Cover and Sneak Attack

[Kender42]

This one happened tonight.

We're inside Leomund's Tiny Hut. 100% concealment from the outside.

Ettin comes down the trail. He's within 30ft and our rogue fires a bow at him.

Does he get sneak attack damage because the Ettin can't see him?

We ruled yes, since the ettin has no idea where the attack came from.

 

[baradtgnome]

This one happened tonight.

We're inside Leomund's Tiny Hut. 100% concealment from the outside.
Ettin comes down the trail. He's within 30ft and our rogue fires a bow at him.
Does he get sneak attack damage because the Ettin can't see him?
We ruled yes, since the ettin has no idea where the attack came from.

I'd agree with the ruling, but for the wrong reason.

"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. "

"Each combatant starts out flat-footed. Once a combatant acts, he or she is no longer flat-footed."

I would assume the Ettin was surprised/flat footed.

You can check the concealment rules for the attack and defend adjustments.

 

[Kender42]

I'd agree with the ruling, but for the wrong reason.

"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. "

"Each combatant starts out flat-footed. Once a combatant acts, he or she is no longer flat-footed."

I would assume the Ettin was surprised/flat footed.

You can check the concealment rules for the attack and defend adjustments.

He wasn't actually flat footed. He was aware *someone* was in this 20' sphere, but didn't know who or where.

 

[baradtgnome]

He wasn't actually flat footed. He was aware *someone* was in this 20' sphere, but didn't know who or where.

Well I think you were correct anyway. 100% concealment is like invisibility, and I believe that also denies the defender his dex bonus to AC

 

[jgsugden]

This is something that has not been covered well in the rules: The effect of an attacker that has total concealment, but the defender has no concealment.

Most DMs treat the situation as if the attacker were invisible. The attacker gets a +2 to their attack and the defender is denied their dexterity bonus to AC. This makes sneak attacks possible.

By the way, the thread title deals with cover and the issue deals with concelament. They are separate concepts in D&D. Cover is a physical obstruction. Concelament is a lack of vision between the attacker and the target, but the presence of line of effect. They have drastically different effetcs on the game.

 

[Gaiden]

This is something that has not been covered well in the rules: The effect of an attacker that has total concealment, but the defender has no concealment.

Most DMs treat the situation as if the attacker were invisible. The attacker gets a +2 to their attack and the defender is denied their dexterity bonus to AC. This makes sneak attacks possible.

By the way, the thread title deals with cover and the issue deals with concelament. They are separate concepts in D&D. Cover is a physical obstruction. Concelament is a lack of vision between the attacker and the target, but the presence of line of effect. They have drastically different effetcs on the game.

The answer is most definitely yes for several reasons:

Simplest Reason - Ettin was unaware of the attack. Regardless of whether he was on his guard, there was no way for him to know that he was going to see the arrow coming (all else being equal) until after it was fired, i.e. after the attack was made.

No Dex bonus - Ettin was considered flatfooted against the attack and therefore had no dex bonus.

Invisibile attacker - if you attack with 100% concealment, by definition you are invisible. When you are invisible opponents lose their dex bonus and you get sneak attack.

About the only argument that can be made against any of these is for the second one. If you already rolled initiative, then technically the ettic wasn't flatfooted. However, that is where the other two arguments would kick in.

Because the whole architecture of the rules does not make too much sense in terms of continuity with surprise rounds, I have a houserule that if in some way after a creature has rolled initiative, it would effectively be surprised *by new combatants*, those new combatants can get a free surprise round in between rounds (right before the round they would act). This also requires them to roll initiative and they don't automatically go first in the round.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Invisibile attacker - if you attack with 100% concealment, by definition you are invisible.

Actually, you have it backwards.

Invisible creatures have total concealment.

It's nowhere stated, in 3.5, that creatures with total concealment gain the "invisible" condition.

Where in 3E, if you were blind, all your attackers were considered invisible... in 3.5, they have total concealment.

An invisible creature gains a +2 attack bonus. He also has total concealment. There's no indication that anyone who has total concealment for any other reason gains that +2 attack bonus, for example... because they don't have the "invisible" condition.

It's similar to how being flat-footed denies you your Dex bonus... but that doesn't mean that any time you're denied your Dex bonus, you're flat-footed.

Invisibility grants total concealment... but that doesn't mean that any total concealment grants invisibility.

-Hyp.

 

[Joachim Pieper]

On a related topic, how do people read the rules for using the hide skill in combat. Basically, the guy who plays the rogue in my game wants to be able to hide, and then sneak attack, as he wants this to deny the target its dex bonus to AC. I feel like he shouldn't be able to get away with this, but it's unclear.
Any thoughts?

Cheers.

 

[shilsen]

On a related topic, how do people read the rules for using the hide skill in combat. Basically, the guy who plays the rogue in my game wants to be able to hide, and then sneak attack, as he wants this to deny the target its dex bonus to AC. I feel like he shouldn't be able to get away with this, but it's unclear.
Any thoughts?

Cheers.

Under what circumstances does the rogue want to hide? In the 3.5 PHB, it's made explicit that you need cover or concealment to hide, and cannot do so when being observed, even casually. So even with a +40 modifier on his hide check, the rogue is not going to be able to pull it off in the middle of a fight.

 

[Joachim Pieper]

Well, he's 17th level, so he's got more than a 40 on his hide mod. But that aside, shooting someone gives away your position, no?


cheers.