Is the extra attack following a trip a sneak attack?

[Ardantis]

Just what the title says, really. Are prone enemies valid targets for sneak attack (assuming no flanking)?

Also, can spellcasters cast while prone?

My friend just joined a new group, and with their help made a rogue trapper/tripper. He took a feat (Agile something? Might be homebrew) which allows him to use his dex mod on Str checks for trip, and he's running around with a spiked chain, Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip, and a bunch of sneak attack dice.

In his first combat, he snuck up on a spellcaster. The caster tried to cast, he got an AoO, and he decided to use it to trip. He succeeded in the trip, but because the DM had never adjudicated such a situation, he played safe and disallowed the sneak attack on the extra attack as well as allowed the caster to make an unmodified concentration check based on the attack damage, which was fairly low. The caster succeeded, and was able to cast a Fireball in the same turn he was knocked to the ground.

This doesn't seem to make sense. Is it legal?

[Heliomance]

Yes, absolutely legal. Being prone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#prone) does not deny you your Dex mod to AC, so doesn't make you vulnerable to sneak attack. Nor does it give any penalties whatsoever to spellcasting.

Unless the caster was flatfooted anyway, that is - if the original attack would have applied SA had he not used it to trip, then the followup attack would have SA on it. That doesn't seem to be the case, though, as the caster was casting, thus not flatfooted.

[Curmudgeon]

Perhaps there's some confusion from other games creeping in here. In 4e being prone grants combat advantage vs. melee attacks, and combat advantage is the main way a 4e Rogue qualifies for sneak attack. But in 3.5 prone does nothing of the sort. More likely, if the Rogue "snuck up" on a spellcaster (which would probably involve the Move between Cover application of Hide; see Complete Adventurer on pages 101-102), that trip attack would make the spellcaster observant of the Rogue. That means the Rogue is no longer hidden, and no longer qualifies for sneak attack, on the bonus attack granted by Improved Trip.

[Amphetryon]

Yes, absolutely legal. Being prone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#prone) does not deny you your Dex mod to AC, so doesn't make you vulnerable to sneak attack. Nor does it give any penalties whatsoever to spellcasting.

Unless the caster was flatfooted anyway, that is - if the original attack would have applied SA had he not used it to trip, then the followup attack would have SA on it. That doesn't seem to be the case, though, as the caster was casting, thus not flatfooted.

This depends partially on semantics. Specifically, the OP says the rogue "snuck up on the caster." If this verbiage means the caster was unaware of the rogue, the caster may well have been flatfooted against the rogue, even in the midst of casting.

[Petey7]

Being prone does not make you falt-footed, so I would make the same ruling. Also, I see no reason that the spellcaster couldn't cast the fireball with a fairly high concentration check.

[Jornophelanthas]

Sounds legal to me. Note that the DM did not need to give the caster a DC increase on the Concentration check for defensive spellcasting. That would apply only if the rogue had readied his action to attack (and trip) the caster as soon as he/she started casting.

A better way to stop casters from casting is by grappling them.
A better way to deal sneak attack damage to casters is by having someone else grapple them, and then poking them with a melee weapon.
Another way to deal sneak attack damage to casters is by feinting (provided the rogue has Improved Feint).

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Being prone itself does not enable sneak attack.

However, I think in this case he would be entitled to dealing sneak attack damage, because the enemy caster wasn't aware of his presence when he made the trip.

"If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt."

If the enemy caster was denied his Dex bonus versus the initial trip attack, then he would still be denied his Dex bonus against the attack granted by Improved Trip.

[Curmudgeon]

This depends partially on semantics. Specifically, the OP says the rogue "snuck up on the caster." If this verbiage means the caster was unaware of the rogue, the caster may well have been flatfooted against the rogue, even in the midst of casting.
Nope.
flat-footed

Especially vulnerable to attacks at the beginning of a battle. Characters are flat-footed until their first turns in the initiative cycle. A flat-footed creature loses its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity. Because the target was trying to cast a spell, that means the spellcaster had already gotten a chance to act. Flat-footed ends as soon as you act in each combat. Generally you're either flat-footed or not; you don't have a different status for different enemies (though some feats and special class abilities make exceptions to this).

Being hidden doesn't make the Rogue's enemies flat-footed. It will deny them their DEX bonus to AC if their Spot doesn't beat the Rogue's Hide check. But attacking someone generally makes you blatantly apparent, and being observed means you can't Hide. So tripping means you've lost the ability to stay hidden, and the prone enemy isn't denied their DEX bonus to AC. Thus, no sneak attack.

However, I think in this case he would be entitled to dealing sneak attack damage, because the enemy caster wasn't aware of his presence when he made the trip.

"If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt."

If the enemy caster was denied his Dex bonus versus the initial trip attack, then he would still be denied his Dex bonus against the attack granted by Improved Trip.
If you follow through with that reasoning, it would also means the enemy spellcaster isn't prone. But that's nonsense.

