Dark Alleys Are Still Safe?

[BryonD]

Shouldn't concealment prevent sneak attack damage though?
It certainly makes sense to me.

The rogues just need a good plan to optimize the fact that they have all that concealment for hiding in. Who says the SA damage is imperative to the dark alley ambush?

Against a low level character two or three rogues suddenly attacking from the shadows will not need extra damage dice to get the job done. Against higher level characters, something a lot more cool than just hiding in a dark alley is going to be required either way. I just don't see the problem.

And even with that, smart rogues will have plans in place.
Have one rogue throw out an everburning torch during the surprise round
If this is a moderate+ level encounter, potions of darkvision are cheap.

But it makes total sense to me that if your target has concealment, you can not sneak attack them in the D&D/PF sense of the term.
Dark alleys are not scary because of the sneak attack dice, they are scary because all the hidden bad guys.
Come to think of it, with the PF skill system the alley could easily be full of carefully hidden fighters and sorcerers.

And don't short change dwarf and half-orc rogues.

 

[Anselyn]

That's not a nitpick - it's a helpful clarification.

It also convinces me that illumination levels of bright/normal/dim cannot be absolute. They are relative. Why?

The shade of a summer's day will probalby be the same as the bright light of a winter's morning. Or if you want - the shade on a summer's day in Florida is brighter than an averge bright day in a rainy British summer (as we've just had). You could meaure this with a photometer - and I'd bet I'm right.

So - game illumination must take into account some relative aspect of this - compared to the adjustment of the viewer's eyes and the local understanding of "normal". So - bright/normal/dim must appply in that moonlit alley.

 

[pawsplay]

Looking out of my window now - I can see a person sitting on a bench in sunlight and a person near them in the shade. It appears that shadows do not always provide concealment. I imagine you could perform this empirical test as a thought experiment using your knowledge of the world and arrive at the same conclusion.

Is it your wish to construct rules that defy normal experience - and then use the rule because it's the rule? I don't understand that desire. As science is yet to model every aspect of the real world, I find it an unreasonable expectation to require a game (even at 576 pages!) to model every aspect of many shared worlds.

No, I would not use a rule because it is the rule. That is exactly the opposite of my viewpoint. I would like a rule that follows from logic. The question is only, "What is the rule?" A well-designed RPG describes many general cases, from which special cases can be judged. Sometimes the general rule does not agree very well with reality. In other cases, it works fine but certain special cases raise eyebrows.

I cannot empirically test whether someone gets sneak attack dice in a dark alley. I have no way of knowing who is a rogue in real life, nor do I have a way of measuring how much damage they do or what level the victim is. I also lack convenient murder victims to perform tests on.

Now, I can hazard a guess that 20% is too high a miss chance from melee range if there is any light at all. And I can imagine that with patience, a rogue could find the neck or solar plexus well enough to do their job. So I have performed basically the same reality check you have. The next step, though, is to define this in game terms. You could define it only for this one situation, but that is less useful. Not only does it mean you have to go through the whole thought process another similar situation occurs but it means your players do not know where you stand. For instance, if a player wants his PC to plot an ambush, he might want to know how and under what circumstances you will agree his character can see well enough to ambush.

I think you need to reasd the Getting Started section again:

Emphasis in quotation mine.

I think that your defintion of hand-waving is my understading of GM common sense. It will all come down to play styles and preferences in the end I suppose.​

Is this a game system you will religiously use within which you see if you can do some fantasy rolplaying. Or do you want to do some fantasy ropleplaying adjudicated with these game rules. I tend to the second and I think that's the spirit of " The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore".​

​

​

​

That's a presumputous recommendation, and I am going to tell you why. First of all, that recommendation says the game can be modified as needed. It does not say that hand-waving is more sophisticated than extending the rules. If a simple and useful general case can be be generated, that is what I would prefer. Your advice is misaimed in that adjudicating in order to facillitate roleplaying is exactly my goal. I am not saying, "You cannot sneak attack in dim lighting." I thought it was clear from the OP that I was interested in talking about how the rules do not allow it, and the conversation has turned to some approaches and fixes.

