Aw'right... I was wondering how to deal with invisibility when you are making a full-attack. It's pretty obvious that you turn visible as you attack, but would you have the benefit of being invisible as you make your second attack, or third or whatever?
Fx. Mr. Whirlwind attacker gulps down a potion of invisibility, the party engage the badguys, he moves in and get into a good attack position and Whirl away! He turns visible, that's clear enough, but will the other poor sods be able to react to his sudden appearance?
I hope you guys have a good, and by the book, explanation for this!
Thanks!
Assuming you're talking about the spell invisibility and not the invisible condition itself, since the wording says you turn visible *immediately* after you attack, and a single attack (even if part of a full attack) is still an attack, I would say you gain the benefits of invisibility for the first attack only, and then you become visible. If you want to full attack while invisible, you should try greater invisibility.
|
Assuming you're talking about the spell invisibility and not the invisible condition itself, since the wording says you turn visible *immediately* after you attack, and a single attack (even if part of a full attack) is still an attack, I would say you gain the benefits of invisibility for the first attack only, and then you become visible. If you want to full attack while invisible, you should try greater invisibility.
+1. And dont try and argue that as you hit simultaneously you should get the benefits on all of them bla bla. You receive the benefits of invisibility on the first foe you hit.
HOWEVER as they weren't aware of your presence some DM's would still rule they are all flat-footed to the whirlwind attack, you just wouldn't get the extra invis bonuses on the second third etc. attacks. I would personally rule it that way.
I think that pretty much answers my question. It was also the way I would normally read it, but sometimes, when you stare at a thing hard enough, you can confuse your brain and trick it into seing something that's just not there ;-)
But good houserule on the flat-footed-ness... :-)
I see one of two ways to rule on this. 1) Whirlwind attack is a special attack and therefore you get the benefits of invisibility on all attacks or that 2)once you make the first attack roll your invisibility is broken and you continue to make all other attacks as a visible creature. I'd lean heavily towards two.
If your party has already engaged them, and you are on initiative so to speak, when you get your attack off you would only get benefit of invisibility on the first attack of your Whirlwind routine.
However, if you got into your whirlwind position while invisible and no one saw you (perception check) and they are not already engaged in combat or otherwise expecting attack, then they are still flat footed against your attacks. In other words, against your one attack being invisible they are denied their Dex modifier to AC AND you get a +2 bonus to attack rolls, then you pop out of bein invisible but they are still surprised/flat footed and are thereby denied their Dex modifier but you no longer get the +2. Arguably, however, you would not be able to perform a full round action on a surprise round so you would have to beat their initiative on the first full round of combat to be able to whirlwind them while they are flat footed, and are then only allowed a standard action to attack someone with the full benefit of being invisible.
EDIT: Beaten to the punch. That's what I get for trying to be so thorough :P
That's how I would see it anyway, I'm happy to see other interpretations though.
Have to disagree with...everyone.
Common Sense Argument: It's a lot simpler to just say that all attacks benefit from the invisibility, rather than trying to keep track of those that do and those that don't.
Rules Argument: Since neither the spell or the condition place the qualifier, "When attacking from invisibility, only your first attack receives...", then the intent seems pretty obvious to allow all attacks to receive the bonus for an invisible attacker.
Also, if someone who is magically invisible loses the benefit after the first attack roll, then so, too, should an ambushing rogue who attacks from the shadows, since stealth is abrogated by an attack as well.
Hope this helps.
Common Sense Argument: It's a lot simpler to just say that all attacks benefit from the invisibility, rather than trying to keep track of those that do and those that don't.
Huh? The first attack you make benefits. The rest don't. If you're using iterative attacks, your highest iterative benefits. If you're using some special attack like Whirlwind Attack, the attack roll against the first target benefits. I don't see how that's all that complicated.
Also, if someone who is magically invisible loses the benefit after the first attack roll, then so, too, should an ambushing rogue who attacks from the shadows, since stealth is abrogated by an attack as well.
Uh, they do.
Again, states or effects that only apply to "the next attack" state so in the description, Feint, for example.
And again, "immediately" means "immediately", not "once you're done, take your time".
Hmmm, argument based on dictionary definition vs. argument based on rules and ease of play.
