Sneak Attacks on Rays

[dcollins]

FWIW, the suprise round is variant rule (DMG pg. 61-62).

I've made the same mistake in the past.

* A surprise round in which aware combatants get a free partial action is actually part of the core rules (PH p. 120).
* Running the first round of every combat with only partial actions, regardless of surprise, is the proposed variant. (DMG p. 61).

 

[AGGEMAM]

Out of curiosity, was it AGGEMAM that original convinced you? I remember that thread, but I don't remember the specifics of it.

No, I think it was you ...

 

[kreynolds]

No, I think it was you ...

No kidding?

 

[AGGEMAM]

No kidding?

Nope !

 

[kreynolds]

No, I think it was you ...

I used to be in the 1 sneak attack camp, but I've since changed my mind. I've played it both ways in my games and I don't see anything overpowering about giving sneak attack to every attack in a full attack action with invisibility. So, I guess it could have been me, but I doubt it.

 

[AGGEMAM]

I used to be in the 1 sneak attack camp, but I've since changed my mind. I've played it both ways in my games and I don't see anything overpowering about giving sneak attack to every attack in a full attack action with invisibility. So, I guess it could have been me, but I doubt it.

Well, it is certainly not me since I have always been in the full-round-sneak-attack-camp.

 

[kreynolds]

Well, it is certainly not me since I have always been in the full-round-sneak-attack-camp.

I just find it hard to believe that I convinced anyone of anything, thus my doubts.

 

[radferth]

As I read the rules, a rogue gets the sneak attack bonus if flanking the target, or if the target does not get his dex bonus against the rogue's attack. This means that if the rogue has multiple attacks, and is attacking a flanked or flat-footed target, they will get the sneak attack bonus on all his attacks, as the condition granting the bonus will not change during the attack sequence. However, if an invisble rogue sneaks up to someone already in combat (i.e. not flat-footed), then the target is only denied its dex bonus on the first attack, so only the first attack is a sneak attack (unless some other factor also grants a sneak attack).
Of course not allowing the target to gain dex bonus in the middle of the rogue's attack sequence doesn't seem to break anything.

 

[doktorstick]

I thought I remembered it better. It turns out it was Ridley's Cohort, kreynolds, and Artoomis that convinced me. Amazing. Anyway, it isn't as "overwhelming" as I recalled.

My Original Thread

Originally I was using the term "flat-footed" and "denied Dexterity" interchangeably, but that was cleared up. So please don't be distracted by my poor, misuse of the terms.

The point, when applied to this thread, is that if the character holding the torch can react to an opponent moving through the light surely that character can react to someone turning visible after their invisibility ends.

When being flanked, a character can not get out of the flanking position until his action. When being flat-footed, a character can not get out of being flat-footed until his action. I understand why rogues get multiple sneak attacks in these situations, but not with the invisibility spell.

/ds

 

[Artoomis]

I think one of the other key sentence is:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...It makes no difference how many attacks the rogue makes or whether the opponent is aware of the rogue or not...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This sentence is important because it makes it even clearer that the only thing that matters is whether the opponent has his dex bonus or not - not whether he are aware of the rogue.

This still does not help settle the questions at hand.