stealth mid-turn? splash weapon sneak damage?

[outshyn]

I always thought you had to start your turn already in stealth, in order to get a sneak attack. However, I just had a player in the open on his turn then move behind a wall, use the cover to get stealth, and then hurl an acid flask over the wall at an enemy. He wanted sneak damage. I thought no, it won't work for 2 reasons: didn't start the turn already in stealth, AND can't do sneak damage with a splash weapon (unless you take a feat or have a power or something).

Am I wrong about that stuff?

[happykj]

Under Throw Splash Weapon

"Splash weapons cannot deal precision-based damage (such as sneak attack)."

I don't think they need to start the turn already in stealth, but note that Stealth has some restrictions, you can check the full description of Stealth for more details

"If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can’t use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast."

[Pizza Lord]

No sneak attack allowed. As happyjk stated, splash weapons cannot deal precision-based damage. Full stop.

Even if that wasn't the case, you also need to be able to see your target clearly to deal sneak attack damage. That means any concealment will stop it. Assuming the wall wasn't glass or had a hole in it, then that would also prevent precision damage, even if the attacker knew the exact square.

There is no reason you cannot achieve stealth (or invisibility) during your turn and then be able to do it, such as if you jump down and use a snap-leaf as an immediate action while falling, and then attack for sneak attack damage.

[TxSam88]

a nifty trick of the magus-rogue build is to use Spell Combat to cast greater invisibility, then make a full round attack against the adjacent target with sneak attack.

[Diego Rossi]

Pizza Lord wrote:

Even if that wasn't the case, you also need to be able to see your target clearly to deal sneak attack damage. That means any concealment will stop it. Assuming the wall wasn't glass or had a hole in it, then that would also prevent precision damage, even if the attacker knew the exact square.

Concealment isn't full concealment, so the guy can move behind the wall, be partially hidden but with a clear line of sight, and try a stealth check.

Probably he would have several negative modifiers, but it is still feasible.

[Pizza Lord]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Concealment isn't full concealment, so the guy can move behind the wall, be partially hidden but with a clear line of sight, and try a stealth check.

Concealment isn't Full concealment. Full concealment would be a 50% miss chance, Concealment would be a 20% miss chance, but in this case, the wording of sneak attack referring to 'concealment' doesn't just mean the state of concealment (20% miss chance). Any amount of concealment, even 1% would prevent sneak attack. Are there ways for there to be a 1% or 10% or 25% concealment? Maybe, if there's a feat that lowers miss chance by some amount. I wasn't referring to there being specifically a 20% or 50% or even a 100% miss chance. Any concealment at all prevents it. As for the 'clear line of sight', I think that was also covered when I said the wall wasn't 'glass' (ie, 'clear') or 'had a hole in it' (ie. allowed clear line of sight). The fact the player in question lobbed it over the wall seemed to imply pretty heavily that there wasn't a hole to throw through and that they weren't peeking around the edge and attacking.

Quote:

Probably he would have several negative modifiers, but it is still feasible.

He would have no negative modifiers. There are no penalties for indirect fire (other than some siege weapons suffering a mishap on a Natural 1, but that doesn't apply here). Only the same miss chance anyone would have for attacking a target that can't see in any instance. Since he knows the target's square, he doesn't even have to guess. Even if he misses, as a splash weapon, it would still land in the square (unless he rolled his attack poorly but then it likely lands adjacent) and would deal splash damage. Either way, it would never deal sneak attack damage.

[Diego Rossi]

Pizza Lord wrote:

Concealment isn't Full concealment.

Pizza, if I hide behind a wall lower than my head and you are 20' away, in an open field, I have concealment and cover, you don't have it. I have a clear LOS, you don't.

If the wall totally blocks the LOS, both combatants have full cover and concealment and there is no discussion about entering stealth, as the attacker and the target are completely hidden.

[happykj]

Though is a bit off topic, but wall provides cover, not concealment.

Something like mist grant you concealment, not cover, because enemy can attack through it even though enemy can't see clearly.

Quote:

Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.

if you Stealth behind a low wall, then you get total concealment, but you still have your line of sight (unless the wall itself is high enough to block your line of sight).

Quote:

if I hide behind a wall lower than my head and you are 20' away, in an open field,

In this case you need to Stealth to get concealment, unless the enemy is initially unaware of your presence.

[Pizza Lord]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Pizza, if I hide behind a wall lower than my head and you are 20' away, in an open field, I have concealment and cover, you don't have it. I have a clear LOS, you don't.

That is definitely not the scenario you were describing. Why would you claim you had 'several negative penalties' if that was what you were envisioning (and failing to convey with your words)? No one reading what you wrote would think that. What penalties to attack would you have that apply in that situation? Let alone the one that was being described by the OP?

[Diego Rossi]

Pizza Lord wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Pizza, if I hide behind a wall lower than my head and you are 20' away, in an open field, I have concealment and cover, you don't have it. I have a clear LOS, you don't.

That is definitely not the scenario you were describing. Why would you claim you had 'several negative penalties' if that was what you were envisioning (and failing to convey with your words)? No one reading what you wrote would think that. What penalties to attack would you have that apply in that situation? Let alone the one that was being described by the OP?

Read my post again. When I have spoken of the sthealthing guy to hit?

"Concealment isn't full concealment, so the guy can move behind the wall, be partially hidden but with a clear line of sight, and try a stealth check. Probably he would have several negative modifiers, but it is still feasible." Penalties to the stealth check, if it wasn't clear.

Probably the guy is moving at full speed, so a -5 to the Stealth check for that.

RAW, moving behind a wall, and trying a stealth check don't suffer from any penalty, but the guy is starting from behind fully detected and in plain sight, and his movement isn't hidden until he reaches the wall. Some GMs would apply circumstance modifiers. It depends on the terrain and the conditions.

[Name Violation]

the only way to get sneak attack damage on a splash weapon is a very specific rogue archetype. normally its not possible