Sneak attack damage against a PC with blind-fight?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I made a ruling in our game last night that I'm having second thoughts on. I believe I handled it correctly, but there's still this nagging in the back of my mind...

A meatshield fighter with blind-fight moves forward to engage an opponent. In doing so he moves past a stealthing rogue/assassin that he failed to spot.

After the fighter takes his single attack against the opponent (std action), the NPC comes out of delay to step from the shadows (becoming visible) and proceeds to wail on the unsuspecting fighter gaining sneak attack damage on every attack. (The assassin is a TWF specialist.)

PRD wrote:
Blind-Fight Feat: An invisible attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you in melee. That is, you don't lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, and the attacker doesn't get the usual +2 bonus for being invisible. The invisible attacker's bonuses do still apply for ranged attacks, however.

I ruled that because the fighter didn't know the creature was there, the blind-fight feat doesn't help -- the fighter is effectively flat-footed against this NPC. (Note that "flat-footed" != "lose your Dex".)

Did I do this correctly? Or should only the first attack include sneak damage? Or maybe none of them?

Thanks for your help!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I believe that only the first attack would get the benefit of SA under those circumstances. Barring no other conditions present like flanking, etc.


azhrei_fje wrote:


A meatshield fighter with blind-fight moves forward to engage an opponent. In doing so he moves past a stealthing rogue/assassin that he failed to spot.

I ruled that because the fighter didn't know the creature was there, the blind-fight feat doesn't help -- the fighter is effectively flat-footed against this NPC. (Note that "flat-footed" != "lose your Dex".)

Did I do this correctly? Or should only the first attack include sneak damage? Or maybe none of them?

Thanks for your help!

None of them.

The fighter is in combat and has acted, as such he is not flat-footed.

Against an unseen attacker a target is normally denied their DEX against the attack. As the unseen attacker made a melee attack against the fighter with blind fight the fighter was NOT denied his DEX, and as such is not subject to sneak attack.

Moreover after the first attack the 'unseen' attacker is now a 'seen' attacker and is in no way entitled to deny the fighter his DEX from the attack.

You do not have additional 'surprise rounds' once combat has already started, which is what I think you tried to do here. It's a strange bit of the rules (up there with not being able to ready actions outside of combat) and people get it wrong all the time. You're in good and plentiful company.

-James


azhrei_fje wrote:

I made a ruling in our game last night that I'm having second thoughts on. I believe I handled it correctly, but there's still this nagging in the back of my mind...

A meatshield fighter with blind-fight moves forward to engage an opponent. In doing so he moves past a stealthing rogue/assassin that he failed to spot.

After the fighter takes his single attack against the opponent (std action), the NPC comes out of delay to step from the shadows (becoming visible) and proceeds to wail on the unsuspecting fighter gaining sneak attack damage on every attack. (The assassin is a TWF specialist.)

PRD wrote:
Blind-Fight Feat: An invisible attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you in melee. That is, you don't lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, and the attacker doesn't get the usual +2 bonus for being invisible. The invisible attacker's bonuses do still apply for ranged attacks, however.

I ruled that because the fighter didn't know the creature was there, the blind-fight feat doesn't help -- the fighter is effectively flat-footed against this NPC. (Note that "flat-footed" != "lose your Dex".)

Did I do this correctly? Or should only the first attack include sneak damage? Or maybe none of them?

Thanks for your help!

Not knowing an enemy is there does not make you flat-footed against them, and even if it did he would still keep his dex since losing dex is only one symptom of being flat-footed, and blind-fight prevents loss of dex to invisible/hiding opponents. There should not have been any sneak attack damage nor a loss of dex. It is very hard to make someone flat-footed once combat begins, but even so with blind-fight you keep your dex. The situation you created is the one blind-fight is supposed to prevent.

Even if the fighter did not have blind-fight once the first attack connects you are no longer invisible since the fighter knows you are there so sneak attack only applies on the first attack.


I think that brings up a contention between stealth and invisibility.

I regard them as different things, an invisible attaker is not necessarilly someone your not aware of and blind fight does not prevent you from being flat footed, it only prevents you from being denied your DEX against invisible opponents.

Whether or not a stealthed creature counts as "invisible" is debatable.


CollectiveS wrote:

I think that brings up a contention between stealth and invisibility.

I regard them as different things, an invisible attaker is not necessarilly someone your not aware of and blind fight does not prevent you from being flat footed, it only prevents you from being denied your DEX against invisible opponents.

Whether or not a stealthed creature counts as "invisible" is debatable.

They are not really the same, but mechanically they are similar enough that the enemy suffers the same results that is why I said "invisible/hiding" earlier.

I know that blind-fight does not prevent you from being flat-footed, but as you said it does keep you from losing your dex to unseen opponents. Flat-footed is an actual condition that is hard to apply to someone. Blind-fight makes it so that you don't lose dex. It does not protect you from the other half of being flat-footed which prevents you from making attacks of opportunity.

Being invisible or hidden does not apply the flat-footed condition even if it has the same mechanical affects in most situations.


I think it's a rather tricky subject, you lose your dexterity against opponents you are unaware of and seperately against those who are invisible. As you are always denied dex against an invisible opponenet even if you can pinpoint their square.

You say that blind-fight prevents you from losing dex to the flat-footed condition as well which just doesn't make much sense to me, firstly it's duplicating a class ability (uncanny dodge) except with added bonuses of re-rolling concealment and secondly i see no reason why it would allow you to retain your dex in the first round of combat if you havn't acted yet, thematically i just can't see the reasoning.

It seems to me(and i'm sure others disagree) that the wording only and specifically mentions invisibility and i'd interpret the spirit of the rules in this case as limiting blind fight to work against opponents who have total concealment against you (such as invisible opponents, people who you are fighting in a pitch black room or whilst blinded), not people who are simply hidden.

Of course unless someone officially says what's what it's impossible to be sure :<

Liberty's Edge

Invisible opponents are not the same as hidden opponents. I'd give the rogue a sneak attack right when he comes out of hiding, and only then.


CollectiveS wrote:

I think it's a rather tricky subject, you lose your dexterity against opponents you are unaware of and seperately against those who are invisible. As you are always denied dex against an invisible opponenet even if you can pinpoint their square.

You say that blind-fight prevents you from losing dex to the flat-footed condition as well which just doesn't make much sense to me, firstly it's duplicating a class ability (uncanny dodge) except with added bonuses of re-rolling concealment and secondly i see no reason why it would allow you to retain your dex in the first round of combat if you havn't acted yet, thematically i just can't see the reasoning.

It seems to me(and i'm sure others disagree) that the wording only and specifically mentions invisibility and i'd interpret the spirit of the rules in this case as limiting blind fight to work against opponents who have total concealment against you (such as invisible opponents, people who you are fighting in a pitch black room or whilst blinded), not people who are simply hidden.

