|
GM interpretation =\= house rule
Creating new rules are house rules.
A GM interpreting the stealth rules according to my post isn't creating a house rule. That is their interpretation of the rules text.
A GM stating that finessable one-handed weapons can also work with Piranha Strike is creating a house rule for Piranha Strike. This is totally within the GMs powers.
If you haven't noticed, most of us rule stealth in favor of granting sneak attacks according to the Lead Designer Jason Bulmahn's clarification.
You and your GM are not compelled to do the same. We are aware that the stealth rules are not straight forward in this regard, but we aren't somehow wrong about the rules, we have different interpretations of the same text.
|
It comes down to which interpretation you agree with:
"Do you need to be unobserved AND find cover/concealment?"
...or...
"Do you need to be unobserved OR find cover/concealment?"Which way should you read it? What paradigm of rules interpretation would lead you to read it as or? In what way is or better?
Why is observed/unobserved a thing, at all? Why mention it all all in the stealth skill. Why would a high level ability like hide in plain sight exist to negate it?
Prerequisite: Advanced talents
Benefit: A rogue with this talent can select a single terrain from the ranger’s favored terrain list. She is a master at hiding in that terrain, and while within that terrain, she can use the Stealth skill to hide, even while being observed.
Thats not just a rogue talent thats an ADVANCED talent.
Hellcat stealth: Benefit: You may make Stealth checks in normal or bright light even when observed, but at a -10 penalty.
observed keeps cropping up in the rules as a thing.
If we treat cover/concealment as exceptions to the can't-while-observed, these high level abilities would also be similar exceptions, negating the need to find cover or concealment because they bypass the can't-while-observed rule themselves.
However, this leaves the Ranger's Camouflage and HiPS as redundant abilities, as they do the same thing in this case.
Flat plain with a 1 foot tall grass. The ranger know how to hide there. Even if he is in the middle of a open field he can try his stealth check.
Or the ninja trick of hiding behind a false floor made with a piece of cloth even in the middle of a bare room.Or the guy slowly creeping onward on a concrete pavement in a open area whiteout being detected.
That is what HIPS do.
There isn't always a convenient spot giving concealment/cover withing 1 round of movement.
|
|
IIXHIMXII, btw, how about also checking out Jack B Nimble Can't Steal a Chicken thread because it's a thread on how messed up the Stealth rules are so it has always been left to interpretation. Until Paizo, one day, finally gives it some kind of clean up or overhaul. Which James Jacobs said won't happen unless they redesign the system entirely.
That thread was made before the change of text and reference the old text. A "bit" outdated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need total concealment to make a Stealth check. You just need concealment.
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.Though Stealth doesn't use the magic word "invisible", as was noted above, the intent was for the stealthed creature to be effectively invisible against the creature that failed its Perception check. But once that one attack is made, you lose your status (just like you do with the Invisibility spell). Unchained Stealth allows the benefits to extend beyond just the first attack (through the end of your turn with 15 ranks, through the entire round until your next turn with 20). Weirdo walked through how that works two posts above.Thanks for your input but there appears to be a lapse in your logic.
This is my argument: Stealth does not deny a foe their dex to ac.
The rules clearly state that concealment/cover allows a creature to use Stealth.
Your argument: "...the intent was for the stealthed creature to be effectively invisible..."
If that were the case, then what is the point of Invisibility? That actually uses the game term, 'Invisible,' that has its own set of rules?
I appreciate the attempt to clarify, but there's no lapse in my logic. Invisibility is the analogy we used to explain what happens when a person's Perception check fails to meet or exceed the relevant Stealth check. And it's a good analogy. Why? Because if you fail to perceive somebody who is hiding, they are, in effect, invisible to you.
Of course there is the opportunity to see a character in Stealth by sight, that's the whole point of a Perception check. But if you fail your Perception check, that means you didn't see them. That's the whole point of Stealth. To keep someone from seeing you.
Also, the chance of detecting someone who is Invisible (even by sight) is >0%. You may notice them because of other indicia, but you pinpoint them because of, among other things, visual cues.
Despite whatever protestations you have, failing your Perception check against someone in Stealth means you are wholly unaware of their presence. As a result, they are effectively invisible to you, so far as your Dexterity bonus is concerned. Unless you have a relevant ability, such as Blind Fight or Uncanny Dodge, you are subject to being Sneak Attacked by a Rogue in Stealth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're missing the point of the analogy (one that pretty much everybody is familiar with and accepts). I'm not saying they get the Invisible condition or ability. I'm saying that they are effectively invisible to you for making the attack. I did not say they are identical states - they are similar and the effects of the two states are similar, if not uniformly identical (which isn't required of analogies).