Second of all, you are speaking to me as if I were a novice, which I am not. I have been roleplaying for 25 years. I am a former columnist at RPG.net and I have RPG writing credits. To imply that I simply need to wake up and realize that the rules do not cover all situations is pretty condescending. Obviously, you do not know my personal background, but you do not know a lot of people's backgrounds and you are making a big assumption by thinking others need to "see the light."

Third, insisting that the presence of a GM makes the rules sufficient and complete is the Oberoni Fallacy. Obviously, you cannot deal with an issue outside the rules if there is not an issue the rules do not address well. It is perverse to criticize someone for looking for ways to fix the problem.

 

[Minicol]

Now, I can hazard a guess that 20% is too high a miss chance from melee range if there is any light at all. And I can imagine that with patience, a rogue could find the neck or solar plexus well enough to do their job.

Indeed ! And most importantly : how is having the rules put rogues at a disadvantage in their "favoured terrain" fun ?

Now, if you reread the rules carefully, as I have after reading this thread ... this only puts human rogues at a disadvantage in that they suffer from concealment when attacking a cocnealed target. say, a rich merchant with a lantern is NOT a concealed target, for once ...

And then if you're an Elf or anything with low-light/darkvision ... what was this concealment thingie, again ?

And if you have Scent ...

and ...

So yeah, this rule is as annoying as it was before, but it's not that bad all in all.

(And I'll still houserule that Sneak attack is canceled from 50% up only in my games)

 

[Starbuck_II]

Indeed ! And most importantly : how is having the rules put rogues at a disadvantage in their "favoured terrain" fun ?

(And I'll still houserule that Sneak attack is canceled from 50% up only in my games)

Wait, so blur no longer offers protection from Rogues in your game?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Shouldn't concealment prevent sneak attack damage though?
It certainly makes sense to me.

Yes, it should. 20% of the time.

I never liked that rule too much. The concealment is already mechanically lessening the chances of delivering a sneak attack, there's no need to also have it negate it entirely. Full concealment of 50%, sure, since you can't even see the guy (though I'd think on a lucky crit you'd hit a vital area and deliver SA, while as that's not the rule in PF and requires a feat in 3.5 /side rant).

As far as having darkvision is concerned, that still leaves wonky spots in the rules. if an enemy casts Darkness on a room that was pitch black and you could see just fine it, it suddenly has illumination and provides a miss chance, negating your sneak attack. Even though you have darkvision and were doing just fine without this light source, now because it's magical darkness you're up the creek, which is stupid.

Also, Obscuring Mist is a level 1 spell with no real benefit from high CL (ie, cheap and effective as a scroll) that also provides instant rogue-be-gone.

The concealment rule needs major tweaking.

 

[billd91]

As far as having darkvision is concerned, that still leaves wonky spots in the rules. if an enemy casts Darkness on a room that was pitch black and you could see just fine it, it suddenly has illumination and provides a miss chance, negating your sneak attack. Even though you have darkvision and were doing just fine without this light source, now because it's magical darkness you're up the creek, which is stupid.

You might want to look into the PF changes to darkness. That's been fixed. Darkness no longer causes completely dark areas to be illuminated.

That said, I never had a problem with concealment messing up sneak attack. If the light really is dim enough that it could turn a hit into a miss, that's very dim light and it'll hamper everyone who doesn't have better vision, even the rogue. This is why rogues should be striking out from darkness into better illumination rather than bumbling around in the dark like everyone else who can't see very well.

 

[BryonD]

Yes, it should. 20% of the time

...

The concealment rule needs major tweaking.

I disagree. If your target has enough concealment that you have a 20% chance of you missing them altogether, the ability to intentionally strike specific points is out of the question.

To me it is obvious.

 

[Xendria]

I agree with the ruling as well.

My only issue is I can't find it in the book >.< Does anyone have a page reference in the PF Core Rulebook?

 

[Minicol]

Wait, so blur no longer offers protection from Rogues in your game?

Basically, yes !

First, I think that 20 % miss chance is already quite a lot of a benefit for a 2nd level spell.

Then, seeing the spell description, "outline blurred, shifting and wavering" I don't see how this would cause you to miss, say a sword blow to the neck, or a kick in the groin.

Either it hits and hits fully, or it does not.

On the other hand, when you reach 50% concealment, which is almost as good as blind ... quite another story.