This thread is just made for FAQ tagging. In a few threads I have had the common argument over the effects of invisibility and attacks. The question is, if one under the affects of the invisibility spell or ring attacks, is the target still considered flat footed for the turn?
This is important for rogues as their sneak attack is dependent on the flat footed condition, but is also important to all characters performing attack spells.
Thanks
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I don't know what happened to my post. Anyway, here it is again for FAQ sake.
If a target is attacked by someone using invisibility spell or item, how long does it take for the victim to no longer be flat footed, or otherwise denied their dexterity bonus, to the previously invisible target?
Thanks
Hexen
I don't know what happened to my post. Anyway, here it is again for FAQ sake.
If a target is attacked by someone using invisibility spell or item, how long does it take for the victim to no longer be flat footed to the previously invisible target?
Thanks
Hexen
The first attack is all the invisibility helps you on.
Don't use the term flat-footed. Flat-footed and being denied dex are not
the same thing.
Edit:If you are flat-footed then you get SA for the entire round, but invisibility does not matter in that case. If you are invisible they are denied dex for the first attack, but after that they can react normally.
edit2:Don't use flat-footed and denied dex interchangeably.
I don't know what happened to my post. Anyway, here it is again for FAQ sake.
If a target is attacked by someone using invisibility spell or item, how long does it take for the victim to no longer be flat footed to the previously invisible target?
Thanks
HexenThe first attack is all the invisibility helps you on.
Don't use the term flat-footed. Flat-footed and being denied dex are not
the same thing.Edit:If you are flat-footed then you get SA for the entire round, but invisibility does not matter in that case. If you are invisible they are denied dex for the first attack, but after that they can react normally.
edit2:Don't use flat-footed and denied dex interchangeably.
Thanks for your flat-footed and denied dex info. I do appreciate your previous input but, other than that I clearly do NOT see you as any sort of authority in the matter so I ask if you please don't try and force the subject anymore.
Thanks for your flat-footed and denied dex info. I do appreciate your previous input but, other than that I clearly do NOT see you as any sort of authority in the matter so I ask if you please don't try and force the subject anymore.I don't know what happened to my post. Anyway, here it is again for FAQ sake.
If a target is attacked by someone using invisibility spell or item, how long does it take for the victim to no longer be flat footed to the previously invisible target?
Thanks
HexenThe first attack is all the invisibility helps you on.
Don't use the term flat-footed. Flat-footed and being denied dex are not
the same thing.Edit:If you are flat-footed then you get SA for the entire round, but invisibility does not matter in that case. If you are invisible they are denied dex for the first attack, but after that they can react normally.
edit2:Don't use flat-footed and denied dex interchangeably.
Why the attitude? I only told you not to interchange the two because it causes confusion. I am not forcing anything. If you like I can give you link. This has come up before and other posters have given the same answer I have.
"If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear" - So it depends on the GM interpretation of Immediately and the effects that would have on a full round attack action.
|
Invisible: Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See Invisibility, under Special Abilities.
So the invisible creature denies his target Dexterity bonus as long as it is invisible.
Most invisibility effects stop as soon as the invisible creature attack.So he get 1 attack while invisible, then the effect stop unless he is using improved invisibility or equivalent effects.
To David: immediately is immediately.
Definition (Merriam-Webster on line)
2: without interval of time
The invisible subject do the first attack of a iterative series and then become visible.
** spoiler omitted **
"If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear" - So it depends on the GM interpretation of Immediately and the effects that would have on a full round attack action.
Not really. GM interpretation has nothing to do with RAW or RAI(from the dev's point of view).
There are 3 ways to be denied dex.
1.Be flat-footed
2.Be unaware of the opponent.
3.Get another condition that causes you to lose dex such as being stunned.
In this case invis falls under number 2. Once the person sees you they are not longer unaware of you.
PRD=The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC.
