Does sniping while hidden deal sneak attack damage?

[irdeggman]

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.

Well I have found consistently that mixing "reason" and "requirements" leads to conflicts in almost all cases.

 

[ChampionoftheTriad]

Look, the real breakdown here is the simplicity of the basic combat system...

Everyone is flat-footed until they act in the surprise or first round of combat. Once 'engaged' and aware, however, the stupid 360 degree constant observation kicks in...the rules seemingly do not allow for "re-surprising" your foes. But they do...i.e. the invisiblity and blindness rules...

a common sense ruling would be that if a defender completely loses track of an attacker, then, for all intents and purposes, that defender and that attacker have 'didengaged'...then if the attacker again attacks the defender while still unaware....oila...surprise=flat-footed.

also, to address the sniping issue directly: the PH states under the Hide skill that "it's practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging"....and further under the sniping section "you may make one ranged attack then immediately hide again. You take a -20 penalty on your hide check to conceal yourself after the shot."

this all occurs on your action, you are effectively hiding while attacking (thus the -20) and therefore, if successful, you remain unnoticed by the defender (or anyone else that fails to beat your hide check)

 

[hong]

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

They do not have different meanings according to English, which is the medium of communication that underlies the rules.

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.

Hint: You are the one who brought up full equivalence to invisibility. Just because total concealment provides the same benefit as invisibility in ONE area (sneak attack damage) does not mean it has to be the same in every other area. Life gets so much simpler once you let go of that strawman.

Hmm there is a logic breakdown here methinks.

Pish tosh. There is only a logic breakdown if one equates similarity with full equivalence.

 

[hong]

Well I have found consistently that mixing "reason" and "requirements" leads to conflicts in almost all cases.

I haven't.

 

[ChampionoftheTriad]

You know what I'm going to do

Not only am I going to rule henceforth that attacking while hidden denies your target his Dex bonus...I am also going to grant ANYONE who attacks such a target Sudden Strike damage (Complete Adventurer under Ninja)...say +1d6 for every four full places of BAB...yeah...I like that....always hated the fact that ONLY those with Sneak Attack can do extra damage when they catch someone with their pantaloons drooping...Note: this special Sudden Strike damage will overlap but not stack with any Sudden Strike or Sneak Attack dice the attacker may possess.

 

[irdeggman]

I haven't.

Well I've worked for the US government for 25+ years and . . . . .

Let's go into that one, but it has still proven to be true in the work place.

 

[hong]

Well I've worked for the US government for 25+ years and . . . . .

Let's go into that one, but it has still proven to be true in the work place.

Luckily, we are not in a situation where legislative requirements and regulatory authorities mandate specific and comprehensive tests for compliance with international standards. I think.

 

[Mistwell]

Well I've worked for the US government for 25+ years and . . . . .

And suddenly, like the clouds parting, everything becomes clear!

 

[Aeolien]

* groan *

 

[irdeggman]

They do not have different meanings according to English, which is the medium of communication that underlies the rules.

This is a dangerous path to follow since the D&D rules do not follow the conventions of English languages and they (WotC) routinely use terms impropoerly.

For example just some of the biggest and most common misuses:

“Held” and “Wield”. Sometimes the PHB uses held to mean wielded and sometimes it uses held to mean well, held.

Definitions are from Webster’s New World Dictionary Third College Edition

“Hold: to take and keep with the hands or arms, or by other means; grasp; clutch; sieze.”

“Wield: to handle and use (a tool or weapon)”


“Contact with the ground” is another one. There is a large contingent of people who say that “on the ground” is “at your feet”. There are some who also think that on the ground works when you are on the deck of a ship at sea.

“Ground: 1. the lowest part, base, or bottom of anything 2. the surface of the earth, specifically the solid surface 3. the soil of the earth; earth; land”

How about the D&D definition of “threaten”:

SRD

Threaten: To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space. A creature typically threatens all squares within its natural reach, even when it is not its turn to take an action. For Medium or Small creature this usually includes all squares adjacent to its space. Larger creatures threaten more squares, while smaller creatures may not threaten any squares except their own.

“Threaten: to make threats against; express one’s intention of hurting, punishing, etc.”

“Threat: an expression of intention to hurt, destroy, punish, etc. as in retaliation or intimidation.”