Does sniping while hidden deal sneak attack damage?

[Hypersmurf]

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?

Because losing Dex bonus to AC is a game rules concept, and the game rules state that blind targets lose Dex bonus to AC, as do those attacked by the invisible... but are silent on the matter of those attacked by the hiding. We have a rule that says you apply your Dex modifier to AC. We don't have a rule that says you lose it if the attacker is hiding... unless we consider that situation to be covered by "provided you can react to the attack".

I'm not sure why you consider "The rules don't say you do, like they do for the other situations" to be invalid as a logical reason when discussing the rules.

And again, I don't think you can say "can't-be-seen is logically the same, whether it results from blindness, invisibility, or the Hide skill!" and apply that in isolation to Dex bonus to AC without addressing the other questions I raised, and maintain any consistency.

I'm more than happy to address them from a "What do the rules actually say?" standpoint.

1. Dex bonus to AC is lost when blind or when the attacker is invisible. Nothing is said directly about losing your Dex bonus vs a hiding attacker.
2. Blind-Fight allows you to retain your Dex bonus against an invisible attacker. Nothing is said about retaining your Dex bonus while blind. (Or against a hiding attacker, should that prove relevant.)
3. The DC 20/30/40 'hunch' Spot check to notice the presence applies to invisible creatures. Nothing is said about noticing the presence of a hiding creature. A blind creature automatically fails Spot checks, so he cannot make a 'hunch' Spot check to notice the presence of any nearby creature, invisible, hiding, or otherwise.
4. An invisible attacker gains a +2 attack bonus. Nothing is said about a hiding attacker. A blind creature takes a -2 AC penalty, but an invisible attacker does not gain the +2 bonus; nothing is said about a hiding attacker (should that prove relevant).

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Your entire argument is based on logical inference - that the absence of the rule in certain places makes it not a rule.

He's not claiming that the absence of a rule in certain places makes it not a rule. He's arguing that the absence of a rule in all places makes it not a rule.

We have a rule (A defender adds Dex bonus to AC). We do not have a contradictory rule (A hiding attacker denies Dex bonus to AC). The lack of that contradictory rule means that the original rule stands, surely?

Unless one considers "provided he can react to the attack" to be applicable.

-Hyp.

 

[billd91]

And again, I don't think you can say "can't-be-seen is logically the same, whether it results from blindness, invisibility, or the Hide skill!" and apply that in isolation to Dex bonus to AC without addressing the other questions I raised, and maintain any consistency.

I'm more than happy to address them from a "What do the rules actually say?" standpoint.

1. Dex bonus to AC is lost when blind or when the attacker is invisible. Nothing is said directly about losing your Dex bonus vs a hiding attacker.
2. Blind-Fight allows you to retain your Dex bonus against an invisible attacker. Nothing is said about retaining your Dex bonus while blind. (Or against a hiding attacker, should that prove relevant.)
3. The DC 20/30/40 'hunch' Spot check to notice the presence applies to invisible creatures. Nothing is said about noticing the presence of a hiding creature. A blind creature automatically fails Spot checks, so he cannot make a 'hunch' Spot check to notice the presence of any nearby creature, invisible, hiding, or otherwise.
4. An invisible attacker gains a +2 attack bonus. Nothing is said about a hiding attacker. A blind creature takes a -2 AC penalty, but an invisible attacker does not gain the +2 bonus; nothing is said about a hiding attacker (should that prove relevant).

-Hyp.

The problem with these points is that hiding provides little explanation about any practical benefits it confers with respect to combat. It's clear that a hidden character is unseen since that is the very condition a hiding character is trying to achieve. You then have to determine what, exactly, that means in practical sense.
I'm content with equating it with the invisible condition since that is defined as visually undetectable and something that is successfully unseen is visually undetectable. And yes, I'm content to allow the +2 to hit as well as the loss of Dex bonus for the target.

Looking at the points you list:
1. Blind target means target can't see attack coming. Invisible attacker means target can't see the attack coming. Successfully hidden character means target can see the attack coming? Does that make sense? I don't think so.
2. Blind-fight (and uncanny dodge) allows you to keep Dex vs invisible attackers which means the character with that ability doesn't need to see the attack coming to have an effective defense. Seems quite fair to allow it for blind characters and against hidden attackers as well.
3. The 'hunch' spot check is unnecessary with respect to hide since the success of a hide attempt is dependent on an opposed roll. The spot check is already required and must be failed for the attacker to achieve the invisible condition.
4. The +2/-2 modifiers dovetail into a consistent behavior for attackers who cannot be seen by the target - one based on the unseen attacker and one based on the target who cannot see. I'm not really sure it's present at all but that was a design decision of the writers, and I wonder if it's there to make sure that average and lower Dex characters are easier to hit because loss of Dex bonus isn't really a penalty for those cases. As I've said before, if you buy the definition of the invisible condition covers a successfully hidden character, then the bonuses apply.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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?

There is no logical explaination, because the rules do not allow for one. If you are all about logical reasoning, why even use the rules in the book? Just make up your own rules that "make sense" or are "logical" to you.

But if two (or more) parties are trying to discuss how something works in a game, the only way to do that is by examining the rules of that game.

Do you have a logical explaination as to how someone can cast a magical spell and turn invisible to begin with?

