# Greater Invis, Full Attack, 5' Step - Perception DC?

### Rules Questions

 151 to 187 of 187 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Matt2VK wrote:

From all the breaking down of the rules, I agree you can not Stealth with a 5' step after Full Attacking.

Which brings us back to the original Question -

What is the DC to spot (figure out) someone under the effect of Invisibility that takes a 5' step away from you?

20

An invisible character not trying to hide has a base DC of 20.

I also think the DC is 20.

To pinpoint the square it's 20 over the DC. So invisibilitynis 20 - 20 for fighting, DC = 0 to notice the presence of the invisible attacker and +20 to pinpoint square.

ShieldLawrence wrote:

Its not an explicit exception to anything. Exceptions are often presented as such, listing what happens normally such as the "Normal:" line in many feats. This is textual evidence of how the rules are meant to be interpreted.

You're constructing an interpretation of the rules counter to how the game is meant to be played.

The entire argument hinges on one single line in the description of full round actions.(A full round action requires an entire round to complete.)

We've provided more than a few lines that evidence that this is not how the rules are meant to operate. (TWF penalties, full round cast times, etc.) The single line you've hinged upon conflate and complicate the rules.

I missed this but one more time for you. =)

Yes it is an explicit exception... because it exists to tell you... you do not have to keep casting if you are using a full round action this way.... because otherwise you would.

No the only thing I said was you can't stealth during full attack this breaks nothing except the ability to remain in stealth from round to round... while engaging in combat using Full attack each round.

Quote:

Two-Weapon Fighting: If you use this on your turn to attack with two weapons, do you also take that penalty on attacks of opportunity made before the start of your next turn?

No. The penalties end as soon as you have completed the full-attack action that allowed you to attack with both weapons. Any attacks of opportunity you make are at your normal attack bonus.
Generally speaking, penalties on attacks made during your turn do not carry over to attacks of opportunity unless they specifically state otherwise (such as the penalty from using Power Attack or Combat Expertise).
This answer originally appeared in the 9/25/12 Paizo blog.

Nice: But this is asking a question about the penalties during AoO. AoO says you get no penalties when making AoOs. This is a clarification. I already know this from reading the rules and didn't need clarification. You are trying to argue because your weapon penalties expire after your Two weapon attacks, and don't continue into the AoOs, all your penalites expire. This post also includes unless they specifically state otherwise (such as the penalty from using Power Attack or Combat Expertise). Stealth says specifically you can't use while attacking.

You might also be referring to this lineThe penalties end as soon as you have completed the full-attack action that allowed you to attack I see where you are going with this... but no he's still talking about the to hit penalties for TWF... not the length of a full round actions... or the fact you can't Stealth while attacking.

Some good evidence for you case that full round actions might end early, but it is circumstantial evidence because it is talking about TWF and AoOs... not enough to refute the hard evidence I listed. Specifically mentioning the in question abilities and copy and pasting the actual "Rules as Written".

I Could post other stuff that is not expressly relevant to support my side but If I do this you guys will jump all over me for citing "non relevant" stuff and "oh it don't work that way" like you personally did when I responded to ProfPotts post and acused me of citing 1 round cast time spells to support my side in the conversation we are having. Which I didn't do.

There is a lot that supports my side that's not in the specific rules I quoted. Much of it supports what Sword said above. Specifically that you can't use Stealth in a round at all, after even a single attack... (except sniping.) I don't want to go down that road... even though I think while it's not written that way, the Devs intended it to be.

Cheers!!

Trimalchio wrote:

I also think the DC is 20.

To pinpoint the square it's 20 over the DC. So invisibilitynis 20 - 20 for fighting, DC = 0 to notice the presence of the invisible attacker and +20 to pinpoint square.

No rule gives you a -20 for attacking on your stealth check except sniping, and sniping takes a move action so it can not be done with a full attack, and must e done with a ranged attack, you would have the full dc, on top of that the rules themselves state that it is a +20 to stealth if you are attempting to hide, so a five foot step away would allow you to attempt to hide since your opponent can not see you.

You would know you were attacked, you would know where you were attacked from, but if unless you had a way to see invisible or detect if the opponent was still there you would not be able to tell if they were still there or not without a perception check.
Quote:
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).

As seen here if you move, five foot step is movement you get a +20 to stealth for them to attempt to detect you. It explicitly calls out that it is +20 stealth.

And if you want to say a five foot step is not movement then it would be a +40 to stealth.
IF a five foot step is movement it would give you the opportunity to hide again by RAW, because it is movement, RAW calls movement not the move action.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the rules meant to prevent you from stealthing using a 5' step or after you attack in a round, they would tell you such.

