Author Topic: improved trip + sneak attack (3.5)  (Read 4258 times)

Offline Terminus Est

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
improved trip + sneak attack (3.5)
« on: July 18, 2012, 11:09:58 AM »
The only other forum that I use as my go-to has debated but ultimately come to the conclusion that if a target is sneak-attackable, but you use improved trip first, they are no longer sneak attackable on the free attack afterwards . . . but I've never seen a hard explanation for my objection, which is the wording "as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt."

To me, that wording seems to put the follow-up attack before the revealing of your presence. As in, if I hadn't used improved trip, I could have sneak attacked, and since the free attack is "as if I hadn't used my attack for the trip attempt", I still attack as I would have before the trip, which would have been a sneak attack.

Does this somehow all come down to a narrow interpretation of "a melee attack"?. Because, also to my reading, any melee attack that is applicable to sneak attack grants sneak attack.

If I'm wrong, I just want to read an explanation that thoroughly tells me why.


Offline Terminus Est

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: improved trip + sneak attack (3.5)
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2012, 11:17:06 AM »
Furthermore, if I have, say, 4 attacks for a full round action. I use my first one to trip, I still get the "free" attack and the following 3 attacks of my full round action. In this case, there's absolutely no loss, yet if I wanted to sneak attack, there's a major loss. . . and it costs a feat to do this, so putting something prone (and having to pass the checks to do so) doesn't seem in any way out of balance.

Offline phaedrusxy

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10708
  • The iconic spambot
    • View Profile
Re: improved trip + sneak attack (3.5)
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2012, 11:23:15 AM »
It depends on why they are "sneak attackable".

1) If you are flanking them, you can of course still sneak attack, as they are still flanked while prone.

2) If it was because combat just started, and they haven't acted yet and are flat-footed, and you're tripping them in the surprise round, then assuming they don't have some special ability to go in the surprise round automatically (they're Shapechanged into a dire turtle or something odd), then they're still flat-footed after you trip them. So you can still SA them.

3) If they've already acted in combat, and you've hidden (or turned Invisible), and you then trip them (and so reveal yourself), then you are no longer hidden. So you can't follow up with a Sneak Attack with your free attack from Improved Trip. I guess if you managed to "Hide while attacking" (-20 penalty to Hide), then you could still be considered hidden while making the follow up attack(s).

The "as if you hadn't used your attack" doesn't mean you go back in time. It just means you get an attack at the same attack bonus you would have gotten as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt.

Edit: I didn't check, but the RotG article links in here might cover this.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 11:27:18 AM by phaedrusxy »
I don't pee messages into the snow often , but when I do , it's in Cyrillic with Fake Viagra.  Stay frosty my friends.

Offline Jackinthegreen

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6176
  • I like green.
    • View Profile
Re: improved trip + sneak attack (3.5)
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2012, 11:47:35 AM »
Do you have a specific situation the people on the other forum are focusing on?  Invisibility perhaps?

It depends somewhat on how the sneak attack is possible in the first place, but I'm sure the consensus around here would be Imp Trip clearly states "as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt" to mean exactly what it means.  All bonuses and such would be the same for the "extra" attack as if the trip wasn't used in the first place, except perhaps one-shot stuff.  Using True Strike for instance would have it apply on the trip's touch attack and not the subsequent attack from Imp Trip.  However, that does not influence whether something can or can't be sneak attacked.

Just so we're clear on this all though, can they agree that if a creature is flanked then ALL attacks against it can be sneak attacks, including the extra attack from Imp Trip?  If they can't at least agree on that then they are unredeemable morons.

The wording "as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt" has some different interpretations though.  I think almost everyone can agree that it at least means a character can use an iterative attack on a trip, and if it's successful then the character gets an extra attack at the same attack bonus as if he hadn't done the trip.  For instance, if a character had the attack sequence +11/ +6/ +1 and used a trip on the +11 attack then Imp Trip would allow the character to get an attack at +11 after the trip because it's "as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt."

Offline Terminus Est

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: improved trip + sneak attack (3.5)
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2012, 12:12:24 PM »
Quote
Do you have a specific situation the people on the other forum are focusing on?  Invisibility perhaps?

My particular thorn in the side has to do with the quoted text below...(was responding when I was informed of your post)

Quote
3) If they've already acted in combat, and you've hidden (or turned Invisible), and you then trip them (and so reveal yourself), then you are no longer hidden. So you can't follow up with a Sneak Attack with your free attack from Improved Trip. I guess if you managed to "Hide while attacking" (-20 penalty to Hide), then you could still be considered hidden while making the follow up attack(s).

