Invisiblity/Hiding/Attacking/Sneak Attacks

[Baron Von StarBlade]

DotF, page 19, Divine Feats:

"Since turning or rebuking is a standard action, activating any of these feats is also a standard action.
Third, you can't use the Quicken Turning feat to speed up the use of a divine feat."

ALL divine feats use turning attempts, so no quicken turning for ANY divine feat, Divine Might included. Complete list of divine feats in DotF: Divine Cleansing, Divine Might, Divine Resistance, Divine Shield, Divine Vengeance, Divine Vigor.

I thought it was ruled (in the FAQ I think) that Divine Might could be activated as a free action.

 

[kreynolds]

I thought it was ruled (in the FAQ I think) that Divine Might could be activated as a free action.

It was. Some argue it shouldn't have been. I think that's how this came up.

 

[Stalker0]

It was. Some argue it shouldn't have been. I think that's how this came up.

Some?


My main problem with the sage ruling is that it goes against the idea that when using a full round action, every attack can have a unique circumstance.

For example, on my first attack on trip an opponent. On the second attack, I gain the bonuses for him being prone. Let's say on that second attack for whatever reason, my blade is poisoned. It drains dex, and that gets me even a better chance to hit on my third attack.

But in this scenario, we are assuming the first, second, and every attack that round has the exact same circumstance, which I don't buy. You lose invisibility after an attack, so your 2nd, 3rd and so forth attacks should have the new circumstance that you are no longer invisible.

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

My main problem with the sage ruling is that it goes against the idea that when using a full round action, every attack can have a unique circumstance.

That is kind of misleading, since there are an equal number of instances where an effect will be applied to all actions that round. Examples being, Power Attack, Expertiese, Fighting Defensively, a Charge, etc. .
What I would look at is a specific case where a special ability applies only to the next attack and see how the spells differ. The first one that comes to mind is True Strike. It has been debated and decided that True Strike only works on the next attack. The wording in True strike is very specific stating

Your next single attack roll. . . .

Now Invisibility uses more vague terms. The sentence in question is

The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature.

I personally believe that all attacks that round would gain benefit from being invisible. But I also agree with kreynolds in that there is validity in both arguements..

 

[IceBear]

I'm on the side that believes it drops with your first attack.

IceBear

 

[Stalker0]

That is kind of misleading, since there are an equal number of instances where an effect will be applied to all actions that round. Examples being, Power Attack, Expertiese, Fighting Defensively, a Charge, etc. .

In all those instances however, the descirption of the ability specifically says it applies to the rest of your attacks for that round. Invisibility says no such thing.

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

In all those instances however, the descirption of the ability specifically says it applies to the rest of your attacks for that round. Invisibility says no such thing.

The problem is that invisibility doesn't state that it does end after the first attack in a sequence. That is why I gave an example of a spell which clearly specifies how long it lasts and how many attacks are gotten with it. The wording of the invisibility spell leaves it open for interpertation.
The Sage ruled that in this instance invisibility lasts for all attacks in the full attack action. That says to me that in the Sage's eyes that the full attack is a singular attack action, therefore you will become visible after that is finished.
I'm not saying its right or wrong, however I normally agree with the Sage's rulings/clarifications so that is good enough for me.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I'm on the lasts for the full attack aciton of the discussion. Kreynolds made most the argument on this side so I don't have much to add.

My 2 points are 1 initiative is wierd in D&D, strange things like if you jump farther than your move you float in mid air for 6 seconds waiting for your next aciotn to continue your movement happen. So invis dropping after a full attack aciotn because the attack aciton is the same timing as a single attack works for me.

two the difference between this and powers like smite is that smite specifically applies to the attack. Usually phrased one normal mellee attack, or the next attack roll or something. invis is an effect on the person that stops when a certain type of aciton takes place, an attack. There isn't any real proof in this, but to me the action is what brings invis down and a full attack is type of attack aciton. Basically the small diferences in how the spell is phrased, makes the difference.

 

[MThibault]

For what it's worth, the Sage Advice quote that started this debate is not in the Official FAQ (10/15/2002). So, as it stands it is simply advice not official interpretation.

The FAQ is silent on the issue.

I think that an attack is an attack is an attack. If you make an attack roll or any of the rolls that can substitute for an attack roll (a grapple check, trip, etc.) then you've attacked. It doesn't matter what comes next (Another attack? A provoked attack of opportunity? Nothing?) you've still attacked. If nothing else, this I believe.

Well, except in the case of the shuriken where three attack rolls make an attack. Man I hate the shuriken.

Cheers.

 

[kreynolds]

For what it's worth, the Sage Advice quote that started this debate is not in the Official FAQ (10/15/2002).

For what it's worth, that's not a Sage Advice quote in the first place, and it was never stated as such. It's a "Sage Reply", and they are generally taken with a grain of salt, if they're even taken at all.