Cover and Sneak Attack

[Hypersmurf]

As a rules lawyer I notice two things. Firstly, nowhere does the spell say it negates the bonuses an invisible attacker gains when attacking me. Secondly, nowhere does it say that it removes the condition 'Invisible' from any attackers. I can see them, but they are still 'Invisible'. In fact I can even TELL that they are 'Invisible'. As a rules lawyer, I am forced to conclude that invisible attackers still get their 'Invisible' bonus when attacking creatures that have cast See Invisibility.

Notice that several of the conditions on the table of Attack Modifiers are relative to the defender.

You only get the +2 bonus for flanking if you are flanking the defender. You only get the +1 higher ground bonus if you are on higher ground relative to the defender. Just being "on higher ground" is of no use if the defender is "on higher ground" as well.

Similarly, it could be contended that if the defender can see invisible, you are invisible, but not with respect to the defender.

And while invisibility may be irrelevant to the creature with Blindsight, the invisible attacker still has the 'Invisible' condition, so the invisibility is not irrelevant to the attacker. As a rules lawyer I must now conclude that an invisible attacker gets a +2 bonus and the defender loses his Dexterity bonus, even if the defender has Blindsight.

Certainly disagree there.

Losing Dex bonus is something that affects the defender. Since the attacker's invisibility is irrelevant, he doesn't lose his Dex bonus.

The +2 bonus, being an effect upon the attacker, not the defender, is arguable. But whether the defender loses his Dex bonus or not must be the same whether or not the attacker is invisible. Any other result would mean that the invisibility has relevance... which it explicitly doesn't.

"Well, look, Blind-Fight clearly states that it negates the bonus an invisible attacker gains on me. If they meant Blindsight to do the same thing, they would have stated it just as clearly in Blindsight. "

Except that they clearly stated that the invisibility is irrelevant to the Blindsighted defender.

"Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack."

If the attack cannot be seen, the character cannot react to the attack. An attacker that is hidden or has 100% concealment cannot be seen, so the defender cannot react to the attack, hence loses his Dexterity bonus to AC. Even a rules lawyer has to go along with this one, however impermeable he might be to common sense.

I've never argued against a hidden attacker denying the deender his Dex bonus; just against the attacker gaining the +2 bonus for being invisible.

However, the rules lawyer will no doubt now go on to say that Uncanny Dodge does not prevent you from losing your Dexterity bonus to AC versus hidden or concealed attackers, since only invisible attackers are mentioned, not hidden or concealed onces.

There would have been a stronger case for Uncanny Dodge working in 3E, where many of the total concealment conditions were directly related to invisibility. A blind character treated his attackers as invisible; a character turning his back (per the Gaze Attack rules) treated his target as invisible; therefore Blindfight and Uncanny Dodge allowed a blind character to retain his Dex bonus.

In 3.5, those effects are not related back to invisibility; instead, they grant the attacker total concealment, which isn't covered by Blindfight and Uncanny Dodge.

So, ironically, 3.5 Blindfight doesn't necessarily let you retain your Dex bonus while... fighting blind. (It does still, of course, grant the reduced miss chance in combat, so it still helps a blind combatant some.)

-Hyp.

 

[Gaiden]

I think the Smurf needs an extra shovel.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I think the Smurf needs an extra shovel.

? I thought his post made a lot of sense. And that gvbezoff's post was humorous--well done!

-z

 

[gvbezoff]

? I thought his post made a lot of sense. And that gvbezoff's post was humorous--well done!

-z

Thanks for seeing the humour, Zaru. I was trying to make a point, but I was trying even harder to be funny. I will don my rules lawyer hat one more time on this issue. Behold the rather large section on Invisibility in the 3.5 SRD:

