Sneak attack damage against a PC with blind-fight?


Rules Questions

101 to 120 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Sieglord wrote:
This a really long thread, and I don't have time to read all the posts, but didn't you say the fighter "failed to notice the rogue"? In that case (at least, in a house rule sense, anyway), that would seem to indicate the the rogue should get his "Sneak D" against the fighter...for every attack he makes in his action (after all, the fighter did "fail to notice"). That's exactly what the rogue does, and if it seems cheap...well, lots of things/tactics in D&D/Pathfinder are cheap (don't believe me? Take a good long look at the Witch class), if the PC's don't fight fair (and they shouldn't), they shouldn't expect that the DM will, either. That's part of the fun....

Nope, wrong. Once you attack you become noticed. The only reason you get sneak attack on the first attack in an ambush situation where the victim has already acted is because the guy has no idea where you are. This is standard knowledge. Once you attack you are are no longer hidden/stealthed. No stealth equals no loss of dex.

edit:PRD-->If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.


Dragnmoon wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
By the rules paralyzed/unconscious opponents get reflex saves. I don't really like it, but I won't deny that it is a rule.

Sorry this is off topic.

Hey where did you see this? I could not find it when it came up my last game. Mind pointing out to me where in the book it says this so I can work it into my next game.

The fact that unattended magic items get REF saves tends to work to convince people.

Also while you loose evasion if helpless (as it directly states in many of the evasion passages) why would it bother to say this if you didn't get a REF save?

You need not be able to move to get a REF save, anymore than you need to be conscious to make a WILL save.

-James


james maissen wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
By the rules paralyzed/unconscious opponents get reflex saves. I don't really like it, but I won't deny that it is a rule.

Sorry this is off topic.

Hey where did you see this? I could not find it when it came up my last game. Mind pointing out to me where in the book it says this so I can work it into my next game.

The fact that unattended magic items get REF saves tends to work to convince people.

Also while you loose evasion if helpless (as it directly states in many of the evasion passages) why would it bother to say this if you didn't get a REF save?

You need not be able to move to get a REF save, anymore than you need to be conscious to make a WILL save.

-James

To add to this:

PRD wrote:


Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks get no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.

Liberty's Edge

wraithstrike wrote:

Blind-fight says you don't lose dex against invisible opponents. That is pretty cut and dry. It is as cut and dry as how uncanny dodge works against them. How you feel, and how the rules work are two different things. It may break your sense of immersion, but that has nothing to do with the rules. By the rules as intended perception does not matter. If it did the rules would say you got to keep dex against known invisible opponents. By the rules paralyzed/unconscious opponents get reflex saves. I don't really like it, but I won't deny that it is a rule.

You still did not answer my scenario about the known and unknown invisible creatures in my last post.

The sense of immersion has everything to do with the rules, where I'm coming from. I don't allow paralyzed unconscious opponents to have reflex saves. I don't care if it is a rule, that's not how I play. You don't have to like how I play. Nor do you have to play how I play. You just have to respect it. It's not like we're in the same game.

Now blind-fight says you don't lose dex against invisible opponents. Fine. I like that. That's cool. Now I'm sure I can dig up a rules lawyer somewhere who will say that this means a blind-fight character gets to use his dex against an invisible opponent even when he's unconscious. After all, he can't see the opponent.

But we both know that's just insanity. You don't need rules to prove it. Unconscious people just don't get to dodge anything at all. And I am of the opinion that citing a rule to respond to such a spurious and ludicrous suggestion would actually weaken my case.

I don't like the idea of blind-fight being some kind of uncanny dodge vs. ambushes. So in my games, it isn't. It allows you to fight more effectively when you're blinded, in darkness, or when an opponent turns invisible. It's not radar.

If you want to conflate invisible and surprising opponents together in your games, that's cool. If I'm ever a player at your table, I'll know what to expect.

Liberty's Edge

Lyrax wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Blind-fight says you don't lose dex against invisible opponents. That is pretty cut and dry. It is as cut and dry as how uncanny dodge works against them. How you feel, and how the rules work are two different things. It may break your sense of immersion, but that has nothing to do with the rules. By the rules as intended perception does not matter. If it did the rules would say you got to keep dex against known invisible opponents. By the rules paralyzed/unconscious opponents get reflex saves. I don't really like it, but I won't deny that it is a rule.

