonus, this effectively becomes 7 ranks - on par with a lvl 7 cleric who is maxing out their Stealth skill for some ungodly reason).
- In PFO, any character can "just train" Stealth up really high if they want to dump their all-purpose-all-powerful XP into that feat - just the same as the Rogue. In this sense, the Rogue is cheated.
In order to strike a balance whilst keeping the existing system/mechanics/formula in-place, I believe that one or more simple tweaks can be made to make things more appropriate for the rogue:
- Give each class an automatic, "decent" bonus to the skills that would be appropriate for them - upon completion of their class levels. Example: when a character is able to and purchases the "Rogue 1" feat, grant some automatic bonuses to his appropriate skills. Upon training the feat "Rogue 2" grant another similar bonus, and so on. This sort of goes against the "roles" design you've established for us, but perhaps this can still offer some sort of "reward" for reaching "Rogue 1" (and others).
- Make certain feats cheaper for characters that have specific prerequisites. Example: make "Stealth 3" significantly cheaper to players who already have "Rogue 1".
- Make all feats that directly increase "class skills" for a particular class (such as Stealth for the rogue) discounted by some XP percentage, increasingly each time that player reaches another "level" in their class. Example: a player purchases the "Rogue 1" feat, and suddenly, class skills, such as "Stealth 2" and "Stealth 3" are 6% cheaper XP cost. When the player reaches "Rogue 2", take an additional 5% off those same class skills. And so on.
I'm thinking there are probably additional ways that this could be balanced. But at this time, I don't like the idea that any random Cleric with lots of XP can just randomly pick up a crapton of stealth and be just as good at stealthing as a Rogue who has been playing just as long. The Rogue should somehow be naturally better at this skill than his Cleric counterpart.
And I'm not saying that the Cleric in that example should be restricted from gaining Stealth. By all means, let him train it. But I'm saying that it shouldn't be as easy for him to stealth as the rogue.
Lastly, as a final suggestion, you might just add some sort of direct bonus into the formula based on class. E.g. a player with Rogue 2 will just have a natural bonus to stealth checks against the person perceiving him.
Okay, I'm done rambling on about the subject.
I personally ran around the world solo last weekend and used Stealth quite a bit on the various PVE encounters. It seemed to be working pretty well. I was able to sneak past some pretty large encampments of monsters that would have squashed me flat if I wasn't in stealth mode. Of course, one time I was actually spotted by some goblins while inside a large encampment of bandits and wolves. That took some nifty running to survive and get into town in one piece!
-Lisa
I tried this as well, even after purchasing "Stealth 3". I noticed very, very, very little difference whether I was in stealth mode, or not. The overall difference seemed like... maybe 3-5 character-steps maximum. Perhaps the perception of the NPCs was extreme or something, but these were also NPCs immediately outside the settlement.
I was testing this by stealthing towards mobs, taking note of the point in which they saw me and attacked (which was frustratingly far). Then (usually after running away like a coward), I would approach the same group (or one of same composition) again unstealthed and take note of the distance I was from them. The difference seemed negligible.
I ultimately found it more beneficial to just run like a madman through the woods in a mostly-straight line, letting the NPCs leash away as I ran.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmm, that is a little disappointing in the range you report Kitsune. It would be good for the "Alfibians" to know some of the basic mob stats when testing out these abilities I guess.
That would be useful information.
At this point, unless stealthing versus players, the Stealth was practically worthless. By the time NPC enemies saw me, there was no advantage to having been stealthed in the first place (maybe even a disadvantage, because I'd need to cancel stealth if I wanted to be able to move quickly while they come running at me!). Perhaps that will change at 200 Stealth, but I'm guessing that the NPCs I'd be after at that "level" will likely be just as good at perception... meaning it will be nearly the same in the end.
