# Prone=Flatfooted?



## Tyrloch (Apr 2, 2009)

My basic query is: can you do Sneak Attack damage to an enemy that is prone? The book states that a prone creature takes a -4 penalty to AC while prone -- since lying down wouldn't affect armor's ability to protect you, then this has to be some sort of penalty to your ability to dodge blows, i.e., a Dex penalty, right? What I'm trying to do is build a character who will use a trip attack to get an enemy prone, and then Sneak Attack him with his extra d6's while he's down. Am I headed in the right direction, or am I twisting rules?

~Jace


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 2, 2009)

No.


Jeff


----------



## fishhead (Apr 2, 2009)

an ac or dexterity penalty doesnt count as flat-footed... see page 151 of the phb


----------



## Tyrloch (Apr 2, 2009)

Yeah, but aren't you allowed to Sneak Attack an opponent that is either flat-footed, OR has lost his Dex bonus to AC, whether he has one or not?


----------



## fishhead (Apr 2, 2009)

yeah but losing dexterity bonus is something different than a dexterity penalty


----------



## Herzog (Apr 2, 2009)

> since lying down wouldn't affect armor's ability to protect you, then this has to be some sort of penalty to your ability to dodge blows, i.e., a Dex penalty, right?



No. the AC penalty is unnamed. 

You *could* see it as an AC penalty caused by the creature providing a larger target, but then someone would step in and suggest it is a size penalty. Which it is not.

furthermore, losing your dexterity bonus to AC is a very specific situation. It is a situation that MIGHT influence your AC (if you have a dex bonus), but your AC might be unaffected if you have a dex penalty instead.
It is also a situation in which you are subject to Sneak Attacks.

Note that losing dexterity (by penalty or damage or drain) will also reduce your AC, but is NOT considered 'loosing your dexterity bonus to AC', and thus does NOT make you subject to Sneak Attacks.


----------



## irdeggman (Apr 2, 2009)

What the others are saying.



> Prone: The character is on the ground. An attacker who is prone has a –4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A defender who is prone gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks.
> Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.




Note that your Dex mod to Reflex saving throws (osr skill checks) is not affected and you get an AC bonus against ranged attacks.

The key is not whether or not the opponent is flat-footed or not but whether they are denied the Dex Bonus to AC.



> The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time 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.




When prone you are not denied your Dex bonus to AC. If you have a +5 due to Dex and are prone you still have a net of +1 to AC (plus anything from other sources, armor, dodge, etc)


----------



## Tyrloch (Apr 3, 2009)

I just went back through the PHB and found a couple of interesting things: Under the Rogue entry it states that you get to use you SA damage any time that an opponent cannot effectively defend himself from your attack (I think lying Prone with a -4 to your AC fits this criteria). It also states that the Rogue's SA deals extra damage any time your target would be denied "A" Dex bonus (it doesn't specify that the opponent needs to be denied it's ENTIRE Dex bonus). And under Helpless Defenders, it states that the Rogue may use his SA damage, and they take a -4 penalty to AC. And then under Feint, you get to use your SA when all you're doing is misleading an opponent to he can't effectively dodge your next blow. So my reasoning is this: how can you SA someone in a Flank or after a Feint when the opponent is still on his feet, but you cannot when they are lying flat on the ground? I think that this condition would fit the "cannot effectively defend himself" scenario...before anyone makes a snap judgement on this, remember that nowhere in the PHB does it actually state that you CANNOT Sneak Attack a prone opponent -- I believe that it's up to interpretation, and I make a compelling argument...

~Jace


----------



## Abciximab (Apr 3, 2009)

Prone isn’t helpless. You aren’t denied “A” dex bonus when you are prone.

SRD-


> If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
> 
> The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time 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. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.






> remember that nowhere in the PHB does it actually state that you CANNOT Sneak Attack a prone opponent




There are a lot of things that aren’t expressly ruled out for sneak attack (He’s flying? I sneak attack because it doesn’t state anywhere that I can’t), the Rogue entry states the conditions under which you can sneak attack. 

In a flank you are defending yourself against multiple opponents, dividing your attention and it is expressly stated as one of the conditions (other than being denied your dex bonus) when you can sneak attack. 

Bluff is a combat tactic to help you gain your sneak attack bonus (again expressly spelled out in the rules).

While I am not convinced it would not be an unreasonable house rule.


----------



## green slime (Apr 3, 2009)

Most emphatically "No!"


----------



## Tyrloch (Apr 3, 2009)

Trip is a combat tactic, like Feint, that allows you to get your opponent Prone. I realize that Prone isn't Helpless, a Helpless delender not only gets a +4 to hit against him, but he also gets an automatic Critical Hit. 

I think the phrasing "anytime the defender is unable to effectively defend himself" is the key here. I would think that anything that gives you a penalty to your AC is not allowing you to fully defend yourself. If you Feint someone in combat, you deny them their Dex bonus to AC, whether they have a dex bonus or not. So their AC may or may not change. When you Flank someone, you get a +2 against them, which is basically the same thing as him gettin a -2 to AC because he cannot "effectively defend himself" from your attack. When someone is Prone, they get a -4 to AC, so this definitely affects the actual AC, which to me translates to "unable to effectively defend himself." 

My point is that a specific penalty to AC is a more favorable circumstance for the attacker than a denial of a Dex bonus because a minus to AC is a minus to any defender's AC, while a denial of Dex bonus will only affect the AC of defenders that actually have a dex bonus to AC...


----------



## green slime (Apr 3, 2009)

Tyrloch said:


> Trip is a combat tactic, like Feint, that allows you to get your opponent Prone. I realize that Prone isn't Helpless, a Helpless delender not only gets a +4 to hit against him, but he also gets an automatic Critical Hit.
> 
> I think the phrasing "anytime the defender is unable to effectively defend himself" is the key here. I would think that anything that gives you a penalty to your AC is not allowing you to fully defend yourself. If you Feint someone in combat, you deny them their Dex bonus to AC, whether they have a dex bonus or not. So their AC may or may not change. When you Flank someone, you get a +2 against them, which is basically the same thing as him gettin a -2 to AC because he cannot "effectively defend himself" from your attack. When someone is Prone, they get a -4 to AC, so this definitely affects the actual AC, which to me translates to "unable to effectively defend himself."
> 
> My point is that a specific penalty to AC is a more favorable circumstance for the attacker than a denial of a Dex bonus because a minus to AC is a minus to any defender's AC, while a denial of Dex bonus will only affect the AC of defenders that actually have a dex bonus to AC...




No. Just no. 

Look, even a helpless defender doesn't "automatically suffer a critical":



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Helpless* (from the SRD)
> >snip<
> 
> As *a full-round action*, an enemy can use a melee weapon to deliver a *coup de grace* to a helpless foe. An enemy can also use a bow or crossbow, provided he is adjacent to the target. The attacker automatically hits and scores a critical hit. (A rogue also gets her sneak attack damage bonus against a helpless foe when delivering a coup de grace.) If the defender survives, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die.
> ...





Your argument has no basis in the rules.

If you suffer from A Dex poison, would you have you character auto-sneaked?


----------



## irdeggman (Apr 3, 2009)

Tyrloch said:


> I just went back through the PHB and found a couple of interesting things: Under the Rogue entry it states that you get to use you SA damage any time that an opponent cannot effectively defend himself from your attack (I think lying Prone with a -4 to your AC fits this criteria). It also states that the Rogue's SA deals extra damage any time your target would be denied "A" Dex bonus (it doesn't specify that the opponent needs to be denied it's ENTIRE Dex bonus). And under Helpless Defenders, it states that the Rogue may use his SA damage, and they take a -4 penalty to AC. And then under Feint, you get to use your SA when all you're doing is misleading an opponent to he can't effectively dodge your next blow. So my reasoning is this: how can you SA someone in a Flank or after a Feint when the opponent is still on his feet, but you cannot when they are lying flat on the ground? I think that this condition would fit the "cannot effectively defend himself" scenario...before anyone makes a snap judgement on this, remember that nowhere in the PHB does it actually state that you CANNOT Sneak Attack a prone opponent -- I believe that it's up to interpretation, and I make a compelling argument...
> 
> ~Jace




IMO you are reading this wrong.