Of course unless someone officially says what's what it's impossible to be sure :<

While mechanically it seems correct, you then run into the counterintuitive problem that if hidden the rogue can sneak attack the fighter, but can no longer do so if the fighter closes his eyes, making everything have total concealment to him.


CollectiveS wrote:

I think it's a rather tricky subject, you lose your dexterity against opponents you are unaware of and seperately against those who are invisible. As you are always denied dex against an invisible opponenet even if you can pinpoint their square.

You say that blind-fight prevents you from losing dex to the flat-footed condition as well which just doesn't make much sense to me, firstly it's duplicating a class ability (uncanny dodge) except with added bonuses of re-rolling concealment and secondly i see no reason why it would allow you to retain your dex in the first round of combat if you havn't acted yet, thematically i just can't see the reasoning.

It seems to me(and i'm sure others disagree) that the wording only and specifically mentions invisibility and i'd interpret the spirit of the rules in this case as limiting blind fight to work against opponents who have total concealment against you (such as invisible opponents, people who you are fighting in a pitch black room or whilst blinded), not people who are simply hidden.

Of course unless someone officially says what's what it's impossible to be sure :<

Blind-fight does not duplicate uncanny dodge. It is very similar though. Blind-fight does nothing to stop you from being flat-footed.

Uncanny dodge=the blind-fight feat + a limited version of combat reflexes.

Blind-fight says you are never denied dex, which as I already explained in only a part of being flat-footed.

If you can dodge attacks from an invisible attacker, but not from an invisible attack you would have to explain how the it only works against invisible attackers. The fighter does not get any magical ability to detect invisible creatures.


Godwyn wrote:
CollectiveS wrote:

I think it's a rather tricky subject, you lose your dexterity against opponents you are unaware of and seperately against those who are invisible. As you are always denied dex against an invisible opponenet even if you can pinpoint their square.

You say that blind-fight prevents you from losing dex to the flat-footed condition as well which just doesn't make much sense to me, firstly it's duplicating a class ability (uncanny dodge) except with added bonuses of re-rolling concealment and secondly i see no reason why it would allow you to retain your dex in the first round of combat if you havn't acted yet, thematically i just can't see the reasoning.

It seems to me(and i'm sure others disagree) that the wording only and specifically mentions invisibility and i'd interpret the spirit of the rules in this case as limiting blind fight to work against opponents who have total concealment against you (such as invisible opponents, people who you are fighting in a pitch black room or whilst blinded), not people who are simply hidden.

Of course unless someone officially says what's what it's impossible to be sure :<

While mechanically it seems correct, you then run into the counterintuitive problem that if hidden the rogue can sneak attack the fighter, but can no longer do so if the fighter closes his eyes, making everything have total concealment to him.

If the fighter closes his eyes it makes him vulnerable to sneak attack. It does not protect him from it. The fighter with his eyes closed does not gain concealment from the rogue. The rogue is effectively invisible to the fighter(loss of dex). Closing your eyes while fighting a rogue is not the smart thing to do.

Liberty's Edge

Blind-fight says you are never denied dexterity... for fighting an invisible opponent. Any other time you would be denied your dexterity bonus or be flat-footed, you are still flat-footed and you are denied your dexterity bonus.


4 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Lyrax wrote:
Blind-fight says you are never denied dexterity... for fighting an invisible opponent. Any other time you would be denied your dexterity bonus or be flat-footed, you are still flat-footed and you are denied your dexterity bonus.

RAW you are right, but there was another thread that covered the intent to be versus hidden opponents.

edit:One could just close his eyes since the person would then be invisible to them if the RAW was followed


concerro wrote:
Lyrax wrote:
Blind-fight says you are never denied dexterity... for fighting an invisible opponent. Any other time you would be denied your dexterity bonus or be flat-footed, you are still flat-footed and you are denied your dexterity bonus.

RAW you are right, but there was another thread that covered the intent to be versus hidden opponents.

edit:One could just close his eyes since the person would then be invisible to them if the RAW was followed

Which is what I said! Though not quite as succinctly.


Godwyn wrote:
concerro wrote:
Lyrax wrote:
Blind-fight says you are never denied dexterity... for fighting an invisible opponent. Any other time you would be denied your dexterity bonus or be flat-footed, you are still flat-footed and you are denied your dexterity bonus.

RAW you are right, but there was another thread that covered the intent to be versus hidden opponents.

edit:One could just close his eyes since the person would then be invisible to them if the RAW was followed

Which is what I said! Though not quite as succinctly.

For some reason I assumed you were talking about any fighter, not just one with blind-fight. In any event it does not make sense for a fighter to somehow know he is being attacked by an invisible opponent as opposed to one that is just hiding. Hopefully it gets a response on the in the FAQ section soon.


azhrei_fje wrote:

I ruled that because the fighter didn't know the creature was there, the blind-fight feat doesn't help -- the fighter is effectively flat-footed against this NPC. (Note that "flat-footed" != "lose your Dex".)

Did I do this correctly? Or should only the first attack include sneak damage? Or maybe none of them?

I personally agree with *part* of your ruling - for me, "new" combatants can catch current combatants flat-footed. Sort of like initiating a new combat, with surprise. Otherwise you run into the argument that "we're alert and in rounds, so can't be flat-footed." Invisible =/= surprise, so the fact that he's hidden is really unrelated, other than that it is the cause of the surprise.

However, I would strongly argue with the actions. Here's how they would have worked:

  • : Rogue at some point hides, and then delays.
  • : Fighter moves past rogue, provoking attack of opportunity - is unaware of rogue, so gets sneak attacked.
  • : Fighter *finishes* his turn, and is now aware of the rogue.
  • : Rogue emerges to attack, and cannot get sneak attack.

    Delay cannot interrupt an action, it happens afterward. If instead the Rogue had been *readied* to attack, it could have gotten the opportunity attack, and the readied attack, both with surprise.

    In my opinion.


  • Bleach Example:
    Whenever I think of trying how to explain blindfight and uncanny dodge I always think of Kenpachi Zaraki from Bleach ever since the episode where he is inside the black sphere and has no senses but touch. Just well prepared to act as soon as he feels an attack incoming

    Just fits the ability so well.


    concerro wrote:


    Blind-fight says you are never denied dex, which as I already explained in only a part of being flat-footed.

    Actually to be completely accurate (as it's being compared with a class ability) blind fight only applies to melee attacks.. invisible opponents can attack at range to their hearts content.

    That said, you don't have surprise rounds in the middle of combat. The fighter is not caught flat footed, rather he is denied his DEX against attacks from unseen opponents that a feat or ability does not negate. In this case, against a melee attack, his blind fight feat causes him not to lose his DEX.

