Post/Author/DateTime	Post
musicthought28 02-06-08, 02:25 AM	As the thread title denotes, I have a question regarding Spring Attack, used in conjunction with Sneak Attack and Horn of Fog. If I (Rog 8) fill the area in question entirely with fog, and then proceed to merrily Spring Attack those befuddled, fogbound opponents (assume that I can see through the fog), will Sneak Attack apply? Will they be considered flat-footed? Thanks for any input.
JamesMaissen 02-06-08, 06:21 AM	As the thread title denotes, I have a question regarding Spring Attack, used in conjunction with Sneak Attack and Horn of Fog. If I (Rog 8) fill the area in question entirely with fog, and then proceed to merrily Spring Attack those befuddled, fogbound opponents (assume that I can see through the fog), will Sneak Attack apply? Will they be considered flat-footed? Thanks for any input. If you see them without any concealment and they cannot see you when you attack, then you should be able to sneak attack them. They would not be flat-footed, but they would be denied their DEX. -James
mplindustries 02-06-08, 06:43 AM	As the thread title denotes, I have a question regarding Spring Attack, used in conjunction with Sneak Attack and Horn of Fog. If I (Rog 8) fill the area in question entirely with fog, and then proceed to merrily Spring Attack those befuddled, fogbound opponents (assume that I can see through the fog), will Sneak Attack apply? Will they be considered flat-footed? Thanks for any input. You could only Sneak Attack if you had reach, or you made a successful hide check. Horn of Fog (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#hornofFog) functions as Obscuring Mist (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/obscuringMist.htm). "The vapor obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet. A creature 5 feet away has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance). Creatures farther away have total concealment (50% miss chance, and the attacker cannot use sight to locate the target)." This means that from 5 feet away, you would be spotted and the target would no longer be denied his dexterity bonus. You would have to succeed on a Hide check (with penalties based on how far you move with spring attack) in order to actually keep the target denied their dex bonus. And unless you want to make the Hide check with a -20, you would be absolutely spotted after the attack. However, as I said before, if you could get reach, you have total concealment from 10 feet away, so they can't defend at all and you don't have to make any checks. You wouldn't even need Spring Attack for that. What's up with Rogues always wanting to take Spring Attack? Despite the idea everyone gets in their head of "sneaking up and attacking and then sneaking off before they know what hit them," it just doesn't work that way. Using Spring Attack is extremely likely to reduce your potential damage by a significant amount. Rogues really should make twf full attacks, preferably while Greater Invisible, or just flanking.
musicthought28 02-06-08, 11:54 AM	Thanks for the responses so far ^.^ Yes, I realize the sub-optimality of Spring Attack, but I'm not striving for a high level of effectiveness here. Perhaps shooting at them from the fog? Oh, and just in case, this game is Forgotten Realms.
PhaedrusXY 02-06-08, 12:05 PM	Perhaps shooting at them from the fog? Oh, and just in case, this game is Forgotten Realms.Yes. You just can't be within 5 feet of them, as then you only have concealment instead of total concealment. You could even make full attacks if you're using a ranged weapon, and they'd all be sneak attacks.
musicthought28 02-06-08, 01:52 PM	Har...I just had an image of my character firing blindly into the fog with a gnomish flintlock, eliciting cries of pain from all and sundry.:rolleyes:
ZiggZagg 02-06-08, 02:35 PM	This entire scenario gets pretty much shot down when everyone realizes that you can't sneak attack someone that has concealment. So even 5 feet away, they have 20% concealment, which means no sneak attack. As for Spring Attack, it can actually work pretty well in combat when you run into a fight to flank someone, sneak attack, and run away. Rinse and repeat. I personally prefer this, as I don't like having my rogues make full attacks. Leaves them in that melee range area too long to get smashed.
mplindustries 02-06-08, 03:38 PM	This entire scenario gets pretty much shot down when everyone realizes that you can't sneak attack someone that has concealment. So even 5 feet away, they have 20% concealment, which means no sneak attack. If I (Rog 8) fill the area in question entirely with fog, and then proceed to merrily Spring Attack those befuddled, fogbound opponents (assume that I can see through the fog), will Sneak Attack apply? Will they be considered flat-footed? That is all.