So yes, it is a good analogy. You are unaware of them. They hid and you failed to see them. They are effectively invisible to you. Therefore, you are denied your DEX bonus to their first attack.
Now, whether the idea was actually to confer all of the benefits of Invisibility for the duration of that state is a fair question. But ultimately that's not the point of this discussion.
What the "Observed" language means in the Stealth rules has long been debated. The intent is that being in concealment and/or cover (not even so far as total concealment and total cover) break observation and allow for Stealth checks. Successful Stealth checks give you total concealment with respect to those who failed their Perception checks. It is unfortunately not spelled out clearly (as has been noted, even within the context of developer commentary) because of space limitations, but this granting of total concealment is intended to also provide the benefit of denying those unaware of your presence their DEX bonus to AC, meaning you can sneak attack them.
Using Invisibility as an analogy is a handy way to explain how it functions (basically) in relatively simple and easily understood contexts. If you succeed on being Stealthy, you're essentially invisible. Sneak attack away! Well, once. Then you're not benefiting from Stealth anymore (just like the Invisibility spell!).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if you wanted to argue that a creature in Stealth denies opponents their Dex to AC, they should also receive this +2 bonus if they are 'effectively invisible,' according to your logic. Right?
You're conflating the condition Invisible with "cannot be seen because the stealth check exceeded the perception check". "Effectively invisible" =/= "has the invisible condition".
Find us another one-word shorthand for "cannot be seen" that's not "invisible", and people will try to avoid using it.
There is a difference between denotation and connotation. We're using (quite obviously, too) "invisible" with regard to Stealth checks connotatively. You're insisting upon reading it denotatively, within the confines of specific PF rules, despite us pretty clearly stating, or at least implying, that we're not using the technical term. That's Chemlak's point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I repeat, concealment doesn't deny opponents dex to ac. It allows you to use Stealth. And from what we know using Stealth also does not deny opponents their dex to ac (unless you're using Stealth Unchained rules).
So your position is that Unchained Stealth rules allow multiple attacks that deny DEX to AC, but at no point does Stealth allow even one such attack? Doesn't that strike you as odd?
And to be clear, nobody has ever said concealment denies opponents DEX to AC. Concealment does allow for Stealth checks, however. Successful Stealth checks grant you Total Concealment against the relevant opponents (you are colloquially invisible to them). That is, in turn, what denies the target its DEX to AC.
It's clear from Developer commentary (much of which has already been posted) and also from their Stealth play-testing that the intent is now and always has been that Stealth confers the ability to sneak attack by denying the unaware combatant their DEX bonus to AC. Due to space limitations and the alterations they wanted to put in place, they didn't have the space to do so via errata, even though they pretty clearly stated that this was how the rules are intended to function.
Bottom line: If you'd like to play the Stealth rules absolutely strictly as written, good luck with that; they don't work in any legitimate capacity. (For instance, being observed isn't just about sight, it specifically calls out that it's relevant for all senses - so basically, if you're in earshot of somebody, you can't ever attempt a Stealth check because you're "being observed"). If you want the Stealth rules to be in any way workable, fair, and give Rogues and other Sneak Attack reliant combatants any opportunity to actually meaningfully contribute, then recognize that the language isn't as clean as even the Developers themselves have said they want it to be in order to reflect the unquestionable intent that yes, you can in fact deny someone their DEX to AC by being good at Stealth.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a side note, I'd like to remark on why the CRB doesn't clearly spell out that Stealth is supposed to help you get Sneak Attacks. Because as already has been shown, that is what what Paizo wanted.
The problem is that the rules were a mess. Then Paizo tried to clean it up between the fifth and sixth printing of the CRB; this was quite complicated but eventually some solution was found. It didn't make it into the book 100% though, because that wasn't possible with text spacing. Doing so would have caused paragraphs to switch pages.
And that is a line Paizo isn't prepared to cross, because then page references in other books would no longer be accurate.
|
IIXHiMXII, does a goblin rogue standing in complete darkness get to use sneak attack on opponents without darkvision?
