Prone=Flatfooted?

[Tyrloch]

Trip is a combat tactic, like Feint, that allows you to get your opponent Prone. I realize that Prone isn't Helpless, a Helpless delender not only gets a +4 to hit against him, but he also gets an automatic Critical Hit.

I think the phrasing "anytime the defender is unable to effectively defend himself" is the key here. I would think that anything that gives you a penalty to your AC is not allowing you to fully defend yourself. If you Feint someone in combat, you deny them their Dex bonus to AC, whether they have a dex bonus or not. So their AC may or may not change. When you Flank someone, you get a +2 against them, which is basically the same thing as him gettin a -2 to AC because he cannot "effectively defend himself" from your attack. When someone is Prone, they get a -4 to AC, so this definitely affects the actual AC, which to me translates to "unable to effectively defend himself."

My point is that a specific penalty to AC is a more favorable circumstance for the attacker than a denial of a Dex bonus because a minus to AC is a minus to any defender's AC, while a denial of Dex bonus will only affect the AC of defenders that actually have a dex bonus to AC...

 

[green slime]

Trip is a combat tactic, like Feint, that allows you to get your opponent Prone. I realize that Prone isn't Helpless, a Helpless delender not only gets a +4 to hit against him, but he also gets an automatic Critical Hit.

I think the phrasing "anytime the defender is unable to effectively defend himself" is the key here. I would think that anything that gives you a penalty to your AC is not allowing you to fully defend yourself. If you Feint someone in combat, you deny them their Dex bonus to AC, whether they have a dex bonus or not. So their AC may or may not change. When you Flank someone, you get a +2 against them, which is basically the same thing as him gettin a -2 to AC because he cannot "effectively defend himself" from your attack. When someone is Prone, they get a -4 to AC, so this definitely affects the actual AC, which to me translates to "unable to effectively defend himself."

My point is that a specific penalty to AC is a more favorable circumstance for the attacker than a denial of a Dex bonus because a minus to AC is a minus to any defender's AC, while a denial of Dex bonus will only affect the AC of defenders that actually have a dex bonus to AC...

No. Just no.

Look, even a helpless defender doesn't "automatically suffer a critical":

Helpless (from the SRD)
>snip<

As a full-round action, an enemy can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless foe. An enemy can also use a bow or crossbow, provided he is adjacent to the target. The attacker automatically hits and scores a critical hit. (A rogue also gets her sneak attack damage bonus against a helpless foe when delivering a coup de grace.) If the defender survives, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die.

Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity.

Creatures that are immune to critical hits do not take critical damage, nor do they need to make Fortitude saves to avoid being killed by a coup de grace.

Your argument has no basis in the rules.

If you suffer from A Dex poison, would you have you character auto-sneaked?

 

[irdeggman]

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? I think that this condition would fit the "cannot effectively defend himself" scenario...before anyone makes a snap judgement on this, remember that nowhere in the PHB does it actually state that you CANNOT Sneak Attack a prone opponent -- I believe that it's up to interpretation, and I make a compelling argument...

~Jace

IMO you are reading this wrong.

prone: Lying on the ground. An attacker who is prone has a –4
penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot used a ranged weapon
(except for a crossbow). A defender who is prone gains a +4 bonus to
Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a –4 penalty to AC
against melee attacks.

For one the penalty is not a Dex mod penalty it is a penalty to AC (which is also a bonus to AC against ranged attacks).

Also the text you are quoting says

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 then you point out that it doesn't say they need to be denied their entire bonus - but what it says is denied "a bonus" - which means any possible bonus, so even if this was "reduced" by a penalty {which being prone is not a Dex penalty} they would still have a potential bonus left. My exampel earlier was with a PC with a +5 Dex bonus to AC being prone still haveing some left - but it is actually a +5 (from Dex) and -4 (from being prone) = net +1 to AC.

The other examples (except for flanking which is a specific condtion) also deny the opponent a Dex bonus (as in all of it) to AC or makes them flat-footed which specifically denies their Dex Bonus to AC.

 

[Tyrloch]

Okay, as far as I'm aware there are basically 4 types of bonuses to AC: Dex, Armor, Natural Armor & Dodge bonuses. If a Prone defender suffers a -4 penalty to AC, what type of penalty is he receiving? It can't be an Armor or Natural Armor penalty, unless his protection was made of glass and shattered when he hit the ground, and I can't see being knocked Prone making your Natural Armor weaker. So that leaves Dex bonus or Dodge bonus -- both of which would allow you to SA. Does everyone here disagree that when you are Prone, you are unable to defend yourself as well as when upright and in a combat stance? If you could defend yourself as well Prone as you can standing upright, then there would be no penalty to AC.

