Sneak attacks within an Obscuring Mist

[Hypersmurf]

Of course, that´s the point of this thread.
Since the spell gives you no concealment closer than 5 feet, then you could potentially jump from concealment and sneak attack him.

Only if he's flat-footed.

Otherwise, jumping from concealment means he's no longer denied his Dex bonus, since you're no longer concealed.

-Hyp.

 

[Scion]

Anyone know of anything that grants an ability similar to vigilence? (psionics 3.0, pretty nice power actually) That would solve part of the problem

 

[Aaron2]

Yes, according to the RAW.

Yes what? Which part are you responding to.


Aaron

 

[Jarrod]

A related question:

If an enemy was in an obscuring mist and hit with a faery fire (which removes some forms of concealment), would the rogue be able to shoot him from 10' away?

 

[Plane Sailing]

Another interesting possibility... the rogue is just within the OM and so takes advantage of the concealment it offers to hide. Target walks past along the outside of the OM, so rogue strikes him from hiding as he walks past. The Rogue would have concealment from the target (he is within the mist) but the target doesn't have concealment from the rogue (he is outside the mist).

Potentially doable, I reckon.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Nope. Faerie Fire wouldn't help in this case.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Potentially doable, I reckon.

Yup, that works just fine.

-Hyp.

 

[Gaiden]

I think this is where you are getting in to trouble. Hide does -not- result in your opponent becoming "unaware" of you. Nor are hidden character considered invisible. Nor does being hidden mean you always get to sneak attack. The rules make a distinction between being hidden and whether the enemy knows where you are.

Consider this. Two combatants are alone in a giant empty room that has a 5' column in the middle. One combatant runs behind the column and since he now has total cover, he can Hide automatically. Should that character get a sneak attack against his opponent who just saw him walk behind the column?


Aaron

I would say yes, if he was able to make the attack with surprise. To be more clear, lets take your example. Combatant A is the one hiding. Combatant A has spiderclimbing. So he runs behind the column and then moves up it silently. Then while B moves around and doesn't find A, A drops on top of him with the intention of braeking his neck. A would make a charge attack for his touch to initiate the grapple and if B failed both his listen and spot checks would be denied his dex because B was unaware of A. Sure, he knew A was in the room but did not know A's precise location. He did not see A. So despite A not being invisible, B would still lose his dex to A's attack. With success of A's touch attack, he then would make an opposed grapple and if successful would deal S.A. dmg.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Consider this. Two combatants are alone in a giant empty room that has a 5' column in the middle. One combatant runs behind the column and since he now has total cover, he can Hide automatically. Should that character get a sneak attack against his opponent who just saw him walk behind the column?

Should he get a sneak attack against someone who has total cover against him?

How does he intend on actually delivering this attack?

-Hyp.

 

[Gaiden]

Why? If he's in an square that grants concealment, he's able to remain hiding. He can attack a creature 5 feet away without leaving his square.

The problem with the fog example is that in order to sneak attack, he is required to leave the square that grants concealment, since creatures 5 feet away have concealment.



What does the real world have to do with D&D Combat mechanics?

If you want to sneak attack, your opponent cannot have concealment. Fog grants concealment to creatures 5 feet away. No sneak attacking someone 5 feet away in fog.

That's the rule.

-Hyp.

I must humbly prostrate myself to your wisdom, but still (humbly) disagree. If you want to take the RAW precisely, I could be lawyerish and simply argue that the whole grapple procedure attack is initiated from 5' away. Sure, you move into the square and then make the touch attack, but the movement into the square is still part of the grapple. Because the whole attack begins at 5' away as does any other melee attack and as with any other melee attack, you become visible and don't benefit from such concealment when your weapon enters the opponent's square to actually connect, the two cases are treated identically (in terms of hiding rules).

I think what this really comes down to is ideology. I tend to take a: the RAW provide a guide that I will follow as closely as possible and are intended to outline real world (or fantasy-real world) mechanics. So in this case, rather than simply stating no, I try and come up with something that follows the rules as closely as possible (without violating any of them) and meshes what's already there while satisfying my mental image of what's going on.

We disagree with our very tenets because I don't think the whole concealment is required for the attack in the first place but was trying to convince you within your perspective. I don't think the concealment is necessary because once you are hidden and the opponent is unaware of you, your first attack is made with surprise in my book regardless of whether you leave that concealment or not. I think of it this way: if at the beginning of combat you lose your dex bonus and the opponent steps out from a corner (5') and makes an attack against you, why does he get S.A. dmg? Because you can't react, right? Well what about him being surprised is causing him not to be able to react? If you cite flatfootedness you get trapped in circular reasoning. The reason he is flatfooted is because he lost his dex bonus. They just happen to have a special name for it at the beginning of combat. What is descriptively different from the beginning of the combat as I have described and the middle of combat with a combatant stepping out of an obscuring mist? I can cater the scenario to my favor: let's assume that before combat started both combatants were "aware" that there was another combatant out there but neither knew precisely where the other was. So the notion of being prepared for the attack is irrelevant. I say there is no difference. If this maneuver was performed at the start of a combat or in the middle makes no difference. In both cases, the opponent will lose their dex bonus. Why, because the opponent was unaware of the attack before it happened.