Again, again, when a status or effect only applies to the next attack, the rules say so. Unless you can show a rule that counters this, all you're doing is allowing your initial assumption to outweigh the rules as they are written.
According to the 3.5 FAQ, I'm wrong:
If a rogue gets multiple attacks in a round (such as from
a high base attack bonus or the Rapid Shot feat), can she
make sneak attacks for all of them?
Yes, but only if each attack meets a requirement to be a
sneak attack. For instance, a rogue who flanks an enemy can
deliver a sneak attack with every melee attack she makes. A
rogue under the effect of a greater invisibility spell treats every
attack as a sneak attack, since she remains invisible despite
attacking. If later attacks in a round no longer meet any
requirement to be a sneak attack, they aren’t sneak attacks. For
example, a rogue under the effect of an invisibility spell would
deal sneak attack damage only with her first attack in a round,
because she turns visible as soon as she makes the attack.
|
As far as I know, nothing about this is any different than the 3.5 edition. So I quote the "Rules of the Game" from the Wizards Website.
Perhaps the most common form of total concealment is the invisibility spell. A regular invisibility effect is broken when you attack. If you begin your turn under such an effect and you're making multiple attacks, you'll be invisible only for the first attack and your opponent will be denied Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) against that first attack.
Number of Sneak Attacks
Provided it is possible for you to make a sneak attack at all, you can make multiple sneak attacks when you use the full attack action. For example, if you have a higher initiative result at the beginning of an encounter, your foe is flat-footed and every attack you make is a sneak attack. The same is true if you flank your foe.
Anything that allows you to make extra attacks during the full attack action gets you extra sneak attacks as well: fighting with two weapons, the haste spell, and the monk's flurry of blows are the most common ways of getting extra attacks.
Remember the earlier note about invisibility effects, however. If you're relying on invisibility to set up a sneak attack, you'll only have the effect for the first attack you make during your turn. You'll still get all your extra attacks, but only the first will be a sneak attack. You don't have this problem if you're using a greaterinvisibility effect.
I think that clears it all up.
So, sneak attacks apply to all attacks made during a full attack action, if you qualify for a sneak attack at all.
Simple invisibility applies to only the 1st attack, for sneak attacks or otherwise.
EDIT: I guess Mynameisjake, beat me to the punch here, but at least these are quotes from a different source and provide additional information.
According to the 3.5 FAQ, I'm wrong:
It's okay, it's not a perfectly obvious rule TBH, and it touches on really fine fiddly granular rules interactions with words like "immediately".
With a regular full attack, and regular Invisibility (the spell) you only get benefit on first attack. With greater invis you of course stay invisible for all attacks, and I wasn't sure until I reread the description of Whirlwind attack. If instead it said "make one attack roll and each opponent within reach you would hit" or something like that, like it's a super special attack that only takes one action, then I could at least see a solid argument for allowing you to benefit from invisibility for the whole thing.
Also, like the Scorching Ray example, a character Cleave-ing could arguably benefit for all subsequent attacks, though I'm less certain of that.
Just as an aside, at least you understand the simple english usage in the answer from the 3.5 FAQ, which I'm sure both Zurai and I appreciate.
The houserule that my group has employed (which, I say again, is a houserule) regarding attack from normal invisibility is this: your opponent is flat-footed to all of your attacks, but you only gain the +2 for being invisible on the first strike.
Part of our reasoning is that, if I haven't acted in the first round yet, I am flat-footed to all attacks, no matter that I can see them coming from a good distance off. But, with the literal reading of invisibility, the attacked person goes from completely unaware (flat-footed) to in full defense in the time between two swings of a sword. This doesn't make sense to us, hence the houserule.
Before you say that this steps on the toes of greater invisibility too much, remember that this round of flat-footed attacks only works once per casting (and only has the +2 on the first attack) while greater invisibility gets this round after round.
Anyway, as a RAW answer, you only get the flat-footed condition on the first attack.
Here's a question, if you're attacking with 2 weapons do they hit simultaneously? If so, you should get sneak attack with both.
Personally, haven't ruled it like that since 2nd ed., but thinking about it, it kinda makes sense.
Here's a question, if you're attacking with 2 weapons do they hit simultaneously? If so, you should get sneak attack with both.
