Does sniping while hidden deal sneak attack damage?

[hong]

Because it was irrelevent.

It is entirely relevant.

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.

Just because the argument has no basis in the rules as written does not make it circular. It means it draws on material which lies outside the rules as written; namely the rules of plain, simple English. Which are just as important in interpreting the rules as written, otherwise they are simply glowing phosphor dots on a screen with no particular meaning behind them.

I have quoted rules text over and over.

Which means you need to expand your definition of "rules text".

The rules do exactly what they say and nothing more.

Exactly.

Please explain to me why logic should overrule the rules.

Ah. So "logic" no longer has a place in the Rules forum. So much for every thread that involves a process of inference from the rules to a supportable conclusion; IOW, just about every thread > 10 posts. WHICH MIGHT MAKE THIS A BETTER PLACE, BUT STILL.

 

[Mistwell]

Because it was irrelevent.

It was not. Actually deal with the position I put forward. Explain how it is not relevant to discuss how human beings should resolve an impasse in a debate.

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.

It's not circular. If you have two intepretations of the rules, and both are based on the rules, and both are reasonable intepretations, then you need a way to break that impasse. One way to break an impasse is to see if both parties agree that one position makes more sense than the other. That's not circular.

I have quoted rules text over and over.

So have we.

The rules do exactly what they say and nothing more.

That is a meaningless statement in a debate where two sides think they "do and say" different things.

Please explain to me why logic should overrule the rules.

You've gone too far into the depths of sophistry if you think that sentence makes sense to you in this debate.

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.

No, I am not. I am comparing one interpretation of the rules against another one. That you don't intepret the rules the way we do does not mean we are not arguing from the rules. I am trying to get to "which postion makes more sense" because both positions are based on the same body of rules, and are mutually exclusive.

You've lost the forest for the trees. You think logic doesn't overule the rules, but you think logic is the only way to intepret the rules. Every argument you have made depends on logic being used.

If this is the best your side of the debate can muster, then I guess we have our answer. Does anyone else aside from irdeggman have any explanation or logicial support for the position that a blind person loses their dex bonus versus an attack, and a person being attacked by an invisible person loses their dex bonus versus that attack, but a person being attacked by a hidden person who they fail to spot does not lose their dex bonus versus that attack?

Anyone?

Bueller? Bueller?

 

[irdeggman]

That is a meaningless statement in a debate where two sides think they "do and say" different things.

Hold it a moment, at what point have you said that the rules "say that hide is the same as invisible"?

You have said that according to the English language they are the same, at no point have you offered a rules quote that says they are the same. You have tried to draw conclusions and a path to that decision based on the meaning of the words in the English language.

There is a huge difference here.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Does anyone else aside from irdeggman have any explanation or logicial support for the position that a blind person loses their dex bonus versus an attack, and a person being attacked by an invisible person loses their dex bonus versus that attack, but a person being attacked by a hidden person who they fail to spot does not lose their dex bonus versus that attack?

I think that the same logic should apply to the +2 bonus, or to the Blind Fight feat, or to the 'hunch' Spot check, among other things.

The Blind-Fight feat obviates the +2 bonus for an invisible attacker, and allows you to retain your Dex bonus. It does not remove the -2 AC penalty or allow you to retain your Dex bonus if you are blind. Do we need to construct a 'logical explanation' for this, or is it sufficient to say "It's the rule"?

If an invisible creature is standing still within 30 feet of me, I can get a hunch that there is 'something out there' with a DC30 Spot check, though I can't pinpoint it unless I make a DC50. If a creature is hiding and standing still within 30 feet of me (with a Hide check of 40), can I get the same hunch with a DC30 check? If his Hide check is 55, can I pinpoint him with a DC50 check despite still being unable to actually see him?

Does the +2 attack bonus apply to a hiding attacker as it does to an invisible attacker?

If we're basing our answer to "Does a hiding attacker deny Dex?" on the logical similarities between invisibility, hiding, and blindness, I think those questions are integral to the process of answering that question.

If we're instead basing it on the "provided he can react to the attack" wording of the Dexterity ability, it sidesteps all those issues; we just need to determine that hiding prevents a defender from being able to react to the attack.

-Hyp.

 

[Mistwell]

Hold it a moment, at what point have you said that the rules "say that hide is the same as invisible"?

You have said that according to the English language they are the same, at no point have you offered a rules quote that says they are the same. You have tried to draw conclusions and a path to that decision based on the meaning of the words in the English language.

There is a huge difference here.

