green slime
First Post
Right.... Except you the one trying to prove a point, not us. I suggest you take that test, and then we'll paralyze you, and kick you, and see if you can feel the difference....
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Prone=Flatfooted?
- Thread starter Tyrloch
- Start date
Right.... Except you the one trying to prove a point, not us. I suggest you take that test, and then we'll paralyze you, and kick you, and see if you can feel the difference....
blargney the second
blargney the minute's son
Tyrloch, in D&D 3.5 a rogue can't sneak attack someone when they're prone.
In D&D 4e a rogue can sneak attack someone when they're prone.
That's the strict interpretation of the rules in those two editions. Anything else is a house rule.
-blarg
In D&D 4e a rogue can sneak attack someone when they're prone.
That's the strict interpretation of the rules in those two editions. Anything else is a house rule.
-blarg
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
You know, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say let him have it. Let him sneak attack prone targets on the basis that it's realistic to not be able to effectively defend oneself while prone.
Then hit his character with a giant's club and say, "You're dead." Realistically, no one could survive impact with a 8' long log swung by a 12'+ tall, massively strong critter, right?
Or just build a series of trip-monkey monsters with rogue levels.
Honestly, I think this problem may be self-correcting.
Then hit his character with a giant's club and say, "You're dead." Realistically, no one could survive impact with a 8' long log swung by a 12'+ tall, massively strong critter, right?
Or just build a series of trip-monkey monsters with rogue levels.
Honestly, I think this problem may be self-correcting.
If I were to make a houserule on this subject, I'd say the immediate attack after the trip is a sneak, as the victim is surprised. Any subsequent attacks on a prone target don't get this bonus as the victim already knows they are prone and can defend themselves accordingly.
Though, generally, I don't understand why you don't just feint and SA that way...
Edit: Also, how can you be 'flat-footed' if your feet aren't even on the ground!?
Though, generally, I don't understand why you don't just feint and SA that way...
Edit: Also, how can you be 'flat-footed' if your feet aren't even on the ground!?
aboyd
Explorer
Huh? Nobody has been smug; they're winning the argument by quoting rules. If you think they're being smug, by all means, flag the posts to a moderator. Hell, if you think mine is smug, flag it too. I think everyone has been incredibly patient and civil considering how badly you want to misinterpret the rules.
Hmm. Perhaps you think people saying "you are misinterpreting the rules" is uncivil. That would seem to me to be like saying, "If you tell me the sky is blue, that's smug." But if the moderators agree with you, I'm willing to play by their rules (ha ha, get it?!?!). So flag these bad posts you've encountered.
This makes no sense. First of all, let me just say that I have worn armor and have been prone, and my ability to ward off blows, crawl away, stand up and run, and so on, is precisely the definition of "HAS dexterity bonus." It might also be the definition of "circumstance penalty" but that's completely different and does not mean I can't react. Because I can move & react, no single attacker is going to get a chance to work a weapon into an abnormally advantageous position. I'll fight it.
Now, of course, if multiple people gang up on me, the story is different. But that's because now we're talking about flanking bonuses and such. It's much harder for me to stop villain1 from poking me right in the heart when villain2 is slashing at my jugular.
Having said all that, there is a "second of all." And that is, second of all, let's say your point is right. Let's say that if we were to don chain shirts and lie down, we real humans would suddenly be unable to defend ourselves. OK? I'm going along with you so far, right? Here's the thing: even if that is how it worked in reality, it isn't how the rules are written. This isn't even ambiguous. The rules hinge on being denied a Dex bonus, and the rules provide specific states that deny a Dex bonus. That's it.
So if you're arguing that your way is more realistic, that's fine, but that still doesn't make the rules go in your favor. It just means the rules don't work the way you think they should, so you need a house rule.
aboyd
Explorer
Hmm. Sorry for posting 2 replies in a row, but after re-reading my response, I think I stumbled onto why Tyrloch is thinking the way he is thinking.
Tyrloch, do you think that if a situation is difficult that it means that the Dexterity bonus is gone? Do you think that if a situation is difficult, that the rogue should get a sneak attack? Because that's not at all what this stuff means, and it might explain your disconnect from the rules text.
The rules set a higher bar than "things are tough." The rules expect that a rogue can only sneak attack when the opponent is unable to move or evade. If you are "reacting but in a bad circumstance," you're still reacting. According to the rules, able to react = no sneak attack.
For example, if you are flat-footed, you are in a state where you don't yet know the rogue is there or at least you haven't yet processed what you've seen or heard. So you are completely vulnerable in the sense that you have no presence of mind to do anything about the attack. OK? The rogue rushes up behind you in complete silence, and you are whistling a tune as you walk obliviously. You do not so much as wave your hand in his way. You are unable to use any form of movement or evasion to prevent what he's doing, because you don't know that you need to do that.
That's a loss of the Dex bonus -- no presence of mind to move or evade, or else no ability to move or evade.
If you are merely on the floor, you're still able to move. You're still aware. You can swat, kick, roll, squirm, throw dirt, swing a sword and hope to parry, etc. You are at a disadvantage, yes. But that doesn't mean you're not reacting.
