Sneak Attk, Multiple Atks, & Invisibility Question

[Hypersmurf]

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

If combat hasn't started, sure. But if we're mid-combat, then no.

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

Sorry... I was talking about combat has not started yet, but you know someone is out there.

The invis dude attacks with his surprise action (SA), wins initiative... all sneak attacks.

But in the middle of combat he suddenly attacks with his full attack action from his position next to you and does not get sneak attacks because you are distracted already ?

 

[Hypersmurf]

The invis dude attacks with his surprise action (SA), wins initiative... all sneak attacks.

Sure, but that would be true if he wasn't invisible

But in the middle of combat he suddenly attacks with his full attack action from his position next to you and does not get sneak attacks because you are distracted already ?

Not sure what you mean by "distracted already".

I'd let his first attack be a sneak attack, but not the rest of his full attack, 'cos as far as I'm concerned, after the first attack he's no longer invisible...

-Hyp.

 

[Elvinis75]

Re: Re: Re: 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

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.

The second that you and hypersmurf start answering the questions is the when I continue this conversation. The spell clearly talks about taking actions.

A single blow is an action. Though it can come in many forms trip disarm ...etc. The spell talks about "attacks" in a general form. The verb attacks isn't in its definition limited to one blow. For instance a paper might say that the mugged then attacks the victim with a baseball bat. Does that tell you how many time he swung? The SRD quote states that the full attack action is a requirement for multiple swings but it does make the full attack a series of standard action attacks. A full attack action is not complete until the last attack is made. Nothing in the text of the spell suggests inclusive single blow! Actions my friends actions. Go ahead and ask the sage if that is the way that he sees it. That I believe is his logic and it works for me.

 

[Skaros]

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

The second that you and hypersmurf start answering the questions is the when I continue this conversation. The spell clearly talks about taking actions.

Actually, it clearly talks about when the invisible person attacks someone, and doesn't mention the word 'action' at all in the section quoted above.

A single blow is an action. Though it can come in many forms trip disarm ...etc. The spell talks about "attacks" in a general form. The verb attacks isn't in its definition limited to one blow. For instance a paper might say that the mugged then attacks the victim with a baseball bat. Does that tell you how many time he swung?

By extension then, we should basically allow the rogue to sneak attack for the whole combat after he was briefly invisible in the beginning.

The SRD quote states that the full attack action is a requirement for multiple swings but it does make the full attack a series of standard action attacks. A full attack action is not complete until the last attack is made. Nothing in the text of the spell suggests inclusive single blow! Actions my friends actions. Go ahead and ask the sage if that is the way that he sees it. That I believe is his logic and it works for me.

I still don't understand where you got your interpretation of invisiblity that talks about "actions" instead of attacks. Maybe you are looking at the section where it says "Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell." ?

Is that the snippet of the spell description that you are using to say that it is either talking about a full attack action or a standard action, etc ?

Skaros

 

[Elvinis75]

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

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.

I honestly take it all back the line of the spells says "an attack".
That says single ...hmmm ... I still see how if you say that it is actions that the sage would say that FAA is one action that is when a player attacks. I'm leaning back now. Towards one attack. They could have clarified it better like true strike.

 

[Elvinis75]

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

Actually, it clearly talks about when the invisible person attacks someone, and doesn't mention the word 'action' at all in the section quoted above.
Skaros

"Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell"

By extension then, we should basically allow the rogue to sneak attack for the whole combat after he was briefly invisible in the beginning.
Skaros

What I was saying is that it appeared to state that it is a question of actions. Then by extension no he couldn't. The first action that he takes directly causes the spell to fail. There isn't a full combat attack action, at least the last time I checked. Though see other post. I'm changing my mind based off the other line that says "an attack" thus singular.

 

[LokiDR]

I think that the wording on feint and invisibility are sufficently close that they should be implemented the same way. Could a person feint you and then take a full attack the next round and get sneak attack on every attack? I don't think the wording supports that and I think it is overpowered.

 

[LokiDR]

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"

I don't think that a DM who plays heavy on the humanoid opponest should start throwing a bunch of undead, constructs, oozes, and plants to bring the rogue down to the level of the fighter. Which servers the fun of the game more: changing encounters or reinterpreting the rules for the game you want to run?

 

[Uller]

For those of you equating "attack" with an "attack action":

From the SRD:

Feinting in Combat: ...If your Bluff check result exceeds this special Sense Motive check result, your target is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) for the next melee attack you make against it...

So...a rogue makes a bluff check to feint in combat and succeeds. On his next turn, does he get sneak attacks on EVERY attack he makes as a full attack...

I'm sure if we looked, we could find other places in the SRD where if we interchanged "attack" and "attack action" it would change the meaning of the rules.

True Strike spells it out:

You gain temporary, intuitive insight into the immediate future during your next attack. Your next single attack roll (if it is made before the end of the next round) gains a +20 insight bonus. Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target.
Focus: A small wooden replica of an archery target.

To me, this infers that an attack is not the same as an attack action. It is a single attack roll.