evileeyore
Mrrrph
Sounds right to me... Of course I refuse to run D&D (really dislike the system), but thats how my DM's generally run invisibility and flat-footedness...
TTFN
TTFN
When does Invisibility drop while attacking?
- Thread starter CuriousBard
- Start date
BlindKobold
First Post
I am both player and DM. I don't find it particularly unbalancing either way.... but what's good for the players is good for the bad guys too.
BlindKobold said:
If you insist.
A Full Round Attack action allows you to do your first attack, check out the result, and then have it be an Attack Action instead. For example, you could then move away.
Because of this, there is a segregation between the attacks, even if the character decides to not take advantage of that segregation. He always gets that choice (PHB 124).
Now, in your particular game, a player may decide to roll all of his dice at the same time. But, that is a choice which does not affect the rules of the game.
Since by default DND favors the defender (I will not go into how or why this occurs), the defender in this case must be allowed to negate the Invisibility bonuses due to the attacker no longer being invisible.
The Invisibility wears off after the first attack (favoring the defender), regardless of whether the attacker decides to continue with a Full Round Attack or continue with an Attack Action.
Not only that, the attack order for a single weapon is set in stone for a Full Round attack.
So, if you knock your opponent unconscious with your first attack, he really is on the ground for your second and future attacks. So, for example, if this happened and you were normally +12/+7/+2 to hit, instead you would be +14 (+2 invis)/+11 (opponent prone)/+6 against him. You would not be +14/+9/+4 due to invisibility only and the opponent not being prone (as per your interpretation).
In fact, Cleave and Greater Cleave INSIST that your opponent is prone between your attacks if he is killed or knocked unconscious on the first one.
Is that enough proof for you?
Last edited:
Thanee
First Post
As KarinsDad already put it, NO two attacks in D&D happen at the same time!
Because if they would, you could not resolve one attack before doing another (grapple, trip, disarm, cleave and there are many, many more examples of how attacks must be successive).
Therefore, the invisibility would drop after the first of any attacks you make.
Bye
Thanee
Because if they would, you could not resolve one attack before doing another (grapple, trip, disarm, cleave and there are many, many more examples of how attacks must be successive).
Therefore, the invisibility would drop after the first of any attacks you make.
Bye
Thanee
BlindKobold
First Post
KarinsDad said:
If you insist.
A Full Round Attack action allows you to do your first attack, check out the result, and then have it be an Attack Action instead. For example, you could then move away.
Because of this, there is a segregation between the attacks, even if the character decides to not take advantage of that segregation. He always gets that choice (PHB 124).
Now, in your particular game, a player may decide to roll all of his dice at the same time. But, that is a choice which does not affect the rules of the game.
Since by default DND favors the defender (I will not go into how or why this occurs), the defender in this case must be allowed to negate the Invisibility bonuses due to the attacker no longer being invisible.
The Invisibility wears off after the first attack (favoring the defender), regardless of whether the attacker decides to continue with a Full Round Attack or continue with an Attack Action.
Not only that, the attack order for a single weapon is set in stone for a Full Round attack.
So, if you knock your opponent unconscious with your first attack, he really is on the ground for your second and future attacks. So, for example, if this happened and you were normally +12/+7/+2 to hit, instead you would be +14 (+2 invis)/+11 (opponent prone)/+6 against him. You would not be +14/+9/+4 due to invisibility only and the opponent not being prone (as per your interpretation).
In fact, Cleave and Greater Cleave INSIST that your opponent is prone between your attacks if he is killed or knocked unconscious on the first one.
Is that enough proof for you?
I guess I missed the proof.
You didn't really seem to grasp what I was saying? I said they go off at the same time... meaning during the same ROUND. They don't PHYSICALLY go off at the same time... but they do mechanically. (Ie. my trading blow example). Nothing you said in anyway implies differently. .
Even two people who go on the same initiative go in order... one doesn't take one attack, then the other make their one attack, then the first one makes his second attack, etc. (Ie. my trading blow example). The attacks are grouped, one person ALWAYS goes before the other. [PH p.120 under Initiative]
My point was... since they all happen during the SAME round... and since the normal rule for suprise and flat-footedness is that the flat-footed person doesn't regain their DEX until THEIR turn... [PH p.120 under suprise] then the invisible person's target WOULD NOT regain their DEX until their turn AGAINST THE INVISIBLE ATTACKER ONLY.
I mean seriously... does it really make anymore sense that you could react faster to someone who pops out of now where, than you could react to someone who jumps out of the bushes?
Last edited:
The person who jumps out of the bushes only gets one attack, then its time for initiative.
