When does Invisibility drop while attacking?

[Caliban]

Re: 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.

This is incorrect. Being flat-footed is not the samething as losing your dex bonus when being attack by an invisible opponent.

Being flat-footed is the state that only occurs during the first round of combat. When flat-footed you can't make AoO's and you lose your Dex bonus to AC. Being flat-footed is specified as lasting until your first initiative count.

A rogue/barbarian can still be flat-footed, even though they retain their dex bonus to AC. For them, it just means that they can't make AoO's until their turn comes up.

When faced with an invisible attacker you lose your Dex bonus to AC (but only against that attacker), and the attacker get's a +2 on their attack. However, you can still make AoO's. It's a different condition than being flat-footed, although it shares the quality of causing you to lose your Dex bonus to AC. Nowhere does it specify that being attacked by an invisible attack causes you to lose your Dex past that first attack (unlessy ou are dealing with improved invisibility). Nowhere.

The only time an invisible attacker can catch their opponent flat-footed is during the first round of combat (and/or the suprise round).

 

[KarinsDad]

I guess I missed the proof.

It’s simple. Since the first attack of a character’s turn can affect his later actions in the round, it is imperative that anything such as Invisibility ending or not, or the results of damage, or the results of a grapple, or a wide variety of things be resolved BEFORE the next attack in a full round attack.

You do not declare a Full Round Attack, kill your opponent with the first attack, and then hack at him on the ground with 3 more attacks, just because the attacks all occur within the same turn. No, the results of the first attack can change the outcome of later attacks.


Say for example that your opponent has Readied a Disarm if you attack him and you are Hasted.

You use your partial action to move up to him. You then attack with your normal action, he disarms. Not only do you not get your additional attacks in the round, you do not even get your first attack. The result of the attack (triggering the ready action) changed the outcome of the later attacks. But this time, it was not in the control of the attacking character.


Or, say that your high level Invisible Wizard wants to attack the Fighter with his poisoned dagger. He wants to only do a Full Round Attack if he actually hits the first time. If he does not hit, he wants to move 20 feet, fall off the cliff, and use his Feather Fall spell to get away from the Fighter (knowing the Fighter will kill him).

In this case, if the Wizard does not hit, he still attacked. Hence, since the Invisibility spell states that the spell ends if the Wizard attacks any creature, the spell cannot still be up when the Wizard moves away. Otherwise, the Fighter would not get a chance to see where the Wizard went (over the cliff).

If it is gone before the movement in this case, it would also be gone before the Wizard attacked a second time in a Full Round Attack.

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. .

Actually, you meant during the same TURN, not the same ROUND.

Basically, I ignored what you said because it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Just because nobody else normally acts within your turn does not mean that there are not circumstances where they cannot act within your turn. For example, an Attack of Opportunity. Also, it does not mean that they cannot perceive what you do (go from invisible to visible) during your turn.

A turn has no sanctity. It does not necessarily prevent others from acting or observing during your turn.

Nor does it prevent spell effects from going off within the turn.

If you have a Contingency spell up to Teleport you away if you get within 5 feet of an Elemental and you walk up to an Elemental, you still teleport away before you can attack since the Teleport triggers DURING your turn.

Same with Invisibility. It ends DURING your turn and before you get extra attacks from a Full Round Attack action.

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?

The realism is also irrelevant.

The game is based on rules, not necessarily combat realism.

In real life, humans can run at many different speeds. In the game, they all move at Speed 30 unless they have a special ability or magic to enhance them.

So, the realism of it is irrelevant. The rules are what are relevant in this discussion.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: invis vs flat footed

This is incorrect. Being flat-footed is not the samething as losing your dex bonus when being attack by an invisible opponent.

Symantics. I used the wrong term. My bad.

Being flat-footed is the state that only occurs during the first round of combat. When flat-footed you can't make AoO's and you lose your Dex bonus to AC. Being flat-footed is specified as lasting until your first initiative count.

A rogue/barbarian can still be flat-footed, even though they retain their dex bonus to AC. For them, it just means that they can't make AoO's until their turn comes up.

When faced with an invisible attacker you lose your Dex bonus to AC (but only against that attacker), and the attacker get's a +2 on their attack. However, you can still make AoO's. It's a different condition than being flat-footed, although it shares the quality of causing you to lose your Dex bonus to AC.