You still did not answer my scenario about the known and unknown invisible creatures in my last post.

The sense of immersion has everything to do with the rules, where I'm coming from. I don't allow paralyzed unconscious opponents to have reflex saves. I don't care if it is a rule, that's not how I play. You don't have to like how I play. Nor do you have to play how I play. You just have to respect it. It's not like we're in the same game.

Now blind-fight says you don't lose dex against invisible opponents. Fine. I like that. That's cool. Now I'm sure I can dig up a rules lawyer somewhere who will say that this means a blind-fight character gets to use his dex against an invisible opponent even when he's unconscious. After all, he can't see the opponent.

But we both know that's just insanity. You don't need rules to prove it. Unconscious people just don't get to dodge anything at all. And I am of the opinion that citing a rule to respond to such a spurious and ludicrous suggestion would actually weaken my case.

I don't like the idea of blind-fight being some kind of uncanny dodge vs. ambushes. So in my games, it isn't. It allows you to fight more effectively when you're blinded, in darkness, or when an opponent turns invisible. It's not radar.

If you want to conflate invisible and surprising opponents together in your games, that's cool. If I'm ever a player at your table, I'll know what to expect.

First paragraph: We're attempting to figure out RAW here, or at least get as close as possible. Please stop clouding it with house rules presented as "how it's supposed to work." Thank you.

Second paragraph: Of course unconscious people don't get dex bonus to AC, they don't have a dex bonus to AC! (Their dex is 0 when unconscious.) Point is, there are already rules to handle those situations in most (if not all) cases.

Third paragraph: They *aren't* dodging it. The explanation of a successful unconscious reflex save and a successful unconscious "dodging" of an attack are both THEY screwed up. Not you, THEY. That's why reflex represents luck just as much as skill. You could just as easily make it (as it is in 4e) an attack roll on the casters part to make it make more sense, but it won't make it work differently.

Fourth paragraph: You may not like the idea, but that's what it is. It only works against melee attacks, however, and only if you were already engaged in combat. Once you've acted you're golden against melee attacks. This seems extremely reasonable to me, and appears to be RAW.

Fifth paragraph: I'm not sure how, in a simulationist perspective, invisible and ambushing can be considered different. If you do this, then abilities such as blind fight make it more effective for a rogue to ambush while visible then while invisible and that (as the chewbacca defense states) does not make sense.


Lyrax wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Blind-fight says you don't lose dex against invisible opponents. That is pretty cut and dry. It is as cut and dry as how uncanny dodge works against them. How you feel, and how the rules work are two different things. It may break your sense of immersion, but that has nothing to do with the rules. By the rules as intended perception does not matter. If it did the rules would say you got to keep dex against known invisible opponents. By the rules paralyzed/unconscious opponents get reflex saves. I don't really like it, but I won't deny that it is a rule.

You still did not answer my scenario about the known and unknown invisible creatures in my last post.
The sense of immersion has everything to do with the rules, where I'm coming from. I don't allow paralyzed unconscious opponents to have reflex saves. I don't care if it is a rule, that's not how I play. You don't have to like how I play. Nor do you have to play how I play. You just have to respect it. It's not like we're in the same game.

Here is the issue. When talking about the rules online we can't include house rules or how we want thing to be. If everyone says "but in my games...", we will never get anywhere. The discussion should only concern how things are no matter how silly we think it is. I am thinking of asking for a sticky. There have been too many times house rules have been dragged into the rules forum. I think they have their place, but not in a place discussing official rules.

Quote:


Now blind-fight says you don't lose dex against invisible opponents. Fine. I like that. That's cool. Now I'm sure I can dig up a rules lawyer somewhere who will say that this means a blind-fight character gets to use his dex against an invisible opponent even when he's unconscious. After all, he can't see the opponent.

Actually you can't since unconscious people have no dex. Then again you do have dex(O), and it gives you a -5 modifier so using it won't help at all.

Quote:


I don't like the idea of blind-fight being some kind of uncanny dodge vs. ambushes. So in my games, it isn't. It allows you to fight more effectively when you're blinded, in darkness, or when an opponent turns invisible. It's not radar.

If you want to conflate invisible and surprising opponents together in your games, that's cool. If I'm ever a player at your table, I'll know what to expect.

