Notice how unchained skips "against one attack" ?
Thats because you can already do that.
Notice how unchained skips "against one attack" ?
Thats because you can already do that.
Yeah, I brought that up.
This was the exchange. It's, uh ... curious.
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?No, this does not strike me as odd. Pathfinder Unchained was just released a few months ago. For a long time, Pathfinder had clearly stated the rules for Stealth. The moment you decide to question the rules is when you start stretching the dimensions of what was intended. Don't ask questions. Follow the rules. That, is logic.
It really, really seems disingenuous on its face. But there's far too much effort for that actually to be the case. So yeah.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Simultaneously but independent of each other. I can agree with that.
Stealth was made for hiding.
Rogue trying to hide is so that they can... hide.
Sneak Attack is independent of Stealth. There are already rules to support this claim
So they can hide ... and also sneak attack their opponents.
Sneak attack can be independent of Stealth. Not infrequently, the co-occur.
The rules evidence supporting Stealth allowing sneak attack has been provided multitudinous times. That you want to pretend that rules are no place for inference and interpretation really is of no concern to me. That's a you problem, not a me problem.
You posting a wall of text citing rules does nothing to support your case. I am already well aware of these rules. In fact, I (and others) have actually referenced (either by directly posting, linking or mentioning) these exact same rules. All you seem to be doing is padding the length of your posts with the citations in order to make your posts appear more authoritative. It isn't working.
Total Concealment is basically the same as Invisibility because of you can't be seen then you are invisible.
Displacement is almost Total concealment (it has caveat that you can be targeted/seen, so it isn't true total concealment).
Chris Lambertz is not here to answer rules questions. That is the job of the Design Team. If you want a question answered, hit FAQ on the post that contains the question.
I am not a representative of Chris Lambertz or Paizo in any way. Simply a friendly poster who had been around for a few years and is trying to help.
Personally I believe the answer is very simple, and I have already expressed my views on the matter much earlier in the thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the question has already been given an authoritative answer. (and I'va already gotten one FAQ and have my fingers crossed for a second...)
If you wish to try...
1) start a new thread. Make the question pretty obvious from the title.
"Does stealth let you sneak attack?" or some such.
First sentence in the post is the question
First sentence in the post is the question
First sentence in the post is a question. Not an editorial, not your answer, not "it has to be yes/no because of Y/z, not a long drawn out story, its a question.
Do not make the question leading. Do not editorialize. If you want to include an argument for/against make sure you give a fairer summation to the other side than your own if anything. No grarg.
|
1) Entering Cover/Concealment (Partial and Total) allows a Stealth check to be rolled versus the enemies Perception to remain aware of your presence and aware of any incoming attacks. This is so they can keep their Dex bonus to AC if attacked. Obviously, if the enemy somehow manages to get rid of the Concealment/Cover you are using (gust of winds the fog cloud, moves around the corner, checks inside the barrel) you lose the benefit of being unobserved/undetected would normally grant.
You would only roll a stealth check to enter cover/concealment if the enemy was distracted (e.g. due to a successful bluff). Just walking behind cover while observed doesn't allow you to roll stealth.
2) Total Concealment (and Total Cover since it is essentially the same when it comes to sight) does NOT grant the +20/+40 Stealth bonus. Only Invisibility does and this is because it is a glamer that affects all the senses (dampens sound, scent, etc.).
Invisibility has no effect on sound, scent, et cetera. Only vision. It grants a bonus because it is easier to move without being seen when you aren't visible. If you have total cover/concealment then you don't even have to roll stealth to avoid being seen... by definition they can't see you.
4) The only purpose for Bluff to create a diversion is to trick the enemy from knowing where you went exactly. If there is an open field and 3 trees and you Bluff and Stealth (and succeed with the -10 penalty against them all), they do not know which tree you hid behind (or maybe if you possibly teleported or went underground or flew). Effectively, this means the only purpose to Hide in Plain Sight is simply to ignore the Bluff ---> Stealth -10 development.
Without a distraction you can't stealth behind cover at all. You can GO behind cover, but they know that is where you are. Hide in Plain Sight allows you to stealth even when there isn't cover.
|
1) You need to break observation, and then find cover or concealment. Total cover and total concealment break observation. If no foes are around, you have total cover anyway and can enter and stealth around in it until you reach a foe. If you've already Stealthed, any cover or concealment can allow you to stay hidden.
5) Opponents still know the direction te shot came from, but no the exact squares or spots. Could be the bushes 20' away or the trees 50' away as far as they know, but they know it's the bushes to the north or the trees to the north.
|
|
Without a distraction you can't stealth behind cover at all. You can GO behind cover, but they know that is where you are. Hide in Plain Sight allows you to stealth even when there isn't cover.
4) The only purpose for Bluff to create a diversion is to trick the enemy from knowing where you went exactly. If there is an open field and 3 trees and you Bluff and Stealth (and succeed with the -10 penalty against them all), they do not know which tree you hid behind (or maybe if you possibly teleported or went underground or flew). Effectively, this means the only purpose to Hide in Plain Sight is simply to ignore the Bluff ---> Stealth -10 development.
