Does sniping while hidden deal sneak attack damage?

[irdeggman]

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

Then the rule does not exist.

As I have pointed out earlier (and it has yet to be disproved) WotC does not consistently use their rules IAW with the rules of English language - if they did then this basis would apply (IMO) but since it has been proven that they do not - making the assumption that the rules of English language apply is simply incorrect. That is a cherry picking reading of the rules.

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

I am paying attention. But you have not made a logical arguement. The rules do not, repeat do not, support "for the purposes of. . . " arguement here. That is cherry picking for an interpretation that is desired not for a meaning of the rules as written.

For what it's worth, if WotC had not set the precident that they redefine English words to mean something else I would go along with you - but they unfortuneately have consistently redefiened words and their usage to have different "meanings" then the language (and grammer) has.

 

[hong]

Then the rule does not exist.

Of course it does. It just doesn't happen to be written in the PHB in two-column, 9-point serif font.

As I have pointed out earlier (and it has yet to be disproved) WotC does not consistently use their rules IAW with the rules of English language

Prove that they are being inconsistent in this case.

- if they did then this basis would apply (IMO) but since it has been proven that they do not - making the assumption that the rules of English language apply is simply incorrect. That is a cherry picking reading of the rules.

No, it's a matter of applying sensible judgement and realising that alternate conclusions are simply useless from the point of view of actual play.

I am paying attention. But you have not made a logical arguement.

Deduction is a logical process. Pay attention.

The rules do not, repeat do not, support "for the purposes of. . . " arguement here. That is cherry picking for an interpretation that is desired not for a meaning of the rules as written.

And there is nothing wrong with the interpretation that results, from the point of view of actual play. Whereas there is plenty wrong with other possible conclusions, namely that they result in hiding not actually doing anything.

For what it's worth, if WotC had not set the precident that they redefine English words to mean something else I would go along with you - but they unfortuneately have consistently redefiened words and their usage to have different "meanings" then the language (and grammer) has.

... what?

Where English words are redefined, they appear in the glossary. "Hiding" is not in the glossary, and thus it is entirely reasonable to treat it as a normal, everyday English word. As opposed to, I guess, Klingon or something.

 

[billd91]

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.

I feel like this is Minister's Question Time.

"I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer provided on May 21."

You know, the one in which being hidden satisfies the definition of the invisible condition: visually undetectable.

 

[Matthias_Gloom]

Attacking from a good hiding position as a thief allows a sneak attack; no dex. Attacking from a good hiding position as a sniper, by the same logic, should negate dex, even though it does not allow a sneak attack.
From the targets stand point it doesn't matter. Either way, they are being attacked by someone they didn't know was there. Even if they are 'aware' of the situation going on around them, they can't perceive the attack. There is no way to justify someone retaining their dex bonus against an attack from an adversary they didn't know was there.
You don't have to be invisible to catch someone unaware.

Logically

 

[Mistwell]

We already cited the Complete Adventurer rule that clearly spells out that attacking in melee from hiding denies dex bonus. But that was not good enough for you because it didn't also say ranged, and it might have involved movement (which makes no logical sense, and is never specified in that rule as being the thing that denies the dex bonus).

We then also cited the FAQ assuming the questioners assumption of denial of dex was fine, since it was never corrected. That was also not good enough for you because it didn't spell it out in the answer a second time.

And then we cited all the other rules that also talk about not being able to see your attacking opponent means you lose your dex bonus versus their attack. And that was not good enough for you because apparently analogies do not apply if they are contrary to your fairness standards for what a skill should be able to do.

But now you are saying nobody has given you any rules?

And then we added the "English language and plain old common sense and logic" explanation, which is not good enough for you because apparently if WOTC was ever once using poor English or logic you get to throw out those two concepts for all things.

Gimme a break. The presumption shifted back to you long ago and all you have done is dodge all the evidence to the contrary and repeat your "show me" claim. Unless you show me in the rules where is says hiding does not deny dex (and not simply an absense of any rule), we are working with all the evidence that says it does. If a WOTC supplement (Complete Adventurer) and the FAQ and ALL other analogous rules and the English language and logic all result in "hidden = denied dex bonus", the burden is on you to disprove that with something more than your claims of fairness and an absense of the exact wording of the exact rule in the exact right place for your personal satisfaction.

 

[irdeggman]

Where English words are redefined, they appear in the glossary. "Hiding" is not in the glossary, and thus it is entirely reasonable to treat it as a normal, everyday English word. As opposed to, I guess, Klingon or something.

Like "hold" and "wield" for instance?

 

[hong]

Like "hold" and "wield" for instance?

I appear to have failed to notice the ongoing storm of controversy relating to those words. Could it be, maybe, just possibly, that you are beating things up?

 

[irdeggman]

We already cited the Complete Adventurer rule that clearly spells out that attacking in melee from hiding denies dex bonus. But that was not good enough for you because it didn't also say ranged, and it might have involved movement (which makes no logical sense, and is never specified in that rule as being the thing that denies the dex bonus).

That is a specific case and under the bit about new uses for skills. It allso stattes a prerequisite of 5 ranks in hide and involves movement.

We then also cited the FAQ assuming the questioners assumption of denial of dex was fine, since it was never corrected. That was also not good enough for you because it didn't spell it out in the answer a second time.

Hmmm this was the assumption of the person asking the question. No where in the "answer" didn it bring up the issue of denyig Dex due to being hidden. Has nothing to de with being "good enough" it has everything to do with what the answer said.

And then we cited all the other rules that also talk about not being able to see your attacking opponent means you lose your dex bonus versus their attack. And that was not good enough for you because apparently analogies do not apply if they are contrary to your fairness standards for what a skill should be able to do.

But now you are saying nobody has given you any rules?

Really? The rules cited pertain to invisibility, and blinded. The also talk about some text under invisibility with an attempt to state that being hidden is the same as being invisibile. The rules in question (see the combat modifiers section which is where the actula rulings are concerning when dex mod is denied) do not cover this. They cover invisible, blinded and concealment. None of whihc are hidden.

 

[hong]

That is a specific case and under the bit about new uses for skills. It allso stattes a prerequisite of 5 ranks in hide and involves movement.

... IOW, it _is_ written, yes?

They cover invisible, blinded and concealment. None of whihc are hidden.

No, all of which overlap with hidden.

 

[Mistwell]

That is a specific case and under the bit about new uses for skills. It allso stattes a prerequisite of 5 ranks in hide and involves movement.



Hmmm this was the assumption of the person asking the question. No where in the "answer" didn it bring up the issue of denyig Dex due to being hidden. Has nothing to de with being "good enough" it has everything to do with what the answer said.



Really? The rules cited pertain to invisibility, and blinded. The also talk about some text under invisibility with an attempt to state that being hidden is the same as being invisibile. The rules in question (see the combat modifiers section which is where the actula rulings are concerning when dex mod is denied) do not cover this. They cover invisible, blinded and concealment. None of whihc are hidden.

Right now, you're just a moving target. You attack one of our points, we address it, you move on to another point, we address it, you move on, usually repeating the same attack from earlier without ever actually producing anything solid to further your side of the debate aside from trying to whittle away at our position.

Give us, in the very least, some logical basis for why "I cannot see you because you are hiding and not moving" should be treated differently in this case than "I cannot see you because I am blind" and "I cannot see you because you are invisible" and "I cannot see you because you are hidden and moving and have 5 ranks in the hide skill". Don't quote rules...give us the reasoning.