When does Invisibility drop while attacking?

[Gromm]

No offense kobold, but to use your own phrase, where in the book does it ever say anything done in a round is done at the same instant. And I dare you to show me how you swing a sword 3 times at the same instant in time (unless you have some alien understanding of time and space).
Things in the game happen as they are done. If I have haste up and I attack 3 times (Full round) and then drink a potion of heroism my attacks from earlier in the round don't get +2 to the attack rolls I already made. Likewise if my first attack kills an opponent all the rest don't happen at that same instant, I can attack someone else. The same is true for the 2nd and 3rd attacks.
So to backup Caliban, the first attack makes you visible (like the spell says) and every attack after that they still have a dex bonus.

 

[Neverwinter Knight]

Thanks orbitalfreak, good point. That sounds right to me. I'll change my way of playing it.

------------------

KarinsDad, in your arguement, the change from partial action to full round action was a vital part. That occurs from the first attack to the second. From second to third, there is no such change, although there still is, as you said, a segregation. Therefore, you can't argue this way, that's all.
(you used this argument to proove the point that the defender does not loose his DEX for all attacks)

 

[Evilboy]

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?

Flat-footed and being denied your dexterity bonus to AC because of an invisible attacker are two separate penalties.

If the defender is aware of the attacker but does not know his/her location (thanks to invisibility), then they are NOT flat-footed, but do lose their dexterity bonus to AC when being attacked by their invisible opponent.

In this case, if the opponent made more than one attack in said round and did not have improved invisibility, only the first attack would benefit. Since invisibility is ended after the first attack, not the first attack-action or after the first string of attacks, the advantage of being invisible would only apply to the first attack (which is the only attack made while invisible). Despite the fact that the attacker is invisible, they haven't really "surprised" their opponent, and although the defender may not know from where, they know an attack is coming and they are prepared for combat (more or less).

It is possible for an invisible attacker to hit a flat-footed opponent (likely, in fact), but that would fall under the rules of ambush / surprise instead. In such a case that the defender is unaware of the invisible attacker, the attacker would get a partial action (standard ambush rules), which would cancel their invisibility (if an attack) and gain sneak-attack damage, After that, the two combatants would roll initiative. If the attacker won, they could continue to attack and gain sneak attack damage, since their opponent has not yet acted and is still flat-footed.

Invisibility is fairly clear about being voided after one attack, much like true strike and many touch spells (vampiric touch, etc.) Since a good deal of D&D logic is set up similar to Magic: The Gathering, thinking in terms of instants / interrupts can help (if you're familiar with the Magic system). The moment (or non-moment, depending on how you want to define time here) that invisibility ends, the benefits of the spell end. And the spell ends immediately after making any single attack. The opponent could be flat-footed after invisilibility ends, but the spell itself does not cause such a state.

- Evilboy

 

[Grundle]

You can use you multiple attacks against different foes or forego any of your attacks. (if I'm not mistaken)

If invisibility did not drop on the 1st attack, an invisible character could continuously use all but his last attack round after round without lossing his invisibility!

 

[Voadam]

becoming visible

The question here is when does invisibility break. Flat footed, as has been pointed out is a separate independent condition.

The invisibility spell from the srd says

"The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature."

It also says

"If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its
gear."

So when you attack, the spell ends immediately.

As KReynolds points out, this can be interpreted three ways:

1 The spell ends immediately when you launch your attack but before it lands so you are visible when it strikes.

2 The spell ends immediately after the first attack (not full attack action).

3 The spell ends immediately after the character's first attack which can be a full attack action.

Most people will discard #1 as stretching too far for reasonableness.

#2 is the most common interpretation. Attack seems like it should be interpreted as a single blow, not a series of blows or even a whole combat("We attacked the caravan, then later we attacked the city"). The spell does not refer to attack actions but to a direct attack. The word attack, used alone, is used throughout the combat section as meaning one blow.

In a full attack action with multiple attacks by definition there are sequentially more than one attacks. The only situation where this gets at all iffy is when using two weapon fighting/Multiattack. Since there is a first attack followed by others in a full attack action #3 does not seem a proper interpretation of the rules.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: becoming visible

#3 does not seem a proper interpretation of the rules.

Nope. It sure doesn't. And thanks to KarinsDad, I now see the light.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I think kobold is right. This is just one of the silly outcomes of the turn based system as written. You know the same one where I run 30' and hit someone while everyone else is frozen on the battlefield as my action, and I then freeze up and wait 6 seconds to burst into action again, the one where if you read the faq under jumping further than your movement, you find out you have the option of either ending your jump at the limit of your movement, or freezing in mid air until your next action where you get to continue your movement, you know that silly outcome turn based system. As written a full attack is an attack that happens all at once, just like all my other acitons in this turn.

 

[kreynolds]

I think kobold is right. This is just one of the silly outcomes of the turn based system as written. You know the same one where I run 30' and hit someone while everyone else is frozen on the battlefield as my action, and I then freeze up and wait 6 seconds to burst into action again, the one where if you read the faq under jumping further than your movement, you find out you have the option of either ending your jump at the limit of your movement, or freezing in mid air until your next action where you get to continue your movement, you know that silly outcome turn based system. As written a full attack is an attack that happens all at once, just like all my other acitons in this turn.

Wow! I didn't realize how you felt about this. So...why are you playing in a d20 system then? Just pokin'.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Wow! I didn't realize how you felt about this. So...why are you playing in a d20 system then? Just pokin'.

The thing is game mechaincs can work fine for running a game and yet still have some really silly outcomes on a logical level. Which is why I think you shouldn't necessarily try to figure out the logical outcome for determining a rule since logic doesn't necesarrily have a place in the rules of an RPG. And yes I realize you were just pokin.

 

[kreynolds]

The thing is game mechaincs can work fine for running a game and yet still have some really silly outcomes on a logical level. Which is why I think you shouldn't necessarily try to figure out the logical outcome for determining a rule since logic doesn't necesarrily have a place in the rules of an RPG. And yes I realize you were just pokin.

You are partially right about logic. The rules are basically a giant system of mathematics. So logic does have a place in the rules, maybe not in the RPG itself, but definately in regards to the rules. Although, I admit there are times when the rules seem a little "funny".