Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Gosh, I wish I'd thought of pointing that out
-Hyp.
Sneak Attk, Multiple Atks, & Invisibility Question
- Thread starter Skaros
- Start date
Gosh, I wish I'd thought of pointing that out
-Hyp.
Pagan priest
First Post
I would have to say that any reasonably careful reading of the spell shows that the rogue is visible after his first attack, regardless of how many attacks he may be capable of making. That is not the issue. The real issue is whether or not the victim of these attacks are capable of reacting fast enough to deny the rogue further sneak attack damage. One possible solution is to determine whether or not the victim is aware of the invisible rogue before the first attack. Did the victim see the rogue go invisible? Did the victim succeed at an opposed listen/move silently check? Basically, are there any mitigating factors?
If there are mitigating factors, then I think the answer is clear... just like feint allows the rogue one attack as a follow-up, so too the invisible rogue gets one sneak attack against an opponent that knows the invisible rogue is out there.
Less clear is the case where the rogue becomes invisible out of sight of the victim and moves silently into place. So far, I have not seen any compelling arguments to deny the rogue the full attack action, with each attack gaining the sneak attack bonus. Neither have I seen compelling argument for the opposition.
If there are mitigating factors, then I think the answer is clear... just like feint allows the rogue one attack as a follow-up, so too the invisible rogue gets one sneak attack against an opponent that knows the invisible rogue is out there.
Less clear is the case where the rogue becomes invisible out of sight of the victim and moves silently into place. So far, I have not seen any compelling arguments to deny the rogue the full attack action, with each attack gaining the sneak attack bonus. Neither have I seen compelling argument for the opposition.
BSF
Explorer
Whew! I always thought this was a slightly tricky ruling that forced you to read the spell. I didn't realize it was open to this much interpretation.
Without looking at all the SRD:
Invisibility is dispelled as soon as you make an attack.
IMC - This is just a single attack, whether it is part of a Full Attack Action, trip, charge, bull rush, spell, whatever.
The rationale? Yes, you are surprised as all get out when a rogue hits you in the kidneys with a sword. He is now visible. Your reaction is to move and get your dexterity into play as much as possible. Now, if the rogue was clever and moved into a flanking position, you are in trouble! You don't want to create an opening that the flanker can exploit. However, the flanking rogue is used to this game and still exploits your divided attention.
So, if you want to put the hurt on your opposition, use invisibility to move into flanking position without being seen and then let loose.
IMHO - Allowing Invisibility to give you sneak attack for a full-attack action reduces the need for Greater Invisibility. After all, the spell is available, it is just higher level. Let the rogue have 1 good attack and then be visible. If they want the full-attack option while invisible, use Greater Invisibility.
Admittedly, I am taking this out of the semantics of the arguement. This is the ruling that makes sense to me. YMMV
Without looking at all the SRD:
Invisibility is dispelled as soon as you make an attack.
IMC - This is just a single attack, whether it is part of a Full Attack Action, trip, charge, bull rush, spell, whatever.
The rationale? Yes, you are surprised as all get out when a rogue hits you in the kidneys with a sword. He is now visible. Your reaction is to move and get your dexterity into play as much as possible. Now, if the rogue was clever and moved into a flanking position, you are in trouble! You don't want to create an opening that the flanker can exploit. However, the flanking rogue is used to this game and still exploits your divided attention.
So, if you want to put the hurt on your opposition, use invisibility to move into flanking position without being seen and then let loose.
IMHO - Allowing Invisibility to give you sneak attack for a full-attack action reduces the need for Greater Invisibility. After all, the spell is available, it is just higher level. Let the rogue have 1 good attack and then be visible. If they want the full-attack option while invisible, use Greater Invisibility.
Admittedly, I am taking this out of the semantics of the arguement. This is the ruling that makes sense to me. YMMV
Similar Threads