 

[Caliban]

During combat (after the surprise round) if a character successfully hides then attacks a foe, do they get any benefits? Specifically, is the target flat-footed, denied its Dex bonus or in any other way incur sneak attack damage?

Yes.

 

[Hypersmurf]

2. Blind-fight (and uncanny dodge) allows you to keep Dex vs invisible attackers which means the character with that ability doesn't need to see the attack coming to have an effective defense. Seems quite fair to allow it for blind characters and against hidden attackers as well.

So if you grant the +2 to hidden attackers, you let Blind-Fight deny that +2 - no problem.

Do you let Blind-Fight remove the -2 penalty to AC for being blind? Or is that too much of a stretch from what the feat actually says?

3. The 'hunch' spot check is unnecessary with respect to hide since the success of a hide attempt is dependent on an opposed roll. The spot check is already required and must be failed for the attacker to achieve the invisible condition.

Let's say the hider has a Hide roll of 40. He's 'achieved the invisible condition' because you only rolled a 30 on your Spot check. Since he's 'achieved the invisible condition', doesn't that mean a second Spot check - against the static DC of 20 or 30, completely unrelated to the opponent's Hide roll - should allow you to notice that 'something's out there' (though not to actually see him, or even pinpoint him unless you beat that static DC by 20), just as it would if he were truly invisible?

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

2. Blind-Fight allows you to retain your Dex bonus against an invisible attacker. Nothing is said about retaining your Dex bonus while blind.

... I think we're done here.


NO! NO! WE'RE NOT!

 

[Hussar]

Because losing Dex bonus to AC is a game rules concept, and the game rules state that blind targets lose Dex bonus to AC, as do those attacked by the invisible... but are silent on the matter of those attacked by the hiding. We have a rule that says you apply your Dex modifier to AC. We don't have a rule that says you lose it if the attacker is hiding... unless we consider that situation to be covered by "provided you can react to the attack".

I'm not sure why you consider "The rules don't say you do, like they do for the other situations" to be invalid as a logical reason when discussing the rules.

And again, I don't think you can say "can't-be-seen is logically the same, whether it results from blindness, invisibility, or the Hide skill!" and apply that in isolation to Dex bonus to AC without addressing the other questions I raised, and maintain any consistency.

I'm more than happy to address them from a "What do the rules actually say?" standpoint.

1. Dex bonus to AC is lost when blind or when the attacker is invisible. Nothing is said directly about losing your Dex bonus vs a hiding attacker.
2. Blind-Fight allows you to retain your Dex bonus against an invisible attacker. Nothing is said about retaining your Dex bonus while blind. (Or against a hiding attacker, should that prove relevant.)
3. The DC 20/30/40 'hunch' Spot check to notice the presence applies to invisible creatures. Nothing is said about noticing the presence of a hiding creature. A blind creature automatically fails Spot checks, so he cannot make a 'hunch' Spot check to notice the presence of any nearby creature, invisible, hiding, or otherwise.
4. An invisible attacker gains a +2 attack bonus. Nothing is said about a hiding attacker. A blind creature takes a -2 AC penalty, but an invisible attacker does not gain the +2 bonus; nothing is said about a hiding attacker (should that prove relevant).

-Hyp.

If I have total concealment I am not threatened correct? If the target cannot see me, he cannot take AOO's against me. I think that's correct. Would it not stand to reason that that is pretty equivalent to the whole provided he can react bit? The target cannot take any actions against me, so, I would say that he can't react to me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If I have total concealment I am not threatened correct? If the target cannot see me, he cannot take AOO's against me. I think that's correct. Would it not stand to reason that that is pretty equivalent to the whole provided he can react bit? The target cannot take any actions against me, so, I would say that he can't react to me.

A wizard in the middle of casting a one-round spell does not threaten and cannot take AoOs, but he doesn't lose his Dex bonus to AC.

If you have cover, I cannot take an AoO against you, but I don't lose my Dex bonus against your attacks.

Threatening an area and being able to react to an attack are not the same thing.

-Hyp.

 

[billd91]

So if you grant the +2 to hidden attackers, you let Blind-Fight deny that +2 - no problem.

Do you let Blind-Fight remove the -2 penalty to AC for being blind? Or is that too much of a stretch from what the feat actually says?

I think it's fair.

Let's say the hider has a Hide roll of 40. He's 'achieved the invisible condition' because you only rolled a 30 on your Spot check. Since he's 'achieved the invisible condition', doesn't that mean a second Spot check - against the static DC of 20 or 30, completely unrelated to the opponent's Hide roll - should allow you to notice that 'something's out there' (though not to actually see him, or even pinpoint him unless you beat that static DC by 20), just as it would if he were truly invisible?

-Hyp.

Pinpointing the character should be based on his actual hide skill check since the DCs set in the Invisibility power description have the unstated assumption that the invisible character is not trying hide. This dovetails reasonably well with the invisibility bonuses for the Hide skill (+20 if invisible and moving around, +40 if still). Making the extra 'hunch' skill check is good for that feeling of being watched or feeling the presence of something... but of course without knowing where or what it is.
That said, I wouldn't call the 'hunch' spot check strictly necessary since it's primary role is to give the spotter a chance to get in a spot check when one isn't normally warranted by a hide attempt.