It is not even close to uncanny dodge. It is about 1/4 of what uncanny dodge is. If you want immersion for it maybe the fighter can hear the blade swishing(insert other cool word as needed) through the air. It is no different than the martial arts guys in movies that fight blind folded. In any event not liking something is a good enough reason to house rule it as long as everyone has fun.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My apologies for dredging this back up. :(

I've been gone for a couple weeks and I'm just getting back to review some of these threads.

I noticed someone mentioned that there is no "surprise" condition in PF. There is a "surprise round" in which combatants that are aware of their opponents get a standard action, but that's it.

Would the assassin hiding in the shadow qualify for that? If they 5-ft step out of hiding and full attack, isn't the fighter from the OP "surprised"?

Now, in regards to the rules in PF, recall that they are based on the 3.5 rules and if something isn't covered in PF, we're supposed to fallback to 3.5. With that in mind...

3.5e DMG, pg 23 wrote:

Surprise Round

When only one side is aware of the other, the DM runs the first round of combat as a surprise round. In this round, each character gets only a standard action. Only those aware of the other side can take any action at all. This rule reflects the fact that even when a combatant is prepared, some amount of time is spent assessing the situation, and thus only standard actions are allowed to begin with.

This rule makes initiative have less of an impact, since it is in the first round when initiative matters most. Even if a warrior gets the jump on an opponent, at best he can make a single attack against a foe before that foe can react.

It then goes into the New Combatants section that was referenced by another poster, above. The following is from that section:

3.5e DMG, pg 24 wrote:
Newcomers Not Aware: If any or all of the newcomers are not aware of the other sides when they enter the encounter (for example, the PCs stumble unaware into a fight between two monsters in a dungeon), the newcomers still come into play at the beginning of the round, but they roll initiative normally. If one of the other characters involved in the encounter has a higher initiative check result than one or more of the newcomers, that character can react to those newcomers before they get a chance to act (the newcomers are caught flat-footed).

That sounds to me like the assassin should get his full attack action against a flat-footed fighter...


Just my 2c:

Blind-fight's relevant part:
An invisible attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you in melee. That is, you don't lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class,

Sneak attack's relevant part:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC

Stealth's relevant part (because wasn't the assassin in this example stealthed, not invis?):
Success: your observer fails to notice you

Now, I believe that Blind-Fight works against invisible opponents, that you know are there.

I believe that, given the above, sneak attack should work for the first attack.

There is no reason why a stealthed rogue cannot sneak attack an eligible target, at least once. (And try and re-hide if they're sniping ;)

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
vikhik wrote:
There is no reason why a stealthed rogue cannot sneak attack an eligible target, at least once. (And try and re-hide if they're sniping ;)

Yeah, but should the assassin get SA on all attacks in a full attack? The "Newcomers are unaware" seems to say they should as the target as the newcomers "are caught flat-footed"!


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
azhrei_fje wrote:
vikhik wrote:
There is no reason why a stealthed rogue cannot sneak attack an eligible target, at least once. (And try and re-hide if they're sniping ;)
Yeah, but should the assassin get SA on all attacks in a full attack? The "Newcomers are unaware" seems to say they should as the target as the newcomers "are caught flat-footed"!

I don't see anything in your 3.5 DMG quote saying that the guys already in the fight can be flat-footed, only the newcomers. And that's only if the newcomers are unaware they are blundering into a battle.

I feel the intent of the flat-footed rules is that when someone is aware of combat, they expect the unexpected, so they retain Dex bonuses to AC even if they cannot anticipate precisely where an attack is coming from. They bob/weave/whatever the whole fight.

Looking at RAW, I have to side with those that say a sneak attack is impossible, because nowhere does stealth deny dexterity bonuses to AC outside of making an opponent qualify as unaware in a surprise round. Which sort of sucks, really, because it means rogues are weaker than anyone plays them. I guess the assassin should spend his first round doing something (like a Dirty Trick) to ensure he gets his sneak attack bonuses on the next round.

But it kind of makes sense. Once you know there's a rogue playing sniper on a ridge, you take cover and move in such a way as to benefit from your dex bonus, even if you don't know exactly where they are.

Edit: I should have said that once you know someone *could* be shooting at you, you take cover/move to defend yourself, even if you don't know where the attacks might come from. It's more clear with regard to the points others have raised.


azhrei_fje wrote:


3.5e DMG, pg 24 wrote:
Newcomers Not Aware: If any or all of the newcomers are not aware of the other sides when they enter the encounter (for example, the PCs stumble unaware into a fight between two monsters in a dungeon), the newcomers still come into play at the beginning of the round, but they roll initiative normally. If one of the other characters involved in the encounter has a higher initiative check result than one or more of the newcomers, that character can react to those newcomers before they get a
...

