Sneak Attk, Multiple Atks, & Invisibility Question

[Skaros]

Simple. If a rogue is invisible, sneaks up to a sighted opponent, and unloads a full round of attacks against the opponent (say 3 attacks, in this case), how many of those are sneak attacks?

Invisibliity (the spell) says you become immediately visible if you attack someone directly.

The way we played it in 3.0 was that all attacks in that full attack sequence were sneak attacks (opponent denied dex versus all of them).

I'm looking through the 3.5 SRD, and not seeing anything that gives me a clue one way or the other.

Thoughts/Clarifications?

Skaros

 

[Camarath]

1. Rogue makes first attack is invisible so gets sneak attack damage
2. Invisibliity spell ends because of attack
3. Rogue makes second attack is not invisible so does not get sneak attack damage
4 Rogue makes third attack is not invisible so does not get sneak attack damage

From SRD under Invisibility
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature.

A full attack action is a single action comprised of multiple attacks. The first attack made ends the spell. This happens before the remaining attacks can be made.

 

[BSF]

Which is why the rogue wants to move into a flanking position first.

1st attack: Rogue invisible, no perceived threat = no flanking bonus, but bonuses for invisible apply. Sneak attack damage applies.
2nd+ attack: Rogue is now visible, but is a perceived threat, so flanking bonuses apply. Sneak attack damage applies.

This is a nasty combo.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

The one problem with your interpretation (and I think that's the right way to rule on it, but there is a problem) is for two weapon fighting. It's concievable that someone fighting two weapon style could argue that she's striking with both weapons at the same time, and would be entitled to the sneak attack bonus for each.

Do deal with that, I'd probably just point out that the whole combat thing is an abstraction, blah blah blah, I'm the DM, blah blah blah.

Or I might let them do it. I mean, if the PC were in flanking position, she would get sneak attack damage with every attack. And it's not like Rogues are too powerful or anything. And orchestrating a full round attack while invisible is no mean feat, and won't exactly happen all the time.

I dunno. Interesting question.

-rg

 

[Elvinis75]

You could get all as sneak if you were attacking first as a surprise. Your character invis. sneaks to person and unloads I believe that they are all sneak as the opponent is flat footed right?

 

[Radiating Gnome]

Well, in a surprise round you can't make a full attack -- it's only a partical action.

But once the first round of combat starts, if the rogue acts before the victim in the initiative order, she can have all of her attacks, and get sneak attack damage on all of them. So a rogue with two attacks could possibly get in three sneak attacks before the surprised victim has an action.

-rg

 

[LokiDR]

The one problem with your interpretation (and I think that's the right way to rule on it, but there is a problem) is for two weapon fighting. It's concievable that someone fighting two weapon style could argue that she's striking with both weapons at the same time, and would be entitled to the sneak attack bonus for each.

The arguement could be made, but it is a weak one. Nothing in the rules state that both weapons are swung at the same time. At any rate, even if a person does start both swinging at the same time, one will most likely hit first and cancel invis.

Do deal with that, I'd probably just point out that the whole combat thing is an abstraction, blah blah blah, I'm the DM, blah blah blah.

Abstraction, yes, but that much. The system is lot less abstract than others. You roll for each attack after all. And anything can be house ruled.

Or I might let them do it. I mean, if the PC were in flanking position, she would get sneak attack damage with every attack. And it's not like Rogues are too powerful or anything. And orchestrating a full round attack while invisible is no mean feat, and won't exactly happen all the time.

Rogue+UMD+wand of invis = nasty. Rogues can be a very powerful class. Rogue with TWF and Rapid Shot firing shuriken can be very nasty.

 

[Camarath]

You could get all as sneak if you were attacking first as a surprise. Your character invis. sneaks to person and unloads I believe that they are all sneak as the opponent is flat footed right?

If you attack your opponent before their first regular turn you would get sneak attack damage on all your attacks.

From SRD
Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

The arguement could be made, but it is a weak one. Nothing in the rules state that both weapons are swung at the same time. At any rate, even if a person does start both swinging at the same time, one will most likely hit first and cancel invis.

Sure, that's true, but does it really matter? I mean, if the two strikes come one right after the other, is the victim really that much less surprised?

As for UMD, it's good, and useful, but a rogue will have to have invested a lot of skill points in UMD to make that want of Invisibility useful in combat -- A DC 20 to emulate spell ability is no slouch, especially when you factor in that the skill is modified by charisma, (which is probably not one of most rogue's primary abilities, unless it's a social skills rogue, who isn't designed for combat in the first place) and to ONLY have to make that DC 20 roll the rogue would also have to have an INT of 12 (to be able to cast second level spells) or she would have to emulate that as well -- or settle for activating blindly, at a DC of 25.

By the time a rogue is able to make those UMD rolls consistently she'll be high enough level that there will be many other things she could do that would be just as deadly, as would other characters.

It's possible to min/max a rogue along these lines, and have a good bonus to your UMD at mid levels, but still -- a 5th level rogue can have 8 ranks in UMD. A maxed out CHA (unllikely) would provide a +4 bonus. Add to that a feat (skill focus) for +3 (is that what SF is in 3.5? I don't remember) and you're looking at +15 to UMD -- which will still fail 25% of the time, and still require an action to try to use the wand, rather than attack. And how much has the rogue lost in other areas to dedicate herself to this path? Especially to maximize an ability which is useless against the undead and constructs?

Don't get me wrong -- I love rogues, and play rogues most frequently (when I get to play), but I don't think that the UMD + Wand of Invisiblity is the road to disproportionate power for a rogue, by any means.

-rg

 

[bensei]

Sure, that's true, but does it really matter? I mean, if the two strikes come one right after the other, is the victim really that much less surprised?

The question is not, how much time the victim needs to attack. The rules state clearly that with invisibility you can have only one attack with sneak attack from the invisibility, and this is for balance reasons.

And for the wands, UMD ideas: A rogue is seldom alone in a battle, so the party caster(s) can use their first action to cast improved invisibility on the party rogue. Sometimes this pays off more than throwing a fireball, esp. if the rogue (normally with good initiative) delays his action right after the caster's turn.