Sneak Attk, Multiple Atks, & Invisibility Question

[Radiating Gnome]

Admittedly, the rogue's sneak attack is a very powerful attack -- especially for a dedicated rogue, but at the same time it's very conditional -- it only happens in certain circumstances, against certain opponents, etc. If the rogue is really working hard to put herself in position to make those attacks, I don't think it's in the game's best interest to thwart those efforts.

Which isn't exactly saying I think she should get the full attack sneak attack thing, but I'm questioning the idea that a leash needs to be put on a player's explotation of any classes assets.

In your example, of a fighter being bothered by the perception of the rogues greater effectiveness, I would hope that there would be enough variety of opponents in the game that there would be times when the rogue's abilities would be very powerful, and times when they would be useless. The Fighter is the basline -- solidly effective against all (or nearly all) foes. So if there's an opponent that makes a likely target for sneak attacks, and the rogue gets into position for a devastating attack (or attacks) I don't see the need to dampen that for the sake of "balance".

A lot of our different perspectives may come from the cultures of our different playing groups. I have a group that is very much interested in the fun of playing, and no rules lawyers or min-maxers. If a player finds a combination of ablites or spells or items that makes a cool combination for them, I'm usually excited that they're taking an interest in that part of the game, and I don't feel any need to quelch that. But some groups, those that take a much more rules-heavy approach to the game, might put a DM in a situation where my position would be untenable.

Still, these are all differences in DM and game group style -- the core argument of this thread is whether the rules are clear on this question, and the very fact that we can have such an extended detabe on the issue is indication enough that those rules should have been clearer.

-rg

 

[Elvinis75]

Re: Re: Re: Re: My 2 cents

1. That would be hard to pull off being a fighter v.s. a rogue

2. The examples of attack types weren't meant as a delimiting factor

3. Thus full attack allows a character to make multiple attacks as one action, the situation that you describe isn't following my example at all. The disarm doesn't remove the invisibility as it is only part of the full attack action. It can be an action by itself but in this case it isn't. Say the AOO does happen, I thought that they are supposed to outside of the realm of time and attacks. They don't count towards your normal actions that round. But I think that I agree with you that this would end the invisibility because it is a self contained action.

4. Why don't you answer my questions?

5. Why create a hideous AOO string that has nothing to do with the question? The rogue isn't going to sneak attack a sword nor is he going to open himself up to an AOO for no good reason. I guess that it could happen but it is highly unlikely. The question is whether or not a rogue could use a full attack action to attack before he/she becomes visible. Your weird situation doesn't convince me that it doesn't work. Just that I should wonder about the AOO if that situation come up. It isn't part of the full attack action even if it happens in the middle of it.

 

[Elvinis75]

Wait this is a 3.5 question?

I have to do some more looking at 3.5.
Is the spell worded the same?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My 2 cents

3. Thus full attack allows a character to make multiple attacks as one action...

Yup. And invisibility terminates when you attack.

If you successfully feint, your opponent is denied his Dex bonus against your next attack. In the next round, if you make six attacks as a Full Attack Action, he only loses his Dex bonus against the first one - your next attack.

When you have an invisibility spell running, it ends when you attack. Not "upon the conclusion of your attack" - "when you attack".

Since we know that the first strike of a Full Attack Action is "your next attack", how can it not qualify as "when you attack"?

-Hyp.

 

[Camarath]

Re: Re: Re: My 2 cents

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?

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

From SRD
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out.

From SRD
Cleave: The extra attack granted by the Cleave feat or Great Cleave feat can be taken whenever they apply. This is an exception to the normal limit to the number of attacks you can take when not using a full attack action.

From SRD under Invisibility
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.

The same wording that is used in the Full Attack Action to refer to what you call a "single blow" is exactly the same as the wording used in the spell to specify what causes the spell to end (i.e. an attack). Unless you think "if the subject attacks" means something other than "if the subject makes an attack". The spell does not say it refers to an attack action it says it refers to an attack. A single attack not a single attack action. What you are calling a single blow is I believe a single attack. I don't know where you are deriving that an attack is an complete attack action rather than a single attack.

 

[Lela]

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.

Is the issue visiblity or surprise?

Regardless, when I consider other points (one of Hypersmurf's, kinda) I tend to lean your way. But I would still just let my players do what they wanted until someone objected. It's not a situation that comes up often.

What does tend to annoy me is when I find outright attacks on Skip Williams with no back up. As I said, I've seen many of these. The fact that I've found only one myself (and e-mailed him about it, getting a good response back the next day, helping me) leaves me wondering where all these come from. Especially considering that Skip helped write the books (in a major way).

In this case, opinion and interpritations are all that are present (even opinions on interpritations and interpritations of opinions). The fact that there are quite a few who take the Sage's view on it makes me wonder why you'd attack him and, by implication, attack those who agree with him.

 

[Hypersmurf]

What does tend to annoy me is when I find outright attacks on Skip Williams with no back up.

I personally think most of Skip's rulings are fine. It's not that frequently that he contradicts the rules as written (as opposed to, say, Customer Service).

As for the sketch above - the Self-Righteous Brothers are all about unwarranted attacks. It's what makes them funny.

It shouldn't be taken as my personal opinion of the Sage

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

Huhm. I always ruled that you became visible after your first attack but your opponent can't react to you till his action and is therefore still flatfooted.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Huhm. I always ruled that you became visible after your first attack but your opponent can't react to you till his action and is therefore still flatfooted.

I only treat someone as flat-footed with respect to an invisible opponent after combat has started if they have no reason to suspect the presence of any invisible creatures.

If they know there's someone invisible out there, I don't consider them flat-footed (assuming they've already taken their first action).

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

So if you know there is someone invisible out there, that guy won't get an additional surprise action?

Looks like the Sage is (for once) interpreting the situation as I do... Oh oh bad sign