If the rules meant to define your turn using your full round action, they would tell you such.

"A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step."

Awesome. The rules tell me exactly what they mean, that a full round action takes up my move and standard actions for a round. The rules don't expand to say that your turn is defined by your full round action, so it isn't. They don't say you're considered attacking after the attack rolls complete, so you aren't.

The rules state what they mean to state. By expanding the meaning of that first sentence into a context that is never discussed within the rules, you are constructing new rules.

The Yellow King wrote:

IF a five foot step is movement it would give you the opportunity to hide again by RAW, because it is movement, RAW calls movement not the move action.

The 5' step is defined as movement under the Movement in Combat rules.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yeah, I don't think hearing can pinpoint an invisible creature unfortunately. But that's more GM determination than rules text.

Look in Ultimate Intrigue for clarification on this.

Akkurscid wrote:
I understand what you are saying I just disagree they can happen on the same round. (Full Attack + Stealth)

Let me ask you this, Akkurscid:

If I full attack 4 times and then 5' step away from my target, and I do not have a reach weapon, how can I be attacking a target outside my reach?

The Yellow King wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:

I also think the DC is 20.

To pinpoint the square it's 20 over the DC. So invisibilitynis 20 - 20 for fighting, DC = 0 to notice the presence of the invisible attacker and +20 to pinpoint square.

No rule gives you a -20 for attacking on your stealth check except sniping, and sniping takes a move action so it can not be done with a full attack, and must e done with a ranged attack, you would have the full dc, on top of that the rules themselves state that it is a +20 to stealth if you are attempting to hide, so a five foot step away would allow you to attempt to hide since your opponent can not see you.

You would know you were attacked, you would know where you were attacked from, but if unless you had a way to see invisible or detect if the opponent was still there you would not be able to tell if they were still there or not without a perception check.
Quote:
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).

As seen here if you move, five foot step is movement you get a +20 to stealth for them to attempt to detect you. It explicitly calls out that it is +20 stealth.

And if you want to say a five foot step is not movement then it would be a +40 to stealth.
IF a five foot step is movement it would give you the opportunity to hide again by RAW, because it is movement, RAW calls movement not the move action.

There is a whole list of things that effect the DC of pinpointing an invisible character -20 for speaking, -20 for being in combat, -5 for moving at 1/2 speed. examples: 20(for moving)-5=dc15. -10 for moving full speed. 20(moving)-10=DC10.

If he is attacking you, you automatically know where he is. If he is moving and in combat, it's +/- 0 if he is moving at 1/2 speed and in combat it's your DC is negative -5 so you would need some modifiers to miss him.

Quintain wrote:
Akkurscid wrote:
I understand what you are saying I just disagree they can happen on the same round. (Full Attack + Stealth)

Let me ask you this, Akkurscid:

If I full attack 4 times and then 5' step away from my target, and I do not have a reach weapon, how can I be attacking a target outside my reach?

Good question ;)

You are not attacking a target because you are making melee attacks against it as some say, you are attacking in general because you chose to do either the attack action (a standard action) or you chose to do a full attack action.
On your turn you chose this, the ramifications may last longer than the end of your turn.

Akkurscid wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Akkurscid wrote:
I understand what you are saying I just disagree they can happen on the same round. (Full Attack + Stealth)

Let me ask you this, Akkurscid:

If I full attack 4 times and then 5' step away from my target, and I do not have a reach weapon, how can I be attacking a target outside my reach?

Good question ;)

You are not attacking a target because you are making melee attacks against it as some say, you are attacking in general because you chose to do either the attack action (a standard action) or you chose to do a full attack action.
On your turn you chose this, the ramifications may last longer than the end of your turn.

The rules never mention this "attacking in general" to be an existing or relevant distinction. The do say it takes your round worth of actions (standard+move).

It's a stretch to create this "attacking in general" distinction when the rules don't mention it and then use that to prevent legal character actions.

Akkurscid wrote:

Good question ;)

You are not attacking a target because you are making melee attacks against it as some say, you are attacking in general because you chose to do either the attack action (a standard action) or you chose to do a full attack action.
On your turn you chose this, the ramifications may last longer than the end of your turn.

There is no support in the rules beyond your extrapolation that supports this in any way.

If I can't reach my target, I cannot attack my target, if I can't attack my target, ergo, I cannot logically be said to be attacking my target.

This is not an MMO, there is no "in combat" state that prevents stealth.*

* For those who remember, the original Everquest MMO game had a "in combat state" that prevented hiding unless special actions were used to get " out of combat ". So did World of Warcraft, iirc.