The "as if you hadn't used your attack" doesn't mean you go back in time.

See, this is the one I still disagree with. When I think of the wording of this and the action economy, I think of the two things happening at the same time. The wording itself does seem to almost imply going back in time if you look at the words at a purely semantic level, which makes me interpret them more as one fluid motion. . . but semantically, "as if you hadn't", to me, implies "as if this thing hadn't happened".

Using the invisibility reference is understandable to a degree and it's what people have used to say it doesn't work in the past . . . but invisibility has no verbiage like "as if you hadn't".

You get sneak attack because something can't see you. Once it can see you, you no longer get that sneak attack . . . but what about if you're acting as if you hadn't revealed yourself?

Nothing has happened in between the trip and the attack.

The way I see it is:

You're invisible ---> you have SA ability

You trip ---> normally this reveals you

You have Improved Trip ---> You get an attack as though you hadn't made the trip ---> You're invisible for the attack you're making as if you hadn't made the trip.

Obviously the problem comes from the fact that the trip obviously reveals you . . . but I've always viewed that as a poor limitation of how the feat and status/ability are worded. I think, as intended, the SA is fine. I think, as written, the two aren't defined properly. I've always viewed improved trip as basically one fluid action, thus the trip and subsequent attack all benefit from the prior invisibility.

When you read the rules regarding sneak attack and standard invisibility, it makes sense. You're making multiple attacks. One attack reveals you, then you make another attack etc...there's no wording like, "all following attacks come as though the previous attack hadn't been made."

Offline Jackinthegreen

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6176
  • I like green.
    • View Profile
Re: improved trip + sneak attack (3.5)
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2012, 12:42:35 PM »
Regular invisibility stops immediately upon making an attack.  Here is the invisible condition rules.  What that means is only the first attack, period, gets the invisibility benefit.  Tripping is explicitly an attack roll, which means the first attack has been used and thus anything after that no longer benefits from invisibility, which means the opponent can once again apply its Dex bonus to AC and thus a sneak attack cannot be performed based on that.

It's a slippery slope though.  What it comes down to is whether one feels the specific invisibility rules trump the ambiguous/generalized Improved Trip rules.  I can see how it might apply both ways, but I'm inclined to say the intent of the wording was meant to be along the lines of an extra attack at the same attack bonus a la Cleave and not being able to benefit more than once from effects that should only happen once like Invisibility or True Strike.

Offline Terminus Est

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: improved trip + sneak attack (3.5)
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2012, 01:30:36 PM »
See, my feeling is that if all they wanted to do was grant a free attack they would have worded it much more simply, like an AoO or something.

As I said, I can see where the other side comes from...but the whole, "As though you hadn't made the trip attempt" to me seems to be abnormal wording that implies something abnormal from the traditional "You attack ---> you're revealed".

It's not a huge deal, my DM actually agrees with me, I just always hate having things I'm not certain about not have a more definite solution. I'm used to there being someone that eventually comes along and nails down the ruling or points to a CustServ/Sage thing or something.

Offline Kethrian

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2231
  • Night Owl
    • View Profile
Re: improved trip + sneak attack (3.5)
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2012, 08:51:13 PM »
Here's a question for you, Terminus, do you give the +4 bonus vs prone targets to the free attack?
What do I win?
An awesome-five for mentioning Penny Arcade's On the Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness.

Offline phaedrusxy

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10708
  • The iconic spambot
    • View Profile
Re: improved trip + sneak attack (3.5)
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2012, 09:12:13 PM »
Here's a question for you, Terminus, do you give the +4 bonus vs prone targets to the free attack?
Good question.  :P
I don't pee messages into the snow often , but when I do , it's in Cyrillic with Fake Viagra.  Stay frosty my friends.

Offline Terminus Est

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: improved trip + sneak attack (3.5)
« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2012, 11:55:15 PM »
Here's a question for you, Terminus, do you give the +4 bonus vs prone targets to the free attack?
Good question.  :P

Of course, which is only a +2 bonus over what they would have had (and there's always the chance that your trip attempt fails, let's remember) if they had simply sneak attacked.