Don't you see the problem? You're inferring. The rules are enough. They contain the key. There is no need to infer anything.
Why else would you be inferring that Stealth meant to deny a foe their dex to ac instead of just producing the text to support your argument?
Firstly, because the text to support the argument involves inference, as does most natural language (as opposed to computer code or thick legalese).
If I tell you that I ate some of the cookies, you naturally infer that I did not eat all of the cookies, despite the fact eating “some” cookies is not logically contradictory with eating “all” cookies, because if I'd eaten all the cookies I would have been more specific. If a history textbook informs me that Julius Caesar was charmed by Cleopatra's intelligence, I infer that she was indeed unusually intelligent and that Caesar admired that quality in women.
Second, I was specifically responding to your post which required an example of a normal situation in which the skill unlock allowing you to sneak attack until the end of your turn after using stealth provides a benefit. Since you were inferring that the developers wouldn't have written those skill unlocks if they were “redundant” with how stealth normally works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Get over it, your interpretation is moot.
IIXHiMXII, your language tends to be somewhat antagonistic for what is basically a discussion on rules which the developers themselves have stated are not clear-cut.
It's one thing to be passionate about our mutual hobby (we all are), it's another to let that override etiquette.
You guys who are thinking that being in Stealth allows Sneak Attacks are completely wrong. There is no stipulation in the Stealth skill that it allows Sneak Attacks (AFTER THE SURPRISE ROUND). Stealth is used to simply Hide from the enemy....
A question (and an honest one): If this is the interpretation applied at your table, why are you trying to hide from the enemy? The most logical reason is that you want to get down the bottom of the pit that round, but have inadequate movement/actions to attack them in the same round - so you wish to hide from them to avoid being attacked, and attack them on their turn?
(Noting that if another character then dropped into the right position, they could potentially lure the enemy into a position where your rogue could flank, possibly with only a 5-ft step, at which point the tactical value of the maneuver you attempted is understandable).
As for the two lines of argument, they appear to run along the following lines (in simplified terms):
- Majority: Stealth gives Total Concealment. Invisibility gives Total Concealment. Rules for applying Dex to AC are not spelled out ("If you can't react to a blow"). We consider the conditions to be analogous to one another, and thus successful use of Stealth denies Dex to AC and permits sneak attack.
- Minority: Stealth gives Total Concealment. Invisibility gives Total Concealment. The parallel does not mean Stealth = Invisibility. The rules do not specifically call out Stealth as preventing a target from reacting to a blow, thus, it does not deny Dex to AC and does not permit sneak attack.
Or in fewer words; It's an argument between implicit (it is strongly implied that if you have total concealment, an enemy cannot react to your attack) and explicit (the rules do not state that total concealment prevents an enemy from reacting to your blows) interpretations of the rules.
My take?
The problem with the implementation is two-fold:
- 3.5 (and Pathfinder) implemented a "Skills For Everyone" approach to character design, which empowered all classes, but ensured that the rogues' niche of "Being the Skill Guy" was heavily diluted, as rather than being the only one with skills. The Trapfinding class feature is an attempt to backtrack on that design choice a little, but mostly serves as an impediment rather than an empowerment of the Rogue class.
- Physical damage (especially melee) dramatically increased from 2E to 3E, possibly more than the designers originally envisaged, so the concept of using sneak attack dice (instead of a multiplier), while it looks impressive, its actual performance next to other martial classes tends to fall behind. In my experience this actually made the gulf between the rogue and other martial classes wider in 3.5 than in 2nd edition.
Pathfinder improved the rogue, but not enough to actually eliminate the archaic "rogues are supposed to suck at combat" handicap that has lingered for multiple editions of the game.
Rogues are not very good in combat, even when they are getting sneak attack in (which typically requires flanking or expended actions to get it), and they're terrible when they're not. Given this game is intended to be enjoyable for all (including the masochists who insist on playing pure rogues), I invariably lean towards the generous when determining whether sneak attack can be applied.
(Hell, I normally run the house rule in PF/3.5 that when performing a sneak attack, Rogues get a bonus to attack equal to the number of dice of sneak attack they have. Because it actually raises their combat ability to the point of being vaguely useful compared to the rangers and fighters they tend to be alongside).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you read a manual or any textbook for that matter and feel as though you are being communicated with?
Ummm... yes. By definition. Writing is a form of communication. See... I've just communicated something to you.