All of this I know and get. Once again, bad terminology on my part.

Nowhere does it specify that being attacked by an invisible attack causes you to lose your Dex past that first attack (unlessy ou are dealing with improved invisibility). Nowhere.

But nowhere does it say otherwise. Nowhere. There is no information in the books that solidly points to either case. I'm inclined to agree that the invisibility will function during the first attack, but will fail immediately after. It makes sense because the spell would allow you one really good hit on an unaware target, which certainly isn't a bad thing. But it would also sort of makes sense that the spell wouldn't fail until the end of your action, which if you take a full attack action, that means at the end of ALL your attacks. And even then, it also sort of makes sense that the spell would simply fail before you even get your attack off. Official confirmation on this would make me feel better, so that's what I'm waiting for.

And as far as improved invisibility is concerned, well, that one's obvious, and fun.

 

[KarinsDad]

Re: Re: Re: Re: invis vs flat footed

But nowhere does it say otherwise. Nowhere. There is no information in the books that solidly points to either case.

Err?

Actually it does indirectly. Invisibility states that it ends when you attack. The rules also state that you lose your Dex when your opponent is invisible. If your opponent is not invisible, you do not lose your Dex bonus. The rules also state that events occur during a character's turn such as AoOs, characters going prone after the first attack of a Full Round Attack, the results of a first attack of a turn allowing the character to decide whether to do a Full Round Attack or an Attack Action with a move or MEA, etc.

So, it does not explicitly state in a sentence that this occurs, but if you take the rules in totality, it does occur.

You cannot just read one sentence in the book and make a determination.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: invis vs flat footed

You cannot just read one sentence in the book and make a determination.

I didn't just read one sentence in the book and make a determination. Check this out. It's from my previous post.

I'm inclined to agree that the invisibility will function during the first attack, but will fail immediately after. It makes sense because the spell would allow you one really good hit on an unaware target, which certainly isn't a bad thing.

Ya see that? Are you paying attention? If you had bothered to read my previous posts you would have realized that I have been looking at this issue objectively the entire time. When someone would make a good point, I gave it serious thought. When someone else made another good point, I gave it even more thought. I said I'm inclined to agree. Don't get me wrong though, I mean that I'm inclined to agree with the group on this, even though this is how I handle it in my games already. The reason I would like official confirmation on this is because I have been handling it this way and I just want to make sure I've been doing it right. Although, it feels right, so what the hey.

One more thing...

Invisibility states that it ends when you attack. The rules also state that you lose your Dex when your opponent is invisible. If your opponent is not invisible, you do not lose your Dex bonus. The rules also state that events occur during a character's turn such as AoOs, characters going prone after the first attack of a Full Round Attack, the results of a first attack of a turn allowing the character to decide whether to do a Full Round Attack or an Attack Action with a move or MEA, etc.

Never did I dispute this, as I already stated here and previously that I agree. Hope this clears things up. Oh, and don't put words in my mouth...or anything else for that matter! Ewww!

Edited for more appropriate smiley.

 

[KarinsDad]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: invis vs flat footed

Ya see that? Are you paying attention? If you had bothered to read my previous posts you would have realized that I have been looking at this issue objectively the entire time. When someone would make a good point, I gave it serious thought. When someone else made another good point, I gave it even more thought. I said I'm inclined to agree. Don't get me wrong though, I mean that I'm inclined to agree with the group on this, even though this is how I handle it in my games already. The reason I would like official confirmation on this is because I have been handling it this way and I just want to make sure I've been doing it right. Although, it feels right, so what the hey.

I did read all of what you wrote. You waffled. You said it could be either way and I quote:

There is no information in the books that solidly points to either case. I'm inclined to agree that the invisibility will function during the first attack, but will fail immediately after. It makes sense because the spell would allow you one really good hit on an unaware target, which certainly isn't a bad thing. But it would also sort of makes sense that the spell wouldn't fail until the end of your action, which if you take a full attack action, that means at the end of ALL your attacks.

I disagree. It can only be one way due to the other rules which force the conditions of the combat to change between attacks within the full round attack option such as a character going prone, or your first attack trip affecting the AC of your opponent for subsequent attacks.

The character using the Full Round Attack option does NOT get to decide when and how combat conditions change, the results of his attack determine that.