    To the OP, if the fighter did not have the feat he would be denied his DEX for the first attack only. After that the subsequent attacks (even during that turn) are from a visible opponent.

    He invested in a feat just for this, now's the time he reaps the benefit from it.

    -James


    azhrei_fje wrote:

    I made a ruling in our game last night that I'm having second thoughts on. I believe I handled it correctly, but there's still this nagging in the back of my mind...

    A meatshield fighter with blind-fight moves forward to engage an opponent. In doing so he moves past a stealthing rogue/assassin that he failed to spot.

    After the fighter takes his single attack against the opponent (std action), the NPC comes out of delay to step from the shadows (becoming visible) and proceeds to wail on the unsuspecting fighter gaining sneak attack damage on every attack. (The assassin is a TWF specialist.)

    Did the assassin move into a flanking position? If so, blindfight really doesn't matter at that point.


    Majuba wrote:
    azhrei_fje wrote:

    I ruled that because the fighter didn't know the creature was there, the blind-fight feat doesn't help -- the fighter is effectively flat-footed against this NPC. (Note that "flat-footed" != "lose your Dex".)

    Did I do this correctly? Or should only the first attack include sneak damage? Or maybe none of them?

    I personally agree with *part* of your ruling - for me, "new" combatants can catch current combatants flat-footed. Sort of like initiating a new combat, with surprise. Otherwise you run into the argument that "we're alert and in rounds, so can't be flat-footed." Invisible =/= surprise, so the fact that he's hidden is really unrelated, other than that it is the cause of the surprise.

    However, I would strongly argue with the actions. Here's how they would have worked:

  • : Rogue at some point hides, and then delays.
  • : Fighter moves past rogue, provoking attack of opportunity - is unaware of rogue, so gets sneak attacked.
  • : Fighter *finishes* his turn, and is now aware of the rogue.
  • : Rogue emerges to attack, and cannot get sneak attack.

    Delay cannot interrupt an action, it happens afterward. If instead the Rogue had been *readied* to attack, it could have gotten the opportunity attack, and the readied attack, both with surprise.

    In my opinion.

  • +1, but I'm not sure about "the opportunity attack, and the readied attack, both with surprise!"

    That would be if the rogue says: "I hit him as soon as I'm ready with my opportunity attack."
    If he does get two attacks, only the first would grant sneak attack damage.


    james maissen wrote:

    [...]

    He invested in a feat just for this, now's the time he reaps the benefit from it.

    -James

    But does invisible opponents equal hidden opponents? No one knows for sure.


    Zark wrote:
    james maissen wrote:

    [...]

    He invested in a feat just for this, now's the time he reaps the benefit from it.

    -James

    But does invisible opponents equal hidden opponents? No one knows for sure.

    IMO It doesn't matter.

    The fighter wasn't flat-footed or flanked and he didn't lose his Dex bonus. Thus Sneak attack was impossible.

    Afaik there isn't any rule that allows a hidden opponent to treat his enemy as flat-footed or deny his Dex when the fight has begun.

    Of course I'm talking about the RAW.

    At best I would say that the close thing to RAW is supossing that a hidden creature is invisible, as the "hidden" condition doesn't exist and using Stealth doesn't allow you to sneak attack other creatures when the fight has begun.

    I would rule that Blind Fight is also useful in that case. Protected against an invisible creature you may not even hear, against enemies you can't see or hear due to Darkness or Blindness, but not against someone hiddden in a bush?
    Furthermore I see that some guys are making it too complicated to give a new ability to sneak attackers and deny the Blind-Fight feat benefits.


    Lyrax wrote:
    Invisible opponents are not the same as hidden opponents. I'd give the rogue a sneak attack right when he comes out of hiding, and only then.

    I think this sums it up.


    I don't think it's a discussion between invisible and hidden, rather invisible and unaware. Under the rules for suprise it notes that unaware combatants don't get to act in the suprise round and are flat-footed.

    I'd argue that the rogue caught the fighter unaware even outside of the suprise round and therefore caught him flat footed.

    As the feat only protects you from losing dex whem attack by invisible opponents i don't think it can count there. If you were to close you eyes then, yes i'd give you the benefits of the feat against all opponents your aware of. Making it useful against any enemy with a gaze attack but i'd still say you should lose dex against any opponent your unaware of.


    Quote:
    I'd argue that the rogue caught the fighter unaware even outside of the suprise round and therefore caught him flat footed.

    "unaware" isn't itself a situation that subjects you to sneak attack. The attacker needs to be denied his dex bonus. Unaware is something that USUALLY leads to the loss of their dex bonus, which then leads to sneak attack, but is not in and of itself a condition for sneak attack. Rogues and barbarians with uncanny dodge can be completely unaware of you, but still have their dex bonuses, and are thus not subject to sneak attack. I think blind fighting works on the same mechanics after the surprise round.

    The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.

    Quote:
    As the feat only protects you from losing dex whem attack by invisible opponents i don't think it can count there. If you were to close you eyes then, yes i'd give you the benefits of the feat against all opponents your aware of. Making it useful against any enemy with a gaze attack but i'd still say you should lose dex against any opponent your unaware of.

    The thing is the feat doesn't say it only applies to invisible opponents that you're aware of. It applies against all invisible opponents.

    Either you

    1) add "That you're aware of" to the interpretation of the feat, which is kind of ad hoc and goes against raw.

    2)Treat invisibility and hiding as two different things, which leads to some pretty bizarre examples. I don't think that there is much of a distinction in D&D between "successfully hiding" and "invisible". Invisibility even uses the mechanics for hiding (it gives you a +20 bonus to stealth checks) I can't see how someone with blind fight could be MORE able to react to a rouge with a 53 on his stealth check (with invisibilities +20 bonus) than a rogue with a 33 on his stealth check just because he had an invisibility spell on him. The fighter isn't feeling the invisibility spell, but by the very literal interpretation of the rule, treating invisibility and stealth as 2 different things, that's what you would have happen.

    3) Treat successful stealth just like invisibility. This has the support of the invisibility spell, which adds to stealth checks, integrates the stealth and invisibility rules, and makes for consistent, sensible interpretations.

    Quote:
    I ruled that because the fighter didn't know the creature was there, the blind-fight feat doesn't help -- the fighter is effectively flat-footed against this NPC. (Note that "flat-footed" != "lose your Dex".)

    I would disagree with your call based on 3 reasons.

