Does sniping while hidden deal sneak attack damage?

[Mistwell]

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!

Yes, people are actually arguing that hiding doesn't allow lost dex mods and thus sneak attacks. The position that seems to be taken by some is "because the rules don't come out, grab you by the shoulders and shake you with this specific answer, you cannot do it". Well okay, I added some snark there for effect

 

[Mistwell]

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



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

Oh see here I was depending on an implication from a prior FAQ, and now they come out and say it! So now begins the "Yeah, but the FAQ is crap anyway" routine answer.

This despite the fact that the last argument to the FAQ from Irdeggman was "Hmmm this was the assumption of the person asking the question. No where in the "answer" did it bring up the issue of denying Dex due to being hidden. Has nothing to de with being "good enough" it has everything to do with what the answer said.".

So despite the clear implication in the last argument from Irdeggman that the FAQ was a decent source for rules stuff, but it was insufficient on this particular point, we will now see yet another moving target position from him to "the FAQ is crap anyway".

 

[Legildur]

...we will now see yet another moving target position from him to "the FAQ is crap anyway".

And it is.... in some cases.

I would have been happier with the FAQ answer if it had of considered the "provided he can react to the attack" issue. I was also a little concerned about the use of the term 'flat-footed', as I was expecting to see more about 'denied Dex bonus to AC'. But I guess the answer was premised on a surprise round.

Certainly, while perhaps not a strict RAW answer, I would consider an attack from a hidden creature would deny the target their Dex bonus to AC. Not sure I would go as far as to grant them 'invisible' status.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I would have been happier with the FAQ answer if it had of considered the "provided he can react to the attack" issue. I was also a little concerned about the use of the term 'flat-footed', as I was expecting to see more about 'denied Dex bonus to AC'. But I guess the answer was premised on a surprise round.

Interestingly, since invisibility doesn't render an opponent flat-footed once combat has begun, "considered invisible for the purpose of rendering an opponent flat-footed" doesn't actually do anything once combat has begun.

The FAQ answer would imply that hiding can render an opponent flat-footed under the conditions that invisibility could render an opponent flat-footed... that is, when invisibility would lead to a surprise round in which the invisible attacker can act, but the defender has not yet acted in the combat. If hiding leads to a surprise round in which the hiding attacker can act, but the defender has not yet acted in the combat, I'm very, very comfortable with the defender being flat-footed.

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

Oh see here I was depending on an implication from a prior FAQ, and now they come out and say it! So now begins the "Yeah, but the FAQ is crap anyway" routine answer.

Correct the "old FAQ was not doing what you insinuated it did.

If the newer FAQ says that the rules don't come out and say but the hidden character is considered "invisible" - I don't have a problem with it. Although he is screwy on calling it "flat footed" since flat footed is a condition that doesn't exist except at the beginning of a round, until the character has 'acted" - by definition of the rules themselves.

From the SRD

Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed. You can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. Barbarians and rogues have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which allows them to avoid losing their Dexterity bonus to AC due to being flat-footed.

A flat-footed character can’t make attacks of opportunity.

This despite the fact that the last argument to the FAQ from Irdeggman was "Hmmm this was the assumption of the person asking the question. No where in the "answer" did it bring up the issue of denying Dex due to being hidden. Has nothing to de with being "good enough" it has everything to do with what the answer said.".

So despite the clear implication in the last argument from Irdeggman that the FAQ was a decent source for rules stuff, but it was insufficient on this particular point, we will now see yet another moving target position from him to "the FAQ is crap anyway".

There was no clear implication at all - the Sage addressed something else in his answer in the FAQ that you were relying on to prove your point.

Sorry but my statement was absolutely correct you failed to point to a FAQ that pretty much specifically addressed the issue.

If you would have pointed to this one instead things would have gone differently.

I may not agree with the FAQ (or Sage's answers) but they are "official".

Now the question is are any of the other things that go along with being "invisible" applicable to a character who is hidden?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Although he is screwy on calling it "flat footed" since flat footed is a condition that doesn't exist except at the beginning of a round, until the character has 'acted" - by definition of the rules themselves.

There are a few other things that can impose the flat-footed condition - balancing, Flick of the Wrist feat, Raptor School tactical feat, Confound the Big Folk tactical feat...

Invisibility, however, is not one of them.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Correct the "old FAQ was not doing what you insinuated it did.

If the newer FAQ says that the rules don't come out and say but the hidden character is considered "invisible" - I don't have a problem with it. Although he is screwy on calling it "flat footed" since flat footed is a condition that doesn't exist except at the beginning of a round, until the character has 'acted" - by definition of the rules themselves.

Nevertheless, the intent of the ruling is crystal-clear, and that is that sniping from hiding does deny Dex bonus to AC.

 

[Notsoluckycharm]

It is stated clearly in the combat section of the players handbook:

Ranged attacks within 30 feat deal sneak attack damage. Any further and it becomes impossible to strike your foe with the deadly accuract required.

I do not know if theres a feat to extend that - but the PHB's feats dont do it.

 

[javcs]

It is stated clearly in the combat section of the players handbook:

Ranged attacks within 30 feat deal sneak attack damage. Any further and it becomes impossible to strike your foe with the deadly accuract required.

I do not know if theres a feat to extend that - but the PHB's feats dont do it.

That's only if you qualify for sneak attack.
This entire debate is about whether hiding qualifies you for sneak attack or not.

PHB2, crossbow sniper, I believe boosts range to 60ft with x-bows. Order of the Bow Initiate, CWar, also boosts precision damage range to 60ft.

 

[Mistwell]

Correct the "old FAQ was not doing what you insinuated it did.

Well, I think it did, but that seems to be moot now.

If the newer FAQ says that the rules don't come out and say but the hidden character is considered "invisible" - I don't have a problem with it.

Great! (no sarcasm there, I am actually pleased that we agree).

Although he is screwy on calling it "flat footed" since flat footed is a condition that doesn't exist except at the beginning of a round, until the character has 'acted" - by definition of the rules themselves.

From the SRD

That sort of changed a while ago now with the expansion books. Several abilities let you treat an opponent as if they are flat footed after the round started. For example, the Flick of the Wrist feat lets you treat someone as flat-footed for the purposes of a single attack made after combat already started (a feat that is somewhat similar to sniping).

There was no clear implication at all - the Sage addressed something else in his answer in the FAQ that you were relying on to prove your point.

Sorry but my statement was absolutely correct you failed to point to a FAQ that pretty much specifically addressed the issue.

If you would have pointed to this one instead things would have gone differently.

I failed to point it out because, if I am not mistaken, it didn't exist yet. Or if it did, I sure missed it.