Pathfinder is not an MMO, the rules do not support your claim, Akkurscid.

ShieldLawrence wrote:

The rules never mention this "attacking in general" to be an existing or relevant distinction. The do say it takes your round worth of actions (standard+move).

It's a stretch to create this "attacking in general" distinction when the rules don't mention it and then use that to prevent legal character actions.

Incorrect, the rules say making an attack is a standard action. this means attack = action.

The rules say a melee attack is not an action. This means you can not make a melee attack if you doesn't spend an action.

Therefore the "attack" is the "action" and not the "melee".

You will find that it is you who are mistaken, about a great many things.

Quote:

The Combat Round

Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world; there are 10 rounds in a minute of combat. A round normally allows each character involved in a combat situation to act.

Each round's activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds in order. When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.)

When the rules refer to a "full round", they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.

How many attacks do you get on your turn? Don't see it do you...

No? Because it says you get actions!

Quote:

Action Types

An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated.

There are six types of actions:
1.Standard
2.Move
3.Full-round
4.Swift
5.Immediate
6.Free

In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.

In some situations (such as in a surprise round), you may be limited to taking only a single move action or standard action.

How many types of melee attack are listed in the available action types?

Can you count them?
No? Because "melee attacks" are not action types.

Quote:

Standard Action

A standard action allows you to do something, most commonly to make an attack or cast a spell. See Table: Actions in Combat for other standard actions.

Some combat options (such as using the Cleave feat) are standard actions that allow you to make an attack, but don't count as the attack action. These options can't be combined with other standard actions or options that modify only attack actions (such as Vital Strike). Source: PPC:MTT

Is a standard action a melee attack? It can be... but maybe its a a spell.

Are you saying a spell can not be an attack?

it's the Action that makes the attack happen if you take no action you get no attack or spell.

Oh wait. Maybe you have a special ability. Are you saying a special ability can not be an attack?

Sword Swings are a melee attack that shares that moniker "Attack" with many things
Full attack
Ranged attack
Touch attack
Unarmed attack
Attack roll
Attacks of opportunity
Ranged touch attack

Oh wait are you saying you can't attack while "Fighting defensively" because it's not called "Attacking defensively"

"You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means"

ShieldLawrence wrote:
Akkurscid wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Akkurscid wrote:
I understand what you are saying I just disagree they can happen on the same round. (Full Attack + Stealth)

Let me ask you this, Akkurscid:

If I full attack 4 times and then 5' step away from my target, and I do not have a reach weapon, how can I be attacking a target outside my reach?

Good question ;)

You are not attacking a target because you are making melee attacks against it as some say, you are attacking in general because you chose to do either the attack action (a standard action) or you chose to do a full attack action.
On your turn you chose this, the ramifications may last longer than the end of your turn.

The rules never mention this "attacking in general" to be an existing or relevant distinction. The do say it takes your round worth of actions (standard+move).

It's a stretch to create this "attacking in general" distinction when the rules don't mention it and then use that to prevent legal character actions.

You are just arguing semantics " your language is wrong" It doesn't matter you can't disprove...

A full-round action requires an entire round to complete.
It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.

Another item -

Full Round Action wrote:
A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.

So a Full-Round Action already uses a Standard and a Move Action. While you can still take a 5' Step, that is not a move action. Now if you can still Stealth after taking that 5' step is open to how you interpret the rules.

At this time I'd say you can't. More because of the Sniping Rules -

Sniping wrote:
If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.

For those saying you can Stealth after the 5' Step, you're pretty much tossing out the rule on sniping out. As sniping is a LOT more limiting.

Akkurscid wrote:

Last post, don't care enough to argue this further, but it doesn't matter that the rules say that, it is flat out wrong.

If a full-round action takes an entire round to complete every time, by definition, you cannot take any other action in your turn, because you're spending your whole round on the full round action. But the fact that you can cast literally any spell thats 5th level or under in the same round means this can't be correct - if I'm spending my whole round to pull off my 4 stabs, how on earth can I also cast Dim Door and appear 500m away? The only possible way for swift-action casting and full-attacking taking a whole round to not make one wrong is if you call the casting of the spell part of the full-attack, which is nonsensical. If that's how you see it, then I guess agree to disagree, but I don't see any reasonable way how you can say that a swift-action spell cast is part of a full-attack, and if it isn't part of the full-attack, then a full-attack cannot take a whole round, and your entire argument falls apart.

Matt2VK wrote:

Another item -

Full Round Action wrote:
A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.

