Does sniping while hidden deal sneak attack damage?

[Vengeful]

Not necessarily.

"Apples are red and round" means that if something is an apple, it is red and round; it does not mean that if something is red and round, it is an apple.

I can be denied my Dex bonus and unable to make an AoO without possessing the flat-footed condition. However, if I do possess the flat-footed condition, I am denied my Dex bonus and unable to make an AoO.

-Hyp.

.........

I understand what you are saying...such as, you've recently made an AoO and someone uses "Flick of the Wrist" or Feint to deny you a Dex bonus....The aforementioned requisites have been met....but that is not what we are talking about...we're talking about a SINGLE CAUSE for No Dex and No AoOs.

If you lose your Dex to AC and the ability to make AoO due to the same cause (such as hidden, invisibility, suprise round, etc.), you are flat-footed.

 

[irdeggman]

Okay, this debate is devolving into silliness. WOTC violating their own rules and therefore their new rules are not valid? Come on now. What's with the heightened level of rigidity?

It is not really silly. There are other ramifications for calling it flat-footed (see my previous post for one).

Since several people tried to state that logic rules when it comes to rules interpretation, where is the "logic" in stating that a condition that by definition can only occur at the beginning of battle can occur at another time?

 

[hong]

Since several people tried to state that logic rules when it comes to rules interpretation, where is the "logic" in stating that a condition that by definition can only occur at the beginning of battle can occur at another time?

Note: this occurs right in the PHB itself.

Perhaps this will demonstrate the folly of narrow argumentation based purely on the rules framework, but somehow I doubt it.

 

[Vengeful]

Calling it flat-footed means a lot more than merely denying Dex mod to AC and no AoO. For one you can't take a swift action.

Isn't that just for the suprise round? One standard action or move action only? You can NOT be flat-footed while in the suprise round and not be able to take a swift action.

It is the suprise round that is limiting the actions of the characters, not the attribute of being flat footed

 

[The Blow Leprechaun]

As I understand it, the rulebooks say a target can be "considered to be" or "treated as" flat-footed, which is distinct from actually making them flat-footed, and not contradictory.

Seems to me to just be shorthand for the same conditions (lack of dex, no AOO).

For example, if I get angry every time I see the color green and I put on some glasses with green lenses, everything I see can be considered to be green - even though it isn't actually green.

Seriously, there are better uses for a 2x4, folks.

 

[Mistwell]

It is not really silly. There are other ramifications for calling it flat-footed (see my previous post for one).

Since several people tried to state that logic rules when it comes to rules interpretation, where is the "logic" in stating that a condition that by definition can only occur at the beginning of battle can occur at another time?

If WOTC publishes new rules that expands the definition of flat-footedness, then you are free to not accept those rules, but that doesn't mean they cannot validly expand the definition of their own rules. And they don't have to say "We are officially hereby changing the definition" to do so. They just have to do it. And sometimes they can offer the curtesey of saying that's what they are doing, and sometimes we just have to read it and figure it out. This is a case of the later.

It's logical to look at the body of the rules and try and figure out what WOTC means, and in this case we can look at the body of rules, with an initial definition and then several other things that expand on that definition, and logically conclude that flat-footed can mean more than "beginning of the round".

The "beginning of the round" was just a way to explain the rule at the time that rule was published, since at that time it was always at the beginning, and it made for an easy way to explain what they meant by that "not ready to react" kind of rule. But now that we grok the ramifications of being flat-footed, they have explained that it doesn't HAVE to be at the beginning of the round - it just usually is at the beginning.

I think, if you cannot see the folly of saying "WOTC has violated their own rule" when they publish an expansion on their own rule, you've gotten too lost in the minutae of rules debating to appreciate the big picture. It's just some game rules - they are not perfect, not intended to be perfect, and not intended to always be read in a strict and literal manner.

 

[Mistwell]

As I understand it, the rulebooks say a target can be "considered to be" or "treated as" flat-footed, which is distinct from actually making them flat-footed, and not contradictory.

Seems to me to just be shorthand for the same conditions (lack of dex, no AOO).

For example, if I get angry every time I see the color green and I put on some glasses with green lenses, everything I see can be considered to be green - even though it isn't actually green.

Seriously, there are better uses for a 2x4, folks.

Amen!

 

[Hypersmurf]

I understand what you are saying...such as, you've recently made an AoO and someone uses "Flick of the Wrist" or Feint to deny you a Dex bonus....

Flick of the Wrist, as it happens, renders an opponent flat-footed, per the feat text.

The aforementioned requisites have been met....but that is not what we are talking about...we're talking about a SINGLE CAUSE for No Dex and No AoOs.

If you lose your Dex to AC and the ability to make AoO due to the same cause (such as hidden, invisibility, suprise round, etc.), you are flat-footed.

In the case of invisibility, no, you aren't. You are denied Dex bonus to AC, and you are unable to make an AoO since your opponent has total concealment, but you are not flat-footed. An OA Iaijutsu Master, for example, does not gain extra damage to you, because the extra damage only applies to a flat-footed opponent, and his invisibility - while duplicating some of the effects that the flat-footed condition would impose - does not, in fact, impose that condition.

Similarly, a blind creature is denied his Dex bonus to AC, and can't make AoOs since all his opponents have total concealment. Yet he is not flat-footed, unless something has imposed that condition... blindness itself does not.

Isn't that just for the suprise round? One standard action or move action only?

You can also take free actions in the surprise round, and a swift action can be taken any time you could take a free action; therefore you can take a swift action in the surprise round.

"In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round."

and

"Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. However, you can perform only a single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action any time you would normally be allowed to take a free action."

-Hyp.

 

[The Blow Leprechaun]

Flick of the Wrist, as it happens, renders an opponent flat-footed, per the feat text.

Personally, I don't think you can consider the rules to be self-contradictory when you put non-core against core. In that case, core is right and the non-core is wrong. That's part of why they call it core, and the reason my group plays almost exclusively with core rulebooks - portability!

 

[Mistwell]

Personally, I don't think you can consider the rules to be self-contradictory when you put non-core against core. In that case, core is right and the non-core is wrong. That's part of why they call it core, and the reason my group plays almost exclusively with core rulebooks - portability!

Do you charge an experience point penalty to anyone that takes a prestige class? According to the core 3.5 PHB rules, you would do that. However, the suppliments (in this case Complete Warrior) expands on the exemptions from the XP penalty to include prestige classes (like 3.0 did).

We have pretty broad agreement on this board that you don't charge an XP penalty to a prestige class. But, if you read things as narrowly as you seem to in that post - then I guess all your PCs are calculating XP penalties when they take a prestige class, or you "house ruled" it?