Does sniping while hidden deal sneak attack damage?

[Drowbane]

"Hidden doesn't mean invisible!"

QFS

 

[irdeggman]

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.

I have already stated that logic and rules should not be the same. It would be nice if they were but they are not. So trying to apply logic to a rule (that is not written) is well just a philosophical discussion.

The rules do exactly what they state no more and no less. That is the very first assumption that needs to be made - if that is not true well then there is absolutely nothing to discuss.

Give me a reason why something very specific like the rule addition (and it is an addition since it is a new use for an existing skill) that specifically states when moving from a place of hiding and you have to have 5 ranks in hide should apply in a general case.

 

[Mistwell]

I have already stated that logic and rules should not be the same. It would be nice if they were but they are not. So trying to apply logic to a rule (that is not written) is well just a philosophical discussion.

The rules do exactly what they state no more and no less. That is the very first assumption that needs to be made - if that is not true well then there is absolutely nothing to discuss.

Give me a reason why something very specific like the rule addition (and it is an addition since it is a new use for an existing skill) that specifically states when moving from a place of hiding and you have to have 5 ranks in hide should apply in a general case.

If there are two reasonable interpretations of a rule, and both parties agree that one interpretation makes logical sense and the other one does not, then any perceived tie or impasse between the two reasonable rules interpretations should be broken in favor of the one that makes logical sense.

So give me a logical reason why your position makes sense, without quoting rules.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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".

I'm not sure what your position is on the +2, Mistwell... do you contend that someone unseen because he is hiding does or does not gain the +2 attack bonus for 'Attacker invisible'?

-Hyp.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm not sure what your position is on the +2, Mistwell... do you contend that someone unseen because he is hiding does or does not gain the +2 attack bonus for 'Attacker invisible'?

-Hyp.

I am only arguing that you lose your dex bonus versus an attacker you do not see. Anything else is another debate in my opinion.

 

[irdeggman]

So give me a logical reason why your position makes sense, without quoting rules.

Hmmm this is a rules forum correct?

Then all discussions should pertain to the rules.

If rules can't be quoted then this is a philosophical discussion and belongs elsewhere. Where, if not hampered by the rules, there is a lot that can be discussed and probably "agreed with".

I am only arguing based on the rules, I am not arguing based on other logic - that would be pretty fool hardy IMO since a lot of the time the rules don't necessarily make logical sense.

 

[Mistwell]

Hmmm this is a rules forum correct?

Then all discussions should pertain to the rules.

If rules can't be quoted then this is a philosophical discussion and belongs elsewhere. Where, if not hampered by the rules, there is a lot that can be discussed and probably "agreed with".

I am only arguing based on the rules, I am not arguing based on other logic - that would be pretty fool hardy IMO since a lot of the time the rules don't necessarily make logical sense.

I gave you the reason why it is relevant to ask the question of logic. You can pretend you didn't read it, but it's still right there - right where you had to actually go out of your way to delete it from your quote as if it wasn't relevant to what you just said, despite the fact that it was directly addressing that point.

Give me a logical reason why your position actually makes any sense, without quoting the rules. If you cannot do it, and you agree that our position is logical and makes sense to you, then we can move on to the question as to whether two reasonable but mutually exclusive interpretations of the rules are present such that we are at an impasse and must look to what position makes sense to break that impasse.

And please, stop pretending like logic plays no role here. Every argument you make in this thread depends on a chain of theories that only make sense if people are using logic. You are telling us for example it is logical that the rules would specify "hidden results in a denial of your dex bonus to AC" if such were the case, because that is the case with other rules like being blind and invisibility. Without logic, your argument would have no meaning. So quite dodging the question and answer it already.

Give me a logical reason why your position makes sense.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I am only arguing that you lose your dex bonus versus an attacker you do not see.

Ah.

I think about the only rule that supports that as a generalisation is:
You apply your character’s Dexterity modifier to:
Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.

Provided one rules that you cannot react to an attack when you do not see the attacker.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Hmmm this is a rules forum correct?

Then all discussions should pertain to the rules.

Correct. And the rules as applied are just as relevant as the rules as written.

If rules can't be quoted then this is a philosophical discussion and belongs elsewhere.

If arguments can't be produced that are germane to the topic of the rules as they are, or should be, applied, then it is a philosophical discussion and belongs elsewhere.

I am only arguing based on the rules, I am not arguing based on other logic - that would be pretty fool hardy IMO since a lot of the time the rules don't necessarily make logical sense.

And thus are irrelevant to the rules as applied.

 

[irdeggman]

I gave you the reason why it is relevant to ask the question of logic. You can pretend you didn't read it, but it's still right there - right where you had to actually go out of your way to delete it from your quote as if it wasn't relevant to what you just said, despite the fact that it was directly addressing that point.

Because it was irrelevent.

Give me a logical reason why your position actually makes any sense, without quoting the rules. If you cannot do it, and you agree that our position is logical and makes sense to you, then we can move on to the question as to whether two reasonable but mutually exclusive interpretations of the rules are present such that we are at an impasse and must look to what position makes sense to break that impasse.

Again this is a totally circular argument that has no basis in the rules as written and is totally based on word usage from outside the rules as written.

I have quoted rules text over and over.

The rules do exactly what they say and nothing more.

And please, stop pretending like logic plays no role here. Every argument you make in this thread depends on a chain of theories that only make sense if people are using logic. You are telling us for example it is logical that the rules would specify "hidden results in a denial of your dex bonus to AC" if such were the case, because that is the case with other rules like being blind and invisibility. Without logic, your argument would have no meaning. So quite dodging the question and answer it already.

Please explain to me why logic should overrule the rules.

Give me a logical reason why your position makes sense.

The rules say so. While this seems circular it is actually the entire basis of rules-arguement or discussion. It is about what the rules actually say not about what they should say. When argueing that "this is what the rules should say" against this is what the rules do say you are comparing house-rule (even if they make more sense than the RAW) and the RAW.