Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

How many sneak attacks for an invisible rogue


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

In this recent thread: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0l7?At-what-point-does-a-Coup-de-Grace-break I agree with most of the others who are supporting the idea that invisibility drops after the completion of the attack. I would go further and say it as after the attack action.

This would in turn imply that a rogue sneak attacking an opponent while invisible using multiple attacks via the full round attack action would indeed get sneak damage on each individual swing. Which I also happen to believe is correct.

However, several posts I have seen elsewhere indicate that a rogue only gets the first "swing" as a sneak attack and the rest as normal attacks. Can anyone point me to a PF FAQ or Dev comment stating something specific one way or another?

Thanks,
Treesmasha Toothpickmaker

Sczarni

I've always "houseruled" that the rogue gets his full attack action coming from invisibility because the target hasn't had time to react and I've been throwing my players as many bones as I can give them. They're taking a pretty hefty beating in our campaign at the moment.

That being said, there are arguments I could make for both sides and I really don't know the official ruling nor have I been able to find anything other than conjecture on the issue.


One attack before stealth breaks. The only "official" comment I could find on the subject was James Jacobs here, here, and here. There is no FAQ on it, as I don't think it is a particularly controversial point. You could look back at old 3.5 Sage articles, though.


Treesmasha Toothpickmaker wrote:

In this recent thread: (linked) I agree with most of the others who are supporting the idea that invisibility drops after the completion of the attack. I would go further and say it as after the attack action.

This would in turn imply that a rogue sneak attacking an opponent while invisible using multiple attacks via the full round attack action would indeed get sneak damage on each individual swing.

Full-Attack uses a full round action, the attack action is a standard action. I'll assume your argument is that invisibility lasts for the entire action if it's active at the beginning of that action.

Treesmasha Toothpickmaker wrote:
However, several posts I have seen elsewhere indicate that a rogue only gets the first "swing" as a sneak attack and the rest as normal attacks.

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

As soon as you make your first attack, the spell ends. Since the spell has ended, you're no longer invisible. Since you're not invisible, you no longer ignore your opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC.

You're invisible. You stab a guy. He sees you. You try to stab him again, but since he can see you, he can try to move out of the way (dex to AC) which means no sneak attack unless you otherwise qualify for it (flanking, etc.).

There's nothing in the rules to suggest you remain invisible for the duration of the action. If you use spring attack, and run up to a guy, and stab him, then run away, you're not still invisible as you're running away, because you've attacked a creature, so he can see you run away. Spring Attack is a full-round action, just like Full-attack.

Treesmasha Toothpickmaker wrote:
Can anyone point me to a PF FAQ or Dev comment stating something specific one way or another?
Greater invisibility is the way to go for multiple sneak attacks.
Robert Billingham wrote:
Thanks. The Assassin has hide in Plain Sight, but not greater invisibility. Plus the enemy had true seeing. However the PC is a two-weapon fighter, so it seems like he would get two sneak attacks right? Before the rest of his attacks kick in with normal damage.
Nope; even two-weapon fighting doesn't let you sneak in an extra sneak attack. Essentially, once you make your first attack, the foe knows you're there and is no longer flat-footed after that. It takes things like greater invisibility that prevent a foe from noticing you even after you attack to get in a full round of sneak attacks.

Note: James said flat-footed, but he means denied dex. Common mistake.


Quote:
In this recent thread: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0l7?At-what-point-does-a-Coup-de-Grace-break I agree with most of the others who are supporting the idea that invisibility drops after the completion of the attack. I would go further and say it as after the attack action.

No, an attack and an attack action are different things. An attack action is a specific action in the game rules. For instance, Vital Strike is applied to an attack action. A Full Attack is a different action that does different things.

Invisibility breaks in the coup de grace thread because, like the attack action and the full attack, it makes use of an attack. Invisibility is tied to attacks. . . not attack actions or full attack actions. Normally an attack involves an attack roll, but not in the case of coup de grace; it automatically hits with no attack roll. But it's still an attack.