> prone: Lying on the ground. An attacker who is prone has a –4
> penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot used a ranged weapon
> (except for a crossbow). *A defender who is prone gains a +4 bonus to
> Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a –4 penalty to AC
> against melee attacks*.





For one the penalty is not a Dex mod penalty it is a penalty to AC (which is also a bonus to AC against ranged attacks).

Also the text you are quoting says 



> It also states that the Rogue's SA deals extra damage any time your target would be denied "A" Dex bonus (it doesn't specify that the opponent needs to be denied it's ENTIRE Dex bonus).




And then you point out that it doesn't say they need to be denied their entire bonus - but what it says is denied "a bonus" - which means any possible bonus, so even if this was "reduced" by a penalty {which being prone is not a Dex penalty} they would still have a potential bonus left. My exampel earlier was with a PC with a +5 Dex bonus to AC being prone still haveing some left - but it is actually a +5 (from Dex) and -4 (from being prone) = net +1 to AC.

The other examples (except for flanking which is a specific condtion) also deny the opponent a Dex bonus (as in all of it) to AC or makes them flat-footed which specifically denies their Dex Bonus to AC.


----------



## Tyrloch (Apr 3, 2009)

Okay, as far as I'm aware there are basically 4 types of bonuses to AC: Dex, Armor, Natural Armor & Dodge bonuses. If a Prone defender suffers a -4 penalty to AC, what type of penalty is he receiving? It can't be an Armor or Natural Armor penalty, unless his protection was made of glass and shattered when he hit the ground, and I can't see being knocked Prone making your Natural Armor weaker. So that leaves Dex bonus or Dodge bonus -- both of which would allow you to SA. Does everyone here disagree that when you are Prone, you are unable to defend yourself as well as when upright and in a combat stance? If you could defend yourself as well Prone as you can standing upright, then there would be no penalty to AC.


----------



## Abciximab (Apr 3, 2009)

A penalty (or a bonus for that matter) doesn't have to be named and an unnamed bonus/penalty can't be made (without a house rule) into something else. Being prone doesn't keep you from moving or dodging a blow.



> I think the phrasing "anytime the defender is unable to effectively defend himself" is the key here.




The entry then goes on to explain what "unable to effectively defend himself" means and states the conditions under which you can sneak attack.


----------



## Tyrloch (Apr 3, 2009)

Actually, it doesn't. That isn't the definition of "unable to effectively defend himself", those are just examples.  I think you're looking for it to be spelled out in the rules -- it isn't. Nor is it specifically forbidden -- it is something that is up to interpretation. What you have to do is put yourself in the same situation -- standing upright against an attacking foe, and then lying at his feet. Do you think you would have the same chance of fending off blows in both instances? If you think so, then you either don't have a vivid imagination, or you've never been in any type of altercation before. 

   I would like to hear what type of AC penalty the -4 when Prone is classified as: Armor, Dex, Dodge, or does someone have another idea? There has to be a reason why there's a -4 to AC while Prone. Why is that?


----------



## billd91 (Apr 3, 2009)

Tyrloch said:


> Okay, as far as I'm aware there are basically 4 types of bonuses to AC: Dex, Armor, Natural Armor & Dodge bonuses. If a Prone defender suffers a -4 penalty to AC, what type of penalty is he receiving? It can't be an Armor or Natural Armor penalty, unless his protection was made of glass and shattered when he hit the ground, and I can't see being knocked Prone making your Natural Armor weaker. So that leaves Dex bonus or Dodge bonus -- both of which would allow you to SA. Does everyone here disagree that when you are Prone, you are unable to defend yourself as well as when upright and in a combat stance? If you could defend yourself as well Prone as you can standing upright, then there would be no penalty to AC.




Actually, you're missing quite a few other bonuses including size, deflection, shield, and any number of other, often magic-based, ones.

A bonus is named primarily to determine how they stack together, bonuses of the same name generally not being additive (dodge being one of few exceptions). Penalties are typically not named because they can freely add up.

But if some DM felt the desperate need to apply a name to the prone penalty or bonus (depending on whether subjected to melee or ranged attack) the most appropriate name would be *circumstance* bonus since its the character's current circumstances that determine the bonuses. I'm not advocating naming the bonus/penalty at all, but I'm pointing out that there are better fitting alternatives to assuming that there's a Dex or dodge bonus penalty.


----------



## Tyrloch (Apr 3, 2009)

I was aware of those other AC bonuses, but Size, Magical, etc, don't apply here -- that's why I stated 'basically 4 types.' And the reason for a +4 against ranged attacks while prone is because you're a smaller target -- it's akin to trying to hit a garbage can at 30' or a soda can at 30': lying don't you're a smaller targer, it doesn't enable you to dodge blows more effectively. I think it was an oversight in the book not stating what type of AC penalty it is while Prone. And still no one has answered the question: can you effectively dodge blows while lying on your back? If so, then why the AC penalty for being Prone?


----------



## billd91 (Apr 3, 2009)

Tyrloch said:


> Actually, it doesn't. That isn't the definition of "unable to effectively defend himself", those are just examples.  I think you're looking for it to be spelled out in the rules -- it isn't. Nor is it specifically forbidden -- it is something that is up to interpretation. What you have to do is put yourself in the same situation -- standing upright against an attacking foe, and then lying at his feet. Do you think you would have the same chance of fending off blows in both instances? If you think so, then you either don't have a vivid imagination, or you've never been in any type of altercation before.




I believe that it is less up to interpretation than you think. Are you using the PH or the SRD as your primary source of the rules? The SRD is a bit more terse in its description of sneak attack but the PH is more clear by including the qualifier "Basically" when it launches into the description of doing extra damage when a target is denied its Dex bonus. That's laying out the rule right there by defining what it means by being unable to defend oneself. That single qualifier should make it clearer that you're not dealing just with examples but the general definition of a rogue attacking someone unable to effectively defend themselves.

And, when in melee, it's clear that the prone character has less chance to fend of blows by the game rules. Their AC is lower by 4. But the question isn't about having the *same* chance to defend yourself, it's about having a *certain type* of ability to defend yourself.


----------



## aboyd (Apr 3, 2009)

Tyrloch said:


> What I'm trying to do is build a character who will use a trip attack to get an enemy prone, and then Sneak Attack him with his extra d6's while he's down. Am I headed in the right direction, or am I twisting rules?



Jace,

Watching you debate in this thread, trying to get everyone to agree with a preposterous misreading of the rules, I think the answer to your question is, "Yes, you are twisting the rules.  A lot."

Look, if it means this much to you, ask the DM for a house rule.  But don't pretend that the rules do what they clearly do not do.


----------



## Abciximab (Apr 3, 2009)

aboyd said:


> Jace,
> 
> Watching you debate in this thread, trying to get everyone to agree with a preposterous misreading of the rules, I think the answer to your question is, "Yes, you are twisting the rules.  A lot."
> 
> Look, if it means this much to you, ask the DM for a house rule.  But don't pretend that the rules do what they clearly do not do.




Seconded.