Edit/Add: At no point did I feel like I would ever be able to sneak up on an NPC and stab them in the back. I felt like the Rogue, in general, was simply just a weaker and "maybe" faster version of the Fighter - not that the NPCs would last much longer than a single hit from a ranged weapon.
Edit#2: At no point was I able to effectively "get into position" to attack a group of NPCs. By the time I could ever get close, the NPCs were blasted away by fighters-with-bows and Wizards.
I don't think backstabbing will be the ideal "sneak attack" means. Rather, you would sneak close, loose a volley of arrows, then move into melee. It's hard to sneak up on somebody in plain sight, much less a group—especially in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think backstabbing will be the ideal "sneak attack" means. Rather, you would sneak close, loose a volley of arrows, then move into melee. It's hard to sneak up on somebody in plain sight, much less a group—especially in PFO.
Which was, honestly, my original character concept. A sort of rogueish-ranger, if you will.
Even still, at this point in the game, I felt like (even if I had a bow) I would be better off just standing back with the Wizards and Fighters, waiting for them to come to me - which would be the same as a fighter with a bow, essentially.
And based on the formula for stealth vs perception, I don't see this really changing all too much as thing scale up.
Well, to my understanding, there are two factors that may be in your favor.
First, specializing in skills costs XP you could be spending on combat stuff. As such, it is less likely to meet a soldier with max Perception than a bandit with max Stealth. It's kinda related to the MAD in the tabletop.
Second, sneak attack will probably be a lot better in the MMO than it is in the tabletop. I fully expect a team of rogues to be a very useful skirmish team, ambushing fighters and dealing massive amounts of damage.
Think about it. Five rogues versus five fighters, but the rogues are sneaking. The rogues sneak into position, keeping their distance and sizing up their foes, determining targets. Just that extra time is a big extra advantage.
They start shooting. The fighters immediate start taking heavy damage, and they're surprised. They're going to have trouble tab-targeting the right attackers, so the rogues keep shooting and a few of them keep are able to keep sneak attacking.
I predict such a battle will end very, very quickly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm thinking there are probably additional ways that this could be balanced. But at this time, I don't like the idea that any random Cleric with lots of XP can just randomly pick up a crapton of stealth and be just as good at stealthing as a Rogue who has been playing just as long. The Rogue should somehow be naturally better at this skill than his Cleric counterpart.
But I think this is the beauty of the skill system versus the TT class system. If you want to train it you can train it. You might never be able to sock away as much training in the same things the rogue has trained in, but if my cleric wants to be stealthy and use a bow, that is entirely possible using this system.
This is the trade off though when we "lost" the old capstone theory. I have not seen or read whether that feature was ever going to be replaced with anything else, but if you are a purist cleric you would never have stealth, nor use a bow. And the rogue would never cast a healing spell...but in this set up, (almost) anything is possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's true that other "classes" may not find it worthwhile to specialize in Stealth, making it somewhat more unique to rogue characters. However, those other classes will likely be picking up plenty of Perception, making this rogue's stealth practically worthless in PvP (last I checked, PvP is an integral part of this game? hehe).
So, at this point, unless Rogues have some sort of inherent bonus to Stealth, I don't think they'll ever get close enough (in stealth mode) to enemies to make it more valuable to roll a rogue-primary character, versus a fighter-primary character.
Sneak-Attack is about the only thing that the Rogue has going for it, at this point, it seems. Unless he can somehow push out more DPS (haven't tested that well enough yet). And I haven't seen Sneak Attack yet, so I can't comment on it yet.
And if Stealth will continue to remain this worthless in PvE, then I can't see it really allowing for Sneak Attack to happen... ("Look at me! I'm Sneak-Attacking from 150ft!" ...-_-)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are there other things we can all do other than stealth and perception that would work in-game? Like, clothing dye to blend in to nearby foliage, or have a silence 10' that would reduce the targets perception? Again, these are things anyone else could do, but most players will not invest their hard earned XPs in those skills...at least not until they get jumped by a stealth rogue a few times. Then that's all they'll invest in until they get a warm-fuzzy heading out the gate again.