    1) is the distinctions between stealth and invisibility above

    2) is the fact that when the rogue steps out of the shadows into a (presumably) lit area, he is no longer hiding. You CANNOT hide, even for a moment, in a lit area with no cover. If he's standing in the light he is visible, not hiding, and thus not able to deny someone a dex bonus based on not being seen. A rogue has to maintain stealth all the way through his movement and into the attack in order to benefit from hiding

    3)While it does make sense, realistically, to have relative levels of flat footed, the game doesn't support it. If the assassin had popped out of the darkness on his own it would have been a surprise round, the fighter would be flat footed, and the assassin would be free to sneak attack the meat shield into kidney pie. In fact, the assassin could stab on the surprise round, theoretically win initiative, and continue sneak attacking. As the game rules stand though, once you act on your turn in initiative you are not flat footed. Flat footed is not a term relative to other creatures on the board: the victim either IS flat footed or he is not. he is not flat footed with regard to some creatures but not others.

    Also, did the assassin move further than 5 feet? If so, no TWF for you.


    CollectiveS wrote:

    I don't think it's a discussion between invisible and hidden, rather invisible and unaware. Under the rules for suprise it notes that unaware combatants don't get to act in the suprise round and are flat-footed.

    I'd argue that the rogue caught the fighter unaware even outside of the suprise round and therefore caught him flat footed.

    As the feat only protects you from losing dex whem attack by invisible opponents i don't think it can count there. If you were to close you eyes then, yes i'd give you the benefits of the feat against all opponents your aware of. Making it useful against any enemy with a gaze attack but i'd still say you should lose dex against any opponent your unaware of.

    What is the difference between me being invisible and being unseen due to cover or concealment from the fighter's PoV? Flat-footed is a condition just like being diseased or sickened is. If the rules don't say X causes the condition then you can't apply it. There are ways to make people flat-footed, but simply hiding or being invisible is not it. All they do is make you lose dex.


    I don't think there's any difference between being unseen and invisible. I'm arguing you can be unaware of someone. Whether you can see them or not is irrelevant.
    If the person your talking too suddenly tried to punch you in the face for no reason then they're probably going to catch you flat-footed whether you have blind-fight or not as it just doesn't apply in that situation.
    If the attacker acts before their target in the first round their targets flat footed anyway. I see a rogue who no-one was aware of stepping out of cover and stabbing someone during a fight as an action the defender is similarly unaware of and requires uncanny dodge to avoid.


    CollectiveS wrote:
    I see a rogue who no-one was aware of stepping out of cover and stabbing someone during a fight as an action the defender is similarly unaware of and requires uncanny dodge to avoid.

    Except that during combat it is different. You basically want to have a surprise round in the middle of a combat, and that's not the way the combat rules work.

    Imagine the following scenario: The fighter knows that there is ONE invisible opponent somewhere, but doesn't know about a SECOND hiding one. Is the fighter flat-footed against the attack from one of the unknown assailants in the middle of the combat? Should it matter which one of the two unseen attackers is making the attack?

    Now try another: The attacker, rather than being unseen in the room, rather is in another room then comes in during the combat. Is everyone flatfooted against his attacks in that first round? What if they didn't know he was in the other room?

    There's a difference between a surprise round at the start of combat and an unseen or unforseen attacker in the middle of a combat.

    -James


    CollectiveS wrote:

    I don't think there's any difference between being unseen and invisible. I'm arguing you can be unaware of someone. Whether you can see them or not is irrelevant.

    If the person your talking too suddenly tried to punch you in the face for no reason then they're probably going to catch you flat-footed whether you have blind-fight or not as it just doesn't apply in that situation.
    If the attacker acts before their target in the first round their targets flat footed anyway. I see a rogue who no-one was aware of stepping out of cover and stabbing someone during a fight as an action the defender is similarly unaware of and requires uncanny dodge to avoid.

    The blind-fight ability allows you to retain your dex just like uncanny dodge does so how is one working but not the other. Flat-footed makes you lose dex, and prevents attacks of opportunity as a part of the condition. Being hidden does not grant flat-footedness, and it should not. The thing is you can not be flat-footed against one creature, which is what you are trying to say, any more than you can be stunned(another condition) against one creature. You are either flat-footed or you are not. Since you can not be flat-footed the next best thing is a loss of dex, but blind-fight prevents that. Saying I can't attack person A(with an attack of opportunity) because person B is hiding is not supported anywhere within the rules, and by saying the fighter is flat-footed because person B is hiding is exactly what you are saying.

    prd wrote:
    Flat-Footed: A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.

    edit:made changes for clarification.

    Scarab Sages

    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    Wow, thanks for all of the input! There are a few questions asked about the scenario so let me try to answer those first:

    1. The assassin used a 5-ft step to come out of hiding, so he gets a full attack.

    2. The assassin had Stealthed prior to the party entering the area and saw them coming. He then stepped further back from the melee area into an alcove -- he was not visible at all and was not (IMO) involved in the combat. The assassin did not have the benefit of invisibility.

    3. When the fighter went past, the assassin was too far away to take an AOO. When the fighter finished his turn, the assassin came out of delay, moved 5 ft, and full attacked using TWF.

    I think I covered all of the questions. :)

    I have read through the discussion and it seems to come down to two things: does "invisible attackers" == "stealthed attackers" for the purposes of blind-fight, and does an attacker that a PC is not aware of cause the PC to be flat-footed against that attacker.

    I can understand the concern about the first one! However, if the blind-fight feat was meant to apply to hidden people as well it should have been worded that way. It wasn't. It would have been easy (and much more intuitive IMO!) to say, "Opponents with total concealment to you" instead of saying "Invisible attackers". I have to assume -- without evidence to the contrary -- that they wrote what they meant. Otherwise the rules of the universe are no longer rules but merely unproven theories.

    But the real issue is the flat-footed condition. It makes sense to me, thematically and otherwise, that an opponent that you have no knowledge of would treat you as flat-footed against their attacks. Take the following scenario:

    A group of PCs is chasing some kobolds through a forest. The kobolds lead them into an ambush. The party fails their Perception checks and doesn't see it coming. So ten kobolds let loose with their Small-sized crossbows at once! Are the party members flat-footed? IMO the answer is "yes". Unless the party members have Combat Reflexes. In my p.o.v. the ambush is a new "encounter" and the flat-footed condition can apply. Having said that, perhaps the assassin in my scenario should only have gotten a single (surprise round) attack? After all the rules do say that you can't ready actions outside of combat and the assassin wasn't in combat yet...? (But the assassin wasn't readying, he was delaying.)

    I would give the PCs the same benefits, btw. If most of the party is involved in combat and the party rogue -- who hasn't attacked yet and is not known to be there -- stealths around and comes in behind a bad guy, the bad guy is flat-footed in regards to that rogue.

    The fighter in question has Blind-fight (which I'm not convinced works against stealthed individuals) and does NOT have Combat Reflexes.

