Dark Alleys Are Still Safe?

[pawsplay]

I notice that dim light still defeats sneak attack by providing concealment. Thus, on a moonlit night, rogues are still out of luck. I peaked at Perception and noticed you can generate a DC for a move action to "perceive" something but it doesn't actually give provisions for thusly removing concealment.

 

[Vurt]

I notice that dim light still defeats sneak attack by providing concealment. Thus, on a moonlit night, rogues are still out of luck. I peaked at Perception and noticed you can generate a DC for a move action to "perceive" something but it doesn't actually give provisions for thusly removing concealment.

In the Council of Thieves Player's Guide there's a campaign trait that lets you ignore the 20% miss chance for attacking in dim light. Chelaxian rogues rejoice!

 

[Nikosandros]

In the Council of Thieves Player's Guide there's a campaign trait that lets you ignore the 20% miss chance for attacking in dim light. Chelaxian rogues rejoice!

But what about all the others? If anything, dim light ought to make a sneak attack easier...

 

[Vurt]

But what about all the others? If anything, dim light ought to make a sneak attack easier...

I would think not being able to precisely see the spot you're aiming for would make it harder for you to hit it, not easier.

If your rogue has darkvision, this is a non-issue, as they can see in dim light just fine. Everyone else can just take the Extra Trait feat and pick this up if it's really, really important.

 

[GlassJaw]

I would place this rule under the "hand-wave" umbrella.

 

[EroGaki]

I would place this rule under the "hand-wave" umbrella.

I agree. After all, dark alleys are designed to have rogues hiding them so they can shank fools. What's the point if they can't do any actually shanking because of an obscure rule like that?

 

[frankthedm]

I would place this rule under the "hand-wave" umbrella.

I think rolling it into Blind Fight would be the better option or having 20% concealment reduce sneak attack by 2 dice, thus expert rouges still get some sneak, but beginning backstabbers have to chose between spotting vitals or being spotted themselves.

What's the point if they can't do any actually shanking because of an obscure rule like that?

Point is that Paizo felt having it remain was warranted, even after they allowed it to affect a lot more things. Unaware target still grants a 2 point bonus on the attack and loss of any dex bonus. So as long as they pick easy targets, the rogue's back alley attack is plenty viable unless the bulk of humanity stopped being level 1 commoners and everyone has unearned character levels.

Completely ignoring Concealment stops Sneak weakens every spell, ability and item in Pathfinder that provides concealment and removes a viable tactical element from the field of combat. I'll agree that non total concealment's total nuking of Sneak attack goes too far.

 

[Imp]

Maybe the would-be sneak-attacker should require a round or so of hiding & observation before pulling off the alley-shanking.

It makes sense for a rogue to lurk in a dark alley and jump someone.

It doesn't make a lot of sense for two rogues to bump into each other in a dark alley, roll initiative, and the winner gets to completely unload d6s on the flat-footed loser.

 

[pawsplay]

I was thinking requiring the "Active search" option for Perception would make it a move action, equivalent to feinting.

DC:
Notice a visible creature, DC 0
Terrible conditions ("for example, candlelight for DCs involving sight...") DC +5

Of course, this is involves more than noticing a creature. On the other hand, sneak attacking is not as involved as listening to a whispered conversation, as you can ordinarily see a creature well enough to do it without an action in normal illumination. Thus, if you wanted to extrapolate a DC of 5 to see a creature in detail, we get a final DC of 10, +1 per 10 feet of distance.

 

[Anselyn]

Isn't the point that on a moonlit night, the victim is walking in the moonlight - which relatively speaking can be quite bright (not dim) relatively speaking in the absence of artificial light. The thief is in the shadows created by the brightness of the light. No light = no shadows = no difference in illumination. With light - thief strikes out of concealment to unconcealed victim.

Am I being very OSG to consider the reality first rather than the RAW?