A full attack action can yield multiple attacks. Since invisibility breaks on any attack you make, it ends when the first attack is made. The action that caused the attack is irrelevant. For instance, an attack of opportunity causes an attack. This attack would also break invisibility.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Deducting from JJs ruling, I'd say it all depends on whether the defender is aware that an invisible attacker is out there.
If the invisible rogue is able to sneak up on his unaware victim, he should get his full round attack of sneak attacks, as his opponent is flat footed. Flat footed opponents are denied their dex bonus and susceptible to sneak attacks.
If, on the other hand, the opponent knows that there is an invisible attacker around, only the first attack would be a sneak attack, followed by an "ouch!" and then an "Ah, there you are!" as the rogue turns visible.

At least this is how i'd rule it.

Sczarni

I always saw it as invisibility dropping as you make the stabbing motion. So you're visible by the time your weapon hits the target, but that's too late for him to react.

If you want multiple sneak attacks, you need something like flanking or a means of gaining concealment.


Cpt. Caboodle wrote:

Deducting from JJs ruling, I'd say it all depends on whether the defender is aware that an invisible attacker is out there.

If the invisible rogue is able to sneak up on his unaware victim, he should get his full round attack of sneak attacks, as his opponent is flat footed.

If the opponent is flat-footed, then sneaking doesn't matter.

Invisibility doesn't make someone flat-footed, it lets you ignore their Dex bonus to AC.

Once he stabs you, he's visible, you see him, and he can no longer ignore your Dex to AC. It doesn't matter if you knew he was there before he attacked.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

I think what he is saying is if you are flatfooted because you were taken by surprise by an invisible character, then X.

If you are aware that invisible creatures are about, you aren't flatfooted, so when they appear, they deny dex on the first attack, but you weren't flatfooted.


Grick wrote:

If the opponent is flat-footed, then sneaking doesn't matter.

Invisibility doesn't make someone flat-footed, it lets you ignore their Dex bonus to AC.

Yes, but if the invisible rogue uses his invisibility to attack an unaware opponent, I would consider him flat-footed.

Sczarni

Cpt. Caboodle wrote:

Deducting from JJs ruling, I'd say it all depends on whether the defender is aware that an invisible attacker is out there.

If the invisible rogue is able to sneak up on his unaware victim, he should get his full round attack of sneak attacks, as his opponent is flat footed. Flat footed opponents are denied their dex bonus and susceptible to sneak attacks.
If, on the other hand, the opponent knows that there is an invisible attacker around, only the first attack would be a sneak attack, followed by an "ouch!" and then an "Ah, there you are!" as the rogue turns visible.

At least this is how i'd rule it.

I like this, and I think that's how I'm going to run it at my table. It has the benefit of encouraging rogues to use invisibility to ambush unsuspecting targets, rather than just using it tactically. It increases the advantage for super-sneaky rogues.


Cpt. Caboodle wrote:
Yes, but if the invisible rogue uses his invisibility to attack an unaware opponent, I would consider him flat-footed.

If he's actually flat-footed, meaning he hasn't gotten to his first regular turn in the initiative order, then invisible/stealth/etc doesn't matter. He's flat-footed, so sneak attacks work.

If he's taken his first turn in init, and he's in combat, he's not flat-footed, and it doesn't matter how many invisible rogues are hanging around, he's still not flat-footed.

Those invisible rogues can ignore his Dex to AC (since that's what the invisible condition says) but that only lasts as long as the invisible condition is active. And that condition drops as soon as they attack.

Yes, in the first round of combat, you can full-attack a flat-footed foe and every attack can be a sneak attack. But that's not due to invisibility, it's due to beating him on init.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cpt. Caboodle wrote:
Grick wrote:

If the opponent is flat-footed, then sneaking doesn't matter.

Invisibility doesn't make someone flat-footed, it lets you ignore their Dex bonus to AC.

Yes, but if the invisible rogue uses his invisibility to attack an unaware opponent, I would consider him flat-footed.

You as the GM can do that, but that is not how the rules work. Flat-footed is a specific condition, just like being stunned or dazed is.

Dedicated Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

1 attack, then invisibility is broken and the enemy can react to further attacks.

Likewise of course, the PC can react to further attacks from those pesky rogue's ambush.

Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Your first attack breaks the invisibility. It doesn't matter if you're using TWF, natural attacks, or iterative attacks: when that first attack happens, invisibility ends, and all your other attacks are made without the benefit of invisibility.


concerro wrote:
You as the GM can do that, but that is not how the rules work. Flat-footed is a specific condition, just like being stunned or dazed is.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Your first attack breaks the invisibility. It doesn't matter if you're using TWF, natural attacks, or iterative attacks: when that first attack happens, invisibility ends, and all your other attacks are made without the benefit of invisibility.

Yes, and if you used invisibility to sneak up on your opponent to catch him flatfooted, say, on a featureless plain, you'd get the benefit of a full-round-sneak-attack. I don't see how this is against the RAW.

Star Voter 2013

Cpt. Caboodle wrote:
concerro wrote:
You as the GM can do that, but that is not how the rules work. Flat-footed is a specific condition, just like being stunned or dazed is.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Your first attack breaks the invisibility. It doesn't matter if you're using TWF, natural attacks, or iterative attacks: when that first attack happens, invisibility ends, and all your other attacks are made without the benefit of invisibility.
Yes, and if you used invisibility to sneak up on your opponent to catch him flatfooted, say, on a featureless plain, you'd get the benefit of a full-round-sneak-attack. I don't see how this is against the RAW.

Ah, that's much clearer. I think you came across with your last post as talking about sneaking up in the middle of an ongoing battle.

I think you're entirely correct there. If they are unaware in the surprise round, look out!

Just leave the dwarven battle-cleric in full plate at home.


Ah, no, that's what I meant when I said:

I wrote:
If, on the other hand, the opponent knows that there is an invisible attacker around, only the first attack would be a sneak attack, followed by an "ouch!" and then an "Ah, there you are!" as the rogue turns visible.


Invisiblity on all attacks seems like a house rule that will unbalance your game.

Even if you sneak up on a baddy they are still only flat footed against your first attack, even if they haven't acted. Thought now that I write that I am not to sure that this thought doesn't have roots in a house rule or 3.5 as well.

HOw you would be able to move and then full round is beyond me, unless its over two turns. In any event though thats a pretty specific set of events that can go any direction as dictated by the dice.

If its improved invisibily then I could understand it. That never ends until dispeled or duration, so all your rogue sneakyness would apply.

Just convince your rogues to flank. No matter how many attacks they have they will get sneak attack damage. Makes you think twice about playing Tengu rogues at first level, who get a bite attack.

Star Voter 2013

Ross Hearne aka poisonbladed wrote:


Even if you sneak up on a baddy they are still only flat footed against your first attack, even if they haven't acted.

Nope. Flat-footed till their first action in combat.


Ross Hearne aka poisonbladed wrote:

Invisiblity on all attacks seems like a house rule that will unbalance your game.

Even if you sneak up on a baddy they are still only flat footed against your first attack, even if they haven't acted.

I didn't say invisibility on all attacks, I said flat-footed on all attacks, caused by the invisibility (which fades after the first attack). If you are flatfooted, you are flatfooted until it's your turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cpt. Caboodle wrote:
Yes, and if you used invisibility to sneak up on your opponent to catch him flatfooted, say, on a featureless plain, you'd get the benefit of a full-round-sneak-attack. I don't see how this is against the RAW.

In this case, your opponent is surprised. You can't full-attack during the surprise round.

Star Voter 2013

Lol this is also true :)


Djelai wrote:

In this case, your opponent is surprised. You can't full-attack during the surprise round.

Well... If two parties meet, and one party may act a split-second before the other, then I agree that it is only a single attack for the surprising party.

But, if the invisible rogue has all the time in the world, plucks some daffodils, moves towards his opponent, stands beside him, pulls out his daggers, thinks a moment about where it's best to stick them in, and then commences his attack, I'd say that qualifies for a full attack.

Marathon Voter 2013

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ok, but that's just not how surprise rounds work in the rules :) There are some archetypes that can do that, I think, but not a general rogue.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:

Ok, but that's just not how surprise rounds work in the rules :) There are some archetypes that can do that, I think, but not a general rogue.

Hmm, pretty sure there's a feat or rogue talent that allows a full attack action on a surprise round. If not, then I'd be surprised.