 

[Abciximab]

A penalty (or a bonus for that matter) doesn't have to be named and an unnamed bonus/penalty can't be made (without a house rule) into something else. Being prone doesn't keep you from moving or dodging a blow.

I think the phrasing "anytime the defender is unable to effectively defend himself" is the key here.

The entry then goes on to explain what "unable to effectively defend himself" means and states the conditions under which you can sneak attack.

 

[Tyrloch]

Actually, it doesn't. That isn't the definition of "unable to effectively defend himself", those are just examples. I think you're looking for it to be spelled out in the rules -- it isn't. Nor is it specifically forbidden -- it is something that is up to interpretation. What you have to do is put yourself in the same situation -- standing upright against an attacking foe, and then lying at his feet. Do you think you would have the same chance of fending off blows in both instances? If you think so, then you either don't have a vivid imagination, or you've never been in any type of altercation before.

I would like to hear what type of AC penalty the -4 when Prone is classified as: Armor, Dex, Dodge, or does someone have another idea? There has to be a reason why there's a -4 to AC while Prone. Why is that?

 

[billd91]

Okay, as far as I'm aware there are basically 4 types of bonuses to AC: Dex, Armor, Natural Armor & Dodge bonuses. If a Prone defender suffers a -4 penalty to AC, what type of penalty is he receiving? It can't be an Armor or Natural Armor penalty, unless his protection was made of glass and shattered when he hit the ground, and I can't see being knocked Prone making your Natural Armor weaker. So that leaves Dex bonus or Dodge bonus -- both of which would allow you to SA. Does everyone here disagree that when you are Prone, you are unable to defend yourself as well as when upright and in a combat stance? If you could defend yourself as well Prone as you can standing upright, then there would be no penalty to AC.

Actually, you're missing quite a few other bonuses including size, deflection, shield, and any number of other, often magic-based, ones.

A bonus is named primarily to determine how they stack together, bonuses of the same name generally not being additive (dodge being one of few exceptions). Penalties are typically not named because they can freely add up.

But if some DM felt the desperate need to apply a name to the prone penalty or bonus (depending on whether subjected to melee or ranged attack) the most appropriate name would be circumstance bonus since its the character's current circumstances that determine the bonuses. I'm not advocating naming the bonus/penalty at all, but I'm pointing out that there are better fitting alternatives to assuming that there's a Dex or dodge bonus penalty.

 

[Tyrloch]

I was aware of those other AC bonuses, but Size, Magical, etc, don't apply here -- that's why I stated 'basically 4 types.' And the reason for a +4 against ranged attacks while prone is because you're a smaller target -- it's akin to trying to hit a garbage can at 30' or a soda can at 30': lying don't you're a smaller targer, it doesn't enable you to dodge blows more effectively. I think it was an oversight in the book not stating what type of AC penalty it is while Prone. And still no one has answered the question: can you effectively dodge blows while lying on your back? If so, then why the AC penalty for being Prone?

 

[billd91]

Actually, it doesn't. That isn't the definition of "unable to effectively defend himself", those are just examples. I think you're looking for it to be spelled out in the rules -- it isn't. Nor is it specifically forbidden -- it is something that is up to interpretation. What you have to do is put yourself in the same situation -- standing upright against an attacking foe, and then lying at his feet. Do you think you would have the same chance of fending off blows in both instances? If you think so, then you either don't have a vivid imagination, or you've never been in any type of altercation before.

I believe that it is less up to interpretation than you think. Are you using the PH or the SRD as your primary source of the rules? The SRD is a bit more terse in its description of sneak attack but the PH is more clear by including the qualifier "Basically" when it launches into the description of doing extra damage when a target is denied its Dex bonus. That's laying out the rule right there by defining what it means by being unable to defend oneself. That single qualifier should make it clearer that you're not dealing just with examples but the general definition of a rogue attacking someone unable to effectively defend themselves.

And, when in melee, it's clear that the prone character has less chance to fend of blows by the game rules. Their AC is lower by 4. But the question isn't about having the same chance to defend yourself, it's about having a certain type of ability to defend yourself.

 

[aboyd]

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?

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.