does invisblitiy make defenders flatfooted

[Orchard]

if during combat (initive has alreaady been rolled) an invisible rogue attacks a target (say a fighter) with a full attack and so becomes visible, does that make the fighter flatfooted against all of the rogues attacks or just the first one, i'm not sure what the rule is on this i can't seem find anything about it in the books?

 

[sierzadon]

depends

if during combat (initive has alreaady been rolled) an invisible rogue attacks a target (say a fighter) with a full attack and so becomes visible, does that make the fighter flatfooted against all of the rogues attacks or just the first one, i'm not sure what the rule is on this i can't seem find anything about it in the books?

1. If it is normal invisibility, and the fighter can't see invisible, 1 sneak attack , rest is normal.
2. If improved invis, and fighter can't see invis, all attacks are sneack attacks

 

[shilsen]

What sierzadon said. The target no longer loses his Dex bonus to AC when the rogue appears, so if that occurs between attacks, then the target cannot be sneak attacked on the later ones.

 

[mikebr99]

And Orchard, you are only flat-footed during the first round of combat... until you act.

[edit] Oh... and welcome to the boards, by the way.

Mike

 

[Li Shenron]

There is a slight difference between being flat-footed and losing Dex bonus to AC. The first implies the second but not viceversa.

In your case, the target of the invisible rogue loses his Dex bonus to AC against the rogue (but not against someone else) and therefore it is subject to the rogue's sneak attack (but not someone else's sneak attack), as long as the rogue is invisible. As soon as the rogue becomes visible (e.g. Invisibility ends with his first attack) his attacks are normal ones.

All of the above unless the target has special abilities or unless flanking or other circumstance is involved.

 

[KarinsDad]

There is a slight difference between being flat-footed and losing Dex bonus to AC. The first implies the second but not viceversa.

In your case, the target of the invisible rogue loses his Dex bonus to AC against the rogue (but not against someone else) and therefore it is subject to the rogue's sneak attack (but not someone else's sneak attack), as long as the rogue is invisible. As soon as the rogue becomes visible (e.g. Invisibility ends with his first attack) his attacks are normal ones.

All of the above unless the target has special abilities or unless flanking or other circumstance is involved.

Additionally, the target can make attacks of opportunity against opponents while the rogue denies him his AC bonus. When flat-footed, he cannot make AoOs against anyone.

 

[Li Shenron]

Additionally, the target can make attacks of opportunity against opponents while the rogue denies him his AC bonus. When flat-footed, he cannot make AoOs against anyone.

I was in fact myself posting that the target shouldn't be able to make AoOs against the invisible rogue, but then I was afraid of starting a riot, and I decided to stop there

 

[Jdvn1]

Could someone post a SRD quote?

 

[MerakSpielman]

Could someone post a SRD quote?

I can't provide a SRD quote because the relevent data is in a table. In fact, the relevent data is in the footnote of a table.

From the SRD, Combat II (Movement, modifiers, and special actions):

From the table for Attack Roll Modifiers:

If the attacker is Invisible, he gains a +2 to hit with melee or ranged weapons. In addition, the target is denied his dexterity bonus to AC.

 

[sullivan]

The question I always wondered about is if the Invisible character could create the second side of a flank. Actually four questions:

i) One attacker in flanking position is invisible and the target is not aware that they are there.
2) Both attackers in flanking position are invisible and the target is not aware that they are there.
C) Does the result change one the target becomes aware. Basically is the bonus from flanking originate in the mind of the target.
four) What awareness of the flank does the Elusive Target(Diverting Defense) feat from Complete Warrior require?

EDIT: Now that I type it out I see a 5th question, if i) and 2) create a flank bonus for both attackers, if the Target incorrectly believes there to be a second attacker in flanking position but there isn't (typically due to some sort of illusion based situation) does the real attacker get a flanking bonus?