----------



## Tyrloch (Apr 3, 2009)

I don't think I'm twisting the rules, I feel that a lot of you are misreading the passage under Rogue as a definition of Unable to Defend Yourself, when it isn't a full definition. If it was, then it wouldn't use the vagueness of the word "basically", it would have read, "To be unable to defend yourself is only under these conditions..." I don't see the difference in Feinting someone and then getting an SA, or tripping them and getting an SA. You have to make a roll to Feint or Trip, and when you Flank, there's no pre-roll involved -- you automatically get your SA damage. If you have 3 attacks/round, you would get you SA on all 3, as long as you were Flanking for all 3. I think that if what I'm proposing was so against the rules, then there would be a something in the PHB somewhere that would specifically rule against this...


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Apr 3, 2009)

Tyrloch said:


> My basic query is: can you do Sneak Attack damage to an enemy that is prone? The book states that a prone creature takes a -4 penalty to AC while prone -- since lying down wouldn't affect armor's ability to protect you, then this has to be some sort of penalty to your ability to dodge blows, i.e., a Dex penalty, right?



No, a dex penalty is listed AS BEING a dex penalty.  The penalty to AC for being prone is UNNAMED.  Strictly speaking all that means in game terms is that it stacks with other unnamed penalties.

AC is not limited to representing the hardness and body coverage that the armor provides, but neither is it solely representative of an ability to avoid being hit.  It really is an amalgamation of various factors into one number - which is then modified by other, typically more specific factors such as how special materials used in the armor increase the bonus, dexterity adjustment, magic, etc.

The penalty for being prone does have a lot to do with being less able to dodge blows, but also it's because you are in a physical position where armor simply will not provide the same protection as it would if you and your opponent were both standing.  The blows will come from directions that the armor is not designed to protect against.  The dodging advantages granted by a dexterity bonus are NOT affected, but you ARE at a physical disadvantage.



> What I'm trying to do is build a character who will use a trip attack to get an enemy prone, and then Sneak Attack him with his extra d6's while he's down. Am I headed in the right direction, or am I twisting rules?



I'd suggest that attempting to squeeze out an advantage by _reinterpretation_ of rules is likely to just lead to butting heads with the DM.

If you get an opponent prone you not only then get to attack with him at a -4 to his AC, but if/when he tries to stand up he draws an AOO.  Trying to declare that this actually is INTENDED to equate to loss of dex bonus, being flatfooted, or otherwise enabling sneak attack is DEEP into house rules territory.  Argue it if you like - but the ONLY person qualified to declare your argument valid is YOUR DM.  And I wouldn't expect your DM to agree.  Their likely to insist that the defined advantages of having your opponent prone are sufficient.  You would do better to scour sourcebooks for feats that DO deny an opponent their dex bonus.  I seem to recall that there IS a feat somewhere that can render an opponent flatfooted.


----------



## Tyrloch (Apr 3, 2009)

Quote: The penalty for being prone does have a lot to do with being less able to dodge blows, but also it's because you are in a physical position where armor simply will not provide the same protection as it would if you and your opponent were both standing. The blows will come from directions that the armor is not designed to protect against. The dodging advantages granted by a dexterity bonus are NOT affected, but you ARE at a physical disadvantage.

   Isn't this the textbook definition of being unable to effectively defend yourself? Whether it's you being unable to dodge effectively, or your armor being unable to effectively defend you against blows? Maybe I'm just looking for a realistic definition of being unable to effectively defend oneself, and not a gaming definition. I suppose in a fantasy game you can fight from the ground easier that fighting 2 opponents at once...the same way a longbow does more damage because it's longer than a shortbow, not because it has a higher draw weight...if they're loosing the same arrows, they would do the same damage at the same draw weight -- the only variable would be range.


----------



## gonzimodo (Apr 3, 2009)

Tyrloch said:


> I don't think I'm twisting the rules, I feel that a lot of you are misreading the passage under Rogue as a definition of Unable to Defend Yourself, when it isn't a full definition... I think that if what I'm proposing was so against the rules, then there would be a something in the PHB somewhere that would specifically rule against this...




There is no "Unable to Defend Yourself" condition in the rules.  That's just flavor text, similar to the opening description of almost every other class feature and every spell description out there.  For example, under Evasion, it states, "At 2nd level and higher, a rogue can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility."  It then goes on to state what this means in game terms.  Uncanny Dodge states that "...a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so" and goes on to describe exactly what this means in game terms.  Read any spell description and you'll see the same thing.  What the flavor text says and what the spell actually does in game terms are often very different (and disappointing, in many cases).  
 
The rules for when a rogue can sneak attack are very well explained in the rules everyone else has quoted.  When you're prone, you are not denied your Dex bonus and therefore cannot be sneak attacked, unless you are flanked or denied your Dex bonus due to some other condition.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 3, 2009)

Tyrloch said:


> Isn't this the textbook definition of being unable to effectively defend yourself? Whether it's you being unable to dodge effectively, or your armor being unable to effectively defend you against blows? Maybe I'm just looking for a realistic definition of being unable to effectively defend oneself, and not a gaming definition. I suppose in a fantasy game you can fight from the ground easier that fighting 2 opponents at once...the same way a longbow does more damage because it's longer than a shortbow, not because it has a higher draw weight...if they're loosing the same arrows, they would do the same damage at the same draw weight -- the only variable would be range.




Define "effectively". Would a 1st level goblin warrior automatically be subject to sneak attacks from a 20th level rogue because there's a snowball's chance in hell that he'll be able to defend himself "effectively"?

There is no textbook definition of being able or inable to effectively defend yourself. The only way you'd be able to determine that is if the defense was actually effective - successful that is.

So without that you have to use the context of the sneak attack rules - in situation that causes loss of Dex bonus or flanked.


----------



## Tyrloch (Apr 3, 2009)

But the rules don't state that the goblin gets a -4 to AC. Again, you're attempting to find it verbatim in the book that you can't do this -- it's not in there. Without  a specific rule, you're trying to make it sounds as if you can't do it, and I'm trying to make it sound as if you can. Without this spefic ruling, you cannot just flippantly state that I'm wrong, and you're right. You must determine for yourself what you think the definition of unable to defend yourseld effectively is. One way to define it is getting knocked flat on your a**, otherwise there wouldn't be a penalty to AC for being prone -- just the Aoo when you try to stand up...


----------



## fishhead (Apr 3, 2009)

there is no definition of "unable to defend yourself effectively"! thats the point... its just flavor text!


----------



## billd91 (Apr 3, 2009)

Tyrloch said:


> But the rules don't state that the goblin gets a -4 to AC. Again, you're attempting to find it verbatim in the book that you can't do this -- it's not in there. Without  a specific rule, you're trying to make it sounds as if you can't do it, and I'm trying to make it sound as if you can. Without this spefic ruling, you cannot just flippantly state that I'm wrong, and you're right. You must determine for yourself what you think the definition of unable to defend yourseld effectively is. One way to define it is getting knocked flat on your a**, otherwise there wouldn't be a penalty to AC for being prone -- just the Aoo when you try to stand up...




Gargantuan creatures all get -4 to their ACs. Are they all unable to effectively defend themselves? Shaken and frightened creatures get -2 to theirs. Can they effectively defend themselves?  

The ability to effectively defend one's self, with respect to sneak attacking, does not depend on the lack of a penalty to AC. It depends on particular conditions - those being loss of Dex bonus and being flanked (and even those conditions aren't without caveat).

If you're running a D&D game, you're free to house rule this any way you want. But if you're looking for agreement to use to wheedle this ruling out of your DM, it appears you're not finding it and are not going to find it from those of us pointing out where, by the rules, your interpretation is incorrect. You might as well just accept that.