The pally is not the newcomer, the assassin is. What the DMG basically says on that page about Aware Newcomers is that they get to act first in the initiative of the round they enter, and that there is no way to get in an action outside of the order of combat, so no surprise round in the middle of combat. Once the next person gets their turn, they can react to the new combatant.

It says nothing of flatfootedness, but it does use the word react. But since the flatfooted condition says "unable to react normally" I think you have a good case for using it. I'm changing my tune, assassin gets full sneak attack until the victim's action.


Anburaid wrote:
azhrei_fje wrote:


3.5e DMG, pg 24 wrote:
Newcomers Not Aware: If any or all of the newcomers are not aware of the other sides when they enter the encounter (for example, the PCs stumble unaware into a fight between two monsters in a dungeon), the newcomers still come into play at the beginning of the round, but they roll initiative normally. If one of the other characters involved in the encounter has a higher initiative check result than one or more of the newcomers, that character can react to those newcomers before they get a
...

The pally is not the newcomer, the assassin is. What the DMG basically says on that page about Aware Newcomers is that they get to act first in the initiative of the round they enter, and that there is no way to get in an action outside of the order of combat, so no surprise round in the middle of combat. Once the next person gets their turn, they can react to the new combatant.

It says nothing of flatfootedness, but it does use the word react. But since the flatfooted condition says "unable to react normally" I think you have a good case for using it. I'm changing my tune, assassin gets full sneak attack until the victim's action.

The issue with flat-footedness is that it is a specific condition just like being stunned. You can not be flat-footed against a single person or group. You either are flat-footed or you are not.


RicoTheBold wrote:


I don't see anything in your 3.5 DMG quote saying that the guys already in the fight can be flat-footed, only the newcomers. And that's only if the newcomers are unaware they are blundering into a battle.

This right here. If the assassin is the newcomer he does not get to catch anyone flat-footed.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:


I don't see anything in your 3.5 DMG quote saying that the guys already in the fight can be flat-footed, only the newcomers. And that's only if the newcomers are unaware they are blundering into a battle.
This right here. If the assassin is the newcomer he does not get to catch anyone flat-footed.

And that's fine, but the assassin is most definitely not the newcomer -- he's been watching the battle rage for two rounds, just waiting for a party member to move within striking reach. The assassin is moving in rounds, making Stealth checks, and so forth. And those Stealth checks are aimed directly at the party members, including the fighter.

So there is a combat going on -- it's the one involving the assassin and the fighter. The additional fact that the fighter doesn't know about it is paramount!

Let's say the assassin is attacking the wall by slapping it. Let's also say the fighter doesn't hear this noise. The assassin is in combat and the fighter is the "Unaware Newcomer", right? ... just trying to make sure I understand your interpretation of RAW.

In the OP, since the assassin has been making Stealth checks round-by-round he's clearly "in combat" (actions taken outside of combat are measured in minutes, not rounds). So the exact same condition applies as the previous paragraph except that the assassin isn't in combat because he's making attacks, he's in combat because he's knows about the combatants and is actively choosing to avoid them, waiting for a perfect chance to strike. (In the OP, the assassin had watched and waited for two rounds.)

The extension of the above is that the fighter is unaware of the assassin and should be treated as "unaware and unable to react". The game calls that "flat-footed" and says that the "flat-footed condition" only occurs at the beginning of the round before a creature has had a chance to react, but that's obviously wrong since the Acrobatics skill says otherwise. (The Grease spell makes reference to the Acrobatics check and also uses the phrase "flat-footed".) Clearly I should be using the phrase "unable to react" instead of "flat-footed" as it seems the game's definition is too narrow and doesn't account for my stealthed assassin watching and waiting...

Let's turn this around and play devil's advocate. How would you propose that the assassin do his job? This is a class designed to take out targets with a single attack, particularly through stealth and subterfuge. Clearly they are expected to use their SA ability in this regard. But without my interpretation there is no way for the hidden assassin to get a full attack against his target. Because the SA damage is measured in d6's every two levels and most classes have a larger hit die than d6, how can the assassin EVER take out a target in a single hit? They can't except at first level. Which means an assassin will always require at least a surprise round AND an additional round. Does that sound like the quintessential assassin to you?