Same thing with flanking. The reason a rogue can sneak attack on a flank isn't because "we've put the enemy in a tough spot." If that were the criteria, then any tough situation -- even plain old normal combat -- would be a candidate for sneak attack. Instead, it's because the defender has to split his attention, so you are again getting him to look away or otherwise not know to move or defend against your incoming strike. Because he doesn't see what you're doing for even a split-second, he doesn't know to defend against you. And boom, the rogue sneak attacks.
Let me put it another way. I think you might think "-4 to AC from prone" and "guy with 18 Dex loses his bonus" are the same. I mean, the math makes them the same, right? A guy with an 18 Dex has a +4 to AC normally. When he loses that, it's the equivalent of -4 to AC, just like being prone. However, the penalties do different things even if the math comes out the same.
A guy with -4 to AC from being prone is still able to squirm and flip around and kick and so on, but he's on his butt. He's fighting, but he isn't in the best of circumstances. Because he's fighting, even poorly, he's able to fend off or foil strikes that require amazing precision (sneak attacks).
A guy that has lost his Dex bonus just can't react. He isn't kicking. He isn't blocking. He isn't flipping around, isn't ducking, isn't anything. And because of it, the rogue can find that unguarded chink in the armor and slip a blade through and jiggle it all around until some internal organs are pureed.
BOTH guys might have an AC of 14. But their reasons for their AC of 14 are completely different. The guy kicking & slashing at everyone's feet is in a bad position but is dangerous. The guy walking along blissfully unaware might have armor on, but he is not causing harm or endangering anyone. They might be equally hard to get at (both with an AC of 14) but for very different reasons.
The reasons matter when it comes to a rogue's sneak attack ability. It is only those who are unaware or unable to react that can be sneak attacked. A guy with a "harsh penalty" just isn't enough, according to the rules.
You really want to tweak your brain, consider this. A guy with a 10 Dexterity gets entangled. This imposes a -4 penalty to Dexterity, so it causes his dexterity to be 6. Everything he does Dexterity-wise is now at -2. He tries to swing a sword, he's at -2 to hit. Bad situation, right?
Now consider a guy who has a Dexterity of 18 and loses his Dexterity bonus, either from being stunned or blinded or cowering or any other state that denies a Dex bonus on page 300 of the DMG. Well, if he loses his Dex bonus of +4, he's still better off than the entangled guy with the 6 Dexterity, right? Nope. The guy who has the 18 Dexterity is worse off, because being denied his Dex bonus implies that he can't evade at all.
If your Dexterity is 6 from a penalty, you still have hope that you can get out alive. You might run and trip, but at least you're trying.
If your Dexterity is 18 but you've been denied your bonus, you're in deep crap. Except for being flat-footed (which thankfully is transient), most states that deny a Dex bonus mean long-term BAD news. You probably can't flee. You're likely incapacitated. And you're definitely a prime candidate to get sneak attacked.
Tyrloch, do you think that if a situation is difficult that it means that the Dexterity bonus is gone? Do you think that if a situation is difficult, that the rogue should get a sneak attack? Because that's not at all what this stuff means, and it might explain your disconnect from the rules text.
The rules set a higher bar than "things are tough." The rules expect that a rogue can only sneak attack when the opponent is unable to move or evade. If you are "reacting but in a bad circumstance," you're still reacting. According to the rules, able to react = no sneak attack.
For example, if you are flat-footed, you are in a state where you don't yet know the rogue is there or at least you haven't yet processed what you've seen or heard. So you are completely vulnerable in the sense that you have no presence of mind to do anything about the attack. OK? The rogue rushes up behind you in complete silence, and you are whistling a tune as you walk obliviously. You do not so much as wave your hand in his way. You are unable to use any form of movement or evasion to prevent what he's doing, because you don't know that you need to do that.
That's a loss of the Dex bonus -- no presence of mind to move or evade, or else no ability to move or evade.
If you are merely on the floor, you're still able to move. You're still aware. You can swat, kick, roll, squirm, throw dirt, swing a sword and hope to parry, etc. You are at a disadvantage, yes. But that doesn't mean you're not reacting.
Same thing with flanking. The reason a rogue can sneak attack on a flank isn't because "we've put the enemy in a tough spot." If that were the criteria, then any tough situation -- even plain old normal combat -- would be a candidate for sneak attack. Instead, it's because the defender has to split his attention, so you are again getting him to look away or otherwise not know to move or defend against your incoming strike. Because he doesn't see what you're doing for even a split-second, he doesn't know to defend against you. And boom, the rogue sneak attacks.
Let me put it another way. I think you might think "-4 to AC from prone" and "guy with 18 Dex loses his bonus" are the same. I mean, the math makes them the same, right? A guy with an 18 Dex has a +4 to AC normally. When he loses that, it's the equivalent of -4 to AC, just like being prone. However, the penalties do different things even if the math comes out the same.
