It's mostly cleared up. The OP includes that errata.
The one glitch here is that stealth/sniping gives you "Total Concealment". Total Concealment does NOT, by RAW, deny your DEX to AC. Therefore, Total Concealment, by RAW, is not enough to use Sneak Attack.
Now, the AC rules that talk about not reacting to a blow also don't say that your attacker having Total Concealment prevents you from reacting to the blow - but everybody seems to assume that this is the case despite it not being supported by RAW.
Common sense.
After all, it makes perfectly good sense that if your attacker has Total Concealment from you, then you cannot react to his attack. In effect, it's like the attacker has invisibility.
But per RAW, he does NOT have invisibility, he has Total Concealment which does not explicitly deny his DEX to AC, nor does it explicityly state that you cannot react to his blow.
So we can make all the assumptions we want, and everyone does (including me), and essentially houserule, or at least claim RAI, to allow Sneak Attacks from Total Concealment, but it's arguably not permissible by RAW.
I would assume it works. Pretty much every GM lets it work. But you might find the rare odd GM who doesn't.
|
At my gaming store, it has basically been ruled that the fact 'Can't react to a blow' is not on the charts which describe when you lose DEX to AC, it does not count. This means that Stealthing, even using something like Hellcat Stealth or HIPS, never allows you to get Sneak Attack dice, ranged or melee.
Hence why an FAQ would be nice.
Where is this chart they reference, because I am searching through the PRD and finding no chart or table of instances where you lose Dex to AC.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Read the first comment.
It is also supported by the rules.
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).
So there you have the rules and Jason explaining the errata and how it works.
|
|
Stealth rules say you are unaware of someone who you have failed to perceive.
You lose your Dex to AC against any attack you can not react to.
Logic dictates that if I am unaware of of someone, I am also unaware of any action they take.
Logic also dictates that I can not react to anything I am unaware of.
Not everything is spelled out in the rulebooks, if the local GMs are trying to ignore this rule take it to your local VL or VC. If they are not responsive take it to Mike. This to me is a clear violation of Rules As Written and Rules as Intended.
Good Luck.
|
Not everything is spelled out in the rulebooks, if the local GMs are trying to ignore this rule take it to your local VL or VC. If they are not responsive take it to Mike. This to me is a clear violation of Rules As Written and Rules as Intended.
Good Luck.
It's more offensive than that. They're violating the don't be a dick move by not letting rogues sneak attack. Rogues. As if rogues didn't have enough problems.
Yeah, our Perception and Stealth rules as printed (even more so pre-6th) have a lot of issues. Keep pointing out what you guys are finding, particularly that aren't covered in the 6th printing, and I'll try to consolidate the ones I find when we get there in the FAQ queue. Keep up the good work pointing these out guys!
Yeah, our Perception and Stealth rules as printed (even more so pre-6th) have a lot of issues. Keep pointing out what you guys are finding, particularly that aren't covered in the 6th printing, and I'll try to consolidate the ones I find when we get there in the FAQ queue. Keep up the good work pointing these out guys!
Yeah. Invisibility needs to be handled also.
Yeah, our Perception and Stealth rules as printed (even more so pre-6th) have a lot of issues. Keep pointing out what you guys are finding, particularly that aren't covered in the 6th printing, and I'll try to consolidate the ones I find when we get there in the FAQ queue. Keep up the good work pointing these out guys!Yeah. Invisibility needs to be handled also.
Indeed.
It is also supported by the rules.So there you have the rules and Jason explaining the errata and how it works.
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).
Whoever marked this as an FAQ it has already been answered in the FAQ, and it is not in the form of a question so it would just be put into the "throw away" pile. :)
|
|
It is also supported by the rules.So there you have the rules and Jason explaining the errata and how it works.
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).
I think you meant to link HERE.
|
Yeah, the issue here becomes if we are using logic to dictate what denies dex then why are a number of things that would obviously make them denied dex listed as specifically doing that (Invisibility, the combat chart etc) and then stealth specifically NOT noted as doing that in either the description or the chart...
I have discussed this at length with Aydin D'Ampfer off the forums and its a case of yes, it's RAI but the RAW is a bit funky and its open to GM interp.
Whatever happened to the hidden status testing? that looked awesome and seems like it would clear up this type of stuff.... black and white nice and neat.
will talk with GM's and see if we can get everyone on the same page about it....
would be awesome if my shadow dancer could sneak attack :) +30 to stealth and hide in plain sight ^_^
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the issue here becomes if we are using logic to dictate what denies dex then why are a number of things that would obviously make them denied dex listed as specifically doing that (Invisibility, the combat chart etc) and then stealth specifically NOT noted as doing that in either the description or the chart...
I have discussed this at length with Aydin D'Ampfer off the forums and its a case of yes, it's RAI but the RAW is a bit funky and its open to GM interp.
Whatever happened to the hidden status testing? that looked awesome and seems like it would clear up this type of stuff.... black and white nice and neat.
will talk with GM's and see if we can get everyone on the same page about it....
would be awesome if my shadow dancer could sneak attack :) +30 to stealth and hide in plain sight ^_^
Your shadow dancer can sneak attack...
It is also supported by the rules.I think you meant to link HERE.So there you have the rules and Jason explaining the errata and how it works.