The problem is that you actually think games are fundamentally written in any other way.
Again, not a problem.
Pathfinder is written in English. For humans. Not code, for a computer.
They expected humans to draw reasonable inferences (e.g. you cannot normally "react to" an attack that you are "not aware of"). Indeed, given the ambiguity of human language, it is outright impossible NOT to draw inferences when reading the rules. They'd be largely unintelligible if you didn't.
XXIHIMXXSI
You're not really responding to rules citations or evience, merely dismissing them away as inconclusive without providing any counter arguments. Its dismissive, hard to follow, and really really random.
Total concealment is not required for stealth. Total concealment and unobserved status is. So if a rogue is creeping through the shadows they do not automatically have total concealment but a stealth check says they'll be treated that way
Why would a creature with blindsense lose its dexterity bonus against a creature unless total concealment granted the loss of a dex bonus?
By what you're saying, you could stop an invisible rogue from sneak attacking you by just shutting your eyes. After all, if invibility itself is what grants the sneak attack, invisibility is irrelevant if you're blind.
Its also a conclussion reached by the guy in charge of the game. There's really no counter argument to the idea at this point
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By "the rules are sufficient" you mean that you read the rules a certain way, and thats the only thing they can possibly mean.
No. It doesn't work like that.
When people are presenting coherent arguments from 1) the text itself, 2) from other rules 3) AND Back it up with a developer saying "yeah, really did mean what someone is pointing out in parts 1 and 2 then its time to leave over. You didn't read something the right way. It happens. There is no one true meaning of the text that is the ONLY thing a text could possibly mean. English probably doesn't work that way, thats why laws are written in legalese.
To take a culture that does not properly conform to utilizing proper syntax in their everyday conversations, it's negligent to believe that the majority of Americans interpreting said technical language will be able to decipher it correctly. In their frustration, they might even dub the technical language as legalese as a defense mechanism (self-serving bias).
You are reading the rules through the wrong prism. They are not technical writing through and through.
You are interpreting them in a way that is problematic. There is no such thing as THE thing that the rules say in all cases. THE way you read it is certainly a piece of evidence in how to decide an unclear rule, but it is not the be all, end all, nothing else matters trump card of rules interpretation. It is entirely possible the words are unclear, it is entirely possible that you read them wrong. Multiple lines of inquiry can give you a better and more complete picture of the rules, ESPECIALLY the person that wrote them saying -yeah i really did mean that...-
There is a right way to play this game.
No. There are MANY right ways to play this game. The rules are there to facilitate that by getting everyone in the group on the same page as often as feasible, not to exist as the ontological manifestation of perfection.
Free of interpretations.
This is simply impossible. The rules are not written tightly enough to never require interpretation. The people that write them are the first ones that will tell you that.
If you don't get it or if you don't like it, you're free to change it as you see fit. But the OP and I are specifically looking for the right way, not another interpretation. I'm sorry.
You're going to have a heck of a time finding a group of people to play with and without that the rules are kinda pointless. This is a vast minority view of how to do things, even on the rules forum. Even worse, two people that have the same philosophy that the rules are an absolute law that will neither need nor brook any interpretation will be the first ones to disagree on what the words mean.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see."
That last line pretty much sums up my counter-argument.
Good quotation. Doesn't it outright disprove your counter-argument?
After all, if a creature with blindsense is "still" denied Dex to AC "against attacks from creatures it cannot see" then that perforce means that creatures WITHOUT blindsense ALSO are denied Dex to AC against attacks from creatures they cannot see. Otherwise, the word "still" wouldn't be in there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Him
I believe I have been using the rules as much as possible when making my arguments and in my examples as the situation arises.
You are not.
You have your reading of the rules which you assume a priori is the only reading of the rules. Anything that disagrees with what you read is itself wrong and thus not the rules. Your interpretation is citation and everyone elses citation is merely interpretation.
Total concealment is not required for stealth. Total concealment and unobserved status is. So if a rogue is creeping through the shadows they do not automatically have total concealment but a stealth check says they'll be treated that way
That's not true at all. Show me text that supports that claim.
For at least the third time, this is the stealth erratta
Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a -5 penalty. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
I am not remotely confusing blindsense with blindsight. There is no confusion there. You are grasping at straws. Tell me why on earth a creature with blindsense would loose their dex bonus to AC against a foe in the dark.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Total concealment is not required for stealth. Total concealment and unobserved status is. So if a rogue is creeping through the shadows they do not automatically have total concealment but a stealth check says they'll be treated that wayThat's not true at all. Show me text that supports that claim.
Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.
"A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see."
That last line pretty much sums up my counter-argument.
Good quotation. Doesn't it outright disprove your counter-argument?
After all, if a creature with blindsense is "still" denied Dex to AC "against attacks from creatures it cannot see" then that perforce means that creatures WITHOUT blindsense ALSO are denied Dex to AC against attacks from creatures they cannot see. Otherwise, the word "still" wouldn't be in there.
Or people with blindsense being worse at getting backstabbed while they're blind...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or people with blindsense being worse at getting backstabbed while they're blind..."A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see."
That last line pretty much sums up my counter-argument.
Good quotation. Doesn't it outright disprove your counter-argument?
After all, if a creature with blindsense is "still" denied Dex to AC "against attacks from creatures it cannot see" then that perforce means that creatures WITHOUT blindsense ALSO are denied Dex to AC against attacks from creatures they cannot see. Otherwise, the word "still" wouldn't be in there.
Nope, not a possibility within the (blatantly nonsensical) world of rulebooks being "technical text" with "no sense of communication to be misinterpreted".
If losing Dex to AC is "still" the case with blind-sense then per the 'only one possible meaning' mindset that must also be the case WITHOUT blind-sense. That's what "still" means. The conditional statement continues to be valid despite the change. Unless, of course, "still" in this instance is referring to an apparatus for producing alcohol... or remaining motionless... or a single frame from a movie... or the act of quieting someone... or... but no, all impossible. There is no interpretation involved. Rulebooks are for robots. :]
Domi arrogato mister Dunkerson
Him,
Total concealment is not always a two way street. Back to interpretation...
A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with total concealment.
Means that A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking (a creature with total concealment) not (a rogue with total concealment) cannot sneak attack while striking.
Not sure why still trying.
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 apply your character's Dexterity modifier to:
Ranged attack rolls, including those for attacks made with bows, crossbows, throwing axes, and many ranged spell attacks like scorching ray or searing light .
Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.
Now provide me with the explicit rule that says if a creature is not aware of you it can react to your attack.
The inference that being unaware mean "unable to react" is pretty basic, so find me the contradictory rule and I'll still say that the lead designer of the game knows more about the rules than you do.
Whatever you choose to do in your games is on you but the language printed is sufficient. Otherwise, it would have been changed by now.
So ... you're just ignoring the whole playtest thing that's been brought up a few times that specifically did just this? They literally only didn't adopt it because of space issues in the CRB. It was literally too big to errata. That's the only reason it wasn't formally adopted into the rulebook.
Stealth was specifically created for concealing one's presence. To think that Stealth was created only for Rogues is the driving force for the popular belief that Stealth also denies an opponent their dex to ac.
You're presuming that the two cannot function simultaneously. Stealth was made to conceal one's presence. A benefit of a Rogue concealing its presence is being able to sneak attack. Nobody claimed that the only reason Stealth exists is to benefit Rogues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Law requiring interpretation is why lawyers make so much money
|
|
Not sure why still trying.
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 apply your character's Dexterity modifier to:
Ranged attack rolls, including those for attacks made with bows, crossbows, throwing axes, and many ranged spell attacks like scorching ray or searing light .
Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.Now provide me with the explicit rule that says if a creature is not aware of you it can react to your attack.
The inference that being unaware mean "unable to react" is pretty basic, so find me the contradictory rule and I'll still say that the lead designer of the game knows more about the rules than you do.
I find this to be a logical outcome of the Rules As Written.
|
|
Stealth was specifically created for concealing one's presence. To think that Stealth was created only for Rogues is the driving force for the popular belief that Stealth also denies an opponent their dex to ac.
Also, flanking is only for rogues, because it allows Sneak Attack.
If the opponent that does not have darkvision has no other way to confer 'sight,' he is effectively Blinded.
But he is not actually blinded, in the same way that a character with total concealment is not actually invisible. Therefore this is an interpretation based on the two conditions being essentially similar.
Let's try the reasonableness test:
Would a non-gamer, who is not trying to read the rules as some sort of legal (or logical) text, believe that a rogue who is undetected by his target due to stealth (so, being sneaky) cannot use the sneak attack ability?
One word answers only, please. (For the record, HiM's position is "yes".)