I actually wasn't saying only rogues would be good at Stealth. I was saying Stealth would be more commonly maxed than Perception, since it's part of a more specialized playstyle.
I would rather Stealth be easier to increase than Perception, though. It's a pain in the tabletop, it's gonna be a pain here.
In the tabletop, it's countered by Stealth being easier to increase—between size bonuses and racial bonuses, it's a lot easier to advance your sneakiness than your perceptiness. This means stealth-focused monsters have an easy time against PCs, while the stealth-focused PC in the party has an easy time against mooks.
In the MMO, we have no such advantage. Skills are all treated equally—with a flat cap, no less!—and all it takes is for the sneak to encounter a single player with maxed Perception to potentially screw him over.
I'm a bit skeptical.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are effects that your allies can apply to your enemies which reduce their perception; several abilities with potentially hard conditionals apply a heavy dose of "Oblivious".
But a critical question: Can your allies do this remotely? e.g. from far enough away such that they don't "aggro" the enemies?
And in PvP, will this sort of thing really ever happen?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The formula is* (Perception - Stealth + 300) x 0.15% + 10% (penalties should not be able to reduce Perception or Stealth below 0).
- In PFO, any character can "just train" Stealth up really high if they want to dump their all-purpose-all-powerful XP into that feat - just the same as the Rogue. In this sense, the Rogue is cheated.
I agree with Kitsune, if a "Level 4" Rogue isn't better at "Stealth" than a "Level 4" Fighter who trained stealth skills to the same level, something is broken. There really should be some sort of bonus that the Rogue gets that makes the Rogue "better" at Stealth than any other character with the same training. If there isn't such a benefit, then there's no reason to call yourself a "Rogue".
I recognize that the classes in the TT game don't translate into PFO, but it just feels wrong to say a Rogue may be no better than a equal level Fighter or Wizard or Cleric at Stealth.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah so we come to the differences between Classes and Roles at last. It's been 2 years in the making.
There are no characters who are "Rogues" and no characters who are "Fighters". There are characters who have pursued training in the Rogue role and characters who have pursued training in the Fighter role and some characters who have done a little of both.
The character with 4 levels of Rogue doesn't have to be better at stealth than the character who earned 4 levels of Fighter, because what equality of Stealth means that that the Fighter character is an older character than the Rogue. It means that the character got better at Stealth at the cost of not getting better at Fighter-type Feats. That's a meaningful choice made by the player of that character, and it's ok.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
Something like the Stealth bonus on the Rogue's Chameleon Armor feat or the large number of Perception debuff attacks on the Rogue Kit?
EDIT: Also, what Ryan said, but when you're slotted fully for Rogue you will have options to become better at Stealth than someone fully slotted for Fighter, even if you've both purchased the same amounts of the base skill.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
I know I've said this before somewhere but I would point out again that since 3.0e, rogues are not mechanically able to approach a target unseen and inflict massive damage by surprise.
From 3.0e on, rogues primarily gain the ability to Sneak Attack by flanking a target with another character, or by capitalizing on a condition which renders the target unable to gain the benefit of dexterity bonuses to armor class.
There is only one way to do that solo without other effects and that is to be within striking distance of a target when a surprise round begins where the target is surprised. That is so difficult to achieve barring set-piece battles that it rarely occurs on the tabletop. The old 1e/2e mechanic of "hiding in shadows" and then striking an opponent for huge damage by "backstabbing" isn't in 3.0e and its derivatives. For one thing, there's no facing, and thus no back to stab in 3.0e and derivatives. And you can't generate a surprise round in the middle of combat - it either happens at the start or it doesn't happen.
Your goal as a character with the ability to do sneak attack damage in 3.0e, Pathfinder tabletop, and Pathfinder Online is to maneuver yourself into a place where you can capitalize on a condition on the target that makes it vulnerable to a sneak attack, not to strike from cover, concealment or shadows.