If someone is flat footed and when invisibilty drops are two separate issues that you are combining.
You can still be flat footed against a formerly invisible attacker but they no longer get the +2 for invisibility (which is a flanking bonus that doesn't require another person to set up the flanking.) If they are flanking after they become visible then they may take the +2 flanking bonus when then lose the invisibility bonus.
Each of these things are a separate issue from the original question of when someone becomes visible.
If someone is flat footed and when invisibilty drops are two separate issues that you are combining.
You can still be flat footed against a formerly invisible attacker but they no longer get the +2 for invisibility (which is a flanking bonus that doesn't require another person to set up the flanking.) If they are flanking after they become visible then they may take the +2 flanking bonus when then lose the invisibility bonus.
Each of these things are a separate issue from the original question of when someone becomes visible.
Kwalish Kid
Explorer
invis vs flat footed
I think that the problem here is that one may overlook the distinction between invisible attacker and flat-footed opponent. There is one bonus for invisibility, and a penalty for flat-footed. If an invisible attacker surprises an opponent, that opponent may be flat-footed. Flat-footed lasts until the oppoent acts.
I am willing to accept that the invisibility bonus lasts only while the attacker is invisible. The invisible attacker can do things that a surprising attacker cannot, like line up a weapon relativley slowly. Flat-footed does not mean helpless, so the defender can still defend from things that they can see.
Run through the scenarios above, thinking through the times when an attacker is invisible and known to the opponent, and through the times when the opponent is unaware.
I think that the problem here is that one may overlook the distinction between invisible attacker and flat-footed opponent. There is one bonus for invisibility, and a penalty for flat-footed. If an invisible attacker surprises an opponent, that opponent may be flat-footed. Flat-footed lasts until the oppoent acts.
I am willing to accept that the invisibility bonus lasts only while the attacker is invisible. The invisible attacker can do things that a surprising attacker cannot, like line up a weapon relativley slowly. Flat-footed does not mean helpless, so the defender can still defend from things that they can see.
Run through the scenarios above, thinking through the times when an attacker is invisible and known to the opponent, and through the times when the opponent is unaware.
kreynolds
First Post
Re: invis vs flat footed
Not sure if I'm reading you correctly but I wanted to be sure of something. You know that an invisible attacker always catches his opponents flat-footed, right? There are obvious exceptions, such as high level rogues, creatures with blindsight or tremorsense, etc.
Kwalish Kid said:
Not sure if I'm reading you correctly but I wanted to be sure of something. You know that an invisible attacker always catches his opponents flat-footed, right? There are obvious exceptions, such as high level rogues, creatures with blindsight or tremorsense, etc.
Surprise rounds and stuff
Seems like some people are confusing and mixing up different rules. As usual, run it however you feel like in your own campaign, especially since some of the particulars of the rules here can be a bit ambiguous.
In my campaign, I will usually try to have an invisible opponent "surprise" the visible one they are attacking. What this means is there is a surprise round, ie the attacker gets 1 "free" partial action with all the invisibility bonuses. Then they both roll initiative for the next round. In some circumstances, if the players make a good case for it, I may be inclined to grant a circumstance bonuse to the formerly invisible character's initiative roll, but not too often.
It gets more complicated in a battle with multiple opponents and one invisible character. The way I handled it when the invisible player had an opportunity for multiple attacks while invisible was the first attack was with all the bonuses, and the rest were normal. The rational was the opponent was already in combat and being in heightened state of readiness was able to react better to the subsequent attacks. The invisible players received the extra attacks since the visible opponent was engaged with other adversaries at the time.
This seemed both balanced and in line with the rules.
Seems like some people are confusing and mixing up different rules. As usual, run it however you feel like in your own campaign, especially since some of the particulars of the rules here can be a bit ambiguous.
In my campaign, I will usually try to have an invisible opponent "surprise" the visible one they are attacking. What this means is there is a surprise round, ie the attacker gets 1 "free" partial action with all the invisibility bonuses. Then they both roll initiative for the next round. In some circumstances, if the players make a good case for it, I may be inclined to grant a circumstance bonuse to the formerly invisible character's initiative roll, but not too often.
It gets more complicated in a battle with multiple opponents and one invisible character. The way I handled it when the invisible player had an opportunity for multiple attacks while invisible was the first attack was with all the bonuses, and the rest were normal. The rational was the opponent was already in combat and being in heightened state of readiness was able to react better to the subsequent attacks. The invisible players received the extra attacks since the visible opponent was engaged with other adversaries at the time.
This seemed both balanced and in line with the rules.
