When does Invisibility drop while attacking?

[kreynolds]

I said that catching your target flat-footed is not a requirement for sneak attack. Denying him his dex bonus is(and catching him flat-footed is one way of doing that). You called flat-footed a "required parameter for sneak attack"(your words, not mine).

Anyway...I'm not trying to tick you off or be rude or even single you out as the sole offender...lots of people use "flat-footed" as equal to "denied dex bonus"...they are not the same. They are two very specific and seperate conditions.

I am trying to tell you(and others who read this) that if you are going to give rules advice, you need to be very precise in your terminology. You were giving examples of how to achieve a sneak attack but it was coming across(to me anyway) as the _requirements_ for sneak attack. My concern here is not whether or not I upset you, but to make sure newbies are set on the right track to understanding the rules. A better way of answering the question would would have been to say something like:

"Since the target would be denied his dex bonus for ALL the iterative attacks, sneak attack damage would apply to all of them(assuming the target has discernable anatomy, is living, is not concealed and is subject to critical hits)."

Your answer just seemed confusing to me.

Blah, blah, blah...I don't confuse them anymore and neither do you, so we both know what I'm talking about. So stop blowing smoke up my...

 

[Voadam]

Not to tick you off, kr, but you can be flat footed and immune to sneak attacks. 2nd level barbarians and 3rd level rogues. They can still be flat footed and not able to make attacks of opportunity but not be denied their dexterity due to uncanny dodge.

The two conditions for sneak attacks are flanking and victim being denied dex bonus. Flat footed, in most circumstances but not all, means a character is denied their dex bonus.

Edit- Sorry, this seems to already have been addressed.

 

[kreynolds]

Not to tick you off, kr, but you can be flat footed and immune to sneak attacks. 2nd level barbarians and 3rd level rogues. They can still be flat footed and not able to make attacks of opportunity but not be denied their dexterity due to uncanny dodge.

Really! No kidding! Oh my god I had no idea! Thank you so much you wonderful little buffoon!

 

[Artoomis]

Really! No kidding! Oh my god I had no idea! Thank you so much you wonderful little buffoon!

"Wonderful little buffoon?" I guess you know that comments like this are why folks get upset with you. A little "nettiquette" goes a long way - including keeping in mind that it takes two to make a fight - if one person isn't willing, than no fight exists.

If you wish to be a peacemaker instaed of a warmonger, I suggest you tone down comments like this, and instead say something like:

"Yeah, I knew that. I just didn't state all the possibilities. Thanks for pointing this one out."

See? You'd make your point, but would not start a flame war. Unless starting a flame war is your intent. In which case you should take it somewhere else, that's not what these forums are about.

Sorry for the lecture - hopefully you'll take it in the sprirt of peacemaking in which in was given.

*sheesh - I feel like a forum moderator*

 

[Uller]

Really! No kidding! Oh my god I had no idea! Thank you so much you wonderful little buffoon!

You know, kr...people are just trying to be helpful so that others are clear on the rules. That makes two people who thought your post was a little misleading and clarified it. We're not trying to steal your thunder or anything. Just making sure those who don't understand the sneak attack rules get the right answers(and judging from how often these questions are asked, there is a fair number of people who are confused about sneak attacks).

I know you keep putting little "" in your posts to infer that you are just joking around, but I can't help but get the feeling you take it a little personally when someone attempts to correct you or clarify something you said. Just take the advice and move on. Sheez!

 

[kreynolds]

Infer what you want, but I am just playin' around. Don't take me too seriously.

 

[Artoomis]

Infer what you want, but I am just playin' around. Don't take me too seriously.

A personal attack is still a personal attack, even if meant as a jest. Tone of voice and expression do not get reflected in a computer, "" notwithstanding.

Just a small bit of advice for a happier world.

 

[kreynolds]

Hey, I failed sensitivity training. And I hate repeating myself.

One thing that I like about these boards are how people add on to what you say, further clarifying your statements. Take this for example:

Q: Can you take two 5-foot steps if you are hasted?
A: No.

Now in this case, someone will more than likely futher explain the "No." answer with this.

A: No. You are only allowed one 5-foot step per round, and even then, only if you have not already moved. You cannot take a 5-foot step in the same round that you take a move action.

I like that. It's cool. Here's the kind of crap I don't like.

A: No. You cannot. As per the rules, as kreynolds failed to point out because he doesn't understand the rules, is that you cannot take a 5-foot step in the same round that you take a move action. It would be nice if people would study the question before answering, that way they know what their talking about.

Now, all of the above answers are correct and the last two both further explain the first answer. BUT, the way the third answer is phrased only serves to piss me off because I have to go back and explain to this rude and impolite individual that I understand how it works and to tell them to put a sock in it. Keep in mind that this is just an example.

 

[Artoomis]

<AdviceMode>

If faced with this

A: No. You cannot. As per the rules, as kreynolds failed to point out because he doesn't understand the rules, is that you cannot take a 5-foot step in the same round that you take a move action. It would be nice if people would study the question before answering, that way they know what their talking about.

You have basically two appropriate responses.

1. Ignore it - either competely or you could agree or disagree with the actual statement about he rules that's in the middle of the response.

2. Reprimand the poster with something like:

Wow! That seems like quite a rather personal attack. I'll not respond in kind - please refrain from doing that sort of posting in the future - it doesn't add to the sort of civil discourse we enjoy in these forums. Thanks.

On to the discussion at hand... <you present your point of view about the issue>

See how much better that is than flying off the handle? It IS possible to make your point without returning an insult.

An approach like this will gain you respect, admiration and, perhaps more importantly, folks who will be happy to have discussions with you. An approach of returning insult for insult will impress no one and prejudice people against having discussions with you.

</AdviceMode>

 

[kreynolds]

Good point, Artoomis. I'll try. But...it's...so...hard! Must...not...insult...! Must...not...be...baited!