"INVISIBILITY
The ability to move about unseen is not foolproof. While they can’t be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt.
Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision, including darkvision.
Invisibility does not, by itself, make a creature immune to critical hits, but it does make the creature immune to extra damage from being a ranger’s favored enemy and from sneak attacks.
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Spot check. The observer gains a hunch that “something’s there” but can’t see it or target it accurately with an attack. A creature who is holding still is very hard to notice (DC 30). An inanimate object, an unliving creature holding still, or a completely immobile creature is even harder to spot (DC 40). It’s practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature’s location with a Spot check, and even if a character succeeds on such a check, the invisible creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance).
A creature can use hearing to find an invisible creature. A character can make a Listen check for this purpose as a free action each round. A Listen check result at least equal to the invisible creature’s Move Silently check result reveals its presence. (A creature with no ranks in Move Silently makes a Move Silently check as a Dexterity check to which an armor check penalty applies.) A successful check lets a character hear an invisible creature “over there somewhere.” It’s practically impossible to pinpoint the location of an invisible creature. A Listen check that beats the DC by 20 pinpoints the invisible creature’s location.
Listen Check DCs to Detect Invisible Creatures
Invisible Creature Is . . . DC
In combat or speaking 0
Moving at half speed Move Silently check result
Moving at full speed Move Silently check result –4
Running or charging Move Silently check result –20
Some distance away +1 per 10 feet
Behind an obstacle (door) +5
Behind an obstacle (stone wall) +15
A creature can grope about to find an invisible creature. A character can make a touch attack with his hands or a weapon into two adjacent 5-foot squares using a standard action. If an invisible target is in the designated area, there is a 50% miss chance on the touch attack. If successful, the groping character deals no damage but has successfully pinpointed the invisible creature’s current location. (If the invisible creature moves, its location, obviously, is once again unknown.)
If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck still knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves). The only exception is if the invisible creature has a reach greater than 5 feet. In this case, the struck character knows the general location of the creature but has not pinpointed the exact location.
If a character tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has pinpointed, he attacks normally, but the invisible creature still benefits from full concealment (and thus a 50% miss chance). A particularly large and slow creature might get a smaller miss chance.
If a character tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has not pinpointed, have the player choose the space where the character will direct the attack. If the invisible creature is there, conduct the attack normally. If the enemy’s not there, roll the miss chance as if it were there, don’t let the player see the result, and tell him that the character has missed. That way the player doesn’t know whether the attack missed because the enemy’s not there or because you successfully rolled the miss chance.
If an invisible character picks up a visible object, the object remains visible. One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour fell off or blew away). An invisible creature can pick up a small visible item and hide it on his person (tucked in a pocket or behind a cloak) and render it effectively invisible.
Invisible creatures leave tracks. They can be tracked normally. Footprints in sand, mud, or other soft surfaces can give enemies clues to an invisible creature’s location.
An invisible creature in the water displaces water, revealing its location. The invisible creature, however, is still hard to see and benefits from concealment.
A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.
A creature with the Blind-Fight feat has a better chance to hit an invisible creature. Roll the miss chance twice, and he misses only if both rolls indicate a miss. (Alternatively, make one 25% miss chance roll rather than two 50% miss chance rolls.)
A creature with blindsight can attack (and otherwise interact with) creatures regardless of invisibility.
An invisible burning torch still gives off light, as does an invisible object with a light spell (or similar spell) cast upon it.
Ethereal creatures are invisible. Since ethereal creatures are not materially present, Spot checks, Listen checks, Scent, Blind-Fight, and blindsight don’t help locate them. Incorporeal creatures are often invisible. Scent, Blind-Fight, and blindsight don’t help creatures find or attack invisible, incorporeal creatures, but Spot checks and possibly Listen checks can help.
Invisible creatures cannot use gaze attacks.
Invisibility does not thwart detect spells.
Since some creatures can detect or even see invisible creatures, it is helpful to be able to hide even when invisible."

What you notice is that nowhere is the word 'invisible' given a formal definition. There is a great deal of talk about what an invisible creature and its opponents can and cannot do, but no formal definition of what makes one 'invisible'. About the closest thing to a definition is the phrase, "Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision." So, me might conclude, for the purposes of D&D,

Invisible = undetectable by vision.

A more reasonable approach might be to use the accepted dictionary definition of invisible, since the D&D rules do not specify an alternate definition of the word. My dictionary lists 3 defintions. Your mileage may vary.

1. Impossible to see; not visible.
2. Not accessible to view; hidden.
3. Not easily noticed or detected; inconspicuous.

So, as a rules lawyer, I claim that the above dictionary definitions must hold in the game, since the rules do not expressly impose a different definition. Therefore, for the purposes of D&D game mechanics, UNLESS EXPRESSLY STATED OTHERWISE IN THE RULES, hidden and 100% concealed are exactly the same thing as invisible. As a rules judge, I claim the same thing via much less effort - because it makes sense, and is just and fair.

I am good at rules lawyering out of self defense, but I dislike the practice. Let us strive to make common sense prevail. On a related issue, I was asked by a player if Blindsight detects hidden characters. My answer was, "It depends."

Let us assume that the Blindsight in question uses sound waves, as most types do. If a character is hidden behind a solid object, like a rock, that blocks sound waves, or behind a semi-solid object, like a shrubbery, that scatters sound waves, then NO, Blindsight does not detect him and a successful Spot roll must be made to notice the hidden creature.. However, if the character is hidden in a deep shadow or via a camouflage effect, then Blindsight detects him quite nicely. What if the character is hidden behind a shrub and under the effect of the Invisibility spell? Well, then, Blindsight negates the +20/+30/+40 Hide bonus given by the spell, and the hidden creature can be seen if the approprate Spot roll is made against the new, lower Hide roll.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I am good at rules lawyering out of self defense, but I dislike the practice. Let us strive to make common sense prevail. On a related issue, I was asked by a player if Blindsight detects hidden characters. My answer was, "It depends."

Let us assume that the Blindsight in question uses sound waves, as most types do. If a character is hidden behind a solid object, like a rock, that blocks sound waves, or behind a semi-solid object, like a shrubbery, that scatters sound waves, then NO, Blindsight does not detect him and a successful Spot roll must be made to notice the hidden creature.. However, if the character is hidden in a deep shadow or via a camouflage effect, then Blindsight detects him quite nicely. What if the character is hidden behind a shrub and under the effect of the Invisibility spell? Well, then, Blindsight negates the +20/+30/+40 Hide bonus given by the spell, and the hidden creature can be seen if the approprate Spot roll is made against the new, lower Hide roll.

What if the hiding person is trying to hide from Blindsight? You know, like how the Fremen hid from the tremorsense of the Sandworms of Dune? If a character had the correct equipment (something like a ghillie suit?) and training I'd let him try a Hide check vs. blindsight. I'd give the blindsighted creature a bonus to the Spot roll, however.

Nothing in the rules covers this (as nothing in the rules covers your own reasonable ruling), but I think it makes sense.

Good show with the whole "Invisible = undetectable by vision" thing.

-z