    It seems I have a few possibilities:

    1. The fighter is not flat-footed and Blind-fight completely negates the SA.

    2. The fighter is not flat-footed and the assassin can only take a standard action (as in a surprise round) and gains no SA due to Blind-fight.

    3. The fighter is not flat-footed and the assassin can only take a standard action (as in a surprise round) and gains SA since Blind-fight doesn't help against hidden attackers.

    4. The fighter is flat-footed and all attacks in the full attack action gain SA.

    5. The fighter is flat-footed and the assassin can only take a standard action (as in a surprise round) and gains SA for that attack.

    Then there are various weird combinations which I probably shouldn't get into, such as a non-flat-footed fighter where the first attack with each hand gets SA and the rest don't because the assassin becomes visible. (Ugh. Pretend I didn't even mention that one!)

    If I'm going to rule the fighter as flat-footed, perhaps I should treat it as a surprise round (#5 above)? It just feels wrong that an opponent who's been waiting for just the right moment -- in effect giving up prior actions -- only gets a single attack.

    The only other (to me) reasonable ruling would be #1. But I don't like giving away Combat Reflexes for free. :-/


    azhrei_fje wrote:


    1. The assassin used a 5-ft step to come out of hiding, so he gets a full attack.
    [...]
    A group of PCs is chasing some kobolds through a forest. The kobolds lead them into an ambush. The party fails their Perception checks and doesn't see it coming. So ten kobolds let loose with their Small-sized crossbows at once! Are the party members flat-footed? IMO the answer is "yes"....

    About 1.:

    If you rule that the rogue had the same benefits of an invisible character, he would only apply sneak attack to the first attack, as he is visible after that kind of interaction.
    If you house-rule that the fighter is flat-footed you should also house-rule when he becomes not flat-footed, as the normal rules are useless in that case. Usually you can only perform one attack in the surprise round, and multiple attacks if you win initiative and do something while the other characters haven't yet acted. IMO, backstabbing someone for 6 seconds when he is in a combat stance and not dealing with another enemy is wrong (I know that there are enemies and I have been sneak attacked in melee by an unseen attacker... and again!.. and again!?). Many things to house-rule here.

    A chase isn't usually a combat situation unless someone is moving and attacking or something like that. When all enemies flee an encounter is over. So it is possible to begin a new encounter when the ambush happens, and before it happens everyone is flat-footed.

    Quote:


    I can understand the concern about the first one! However, if the blind-fight feat was meant to apply to hidden people as well it should have been worded that way.

    Note that it doesn't need to be worded that way because hidden people doesn't make you flatfooted or make you loose your Dex (and that isn't an interpretation, just the rules).

    As explained before, rogues can't apply sneak attack (except when flanking) once the fight has begun. "Invisible-like" and "extra-surprise-rounds" are just house rules to make rogues happy.


    azhrei_fje wrote:

    Wow, thanks for all of the input! There are a few questions asked about the scenario so let me try to answer those first:

    2. The assassin had Stealthed prior to the party entering the area and saw them coming. He then stepped further back from the melee area into an alcove -- he was not visible at all and was not (IMO) involved in the combat. The assassin did not have the benefit of invisibility.

    I don't have enough info on the lighting conditions or line of sight to say anything about this part.

    3. When the fighter went past, the assassin was too far away to take an AOO. When the fighter finished his turn, the assassin came out of delay, moved 5 ft, and full attacked using TWF.

    I think I covered all of the questions. :)

    I have read through the discussion and it seems to come down to two things: does "invisible attackers" == "stealthed attackers" for the purposes of blind-fight, and does an attacker that a PC is not aware of cause the PC to be flat-footed against that attacker.

    Quote:


    I can understand the concern about the first one! However, if the blind-fight feat was meant to apply to hidden people as well it should have been worded that way. It wasn't. It would have been easy (and much more intuitive IMO!) to say, "Opponents with total concealment to you" instead of saying "Invisible attackers". I have to assume -- without evidence to the contrary -- that they wrote what they meant. Otherwise the rules of the universe are no longer rules but merely unproven theories.

    I understand your ruling with the invisible vs hiding opponents, but I did ask for an FAQ from the devs

    Quote:


    For the kobold situation it is up to the DM to determine when a new combat begins. If init was rolled before the chase began then the party is not flat-footed. If init was not rolled then the kobolds get a surprise round, and then init is rolled. As for the assassin I don't know if you readied an action or delayed. The two are not the same, but often confused. As for being flat-footed, by the rules you can't be flat-footed within combat against singular opponents. Either you are flat-footed are you or not. Read my previous post for an example. If a monk stuns you do your weapons only count as dropped for that monk, but you count as having them for everyone else you fight?


    My only real problem with some of the readings of blind fight is that people wish to apply it as a blanket effect. It only states that invisible attackers get no benefit, both the loss of dex invisible attackers incur and the +2 to hit invisible attackers get. Also after the "benefits" paragraphs of the feat comes the "normal" section describing what happens without it, it once again only mentions invisible attackers.

    I've never been in a game where any stealthed rogue got a +2 to hit for attacking out of stealth. Furthermore effects that specifically cancel invisibility such as invisibility purge and glitterdust do not actually stop you trying to enter stealth.

    This suggests to me they are 2 different things and blind fight only affects invisibility.

    Took me so long to write i missed wraiths entry :P


    CollectiveS wrote:

    My only real problem with some of the readings of blind fight is that people wish to apply it as a blanket effect. It only states that invisible attackers get no benefit, both the loss of dex invisible attackers incur and the +2 to hit invisible attackers get. Also after the "benefits" paragraphs of the feat comes the "normal" section describing what happens without it, it once again only mentions invisible attackers.

    I've never been in a game where any stealthed rogue got a +2 to hit for attacking out of stealth. Furthermore effects that specifically cancel invisibility such as invisibility purge and glitterdust do not actually stop you trying to enter stealth.

    This suggests to me they are 2 different things and blind fight only affects invisibility.

    Took me so long to write i missed wraiths entry :P

    Ok, so what happens if an invisible rogue takes the +20 from invisibility on his stealth check to hide, pops out from behind a barrel and stabs the meatshield? He's invisible so the feat kicks in and the fighter gets his dex.

    Compare that with a hiding rogue popping out from behind a barrel. He's not invisible so the feat doesn't kick in, the meat shield does not get his dex, and us sneak attacked.

    It seems odd to me that something that makes the rogue harder to see makes him less effective at a sneak attacking the fighter.


    Invisibility and being Hidden work completely differently- and the internal logic of the game world distinguishes between them.

    Invisible doesn't mean the same thing as being hidden.
    How do you find an invisible person? How do you find a hidden person?

    You know the answer. Whats the difference?

