Does sniping while hidden deal sneak attack damage?

[billd91]

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



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?

No, yes, and no.
The feint maneuver might have nothing at all to do with seeing the attack coming. It might just mean that you happen to have been led to get your guard out of appropriate position because you were gullible enough to follow the wrong lead. You might certainly see that follow-up attack coming right at you and be unable to do anything about it.
There's nothing at all with feint that requires the target to not see the attack coming. But in the case of a hidden opponent, we know he can't be seen because he's successfully beaten the target's spot check.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But it doesn't change the fact that the hiding character, for any spot check that validates the successful hide attempt, is also visually undetectable.

There's an apple sitting on the table. I haven't eaten it. That doesn't mean it's inedible. It means it's uneaten.

There's a carburettor sitting on the table. It's inedible.

There's a person hiding in the corner. I haven't visually detected him. That doesn't mean he's visually undetectable. It means he's visually undetected.

There's an invisible person in the corner. He's visually undetectable.

The Spot check doesn't determine whether or not the hiding character is undetectable. We know he's detectable... otherwise there would be no point in rolling the Spot check in the first place. The Spot check determines whether or not he's been detected yet.

-Hyp.

 

[Hussar]

But, since he's undetected, you cannot react to him.

Take blindness for example. Why do you lose your Dex bonus to AC when you are blind? I realize the rules are silent on this, but, is it so out of line to say that you lose your Dex bonus because you cannot react to attacks? Why can't you react to attacks? Because you can't see them coming.

How is that any different from a hidden opponent attacking you?

 

[billd91]

There's an apple sitting on the table. I haven't eaten it. That doesn't mean it's inedible. It means it's uneaten.

There's a carburettor sitting on the table. It's inedible.

There's a person hiding in the corner. I haven't visually detected him. That doesn't mean he's visually undetectable. It means he's visually undetected.

There's an invisible person in the corner. He's visually undetectable.

The Spot check doesn't determine whether or not the hiding character is undetectable. We know he's detectable... otherwise there would be no point in rolling the Spot check in the first place. The Spot check determines whether or not he's been detected yet.

-Hyp.

Wrap that apple in barbed wire. It becomes, for the time being, inedible. It is not fit be eaten by you under the current conditions.

There's a person hiding in the corner. You haven't visually detected him because he was visually undetectable with the means and attention you have given to the task of scanning the room.

The invisible person in the corner is also visually undetectable given the current set of conditions. Add something capable of letting you see invisible creatures and that changes.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But, since he's undetected, you cannot react to him.

And if that's your ruling, then I agree that p8 suggests that the character's Dexterity modifier is not applied to his Armor Class.

(Of course, since p8 specifies Dexterity modifier, not merely Dexterity bonus, it means that it's theoretically possible for hiding to make your target's AC go up, if his Dexterity modifier is negative...)

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

There's a person hiding in the corner. You haven't visually detected him because he was visually undetectable with the means and attention you have given to the task of scanning the room.

He was (and, indeed, still is) detectable. You just failed to do it.

-Hyp.

 

[billd91]

He was (and, indeed, still is) detectable. You just failed to do it.

-Hyp.

He was not detectable given the conditions at the time and the effort expended. Had he been, he would have been detected. Another time is another condition that is checked with another opposed roll. Maybe you'll get lucky.

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't see any concrete rules about the benefits or mechanics of hiding. Heck, there isn't even a definition of "hiding" or "hidden" in the glossary. So, if one happens to be a Game Master at a table using the Dungeons and Dragons rules, one has to apply one's own judgement to the situation of a character attempting to be "hidden".

All else, is just silly banter.

 

[pressedcat]

Here's what wizards of the coast have to say on the issue

Q: If a rogue has successfully hidden behind some bushes and fires an arrow at a target less than 30 feet away from her, does she deal sneak attack damage?
A: Yes.
The rules don’t come right out and say this, but a character who has successfully hidden from an opponent is considered invisible for the purpose of rendering that foe flat-footed, and thus deals sneak attack damage.
D&D FAQ v.3.5 pg 23 Update Version: 05/18/07

Of course, everybody knows the FAQ aren't to be trusted

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Q: If a rogue has successfully hidden behind some bushes and fires an arrow at a target less than 30 feet away from her, does she deal sneak attack damage?
A: Yes.
The rules don’t come right out and say this, but a character who has successfully hidden from an opponent is considered invisible for the purpose of rendering that foe flat-footed, and thus deals sneak attack damage.
D&D FAQ v.3.5 pg 23 Update Version: 05/18/07

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH!

So wait, people are actually arguing that hiding doesn't allow lost dex mods and thus sneak attacks? Or are they just saying that the rules don't specifically say that you can? The rules don't specifically say I can stand on my head, but I bet a DC 15 Balance check would let me do it!