All that "as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt" means is that you're essentially using the same attack for the follow-up. If you were making a full attack the follow-up wouldn't incur a -5 penalty for an iterative attack. If you had tripped someone when they provoked an attack of opportunity you would still be able to make the follow-up attack even without Combat Reflexes, because you're still considered to be making the same single AoO you're allowed.

But it doesn't rewind history and keep you hidden (or invisible if using Invisibility), or keep the target from being prone.

[Amphetryon]

So tripping means you've lost the ability to stay hidden, and the prone enemy isn't denied their DEX bonus to AC. Thus, no sneak attack.So a character with Improved Invisibility and Ring of the Darkhidden who trips an enemy cannot follow with a sneak attack? Wow, that bites.

[Douglas]

So a character with Improved Invisibility and Ring of the Darkhidden who trips an enemy cannot follow with a sneak attack? Wow, that bites.
No, being invisible denies dex bonus and Improved Invisibility stays even after you attack. It's the specific instance of denying dex through mundane hiding/sneaking that doesn't work after the first attack.

[Coidzor]

Sounds legal to me. Note that the DM did not need to give the caster a DC increase on the Concentration check for defensive spellcasting

If the rogue got an AoO, that means the caster wasn't casting defensively though.

10+damage dealt is the standard DC for a concentration check if one gets hit while casting a spell. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/concentration.htm)

So if the DM had the caster do concentration versus just the damage dealt, the DM was in error or has a houserule in play. I couldn't say if that was the case just from the information in the OP though.

[Sutremaine]

Assuming that sneak attack dice are not granted after a trip attempt on an opponent you could have sneak attacked, is there any ever advantage to giving up SA dice this round in exchange for a +4 bonus to melee attacks in the next round?

[Amphetryon]

Assuming that sneak attack dice are not granted after a trip attempt on an opponent you could have sneak attacked, is there any ever advantage to giving up SA dice this round in exchange for a +4 bonus to melee attacks in the next round?

Depends on how many of your allies are able to benefit, and how important that benefit is tactically. If your allies were having trouble hitting, it could be huge.

[Canarr]

If the rogue got an AoO, that means the caster wasn't casting defensively though.


Makes sense. If the caster didn't notice the hiding rogue, he'd see no need to be casting defensively, thus provoking the AoO from the rogue. On this AoO, he'd have gotten his SA dice, if he hadn't chosen to use the AoO for a Trip; on the follow-up attack against his prone enemy, he wouldn't be able to SA, since the caster has noticed him. Seems like a good call on the GM's side to me.

Now, unless you really, really need that caster prone - say, in order to reduce his ability to move away from other melee types in your party - getting the SA damage would probably be more worthwhile than the Trip.

[Coidzor]

Which is why the feat Knock-Down is so nifty, since it'd let one get to have one's sneak attack and a prone mage too.

[Canarr]

*reads Knock-Down* That... is an incredibly good feat for a Tripper. Would kinda make Improved Trip obsolete, I guess. :smallconfused:

Though I love how it's a General feat, yet the description speaks of "the deity's mighty blows"...

[mikau013]

*reads Knock-Down* That... is an incredibly good feat for a Tripper. Would kinda make Improved Trip obsolete, I guess. :smallconfused:

Though I love how it's a General feat, yet the description speaks of "the deity's mighty blows"...

That is because you're reading the deity only feat. You want the sword and fists one :smallwink:

[Darrin]

That is because you're reading the deity only feat. You want the sword and fists one :smallwink:

No, because the Sword & Fist version has errata that prevents you from getting a free attack via Improved Trip.

You want the version from the "Divine" section of the SRD, published after the 3.5 release without the errata, and also changed the wording from "deity" to "you".

[Curmudgeon]

That is because you're reading the deity only feat. You want the sword and fists one :smallwink:
I know you're trying to be amusing, but pointing someone to a 3.0-specific version when that feat has been released twice under 3.5 rules is both confusing and annoying.

You want the version from the "Divine" section of the SRD, published after the 3.5 release without the 3.0 errata, and also changed the wording from "deity" to "you". (Clarification added.)
That's also the most recent one, so it's really the only acceptable version. (The Deities and Demigods source, after applying FREE D&D® V.3.5 ACCESSORY UPDATE: Deities and Demigods, is the previous 3.5 version. That's still got the "deity" language.)

[Fitz10019]

Perhaps there's some confusion from other games creeping in here.
In the Neverwinter Nights PC game (which is based on 3.0 rules), a prone character is subject to sneak attacks. It is a handy way for a rogue to solo and still get sneak attacks.

[mikau013]

I know you're trying to be amusing, but pointing someone to a 3.0-specific version when that feat has been released twice under 3.5 rules is both confusing and annoying.
(Clarification added.)
That's also the most recent one, so it's really the only acceptable version. (The Deities and Demigods source, after applying FREE D&D® V.3.5 ACCESSORY UPDATE: Deities and Demigods, is the previous 3.5 version. That's still got the "deity" language.)

I wasn't trying to be amusing I was being factual. The deity and demigods version is only for deities and not for players. Wotc even considered knockdown to never be updated to 3.5 after the update booklet was released.
The swords and fists version is the one players need to explore if they want to grab knockdown.