    Spoiler:

    If I am hiding from you- what do you do? We've been playing this game since we were what- 3 years old? You go and find barriers to sight and you look behind them. You look for things that break LOS and you check around/beneath/ontop of them to find the hidden person. Barring something extraordinary, you know if you are in a small empty square room with the door closed that there is no one hidden inside it. Why? Because you can see the entirety of the room.

    Now we don't have actual real world examples of invisibility but we've all seen the movies and we know the difference. The difference is that if the Invisible Man is in the same room with you... you won't know it unless you can hear him breathing, or if you trip on him. The fact of the matter is- if you are looking for someone who is invisible *you aren't looking in hiding places* you are trying to locate that creature through abnormal means.
    Namely- because invisible means *you can not see them*.

    In D&D, being hidden is something granted by the stealth skill or- arguably, by total cover (if your perception check really sucks).

    Invisibility is a specific term concerning particular magical spells.
    Vanish. Invisibility. Greater Invisibility. Invisibility Sphere (or globe of.. or whatever its called).

    You are not invisible if they can't see you. You aren't even effectively invisible. You aren't invisible unless you are using some effect that specifically states that you are invisible.

    Quote:
    An invisible attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you in melee. That is, you don't lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, and the attacker doesn't get the usual +2 bonus for being invisible. The invisible attacker's bonuses do still apply for ranged attacks, however.

    If The Attacker Is Not Invisible then Blind-Fight Feat Does Nothing.

    It does not apply against hidden foes. It applies against foes who are Invisible.

    The feat doesn't say hidden. It says invisible. They are two different things and are acquired in different ways.


    1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
    Selgard wrote:
    Invisibility and being Hidden work completely differently- and the internal logic of the game world distinguishes between them.

    Then why does invisibility add to stealth checks?

    The problem being that there's no mechanism, at all for hiding. You need a system for dealing with someone you might know is there but can't see.
    (a rogue using stealth in the dark)

    We do know that invisibility adds to stealth checks. I don't see how that's supposed to work if they're not functioning under the same rules.

    If what you're saying is true (and i could easily see that being the case) then the Rogue can't sneak attack after the first round of combat without invisibility or bluffing because the flat footed condition is not relative to other creatures on the board, a creature either is or is not flat footed.


    Because the spell specifically calls out that it does.

    If you know a rogue is there but can't see him- you Do have a mechanism for it. Move away from the darkness/shadows or cast a light spell or toss a torch or sunrod at it.

    If someone is invisible though you can toss all the sunrods at it you want to- unless you actually Strike the person it won't do you any good.

    If you are in combat with a rogue and they do the feint/hide thing then the smart thing to do is to get away from shadows and things that break your LOS so he has to come out into the open to get you. If you want to walk into the shadows after him- expect to get eviscerated. He won't disappoint you and you will have deserved the SA.

    If he has HipS then I would hope a special ability would let him get around a simple feat anyone can take.

    If he's Invisible then the feat specifically lets you get around that. It is what the feat is for.

    I do Not agree that taking blind fight is a good way to get around good perception checks vs rogues. I just don't. That isn't what the feat says that it does. The feat says it works against Invisible foes. Invisible is a specific thing. If it said "foes you can not see" then I'd agree (even though I didn't like it), but it doesn't. They chose a specific term that has a specific meaning.

    Quote:
    Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving.

    If hidden and invisibile are the same things- why this line in stealth? I think we'll all agree that its saying "if you are magically invisible then you get this bonus". It clearly isn't saying that once you are hidden successfully you get a +40 to the check.

    They have to mean different things. Invisible is not Hidden. Hidden is not Invisible. Blind Fight does not work against things that are merely hidden.

    -S

    edit: noobish typos


    Selgard wrote:

    Invisibility and being Hidden work completely differently- and the internal logic of the game world distinguishes between them.

    A simple question: if a character is hidden from another character that they attack, where does it say that they are denied their DEX to that attack?

    And if the fighter were to be blinded, thus all attackers are treated as if they were invisible.. would he be denied his DEX to melee attacks from them?

    -James


    azhrei_fje wrote:

    1. The fighter is not flat-footed and Blind-fight completely negates the SA.

    2. The fighter is not flat-footed and the assassin can only take a standard action (as in a surprise round) and gains no SA due to Blind-fight.

    3. The fighter is not flat-footed and the assassin can only take a standard action (as in a surprise round) and gains SA since Blind-fight doesn't help against hidden attackers.

    4. The fighter is flat-footed and all attacks in the full attack action gain SA.

    5. The fighter is flat-footed and the assassin can only take a standard action (as in a surprise round) and gains SA for that attack.

    6. The fighter, having already acted in this combat, is not flat-footed. a) As others have pointed out, there is no mechanic in the rules for being flat-footed against a single enemy. Denied Dex bonus vs. a single enemy, yes given a proper situation.

    b) The assassin, having taken a 5' step out of cover/concealment, is no longer hidden from view, negating the SA without the need for the Blind Fight feat, barring the presence of Hide in Plain Sight.
    c) assuming a ruling could be made that allowed the assassin to stay unseen until his attack (eg: a square threatening the fighter but in the dark), the "5' step" he took would have to be a full move action (moving while hidden is slower than normal movement, negating the ability to take the free 5' step), allowing only a single SA strike from a hidden position.

    At least, that's how I see it.

    Sovereign Court

    Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
    azhrei_fje wrote:

    I made a ruling in our game last night that I'm having second thoughts on. I believe I handled it correctly, but there's still this nagging in the back of my mind...

    A meatshield fighter with blind-fight moves forward to engage an opponent. In doing so he moves past a stealthing rogue/assassin that he failed to spot.

    After the fighter takes his single attack against the opponent (std action), the NPC comes out of delay to step from the shadows (becoming visible) and proceeds to wail on the unsuspecting fighter gaining sneak attack damage on every attack. (The assassin is a TWF specialist.)

    PRD wrote:
    Blind-Fight Feat: An invisible attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you in melee. That is, you don't lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, and the attacker doesn't get the usual +2 bonus for being invisible. The invisible attacker's bonuses do still apply for ranged attacks, however.

    I ruled that because the fighter didn't know the creature was there, the blind-fight feat doesn't help -- the fighter is effectively flat-footed against this NPC. (Note that "flat-footed" != "lose your Dex".)

    Did I do this correctly? Or should only the first attack include sneak damage? Or maybe none of them?

    Thanks for your help!

    Blind fight does not help here. Stealth is opposed by Perception checks, which means target is flat-footed if it fails Perception vs. assassin's Stealth roll. Remember that you must have either concealment or cover to use Stealth. End of story.

