Prone=Flatfooted?

[Abciximab]

Jace,

Watching you debate in this thread, trying to get everyone to agree with a preposterous misreading of the rules, I think the answer to your question is, "Yes, you are twisting the rules. A lot."

Look, if it means this much to you, ask the DM for a house rule. But don't pretend that the rules do what they clearly do not do.

Seconded.

 

[Tyrloch]

I don't think I'm twisting the rules, I feel that a lot of you are misreading the passage under Rogue as a definition of Unable to Defend Yourself, when it isn't a full definition. If it was, then it wouldn't use the vagueness of the word "basically", it would have read, "To be unable to defend yourself is only under these conditions..." I don't see the difference in Feinting someone and then getting an SA, or tripping them and getting an SA. You have to make a roll to Feint or Trip, and when you Flank, there's no pre-roll involved -- you automatically get your SA damage. If you have 3 attacks/round, you would get you SA on all 3, as long as you were Flanking for all 3. I think that if what I'm proposing was so against the rules, then there would be a something in the PHB somewhere that would specifically rule against this...

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

My basic query is: can you do Sneak Attack damage to an enemy that is prone? The book states that a prone creature takes a -4 penalty to AC while prone -- since lying down wouldn't affect armor's ability to protect you, then this has to be some sort of penalty to your ability to dodge blows, i.e., a Dex penalty, right?

No, a dex penalty is listed AS BEING a dex penalty. The penalty to AC for being prone is UNNAMED. Strictly speaking all that means in game terms is that it stacks with other unnamed penalties.

AC is not limited to representing the hardness and body coverage that the armor provides, but neither is it solely representative of an ability to avoid being hit. It really is an amalgamation of various factors into one number - which is then modified by other, typically more specific factors such as how special materials used in the armor increase the bonus, dexterity adjustment, magic, etc.

The penalty for being prone does have a lot to do with being less able to dodge blows, but also it's because you are in a physical position where armor simply will not provide the same protection as it would if you and your opponent were both standing. The blows will come from directions that the armor is not designed to protect against. The dodging advantages granted by a dexterity bonus are NOT affected, but you ARE at a physical disadvantage.

What I'm trying to do is build a character who will use a trip attack to get an enemy prone, and then Sneak Attack him with his extra d6's while he's down. Am I headed in the right direction, or am I twisting rules?

I'd suggest that attempting to squeeze out an advantage by reinterpretation of rules is likely to just lead to butting heads with the DM.

If you get an opponent prone you not only then get to attack with him at a -4 to his AC, but if/when he tries to stand up he draws an AOO. Trying to declare that this actually is INTENDED to equate to loss of dex bonus, being flatfooted, or otherwise enabling sneak attack is DEEP into house rules territory. Argue it if you like - but the ONLY person qualified to declare your argument valid is YOUR DM. And I wouldn't expect your DM to agree. Their likely to insist that the defined advantages of having your opponent prone are sufficient. You would do better to scour sourcebooks for feats that DO deny an opponent their dex bonus. I seem to recall that there IS a feat somewhere that can render an opponent flatfooted.

 

[Tyrloch]

Quote: The penalty for being prone does have a lot to do with being less able to dodge blows, but also it's because you are in a physical position where armor simply will not provide the same protection as it would if you and your opponent were both standing. The blows will come from directions that the armor is not designed to protect against. The dodging advantages granted by a dexterity bonus are NOT affected, but you ARE at a physical disadvantage.

Isn't this the textbook definition of being unable to effectively defend yourself? Whether it's you being unable to dodge effectively, or your armor being unable to effectively defend you against blows? Maybe I'm just looking for a realistic definition of being unable to effectively defend oneself, and not a gaming definition. I suppose in a fantasy game you can fight from the ground easier that fighting 2 opponents at once...the same way a longbow does more damage because it's longer than a shortbow, not because it has a higher draw weight...if they're loosing the same arrows, they would do the same damage at the same draw weight -- the only variable would be range.