ZiggZagg 02-06-08, 03:40 PM	You can see through the fog all you want. But short of gaining blindsight, you are not going to be able to dismiss the concealment in an obscuring mist effect
Dheran 02-07-08, 09:18 AM	What's up with Rogues always wanting to take Spring Attack? Despite the idea everyone gets in their head of "sneaking up and attacking and then sneaking off before they know what hit them," it just doesn't work that way. Actually, it does work that way if the player is getting Spring Attack for the right reason. This reason is because they've already paid the prerequisite feat costs because they've taken one level of Shadowdancer to get the good, Supernatural version of Hide in Plain Sight. Both Spring Attack and Shadowdancer are "expensive" in prerequisite costs for feat-poor Rogues. Getting them together gives better return on the investment. Using Spring Attack is extremely likely to reduce your potential damage by a significant amount. Rogues really should make twf full attacks, preferably while Greater Invisible, or just flanking. The basic problem is that most Rogues' chances of hitting with additional attacks goes from sucky to worse, and their ability to withstand damage in a head-to-head fight is even suckier. Spring Attack is a useful tool to use while the Rogue is cranking up their Hide modifier to the point that they can routinely succeed on Hide with a -20 penalty on each swing of a full attack. That's the only time that it's safe for a Rogue to think about TWF. Rogues really should not make TWF full attacks until they can use Hide with every swing. TWF, for Rogues, is really an option for higher levels.
JamesMaissen 02-07-08, 09:46 PM	Rogues really should not make TWF full attacks until they can use Hide with every swing. TWF, for Rogues, is really an option for higher levels. And how do they get to do this? -James
jaelis 02-07-08, 11:23 PM	So how do you get to see through fog, anyway?
Tsuul 02-08-08, 06:12 PM	Rogues really should not make TWF full attacks until they can use Hide with every swing. TWF, for Rogues, is really an option for higher levels. And how do they get to do this?By using the RAW hide skill presented in the PHB. Here's the two lines to focus on: It's practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging. ... Action: Usually none.
JamesMaissen 02-08-08, 11:42 PM	By using the RAW hide skill presented in the PHB. Here's the two lines to focus on: It's practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging. ... Action: Usually none. Umm.. no. Just no. Wishful thinking perhaps, creative reading also perhaps. Let's start with the 'Action' line. You want to read the entirety of it. "Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. However, hiding immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action." When full attacking, you cannot hide after each attack. You can hide as part of movement (if you satisfy criteria to do so) but not between attacks per say. Perhaps special attack forms that let you move while making a full attack could allow for this, but if you are not moving then the 'usually none' doesn't apply. You can also hide after making a ranged attack to avoid being observed. This falls under 'sniping' and requires a move action (as detailed above) and is not done for free. It is 'practically impossible' so you do get the -20 on the roll, but there are criteria for achieving it. "Sniping: If you’ve already successfully hidden at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack, then immediately hide again. You take a –20 penalty on your Hide check to conceal yourself after the shot." There is nowhere in the hide skill description where it says you can hide between full melee attacks. -James
Lycanthromancer 02-08-08, 11:59 PM	There's always the touchsight (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Touchsight) power from the Expanded Psionics Handbook. It allows you to 'see' through fog just fine, so long as it's not solid fog. Note that foes don't get concealment from fog: Touchsight Psychometabolism Level: Psion/Wilder 3 Display: Visual Manifesting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal; see text Target: You Duration: 1 min./level (D) Power Points: 5 You generate a subtle telekinetic field of mental contact, allowing you to “feel” your surroundings even in total darkness or when your sight would otherwise be obscured by your physical environment. Your touchsight field emanates from you out to 60 feet. You ignore invisibility, darkness, and concealment, though you must have line of effect to a creature or an object to discern it. You do not need to make Spot or Listen checks to notice creatures; you can detect and pinpoint all creatures within 60 feet. In many circumstances, comparing your regular senses to what you learn with touchsight is enough to tell you the difference between visible, invisible, hiding, and concealed creatures. Augment: For every 2 additional power points you spend, the radius of your touchsight field increases by 10 feet.
