Sneak Attk, Multiple Atks, & Invisibility Question

[LokiDR]

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

Overpowered, no, but far from weak. Adding more to the rogue would put them over the top.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

Overpowered, no, but far from weak. Adding more to the rogue would put them over the top.

You'll get no argument from me on that one -- adding anything to any class would most likely put them over the top.

But I'm not sure that a reading of the rules, as printed, that allowed a full attack to have all the advantages of sneak attacking -- while invisible -- would constitute "adding something" to the rogue, nor would it put the rogue over the top.

One could also read the term "Full Attack" -- as singular. Sure, as a part of a full attack you have multiple opportunities to do damage, and make multiple attack roles, but "Full Attack" is still singular. Which would mean that a single FULL ATTACK made by an invisible attacker would have all the benefits of being invisible.

Mind you, any player of mine who tried to argue that in my game would be showered with cheetoes as a standard penalty for rules lawyering.

In the end, I'd probably have to agree with your reading -- one attack only gets the advantage of normal invisibilty -- but I don't think it's exactly black and white in the given rules, as has been suggested.

-rg

 

[Skaros]

One could also read the term "Full Attack" -- as singular. Sure, as a part of a full attack you have multiple opportunities to do damage, and make multiple attack roles, but "Full Attack" is still singular. Which would mean that a single FULL ATTACK made by an invisible attacker would have all the benefits of being invisible.

Which is why our group in 3.0 interpreted the rules to allow rogues a full attack action of sneak attacks when using Invisiblity.

I'm not sure its worth making the change in our current campaign...we haven't seen real problems with our rogue/wizard, even using this ruling.

I also agree with you (and disagree with bensei) that the rules are not clear on this. It isn't spelled out. You become visible as soon as you attack....single attack, full attack, as you attack, after you're first attack in a full attack, after your flurry of attacks?

That's what I'm wondering about here.

Skaros

 

[LokiDR]

One could also read the term "Full Attack" -- as singular. Sure, as a part of a full attack you have multiple opportunities to do damage, and make multiple attack roles, but "Full Attack" is still singular. Which would mean that a single FULL ATTACK made by an invisible attacker would have all the benefits of being invisible.

A full attack consists of several attacks, so I think it is in rule. Are you swinging more than once? Invisibility is canceled after the first attack. How fast you make the attacks doesn't make a difference. It might not be that clear, but it is better than uncanny dodge vs feint.

 

[Lela]

I agree that it's after your full attack that you once agian become visible. But I still say that you get sneak attack on the next two.

If you can still get sneak attack after a surprise round (call it 3 seconds) and into the normal round (call that s second), then I'd say that the additional second or two won't do it. Visibility is not the issue. Surprise is.

That said, there's been no mention of a rule that's on point. The text in the invisibility section only mentions that you become visible after your first attack. It doesn't describe the effect on Sneak Attack (which it probubally should). The rest is extrapolation.

It does surprise me how many people look at it the other way. Hasn't anyone ever asked the Sage?

 

[Camarath]

It is a Full Attack Action not Full Attack. It is an action that grantes you attacks not a single attack in and of it's self.

From SRD
Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

This statements indicates that you are making multiple chronologically separated attacks wile performing the Full Attack Action. The spell ends after your first attack not your first attack action. So that means your first singular attack using the full attack action ends the spell.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It does surprise me how many people look at it the other way. Hasn't anyone ever asked the Sage?

Unfortunately, the Sage has been asked, and - contrary to all logic - he ruled that all attacks in a Full Attack made by a creature using an Invisibility spell are sneak attacks.

All I can say is - not in my game!

-Hyp.

 

[Camarath]

Unfortunately, the Sage has been asked, and - contrary to all logic - he ruled that all attacks in a Full Attack made by a creature using an Invisibility spell are sneak attacks.

All I can say is - not in my game!

-Hyp.

Why do so many of the "Sage's" rulings come down aginst the rules as they are written?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Why do so many of the "Sage's" rulings come down aginst the rules as they are written?

"You know who I'd like to play wiv? Skip Williams."
"Skip Williams... cor, wouldn't that be sumfink?"
"Not 'arf. One of the or-forities on the game, Skip is... the Sage 'imself."
"Bet 'e'd add a touch of class to your game, an' all that."
"Sumfink to tell the gran'kids about. I'll tell you wot, though..."
"Wossat?"
"If 'e tried forcing any of 'is made-up rules on me..."
"Oh, no!"
"If 'e tried to use 'is reputation as a 'guru' to change the way I run my game..."
"Well, you wouldn't stand for it, would you?"
"I should think not! I should say 'OI, WILLIAMS, NO! IT'S ALL VERY WELL HAVING YOUR OWN COLUMN IN DRAGON MAGAZINE, BUT WE PLAY BY THE CORE RULES, AND WHEN IT SAYS THE SUBJECT BECOMES INVISIBLE WHEN 'E ATTACKS, THAT'S BLOODY WELL WHAT'S GOING TO 'APPEN!'"
"And you'd be well wivvin your rights!"
"'ow dare 'e come into MY HOUSE an' try to cheat some extra sneak attacks?"
"A respected figure like that, too. I dunno what the world's coming to."
"Bastard."

-Hyp.

 

[Lela]

Why do so many of the "Sage's" rulings come down aginst the rules as they are written?

You know, I hear this often but rarely actually see it. In this case, I see no actual proof (as I stated above) that Invis. does or does not grant Sneak Attack for the Full Attack. I'll I've seen are extrapolations and interpritations that point to one side or the other. If it is "Written" somewhere, please point it out.