Does sniping while hidden deal sneak attack damage?

[RigaMortus2]

I think it's fair.

Would you also allow someone to gain the +2 if they successfully Feint someone?

You can also use Bluff to mislead an opponent in melee combat (so that it can’t dodge your next attack effectively).

Is it too far of a stretch to say that the reason they are denied their Dex mod to AC, the reason that they can't dodge my next attack effectively, is because they do not see that attack coming? So perhaps a +2 to hit the opponent I successfully Feinted?

 

[hong]

Would you also allow someone to gain the +2 if they successfully Feint someone?

No.

HAW HAW!

Is it too far of a stretch to say that the reason they are denied their Dex mod to AC, the reason that they can't dodge my next attack effectively, is because they do not see that attack coming?

Yes.

HAW HAW!

 

[RigaMortus2]

No.

HAW HAW!



Yes.

HAW HAW!

Ahhh, so there IS a limit. Now if we can only figure out what it is. Too bad, if we were all discussing the same rules (instead of making up rules), we might actually get somewhere.

 

[hong]

Ahhh, so there IS a limit.

Did anyone suggest there isn't?

Now if we can only figure out what it is. Too bad, if we were all discussing the same rules (instead of making up rules), we might actually get somewhere.

Naturally. Let us start with the premise that you lose Dex bonus against a hidden enemy.

 

[irdeggman]

Naturally. Let us start with the premise that you lose Dex bonus against a hidden enemy.

Why not instead start with what hidden is?

This, as Hyp pointed out, determines what rules to follow.

For example is the hidden character treated the same as invisible or total concealment or something other.

Hyp pointed out the rules to use use for deniying Dex mod to AC.

Is it because he can't react or because hidden is equivalent to invisible?

You need to start with a definition and not with a result.

Starting with you lose your Dex Mod to AC against a hidden PC is an end point not a start point.

What you end up doing is backtracking and trying to prove your assumption instead of starting with the beginning and seeing where it leads you.

 

[hong]

Why not instead start with what hidden is?

It is the state of being visually undetected.

This, as Hyp pointed out, determines what rules to follow.

Yes. It determines the rules to use for being visually undetected.

For example is the hidden character treated the same as invisible or total concealment or something other.

The hidden character is treated as being invisible for the purpose of denying Dex mod to AC, because that's what happens when you're attacked by someone you haven't detected visually.

Hyp pointed out the rules to use use for deniying Dex mod to AC.

Which, in the end, point to denying Dex mod to AC.

Is it because he can't react or because hidden is equivalent to invisible?

Whichever causative path is followed, the final destination is the same: he is denied Dex mod to AC.

You need to start with a definition and not with a result.

The definition is "visually undetectable". The result is "denied Dex mod to AC".

Starting with you lose your Dex Mod to AC against a hidden PC is an end point not a start point.

Correlation is not causation.

What you end up doing is backtracking and trying to prove your assumption instead of starting with the beginning and seeing where it leads you.

Isn't it fun ending up in the morass of vagueness? Meanwhile, in the world where rules are things to be applied to a game, the conclusion will be that you lose your Dex mod to AC.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Way to miss the point Hyp. The important words in that sentence were "logical inference".

You can pretend you guys are not using logical inferences to come to conclusions about the rules, but you're not fooling anyone. Both sides are using logical inferences, however one side is pretending they are not and the other is admitting that the best way to come to a conclusion is to actually use logic to figure out what the rule is.

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?

We do have a contradictory rule, y'all just don't like the interpretation. But again, pretending like the other side isn't claiming it's a rule is silly. You disagreeing about an interpretation of a rule doesn't make it suddenly not a rule that the interpretation is based on.

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

-Hyp.

I do. I said I did.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

I am getting seriously tired of people using this strawman over and over again when they actually have to go to great pains to cut part of my posts (the part that gives the context that answers the question being posed). It's verging on lying at this point.

I said IF THERE ARE TWO REASONABLE AND MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE RULES then it's fair to see if all parties agree that one interpretation makes a lot more sense than the other.

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.

Which we are all doing. I was not suggesting "what should the rule be" with no context.

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

Either you didn't read the thread and are making an honest mistake, or your being a jerk. If it's the later, please stop. You know, I know, and everyone who actually read the thread knows I am not arguing for logic without any context at all. I am offering an interpretation of the rules, drawn from the "ability to react" rule and the Complete Adventurer hiding rules and the analogous rules of invisibility and blindness and flat-footedness. You guys disagree with my interpretation, but that doesn't make it not rules. The "logic" part only comes later, once we reach an impasse between interpretations that conflict, I am simply asking that we all see if one makes more logical sense than the other. Given nobody, after dozens of posts, is capable of coming up with a single logical explanation for why the opposing interpretation makes sense, and everyone who has commented on the subject thinks my interpretation makes sense, I think that's the obvious way to break the impasse and come to a conclusion about the rules.

Perhaps it's the fact that a lot of folks like to debate the rules without ever finding a way to come a conclusion. I think the debate is itself a game to a lot of folks in the rules forum - and actually finding a way to break an impasse would end the debate and be viewed as someone "losing". Which isn't very adult in my opinion.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It is the state of being visually undetected.

...

The definition is "visually undetectable".

See the difference?

Someone who is invisible is visually undetectable. Someone who is successfully hiding is currently visually undetected, but one good Spot check could render them visually detected; therefore at no point are they visually undetectable.

For that, they need invisibility. Or total concealment/cover.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

See the difference?

Nope.

Someone who is invisible is visually undetectable. Someone who is successfully hiding is currently visually undetected, but one good Spot check could render them visually detected; therefore at no point are they visually undetectable.

However, at the point at which they make their attack, they are still hidden, and thus are visually undetected, which is all that is needed to deny Dex bonus to AC. Quibbles over four bytes in a post notwithstanding.

For that, they need invisibility. Or total concealment/cover.

Or be hidden.