Sneak Attacks on Rays

[kreynolds]

If the spell said that I might agree, but it doesn't. It says you become visible when you attack, not "after you take your attack action".

I know what it says, and for a short time, I interpreted the description literally, and I would have agreed with you. But as I said, that was only for a short time, and later, I concluded that was not how the spell was intended to function. Just to be sure that I was on the right track, I emailed Skip. He confirmed that I was correct in my thinking.

Now, I'm fully aware of how Skip doesn't do this and doesn't do that and rarely explains this or rarely explains that or how he never calls when he says he will, but that's immaterial to me in this particular case, as I'm confident in my interpretation.

I assume you feel that Skips reply to me was rather vague and lacked an explanation, thus you are still confident in your opinion of the spell. Conversely, I feel the spell was rather vague and lacked an explanation, but I got confirmation of my opinion, thus I'm confident in it.

Kinda like a figure eight, isn't it?

Of course they do.

When you bluff someone, they only lose their Dex bonus on your next attack. Even if you have multiple attacks, only the first one would be a sneak attack.

If you trip someone with your first attack, they change from standing to prone before your next attack.

When you disarm someone, they become disarmed between your first and second attack.

Very true. That was an oversight on my part.

According to your interpretation, none of those conditions would take effect until you were done with all your attacks.

No. You're blanketing my interpretation of one spell across the board for the entire rule set. I understand how Bluff works, that it only applies to your next attack, and I've always run it that way. Like I said, my statement was an oversight on my part.

 

[Will]

Petrosian, first of all, keep in mind that those who make other posts are not one monolithic entity. Different people have made different points.

_I_ have said your math is right.

I have also treated you politely, and would expect it in return.

However:
'The whole point of this thread is that the 375 gold wand against heavy armor foes is too good too cheap and way too easy.'

is not supported by your math. By your math, the wand does an average of 3-5 extra points of damage a round, maybe a scootch less.

How is that 'too good'? In the haze of battle, and considering how rarely it will come up, does that really seem unbalancing?

 

[Caliban]

Find something that support your idea, and I'll be happy to agree with you .. but, hey, wait a minute .. you can't ..

Sure I can. Try reading the definition of surprise on page 282 of the PHB. By definition it only occurs at the begining of combat.

Now show me something that supports your interpretation.

 

[Caliban]

No. You're blanketing my interpretation of one spell across the board for the entire rule set. I understand how Bluff works, that it only applies to your next attack, and I've always run it that way. Like I said, my statement was an oversight on my part.

Actually I was blanketing your statement of how conditions work across the entire set, since you made a blanket statement.

Since you have retracted that statement, you agree that conditions can and do change during your action. Now what reason do you have for invisibility not working the same way that other things do?

 

[kreynolds]

Actually I was blanketing your statement of how conditions work across the entire set, since you made a blanket statement.

Right.

Since you have retracted that statement, you agree that conditions can and do change during your action.

Correct.

Now what reason do you have for invisibility not working the same way that other things do?

I already gave my reason, but if you'd like an answer that I know you're more comfortable with, such as with shillelagh, then "it's magic".

Here's another Sage reply I found that also supports my viewpoint...

Assume it is the middle of combat. No one is flat-footed, and no one is flanked.

1) An invisible rogue expends a full-round action to attack an opponent twice while in melee. Attacking immediately cancels invisibility. Does the rogue get to add his sneak-attack damage to both attacks?

Yes.

2) Similar scenario. The rogue attempts to hide. No opponents succeed in detecting him. He makes two ranged attacks against an opponent within 30 feet. Does the rogue get to apply his sneak-attack damage to both ranged attacks?

Yes.

If you're unseen at the beginning of you're turn, you get whatever bonuses apply for being unseen for any attacks you make during your turn.

...now, I doubt two Sage replies is enough for you, but like I said, I already stated my reasons, and rules clarification backs it up. You are reading the spell description and taking it literally, which is what you should do in the absence of errata, but it's unfortunate, because that's not how the spell works.

Until the spell description is corrected in errata, I know that you will continue to follow behind my every initial reply on this subject, but there's not much I can do about the errata.

 

[Caliban]

...now, I doubt two Sage replies is enough for you, but like I said, I already stated my reasons, and rules clarification backs it up. You are reading the spell description and taking it literally, which is what you should do in the absence of errata, but it's unfortunate, because that's not how the spell works.

Until the spell description is corrected in errata, I know that you will continue to follow behind my every initial reply on this subject, but there's not much I can do about the errata.

Are these in the FAQ?

 

[kreynolds]

Are these in the FAQ?

Nope. That would be too easy. The first is a reply to me. The second is a reply to someone else.

 

[Caliban]

Nope. That would be too easy. The first is a reply to me. The second is a reply to someone else.

Then I can't consider it as an official ruling. Sorry.

 

[kreynolds]

Then I can't consider it as an official ruling. Sorry.

I know. I didn't expect you to.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

Invisibility,

"If the subject attacks directly however, he imidiatley becomes visible along with all his gear."



Assume it is the middle of combat. No one is flat-footed, and no one is flanked.

1) An invisible rogue expends a full-round action to attack an opponent twice while in melee. Attacking immediately cancels invisibility. Does the rogue get to add his sneak-attack damage to both attacks?

Yes.

2) Similar scenario. The rogue attempts to hide. No opponents succeed in detecting him. He makes two ranged attacks against an opponent within 30 feet. Does the rogue get to apply his sneak-attack damage to both ranged attacks?

Yes.

If you're unseen at the beginning of you're turn, you get whatever bonuses apply for being unseen for any attacks you make during your turn.





My interpretation has been this, and is not changed at all by the unofficial statement above.

If you attack while invisible, you become imediatley visible, on your FIRST attack.

You still get all flanking bonuses, because you cannot react to something like that unless it is your turn. Look at any free action, getting out of being flat footed, ect.

However, if you get an attack AoO, or if someone had a readied action against you, beliving you would soon become visible, you are visible during your further attacks.