Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BSF" data-source="post: 1077145" data-attributes="member: 13098">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</blockquote>

Verification