Prone=Flatfooted?

[green slime]

Yes, apparently by Tyrloch's interpretation, the most efficient use of enlarge person is to cast it upon your opponent, so they suddenly become susceptible to sneak attacks....

 

[Caliban]

My basic query is: can you do Sneak Attack damage to an enemy that is prone?

No.

Being prone does not make you flat-footed or cause you to lose your Dex bonus to AC.

 

[Caliban]

Isn't this the textbook definition of being unable to effectively defend yourself?

Nope. The 3e defintion is "being denied your dex bonus to AC".

Doesn't matter how many AC penalties you have, if you still have your Dex bonus to AC, then you still able to move enough to avoid a sneak attack (unless you are flanked by the rogue).

 

[irdeggman]

Tyrloch - here is a question for you.

Does a prone character get to apply a dodge bonus to his AC?

Why or why not?


Here is another one - if the prone character normally only has a +2 Dex bonus to his AC does he still take the -4 penalty for being prone?

Why or why not?

And yet another one - if he normally has a +5 Dex bonus to his AC when he is prone what is his Dex bonus to AC?

Elaborate the justification to your answer.

What if the prone character has Evasion as a class ability. Is he denied his Dex bonus to AC? Does he still take the -4 penalty to AC?

Again elaborate on your answer.


Depending on how you answer these questions should point you towards whether or not the prone character is denied a Dex bonus to AC.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I always wanted to sing in a chorus! As everyone, literaly everyone, else has said, prone does not make a foe susceptible to SA. If you'd like ideas on other ways to get SA, we could help you, because there are quite a lot of means. The closest to what you're thinking of is probably if a creature is being grappled or pinned (or pinning someone else, for that matter), he loses his dex to AC against all attackers outside the grapple. You'd need an ally to do the grappling (or a spell effect, like Evard's tentacles), though. If you want to do it and be entirely self-reliant, C.Adventurer has a feat called Savage Grapple. Lets you SA foes you grapple...IF you are in wildshape form at the time. Which means 5+ Druid levels of multiclassing. And no using manufactured weapons in conjunction with the feat.

Yes, apparently by Tyrloch's interpretation, the most efficient use of enlarge person is to cast it upon your opponent, so they suddenly become susceptible to sneak attacks....

I thought the most effeicient use of enlarge person was to use it as a save or die, as the spell causes you to gain far more mass than a human's skeletal structure could sustain.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Also, noticed this feat from dragon mag #340 on crystalkeep's feat index, page 45 of this pdf: http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/DnD3.5Index-Feats.pdf

Sneak Attack of Opportunity
Requires: Combat Reflexes, Sneak Attack class ability with at least +3d6
Benefit: On your first Attack of Opportunity of the round, add your Sneak Attack damage to the attack’s damage.

Now, if you have Improved Trip, note the bonus attack gained after tripping someone is NOT an AoO. However, you could benefit from this feat after tripping someone as they try to stand up and thus provoke... Later on in your Rogue's career, the feat would also synergize nicely with the Opportunist Rogue special ability.

 

[Deset Gled]

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.

I'm going to post this again, because it bears repeating

If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.

How does a rogue catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself? You seem to think this is an ambiguous question that can only be answered by a DM. But the fact of the matter is that the very next line of text answers the question completely, and with practically no room for any doubt. And the answer is "any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC..., or when the rogue flanks her target". The contra-positive of this statement is "Any time a rogue's target is not denied a Dex bonus to AC or flanked by the rogue, the rogue's attack does not deal extra damage."

This is about as black-and-white of a rules question as you are going to find anywhere in D+D. Sorry, man.

 

[Tyrloch]

I suppose that we have a different view of injecting a bit of realism into a fantasy game. Following the flow of this debate, I would assume that this crowd thinks it's completely feasible that a Monk's unarmed attacks would not only affect opponents in full plate, but also creatures that may only be harmed by magical weapons. But again, maybe I brought this upon myself by attempting to add any realism at all -- maybe the game & the rules as they stand should be left to people who enjoy flying around on magic carpets, or boots with wings on them, firing lightning or fire out of every orifice while their singing sword fights his adversaries all by itself. BTW, we don't even use the Monk character because of the unrealistic flavor of it in a medieval setting...(kiaaaaaa!!)

 

[Abciximab]

I suppose that we have a different view of injecting a bit of realism into a fantasy game. Following the flow of this debate, I would assume that this crowd thinks it's completely feasible that a Monk's unarmed attacks would not only affect opponents in full plate, but also creatures that may only be harmed by magical weapons. But again, maybe I brought this upon myself by attempting to add any realism at all -- maybe the game & the rules as they stand should be left to people who enjoy flying around on magic carpets, or boots with wings on them, firing lightning or fire out of every orifice while their singing sword fights his adversaries all by itself. BTW, we don't even use the Monk character because of the unrealistic flavor of it in a medieval setting...(kiaaaaaa!!)

I think you've missed most everyone's point completely. If you feel you need this level of "realism" in your game, talk to your DM about a house rule, but to insist it's within the ruleset is erroneous.

 

[Tyrloch]

Sorry for the semi-sarcastic reply, but I sort of expected civil answers, even if they disagreed with me. Some of those here think that they will win the argument just by getting smug. To me, it seems like a case of "telephone tough-guy" syndrome -- these same guys wouldn't speak that way to someone face-to-face.

I still feel that being prone, at least in anything heavier than leather armor, should deny you your dex & dodge bonus. Anyone here who disagrees should try putting on a chain shirt, which is light armor, and then have your buddy/brother/whatever attempt to kick you repeatedly while you lie on your back trying your best to not get hit. Only then will some here realize what the phrase "unable to effectively defend yourself" means. And have your buddy kick as hard as he can: it'll give the added incentive to try your best to retain your dex bonus...a painful lesson, but those are usually the ones that stay with you...cheers!