So a Full-Round Action already uses a Standard and a Move Action. While you can still take a 5' Step, that is not a move action. Now if you can still Stealth after taking that 5' step is open to how you interpret the rules.

At this time I'd say you can't. More because of the Sniping Rules -

Sniping wrote:
If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.
For those saying you can Stealth after the 5' Step, you're pretty much tossing out the rule on sniping out. As sniping is a LOT more limiting.

You can use sniping whenever you are already stealthed, no matter the circumstances. You can only 5-foot and stealth again if you can get to a legal position to use stealth with a 5-foot, which is normally only going to come up in Greater Invis situations, or something like swift-action Dim Door to a location that can't be seen, and then attempting a stealth check.

Akkurscid wrote:
ShieldLawrence wrote:
Akkurscid wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Akkurscid wrote:
I understand what you are saying I just disagree they can happen on the same round. (Full Attack + Stealth)

Let me ask you this, Akkurscid:

If I full attack 4 times and then 5' step away from my target, and I do not have a reach weapon, how can I be attacking a target outside my reach?

Good question ;)

You are not attacking a target because you are making melee attacks against it as some say, you are attacking in general because you chose to do either the attack action (a standard action) or you chose to do a full attack action.
On your turn you chose this, the ramifications may last longer than the end of your turn.

The rules never mention this "attacking in general" to be an existing or relevant distinction. The do say it takes your round worth of actions (standard+move).

It's a stretch to create this "attacking in general" distinction when the rules don't mention it and then use that to prevent legal character actions.

You are just arguing semantics " your language is wrong" It doesn't matter you can't disprove...

A full-round action requires an entire round to complete.
It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.

Sure. Again, you're welcome to run your games the way you want.

Cheers.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Matt2VK wrote:
For those saying you can Stealth after the 5' Step, you're pretty much tossing out the rule on sniping out. As sniping is a LOT more limiting.

Not really. The only time this comes up is in Greater Invisibility. The rest of the time, the melee guy doesn't have cover or concealment to make the check with.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Matt2VK wrote:
For those saying you can Stealth after the 5' Step, you're pretty much tossing out the rule on sniping out. As sniping is a LOT more limiting.
Not really. The only time this comes up is in Greater Invisibility. The rest of the time, the melee guy doesn't have cover or concealment to make the check with.

Hide in Plain Sight and Hellcat Stealth can accomplish it as well.

ShieldLawrence wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Matt2VK wrote:
For those saying you can Stealth after the 5' Step, you're pretty much tossing out the rule on sniping out. As sniping is a LOT more limiting.
Not really. The only time this comes up is in Greater Invisibility. The rest of the time, the melee guy doesn't have cover or concealment to make the check with.
Hide in Plain Sight and Hellcat Stealth can accomplish it as well.

Both of which are equivalent in power, and gained at roughly the same level.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Matt2VK wrote:
For those saying you can Stealth after the 5' Step, you're pretty much tossing out the rule on sniping out. As sniping is a LOT more limiting.
Not really. The only time this comes up is in Greater Invisibility. The rest of the time, the melee guy doesn't have cover or concealment to make the check with.

Except when you are in fog or mist, either natural or through the range of spells starting at level one; dim lighting surroundings, either natural or through the range of spells starting at level 2; under the effect of the blur spell (level 2); having dropped a smoke stick; in undergrowth; even partly behind a tree, or pillar or statue or drape or tapestry.

All these grant concealment and more when there is a 5ft gap.

Suggesting that this situation never comes up is tosh.

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I have no idea what that means, but I suppose I jumped to that conclusion a bit too soon. I never see those things used for Stealth so it didn't occur to me.

Of course, people are missing some of the modifiers for the perception check, such as the person making the check being 1) distracted by combat +5, and 2) unfavorable or terrible conditions (noise of combat) +2/+5

I think part of the bigger picture is that attacking-from-stealth-back-into-stealth in the same same round is not good for the game. It is not fun to be in able to attack back, either for players or DM. Neither is it fun having to waste an action searching for someone - whether invisible or not, when they get to attack you each round.

No stealth while attacking means if you attack there is a moment of time where the people around you can react to your presence. If you take this away by allowing an attack and then stealth, or a full attack and stealth then you unbalance the game and make things frustrating.

To be clear, I have no issue with using invisibility, There are clearly defined rules for that -it is the stealth part that I have an issue with. You can still ninja someone, you just aren't effectively undetectable.

There is no definition of "attacking" in the game' so we can go round in circles deciding whether it only applies to the standard or full round attack on your turn or if it is a general description of your actions. i have tried to make a clear case using stealth rules, other people have their own set of rules that supports their position. Maybe it will discourage stealth and attacking, maybe not.