Actually, it is quite common to strike from cover in 3.0. Sure, there's no "backstab", but there's Sneak Attack—which doesn't require any facing rules.
It's much less common to do it via melee, though, because the only way* to Sneak Attack in a surprise round via melee is to Charge. Otherwise, you use your Surprise Round action moving up and hoping you win Initiative.
*Barring tricks like invisibility or teleport, now shaddup.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with Kitsune, if a "Level 4" Rogue isn't better at "Stealth" than a "Level 4" Fighter who trained stealth skills to the same level, something is broken. There really should be some sort of bonus that the Rogue gets that makes the Rogue "better" at Stealth than any other character with the same training. If there isn't such a benefit, then there's no reason to call yourself a "Rogue".I recognize that the classes in the TT game don't translate into PFO, but it just feels wrong to say a Rogue may be no better than a equal level Fighter or Wizard or Cleric at Stealth.
Why? Stealth in Pathfinder is not a class ability. Stealth is also not a *combat* ability the way it is in most MMOs. Backstab, Vanish, Backstab, Vanish is not what makes a rogue a rogue. That's why there are so many other ways for rogues to get things like their sneak attacks off. Flanking, anything that denies the target its Dex mod (which is a *lot* of things). What stealth gives you in Pathfinder is mobility. The ability to get past enemy sentries, or unpleasant NPC spawns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Agree with Dario. In my current group my oracle is the best at stealth between having an alright Dex but also being small sized. The rogue-ish character is close, mind you, but I see no reason just because the rogue label is there to make them better at it. Anyone who puts the training and experience toward itshould have equal access to the skill in my opinion.
Actually, I'm hoping for a Cycle in the future that consists of stealth-focused goblins—perhaps commanded by strategically-minded hobgoblins. Someday, when the AI is good enough...someday.
Goblins are freakin' invisible.
EDIT: Oh, or man, bugbears. Or ettercaps! Stealth-focused enemies could be terrifying. Or how about hounds of tyndalos! Man, those would be awesome in an MMMO. Or...
I got distracted.
Massively Multiplayer Monkeys Online. Now shaddup.
Actually, it is quite common to strike from cover in 3.0.You do not gain the ability to Sneak Attack when attacking either from concealment or cover in 3.0. You do not deny your target their bonus to dexterity in either case, so you cannot Sneak Attack.
Actually (ooh, disputing Dancey, this should go well for me), concealment and cover both allow you to use Stealth, which allows you to Sneak Attack.
In a PbP I'm running, that is being used a lot by kenku rogues to fire upon the optically-challenged party of humans and one dinosaur. It's in a dark maze, of course—scenery ideal for stealthy tactics—but the fact remains that opening combat with stealth should remain viable, as it is in the tabletop.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
Actually (ooh, disputing Dancey, this should go well for me), concealment and cover both allow you to use Stealth, which allows you to Sneak Attack.
I don't see any part of the description for Stealth that says that it denies your target their Dexterity bonus.
{The guys here in the office are saying this is official errata from Paizo so I'm certainly not going to step on any toes over there, but the RAW don't say that Dex bonuses are denied. I can tell you with absolute certainty (since I was in the room ... for HOURS ...) that the debate about "backstabbing" was thorough in 3.0, and it doesn't exist.}
Backstabbing definitely doesn't exist. Sneak Attack isn't about backstabbing, it's about attacking someone who either doesn't know you're there or isn't able to guard against you.
Being undetected means your target can't see you. If they can't see you, they're not technically flat-footed, but they are still denied their Dex bonus to AC (like if you were invisible). I've never known anyone who rules differently on that.
Short of Invisibility, attacking from Stealth is the only way a ranged rogue gets to Sneak Attack in the tabletop.
Except for when she wins initiative.