Personally, haven't ruled it like that since 2nd ed., but thinking about it, it kinda makes sense.
Its likely said victim is flatfooted anyway unless they made a Perception test to notice you, so all your attacks that round are Sneak Attacks regardless of how you do it TWF or one weapon, etc. Difference is you only count the invisibility bonuses ontop of a flatfooted enemy for the 1st attack only.
The houserule that my group has employed (which, I say again, is a houserule) regarding attack from normal invisibility is this: your opponent is flat-footed to all of your attacks, but you only gain the +2 for being invisible on the first strike.
Part of our reasoning is that, if I haven't acted in the first round yet, I am flat-footed to all attacks, no matter that I can see them coming from a good distance off. But, with the literal reading of invisibility, the attacked person goes from completely unaware (flat-footed) to in full defense in the time between two swings of a sword. This doesn't make sense to us, hence the houserule.
This is how we run things as well. It works for us. Just don't let enemy rogues go first is all. *grin*
Its likely said victim is flatfooted anyway unless they made a Perception test to notice you, so all your attacks that round are Sneak Attacks regardless of how you do it TWF or one weapon, etc. Difference is you only count the invisibility bonuses ontop of a flatfooted enemy for the 1st attack only.Here's a question, if you're attacking with 2 weapons do they hit simultaneously? If so, you should get sneak attack with both.
Personally, haven't ruled it like that since 2nd ed., but thinking about it, it kinda makes sense.
Well again this is sort of a very microscopic analysis of the rules, but if they fail their perception check then you get a surprise round, which is only a standard action. So you would get one good sneak attack, then you'd roll off on initiative and if you beat him there then you can get a full round.
That being said Rogues should always try to have a good initiative anyway.
Just a thought I wanted to give that may add the the question.
Could one say that being flat footed is the same as getting the bonuses from invisibility?
If you act in the surprise round and have a high enough initiative to act before others in normal round all those who act after you, and not in the surprise round are considered flat footed to you. He saw you well in advance after you spent your surprise round cutting you another what ever, but you are still flat footed to the full round attack that follows. So it is safe to say, in my opinion, that just because you become visible the moment you make the attack, does not mean that they are still not completely and equally off guard to your attacks. However if they had a readied action to act as soon as you became visible, then that would be different.
I meant in the middle of combat. say halfway thru, the wizard casts Invisibility on the rogue, rogue takes a 5 ft. step and does a full attack with TWF. Do both attacks occur at the same time?
I meant in the middle of combat. say halfway thru, the wizard casts Invisibility on the rogue, rogue takes a 5 ft. step and does a full attack with TWF. Do both attacks occur at the same time?
It would be my opinion that they could. They are separate hands, and could be performed at the same time if you need language.
However, IMHO, it shouldn't matter, as I think the rules would be the bonuses from invisibility, and most importantly, DEFIANTLY the target being flat footed to the rogue till it is able to make an action.
I meant in the middle of combat. say halfway thru, the wizard casts Invisibility on the rogue, rogue takes a 5 ft. step and does a full attack with TWF. Do both attacks occur at the same time?
It would be my opinion that they could. They are separate hands, and could be performed at the same time if you need language.
However, IMHO, it shouldn't matter, as I think the rules would be the bonuses from invisibility, and most importantly, DEFIANTLY the target being flat footed to the rogue till it is able to make an action.
This is exactly how my group has ruled invisibility to work at our table. If character is flat-footed against all attacks (not just the first attack) until s/he has acted in the first round, why is s/he able to go from flat-footed to not flat-footed in less than a second? In my group, we have five to eight players and high CR encounters. If the DM rolls last on initiative, the monster(s) could suffer a couple dozen attacks in that first round.
No, they don't.
If the rogue could attack 2 opponents from his square, he would have the option of attacking the 2nd should his first attack drop the initial target for example.
Some attacks do occur simultaneously, but most proceed in an order and even allow decisions to be made based upon prior events in that order.
-James
I know that if you're attacking with a single weapon and have a high BAB, then after the first attack you can then decide to turn it into a full attack or instead take a move action.
If you're attacking with 2 weapons tho, you have to declare the full attack because of the penalties incurred from TWF.
What if you were invisible and wanted to make an attack on two different opponents in adjacent squares? Why wouldn't they occur at the same time?