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I don't find it unbalancing in the slightest. There are numerous ways around it, right down to 5-foot stepping away from the direction the hidden enemy is and readying for when they move in to attack.

_Ozy_ wrote:
Of course, people are missing some of the modifiers for the perception check, such as the person making the check being 1) distracted by combat +5, and 2) unfavorable or terrible conditions (noise of combat) +2/+5

It depends on the noise of combat, and the distraction. If the only person in combat was the guy with the dagger planted between his ribs, he is probably heavily focussed on the stealth ninja! Lol. But it is a good point.

The Sword wrote:
I think part of the bigger picture is that attacking-from-stealth-back-into-stealth in the same same round is not good for the game.

I think you're exaggerating here. This is like spring-attacking quicklings or (worse) The Colour Out Of Space. They're meant to be formidable foes that you don't want to face without the "answers".

The Sword wrote:
It is not fun to be unable to attack back, either for players or DM.

You'll want readied attacks (for the moment they reveal their location by attacking) or readied glitterdust/faerie fire (which become available 4-6 levels before greater invisibility).

The Sword wrote:
Neither is it fun having to waste an action searching for someone - whether invisible or not, when they get to attack you each round.

I never bother with spending an action to search. I've never encountered a creature with low enough stealth while invisible that there was actually any point to trying. It's better to use readied actions, scent, or some anti-invisibility spell.

The Sword wrote:
No stealth while attacking means if you attack there is a moment of time where the people around you can react to your presence. If you take this away by allowing an attack and then stealth, or a full attack and stealth then you unbalance the game and make things frustrating.

That moment exists ("when I am attacked"), but you should be using readied actions, not waiting until your turn, because the moment passes quickly.

ShieldLawrence wrote:

Sure. Again, you're welcome to run your games the way you want.

Cheers.

Yes, like I said earlier we have to agree to disagree. =)

I will echo Akkurscid's point.

Use Attack and stealth or don't, as a case has been made for and against. It's up to individual tables now. I know how it will work at mine.

The Sword wrote:

I think part of the bigger picture is that attacking-from-stealth-back-into-stealth in the same same round is not good for the game. It is not fun to be in able to attack back, either for players or DM. Neither is it fun having to waste an action searching for someone - whether invisible or not, when they get to attack you each round.

No stealth while attacking means if you attack there is a moment of time where the people around you can react to your presence. If you take this away by allowing an attack and then stealth, or a full attack and stealth then you unbalance the game and make things frustrating.

A simple readied action to do an attack once they attack you can easily counter this tactic. Use the options the rules give you.

The Sword wrote:

To be clear, I have no issue with using invisibility, There are clearly defined rules for that -it is the stealth part that I have an issue with. You can still ninja someone, you just aren't effectively undetectable.

There is no definition of "attacking" in the game' so we can go round in circles deciding whether it only applies to the standard or full round attack on your turn or if it is a general description of your actions. i have tried to make a clear case using stealth rules, other people have their own set of rules that supports their position. Maybe it will discourage stealth and attacking, maybe not.

With greater invisibility, they are using stealth anyway, they don't even have to 5' step away. They can continually attack you from the same space and you'll always be considered flat footed and vulnerable to sneak attack.

There are plenty of even mundane or low level magical counters to this tactic even if they are using mundane HIPS stealth. Taking a viable tactic away from stealth using characters is re-nerfing stealth (and rogues specifically) back to un-usability. Especially now that the community has convinced Paizo to errata it back into quasi-usefulness.

The Sword wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Matt2VK wrote:
For those saying you can Stealth after the 5' Step, you're pretty much tossing out the rule on sniping out. As sniping is a LOT more limiting.
Not really. The only time this comes up is in Greater Invisibility. The rest of the time, the melee guy doesn't have cover or concealment to make the check with.

Except when you are in fog or mist, either natural or through the range of spells starting at level one; dim lighting surroundings, either natural or through the range of spells starting at level 2; under the effect of the blur spell (level 2); having dropped a smoke stick; in undergrowth; even partly behind a tree, or pillar or statue or drape or tapestry.

All these grant concealment and more when there is a 5ft gap.

Suggesting that this situation never comes up is tosh.

Using trip when attacking someone using this tactic puts them on the floor and prevents them from using 5' step after full attacking.

At most, they can make a single standard action attack, and then 5' step away (rawling). And you can 5' step after them with feats like step up, etc.

There are plenty of counters.

 151 to 187 of 187 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>