Offline Kethrian

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2231
  • Night Owl
    • View Profile
Re: improved trip + sneak attack (3.5)
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2012, 11:59:20 PM »
Well, if you will give them a bonus that only applies after the trip, then all other effects should only apply after as well, such as invisibility having ended.  After all, Improved Trip does not explicitly state that you are attacking a prone target with the free attack....
What do I win?
An awesome-five for mentioning Penny Arcade's On the Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness.

Offline NiteCyper

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 169
  • Uploaded the stock avatar with better quality. =þ
    • View Profile
    • YouTube
Re: improved trip + sneak attack (3.5)
« Reply #11 on: July 19, 2012, 12:42:02 AM »
(click to show/hide)

This pretty much seals the deal for me that the opponent is denied their Dexterity bonus to AC only up to the end of the hider's first attack, excluding hiding while attacking which can be considered a greater invisibility effect. Hiding can be considered a(n) (lesser) invisibility effect:

Quote from: Hide, Rules Compendium, page 92 http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/42/rulescomp92hide.png/
If you're successfully hidden with respect to another creature, [...] that creature treats you as if you were invisible.

I only had two weak counter-arguments: (1) one line's wording in the Rules Compendium and (2) inference.
  • Quote from: Invisibility > ATTACKS, Rules Compendium, page 76 http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/96/rulescomp76invisibility.png/
    Opponents are denied
    Quote from: Invisibility > ATTACKS, Rules Compendium, page 77 http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/198/rulescomp77nvsblty2.png/
    their Dexterity bonuses to AC against an invisible attacker's attacks.
    Emphasis mine.

    The usage of the plural at the end of the statement could imply that "opponents are denied their Dexterity bonuses to AC against invisible attacker's" multiple attacks (in one turn). The refutability of this is that the pluralization of "attacks" is to correspond to the pluralization of the beginning's "opponents". I mean, it is interchangeable:

    "Opponents are denied their Dexterity bonuses to AC against invisible attacker's attacks."
    "The opponent is denied their Dexterity bonus to AC against the invisible attacker's attack[ ]."
    "Opponents are denied their Dexterity bonuses to AC against invisible attackers' attacks."

    Also consider that English can suck. I mean, just look at the fact that my quote of Rules Compendium, page 92 (see bottom) changes tenses from the present "you are", "that creature is", and "that creature treats" to the imperfect "you were invisible". This is assuming that the writer and editor are not dumb so much as English is difficult to English.

  • Re: inference: Since at the beginning of combat, an opponent is considered flat-footed until their turn...
Obviously the problem comes from the fact that the trip obviously reveals you.
I want to gripe about this too, but I don't necessarily know what it is. It has to do with reductio ad absurdum of revealing someone by letting yourself be "attacked" by them regardless of the hider's intention.

In response to the post below:
Quote from: Hide, Rules Compendium, page 92 http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/42/rulescomp92hide.png/
If you're successfully hidden with respect to another creature, that creature is flat-footed with respect to you.

Addendum: Evidence:
Quote from: Drow of the Underdark > page 52 > Chapter 2: Drow Options > NEW FEATS > the "Surprising Riposte" feat
  Benefit: If you deal damage to an opponent in the same round that you successfully feinted against it, it becomes flat-footed. This effect lasts 1 round or until the opponent’s next turn, whichever comes first.
 Opponents that can’t be caught flat-footed, such as characters who have uncanny dodge, cannot be affected by Surprising Riposte.
  Special...
There's no Normal: part.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2012, 09:04:28 AM by NiteCyper »
What? NiteCyper's post is evolving!

Offline Kethrian

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2231
  • Night Owl
    • View Profile
Re: improved trip + sneak attack (3.5)
« Reply #12 on: July 19, 2012, 12:50:51 AM »
You may no longer be hidden, but they are considered flat-footed for the rest of the round. [link to old thread talking about Hide and Rules Compendium excerpt] Thus, it's moot.

If you are invisible, you ignore your opponent's dex to AC, they are not flat-footed against you.  So when invisibility drops, so does your ability to ignore their dex.
What do I win?
An awesome-five for mentioning Penny Arcade's On the Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness.

Offline NiteCyper

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 169
  • Uploaded the stock avatar with better quality. =þ
    • View Profile
    • YouTube
Re: improved trip + sneak attack (3.5)
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2012, 09:06:34 PM »
[Interjection], I admit that I have been remiss in the craft of and decision to post, this post. Should I happen to stumble upon this thread again in my future digging, I implore me to let it be.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2012, 09:18:38 PM by NiteCyper »
What? NiteCyper's post is evolving!