I'm making a lot of blanket statements today. Literally everything I've said has been a blanket statement.
Okay, it's hot and I'm being slow, but I found the exact proof I sought.
The Surprise Round: If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round. If no one or everyone is surprised, no surprise round occurs.
Unaware Combatants: 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.
Stealth gives you a surprise round. A surprise round gives you flat-footed targets. Flat-footed targets gives Sneak Attack. Sneak Attack gives rogues smilez.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
Being undetected means your target can't see you. If they can't see you, they're not technically flat-footed, but they are still denied their Dex bonus to AC (like if you were invisible). I've never known anyone who rules differently on that.
The 3.0 team included people who worked on trading card games, especially Magic. In that world, a thing is not a thing unless the thing is defined, and the definition is applied. It's a rigorous way of approaching game design which evolved rapidly as TCGs became a tournament sport with cash prizes.
That design philosophy was used throughout 3.0. That's why you see the exact same language used over and over in various bits of the rules - to ensure that the readers understand that things work in certain ways because of their design, not by interpretation. (1e/2e was packed full of interpretive rules. They kept Skip Williams editing a column in Dragon for years. By the time he got to the 3e design he was plenty tired of interpretation.)
In 3.0, if something allows you to deny a Dex bonus it says it does. If it doesn't say it, it doesn't. You don't "infer" that it does. That way you don't have to engage in arguments over designer intent, or unique conditions in a particular game experience. That's why for example the Hide rules say nothing about sneak attacks. Because they don't talk about denying Dex bonuses, they don't have to talk about Sneak Attacks.
The mechanic from 1e/2e of "hiding in shadows" and then "backstabbing" was a powerful and beloved mechanic. Ripping it out of 3e was one of the more radical changes the team made. And it was discussed and playtested at length. In the 3e environment, allowing rogues to Sneak Attack as a solo action was awesomely, demonstrably broken. But that was 14 years ago and 2+ revisions of the rules and Paizo's designers know best how to manage the Pathfinder tabletop rules. So if they are making changes I'm sure they tested them and understand them thoroughly. It would just do my old-school heart good if they'd actually say things like "denies target Dex bonus to AC" in the appropriate place to avoid the need for an interpretation.
I'm a bit confused now. Stealth does allow you to deny a Dex bonus, by making your target unaware of you, which triggers:
Unaware Combatants: 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.
I never said anything about inference. There's flat-footed, which is an Initiative condition, and there's losing your Dex bonus, which is triggered by being flat-footed but also by other things like Invisibility.
All these are simple facts of the design that lead to this very non-inferred, interpreted or implied truth: If your target does not know you are present at the start of combat, you get a Surprise Round, during which he can be Sneak Attacked. And since Stealth is used to keep your target unaware of you, opening combat under Stealth is a very good strategy for ranged rogues.
There's no "sneak attack, go into stealth, sneak attack, go into Stealth" mechanic no matter how you read it. In most games, the closest you can get is "Sneak attack, run away, stealth around from another direction while they're fighting other partymembers, sneak attack, run away, etc." And that's not what I'm pushing for here. We're talking about surprise attacks.
allowing rogues to Sneak Attack as a solo action was awesomely, demonstrably broken.
Also, rogues can Sneak Attack as a solo action even without Stealth. All you have to do is win Initiative and you get at least one free Sneak Attack (more, if you can make multiple attacks in a round). Then you're screwed, though, since rogues are pretty low on the totem pole in Pathfinder. :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just want things to work without giving a ridiculous one-shot to anyone, rogue, fighter, wizard....
I do like games that allow a character to crouch and maneuver...that is a realistic compromise. Again though, that option should be available to everyone. So a character trained in "stealth", "silent movement", "camouflage" and "hide in shadows" should have an advantage in gaining a better attack against a preoccupied opponent.
