Invisiblity/Hiding/Attacking/Sneak Attacks

[Zerth]

I agree with E-B. Not the first time The Sage would have given misleading answers. Everybody makes mistakes.

 

[kreynolds]

Elder-Basilisk, that's hardly the beginnings of a firestorm. If a class ability or spell specifically states that it only applies to one attack, such as True Strike, that's one thing, but Invisibility states no such thing. Invisibility simply states that an "attack" causes the spell to end, but it does not specify what kind of attack, meaning a standard or full. Though it does define "attack" for the purposes of the spell, it still doesn't differentiate between a standard or full.

The spellsword's Channel Spell ability is the reverse of this scenario. On the one hand (invisibility), we have a character, already under the effects of a spell, making an attack. On the other (channel spell), we have a character making an attack and adding a spell to it.

There really isn't a comparison between the two. They are totally different situations. (By the way, I agree with you on the intent of the Channel Spell ability of the Spellsword, even though it doesn't even specify that it applies to only one attack, but is there a Sage reply on this? I couldn't find anything in the FAQ or the T&B errata that addressed this. I don't need confirmation on this, mind you. I'm just curious.)

The Paladin's smite evil ability specifically states it applies to one attack only.

The Smite ablity from the Destruction domain specifically states it applies to one attack only.

Divine Sacrifice specifically demonstrates how it applies to only one attack per round.

Invisibility does not. It merely states "if the subject attacks", but it does not specificy whether it applies to a single attack, or multiple attacks in a full-attack action.

I do agree, however, that there is ambiguity in the phrasing of the Invisibility spell, and I personally wouldn't have a problem if a DM ruled that I would only get sneak attack damage on the first attack, even though I would rule otherwise.

 

[kreynolds]

Not the first time The Sage would have given misleading answers. Everybody makes mistakes.

I agree, it wouldn't be the first time. He's gone back on his rulings before, namely the Burst weapon enhancements (those are the quickest to come to mind), so there always exists the possiblity that he'll go back on this ruling as well. However, as you pointed out, everybody makes mistakes.

Although, you must keep in mind that the Sage has obviously made a mistake in the eyes of the person that disagrees with his ruling, so the ability to make mistakes is rather immaterial, especially when the person disagreeing with said ruling could very well have made a mistake themselves. Just think about all the people that have ruled that sneak attack damage only applies to your first attack when you're flanking someone, only to find out they were incorrect. Those people are wrong, according to the rules, but did the Sage make a mistake in ruling that it applies to all attacks, such as when you're flanking someone? I don't see how, especially when the other designers agree with him.

Whether or not the Sage truly made a mistake can be (but is not always) a matter of perspective, and that fact cannot be denied. Point in case is the Mind Blank/True Strike fiasco. Skip rule that Mind Blank wouldn't protect against True Strike, even when Monte ruled that it would. This got many people into an uproar, shouting the Sage was wrong, that he made a mistake. Ironically, after further examination, Monte changed his mind and also ruled that Mind Blank would not protect against True Strike, and when that happened, suddenly, Skip didn't make a mistake in his ruling.

Like I said, it's a matter of perspective.

 

[Stalker0]

My problem with the idea of the one attack versus full attack, being so different is not quite how the rules put it.

You are allowed to make a single attack, and then based on the results on that attack, I can choose whether to continue on and make it a full attack.

So if we go with the first attack, I am now visible, so now I fire a few more arrows and yet still get teh benefits of invisibility.

But let's say instead I make that first attack, then I decide to make a movement action. Well, as far as I know I would provoke AOO just like anybody else would. So why should the two scenarios be different?

 

[Zerth]

You are right about perspective and being right, kreynolds. There certainly isn't any way to make "an official" ruling about this matter. The comment about The Sage was simply there because I think he could have made a mistake. Many people seem to think, that The Sage can do no wrong - I'm glad you aren't one of them

To me The Sage's latest possible misunderstanding would be ruling the use of Divine Might feat from DotF as a free action.
If all divine feats using turn attempts should be free actions (I think, it's safe to assume this, if Divine Might would indeed meant to be used as a free action), why DotF forbids using the Quicken Turning feat to speed up the use of divine feats? That makes no sense to me if turning-based divine feats are not standard actions like normal turning. IMO, using Divine Might requires a standard action like any other turning attempt and The Sage perhaps didn't read his DotF that carefully. Oh, and sorry about getting all excited about Divine Might in this thread. It just has been my pet project lately to ruin the life of every paladin sooo happy with his precious "hasted" divine might

 

[kreynolds]

But let's say instead I make that first attack, then I decide to make a movement action. Well, as far as I know I would provoke AOO just like anybody else would. So why should the two scenarios be different?

They aren't different. According to the Sage, the invisibility drops after your attack action (evident by the fact that the benefits of being invisible apply to all of your attacks during a full-attack action) so it would already be down by the time you took your move-equivalent action, which is a completely separate action from the first. Skip didn't say that the invisibility would last until the end of your round.

 

[Stalker0]

They aren't different. According to the Sage, the invisibility drops after your attack action (evident by the fact that the benefits of being invisible apply to all of your attacks during a full-attack action) so it would already be down by the time you took your move-equivalent action, which is a completely separate action from the first. Skip didn't say that the invisibility would last until the end of your round.

Every attack in a full attack sequence counts as an attack action, else you couldn't do trips, grapples, etc during a full attack. To my mind, invisibility would drop after the first attack action. Now if the argument is that you still have the basic effects of invisibility for the remander of your attacks, I can understand that, but in that case I would thinking whether you were attacking for movement you have the same bonuses from being invisible.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

kreynolds, you're building your entire case on the rather shaky distinction between "makes an attack" and "your character's next attack." I don't think that distinction is justified. (True Strike is different because it specifies your next single attack roll).