----------



## Arkhandus (Apr 3, 2009)

Tyrloch said:


> I just went back through the PHB and found a couple of interesting things: Under the Rogue entry it states that you get to use you SA damage any time that an opponent cannot effectively defend himself from your attack (I think lying Prone with a -4 to your AC fits this criteria). It also states that the Rogue's SA deals extra damage any time your target would be denied "A" Dex bonus (it doesn't specify that the opponent needs to be denied it's ENTIRE Dex bonus). And under Helpless Defenders, it states that the Rogue may use his SA damage, and they take a -4 penalty to AC. And then under Feint, you get to use your SA when all you're doing is misleading an opponent to he can't effectively dodge your next blow. So my reasoning is this: how can you SA someone in a Flank or after a Feint when the opponent is still on his feet, but you cannot when they are lying flat on the ground?



You think falling prone means you can't effectively defend yourself?  My monk got knocked on his arse 2 weeks ago, and he still dodged some attacks and even _*killed 2 Large Skum while lying prone, because it wasn't worth the bother of standing back up first.*_  Think breakdancing or capoiera....

The reason you can SA when flanking is that the opponent's attention is too divided between someone directly behind them and someone directly in front of them; as soon as the opponent tries to glance or turn to see the opponent behind them, your rogue stabs them immediately while he's not looking; as soon as the opponent turns around to face your flanking ally, your rogue stabs them again while they're not looking.  And when the opponent is flat-footed, they're just standing there, unable to move; paralyzed with fear, or surprise, or whatever; you got the jump on them, and make the first strike as they're still trying to figure out what to do.

Merely being inconvenienced by falling down and needing to roll, instead of jump, away from an attack does not make you helpless or unable to defend yourself.  You're still mobile and you're still fully aware.  If you still have a chance to avoid the attack, and can still act (like taking an attack of opportunity), there's no way you can tell me you're 'unable to effectively defend yourself.'  You can still use your sword and shield or whatever, and you can still fight and maim and kill enemies, so how do you figure you're unable to effectively defend yourself?  You can still avoid getting hit, and you can still kill your opponents.  That's not 'effective'?  Please.

Nowhere in the rules does it call prone or other AC penalties a "Dex penalty" or "denying them X amount of Dex bonus".  That's becasue they're not.  They're situations that limit or hinder your mobility but not fully, and just make it harder to avoid attacks, not impossible.  Taking a penalty doesn't "deny" you any Dexterity bonus, either.  You still get your full bonus, you just get some penalty added in.  This is basic math.  10+4-4 is 10; just because some wolf tripped you doesn't mean you lost 4 points of your fighter's Dexterity bonus to AC.  You still have that +4.  You just happen to also have a miscellaneous -4 applied to your total AC.  You did NOT just suddenly become as inflexible, ungraceful, uncoordinated, and slow of reflex as a drunken old man.  You're still a fighter with incredible Dexterity, who's just in a disadvantageous position for the moment.

It's no different from a fighter with 10 Dexterity fighting normally with no penalties; he's got the same AC, he's just not getting any bonuses or penalties to it.  What about if that fighter has full plate armor and a tower shield?  22 AC?  What's happening when he gets knocked prone for just 18 AC?  Or what about if that fighter was suffering from a  nasty Dex poison, to where his Dexterity is reduced to 1 currently, making his AC 17 normally, or 13 when prone?  Tell me how the barely-mobile-already fighter is being denied 4 points of Dex AC when he was just a standing pile of armor in the first place.  He already had as little Dex as possible without being paralyzed.  Yet technically, he was not vulnerable to Sneak Attacks while standing around, despite his 1 Dex.  Despite being all but paralyzed, he was still able to move a little bit, awkwardly and slowly, and yet was still able to avoid being Sneak Attacked.

You only need to budge an inch for a knife to graze you rather than sticking in your throat, or kidney, or whatever the rogue was aiming for.  You can't do that when you're utterly immobile, or completely unaware that someone's snuck up behind you and is about to ram 6 inches of steel through your back, or too busy trying to avoid the other guy who's trying to chop your head off while the rogue gets behind you and stabs while you're ducking under the other guy's sword.  Or when the rogue bluffs and makes you look away for a moment, making you think that his roguish buddy has just snuck behind you and is about to stab you in the back, with the rogue himself actually stabbing you in the kidney while your attention is diverted away from his knife.


----------



## green slime (Apr 3, 2009)

Yes, apparently by Tyrloch's interpretation, the most efficient use of _enlarge person_ is to cast it upon your opponent, so they suddenly become susceptible to sneak attacks....


----------



## Caliban (Apr 3, 2009)

Tyrloch said:


> My basic query is: can you do Sneak Attack damage to an enemy that is prone?



  No. 

Being prone does not make you flat-footed or cause you to lose your Dex bonus to AC.


----------



## Caliban (Apr 3, 2009)

Tyrloch said:


> Isn't this the textbook definition of being unable to effectively defend yourself?




Nope.  The 3e defintion is "being denied your dex bonus to AC".  

Doesn't matter how many AC penalties you have,  if you still have your Dex bonus to AC, then you still able to move enough to avoid a sneak attack (unless you are flanked by the rogue).


----------



## irdeggman (Apr 3, 2009)

Tyrloch - here is a question for you.

Does a prone character get to apply a dodge bonus to his AC?

Why or why not?


Here is another one - if the prone character normally only has a +2 Dex bonus to his AC does he still take the -4 penalty for being prone?

Why or why not?

And yet another one - if he normally has a +5 Dex bonus to his AC when he is prone what is his Dex bonus to AC?

Elaborate the justification to your answer.

What if the prone character has Evasion as a class ability. Is he denied his Dex bonus to AC? Does he still take the -4 penalty to AC?

Again elaborate on your answer.


Depending on how you answer these questions should point you towards whether or not the prone character is denied a Dex bonus to AC.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Apr 3, 2009)

I always wanted to sing in a chorus!  As everyone, literaly everyone, else has said, prone does not make a foe susceptible to SA.  If you'd like ideas on other ways to get SA, we could help you, because there are quite a lot of means.  The closest to what you're thinking of is probably if a creature is being grappled or pinned (or pinning someone else, for that matter), he loses his dex to AC against all attackers outside the grapple.  You'd need an ally to do the grappling (or a spell effect, like Evard's tentacles), though.  If you want to do it and be entirely self-reliant, C.Adventurer has a feat called Savage Grapple.  Lets you SA foes you grapple...IF you are in wildshape form at the time.  Which means 5+ Druid levels of multiclassing.  And no using manufactured weapons in conjunction with the feat.




green slime said:


> Yes, apparently by Tyrloch's interpretation, the most efficient use of _enlarge person_ is to cast it upon your opponent, so they suddenly become susceptible to sneak attacks....




I thought the most effeicient use of enlarge person was to use it as a *save or die*, as the spell causes you to gain far more mass than a human's skeletal structure could sustain.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Apr 3, 2009)

Also, noticed this feat from dragon mag #340 on crystalkeep's feat index, page 45 of this pdf: http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/DnD3.5Index-Feats.pdf

Sneak Attack of Opportunity
Requires: Combat Reflexes, Sneak Attack class ability with at least +3d6
Benefit: On your first Attack of Opportunity of the round, add your Sneak Attack damage to the attack’s damage.

Now, if you have Improved Trip, note the bonus attack gained after tripping someone is NOT an AoO.  However, you could benefit from this feat after tripping someone as they try to stand up and thus provoke...  Later on in your Rogue's career, the feat would also synergize nicely with the Opportunist Rogue special ability.


----------



## Deset Gled (Apr 4, 2009)

Tyrloch said:


> Without this spefic ruling, you cannot just flippantly state that I'm wrong, and you're right. You must determine for yourself what you think the definition of unable to defend yourseld effectively is.




I'm going to post this again, because it bears repeating



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
> 
> The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time 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.




How does a rogue catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself?  You seem to think this is an ambiguous question that can only be answered by a DM.  But the fact of the matter is that the very next line of text answers the question completely, and with practically no room for any doubt.  And the answer is "any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC..., or when the rogue flanks her target".  The contra-positive of this statement is "Any time a rogue's target is not denied a Dex bonus to AC or flanked by the rogue, the rogue's attack does not deal extra damage."  