 

[gonzimodo]

I don't think I'm twisting the rules, I feel that a lot of you are misreading the passage under Rogue as a definition of Unable to Defend Yourself, when it isn't a full definition... I think that if what I'm proposing was so against the rules, then there would be a something in the PHB somewhere that would specifically rule against this...

There is no "Unable to Defend Yourself" condition in the rules. That's just flavor text, similar to the opening description of almost every other class feature and every spell description out there. For example, under Evasion, it states, "At 2nd level and higher, a rogue can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility." It then goes on to state what this means in game terms. Uncanny Dodge states that "...a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so" and goes on to describe exactly what this means in game terms. Read any spell description and you'll see the same thing. What the flavor text says and what the spell actually does in game terms are often very different (and disappointing, in many cases).

The rules for when a rogue can sneak attack are very well explained in the rules everyone else has quoted. When you're prone, you are not denied your Dex bonus and therefore cannot be sneak attacked, unless you are flanked or denied your Dex bonus due to some other condition.

 

[billd91]

Isn't this the textbook definition of being unable to effectively defend yourself? Whether it's you being unable to dodge effectively, or your armor being unable to effectively defend you against blows? Maybe I'm just looking for a realistic definition of being unable to effectively defend oneself, and not a gaming definition. I suppose in a fantasy game you can fight from the ground easier that fighting 2 opponents at once...the same way a longbow does more damage because it's longer than a shortbow, not because it has a higher draw weight...if they're loosing the same arrows, they would do the same damage at the same draw weight -- the only variable would be range.

Define "effectively". Would a 1st level goblin warrior automatically be subject to sneak attacks from a 20th level rogue because there's a snowball's chance in hell that he'll be able to defend himself "effectively"?

There is no textbook definition of being able or inable to effectively defend yourself. The only way you'd be able to determine that is if the defense was actually effective - successful that is.

So without that you have to use the context of the sneak attack rules - in situation that causes loss of Dex bonus or flanked.

 

[Tyrloch]

But the rules don't state that the goblin gets a -4 to AC. Again, you're attempting to find it verbatim in the book that you can't do this -- it's not in there. Without a specific rule, you're trying to make it sounds as if you can't do it, and I'm trying to make it sound as if you can. Without this spefic ruling, you cannot just flippantly state that I'm wrong, and you're right. You must determine for yourself what you think the definition of unable to defend yourseld effectively is. One way to define it is getting knocked flat on your a**, otherwise there wouldn't be a penalty to AC for being prone -- just the Aoo when you try to stand up...

 

[fishhead]

there is no definition of "unable to defend yourself effectively"! thats the point... its just flavor text!

 

[billd91]

But the rules don't state that the goblin gets a -4 to AC. Again, you're attempting to find it verbatim in the book that you can't do this -- it's not in there. Without a specific rule, you're trying to make it sounds as if you can't do it, and I'm trying to make it sound as if you can. Without this spefic ruling, you cannot just flippantly state that I'm wrong, and you're right. You must determine for yourself what you think the definition of unable to defend yourseld effectively is. One way to define it is getting knocked flat on your a**, otherwise there wouldn't be a penalty to AC for being prone -- just the Aoo when you try to stand up...

Gargantuan creatures all get -4 to their ACs. Are they all unable to effectively defend themselves? Shaken and frightened creatures get -2 to theirs. Can they effectively defend themselves?

The ability to effectively defend one's self, with respect to sneak attacking, does not depend on the lack of a penalty to AC. It depends on particular conditions - those being loss of Dex bonus and being flanked (and even those conditions aren't without caveat).

If you're running a D&D game, you're free to house rule this any way you want. But if you're looking for agreement to use to wheedle this ruling out of your DM, it appears you're not finding it and are not going to find it from those of us pointing out where, by the rules, your interpretation is incorrect. You might as well just accept that.