[Curmudgeon]

I wasn't trying to be amusing I was being factual. The deity and demigods version is only for deities and not for players.
The Player's Handbook sets the rules for how feats work.
Types Of Feats

Some feats are general, meaning that no special rules govern them as a group. That would also preclude special rules about "only for deities". However, there aren't any such rules. Here's what Deities and Demigods actually says about its feats (from page 49):
FEATS
In addition to the feats in the Player ’s Handbook, deities can also obtain the feats described here, all of which were originally published in other D&D game products. Because these feats (as well as those in the Player’s Handbook) were originally designed for use by player characters, many of them have prerequisites that any deity automatically meets, such as a base attack bonus of +2 for Hold the Line. Nevertheless, those prerequisites are retained in these feat descriptions so that the descriptions will be consistent with the way they were originally published. So the "fluff" is altered to present these feats for deities, but the requirements are still attainable by PCs. The fact that "deities can also obtain the feats described here" doesn't prevent those feats from being taken by player characters, and the rules about General feats remain in effect.

[Jeff the Green]

I wasn't trying to be amusing I was being factual. The deity and demigods version is only for deities and not for players. Wotc even considered knockdown to never be updated to 3.5 after the update booklet was released.
The swords and fists version is the one players need to explore if they want to grab knockdown.

No it's not. Look in the Divine Abilities and Feats section of the SRD. Unless you think Divine Might and Extra Music are deity-only, Knock-Down is available to players as well

[Lictor of Thrax]

This has always bugged me and my current DM, without even me pushing for it, agreed with me.

Not allowing the sneak attack on an attack that you'd normally be granted a sneak attack for, but instead used trip, seems to completely **** on the fact that you spent one of the small handfull of feats you acquire in 3.5.

Due to the verbiage "as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt." it seems even more so that it should be granted.

We both envisioned Improved Trip to be a fluid motion and, as such, the target is just as vulnerable (imagine someone who has you completely unaware, they sweep your feet out and before you can even react "as if they hadn’t used their attack for the trip attempt." they then jab their dagger into your vitals). . . and yes, now they're also prone, I spent a feat to make them so. It doesn't seem over-powered at all.

I've been told I'm wrong many times and accept the interpretation from those who know the game better than I. . . but it still seems to me that "as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt." precludes revealing yourself.

[animewatcha]

Am I missing something from the update booklet ( my DMs don't use srd, but use sword and fist ), but wouldn't using sword and fist version be a bit better sometimes since S&F version counts as a fighter bonus feat? Via errata that is.

[whibla]

While I agree there's room for debate in the exact wording, it would seem reasonable that if the caster was unaware of the rogue, thus not getting the benefit of any Dex bonus, when the rogue tripped him, he would not gain the benefit of any Dex bonus until his action resumed.

Since an AoO takes place out of sequence, and the second, bonus, attack granted by Improved Trip takes place immediately following the initial AoO, and before the caster's turn continues he still cannot benefit from any Dex bonus until the AoO sequence has been completely resolved.

As soon as his turn continues - the spell casting resumes, he can no longer be sneak attacked, barring any further condition that would allow one.

As I say though, RAW would seem to support either interpretation.

[animewatcha]

Would the application of True Strike bear any insight into this? True strike being used up on the trip and thus not benefitting the follow up attack.

[Telonius]

Joining an existing battle isn't something that's covered too well in the rules. D20 Modern has a rule that characters joining a battle that's already begun should roll initiative and act on that in the normal order, with no mention of flatfootedness of anybody. The regular d20 ruleset doesn't have that, though it's certainly a sensible option.

It's really stretching it, but I could see a DM granting an effective surprise round for the Rogue, on the grounds that it's a different encounter now. But only if nobody on the opposing side was aware of him, only if the Rogue's surprise round happens at the end of the regular round, and only if a new initiative check was taken all around after it happens. It makes some amount of sense fluff-wise; the target wasn't expecting an attack from that direction, so wouldn't have been taking any special precautions to avoid being hit from there.

If the PCs are fighting a bunch of orcs, and suddenly a (previously-unnoticed) goblin tribe bursts out of hiding and attacks, I'd call that both a surprise round and new initiative. I'd rule that - in the round they appear - everybody on the battlefield is flatfooted against them. I don't think the Rogue situation is completely similar - the Rogue would have been actively coordinating with one side, for one thing. But if he had stayed in hiding, he would have been (effectively) not part of the encounter. Calling for new initiative wouldn't be something that's completely out of left field.

On to the situation ... even if new initiative were allowed, in this case the wizard is still casting. The Rogue would not yet be in initiative order. Even if he had Combat Reflexes (to allow flatfooted AoO's), he'd be unable to make an attack of opportunity. When he does get his surprise round, he only gets a standard action, so he'd have to be right next to the Wizard to attempt the trip at all. Not "walk up and trip him," unless the reroll of initiative is allowed, and he beats the Wizard's initiative, and he takes a regular attack action to trip him. In any event, he can't disrupt the casting of the spell as it's taking place.