This is about as black-and-white of a rules question as you are going to find anywhere in D+D.  Sorry, man.


----------



## Tyrloch (Apr 4, 2009)

I suppose that we have a different view of injecting a bit of realism into a fantasy game. Following the flow of this debate, I would assume that this crowd thinks it's completely feasible that a Monk's unarmed attacks would not only affect opponents in full plate, but also creatures that may only be harmed by magical weapons. But again, maybe I brought this upon myself by attempting to add any realism at all -- maybe the game & the rules as they stand should be left to people who enjoy flying around on magic carpets, or boots with wings on them, firing lightning or fire out of every orifice while their singing sword fights his adversaries all by itself. BTW, we don't even use the Monk character because of the unrealistic flavor of it in a medieval setting...(kiaaaaaa!!)


----------



## Abciximab (Apr 4, 2009)

Tyrloch said:


> I suppose that we have a different view of injecting a bit of realism into a fantasy game. Following the flow of this debate, I would assume that this crowd thinks it's completely feasible that a Monk's unarmed attacks would not only affect opponents in full plate, but also creatures that may only be harmed by magical weapons. But again, maybe I brought this upon myself by attempting to add any realism at all -- maybe the game & the rules as they stand should be left to people who enjoy flying around on magic carpets, or boots with wings on them, firing lightning or fire out of every orifice while their singing sword fights his adversaries all by itself. BTW, we don't even use the Monk character because of the unrealistic flavor of it in a medieval setting...(kiaaaaaa!!)




I think you've missed most everyone's point completely. If you feel you need this level of "realism" in your game, talk to your DM about a house rule, but to insist it's within the ruleset is erroneous.


----------



## Tyrloch (Apr 4, 2009)

Sorry for the semi-sarcastic reply, but I sort of expected civil answers, even if they disagreed with me. Some of those here think that they will win the argument just by getting smug. To me, it seems like a case of "telephone tough-guy" syndrome -- these same guys wouldn't speak that way to someone face-to-face. 

   I still feel that being prone, at least in anything heavier than leather armor, should deny you your dex & dodge bonus. Anyone here who disagrees should try putting on a chain shirt, which is light armor, and then have your buddy/brother/whatever attempt to kick you repeatedly while you lie on your back trying your best to not get hit. Only then will some here realize what the phrase "unable to effectively defend yourself" means. And have your buddy kick as hard as he can: it'll give the added incentive to try your best to retain your dex bonus...a painful lesson, but those are usually the ones that stay with you...cheers!


----------



## green slime (Apr 4, 2009)

Tyrloch said:


> Sorry for the semi-sarcastic reply, but I sort of expected civil answers, even if they disagreed with me. Some of those here think that they will win the argument just by getting smug. To me, it seems like a case of "telephone tough-guy" syndrome -- these same guys wouldn't speak that way to someone face-to-face.
> 
> I still feel that being prone, at least in anything heavier than leather armor, should deny you your dex & dodge bonus. Anyone here who disagrees should try putting on a chain shirt, which is light armor, and then have your buddy/brother/whatever attempt to kick you repeatedly while you lie on your back trying your best to not get hit. Only then will some here realize what the phrase "unable to effectively defend yourself" means. And have your buddy kick as hard as he can: it'll give the added incentive to try your best to retain your dex bonus...a painful lesson, but those are usually the ones that stay with you...cheers!




Right.... Except you the one trying to prove a point, not us. I suggest you take that test, and then we'll paralyze you, and kick you, and see if you can feel the difference....


----------



## blargney the second (Apr 4, 2009)

Tyrloch, in D&D 3.5 a rogue *can't *sneak attack someone when they're prone.

In D&D 4e a rogue *can * sneak attack someone when they're prone.

That's the strict interpretation of the rules in those two editions.  Anything else is a house rule.
-blarg


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 4, 2009)

You know, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say let him have it.  Let him sneak attack prone targets on the basis that it's realistic to not be able to effectively defend oneself while prone.

Then hit his character with a giant's club and say, "You're dead."  Realistically, no one could survive impact with a 8' long log swung by a 12'+ tall, massively strong critter, right?

Or just build a series of trip-monkey monsters with rogue levels.

Honestly, I think this problem may be self-correcting.


----------



## Theroc (Apr 4, 2009)

If I were to make a houserule on this subject, I'd say the immediate attack after the trip is a sneak, as the victim is surprised.  Any subsequent attacks on a prone target don't get this bonus as the victim already knows they are prone and can defend themselves accordingly.

Though, generally, I don't understand why you don't just feint and SA that way...

Edit: Also, how can you be 'flat-footed' if your feet aren't even on the ground!?


----------



## aboyd (Apr 4, 2009)

Tyrloch said:


> Some of those here think that they will win the argument just by getting smug.



Huh?  Nobody has been smug; they're winning the argument by quoting rules.  If you think they're being smug, by all means, flag the posts to a moderator.  Hell, if you think mine is smug, flag it too.  I think everyone has been incredibly patient and civil considering how badly you want to misinterpret the rules.

Hmm.  Perhaps you think people saying "you are misinterpreting the rules" is uncivil.  That would seem to me to be like saying, "If you tell me the sky is blue, that's smug."  But if the moderators agree with you, I'm willing to play by their rules (ha ha, get it?!?!).  So flag these bad posts you've encountered.



Tyrloch said:


> I still feel that being prone, at least in anything heavier than leather armor, should deny you your dex & dodge bonus. Anyone here who disagrees should try putting on a chain shirt, which is light armor, and then have your buddy/brother/whatever attempt to kick you repeatedly while you lie on your back trying your best to not get hit. Only then will some here realize what the phrase "unable to effectively defend yourself" means.



This makes no sense.  First of all, let me just say that I _have_ worn armor and _have_ been prone, and my ability to ward off blows, crawl away, stand up and run, and so on, is precisely the definition of "HAS dexterity bonus."  It might _also_ be the definition of "circumstance penalty" but that's completely different and does not mean I can't react.  Because I _can_ move & react, no single attacker is going to get a chance to work a weapon into an abnormally advantageous position.  I'll fight it.

Now, of course, if multiple people gang up on me, the story is different.  But that's because now we're talking about flanking bonuses and such.  It's much harder for me to stop villain1 from poking me right in the heart when villain2 is slashing at my jugular.

Having said all that, there is a "second of all."  And that is, second of all, let's say your point is right.  Let's say that if we were to don chain shirts and lie down, we real humans would suddenly be unable to defend ourselves.  OK?  I'm going along with you so far, right?  Here's the thing: even if that is how it worked in reality, _it isn't how the rules are written._  This isn't even ambiguous.  The rules hinge on being denied a Dex bonus, and the rules provide specific states that deny a Dex bonus.  That's it.

So if you're arguing that your way is more realistic, that's fine, but that still doesn't make the rules go in your favor.  It just means the rules don't work the way you think they should, so you need a house rule.


----------



## aboyd (Apr 4, 2009)

Hmm.  Sorry for posting 2 replies in a row, but after re-reading my response, I think I stumbled onto why Tyrloch is thinking the way he is thinking.

Tyrloch, do you think that if a situation is _difficult_ that it means that the Dexterity bonus is gone?  Do you think that if a situation is difficult, that the rogue should get a sneak attack?  Because that's not at all what this stuff means, and it might explain your disconnect from the rules text.

The rules set a higher bar than "things are tough."  The rules expect that a rogue can only sneak attack when the opponent is _unable to move or evade._  If you are "reacting but in a bad circumstance," you're still reacting.  According to the rules, able to react = no sneak attack.

