Iterative sneak attacks?

[Zaruthustran]

What you guys are saying is clearly right, and I'm not arguing the point, just saying what I've seen as a house rule, and was thinking about. I'm wondering what you fine people think? :

If a rogue (or I guess, by extension any character), through hiding/invisibility whatever, is previously undetected by an opponent, and he remains undetected, he gets a free partial action (equivalent of surprise round) when he enters combat, regardless of whether combat has otherwise started. It doesn't work if the opponents saw him and then he went invisible or something like that, since the opponent would be "aware" of them.

I don't like it. It doesn't fit the D&D "round" mechanic. In D&D all characters take actions within the same round. It doesn't work for individual characters to have personal surprise rounds.

It does work for individual characters to have individual actions: your proposed rule is served by the Expert Tactician feat. If you don't have S&S or S&F, the feat works like this: anytime a person you threaten is denied his Dex, you get to make a single free melee attack.

So, if an undetected hidden rogue sneaks up to a guy the rogue gets a free attack (a sneak attack) and then his standard action (either another attack or, better, a second move--like away from the bad guy and around a corner, where you can re-hide).

-z

 

[Hypersmurf]

Any other situations that let you lose your Dex bonus to AC do not work like this, but rather apply as long as they last (i.e. until after the first attack in case of invisibility).

Makes perfect sense to me.

Unfortunately, perfect sense was dealt a blow when the Sage ruled (a while ago now) that even though invisibility terminates when you attack, all attacks in a Full Attack Action started while invisible deny Dex bonus.

Fortunately, I have no trouble ignoring the Sage when he makes rulings like that.

-Hyp.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Makes perfect sense to me.

Unfortunately, perfect sense was dealt a blow when the Sage ruled (a while ago now) that even though invisibility terminates when you attack, all attacks in a Full Attack Action started while invisible deny Dex bonus.
-Hyp.

Really? Where can this ruling be found?

-z

 

[Hypersmurf]

Really? Where can this ruling be found?

I'm afraid I couldn't tell you.

I've just seen it referenced every so often when this topic comes up.

-Hyp.

 

[jgsugden]

The sage is quite often wrong. His advice, though well intentioned, often directly contradicts the rules. WotC has given him their support because he makes the rules questions go away. Unfortuantely, the qualtiy control on his answers is lacking.

This is a situation where the rules are clear. You get to sneak attack while invisible or hiding. Invisibility ends when you attack. You come out of hiding when you attack (unless sniping). His ruling would be a fine thing to consider in the absence of a clear rule. The rule here, though, is clear (when not blinded by the desire for your character to do more damage).

 

[Caliban]

Then, in this case as many others, I respectfully disagree with the rules.

If a fighter is startled/completely surprised by a rogue behind him, that rogue is going to hit him at least once, and possibly more, before the fighter can react. At lease, in my opinion.

If the fighter is indeed "completely surprised", it would have to be outside of combat. You can't be suprised once combat is started.

It depends on whether the invisible attack initiates the combat or takes place during an existing combat situation.

If the rogue sneaks up on the fighter (and there is no combat currently taking place) and attacks him while invisible, then the sneak attack would take place during the suprise round, and then you roll initiative to see if the fighter reacts fast enough to prevent further sneak attacks. If the rogue beats him on initiative, the rogue will get a full round of sneak attacks while the fighter us flat-footed.

If the rogue does this during combat, then the they have their guard up, and only the invisible attack will qualify for sneak attack damage.

 

[FrankTrollman]

IIRC, the reasoning behind the ruling by Skip was that you became visible at the end of the attack action - which in this case contained the entire full attack. Similarly, if you cast a full-round atack spell you become visible at the end of that spell - not the beginning. That is supportable by the rules as written - although certainly would not have been my initial reading of it.

Personally, I'd say that you should just let people do it - heck invisibility is a Glamer and by the rules can be disbelieved in the same manner as Alter Self. Plus the 3.5 version has a duration so comically short that it is a waste of time for virtually any purpose.

The spell is seriously under-juiced in 3.5 - and it needs all the help it can get.

-Frank

 

[Hypersmurf]

IIRC, the reasoning behind the ruling by Skip was that you became visible at the end of the attack action - which in this case contained the entire full attack.

But Invisibility doesn't reference an action; it ends "when you attack".

In the course of a Full Attack Action with two iterative attacks, I can swing my sword, take a 5' step, drop my sword, quickdraw my bow, and shoot someone else.

But I can decide before my second attack if I want to continue with the Full Attack Action or not. So I could swing my sword, take a 5' step, drop my sword, quickdraw my bow... and then decide to take a Move action (say, sheathe my bow again). In this case, wasn't my Attack Action over with the swing of the sword? And thus, didn't I come visible before the 5' step? And yet, until after I drew the bow and elected to take a Move action, my Full Attack Action might not have been over, so was I still invisible?

But invisibility ends when you attack, and that swing of the sword is an attack, whether it's an AoO, part of a Charge, an Attack Action, or the first attack of a Full Attack Action. Before I take that 5' step, I have attacked... and therefore I am visible.

-Hyp.