Consider the following: An invisible 6th level paladin is next to an enemy and makes a full attack action smiting evil.
We know two things about this situation:
1. Invisibility (and its attendant bonusses) end immediately after the character "makes an attack."
2. The paladin's smite evil applies "to her next attack."

According to your interpretation, after the paladin makes the first attack roll, she has made "her next attack" but hasn't "made an attack." Thus her invisibility is still up until she finishes making "an attack" (meaning the second iterative attack) but her smite evil is finished since she is finished making "her next attack."

This, however, is not a tenable position.

If she hadn't finished making "an attack" then she obviously can't have made "her next attack" (since she hasn't finished making any attack), the Smite Evil bonus would still be effective. If she has finished making "her next attack" then she has finished "making an attack" and her invisibility should be over too.

The same situation will come up with the Destruction domain or Templar smite or Divine Sacrifice. Either "the next attack" has been finished and therefore the character has finished making "an attack" or the character hasn't finished making their next attack.

You would be on much stronger grounding if the Invisibility spell specified that it ended when you made an "attack action" but that would open up an entirely new can of worms (after all, Magic Missile doesn't require an attack action). Your position would also be stronger if the paladin/Destruction Domain ability/etc. description were worded "your next attack roll" rather than your next attack. However, since both invisibility and smite evil use the "attack" terminology rather than attack roll or attack action, it's pretty clear to me that they refer to the same thing.

Elder-Basilisk, that's hardly the beginnings of a firestorm. If a class ability or spell specifically states that it only applies to one attack, such as True Strike, that's one thing, but Invisibility states no such thing. Invisibility simply states that an "attack" causes the spell to end, but it does not specify what kind of attack, meaning a standard or full. Though it does define "attack" for the purposes of the spell, it still doesn't differentiate between a standard or full.

The spellsword's Channel Spell ability is the reverse of this scenario. On the one hand (invisibility), we have a character, already under the effects of a spell, making an attack. On the other (channel spell), we have a character making an attack and adding a spell to it.

There really isn't a comparison between the two. They are totally different situations. (By the way, I agree with you on the intent of the Channel Spell ability of the Spellsword, even though it doesn't even specify that it applies to only one attack, but is there a Sage reply on this? I couldn't find anything in the FAQ or the T&B errata that addressed this. I don't need confirmation on this, mind you. I'm just curious.)

The Paladin's smite evil ability specifically states it applies to one attack only.

The Smite ablity from the Destruction domain specifically states it applies to one attack only.

Divine Sacrifice specifically demonstrates how it applies to only one attack per round.

Invisibility does not. It merely states "if the subject attacks", but it does not specificy whether it applies to a single attack, or multiple attacks in a full-attack action.

I do agree, however, that there is ambiguity in the phrasing of the Invisibility spell, and I personally wouldn't have a problem if a DM ruled that I would only get sneak attack damage on the first attack, even though I would rule otherwise.

 

[kreynolds]

Every attack in a full attack sequence counts as an attack action, else you couldn't do trips, grapples, etc during a full attack.

That's not exactly how I would define it, but in short, I agree to an extent, which is why I wouldn't have a problem with a DM ruling that way on me.

To my mind, invisibility would drop after the first attack action.

Yup, and this seems to be the basis of Skip's ruling. However, this is also the basis of my own opinion on this, where action is the key word, and not "attack".

Now if the argument is that you still have the basic effects of invisibility for the remander of your attacks, I can understand that, but in that case I would thinking whether you were attacking for movement you have the same bonuses from being invisible.

Not really. The attack action and moving are two completely separate actions. If you want to look at a full-attack action as being composed of several mini-attack actions, which I do, that's fine. However, a double-move is a special action, as described by the rules. It is an action that exceeds the normal time frame. A full-attack is no different. A single attack is a standard action, so you would think that making two attacks would eat up your whole round, just like taking two move-equivalent actions. But that's not how it works, as a 10th level Tempest/10th level fighter can make 8 attacks, and they all fit within one action.

Like a double-move followed by an attack, which inexplicably does not take any longer to complete in game terms than a normal move followed by an attack, making 8 attacks inexplicably doesn't take more than a single round to pull off, even though it should take far longer. So obviously, and as is demonstrated by the rules, like a double move, the individual attacks within a full-attack action are not subject to the same rules as a full-fledged action. If they were, it would take a lot longer to make that many attacks, and you wouldn't be able to pull off a double-move followed by an attack either.

My point is that both a double-move, and the separate attacks within a full-attack action, are not normal actions and the rules make exception for this.

There is something I don't agree with you on though, and that is a grapple, trip, etc. These are not actions in and among themselves. They are methods to which you can modify an action (single attack) or part of an action (full-attack). But still, like you pointed out, grapples and trips do in indeed define the attacks within a full-attack action as separate attacks, and I'm not arguing that point. Spells can apply to either a single attack or to an entire action. For example, True Strike specifically applies to only one attack, so even if you take a full-attack action, it only applies to your first attack within that action. Invisibility does not make that distinction, and according to the Sage, it applies to the entire action, not just the attack itself.

I don't have a problem with this ruling, and like I said, I don't have a problem with it being ruled otherwise. It makes sense to me either way. If my players disagreed with me, and they put forth an argument similar to the ones here, I wouldn't have a problem changing my ruling either.

 

[Bonedagger]

Here's how I do it.

I assume that in the case of a physical attack it is the contact that make attacker visible.

So I treat the armor like "cover". Every time an attack is made I see if there was physical contact (If it was a miss would the attack then have hit, had the target not used armor). After first contact the attacker is visible.