These should all have counters to them though, such as "perception" countering "stealth", and "sharp ears" countering "silent movement".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Okay, it appears that I should not have ever mentioned backstabbing, clearly (just something that I'm used to seeing players do in other MMO's when they are "rogues" - obviously we're talking about two different types of rogues: those from the typical MMO, and those from the tabletop game.). Further, I have finally caught up with the reading above, and I can come to some of the same conclusions.
Yes, Dario, it does seem that Stealth is only for "The ability to get past enemy sentries, or unpleasant NPC spawns." One of my original arguments though, was that the current implementation of Stealth (at least in the two days we were playing with it - limited XP and all) was not really effective for either of these things.
Additionally, I agree that the Sneak Attack bonus should always be applied every time the target is denied their Dex-to-AC. In this case, stealthily initiating combat would be, in my opinion, targeting unaware combatants, who would therefore be losing their Dex-to-AC. That would dictate that Sneak Attack would most certainly apply to that very first attack.
Beyond that, the rogue is probably screwed. :P
So, I agree with KC on this. I would say it is clearly written in the tabletop rules, but I need to verify this for myself.
Nonetheless, if we take away the ability to make a ranged sneak attack from out-of-combat in stealth (like "everyone" does in the tabletop), I feel that we'd be removing a significant chunk of what makes a rogue a rogue.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel like you're skipping over the most common circumstance in which you get to use Sneak Attacks, Kobold Cleaver: flanking. For the vast majority of players, I'm pretty sure that Stealth exists in pathfinder largely as a way to get into a flanking position, and then Sneak Attacks abound as long as the Fighter is smart enough to stay on the other side of the enemy.
From what I've read, this use is the one PFO is intending to make work, anyhow.
As for whether or not you can Sneak Attack from stealth in Pathfinder(I know the discussion was 3.0 but this is PFO damnit!): "Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use 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. "
This sounds like you could move behind something and attack it without it being aware of you before the attack roll is resolved.
This says nothing about the target losing their Dex bonus to AC, however, and Sneak Attack says:
"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." - This is flavor text, the intro to the Sneak Attack section, so we can't really use it.
Mechanically, Sneak Attack says:
"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."
The only Combat Modifiers that I know of that deny AC (not counting spells or alchemical items, etc) are the target being Unaware (which is specific to the Surprise Round), Blinded, Flat-Footed, Stunned, Pinned, Running, or Squeezing - or the attacker being Invisible, or having just succeeded at a Feint,. Technically even being Helpless only treats your Dexterity as being 0, rather than actually removing it. (Which sounds silly.)
Unfortunately, being Invisible is obviously not the same as merely succeeding at a Stealth check, so we cannot actually consider them the same thing.
I agree that generally being unaware of an opponent would allow them to take a Sneak Attack - but that's a personal ruling, and not actually indicated in the rules anywhere that I have found.
Flanking is all well and good, but ranged rogues can't flank. That is why I have ignored the flanking rules: They go without saying. I have only been referencing the ranged rogues' limited options.
EDIT: Incidentally, PFO is already evening things by giving ranged rogues just as much opportunity—if not moreso—to sneak attack, since it's no longer a question of flanking. The matter being discussed bhere is solely about Stealth and surprise attacks.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
Unaware Combatants: 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 only time an opponent has the Unaware condition is in the surprise round. You don't become Unaware just because you don't know you're about to be attacked.
RyanD
I'm not sure how that conflicts at all with what I've been saying. Using Stealth makes people unaware. Unaware = Sneak Attacks. Sneaking up on your enemies in some way is the only way an enemy can possibly be rendered Unaware for a Surprise Round to commence.
Correct. Stealthed sneak attacks after the surprise round are a muddier area and not one I am currently arguing is RAW (Rules As Written).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Example: barbarian busts through the door. Three goblins in the room roll perception to see if they hear the Barbarian before he busts through the door. One of the three makes the perception test, while the other two fail. The two that fail are unaware and are surprised and flat-footed. The third is not.
Link