For example, if you are flat-footed, you are in a state where you _don't yet know the rogue is there_ or at least you haven't yet processed what you've seen or heard.  So you are _completely vulnerable_ in the sense that you have _no presence of mind to do anything about the attack._  OK?  The rogue rushes up behind you in complete silence, and you are whistling a tune as you walk obliviously.  You do not so much as wave your hand in his way.  You are unable to use any form of movement or evasion to prevent what he's doing, because you _don't know_ that you need to do that.

That's a loss of the Dex bonus -- no presence of mind to move or evade, or else no ability to move or evade.

If you are merely on the floor, _you're still able to move._  You're still aware.  You can swat, kick, roll, squirm, throw dirt, swing a sword and hope to parry, etc.  You are at a disadvantage, yes.  But that doesn't mean you're not reacting.

Same thing with flanking.  The reason a rogue can sneak attack on a flank isn't because "we've put the enemy in a tough spot."  If that were the criteria, then _any_ tough situation -- even plain old normal combat -- would be a candidate for sneak attack.  Instead, it's because the defender has to split his attention, so you are _again_ getting him to look away or otherwise _not know_ to move or defend against your incoming strike.  Because he doesn't see what you're doing for even a split-second, he doesn't know to defend against you.  And boom, the rogue sneak attacks.

Let me put it another way.  I think you might think "-4 to AC from prone" and "guy with 18 Dex loses his bonus" are the same.  I mean, the math makes them the same, right?  A guy with an 18 Dex has a +4 to AC normally.  When he loses that, it's the equivalent of -4 to AC, just like being prone.  However, the penalties _do different things_ even if the math comes out the same.

A guy with -4 to AC from being prone is still able to squirm and flip around and kick and so on, but he's on his butt.  He's fighting, but he isn't in the best of circumstances.  Because he's fighting, even poorly, he's able to fend off or foil strikes that require amazing precision (sneak attacks).

A guy that has lost his Dex bonus just can't react.  He isn't kicking.  He isn't blocking.  He isn't flipping around, isn't ducking, isn't _anything._  And because of it, the rogue can find that unguarded chink in the armor and slip a blade through and jiggle it all around until some internal organs are pureed.

BOTH guys might have an AC of 14.  But their reasons for their AC of 14 are completely different.  The guy kicking & slashing at everyone's feet is in a bad position but is dangerous.  The guy walking along blissfully unaware might have armor on, but he is not causing harm or endangering anyone.  They might be equally hard to get at (both with an AC of 14) but for very different reasons.

_The reasons matter_ when it comes to a rogue's sneak attack ability.  It is only those who are unaware or unable to react that can be sneak attacked.  A guy with a "harsh penalty" just isn't enough, according to the rules.

You really want to tweak your brain, consider this.  A guy with a 10 Dexterity gets entangled.  This imposes a -4 penalty to Dexterity, so it causes his dexterity to be 6.  Everything he does Dexterity-wise is now at -2.  He tries to swing a sword, he's at -2 to hit.  Bad situation, right?

Now consider a guy who has a Dexterity of 18 and loses his Dexterity bonus, either from being stunned or blinded or cowering or any other state that denies a Dex bonus on page 300 of the DMG.  Well, if he loses his Dex bonus of +4, he's still better off than the entangled guy with the 6 Dexterity, right?  Nope.  The guy who has the 18 Dexterity is worse off, because being denied his Dex bonus implies that he can't evade at all.

If your Dexterity is 6 from a penalty, you still have hope that you can get out alive.  You might run and trip, but at least you're trying.

If your Dexterity is 18 but you've been denied your bonus, you're in deep crap.  Except for being flat-footed (which thankfully is transient), most states that deny a Dex bonus mean long-term BAD news.  You probably can't flee.  You're likely incapacitated.  And you're definitely a prime candidate to get sneak attacked.


----------



## Drowbane (Apr 4, 2009)

Tyrloch said:


> Does everyone here disagree that when you are Prone, you are unable to defend yourself as well as when upright and in a combat stance? If you could defend yourself as well Prone as you can standing upright, then there would be no penalty to AC.




Nearly nine years of 3e and I've never even heard about this coming up.  Nice attempt at rules lawyering.  But this arguement wouldn't fly at my table.

3e's mechanics aren't perfect, but if prone made you lose SA-able, it would be spelled out somewhere.  Quite simply, it doesn't, rather you get a penalty to your AC (or a bonus vs Ranged).  Not even remotely the same-thing.  Why belabor this further? There are plenty of ways to acheive an easy "flat-footed" which does allow you to SA away.

Flick of the Wrist (complete warrior)
Mercurial Strike (Dragon Compendium vol. 1)
Sapphire Nightmare Blade (Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords)
... and at least two Skill-Tricks (or whatever they're called) from Complete Scoundrel.

edit: nice troll


----------



## irdeggman (Apr 4, 2009)

Tyrloch said:


> Sorry for the semi-sarcastic reply, but I sort of expected civil answers, even if they disagreed with me. Some of those here think that they will win the argument just by getting smug. To me, it seems like a case of "telephone tough-guy" syndrome -- these same guys wouldn't speak that way to someone face-to-face.
> 
> I still feel that being prone, at least in anything heavier than leather armor, should deny you your dex & dodge bonus. Anyone here who disagrees should try putting on a chain shirt, which is light armor, and then have your buddy/brother/whatever attempt to kick you repeatedly while you lie on your back trying your best to not get hit. Only then will some here realize what the phrase "unable to effectively defend yourself" means. And have your buddy kick as hard as he can: it'll give the added incentive to try your best to retain your dex bonus...a painful lesson, but those are usually the ones that stay with you...cheers!





Ahh the turtle on his back syndrome.

Here is another way to look at pretty much the exact point you are making.

Can a rogue sneak attack a fighter wearing full plate if the fighter as an 18 Dex?

18 Dex gives you a +4 Dex mod

Full plate restricts you to a +1 Dex bonus to AC.

So by the interpretation you are using a rogue can almost always sneak attack a character wearing full plate since part of his Dex Bonus to AC is "denied".


----------



## Tyrloch (Apr 4, 2009)

I probably should've mentioned up front that we only use the 3 core books, so feats from all those other books, some of which are really ridiculous, are out. 

I think that some here are confusing unable to effectively defend oneself with being helpless, whether it's accidentally or on purpose to prove a point. Paralyzed, uncounscious or otherwise immobile is being helpless, unable to effectively defend oneself means that you're trying like hell, but some condition (like being on your back) is not permitting you to do it to the best of your ability -- hence the AC penalty. Someone mentioned how could you be flat-footed (i.e., no dex bonus) when you're not even on your feet? Well, you're flat on your back. When climbing a rope, you're no on your feet either, but you still lose you dex bonus to AC, and your not immobile -- you could still try to twist , swing, etx., to avoid being hit...


----------



## the Jester (Apr 4, 2009)

You obviously know the answer you want, and aren't listening to other answers. It sounds to me like you want people to back up your point of view, rather than give you an honest answer.

By the RAW, you can sneak attack under certain specific circumstances. Prone is not one of them. 

If the answer you want is grounded in anything but RAW, you can make up whatever answer you want, but by the RAW, there you go.


----------



## Tyrloch (Apr 4, 2009)

I guess in a way, you're right -- I was looking for an answer outside the RAW, since nowhere in the book does it explicitly state that you can or can't do it. I'm defining "unable to effectively defend oneself one way, and others are defining another. My feeling is that this phrase, since it isn't fully explained in the PHB, is more open to interpretation than others here think it is. If there was a printed chart from WOC somewhere that shows the ONLY conditions that enabled the SA ability, then I would concede the point. But in my opinion, every statement here, including mine, are only opinions. So in the end, I suppose we agree to disagree...thanks for the input.


