All About Sneak Attacks (Part Two)

[DarkMaster]

No. If they're already fighting, it's after their first initiative, and they are not flat-footed.

Your first attack gains the benefits of being an invisible attacker; after that, you're not an invisible attacker, so there's no bonus.

-Hyp.

That was my point this rule apply if the invisible rogue attack in the middle of an already started combat.
If she surprise the opponent before a combat then even if she reapear after the first attack the opponent is still flatfoot then the other attack are also a SA. Then it is a matter of initiative

 

[Hypersmurf]

If she surprise the opponent before a combat then even if she reapear after the first attack the opponent is still flatfoot then the other attack are also a SA. Then it is a matter of initiative

Well, yes, but those aren't sneak attacks due to invisibility, so it's not really relevant to the initial question.

Even if the rogue hadn't been invisible, all her attacks would have been sneak attacks while the opponent was flat-footed.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

That was my point this rule apply if the invisible rogue attack in the middle of an already started combat.
If she surprise the opponent before a combat then even if she reapear after the first attack the opponent is still flatfoot then the other attack are also a SA. Then it is a matter of initiative

Just to be really clear:

1st round - surprise. One attack only during the surprise round. Victim is still flat-footed after the attack.

2nd round. If the victim lost intiative, then there is a full round of sneak attacks because the victim is still falt-footed unitl she gets to act.

 

[DarkMaster]

Just to be really clear:

1st round - surprise. One attack only during the surprise round. Victim is still flat-footed after the attack.

2nd round. If the victim lost intiative, then there is a full round of sneak attacks because the victim is still falt-footed unitl she gets to act.

Yes, I mentioned that because I felt that the description provided didn't mention the context,

 

[DarkMaster]

Well, yes, but those aren't sneak attacks due to invisibility, so it's not really relevant to the initial question.

Even if the rogue hadn't been invisible, all her attacks would have been sneak attacks while the opponent was flat-footed.

-Hyp.

I know but the text is not clear about it and may lead to confusion. It should clearly state it. The text just say after the first invisible attack you reapear and don't have SA anymore. It can lead to confusion for non rule expert like you

 

[Artoomis]

Yes, I mentioned that because I felt that the description provided didn't mention the context,

I clarified it because the way you stated it made it sound like the rogue got multiple attacks in the first round.

I just wanted to make that clear.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It can lead to confusion for non rule expert like you

Woohoo! I'm a non rule expert!

Any questions on non-rules? I'm your man.

-Hyp.

 

[FireLance]

For example all opponents are considered to have total concealment for a blinded character but they explicitly do not gain a +2 to attack bonus due to an Invisible attacker. Why would that be so if attackers with total concealment were considered Invisible?

A blinded defender gets -2 to AC, which pretty much comes to the same thing. An invisible attacker should have no additional advantage over a non-invisible one when fighting a blinded defender since the blinded defender can't see either.

 

[Ransom]

The sage mentions sneak attack applies against stunned critters,
So if I have a monk/rogue build and I run a flurry on blows with as stunning fist on the first attack all the secondary attacks are sneak attacks?

 

[James McMurray]

Yep. Stunned creatures lose their dex mod to AC, and are thus valid targets for a sneak attack.