 

[Arkhandus]

I just went back through the PHB and found a couple of interesting things: Under the Rogue entry it states that you get to use you SA damage any time that an opponent cannot effectively defend himself from your attack (I think lying Prone with a -4 to your AC fits this criteria). It also states that the Rogue's SA deals extra damage any time your target would be denied "A" Dex bonus (it doesn't specify that the opponent needs to be denied it's ENTIRE Dex bonus). And under Helpless Defenders, it states that the Rogue may use his SA damage, and they take a -4 penalty to AC. And then under Feint, you get to use your SA when all you're doing is misleading an opponent to he can't effectively dodge your next blow. So my reasoning is this: how can you SA someone in a Flank or after a Feint when the opponent is still on his feet, but you cannot when they are lying flat on the ground?

You think falling prone means you can't effectively defend yourself? My monk got knocked on his arse 2 weeks ago, and he still dodged some attacks and even killed 2 Large Skum while lying prone, because it wasn't worth the bother of standing back up first. Think breakdancing or capoiera....

The reason you can SA when flanking is that the opponent's attention is too divided between someone directly behind them and someone directly in front of them; as soon as the opponent tries to glance or turn to see the opponent behind them, your rogue stabs them immediately while he's not looking; as soon as the opponent turns around to face your flanking ally, your rogue stabs them again while they're not looking. And when the opponent is flat-footed, they're just standing there, unable to move; paralyzed with fear, or surprise, or whatever; you got the jump on them, and make the first strike as they're still trying to figure out what to do.

Merely being inconvenienced by falling down and needing to roll, instead of jump, away from an attack does not make you helpless or unable to defend yourself. You're still mobile and you're still fully aware. If you still have a chance to avoid the attack, and can still act (like taking an attack of opportunity), there's no way you can tell me you're 'unable to effectively defend yourself.' You can still use your sword and shield or whatever, and you can still fight and maim and kill enemies, so how do you figure you're unable to effectively defend yourself? You can still avoid getting hit, and you can still kill your opponents. That's not 'effective'? Please.

Nowhere in the rules does it call prone or other AC penalties a "Dex penalty" or "denying them X amount of Dex bonus". That's becasue they're not. They're situations that limit or hinder your mobility but not fully, and just make it harder to avoid attacks, not impossible. Taking a penalty doesn't "deny" you any Dexterity bonus, either. You still get your full bonus, you just get some penalty added in. This is basic math. 10+4-4 is 10; just because some wolf tripped you doesn't mean you lost 4 points of your fighter's Dexterity bonus to AC. You still have that +4. You just happen to also have a miscellaneous -4 applied to your total AC. You did NOT just suddenly become as inflexible, ungraceful, uncoordinated, and slow of reflex as a drunken old man. You're still a fighter with incredible Dexterity, who's just in a disadvantageous position for the moment.

It's no different from a fighter with 10 Dexterity fighting normally with no penalties; he's got the same AC, he's just not getting any bonuses or penalties to it. What about if that fighter has full plate armor and a tower shield? 22 AC? What's happening when he gets knocked prone for just 18 AC? Or what about if that fighter was suffering from a nasty Dex poison, to where his Dexterity is reduced to 1 currently, making his AC 17 normally, or 13 when prone? Tell me how the barely-mobile-already fighter is being denied 4 points of Dex AC when he was just a standing pile of armor in the first place. He already had as little Dex as possible without being paralyzed. Yet technically, he was not vulnerable to Sneak Attacks while standing around, despite his 1 Dex. Despite being all but paralyzed, he was still able to move a little bit, awkwardly and slowly, and yet was still able to avoid being Sneak Attacked.

You only need to budge an inch for a knife to graze you rather than sticking in your throat, or kidney, or whatever the rogue was aiming for. You can't do that when you're utterly immobile, or completely unaware that someone's snuck up behind you and is about to ram 6 inches of steel through your back, or too busy trying to avoid the other guy who's trying to chop your head off while the rogue gets behind you and stabs while you're ducking under the other guy's sword. Or when the rogue bluffs and makes you look away for a moment, making you think that his roguish buddy has just snuck behind you and is about to stab you in the back, with the rogue himself actually stabbing you in the kidney while your attention is diverted away from his knife.