    In your example, the assassin could have walked up to the fighter on a successful Stealth assuming he was in darkness or an area of dim light (i.e. concealment or total concealment). Which means only one attack and not a full attack, unless the fighter walked up to his location and stopped there, and on the assassin's turn, the assassin attacked from a cover position NOT MOVING or from a dim_light/darkness spot NOT MOVING OR TAKING ONLY A 5-FOOT STEP.

    I usually have my assassins hang head down from rafters with reach weapons in LOOONG corridors (i.e. darkness/dimlight AND cover!! yay!!) to avoid the whole player whining about invisibility immunities, time to activate death attack and such. The wording for death attack also state that "If an assassin studies his victim for 3 rounds..." and who says studying means looking at? in my book if he can hear the target for 3 rounds, it counts as studying (i.e. perception does not only use visual cues and one can use all senses for such vaguely worded activities... :P )


    Selgard wrote:
    Because the spell specifically calls out that it does.

    I'm curious as to how you (as a dm, not a character) work out the interaction with the (very common) combination of a hiding rogue with invisibility. I'm talking about game mechanics, not character options.

    Quote:
    If you know a rogue is there but can't see him- you Do have a mechanism for it. Move away from the darkness/shadows or cast a light spell or toss a torch or sunrod at it.

    I mean a mechanism for judging how to deal with them.

    By what you're telling me, and a literal reading of the rules, either

    1) Rogues cannot use stealth to deny someone that's in combat and has acted on their turn their dex bonus against attacks, whether or not they are in combat with the rogue. Rouges can't sneak attack after sniping, can't hide and come back to sneak attack again, and can't (as the assassin in the original post was trying to do) remain hidden , let an ally engage and then pop out to sneak attack them at a more opportune moment.

    This is a far, FAR worse situation for the rogue than loosing some of the opportunities to sneak attack due to a feat.

    or

    2) (and i'd really like an answer to this, because everyone keeps skipping the bizarre implications) is that if the rogue was invisible or the fighter shut their eyes (so that the rogue would be considered invisible) then the fighter would be BETTER able to react to someone. If a rules interpretation leads to something invisible being easier to see or shutting your eyes gives you better ability to deal with opponents then i think we missed a left turn at Albuquerque somewhere.

    Quote:
    If you are in combat with a rogue and they do the feint/hide thing then the smart thing to do is to get away from shadows and things that break your LOS so he has to come out into the open to get you. If you want to walk into the shadows after him- expect to get eviscerated. He won't disappoint you and you will have deserved the SA.

    By your own ruling, the fighter is free to walk into the shadows, wait for the rogue to hit you, and then show him how its really done because the rogue can't sneak attack the fighter The fight has begun, initiative has been rolled, the fighter has acted. The fighter is NOT flat footed by the rules anymore, even if he looses track of the rogue.

    Quote:
    If he has HipS then I would hope a special ability would let him get around a simple feat anyone can take.

    Hide in plain sight works a bit different than the name would suggest

    Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): While in any of his favored terrains, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use the Stealth skill even while being observed.

    - the ranger's version doesn't let you get around the cover requirement.

    Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow.

    - this lets you extend the shadows a bit, but you still need them. I'm not sure how this would interact with dark vision or low light vision though (since dim light is relative to the observer)

    Quote:
    If he's Invisible then the feat specifically lets you get around that. It is what the feat is for.

    Do you see why I'm a little thrown off by an interpretation that makes someone with invisibility cast on them EASIER to deal with even if they're hiding?

    Quote:
    If hidden and invisible are the same things- why this line in stealth? I think we'll all agree that its saying "if you are magically invisible then you get this bonus". It clearly isn't saying that once you are hidden successfully you get a +40 to the check.

    You get the +20/ +40 bonus to TRY to not be seen. You're assuming that the stealth check is automatically successful: it is not.

    You are standing in the open in bright sunlight. The dc to spot you is 0

    You are standing in the open and you are invisible. The dc to spot you in 20

    You are hiding in the woods using stealth. You have a +6 and rolled a 10. The dc to spot you is 16

    You are hiding in the woods using stealth. You have a +6 and rolled a 10, and you have invisibility on you, The dc to spot you is 36

    if you are hiding in the woods, invisible, and not moving the dc to spot you is 56

    Quote:
    They have to mean different things. Invisible is not Hidden. Hidden is not Invisible. Blind Fight does not work against things that are merely hidden.

    If they are different things then the assassin in the above scenario cannot sneak attack ANYONE through stealth, not just people with blind fight.

    What about things that are invisible and hidden?

    Sovereign Court

    This thread is a perfect example of why RPGs have DMs.

    FWIW, I would have ruled that the rogue got the first attack with SA damage, the iterative/offhand attacks would not. That's how we rule ambushes in our group.


    james maissen wrote:

    And if the fighter were to be blinded, thus all attackers are treated as if they were invisible.. would he be denied his DEX to melee attacks from them?

    -James

    Your saying that you can't be both unaware of the attacker AND blinded. Both would cause you to lose your dex but the feat would only help with one of the conditions.

    My general idea of how the feat works can be explained with an example.

    1) You have an opponent capable of attacking through solid walls (as wraith maybe).
    2) you have a fighter with blind fight.

    In combat if the fighter is totally unaware the wraith is there and it attacks him by reaching out of the wall he is denied his dex because he didn't know it was there. It also has total concealment which i'd say is what defines being invisible whether by spell, obstacle or darkness.

    After that initial attack the figher retains his dex against all subsequent attacks by the wraith as he is now aware it is in the fight.

    Sovereign Court

    Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

    SNEAK ATTACK WORKS IF:

    1. Target loses its Dex bonus. Instances when one can lose his dex bonus:

    blinded (includes creatures in areas of darkness without darkvision)
    cowering
    feint (see Bluff skill)
    flat-footed
    lifting double your max load off the ground
    off balance in the water
    pinned
    stunned
    vs. impromptu sneak attack
    vs. invisible opponents
    vs. non grappling opponents while you are grappling

    2. Target is flanked.

    3. Target is helpless (paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy).

    Scarab Sages

    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    wraithstrike wrote:
    As for the assassin I don't know if you readied an action or delayed.

    I think I said "delayed" both times, but I'll say it again: "delayed". And yes, I'm quite clear on the differences between readying and delaying. :)

    My thinking behind "flat-footed" is that it applies to each individual as it relates to opponents. For example, a group of 4 PCs (A through D) enters combat with 5 NPCs (1 through 5). If we assume that they are interspersed in initiative with no surprise round, then the order could be: 1, A, 2, B, 3, C, 4, D, 5.

    So #1 takes their action and ALL PCs are flat-footed against #1.

    Then A takes their action. #1 is not flat-footed in relation to A, but NPCs 2 through 5 are.