Liberty's Edge

The idea is that because they're *expecting* to be stabbed, someone who walks out from behind a corner and tries to stab them won't catch them off guard because in order to make that stabbing motion they have to *move into plain view* first. Other ways of maintaining stealth until they're right into their face, or using sniping can counter-act this, but just walking up and stabbing won't work. In the case of assassin they can use HiPS to stealth, then sneak attack, then stealth, etc. But it must be the attack itself that drops the stealth, not moving out from behind cover, in order for an already in-combat opponent to be taken off-guard.


azhrei_fje wrote:
stuff about being flat-footed

I think I am confused about who the newcomer is. I am understanding things as the fighter is in combat, and he knows it. The assassin plans to "off" the fighter. The assassin is hidden, and the fighter has no idea he is there.

By the rules the fighter can not be caught flat-footed once he has acted. If the fighter has blind-fight he should not be able to be sneak attacked.

If combat has not started yet, but he DM is tracking rounds for the purpose of seeing how things are doing then the assassin does catch him flat-footed, but he still keeps his dex to AC. Once again no sneak attack.
The grease spell is an exception to the rule, and so is acrobatics if it mentions it. The game is full of exceptions to rules. That does not make the general rule wrong. Most feats are exceptions to the rules.

The assassin is a badly written class to be honest, and it really can't do it's job all that well. Having to hide for 3 rounds and force a save based on int, while hoping to hit the target using dex is asking for failure. It does not help that most people boost fort, since fort saves kill, and it is almost impossible to hide again in the middle of combat. Even if you are able to hide you need at least 3 more rounds. By that time the fight is probably over. If you are on a team they are fighting without you, and even if the fight is still going on the person may make the fort save again.
My fix to the assassin situation is to rewrite the class.

I understand your frustrations, but the rules are the rules, and barring very specific situations it is nigh impossible to catch someone flat-footed once they are acting in combat.


"Let's turn this around and play devil's advocate. How would you propose that the assassin do his job? This is a class designed to take out targets with a single attack, particularly through stealth and subterfuge. Clearly they are expected to use their SA ability in this regard. But without my interpretation there is no way for the hidden assassin to get a full attack against his target. Because the SA damage is measured in d6's every two levels and most classes have a larger hit die than d6, how can the assassin EVER take out a target in a single hit? They can't except at first level. Which means an assassin will always require at least a surprise round AND an additional round. Does that sound like the quintessential assassin to you?"

Now your talking. i agree that blind fight is going to cancel out MOST SA's. and instead of bending the rules to work in the assasins favor just work with the rules as RAW to allow the assasin to play his role.

in your situation i would have had the opponent ready an action against the fighter, if he won initiative since he knew the assassin was there and attacked the fighter upon closing then 5' stepped to allow the assassin to move into easier flanking. i would have had the assassin armed with a dagger. once the opponent took his readied action and 5' step and the fighter attacked him back the assassin would throw the dagger for SA damage and close into flanking for next round,or 5' away, while drawing his preferred weapon. Next round the opponent would delay so he could move into flanking with the assassin if the fighter 5' steps.then the fighter would go. after the fighters attacks the opponent 5' steps in to create flanking for the assassin and full attacks or aids the assassin. then the assassin 5' steps in to create flanking and would get a full round of SA's as he would be flanking.

honestly people seem to think that since rogues have SA they they should be able to jump out of hiding and slay a fighter on sight. Fighters are scions of battle and will/should hardly ever fall to a rogue. there perfectly used to battle, ambushes, and being the underdogs and coming out alive. while assassins are ment to kill in the night while people sleep, it's one thing to assassinate an NPC it's another entirely to jump out of the bush and go toe to toe with a Knight! thats just foolhardy! If there going to go for big game like pure fighters there not gona try to take em on one on one! this is the scene i picture of a roof top full of scuttling ninjas goin in to kill an emperor. they need to flank and co-op to take down heavy prey like a fighter unless the can catch them asleep. Plus in most movies i see, the assassin ALWAYS fail and runs away or are killed!

assassins are not idiots,unless you play them as such! use them in numbers to flank. have the master ninja with his 4-10 lackeys just to help him achieve his mission. after all he's not going to care if his fodder dies, thats what there there for. Another thing i like to do with assassins is have them SA at range and run away! battle is over and they go chasing after him, only to be sneak attacked at range again and the assassin disappears into the night-rinse repeat. OR the assassin is hidden in battle the whole time, the party thinks the battle is over and starts looting the treasure-battle over. one player notices a nice gem clearly on the floor next to a pillar and goes to get it. the assassin roles surprise round and "TWACK!" sneak attacked then runs off down the corridor laiden with traps and other hidden assassins. If the party took some serious damage because of an encounter or SA's and rest for the night guess who never really went far and is waiting to slit some throats...

