Does sniping while hidden deal sneak attack damage?

Mistwell said:
That particular sentence is not about moving between cover. It's about moving out of cover and sneaking up on someone to attack them. If you can come up with a logical and reasonable explanation why sneaking up behind someone would deny dex bonus but shooting at them from an unknown location further away would not deny dex bonus, I'm all ears. But I think it's pretty obvious that you don't get your dex bonus if being attacked by someone you cannot see and didn't know was there (whether you call it invisibility, hiding, sniping, ambushing, back stabbing, or elephanting).

Thanks for the reference Mistwell, that's just what I was looking for!

I agree completely with Mistwell. The reference is talking about attacking someone who hasn't noticed you. It has extra rules for crossing open space in the case that it's a melee attack but that extra rule doesn't negate the flat-footed condition of the target if the attack is ranged.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mistwell said:
Kindly post the rule you are citing. Not all of us have a book in front of us, which is why I and others are posting the rule we are citing so everyone can see it.

pg 152 (PHB)

Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight (for instance, if he is in total darkness or invisible, or if you’re blinded), he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

and Hide skill

You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check. Total cover or total concealment usually (but not always; see Special, below) obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway.
 

Mistwell said:
That particular sentence is not about moving between cover. It's about moving out of cover and sneaking up on someone to attack them. If you can come up with a logical and reasonable explanation why sneaking up behind someone would deny dex bonus but shooting at them from an unknown location further away would not deny dex bonus, I'm all ears. But I think it's pretty obvious that you don't get your dex bonus if being attacked by someone you cannot see and didn't know was there (whether you call it invisibility, hiding, sniping, ambushing, back stabbing, or elephanting).

Yup its about moving.

See the quotes on concealment, total concealment and "not seeing you anyway" and tell me that you get to deny your opponents Dex bonus just because you have concealment (or total concealment).

The text in Complete Adventurer also has a rank prerequisite (5 ranks) and a penalty -5 for every 5 ft of "open" ground.

So it is not simply about not being seen.

I am sort of surprised they didn't make this a skill trick (Complete Rogue) since it seems that it would fit there real well. Making a hide check to deny your opponent their Dex bonus that is.
 

Battle on, valiant defenders of the cause! I can only assume the previous, equally contentious, equally inconclusive threads on this divisive issue are . . . hiding. ;)
 

Yupp. One of my most valued conditions ... FLAT-FOOTED... is used by the rules in scarcely any circumstances.

I use it in three major houserules. Fumbles, Hiding and Fool-the-DM.
 

irdeggman said:
Yup its about moving.

See the quotes on concealment, total concealment and "not seeing you anyway" and tell me that you get to deny your opponents Dex bonus just because you have concealment (or total concealment).

The text in Complete Adventurer also has a rank prerequisite (5 ranks) and a penalty -5 for every 5 ft of "open" ground.

So it is not simply about not being seen.

I am sort of surprised they didn't make this a skill trick (Complete Rogue) since it seems that it would fit there real well. Making a hide check to deny your opponent their Dex bonus that is.

First, for your total concealment rule. Notice how it says in total darkness, or invisible, or blinded. Notice how invisible denies dex bonus, and blinded denies dex bonus. And the total darkness is in fact "hidden" which is what we are debating. See a pattern here? See how you need to actually make a logical and reasonable argument as to why you would retain your dex bonus against a hidden foe but not if you are blinded and not if your foe is invisible?

Second, it's not a skill trick, because it's already the rule. And it's obvious to just about everyone. If you don't even know your opponent is there, and you fail your spot check to see them, then you are denied your dex bonus against their attack. And it doesn't matter if you cannot see them because they are invisible, or hiding, or you are blinded, or 100% concealed, or whatever.

I am waiting for ANY logical and reasonable explanation of why it doesn't work that way. So far all you have done is toss out the total concealment strawman and act like my argument is based on it (it's not - you mentioned concealment, not me). I do in fact think you get to deny your opponent dex bonus if attacking from total concealment, but I don't see how it's key to this debate to begin with.

BTW, the FAQ also makes this assumption that hide = invisible. "Can a character with Spring Attack who begins her turn hidden move up to a foe, attack him, then return to a position of hiding? Is she considered to be hiding (that is, invisible to the foe) when she makes the attack?" The answer just assumes that the "invisible to the foe" part is correct, BECAUSE IT'S SO FRIGGEN OBVIOUS that if you cannot see your foe, it's the equivalent of them being invisible.
 
Last edited:

Mistwell said:
First, for your total concealment rule. Notice how it says in total darkness, or invisible, or blinded. Notice how invisible denies dex bonus, and blinded denies dex bonus. And the total darkness is in fact "hidden" which is what we are debating. See a pattern here? See how you need to actually make a logical and reasonable argument as to why you would retain your dex bonus against a hidden foe but not if you are blinded and not if your foe is invisible?

Because the rules don't say you do.

Nothing in any of the concealment rules state your assumption - or your step on the "logical" path.