[Waits for sneak attack joke]]

Marathon Voter 2013

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I thought the Bandit could do that, but turns out even they can't.


Cheapy wrote:
Ok, but that's just not how surprise rounds work in the rules :) There are some archetypes that can do that, I think, but not a general rogue.

Hmmm... so if someone attacks someone else who is totally unaware of the attack, and the attacker has all the time he needs to prepare his attack, then it would still count as a surprise round attack and qualify for a standard action only? That seems pretty stupid to me and is most certainly not RAI.


Cpt. Caboodle wrote:
Hmmm... so if someone attacks someone else who is totally unaware of the attack, and the attacker has all the time he needs to prepare his attack, then it would still count as a surprise attack and qualify for a standard action only?

What the experienced assassin does is use the surprise round to do something that doesn't expose him. Draw a weapon, or ready an action with no trigger. Then, on the first real round, if you beat the target on init, you can full-round them. If you didn't beat them on init, and they act before you, break off combat and leave, and try again a few minutes later with a new initiative roll.

Marathon Voter 2013

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Surprise wrote:
The Surprise Round: If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round. If no one or everyone is surprised, no surprise round occurs.

Honestly, I see nothing in there at all that hints that you can get a full attack action. Generally if the RAI is different from the RAW, there's at least some hint towards RAI. They specifically call out the actions you can take, and full-round actions aren't there.

I mean, there are even monsters who get an ability that specifically lets them do full-round actions in the surprise round.

I suppose it's still possible, but I just don't see it at all.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cpt. Caboodle wrote:
Yes, and if you used invisibility to sneak up on your opponent to catch him flatfooted, say, on a featureless plain, you'd get the benefit of a full-round-sneak-attack. I don't see how this is against the RAW.

You are confusing the issue.

We are talking about whether you get more than one sneak attack because of the invis. The answer is "no."

You are saying, "unless it's the first round of combat and the target hasn't acted yet," but that doesn't have anything to do with invisibility, that's the normal flat-footed rules.

Likewise, you could have said, "unless the target is blind or helpless, in which case all of your attacks still get sneak attack damage," which likewise has nothing to do with invisibility.

After your invisibility breaks, normal conditions of the attack apply. Sometimes that means you'll be able to continue getting sneak attacks (flat-footed, blind, helpless), sometimes it doesn't.

Cheapy wrote:
In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round.

And BTW, the quoted text above is how you know you can't take a full attack in the surprise round (barring some class ability or whatever that allows you to do so).


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
And BTW, the quoted text above is how you know you can't take a full attack in the surprise round (barring some class ability or whatever that allows you to do so).

As long as you're here, should someone who is unaware of combat still be considered flat-footed, if he had a chance to act, but didn't do anything of consequence (because he doesn't know combat is happening)?

Scenario:
Guard on watch. Rogue wants to kill him.
Rogue casts invisibility and sneaks up to guard. Guard fails all perception checks, and is unaware of rogue.

Rogue wants to attack, combat begins, initiative is rolled. (Rogue 5, Guard 8)

Surprise Round
Init 5: Rogue draws a dagger

Round 1:
Init 8: Guard keeps guarding
Init 5: Rogue full-attacks guard

The guard had a chance to act and basically took his first regular turn in the initiative order. So he's not flat-footed and rogue only gets one sneak attack.

Is that how it's supposed to be?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

"So he's not flat-footed and rogue only gets one sneak attack."

Yes.

Note that drawing the dagger don't start a fight actually if the act isn't detected.

And: "1. When combat begins, all combatants roll initiative."
no: before combat all participant roll initiative and the rogue get to look if he win initiative or not.
The rouge need to commit to a fight to roll initiative. Playing thought games about "I will attack" will not start a combat.


Grick wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
And BTW, the quoted text above is how you know you can't take a full attack in the surprise round (barring some class ability or whatever that allows you to do so).

As long as you're here, should someone who is unaware of combat still be considered flat-footed, if he had a chance to act, but didn't do anything of consequence (because he doesn't know combat is happening)?

Scenario:
Guard on watch. Rogue wants to kill him.
Rogue casts invisibility and sneaks up to guard. Guard fails all perception checks, and is unaware of rogue.

