Sneak Attk, Multiple Atks, & Invisibility Question

[Hypersmurf]

I'll I've seen are extrapolations and interpritations that point to one side or the other.

Ah, but there are good interpretations, and bad interpretations.

I must admit, there aren't that many of Skip's rulings that really irritate me, by seemingly having been pulled out of thin air with no support in the written rules. (Although there are a few of them.)

That's usually more Customer Service's department

-Hyp.

 

[Camarath]

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.

Let's see. The spell states "The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature.". If we go by this ruling then you get to attack once and then attack again and again without the spell ending. That sound pretty clearly against the rules to me.

 

[LokiDR]

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.

I don't think that ever made it into the FAQ, so I would say it would just be his opinion. The FAQ is official, Sage Advice isn't. At least that is how I see it.

 

[Elvinis75]

My 2 cents

The way that I see it is that the word attacks isn’t defined as standard action attack. The spells suggests that it is any “action” that is used to attack others removes the invisibility at the end of that action. Thus even a full round spell can be used to attack a foe without the caster becoming visable before it completes. The sage seems to be suggesting just that the spell is removed at the end of any action that results in some form of attack against a foe. Thus some people that have the Full Attack Action avaliable to them can make several strikes before the invisibility fades. I think that can be supported by the rules. The idea that attack or the verb “attacks” = single blow is an assumption not fact drawn from the text of the spell.

 

[Camarath]

Re: My 2 cents

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.

What does attack mean in this rule quote if not a "single blow"? Does this mean I get multiple "Full Attacks"? Does an attack, as described under the action in question, really not count as an attack?

 

[Elvinis75]

Re: Re: My 2 cents

What does attack mean in this rule quote if not a "single blow"? Does this mean I get multiple "Full Attacks"? Does an attack, as described under the action in question, really not count as an attack?

In the SRD the spell says "attacks" not if a player takes an attack action. It goes on and says that taking an action to cast a spell that against a foe or area including a foe.

The Full attack quote states that it is multiple blows.
I was saying that the spell doesn't say a single blow.
It states that attacks (Full Attack, Trip, Sunder, Grapple, standard attack, disarm (All are attacks)) trigger the end of the spell. They imply actions in the 4th sentence of that paragraph.

Are you saying that they are not not implying that the spell is based off actions? What part of it states a single blow?

I guess that barring a strict restriction of what "attacks" means, I would use the normal book possibilities.
Trip
Bull Rush
Normal attack
grapple
Full attack
...etc.
Spells are also defined. Actions follow the rule of spells.
I'm with the sage on this one.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: My 2 cents

In the SRD the spell says "attacks" not if a player takes an attack action.

So. The fighter drank a potion of See Invisible.

I walk up to him, invisible, figuring he can't see me. He pretends he can't.

Next round, I take a Full Attack action. My first attack is a Disarm attempt, which counts as an attack. Since I'm attacking, my invisibility is terminated... but it's part of a Full Attack Action.

The Fighter, as his AoO (since he can see me), decides to make an unarmed Trip (since his sword is not a Trip weapon), provoking an AoO from me. I stab him as an AoO. This is an attack, which would normally terminate my Invisibility, and it's not part of my Full Attack action, which isn't complete yet... am I still invisible?

If I am, I decide the Fighter can obviously see me, so I should sneak attack his buddy instead. I take a 5' step (allowable during a Full Attack action) and take the remainder of my attacks on the warrior cohort. Are all those attacks Sneak Attacks? They're still part of the same Full Attack action...

-Hyp.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

Whew, people get so testy about a little difference in interpretation.

I wasn't aware of the Sage's ruling, but it does seem interesting to me.

As for which interpretation is "good" and which is "bad" (or "weak"), I'm torn, myself. I don't think, given what's actually written, that either is clearly better than the other, and DMs will just have to judge for themselves.

What gets me most bunged up about this whole discussion is the idea that a PC is "getting away with something" if a game is run usign the Sage's ruling on the matter -- after all, it's not as if this is game breaking, and even if it is more powerful than the other reading, what's good for the PCs is good for the NPCs -- and a few invisible assassins dishing out multiple sneak attacks will balance that nicely.

But is it really about the PCs getting away with something? Is it really that adversarial? I don't play against my PCs when I play, and I wouldn't want to play with a DM who is playing against me.

-rg

 

[Hypersmurf]

What gets me most bunged up about this whole discussion is the idea that a PC is "getting away with something"...

Uh... you don't mean the Self-Righteous Brothers sketch, do you?

That wasn't really meant to be taken seriously...

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

But is it really about the PCs getting away with something? Is it really that adversarial? I don't play against my PCs when I play, and I wouldn't want to play with a DM who is playing against me.

I don't think it is as much DM vs players as it is balancing players. In some games, certain classes are really powerful, either from standard enemy selection, DM tatics, or DM rulings. If the DM is already leaning in favor of rogues, or the rogue's player is more of a powergame than every one else at the table full sneak attack should not be granted. In other cases, it is less clear. I would allow full sneak attack if the rogue of the party was a rogue/bard and just couldn't wrap his mind on the rules.

In short, the DM needs to balance characters against each other, not just the world. The fighter should feel like he is being useful in combat, instead of the rogue killing everthing all the time before he gets there.