Facing an Unseen Opponent
To properly defend itself in combat, a creature must be able to see its foe, or use some ability acute enough to substitute for sight, such as the blindsight special quality (or the uncanny dodge ability; the section on uncanny dodge section is in Part Three).
When facing a totally concealed foe, a creature is denied Dexterity bonus (if any) to Armor Class and the attacker gets a +2 attack bonus as well.
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.
Now someone will say that 3.5 isn't Pathfinder, but considering the backwards compatibility clause it is assumed the rules work the same as long as they are written the same unless a dev comes in and says otherwise. So far the rules on being denied dex have not changed.
I have to go now. Someone else will probably come in and pickup where I left off.
I agree, I left the room for clarification in there for Two-Weapon-Fighting (With 2 weapons) allowing for 2 strikes to happen at the same time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, in all my years of playing 3.5 and PFRPG I've never heard of someone trying to argue that Invisibility applies to more than one attack. Not even RavingDork! :)
*sighs* There are days where I hate my reputation and there are days where I love it.
Why the attitude? I only told you not to interchange the two because it causes confusion. I am not forcing anything. If you like I can give you link. This has come up before and other posters have given the same answer I have.
We already discussed it, I disagreed. Now you come in here an say the same thing all over again. Why do you think anything would change? It looks to me like you are stalking me which I think is rude. I don't mind the retort, and as I said I appreciate it. I just didn't agree, and nothing you could have said alone would have changed my mind, which I thought was obvious with me making this thread.
Invisibility is good for a single cheap shot, denying the Dexterity bonus to armor class (barring uncanny dodge or something similar) against the first attack. You're no longer invisible after that first attack. I you're banking heavily on regular invisibility to maximize your damage output, Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, Deadly Aim/Power Attack/Piranha Strike and anything else the builds from a single hit are your best friends. Poisons, spell-storing weapons, certain class abilities in addition to sneak attack all can make a single such attack very very effective.
If you're looking at an official ruling, it is already in the text of the spell. One attack is all you get - make it count. :)
We already discussed it, I disagreed. Now you come in here an say the same thing all over again. Why do you think anything would change? It looks to me like you are stalking me which I think is rude. I don't mind the retort, and as I said I appreciate it. I just didn't agree, and nothing you could have said alone would have changed my mind, which I thought was obvious with me making this thread.
Why the attitude? I only told you not to interchange the two because it causes confusion. I am not forcing anything. If you like I can give you link. This has come up before and other posters have given the same answer I have.
I responded because I wanted anyone that came here to see my thoughts. It only makes sense to post any relevant points/counterpoints. I am not stalking you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OTOH, it's easily read as stating that you get one attack action before becoming visible, since that's generally what "attack" means in Pathfinder.
Not really. Attack action is a standard action where you make a single attack. You also attack (multiple times) during a full attack. You attack on a Charge (full-round action) and during a Spring Attack (full-round action).
If Invisibility only grants you one attack action then you can't even start a full-attack, since it's a full-round action to do so.
The attack that breaks Invisibility is just an attack, not an attack action.
There is no indication that iterative attacks or two-weapon attacks in a Full Attack Action take any longer than one attack in the same action,
"A move action allows you to move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time."
In a round, you can take a Move action, and a Standard action, to do two separate things, that can't be done at the same time (Fire then reload a light crossbow, for example.
"A full-round action requires an entire round to complete."
So it takes longer to perform a full-round action than a standard action. (The entire round, instead of part of the round)
Also, Full Attack: "If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first." First implies that they are not hitting at the same time, but in series. First you hit with the rapier, then you hit with the dagger. Once you've hit with the rapier, you're not invisible, the opponent can see you, and is not denied dex for the dagger strike.
nor is it ever spelled out in the rules (AFAICT) that the denial of dexterity vs. the invisible attacker ends as an Immediate Action or better.
It doesn't say that it's an immediate action, because that would be crazy. An immediate action uses up your swift action for the next round. It does say "immediately becomes visible" which doesn't take an action, it just happens.