Total cover and total concealment break line of sight, and therefore observation. If you can get to such a spot during combat, you CAN stealth. A bluff check can allow you to do it in partial cover/concealment, as the bluff check also temporarily breaks observation.
|
|
Total cover and total concealment break line of sight, and therefore observation. If you can get to such a spot during combat, you CAN stealth. A bluff check can allow you to do it in partial cover/concealment, as the bluff check also temporarily breaks observation.
From your wording above I'd think that you would allow a character to;
Move 10' to pass behind a pillar, 'enter stealth', continue moving 20' with a stealth check to be unobserved, and then make a sneak attack. All in one round.
I wouldn't allow that. Rather, I'd require a bluff check or other distraction to allow a stealth check at -10 to move 10' behind the pillar and hide there. The character could then make a sneak attack from that location or make a stealth check to move to some other cover. Alternatively, they could move behind the pillar while observed and thus be hidden from view, but would not be 'in stealth' unless they waited until their next turn and then used stealth to sneak out from behind the pillar.
Basically, my reading is that you either need to begin your turn unobserved (e.g. because you are concealed) or use a distraction to move behind cover with a -10 stealth check. That's it. Other than those two situations, you cannot normally 'enter stealth'. HiPS and other special options notwithstanding.
The Stealth rules call out concealment, not total concealment. In the next sentence there's the bit about creating a distraction. The disagreement comes from whether these parts are separate or not.
The question really comes down to what it means to be "observed" (i.e., if you are in concealment, are you being observed). There's not a clear answer to it, just like there's not a really clear answer with a lot of Stealth stuff (see what I did there?). As for the distraction bit, you simply need to get somewhere "unobserved". If starting your turn in concealment is sufficient for breaking observation, it's got to be sufficient for breaking observation after a distraction.
BMy position, until evidence further clarifies otherwise, is that concealment and concealment alone is sufficient to allow for a Stealth check. In the Stealth rules and in the Combat rules, we're told that you can make a Stealth check if you're in concealment.
Bottom line is YMMV and clarify it with your GM to make sure everybody is on the same page. There's going to be a lot of table variation. In reality, I adjudicate a lot of these on a per case basis because unfortunately, that sometimes is the only way some of it can make sense.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't agree on the need for Bluff.
Cover and Stealth Checks: You can use cover to make a Stealth check. Without cover, you usually need concealment (see below) to make a Stealth check.
Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.
As I understand it, you can just walk behind a tree and hide there. However, people will know exactly where you went to hide. If they move so the tree no longer provides cover/concealment, you'll be exposed. To prevent that, you could use Bluff-distraction so they don't see which tree you went to to hide behind.
Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.
You can; using Bluff is an option, not the only way to do it.
---
HiPS allows you to enter stealth even when observed; even when right in plain sight. You don't have to enter cover/concealment, you can just stand there in the middle of the featureless plain and hide.
|
|
Total cover and total concealment break line of sight, and therefore observation. If you can get to such a spot during combat, you CAN stealth. A bluff check can allow you to do it in partial cover/concealment, as the bluff check also temporarily breaks observation.From your wording above I'd think that you would allow a character to;
Move 10' to pass behind a pillar, 'enter stealth', continue moving 20' with a stealth check to be unobserved, and then make a sneak attack. All in one round.
That isn't possible, unless they had cover/concealment the whole way back. The Breaking Stealth section explains that you can do that if you start your turn using stealth.
Breaking Stealth When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make an attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).
So in order to accomplish all of the things you listed in one turn, you would need an ability similar to HiPS.
|
|
The Stealth rules call out concealment, not total concealment. In the next sentence there's the bit about creating a distraction. The disagreement comes from whether these parts are separate or not.
The question really comes down to what it means to be "observed" (i.e., if you are in concealment, are you being observed). There's not a clear answer to it, just like there's not a really clear answer with a lot of Stealth stuff (see what I did there?). As for the distraction bit, you simply need to get somewhere "unobserved". If starting your turn in concealment is sufficient for breaking observation, it's got to be sufficient for breaking observation after a distraction.
BMy position, until evidence further clarifies otherwise, is that concealment and concealment alone is sufficient to allow for a Stealth check. In the Stealth rules and in the Combat rules, we're told that you can make a Stealth check if you're in concealment.
Bottom line is YMMV and clarify it with your GM to make sure everybody is on the same page. There's going to be a lot of table variation. In reality, I adjudicate a lot of these on a per case basis because unfortunately, that sometimes is the only way some of it can make sense.
You're right, it really isn't as clear as we want it to be.
You need to start your turn using Stealth in order to make use of the Breaking Stealth section, as posted above.
The rules aren't clear on what observation is, but if you can see someone who has a 20% miss chance, I'd say you're able to observe them. Total cover/concealment definitely breaks line of sight, but I don't believe partial does. A GM call is appropriate due to vagueness though.