rironin 02-09-08, 12:01 AM	You can see through the fog all you want. But short of gaining blindsight, you are not going to be able to dismiss the concealment in an obscuring mist effectAre you actually suggesting that the concealment effect of the obscuring mist spell isn't caused by the mist itself blocking vision, and that the concealment effects would remain, irrespective of a creature or character's ability to magically see through the mist as if it weren't there?
mplindustries 02-09-08, 02:38 AM	Are you actually suggesting that the concealment effect of the obscuring mist spell isn't caused by the mist itself blocking vision, and that the concealment effects would remain, irrespective of a creature or character's ability to magically see through the mist as if it weren't there? This is actually irrelevant, because to see through the mist, he would have to use something that would allow him to ignore the concealment. Everything that allows you to see through concealment would see through mist and vice versa, even if it didn't actually make "sense."
Tsuul 02-09-08, 05:01 AM	Umm.. no. Just no. Wishful thinking perhaps, creative reading also perhaps.Wishful, no. I don't believe hide was intended to let anyone hide in between multiple attacks. But RAW and RAI don't always agree. Let's start with the 'Action' line. You want to read the entirety of it. I like to read it as a single 'either or statement', kinda the way you are now and the way Skip Williams reads it. But it wasn't written as Either... or ... "Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. However, hiding immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action."Normally, you make a hide check as "Action: Usually none". However sniping forces you to hide as a move action. --That's all the paragraph is saying. There is nowhere in the hide skill description where it says you can hide between full melee attacks. "It's practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging." --Attacking isn't reduced to the standard attack action.
JamesMaissen 02-09-08, 07:34 AM	I like to read it as a single 'either or statement', kinda the way you are now and the way Skip Williams reads it. But it wasn't written as Either... or ... Normally, you make a hide check as "Action: Usually none". However sniping forces you to hide as a move action. --That's all the paragraph is saying. "It's practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging." --Attacking isn't reduced to the standard attack action. Again, no you are missing what the action line is saying. "Usually none", -because- you do the hide check as part of a move. When sniping it is a move action. So you are saying that by RAW you could hide and full attack with thrown weapons, hiding inbetween each attack.. but only if you were adjacent? Because otherwise you would be sniping... I don't think so. But more importantly you are taking it from the action line which does not say what you are trying to make it say. You are not doing the hide as part of a move, thus the no action is *not* applying as it's not part of a move. "You make a Hide check as part of movement, SO it doesn’t take a separate action." If you are NOT making a Hide check as part of movement this doesn't apply... -James
mplindustries 02-09-08, 02:43 PM	Consider drawing a weapon. If you have a +1 BAB, drawing a weapon usually takes no action because you can do it as part of a move action. If you don't have a +1 BAB, drawing takes a move action. There is absolutely precedent for this kind of thing with Hide. I am sorry, but no, you can't hide between attacks on a full attack without some kind of feat that I don't know about. The action section of Hide says explicitly that it usually takes no action because it is done as part of a move. Lets look at the action lines of other skills: Climb "Climbing is part of movement, so it’s generally part of a move action" Jump "None. A Jump check is included in your movement, so it is part of a move action." Move Silently "None. A Move Silently check is included in your movement or other activity, so it is part of another action." Tumble "Not applicable. Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action." Well, obviously, that means I can jump in between attacks on a full attack because it says it takes no action. Hide is another skill that is simply part of movement. Sniping is actually the action that is the exception, because it allows you to hide without moving. Keep in mind that sniping also does something completely different from other hide checks as well. Sniping prevents you from ever being seen in the first place, whereas other hide checks let you hide once you've already been seen. So, hiding is usually none because it is part of a move action. That means if you aren't taking said move action, you can't hide, because there isn't even a "free action" called "Hide." There is no action you can take to hide besides the two listed: as part of a move, or sniping.