This is exactly the way our group has played it for about a decade
I think that's a completely reasonable house-rule. Every rogue I've seen in combat has been... not so good. Giving them more sneak attacks helps keep them in line with the rest of the group.
@Turin the Mad - okay
@Varthanna - Yes it does.
|
Honestly, even if Paizo specifically stated that it works the way everybody thinks it does, we'd still almost certainly do it our way, since we think it's better.
Paizo does rule it this way, as did WotC in D&D 3.0/3.5.
However you can always do what you want in your game at any time. But from a Rules as Written (RAW) standpoint, regular old invisibility only denies your opponent it's Dex bonus to AC for one, single, solitary attack.
--School of Vrock
Honestly, even if Paizo specifically stated that it works the way everybody thinks it does, we'd still almost certainly do it our way, since we think it's better.
Paizo does rule it this way, as did WotC in D&D 3.0/3.5.
--School of VrockLink?
Or, are you Paizo?Because otherwise, it is open to interpretation.
-Kle.
I completely agree with Klebert. Please show me anywhere in the rules where Invisibility states that its an Attack Action that removes invisibility. It only states that "The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature." An attack could be anything from a standard attack to a full attack.
This also brings up another question...what if someone readies an action to attack an invisible opponent who has multiple attacks? Would they interrupt the attacker in the middle of their attack routine? If the invisible attacker becomes invisible after attack 1 when would the readied action takes place? How would you then determine their initiative? How does it make sense to allow someone to attack and then go before them in the next round as defined by the ready action?
Wouldnt it make more sense that the invisible attacker stays invisible for their entire action whether its a standard or full action. Though this would by proxy prevent you from readying an action against an invisible opponent which I actually agree with.
This thread was over a year old.
This also brings up another question...what if someone readies an action to attack an invisible opponent who has multiple attacks? Would they interrupt the attacker in the middle of their attack routine?
Yes.
Ready: "If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character."
If the invisible attacker becomes invisible after attack 1 when would the readied action takes place?
Assuming the readied trigger was "I attack the first thing I see that attacks me" or something similar, it would trigger as soon as the opponent becomes visible after it's first attack.
How would you then determine their initiative?
Just before the initiative count of the creature that triggered it.
Ready: "Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the readied action."
How does it make sense to allow someone to attack and then go before them in the next round as defined by the ready action?
The same way it works every other time a readied action happens. It's very similar to just having delayed until before the opponent.
Wouldnt it make more sense that the invisible attacker stays invisible for their entire action whether its a standard or full action.
I don't see why it would.
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.
|
That is a good question Xaod The Destroyer. Under ready it is written "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it." The Invisibility spell states "The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature." The invisible condition (Core Rulebook pg 567) explains that "An invisible creature...ignores its opponent's Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)."
I am fairly sure the developers wouldn't want someone's initiative to be in the middle of someone else's, nor would most players or GMs I think; it would just over-complicate things.
If you ready an action to attack as soon as you see the invisible person you might be waiting there a while if you don't know what type of invisibility the attacker has. It seems to me that if you ready your action to attack once you've been attacked, then you have to wait for the attack to finish before you go because invisibility is on until the creature attacks, not starts to attack. In the case of a full attack action, to avoid over-complication, it makes sense to me to have the readied action follow the invisible creature's attack.
The full attack action is comprised of multiple attacks, and the Invisibility spell doesn't say you are visible after an attack action, but an attack. Also, you only ignore your opponent's Dexterity to AC when you're invisible, as per the condition. You make your first attack (hit or miss) become visible, and the opponent has dex to AC unless it is denied from another source for the remainder of your attacks.
That is how I interpret it, but that doesn't mean I am completely right.
Also, remember The Most Important Rule (Core Rulebook pg 9).
"The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into
your characters and the world they explore. While they are
designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might
find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your
gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours.
You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters
have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games.
The Game Master and players should always discuss any
rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how
the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the
final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared
experience, and all of the players should contribute their
thoughts when the rules are in doubt."