In fact the combat modifiers table specifically calls out that invisible attacker denies his target his Dex mod.

It also states that Blinded characters are denied their Dex bonus.

It talks about defender having concealment or invisible.

It does not talk about anything about the attacker having concealment.

Do you see the logical path here?

Each of the other conditions (attacker invisible, defender blinded, defender having concealment, defender invisible) is specifically called out. Attacker having concealment is not.


Second, it's not a skill trick, because it's already the rule. And it's obvious to just about everyone. If you don't even know your opponent is there, and you fail your spot check to see them, then you are denied your dex bonus against their attack. And it doesn't matter if you cannot see them because they are invisible, or hiding, or you are blinded, or 100% concealed, or whatever.

Where does it state this rule?

You have yet to have shown that.

I am waiting for ANY logical and reasonable explanation of why it doesn't work that way. So far all you have done is toss out the total concealment strawman and act like my argument is based on it (it's not - you mentioned concealment, not me). I do in fact think you get to deny your opponent dex bonus if attacking from total concealment, but I don't see how it's key to this debate to begin with.

And I am waiting for a rules quote to prove it does. I have provided rules quotes covering all of the other conditions (and pointed out that there is no such rule for attacker having concealment)

Note that being invisible grants a +40 bonus to hide checks if immobile and a +20 if moving. Hmm why would they need to provide a bonus if they were the same?

Is there a logic path here? Yes I think so.

Invisible and hiding are not the same.

Being invisible grants benefits that are spelled out.

Hiding grants the benefits that are spelled out.

But none of the benefits of hiding (as spelled out in the rules) state that your foe is denied his Dex bonus.
 


Mistwell said:
BTW, the FAQ also makes this assumption that hide = invisible. "Can a character with Spring Attack who begins her turn hidden move up to a foe, attack him, then return to a position of hiding? Is she considered to be hiding (that is, invisible to the foe) when she makes the attack?" The answer just assumes that the "invisible to the foe" part is correct, BECAUSE IT'S SO FRIGGEN OBVIOUS that if you cannot see your foe, it's the equivalent of them being invisible.


Interesting since it is the questioner making that assumption and not the Sage. I don't see how you can get that the FAQ assumes that hide = invisible from the following:

Can a character with Spring Attack who begins her turn hidden move up to a foe, attack him, then return to a position of hiding? Is she considered to be hiding (that is, invisible to the foe) when she makes the attack? What if the character has the camouflage or hide in plain sight class features?

Normally, a character can’t make a Hide check right after attacking a foe, since that foe’s attention is now focused on her (even if the attacker started her turn hidden or invisible). The sniping option (on page 76 in the Player’s Handbook) allows a character to make a move action to hide immediately after making a ranged attack against a foe at least 10 feet away, but this doesn’t apply to melee attacks (even those made with reach). Even if the character has Spring Attack, she simply can’t make a Hide check while she is being observed.

As far as your second question goes, unless the character’s approach remains entirely in an area where she can hide (that is, an area with sufficient cover or concealment to attempt a Hide check), the character is not considered to be hidden still when she makes the attack. Conceivably, your character might begin her turn hidden in overgrowth, move up through the undergrowth to attack a target, then move back to a hiding place within the plants, having never left the area of concealment. In this case, she’d be considered hidden when she made the attack, although she’d have a –20 penalty on her Hide check.

The third part of your question changes the situation entirely. Separately, both the camouflage and hide in plain sight class features make this tactic more useful, but together, they’re incredibly effective.

A character with the hide in plain sight class feature (described on page 48 in the Player’s Handbook) can make a Hide check even if she’s being observed. This doesn’t require any extra action to accomplish (unlike the sniping maneuver). The character could attack a foe, then move to a place with sufficient cover or concealment to allow a Hide check, making the Hide check as part of movement. The character doesn’t need Spring Attack to pull this off, although that feat would allow her to move (potentially from a place of hiding, although that’s not necessary), make an attack, and then move again to a place of hiding. Still, unless the character has cover or concealment for her approach, she’s not considered to be hidden when she delivers the attack.

The camouflage class feature (also on page 48 in the Player’s Handbook) allows the character to make a Hide check in any sort of natural terrain, even if it doesn’t provide cover or concealment. This means that the character could begin hidden, move up to a target across open terrain, and make an attack while still being considered hidden (although she’d still suffer the –20 penalty on her Hide check). Even if the character has Spring Attack and moves away after the attack, she can’t make a Hide check to hide after the attack.

Put all three of these elements together—such as in the hands of a high-level sneaky ranger—and here’s what you get:

1. The character begins his turn hidden (as long as he’s in natural terrain, he doesn’t even need cover or concealment).

2. He moves up to a foe across natural terrain and makes an attack (making a Hide check with a –20 penalty to be considered hiding when he attacks).

3. He then moves back from the foe and makes a new Hide check to disappear from view (again, he doesn’t need cover or concealment while in natural terrain).

4. The foe then, if still standing, says, “Hey, what hit me?!”
 


Remove ads

Top