Does sniping while hidden deal sneak attack damage?

[starwed]

So the claim by some is this: a hiding rogue doesn't get sneak attack, while an invisible hiding rogue does.

Note that the victim of the sneak attack can't actually tell the difference between these two cases.

The RAW may support this claim, but this is just one of those cases to mock the RAW and move on.

 

[ChampionoftheTriad]

Irdeggman, your last post actually supports Mistwell's (and my) position...the rules you cite imply the inherent superiority of remaining in concealment (sniping) as opposed to moving from concealment (though there are rules for this with penalties in CAv)...and they make no mention of the difference between being invisible and being unseen...as they aren't different...remember, the PH has Hide modifiers for being invisible, as it is still possible to be spotted while invisible...this means the important part is NOT BEING SPOTTED...that makes you invisible...fully concealed...unseen...and your opponent FLAT-FOOTED...

 

[irdeggman]

Irdeggman, your last post actually supports Mistwell's (and my) position...the rules you cite imply the inherent superiority of remaining in concealment (sniping) as opposed to moving from concealment (though there are rules for this with penalties in CAv)...and they make no mention of the difference between being invisible and being unseen...as they aren't different...remember, the PH has Hide modifiers for being invisible, as it is still possible to be spotted while invisible...this means the important part is NOT BEING SPOTTED...that makes you invisible...fully concealed...unseen...and your opponent FLAT-FOOTED...

I fail to see where it says anything about hidden = invisible, except by the person asking the question.

It does talk about hiding while moving, but that is in the Hide skill rules already.


The combat modifiers table provides the location that states the attacker being invisible denying his opponent his Dex mod.

It does not say the same about being hidden or having concealment.


It does not say in the text for Hide skill that your opponent is denied his Dex mod, nor does it state you are "invisible", nor does it state that he is "blinded".

The combat modifiers table aslo says that a blinded character is denied his Dex mod too.

Note the specific calling out of these conditions.

Also note that no where does it state that being hidden is equivalent to being invisible or that your opponent is blinded.

 

[hong]

Hiding means the other guy can't see you. He can't target you, and he can't attack you. That sounds darn well like being invisible.

 

[irdeggman]

Hiding means the other guy can't see you. He can't target you, and he can't attack you. That sounds darn well like being invisible.

Here is where people are differing I believe.

Hiding means the other guy hasn't "noticed" you. (He failed his Spot check).

Invisible gives no such spot check. You can make one to narrow down the location so that you can attempt to hit him (with total cover bonus) - but no Spot check merely for being invisible (it is too narrow down his location so that you could make an attack, but he stills gets total concealment).

I have real trouble saying a skill check duplicates all of the effects of very powerful 2nd level spell.

 

[hong]

Here is where people are differing I believe.

Hiding means the other guy hasn't "noticed" you. (He failed his Spot check).

Invisible gives no such spot check.

... which means he hasn't seen you. Or noticed you, whichever terminology you prefer.

I have real trouble saying a skill check duplicates all of the effects of very powerful 2nd level spell.

Say what? Hide carries very specific limits on when you can use it (no direct observation, cover/concealment necessary). As soon as someone succeeds on Spot, you're no longer hidden. You move at half-speed when hiding, unless you want a penalty on your check. That is in no way "duplicating" the effects of a 2nd level spell.

 

[irdeggman]

... which means he hasn't seen you. Or noticed you, whichever terminology you prefer.

They have different meanings (or applications/benefits) according to the rules.

Say what? Hide carries very specific limits on when you can use it (no direct observation, cover/concealment necessary). As soon as someone succeeds on Spot, you're no longer hidden. You move at half-speed when hiding, unless you want a penalty on your check. That is in no way "duplicating" the effects of a 2nd level spell.

And yet you are saying it is the same as invisiblle since they "can't see you" - that means benefits of total concealment, a spot check to figure out what location you are in and a bonus to hide checks.

Hmm there is a logic breakdown here methinks.

 

[billd91]

Hmm there is a logic breakdown here methinks.

Not as much as you might think. The condition invisible is defined as visually undetectable. With a particular spot roll compared to a particular hide roll, that hiding character may well be visually undetectable... for that spot roll. Plus, with the benefit of see invisible spells, no invisible character is certain to be visually undetectable anyway. The real question is what enables the invisible character to be visually detectable. In the case of the hiding character, it's a better spot roll or removal of the cover/concealment. In the case of a character using magical invisibility, it's a see invisible or other revealing spell. By those measures, the invisibility spell is still quite a bit more powerful than a hide check.

As far as invisibility granting bonuses on a hide check, that source of invisibility would have to be an alternative source from that condition granted by the hide check itself. In other words, if the character were already invisible, he'd get the bonus. But since the hiding character isn't already invisible when he makes the hide roll (that is determinined only when the hide roll exceeds the opposed spot roll), the bonus couldn't occur.

 

[Mistwell]

So the claim by some is this: a hiding rogue doesn't get sneak attack, while an invisible hiding rogue does.

Note that the victim of the sneak attack can't actually tell the difference between these two cases.

The RAW may support this claim, but this is just one of those cases to mock the RAW and move on.

And a hiding rogue doesn't get sneak attack, while a blind victim does. Never mind that both represent a case where "victim does not see foe".

 

[Mistwell]

I have real trouble saying a skill check duplicates all of the effects of very powerful 2nd level spell.

And I think that is what this all comes down to. We disagree about what is fair, and so both sides are arguing to further the conclusion they desire, rather than starting with what makes sense and then coming to a conclusion.