A guy with -4 to AC from being prone is still able to squirm and flip around and kick and so on, but he's on his butt. He's fighting, but he isn't in the best of circumstances. Because he's fighting, even poorly, he's able to fend off or foil strikes that require amazing precision (sneak attacks).
A guy that has lost his Dex bonus just can't react. He isn't kicking. He isn't blocking. He isn't flipping around, isn't ducking, isn't anything. And because of it, the rogue can find that unguarded chink in the armor and slip a blade through and jiggle it all around until some internal organs are pureed.
BOTH guys might have an AC of 14. But their reasons for their AC of 14 are completely different. The guy kicking & slashing at everyone's feet is in a bad position but is dangerous. The guy walking along blissfully unaware might have armor on, but he is not causing harm or endangering anyone. They might be equally hard to get at (both with an AC of 14) but for very different reasons.
The reasons matter when it comes to a rogue's sneak attack ability. It is only those who are unaware or unable to react that can be sneak attacked. A guy with a "harsh penalty" just isn't enough, according to the rules.
You really want to tweak your brain, consider this. A guy with a 10 Dexterity gets entangled. This imposes a -4 penalty to Dexterity, so it causes his dexterity to be 6. Everything he does Dexterity-wise is now at -2. He tries to swing a sword, he's at -2 to hit. Bad situation, right?
Now consider a guy who has a Dexterity of 18 and loses his Dexterity bonus, either from being stunned or blinded or cowering or any other state that denies a Dex bonus on page 300 of the DMG. Well, if he loses his Dex bonus of +4, he's still better off than the entangled guy with the 6 Dexterity, right? Nope. The guy who has the 18 Dexterity is worse off, because being denied his Dex bonus implies that he can't evade at all.
If your Dexterity is 6 from a penalty, you still have hope that you can get out alive. You might run and trip, but at least you're trying.
If your Dexterity is 18 but you've been denied your bonus, you're in deep crap. Except for being flat-footed (which thankfully is transient), most states that deny a Dex bonus mean long-term BAD news. You probably can't flee. You're likely incapacitated. And you're definitely a prime candidate to get sneak attacked.
Last edited:
Drowbane
First Post
Nearly nine years of 3e and I've never even heard about this coming up. Nice attempt at rules lawyering. But this arguement wouldn't fly at my table.
3e's mechanics aren't perfect, but if prone made you lose SA-able, it would be spelled out somewhere. Quite simply, it doesn't, rather you get a penalty to your AC (or a bonus vs Ranged). Not even remotely the same-thing. Why belabor this further? There are plenty of ways to acheive an easy "flat-footed" which does allow you to SA away.
Flick of the Wrist (complete warrior)
Mercurial Strike (Dragon Compendium vol. 1)
Sapphire Nightmare Blade (Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords)
... and at least two Skill-Tricks (or whatever they're called) from Complete Scoundrel.
edit: nice troll
Last edited:
Ahh the turtle on his back syndrome.
Here is another way to look at pretty much the exact point you are making.
Can a rogue sneak attack a fighter wearing full plate if the fighter as an 18 Dex?
18 Dex gives you a +4 Dex mod
Full plate restricts you to a +1 Dex bonus to AC.
So by the interpretation you are using a rogue can almost always sneak attack a character wearing full plate since part of his Dex Bonus to AC is "denied".
I probably should've mentioned up front that we only use the 3 core books, so feats from all those other books, some of which are really ridiculous, are out.
I think that some here are confusing unable to effectively defend oneself with being helpless, whether it's accidentally or on purpose to prove a point. Paralyzed, uncounscious or otherwise immobile is being helpless, unable to effectively defend oneself means that you're trying like hell, but some condition (like being on your back) is not permitting you to do it to the best of your ability -- hence the AC penalty. Someone mentioned how could you be flat-footed (i.e., no dex bonus) when you're not even on your feet? Well, you're flat on your back. When climbing a rope, you're no on your feet either, but you still lose you dex bonus to AC, and your not immobile -- you could still try to twist , swing, etx., to avoid being hit...
I think that some here are confusing unable to effectively defend oneself with being helpless, whether it's accidentally or on purpose to prove a point. Paralyzed, uncounscious or otherwise immobile is being helpless, unable to effectively defend oneself means that you're trying like hell, but some condition (like being on your back) is not permitting you to do it to the best of your ability -- hence the AC penalty. Someone mentioned how could you be flat-footed (i.e., no dex bonus) when you're not even on your feet? Well, you're flat on your back. When climbing a rope, you're no on your feet either, but you still lose you dex bonus to AC, and your not immobile -- you could still try to twist , swing, etx., to avoid being hit...
the Jester
Legend
You obviously know the answer you want, and aren't listening to other answers. It sounds to me like you want people to back up your point of view, rather than give you an honest answer.
By the RAW, you can sneak attack under certain specific circumstances. Prone is not one of them.
If the answer you want is grounded in anything but RAW, you can make up whatever answer you want, but by the RAW, there you go.
By the RAW, you can sneak attack under certain specific circumstances. Prone is not one of them.
If the answer you want is grounded in anything but RAW, you can make up whatever answer you want, but by the RAW, there you go.
Similar Threads