I didn't say they are the same. I said you lose your dex bonus against an attack from a hidden person who you failed to spot.

I cited the complete adventurer rule. I cited the other "hidden" type rules, which include invisiblity and blindness. And Hyp cited the "provided he can react to the attack" rule that exempts Dex to AC. Those are all rules. They all combine for a body of evidence that tends to indicate you lose your dex bonus to AC if attacked by someone you didn't see (whether because you are blind, or they are invisible or hidden).

Finally, are you going to respond to the rest of that post, or just ignore it?

 

[Mistwell]

I think that the same logic should apply to the +2 bonus, or to the Blind Fight feat, or to the 'hunch' Spot check, among other things.

The Blind-Fight feat obviates the +2 bonus for an invisible attacker, and allows you to retain your Dex bonus. It does not remove the -2 AC penalty or allow you to retain your Dex bonus if you are blind. Do we need to construct a 'logical explanation' for this, or is it sufficient to say "It's the rule"?

If an invisible creature is standing still within 30 feet of me, I can get a hunch that there is 'something out there' with a DC30 Spot check, though I can't pinpoint it unless I make a DC50. If a creature is hiding and standing still within 30 feet of me (with a Hide check of 40), can I get the same hunch with a DC30 check? If his Hide check is 55, can I pinpoint him with a DC50 check despite still being unable to actually see him?

Does the +2 attack bonus apply to a hiding attacker as it does to an invisible attacker?

If we're basing our answer to "Does a hiding attacker deny Dex?" on the logical similarities between invisibility, hiding, and blindness, I think those questions are integral to the process of answering that question.

If we're instead basing it on the "provided he can react to the attack" wording of the Dexterity ability, it sidesteps all those issues; we just need to determine that hiding prevents a defender from being able to react to the attack.

-Hyp.

So your answer is no, you have no logical explanation for why you would retain your dex bonus to AC vs. an invisible attacker when none of the other similar events let you retain your dex bonus?

I think you are on to something with the "provided he can react to the attack" quote. A list of conditions or events that would mean you cannot react to the attack include things like: flat-footed due to having not reacted yet in the surprise round or initial round of combat, being blind, being attacked by an invisible attacker, and being attacked by a hidden attacker who you failed to spot. The rule is built into some of those specific events and conditions, and implied for others, and yet covers them all equally.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So your answer is no, you have no logical explanation for why you would retain your dex bonus to AC vs. an invisible attacker when none of the other similar events let you retain your dex bonus?

No, my answer went on for six paragraphs...

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

I didn't say they are the same. I said you lose your dex bonus against an attack from a hidden person who you failed to spot.

I cited the complete adventurer rule. I cited the other "hidden" type rules, which include invisiblity and blindness. And Hyp cited the "provided he can react to the attack" rule that exempts Dex to AC. Those are all rules. They all combine for a body of evidence that tends to indicate you lose your dex bonus to AC if attacked by someone you didn't see (whether because you are blind, or they are invisible or hidden).

Excuse me but you referred to the CA (new uses for existing skills) that I had to quote since you did not and as has been pointed out numerous times that is a very specific case that has several conditions attached to it (5 ranks, previously hidden and moving).


I cited invisibilty, total concealment, hide skill, blindness and the combat modifiers table.

Finally, are you going to respond to the rest of that post, or just ignore it?

The part where I am supposed to provide a logical reason for the rules as written?

Sorry I see no reason to play that game.

Hyp also asked for a reason why hiding should deny Dex. Which you managed to side step by the way. And I love how his question was brushed away as "so you have no logicial reason. . . "

Based on his logic, the reason determines several other ramifications. One of which I had pointed out long ago. If you are basing hiding denies Dex on the logicial simularities to being invisible then all of the benefits of being invisible should apply. You have instead stated that hiding isn't the same as being invisible but it still it is sort of like it enough that it denies Dex mod but no other benefits. Where is the logic in that at all? Either it is the same or it isn't the same. If it is the same it should have all of the same benefits if it isn't the same - then what is it?

 

[Mistwell]

No, my answer went on for six paragraphs...

-Hyp.

But none of it seemed to be answering the question you were quoting. Do you have a logical reason why you should not lose your Dex bonus to AC when being attacked by a hidden attacker who you failed to spot, given the context of blind targets lose their Dex bonus, and invisible attackers makes you lose your Dex bonus?

 

[Mistwell]

Excuse me but you referred to the CA (new uses for existing skills) that I had to quote since you did not and as has been pointed out numerous times that is a very specific case that has several conditions attached to it (5 ranks, previously hidden and moving).