    Continue through the first round and compare who is and is not flat-footed against their opponents.

    Now tell me again how a single individual cannot be flat-footed when attacked by a hidden opponent?

    I believe that the definition of "flat-footed" is being read too literally. Yes, it's true that at the start of combat everyone who hasn't yet acted is flat-footed. But IMO the term "flat-footed" means "unable to react". That jives much better with the Grease spell's description ("Creatures that do not move on their turn do not need to make this check and are not considered flat-footed.") although Grease never says it actually gives an affected creature the flat-footed condition in the first place! :(

    I believe the "flat-footed" mechanic works in this scenario which means the assassin gets SA on all of their TWF attacks.

    I haven't been convinced that Invisible == Hidden either. In fact, some of the comments regarding the Stealth skill in combination with invisibility seems to make the distinction between them even more clear to me. In addition, closing your eyes to gain the benefit of Blind-fight is silly. Blind-fight specifies what conditions on other creatures are negated, not how your own actions work. Closing your eyes does not make everyone else invisible, but it does give them total concealment. Blind-fight won't help you if you close your eyes. :)

    It seems pretty clear that I'm going to have to clarify what situations constitute "flat-footed" in my house rules document. And I'm also going to clarify how Invisible != Hidden as well. And any PCs who took that feat because they thought it was going to do something it doesn't do will get to choose a different feat, if they wish. :)

    I've clicked on the FAQ button on the first post. If you think this should have an official clarification, please click it too. I think this falls under the heading of "How does Stealth work?" but every bump is probably good.


    The closing your eyes thing is an interesting point :P. I agree with what you've put here in that by closing your eyes you don't eliminate the ability of enemies to flat foot you because that's just silly.

    However i'd say if you were fighting a medusa and closed your eyes to avoid it's gaze attack your blind fight feat would prevent you from losing your dexterity against it so long as you had some idea it was there and would also allow you the reroll concealment chance etc. Since i kinda imagine that's one of the feats intended uses.


    Quote:
    Now tell me again how a single individual cannot be flat-footed when attacked by a hidden opponent?

    Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed. You can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. Barbarians and rogues of high enough level have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which means that they cannot be caught flat-footed. Characters with uncanny dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat. A flat-footed character can't make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat.

    A is not flatfooted with respect to 1. He is simply flat footed or he is not. The assassin does not restart combat on his turn again to generate the flatfooted condition in anyone. He can't generate the condition because its not dependent on him, its entirely dependent on the characters and when they act.

    huh... is uncanny dodge letting you use AoO's like combat reflexes does new?

    Anywho, There is NO flat footed relation to anything else. You are flat footed when combat starts before your first regular turn in the initiative order After you have acted on your regular turn you are no longer flat footed. It doesn't matter if people are holding actions, it doesn't matter if they beat you in initiative 3 rounds ago, or that you can't see them. There is no, nadda, zero, zip justification for calling a character flat footed when he has already acted on his turn in combat.

    Has the meat shield acted? Yes. Is the meatshield flat footed? No. end of story. Flat footed describes ONE character. It is not a subjective relationship between characters.


    CollectiveS wrote:

    My only real problem with some of the readings of blind fight is that people wish to apply it as a blanket effect. It only states that invisible attackers get no benefit, both the loss of dex invisible attackers incur and the +2 to hit invisible attackers get. Also after the "benefits" paragraphs of the feat comes the "normal" section describing what happens without it, it once again only mentions invisible attackers.

    I've never been in a game where any stealthed rogue got a +2 to hit for attacking out of stealth. Furthermore effects that specifically cancel invisibility such as invisibility purge and glitterdust do not actually stop you trying to enter stealth.

    This suggests to me they are 2 different things and blind fight only affects invisibility.

    Took me so long to write i missed wraiths entry :P

    I understand you have a life away from the messageboards, and I know as written invis does not equal hidden, but a successful hide is effectively the same thing, assuming the "victim" does not have true seeing or some other way to foil invis.

    Hiding due to being invisible is stronger than mundane hiding because you get a +20 to hide, and you get +2 to attack. If blind-sight can bypass negate the stronger version to an extent then it should be able to deal with the weaker version.


    azhrei_fje wrote:


    Now tell me again how a single individual cannot be flat-footed when attacked by a hidden opponent?

    I believe that the definition of "flat-footed" is being read too literally.

    Flat-footed is written incorrectly while blind-fight can be used if I close my eyes, but not if they are open?

    Quote:


    Yes, it's true that at the start of combat everyone who hasn't yet acted is flat-footed. But IMO the term "flat-footed" means "unable to react". That jives much better with the Grease spell's description ("Creatures that do not move on their turn do not need to make this check and are not considered flat-footed.") although Grease never says it actually gives an affected creature the flat-footed condition in the first place! :(

    I believe the "flat-footed" mechanic works in this scenario which means the assassin gets SA on all of their TWF attacks.

    Flat-footed does not mean unaware.

    Example:BBEG gives long monologue then init is rolled. Of course if you just listen to the long speech and both parties know they are there to fight neither one is unaware. However whoever loses init is flat-footed. Flat-footed is only based on initiative and special fringe cases than can make you flat-footed, nothign else.

    Quote:


    I believe the "flat-footed" mechanic works in this scenario which means the assassin gets SA on all of their TWF attacks.

    I have already covered this. You either have a condition or you don't

    Quote:


    I haven't been convinced that Invisible == Hidden either. In fact, some of the comments regarding the Stealth skill in combination with invisibility seems to make the distinction between them even more clear to me.

    Invis does not equal hidden per say, but read my previous post.

    Quote:


    In addition, closing your eyes to gain the benefit of Blind-fight is silly. Blind-fight specifies what conditions on other creatures are negated, not how your own actions work. Closing your eyes does not make everyone else invisible, but it does give them total concealment. Blind-fight won't help you if you close your eyes. :)

    PRD:Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision, including darkvision.When you close your eyes you are effectively blind.

    Now let us go to the blind definition
    Blinded: The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail.
    I am sure when your eyes are closed you can not see or read. I am also sure you fail all perception checks based on sight.

    Quote:


    It seems pretty clear that I'm going to have to clarify what situations constitute "flat-footed" in my house rules document.

    good call :)

    I have clicked on the FAQ post so that it is explained that people know you are either flat-footed are you or not.


    Flat footed doesn't even mean unable to act. Longius the Long spear weilding fighter can be at the end of a 15 foot wide cooridoor with three rogues 20 feet away. They win initiative and come towards him with a partial charge. Longius uses combat reflexes to attack each one once... he's perfectly capable of acting. However when they reach him he's still flat footed... because he hasn't had his turn in the initiative order yet. Three sneak attacks snicker snack snicker.

    1 to 50 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.