Rogue wants to attack, combat begins, initiative is rolled. (Rogue 5, Guard 8)

Surprise Round
Init 5: Rogue draws a dagger

Round 1:
Init 8: Guard keeps guarding
Init 5: Rogue full-attacks guard

The guard had a chance to act and basically took his first regular turn in the initiative order. So he's not flat-footed and rogue only gets one sneak attack.

Is that how it's supposed to be?

I think the problem here is that you shouldn't start the surprise round until the rogue does his first attack. The drawing of the dagger could easily happen outside of initiative.

Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Because the rogue knows when combat is starting and the guard doesn't, it's the rogue's attack that determine when combat starts. It shouldn't matter that the rogue drew a dagger, or poisoned the drawn dagger, cast invisibility, or wrote a sonnet, or whatever... the guard doesn't know he's being threatened, the rogue hasn't taken any hostile actions, so combat hasn't started yet. So the actual sequence is like this:

Scenario:
Guard on watch. Rogue wants to kill him.

Not yet in combat
Rogue casts invisibility, draws dagger, and sneaks up to guard. Guard fails all Perception checks, and is unaware of rogue.

Just before combat
Rogue decides to attack, combat begins, initiative is rolled. (Rogue 5, Guard 8)

Surprise Round
Init 8: Guard surprised, takes no actions.
Init 5: Rogue attacks guard, gets sneak attack, invisibility breaks.
End of round.

Round 1
Init 8: Guard's turn. Guard is no longer flat-footed. Guard full-attacks rogue.
Init 5: Rogue full-attacks guard.

Basically, combat doesn't start until (A) one creature initiates an attack against another creature, or (B) a creature is anticipating an attack from another creature. You could sit in the "not yet in combat" zone for hours before you hit the moment of "just before combat."

Marathon Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well don't leave us hanging here. Who was left alive? The rogue or the guard?


Poor Rogue, he probably rolled a 1 on his init ;)


I'm pretty sure that this question is simply a matter of "Is the rogue invisible as per the invisibility spell or the greater invisibility spell?" If it's invisibility you get one attack before you're visible again at which point you are not catching your opponent flat footed. Greater invisibility keeps you invisible and therefore keeps your opponent flat footed.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:


Surprise Round
Init 8: Guard surprised, takes no actions.
Init 5: Rogue attacks guard, gets sneak attack, invisibility breaks.
End of round: Nobody is flat-footed anymore.

Unless I missed a FAQ, this is wrong here. You are Flatfooted until you take your action. If the rogue goes first on the first round, the guard is still flatfooted.

Designer

Right, silly mistake, I'll edit my post to reflect that. :)


the scenario i am curious about, is in the above example, what happens on the surprise round when the rogue, realizing he did not win initiative, decides to not attack and sneaks away while still invisible, in order to come back later and try to initiate combat with a better initiative result.

in that surprise round, is the fact that you decided to attack force you to make an attack as your surprise round action? is there anything stopping you from using your 1 action to just move away and make a stealth check?


If only one person can act in the surprise round, there's no need to roll initiative until the surprise round is over.


Are wrote:

If only one person can act in the surprise round, there's no need to roll initiative until the surprise round is over.

RAW initiative is rolled at the beginning of the surprise round for everyone involved.


Yes, which leads to the exact situation you mentioned; the rogue suddenly knowing how quickly its opponent is going to react to his surprise attack, before having performed it.

Besides, even if you do roll before the surprise round, there's no need to reveal those rolls until the surprise round is over. Especially if you suspect your players will act upon knowledge they have no in-game method of knowing.


Cpt. Caboodle wrote:
concerro wrote:
You as the GM can do that, but that is not how the rules work. Flat-footed is a specific condition, just like being stunned or dazed is.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Your first attack breaks the invisibility. It doesn't matter if you're using TWF, natural attacks, or iterative attacks: when that first attack happens, invisibility ends, and all your other attacks are made without the benefit of invisibility.
Yes, and if you used invisibility to sneak up on your opponent to catch him flatfooted, say, on a featureless plain, you'd get the benefit of a full-round-sneak-attack. I don't see how this is against the RAW.