----------



## Tyrloch (Apr 4, 2009)

I probably should've added that the trip attack was to be made with a bullwhip. I then could've argued that the opponent is not only prone, but also entangled, since the whip is wrapped around his legs...

   My build was going to be a fighter-rogue with 2-weapon fighting (whip & short sword?). I was going to trip the opponent from 10ft away, then take a 5ft step to attack with the short sword, and hopefully, add my SA damage when he was prone. But if I can't get a single ally in this argument, then I'll just drop the rogue levels & go straight fighter...again. thanks.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Apr 4, 2009)

Tyrloch said:


> Anyone here who disagrees should try putting on a chain shirt, which is light armor, and then have your buddy/brother/whatever attempt to kick you repeatedly while you lie on your back trying your best to not get hit. Only then will some here realize what the phrase "unable to effectively defend yourself" means. And have your buddy kick as hard as he can: it'll give the added incentive to try your best to retain your dex bonus...a painful lesson, but those are usually the ones that stay with you...cheers!




After more than 20 years of gaming, here's a little tidbit of wisdom I've learned over the years...

When the other guy finally resorts to "real world" examples, you know he's lost the argument.


----------



## Abciximab (Apr 4, 2009)

Theroc said:


> Edit: Also, how can you be 'flat-footed' if your feet aren't even on the ground!?




I assumed this was a joke...

Flatfooted (Idiom)- to catch someone who is unprepared; take by surprise.


----------



## Herzog (Apr 4, 2009)

@Tyrloch:

Actually, you only need to convince one person: your DM.

Sorry we can't back you up on that.


----------



## Tyrloch (Apr 4, 2009)

Actually, convincing the DM is the easy part -- it's one of the players that is a rules-lawyer, and bitches & moans if he doesn't like something, like a house-ruling.

Would anyone here consider an opponent with a whip or rope wrapped around his legs to be entangled? Or am I doing it again?? Real-world it works, but how about according to the book?


----------



## aboyd (Apr 4, 2009)

Tyrloch said:


> I think that some here are confusing unable to effectively defend oneself with being helpless, whether it's accidentally or on purpose to prove a point. Paralyzed, uncounscious or otherwise immobile is being helpless, unable to effectively defend oneself means that you're trying like hell, but some condition (like being on your back) is not permitting you to do it to the best of your ability -- hence the AC penalty.



No, that is not at all how D&D defines it, and that is why you're getting no traction for your point of view.



Tyrloch said:


> Would anyone here consider an opponent with a whip or rope wrapped around his legs to be entangled? Or am I doing it again?? Real-world it works, but how about according to the book?



Yes and no.  A whip that lashes around someone is described in the PHB as enabling a trip attack.  So the whip _does_ have a "it's wrapped around you and you're going to have a consequence" property.  But the property is not "entangled"; it's "you're susceptible to being tripped."

That makes sense.  The whip has not bound the person so that arms & feet will not move.  Instead, it's simply lashed onto a limb and a good yank will be bad news for the enemy.

If you want "entangled" then you need to look at the description for the net.

EDIT: You know, another option would be to switch away from D&D 3 or 4.  Try Basic D&D or AD&D or OSRIC or Basic Fantasy or any of those free original D&D clones.  Those games work almost _exactly_ as you wish to play -- there are no feats, and almost nothing is set in stone as far as how gear is used.  In older versions of the game, if you think something up and it sounds reasonable to the DM, he will give you a challenge, such as a Dexterity roll with a low/medium/high DC.  If you pull it off, then the idea works.

I'm looking at my red "Basic D&D" softcover from 1980, and it doesn't even _describe_ the weapons.  Just a list of names & costs.  _Everything except the dice used to roll for damage_ is open.  That game is all about figuring out how things might work in the real world, explaining the idea to the DM, and seeing if the DM will roll with it.


----------



## blargney the second (Apr 4, 2009)

Past the first round of combat, it's actually pretty hard to grant yourself sneak attack in 3.5.  It usually requires teamwork with somebody in some form: a flanker, a grappler, or someone to cast spells that deny Dex to AC.  Feinting is one of the only ways to continually give yourself SA against an opponent.

So unfortunately for you, unless your DM has some specific house rule in place, your rules lawyer friend knows his stuff and is correct about this particular case.  If you'd like some help putting together an effective rogue/fighter, why don't you start up a new thread and I'm sure lots of people here would be happy to give you a hand with that.
-blarg


----------



## Arkhandus (Apr 4, 2009)

Tyrloch said:


> Sorry for the semi-sarcastic reply, but I sort of expected civil answers, even if they disagreed with me. Some of those here think that they will win the argument just by getting smug. To me, it seems like a case of "telephone tough-guy" syndrome -- these same guys wouldn't speak that way to someone face-to-face.



What, we weren't civil?  Why did you post in the RULES forum if you weren't actually asking a question about the rules?  It's only now that you've made it clear you were actually debating the nature/realism of Sneak Attack, not how it works in the rules as written.  You're the one who made everyone believe you were debating the RAW, not the abstractness of the rules.



> I still feel that being prone, at least in anything heavier than leather armor, should deny you your dex & dodge bonus. Anyone here who disagrees should try putting on a chain shirt, which is light armor, and then have your buddy/brother/whatever attempt to kick you repeatedly while you lie on your back trying your best to not get hit. Only then will some here realize what the phrase "unable to effectively defend yourself" means. And have your buddy kick as hard as he can: it'll give the added incentive to try your best to retain your dex bonus...a painful lesson, but those are usually the ones that stay with you...cheers!



Have you seen anyone actually move and fight in plate armor?  I saw it just yesterday, actually, on the History Channel's "Warriors".  An American ex-military guy was learning about warfare in the Middle Ages, and the guys gave him a suit of plate armor to try out.  He moved around in it and showed how flexible it seemed, even though he mentioned how heavy it was, yet not much heavier than the full combat gear a modern soldier might haul around sometimes.

You may not be able to move as quickly in most armors, but you can still move.  Instead of talking about some guy kicking you (which isn't very precise or vital-targeting as far as attacks go), you should be thinking about how the heck someone's gonna stab you in the vitals while you're in that armor and still able to move.  Just how precisely can you get them in the vitals that way, while they're trying to roll away or slash at you with their own sword?  Sure, you have an advantage; that's why prone opponents take a -4 AC penalty in D&D.  Don't forget that you're still armed and dangerous in most cases when knocked prone (unless you're a wizard or something, and if you're a monk, you can probably regain your feet quickly enough for it to not matter as much).

Don't be snide just because you made a poor choice debating realism in the Rules forum, where everyone is naturally going to assume your debate is over interpreting the Rules as Written.  You're the one who didn't bother to state in the first place that you were debating it on the grounds of realism, not whether or not it was the correct way to run it by the Rules as Written.


----------



## Arkhandus (Apr 4, 2009)

Tyrloch said:


> I suppose that we have a different view of injecting a bit of realism into a fantasy game. Following the flow of this debate, I would assume that this crowd thinks it's completely feasible that a Monk's unarmed attacks would not only affect opponents in full plate, but also creatures that may only be harmed by magical weapons.



Of course.  This is D&D, not GURPS or something.  You tossed realism out the window when you decided it made sense that, in the game-world, anyone can learn to just gibber out some words and twiddle their fingers and make sh%t blow up, or pray and make sh&t blow up X number of times per day, every day, because that's just how often their deity was willing to answer with blowing-sh&t-upness of that particular sort each day, no matter the circumstances, and that anyone with a sword and some combat experience can kill giants or trolls or dragons or chimeras while surviving their acid-breath or fire-breath or whatever, even if fighting nekkid.  Or even just by accepting that absurd and physics-or-biology-defying things like giants, trolls, dragons, and chimeras could exist in the setting to begin with.  Yes I'm aware that's a giant run-on sentence, it's intentional, it's supposed to be silly.