And has been pointed out to you, your analysis that it is some sort of extremely minor example that is not applicable to anything else is nonsensical. The 5 ranks is obviously because it's MORE difficult to sneak up right beside someone and make a melee attack...much more difficult than sniping from hiding in a space and not moving. Nor is it somehow easier to do it WHILE MOVING. You know, I know, and everyone knows the limitations you are pointing out are not "benefits", but just limitations because you are doing something more difficult that the normal sniping which would normally not require such limitations to deny dex bonus - the author already assumes it works that way.

It's a rule. It's pretty clear to me and a lot of people. You may not agree with that interpretation, but then a whole lot of us don't agree with yours. Hence, we have reached an impasse regarding how to interpret the rules as written. So in life, we turn to the old standards of how to break an impasse. Does one interpretation make more sense than another? It's a relevant question which you won't answer - because you know the answer, and it results in a tipping of the scale to the interpretation which you personally (on a logical basis) find "unfair" because you feel it too closely replicates the ability of a powerful second level skill.

I cited invisibilty, total concealment, hide skill, blindness and the combat modifiers table.

No you didn't. All you did was say "there is nothing about this thing we are talking about in those rules". Heck, you could have cited the rules for multiclassing and alignment changes, and you would have made the same point - which is to say you feel there is nothing about it. We disagree on that issue - but it doesn't mean you found some rule that actually directly supports your claim. Your entire argument is based on logical inference - that the absence of the rule in certain places makes it not a rule. The rest of us are using similar logical inferences, and you complain we cannot use logic because logic has no place with a rules debate. It's a silly claim, given what you've been arguing all along.

The part where I am supposed to provide a logical reason for the rules as written?

No see that wasn't the question asked. I asked for a logical reason why you think your interpretation of the rules as written makes more sense than ours, on a "this is the reason why" basis. Not a rules reason, but a "I can explain it like this". People do this every single day, with just about every single rules debate I've seen. It might be a silly reason, but they can always come up with SOME reason. And if you cannot - which it seems you cannot - it's probably a good sign you've gone down the wrong road in your interpretation. If you, as a D&D player and DM, one of the most imaginative games ever made, cannot imagine any reason why something could work that way, then it probably doesn't work that way and you should consider alternative interpretations.

Sorry I see no reason to play that game.

Because you know how it ends, is my guess. I'm not sure why it would be that big a deal that the RAW doesn't agree with your personal sense of fairness. We make house rules all the time. It's not a bad thing.

Hyp also asked for a reason why hiding should deny Dex. Which you managed to side step by the way. And I love how his question was brushed away as "so you have no logicial reason. . . "

I didn't side step anything. I asked him a question. He tried to answer, but his answer had nothing to do with the question. It was additional ancillary issues, which I am happy to answer now but only in an ancillary manner such that we both understand that it's a distraction from the main point we are discussing. This is that moving target issue I mentioned to you earlier. I find it's best to resolve an issue, and then move on to the next, rather than ignore an issue and throw many more out there hoping something sticks to the wall in a scattergun approach. It's not a particularly useful approach to debate.

Based on his logic, the reason determines several other ramifications. One of which I had pointed out long ago. If you are basing hiding denies Dex on the logicial simularities to being invisible then all of the benefits of being invisible should apply. You have instead stated that hiding isn't the same as being invisible but it still it is sort of like it enough that it denies Dex mod but no other benefits. Where is the logic in that at all? Either it is the same or it isn't the same. If it is the same it should have all of the same benefits if it isn't the same - then what is it?

No, not either it is the same or it isn't. Are the ramifications of being blind the same as the ramifications of not being able to see a single target? No of course not. Nor are the ramifications of an illusion spell that makes you not visible but which causes a wavering in the air and a displacement, and which light passes through, identical to hiding behind cover or concealment and attacking from range. I can see that invisibility might cause additional changes to the space you are in, along with benefits from light passing through you and being able to move more freely than while you are hiding, that would allow you to attack easier than someone who is in hiding.

Which is why I never said they were identical, just similar in that they are both examples of someone not being able to react to an attack. Being flat footed during a surprise round, and being attacked by a hidden attacker, are also both examples of someone not being able to react to an attack - but surely you are not trying to raise the strawman that I am trying to characterize both of those things as "identical - the same or not".

So, can you give us a reason why your interpretation makes logical sense? Or, can you offer another criteria for breaking our apparent impasse in mutually exclusive interpretations of the rules?