His first attack trip attack knocks his opponent down immediately so that his subsequent full round attacks are at +4.

His first attack while invisible attack negates his invisibility so that his subsequent full round attacks are not at +2 and his opponent no longer loses his dexterity.

Ditto for when a Monk successfully does a Stunning fist on the first attack of a full round attack. His opponent is stunned for his subsequent full round attacks.

Ditto for when a Sorcerer holding a Vampiric Touch successfully hits with it, he gains his temporary hit points before his potential next attack within a Full Round Attack, but if he tries to punch with a second attack, the second attack is no longer considered “armed” unless he has Improved Unarmed Strike. If he doesn’t, it might be good that he has those extra temporary hits because his opponent would get an AoO.

If your first attack of a full round attack sequence kills the Summoned creature and it immediately vanishes, how do you even get to attempt two more attacks at it?


The point is that it cannot go either way since there are combat condition rules that take precedence as soon as combat results occur, even within the full round attack action.

My point in my last message is that there is no one sentence that says this, you have to look at the overall rules to determine this.


Btw, you have been handling it correctly as per the overall rules.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: invis vs flat footed

Btw, you have been handling it correctly as per the overall rules.

Well...alright then. I'm finally on the same page. Eloquently put, by the way. Color me impressed.

 

[Neverwinter Knight]

The way I've played it (both as PC and DM) is that the character looses his Dex bonus to an invisible opponent (but only to him) for the entire round. Keep in mind, that a round is only 6 seconds. I think the character has to adjust to the attack and needs this round to do so - this is the way I account for the Dex loss.

About the +2 flanking bonus - that's been said nicely. Apply it only to the first attack.


@KarinsDad:

A small fault in your argument is this: There is no segregation between the second and the third attack (assuming the character has at least three attacks for a full attack action), but the character can still choose not to make the third. This was your argument for the "segregation" between the first and second attack.

 

[KarinsDad]

@KarinsDad:

A small fault in your argument is this: There is no segregation between the second and the third attack (assuming the character has at least three attacks for a full attack action), but the character can still choose not to make the third. This was your argument for the "segregation" between the first and second attack.

I do not quite understand what you are trying to say.

There is a segregation between the second and third attack.

If you trip someone on the second attack, you can still decide to change actions such as take a 5’ step away or deciding to not attack. You cannot change from a Full Round Attack to an Attack action like between the first and second attacks due to the fact that you have already Full Round Attacked (i.e. taken more than one attack).

In this case, you are still +4 to hit a prone opponent during your third attack if you tripped him on your second.

Every single attack done HAS to be resolved before the next attack begins. Always. You have to determine if the attacking character gets a Cleave after attacking. You have to determine if the opponent falls, even between the second and third attack, so that the attacking character can move 5’ and attack someone else with the third attack. Etc., etc., etc.

So, I do not understand. Where is the fault?


As for why you do not lose your Dex bonus for the entire round, it is because the book does not state that.

You really have to assume that the results of an attack are instantaneous. If you knock someone unconscious with the first attack of a full round attack, you cannot assume that he is still standing there for the other two attacks (if you have three).

Ditto for the effects of Invisibility. There are cases where the PHB explicitly states that some combat effect occurs for the entire round or until the next action. For example, fighting defensively or power attack. However, if the book does not explicitly state that even though the attack is over, you still get the AC and/or to hit bonuses/penalties for it, then you do not.

It's a matter of staying consistent with the default.

 

[orbitalfreak]

PHB, Glossary, p279.

invisible: Visually undetectable. Invisible creatures gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls and negate Dexterity bonuses to their opponts' AC.

PHB, Combat, p132, Table 8-8: Attack Roll Modifiers:

Attacker Invisible: Melee+2*; Ranged +2/
*The defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC.

Nowhere in these examples does it mention being flat-footed. Also, nowhere does it say that the opponent remains vulnerable to an invisible attacker for an entire turn.

It does say that Invisible attackers gain special bonuses to attack rolls. Visible attackers gain no special bonuses to attack rolls. After an attack, the subject of the invisibility spell is no longer invisible; therefore, he is Visible. Being visible, he gains no special bonuses to his attack roll. Only attacks made when invisible gain these special modifiers; when invisibility ends, these modifiers are no longer able to be applied.

Conclusion: Use Improved Invisibility