Does sniping while hidden deal sneak attack damage?

[irdeggman]

PS. "improperly"

I spelled it correctly the PC translated it wrong - that is my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[hong]

Say like stating "hidden" and "invisible"

Which are the same in the context of denying Dex bonus to AC.

Except when it comes up frequently when wizards try to make making AoO while "holding" a great sword, or when "holding" a shield, etc.

Who cares?

 

[hong]

I spelled it correctly the PC translated it wrong - that is my story and I'm sticking to it.

Sure, sure.

 

[irdeggman]

Which are the same in the context of denying Dex bonus to AC.

Only when applying the general usagge of the English language and not the rules text.

Who cares?

Who cares if someone is house ruling that hiding denies their opponent his Dex mod either?

 

[hong]

Only when applying the general usagge of the English language and not the rules text.

Only when making an inference from the available rules text that is entirely in accordance with the English language.

Who cares if someone is house ruling that hiding denies their opponent his Dex mod either?

Who cares if someone is house ruling that hiding does not deny an opponent their Dex mod?

 

[Mistwell]

Or that the rules that WotC do not follow the language usage rules correctly - which has been demonstrated adequately.

No, it has not. That sometimes WOTC isn't perfect is not evidence that WOTC does not use English, or that English should not be used to interpret the rules.

Seriously, you've lost total track of the forest because you are stuck in the trees on this one. I don't mean the general issue, as I think reasonable minds can differ on the general issue. I mean on this specific issue of whether or not we can use English to interpret the rules. We can, and we should if it is helpful.

 

[irdeggman]

No, it has not. That sometimes WOTC isn't perfect is not evidence that WOTC does not use English, or that English should not be used to interpret the rules.

Seriously, you've lost total track of the forest because you are stuck in the trees on this one. I don't mean the general issue, as I think reasonable minds can differ on the general issue. I mean on this specific issue of whether or not we can use English to interpret the rules. We can, and we should if it is helpful.

But I didn't originally bring up using "English" as the means of determining a meaning that is not given in the rules text. Nor did I bring the “BECAUSE IT'S SO FRIGGEN OBVIOUS” line of argument to the table either.

The rules spell out that an invisible attacker denies his opponent his Dex Mod. The rules also spell out that a "blind" defender loses his Dex bonus. The rules also call out "concealment" as "see the following".

Now where does it say that being "hidden" denies your opponent his Dex mod?

Where does it state that hidden is equivalent to being invisible. Not in the hide skill description - in fact several people have pointed that being hidden is not the same as being invisible but they are also inferring (or flat out stating) that "some of the benefits of being invisible" apply when you are hidden.

Either "hidden" is the same as "invisible" or it is not. The rules indicate that it is not and those wishing to view it as otherwise have yet to provide a rules text to support their case, whereas those who have said the two are different have pointed out rules that back their stance up.

 

[hong]

The rules spell out that an invisible attacker denies his opponent his Dex Mod. The rules also spell out that a "blind" defender loses his Dex bonus. The rules also call out "concealment" as "see the following".

Now where does it say that being "hidden" denies your opponent his Dex mod?

It doesn't have to, because "hidden" means the other guy is not able to see you. And similarly, "total concealment" also means the other guy is not able to see you. Since if the other guy is not able to see you, they lose their Dex mod, by a process of deduction we arrive at the conclusion that being hidden also means they lose their Dex mod.

Where does it state that hidden is equivalent to being invisible.

Hidden is equivalent to being invisible, _for the purpose of denying Dex mod_. Nobody said anything about remaining invisible even when spotted, or not having to move slowly, or being subject to see invisibility, etc.

Either "hidden" is the same as "invisible" or it is not.

False. As was said before.

 

[irdeggman]

It doesn't have to, because "hidden" means the other guy is not able to see you. And similarly, "total concealment" also means the other guy is not able to see you. Since if the other guy is not able to see you, they lose their Dex mod, by a process of deduction we arrive at the conclusion that being hidden also means they lose their Dex mod.

Where in the rules does it state this?

Hidden is equivalent to being invisible, _for the purpose of denying Dex mod_.

Where in the rules does it state this?

False. As was said before.

Then per the rules your opponent is not denied his Dex mod since that only applies if you are invisible or you opponent is blinded.

 

[hong]

Where in the rules does it state this?

In the rules for the English language, on which the rules for D&D are based.

Where in the rules does it state this?

In the rules for the English language, on which the rules for D&D are based.

Then per the rules your opponent is not denied his Dex mod since that only applies if you are invisible or you opponent is blinded.

No, because there is a difference between "equivalent to invisibility for the purpose of X" and "equivalent to invisibility for all purposes". Pay attention.