Tsuul 02-09-08, 04:09 PM	Again, no you are missing what the action line is saying.I can read the lines multiple different ways. You seem to be reading it only one way. What is your definition of "missing". So you are saying that by RAW you could hide and full attack with thrown weapons, hiding inbetween each attack.. but only if you were adjacent? Because otherwise you would be sniping...The sniping rules are borked. It's pointless to bring them up other then to say it takes an entire move action to re-hide when sniping. The action section of Hide says explicitly that it usually takes no action because it is done as part of a move. Explicitly? "Normally" throws that out the window when it has the "However" in a separate sentence. The Jump check description is explicit in what "Action: None." means. The Concentration skill is explicit in what "Action: None" means. The Concentration skill even uses the "Either/Or" language I mentioned earlier. How does a rogue make hide checks from a stationary position? Seems kinda silly to force him to move out of a perfectly good hiding spot, just so he can go back to it and hide. If you guys want to open another thread on the subject, by all means, do so.On second thought, I can foresee this going in an infinite circle.
jaelis 02-09-08, 04:17 PM	The FAQ says Normally, a character can’t make a Hide check right after attacking a foe, since that foe’s attention is now focused on her (even if the attacker started her turn hidden or invisible). The sniping option (on page 76 in the Player’s Handbook) allows a character to make a move action to hide immediately after making a ranged attack against a foe at least 10 feet away, but this doesn’t apply to melee attacks (even those made with reach). On that basis, I'm pretty sure the -20 penalty applies when you try to attack from hiding, not when you try to hide after or as part of an attack.
mplindustries 02-09-08, 04:28 PM	The sniping rules are borked. It's pointless to bring them up other then to say it takes an entire move action to re-hide when sniping. Nitpickiness #1: You don't actually re-hide, though you do re-roll. You are never discovered in the first place when sniping. How does a rogue make hide checks from a stationary position? Seems kinda silly to force him to move out of a perfectly good hiding spot, just so he can go back to it and hide. Nitpickiness #2: You can take a move action and move 0 squares. I do agree that it will go nowhere, though. (This is not necessarily directed at you, Tsuul.) It seems nobody ever wants to change their minds on anything ever. I don't know, if someone proves me wrong, I'm ok to say so, but I'll admit it does take a good argument. It seems most people who argue on the boards though are basically saying "Oh teh noes, if this guy is right, I did/am doing it wrong. Well, I don't want to look like I cheated or don't know the game as well as I thought, I better fight tooth and nail on this point despite my tenuous evidence!"
jaelis 02-09-08, 07:12 PM	Actually, now that I think of it, maybe the -20 penalty for hiding while attacking is to be used when you are attacking one opponent while trying to hide from another. The opponent you're attacking sees you automatically (barring hide in plain sight or the like), but the second opponent would still be eligible to hide from.
Tsuul 02-09-08, 10:35 PM	Nitpickiness #1: You don't actually re-hide, though you do re-roll. You are never discovered in the first place when sniping. When the sniper takes the shot, D&D seems to assume that the sniper pops out of hiding, then takes an entire move action to "hide again". Nitpickiness #2: You can take a move action and move 0 squares.Let me correct you on your interpretation. :) It's not the move action that you need to make the hide check as a part of, it's the movement; with sniping being the exception. Otherwise you could not hide during a charge(a full round action), which is stated as possible. Unfortunately, you can not take a move action to move 0 squares and hide (Skip Wilson has created a rule to do just that, however, in his Rules of the Game articles). (This is not necessarily directed at you, Tsuul.)...It's cool. I'm actually playing devil's advocate here. RAI (Read As Intended), I believe Hide to be done as either a part of movement or in the case of Sniping, as a move action. RAW (Read As Written) I believe to duplicate RAI, but the lack of a standard for writing the "Action:" lines seems to leave the door open to the interpretations like Dheran's in his first post about hiding in between multiple attacks. jaelis, hides after an attack don't produce the -20 penalty to the hide check, with the exception being Sniping. The FAQ has melee attacks apply the -20 penalty to the hide check immediately before the attack. There is none applied to any hide movement after the [melee] attack assuming the attacker can make the movement, and can hide while observed.