I was not talking about flat-footed. I was speaking of invis only, which does not make people flat-footed.


Cpt. Caboodle wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Ok, but that's just not how surprise rounds work in the rules :) There are some archetypes that can do that, I think, but not a general rogue.
Hmmm... so if someone attacks someone else who is totally unaware of the attack, and the attacker has all the time he needs to prepare his attack, then it would still count as a surprise round attack and qualify for a standard action only? That seems pretty stupid to me and is most certainly not RAI.

Being invisible makes them lose dex to AC, which is often confused with making them flat-footed.

Losing dex to AC is symptom of being flat-footed. It can also come from being attacked by an invisible attacker, but just because you lose dex to AC that does not make you flat-footed.

edit:I see SKR stepped in. :)


Cpt. Caboodle wrote:
If you are flatfooted, you are flatfooted until it's your turn.

I think you don't quite grasp what flatfooted is ... you can't be flatfooted after you take your first turn in combat (ignoring when the developers forget this too and print an ability which makes you flatfooted even though they should have said it denies you your DEX to AC, which happens quite a lot but changes little). See it as not having any adrenaline in your system or something ...

Marathon Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Concerro failed his perception check to see SKR and was caught flat-footed by the response.


Pinky's Brain wrote:
I think you don't quite grasp what flatfooted is ... you can't be flatfooted after you take your first turn in combat

I know what flatfooted is, and I was talking about the sequence of action before the first turn, when, you know, the surprised opponent is flatfooted.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Because the rogue knows when combat is starting and the guard doesn't, it's the rogue's attack that determine when combat starts. It shouldn't matter that the rogue drew a dagger, or poisoned the drawn dagger, cast invisibility, or wrote a sonnet, or whatever... the guard doesn't know he's being threatened, the rogue hasn't taken any hostile actions, so combat hasn't started yet. So the actual sequence is like this:

Scenario:
Guard on watch. Rogue wants to kill him.

Not yet in combat
Rogue casts invisibility, draws dagger, and sneaks up to guard. Guard fails all Perception checks, and is unaware of rogue.

Just before combat
Rogue decides to attack, combat begins, initiative is rolled. (Rogue 5, Guard 8)

Surprise Round
Init 8: Guard surprised, takes no actions.
Init 5: Rogue attacks guard, gets sneak attack, invisibility breaks.
End of round.

Round 1
Init 8: Guard's turn. Guard is no longer flat-footed. Guard full-attacks rogue.
Init 5: Rogue full-attacks guard.

Basically, combat doesn't start until (A) one creature initiates an attack against another creature, or (B) a creature is anticipating an attack from another creature. You could sit in the "not yet in combat" zone for hours before you hit the moment of "just before combat."

How I understood the OP's question, that an invisible attacker could get the benefit of a full round sneak attack by being invisible, it would change the course of actions you described as follows (now with the assumption that the rogue wins initiative):

Scenario:
Guard on watch. Rogue wants to kill him.

Not yet in combat
Rogue casts invisibility, draws dagger.
Guard fails all Perception checks, and is unaware of rogue.

Just before combat
Rogue decides to attack, combat begins, initiative is rolled. (Rogue 8, Guard 5)

Surprise Round
Init 8: Rogue moves stealthily towards guard.
Init 5: Guard surprised, doesn't notice the rogue, takes no actions.
End of round.

Round 1
Init 8: Rogue full-attacks guard. First attack breaks invisibility. But Guard is still flatfooted, so all attacks are sneak attacks.
Init 5: Guard's turn. Guard is no longer flat-footed. Guard full-attacks rogue. If he is still alive.

Unless, of course, one rules that the surprise round isn't really a surprise round, because no-one attacked anyone, so round 1 is the real surprise round. But:

"PRD" wrote:

(...)In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round. If no one or everyone is surprised, no surprise round occurs.

Unaware Combatants: Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don't get to act in the surprise round. Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.

Effectively, the rogue passes on his surprise round attack to get a full attack the next round.

I would say, even if the guard had won initiative, the rogue would get the full attack on round one because he stands right beside the unaware guard.

1 to 50 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / How many sneak attacks for an invisible rogue All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.