As i mentioned earlier it's kinda fool hardy for an assassin to jump out of the shadows and go toe to toe with a tank. there's more advantages to hiding and not being seen than trying to get some extra d6's in while full attacking. Use stealth to move around behind to the spellcaster. it's one thing to go toe to toe with the fighter, it's another to move around kill the wizard and flee ;)

I almost always play my assassins as hit and run specialists as they just aren't good upfront fighters and thats not there role. i've found as hit and run is were they really shine and put fear into players! i once had an encounter of a few rogues who only got off a few attacks in a single encounter but would hit and run nipping at the party all day/night. they were afraid to sleep, stayed up for 3 days strait couldn't memorize spells and got handed by some lowly goblins and ran back to town, barring there doors and keeping watches in there own keep! fear and paranoia can be much more entertaining than trying to just make rogues SA'ers ;)


After reading through this thread I'm going to agree that we need FAQ clarification on relationship between Invisibility vs. Stealth/Hidden. The rules as written for stealth seem to cause these threads to pop up from time to time.

Here is my two-bit DM ruling for if this situation had happened in my game...

As the rogue stepped out of hiding by taking a 5 foot step into a area with no cover/concealment the rogue would loose the benefit of hiding and thus would not get a sneak attack regardless. The very act of stepping out into the open would draw attention to the rogue and thus negate stealth.

Had the fighter passed by the hidden rogue and the rogue made a AoO from hiding, then I would say that the rogue could have gotten a SA against the fighter if he did not have the blindfight feat. However, as the fighter had the blindfight feat, this allows him to react to protect himself and thus negate the SA.

Had the rogue thrown a dagger from hiding, he could have gotten his SA and potentially gone back into hiding as per the sniping rules. (This would be the best option for the rogue in my humble opinion.

I look at the blindfight feat as sort of a very limited blindsense ability. Through intense training, whoever takes the blindfight feat can react on changes in air pressure/sounds/instinct and thus is able to react to melee attacks and thus keep dex. modifiers. The same training allows those with blindfight to make adjustments on an attack against a invisible opponent and thus have a greater chance of hitting.

Again...just how I'd rule on this situation.


I think it actually goes like this... and your wording may have been a little incorrect, but I'll assume otherwise:

Fighter engages a target. Rogue attacks the fighter.

Was the fighter aware of the rogue (failed perception check). No, thus he is unaware of the attack. The combat rules state: Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.

I take this as meaning that the Fighter hasn't acted toward the rogue's attack yet... thus he is flat-footed against it and loses his Dexterity to AC regardless of having blind-fight.

Blind-Fight states that they do not lose their Dexterity to AC against invisible attackers. It does not state that they are never unaware of attacks.

Another argument can be made against conditions and results.

Fighter is unaware of the attack and thus is flat-footed (condition). The result of this condition is that he loses he Dexterity to AC (result of condition).

Fighter has Blind-Fight which negates the above result of condition. However, the condition still applies. Sneak attack states that anytime they WOULD BE denied their Dex, sneak attack applies. Thus, the condition is still there, so sneak attack still applies.

Personally... I hate Blind-Fight as a feat. I believe it should only allow reroll of miss chance, and maybe negate the +2 bonus to hit from invisible creatures. It should not allow them to keep their Dexterity.


That is not what it means. Once you take an action you are not flat-footed. Flat-footed is a specific condition, just like being stunned.
Being unaware makes you lose dex to AC only. The only exception is at the beginning of a fight if you can catch someone offguard before they take an action.
The rules don't say you can only not be flat-footed against people you have seen once have acted.
They say "Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC."
If you want the full round of sneak attack then win initiative. Otherwise you only get the first attack as a sneak attack.

101 to 120 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Sneak attack damage against a PC with blind-fight? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.