Thanks for the well thought out responses. Everyone in my group are rules lawyers to some degree and we all have good arguments for both sides of a topic so its good to get other experienced gamers feedback.
I think in the end, as indicated by Rendrin, we need to just decide ourselves because to me the rules are still vague on these questions.
They aren't vague unless you're intentionally trying to read them as such in this case.
First, Grick quoted SKR on how Invisibility is supposed to interact with attacking, and that can be seen as an official response, since SKR is a developer at Paizo.
Second, the game occasionally uses "attack" and "attack action" and "standard action" interchangeably, but rarely, and most of the instances where that has occurred have been clarified. For the most part, however, the game will specify what it's intending. A standard action can be used to make an attack, or attack action. Spring Attack allows an attack to be made at some point during your movement, not an attack action or standard action. Note the difference.
Invisibility states that the spell breaks after you make an attack; nowhere in the spell's description or that of the condition are "attack action," "standard action," or "full attack action" ever mentioned, because it breaks and ceases to grant its effect after a single offensive action is taken (in this case, a single attack).
Third, it says that invisibility and its corresponding benefits end "immediately". You can choose to misinterpret this word if you want to, or arbitrarily decide that the English language isn't sufficient in this case all on its own, and that a game term needs to be used here, but that really isn't the case. We know what the word means, because it has the same meaning in any usage ANYWHERE. If it makes you feel better, the "immediate action" interrupts anything else because it happens immediately so it would stand to reason that something described as occurring immediately would happen at the same speed. It's not written to say "after attacks are concluded," or "as soon as possible," or "eventually," or "when you feel like it.' It occurs immediately.
We already know that a full round action is its own thing, and that the attacks you make are performed in sequence, not simultaneously, so something that occurs immediately can certainly interrupt them, just as an immediate action can do so (see: any number of feats or abilities that can interrupt an attack with an immediate action). The dropping as invisibility isn't classified as an action, because it isn't one that you're taking, and the game doesn't classify non-actions. It doesn't require an action, or a definition, to describe an ongoing spell effect ending when its duration has expired. It just happens. Why? Because it is independent of you. If Invisibility called out an action type, it would have some weird interactions, such as costing you a swift action on your next turn (if classified as an immediate action), or staying up if the attack you make that would break invisibility occurred as an attack of opportunity (most free actions can't be taken when it's not your turn). Also, an action is voluntary--classifying the dropping of invisibility as an action would imply that you could choose NOT to end your invisibility after making an attack, which isn't the case.
The game is clear on the functionality here. The only thing that should be at all confusing is the difference between "denied Dex to AC" and "flat-footed," but that is made clear elsewhere. House-ruling the functionality of the spell/condition is fine, and I agree that rogues could use a little help, but being intentionally obtuse in your reading of fairly clear and direct verbiage? Don't get pissy with other people giving you the correct information.
First I didnt get pissy...the first thing I said was "Thanks for the well thought out responses" so please refrain from adding intent to my responses. If you read that the wrong way I cannot help that.
Second, I do appreciate your response and I do agree with many of your points and I will bring them to the attention of my group.
The information that was provided is very helpful but whether its correct or not is still up to interpretation. No where in any of the responses am I seeing page numbers and quotes from Pathfinder source material and I am just hearing everyone's interpretation of the rules. The wording in Readying an action and in Invisibility do support in theory what you are all saying but it is not stated explicitly in the text which is why I was trying to get other peoples stance on it.
Thanks again for the feedback as it did help to clarify some concepts.
|
|
Invisibility states that the spell breaks after you make an attack; nowhere in the spell's description or that of the condition are "attack action," "standard action," or "full attack action" ever mentioned, because it breaks and ceases to grant its effect after a single offensive action is taken (in this case, a single attack).
That can be casting an offensive spell, using some special ability or an Attack of Opportunity, so it don't need to be an attack action and could even be a non-action.