jaelis 02-10-08, 09:18 AM	jaelis, hides after an attack don't produce the -20 penalty to the hide check, with the exception being Sniping. The FAQ has melee attacks apply the -20 penalty to the hide check immediately before the attack. There is none applied to any hide movement after the [melee] attack assuming the attacker can make the movement, and can hide while observed. That's right of course, sorry. So yes, you can attack from hiding, but you have to make a check at -20 to get the benefits. Then as I read it, after the attack your target is automatically paying attention to you, so the only way to hide again is to move into a region of total cover or concealment (or perhaps use a bluff check). I still think that making a full attack and remaining hidden is impossible (unless you simply have total concealment somehow).
gixanthrax 02-11-08, 10:37 AM	The FAQ says On that basis, I'm pretty sure the -20 penalty applies when you try to attack from hiding, not when you try to hide after or as part of an attack. But if you interpret it like that, you also imply ( more or less, that when being invisible, an opponent has a better chance to see you when you attack. to follow this course of thinking woud mean: You turn visible( when under the effect of an invisibility spell) as soon as you attack, thus granting your opponent his Dex. bonus. It's hard to believe that you want to reduce a rogues opportunity to use his SA even more.... I would say it's fair to ask for a hide check after you have attacked( with a -20 to it), but a penalty to hide BEFORE you attack seems outright wrong. Excuse this rant, but I'm currently playing a sneaky rogue who uses to approach his opponent while hidden and MSing, attack, spring attack away and use HiPS ( without penalty) afterwards. The whole Character concept goes FUBAR if i followed your statet course of interpretation.
Tsuul 02-11-08, 03:46 PM	The whole Character concept goes FUBAR if i followed your statet course of interpretation.Only if you think hiding to be just as powerful as invisibility. (It isn't.) With invisibility, you could be standing in front of your opponent doing jumping jacks. He won't see squat. The penalty before is to prep the hiding position beforehand.
jaelis 02-11-08, 04:42 PM	@gixanthrax: I don't understand your point. If the rogue is invisible, or otherwise has total concealment, then there is no need for a hide check to qualify for a sneak attack. The only reason to hide when you are invisible is to prevent your opponent from realizing that you are present. I think it's entirely fair to say you can't do that successfully right after making an attack... by the invisibility rules, the target knows where you are after you attack him, no matter how good your Hide score. And given that attacking is a noisy, movement-filled action, I think a -20 penalty to keep your opponent unawares leading up to your attack seems pretty fair.
gixanthrax 02-12-08, 08:40 AM	And given that attacking is a noisy, movement-filled action, I think a -20 penalty to keep your opponent unawares leading up to your attack seems pretty fair. Darting out a hand out of the shadows that only holds a dagger? It's a simple stretching out of your arm that can be done in by far less than a sceond and does not make a sound at all! It's not like a barbarian charging at you screaming wildly and flaying around with his axe.... I don't complain about the penalty after attacking that's just fair and logical, but before... I know that we are in the midst of a "real live vs rules" discussion right now but still... oh and in many situations Hide is stronger than invisibilty( AMF, see invis...)
jaelis 02-12-08, 09:46 AM	Darting out a hand out of the shadows that only holds a dagger? In the middle of a fight? I don't quite see it. Your target is moving around, looking around, and general paying as much attention to what is going on as he can. Not saying you can't sneak up and attack him, just that it sounds a lot harder than sneaking past him without attacking. Your description sounds more like you're thinking of sneaking up on someone out of combat and catching him unawares. You wouldn't take a penalty on that... just stop hiding when you make the attack, he's flat-footed anyways.
JamesMaissen 02-12-08, 10:03 AM	just stop hiding when you make the attack, he's flat-footed anyways. A small nit-pick.. he's not flat-footed, he's denied his dex. Uncanny dodge will obviate both for sneak attack, but there are other penalties for being flat-footed that don't apply. -James
jaelis 02-12-08, 10:17 AM	A small nit-pick.. he's not flat-footed, he's denied his dex. Uncanny dodge will obviate both for sneak attack, but there are other penalties for being flat-footed that don't apply. If you sneak up on someone outside of combat and get a surprise round, then he is in fact flat-footed.