If random Joe number 1 can learn to gibber and make stuff blow up for no obvious reason, and random Joe number 2 can stab a 30-foot-tall giant a few times in the feet/legs and kill it without being crushed to death by the freakin' TREE it uses as a club, why the H-E-DOUBLE-HOCKEY-STICKS can't random Joe number 3 learn to break through a dragon's or knight's armor with his bare hand and crush the squishy meats inside?  Or punch a ghost and actually hurt it because of his own enlightened spiritual development as a monk?

Not to mention that arbitrarily changing some rules for "realism" breaks the game, unless you change so many other ones to make it work alright again.  For example, if you let rogues Sneak Attack anything that's even just mildly or moderately slowed down/hampered, you'd better as heck reduce their SA damage to 1 or 2 points per increment instead of 1d6.  It's meant to be balanced out by how rarely you can make such a precise strike to the enemy's vitals.  If you take away the rarity of use, you'd better as heck reduce it's damage, just like a fighter's Weapon Specialization is just +2 damage because he gets to apply it ALL THE TIME.  Also, for example, if you decide that monks can't hurt guys in heavy armor or things like dragons that have heavy natural armor (which would include most of the Mosnter Manual, since a lot of critters have natural armor equal to or greater than heavy armors), you'd better let the monk flurry with any kind of melee weapon so he can actually participate in battles beyond 2nd or 3rd level.

And you'd have to overhaul the majority of D&D rules if you wanted realism.  This is NOT a realistic game by its very nature.  Hit points and Armor Class and a lot of other things will need to be replaced.  May as well ditch your Monster Manual and most of the core classes, since hardly any of it is feasible in a "realistic" game with "realistic" laws of nature and science.  Otherwise, rethink just how "realistic" monks and fighters and wizards and clerics and rogues and dragons and giants and stuff really need to be.  It's only a game!  Don't worry about realism!



> But again, maybe I brought this upon myself by attempting to add any realism at all -- maybe the game & the rules as they stand should be left to people who enjoy flying around on magic carpets, or boots with wings on them, firing lightning or fire out of every orifice while their singing sword fights his adversaries all by itself. BTW, we don't even use the Monk character because of the unrealistic flavor of it in a medieval setting...(kiaaaaaa!!)



Try GURPS if you want serious realism in a game.  Not D&D.  D&D has always had things like hit points, armor class, magic-users, magic carpets, DRAGONS, and other patently unrealistic things.  It's the whole POINT of the game!

And you don't have to be snarky about anyone _actually enjoying D&D for what it is_ and always has been.  The rules have always been unrealistic and fantastical; that's the whole nature of D&D being D&D.  You don't have to run D&D as high-magic, but you do have to accept that, if you're playing D&D, you're playing a game based around the fantastical and heroic, not the boring and mundane and hyper-realistic.

And since when has D&D been purely medieval in setting?  Oriental Adventures and other settings had been put out during 1st Edition AD&D.  I'm not even sure if, prior to that, OD&D might've had some non-European elements in it.  Haven't Ogre Magi (a blatantly oriental monster, though using a western name equivalent) been around since before AD&D, or were they first introduced in the 1E AD&D MM?  Hasn't D&D long drawn upon myths of demons and other monsters from other parts of the world than Europe since more or less the beginning?  Sumerian and Babylonian demons and such?  Not to even MENTION genies, djinn, sphynxes, ILLITHIDS (ia! ia!  Cthulu ftaghn!) and stuff.

Or the crashed spaceships and rayguns and six-shooters and other things that have been there since the originaly D&D groups' early campaigns and some of the early published modules.  Did you even PLAY 1st or 2nd Edition?

Seriously, you can't just deny that D&D hasn't had wierd or non-European elements "until recent editions."  And yes, I'm aware that's a double-negative, it's just so silly to think D&D has been strictly "medieval European" since forever.

And how do you think martial arts has spread like it has in the real world?  It started with probably Greek Pankration being spread to the east, where it evolved into Shaolin Kung Fu and from there into other martial arts.  Then later contact between east and west resulted in people learning martial arts and bringing those arts back to the west, founding schools and dojos of their own.  In a D&D setting, who's to say no Shaolin-style monk or western trainee never bothered traveling west and teaching their philosophy and martial art to others?

Unless you're playing a strictly historical campaign, in which case, why use D&D and its magic-users and dragons and junk at all?


----------



## Tyrloch (Apr 5, 2009)

It's not a strictly historical campaign, but close to it. It's probably about 80% human, with a few humanoid races and there was one dragon encounter. But it was a very rare thing -- not commonplace like in a normally run 3.5 game. Not one of the core members ever liked the concept of the monk class, and it was confirmed when we brought in a new player who played one -- it was just asinine. 

   Again, before anyone goes after me again for trying to rewrite the PHB, I already admitted that this was my fault for attempting to inject too much realism in a fantasy game. Perhaps I should start looking for another system -- one with a higher death rate where you don't have to nickel & dime everything to bring it down. I'm a firm believer in the "one punch" scenario, as opposed to paper-cutting someone 100 hit points-worth to kill them. 

   Another problem is that I practice archery, knife & hawk throwing, whipcracking, swordplay and 2-weapon fighting. I also build medieval crossbows -- standard as well as double-crossbows (which is another weapon that gets totally raped in the current rules!). So when something from the rulebook doesn't jive with the way it really works, then it irritates me to no end. I realize the the game isn't broken -- it works fairly well as is, but I would like it be just a little closer to reality. Anyway, just my thoughts; everyone is free to agree or disagree, but a few responses were so deeply rooted in sarcasm that it felt as though I was being scolded by my momma (or my wife!!). I've been playing for 30+ years, and come to think of it, I don't think I've ever tried to fix any of the other editions before this one, hmmmmm...


----------



## Darklone (Apr 5, 2009)

Realistic games aren't that much fun, believe me.

And pretty often D&D rules are closer to reality than many other games that are supposed to be close to reality. AC isn't that unrealistic. (Oops, where was that closed can of worms?)


----------



## Theroc (Apr 5, 2009)

Two weapon fighting?  Such as rapier and parrying dagger?  Just curious as I was taught early on by my hoplologist fencing instructor that D&D style two weapon fighting with two swords meant for offence was nigh unheard of in Medieval European times, to the point that he looked at me incredibly funny when I said I found it hard to believe NO ONE did it.

He said that halfstaff and such were fairly common.

Anyways, just had to ask what sort of two weapon fighting you were talking about there, especially since I've never heard that called as such before.

Anyways, My responses were not meant to be sarcastic or scolding so much as more lighthearted and joking.


----------



## Tyrloch (Apr 5, 2009)

I called it 2 weapon fighting as sort of a blanket statement to cover escrima stick-fighting, sword & dagger, Sword & flail, sword & shield (bashing), and 2 swords (Florentine). It helps that not only am I lefty & close to being ambidextrous, but also the 2-handed whip routines really get that off-hand up to snuff with the dominant hand. And even if there's no historic precedent for defense with the 2 weapon styles, it can be done...


----------



## green slime (Apr 5, 2009)

Realism is about as sought after in my games as realism is in a hollywood blockbuster action movie.

In real life medieval Europe, people wallowed in ignorance and superstition. Armies suffered most deaths after the battle was fought, with the state of medicine, and the lack of basic hygene. 

Soldiers suffered for days before dying of horrible wounds.

Feodal lords ran riot over peasants and commoners, who had no or little recourse to justice. 

I'll stick with my fantasy, thanks. Monks, dragons, and _fireballs_.

If you want a system representing medieval life in gory detail, try Harn. Just don't get involved in any fights. You'll likely end up dead, or at best invalided.


----------