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).
Nope.
Has Jason's clarification of intent every been added to the FAQ or Errata?
As far as I know, the Total Concealment vs. DEX Denial is still nothing more official than a deeply-buried comment in a forum thread. And it only admits to omitting the rule that would fix it; it doesn't actually add the rule.
While everyone (or so I thought) does it this way anyway, it appears the OP has found the GM, or group of them, who doesn't.
This debate has been a problem for 6 years. I'd love to see it finally get fixed, even if it's only a FAQ (though updated Errata would be better).
As it is, there is still room for debate, and allowing sneak attack from stealth is, literally, just a house rule justified by that needle-in-a-haystack Bulmahn comment.
|
|
Has Jason's clarification of intent every been added to the FAQ or Errata?
As far as I know, the Total Concealment vs. DEX Denial is still nothing more official than a deeply-buried comment in a forum thread. And it only admits to omitting the rule that would fix it; it doesn't actually add the rule.
While everyone (or so I thought) does it this way anyway, it appears the OP has found the GM, or group of them, who doesn't.
This debate has been a problem for 6 years. I'd love to see it finally get fixed, even if it's only a FAQ (though updated Errata would be better).
As it is, there is still room for debate, and allowing sneak attack from stealth is, literally, just a house rule justified by that needle-in-a-haystack Bulmahn comment.
Read Wraith's post he linked to. It's not a deeply-buried forum comment. It's a deeply-buried CRB, in-print, actual-factual rule.
Read Wraith's post he linked to. It's not a deeply-buried forum comment. It's a deeply-buried CRB, in-print, actual-factual rule.Has Jason's clarification of intent every been added to the FAQ or Errata?
As far as I know, the Total Concealment vs. DEX Denial is still nothing more official than a deeply-buried comment in a forum thread. And it only admits to omitting the rule that would fix it; it doesn't actually add the rule.
While everyone (or so I thought) does it this way anyway, it appears the OP has found the GM, or group of them, who doesn't.
This debate has been a problem for 6 years. I'd love to see it finally get fixed, even if it's only a FAQ (though updated Errata would be better).
As it is, there is still room for debate, and allowing sneak attack from stealth is, literally, just a house rule justified by that needle-in-a-haystack Bulmahn comment.
Are we reading the same posts?
Wraithstrike quoted the CRB saying you don't get DEX to AC if you cannot react to a blow. Jason Bulmahn made a comment (also quoted) that says it was their intent that stealth should make an opponent unaware.
However, the actual rule says Stealth gives you Total Concealment. Total Concealment does NOT make you unaware, nor does it cause you to lose your DEX bonus to AC. Jason admitted they "intended" to write that rule but didn't.
So, for now, it's easy for a GM to say "Total Concealment works like invisibility" or to say "If he has Total Concealment, you cannot see him so you cannot react to his attack" - I say that myself. And Jason Bulmahn conceded that this was their "intent".
But it's not a rule. Unless you can cite that rule/erratum/FAQ for me (please, really, I would love it if you could).
Until then, we're all making a leap of faith that this is how it should work because common sense says it should, and Jason admitted that they wanted it that way. In a deeply-buried forum comment.
|
|
Yes, apparently you're just not reading it in its entirety.
"Perception...If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly." Meaning if you don't notice the opponent you can't react accordingly. "Dexterity (Dex)...Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack." So if you can't react, you don't get your dex to AC. "The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC"
So if your opponent is unaware of you, you get your sneak attack. The perception skill itself says you aren't aware of the stealthed opponent if you can't beat their stealth check. The fact that stealth gives you total concealment isn't even part of the equation (though it would be much simpler if it were).
Yes, apparently you're just not reading it in its entirety.
So, apparently to understand sneak attack, I must read, in its entirety, several sections of the CRB including reading a skill not really related to this discussion.
Fair enough.
"Perception...If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly." Meaning if you don't notice the opponent you can't react accordingly.
That might not even be relevant. You only quoted part of that rule. Let's quote the whole thing:
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.
So what does this rule mean?
"an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised."
Great. So I can react to the start of combat and maybe take part in the surprise round?
"If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly."
Cool. This means I react in time to act in the surprise round.
"If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you."
Bummer. If I fail, my opponent gets a surprise round and he might sneak past me or he might attack me.
But nowhere does that actually say I lose my DEX bonus to AC vs. that opponent. It doesn't even say that I cannot react to his attacks, just that I cannot react to him. Accordingly. Whatever that means.
I wish "react accordingly" were a game term. But it's not. So again, we're stuck with using English to apply common sense to a rule that, if you read all the relevant and irrelevant sections of the CRB, can generally make sense to anyone with common sense, but still, is not exactly defined, in game terms.
Rules shouldn't require out-of-game semantics and common sense to guess what the developers intended. Nor should they require digging up a needle in a forum haystack to find a post by the lead developer where he admits their intent (and consequently also admits to the lack of the actual rule).
You and I and nearly everyone else CAN and DO break this down, exactly as you spelled it out, then apply our common sense and figure out the RAI. Then we play it that way. But that doesn't change the fact that the RAW leaves a little wiggle room for the OPs GM to ignore or misunderstand the RAI and make a different call.