Does sniping while hidden deal sneak attack damage?

[hong]

You've nailed one of the major reasons why the wording is so important.

No, you've nailed one of the major reasons why the rules cannot be considered in isolation of the broader language framework within which they exist.

 

[irdeggman]

No, you've nailed one of the major reasons why the rules cannot be considered in isolation of the broader language framework within which they exist.

????

 

[hong]

????

Punctuation, too, is part of the English language, yes.

 

[Hussar]

If I could possibly interject here (and hopefully not toss gasoline on this. ).

Hong is saying, I think, that since there are examples within RAW where RAW is self conflicting, then basing arguments solely upon RAW, while ignoring the larger context of language, is not a good idea. Yes, RAW specifically states the only condition where you are flat footed - beginning of combat before your turn. But, RAW also states other conditions that conflict with this.

It's not too far of a stretch to think that flat footed is simply a short handed way of saying denied dex.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It is an inference obtained from the fact that flat-footed is used as a synonym for "lose Dex bonus to AC". It means more if you want it to.

If Uncanny Dodge allows me to retain my Dex bonus to AC while flat-footed, and flat-footed is used as a synonym for "lose Dex bonus to AC", does that mean that Uncanny Dodge allows me to retain my Dex bonus to AC under any conditions where I would lose my Dex bonus to AC?

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

If Uncanny Dodge allows me to retain my Dex bonus to AC while flat-footed, and flat-footed is used as a synonym for "lose Dex bonus to AC", does that mean that Uncanny Dodge allows me to retain my Dex bonus to AC under any conditions where I would lose my Dex bonus to AC?

-Hyp.

No, it means that uncanny dodge allows you to retain your Dex bonus to AC under conditions in which it is adjudged that flat-footedness is distinct from merely losing Dex bonus to AC.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, it means that uncanny dodge allows you to retain your Dex bonus to AC under conditions in which it is adjudged that flat-footedness is distinct from merely losing Dex bonus to AC.

So the game-mechanical term 'flat-footed' means 'denied Dex bonus to AC', except when it doesn't?

This is the sort of thing they should note in the glossary.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

So the game-mechanical term 'flat-footed' means 'denied Dex bonus to AC', except when it doesn't?

Exactly.

This is the sort of thing they should note in the glossary.

They do. It is the implicit glossary, as opposed to the explicit one.

 

[irdeggman]

If I could possibly interject here (and hopefully not toss gasoline on this. ).

Hong is saying, I think, that since there are examples within RAW where RAW is self conflicting, then basing arguments solely upon RAW, while ignoring the larger context of language, is not a good idea. Yes, RAW specifically states the only condition where you are flat footed - beginning of combat before your turn. But, RAW also states other conditions that conflict with this.

It's not too far of a stretch to think that flat footed is simply a short handed way of saying denied dex.

Actually IMO I think what Hong is really stating is that it all up to the DM's interpretation of the rules and how he wishes to apply what he believes they should mean inhis game.

A premise that can not be argued with since it was a core part of teh rules of D&D since about the dawn of time - the preveioulsy called "Rule-0"

Here are some of Hong's previous posts that I believe support this.
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3544713&postcount=72

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3544713&postcount=72

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3544713&postcount=72

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3556437&postcount=156
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3559032&postcount=179

The last line in this post IMO sums it up – it depends on how the DM wishes to treat. . .
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3560174&postcount=184

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3561324&postcount=190
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3561986&postcount=196
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3562005&postcount=198

 

[Old Gumphrey]

You actually feel that rogues are not extremly powerful with their sneak attack? You must be the only one I've seen with this opinion. With two weapon fighting a flanking rogue is downright nasty.

I think rogues are terribly weak. Yeah, they do a whole lot of damage. No, they don't have a lot of HP. No, they don't have a lot of AC. No, they don't have good Fort or Will saves. They've got great skills, but that doesn't help much when an orc barbarian is chopping them into d6's. Their advantages are not synergetic with the situations they often find themselves in (such as the middle of melee combat).

No, because "you catch your opponent flat-footed (for the purpose of this attack only)."

I was going off what you posted (or perhaps all I saw of it), which was apparently incomplete information. My point was that if it made them flat-footed without that caveat, everyone would get to slap them silly.