How many sneak attacks for an invisible rogue


Rules Questions

101 to 122 of 122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Only if you are flanking.

Did one of the devs say this rather?


Hex the only way you get sneak from the full attacks in that one is to flank. only he first attack gets sneak attack from invis denying dex bonus for the first attack only.

the only way to get full attack as I see with invis with out flank is to delay in your surprise round if you are right next to the target or if another person in your party can some how make enemy loss his dex bonus for a round that you attack in. it is very very situational.

that is the whole point of improved invis to keep that going.


Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Only if you are flanking.
Did one of the devs say this rather?

They did I saw it in older thread, I think it also listed in FAQ I will look for it and post it here for you.


KainPen wrote:
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Only if you are flanking.
Did one of the devs say this rather?
They did I saw it in older thread, I think it also listed in FAQ I will look for it and post it here for you.

Thank you.

It just didn't seem right to me that the rogue would not get full attack from this, as even with a full round action, the victim doesn't have enough time to react, but if them the breaks, this is a game not real life.

Imp. Invis would be beneficial as normal invis ring would need another standard action next round to activate again, or have the caster put it on you again as part of their action.


Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
KainPen wrote:
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Only if you are flanking.
Did one of the devs say this rather?
They did I saw it in older thread, I think it also listed in FAQ I will look for it and post it here for you.

Thank you.

It just didn't seem right to me that the rogue would not get full attack from this, as even with a full round action, the victim doesn't have enough time to react, but if them the breaks, this is a game not real life.

Imp. Invis would be beneficial as normal invis ring would need another standard action next round to activate again, or have the caster put it on you again as part of their action.

and that is why i recommend Blur. it's a discounted greater invisibility with a longer duration, but no fat stealth bonus. or like an Upgraded HiPS that ignores terrain conditions and provides a miss chance on top of that. the downside, is that you need a move action each round to make the stealth check, and this concealment breaks when you attack as well, unless you want to take sniping penalties.

Silver Crusade

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:


and that is why i recommend Blur. it's a discounted greater invisibility with a longer duration, but no fat stealth bonus. or like an Upgraded HiPS that ignores terrain conditions and provides a miss chance on top of that. the downside, is that you need a move action each round to make the stealth check, and this concealment breaks when you attack as well, unless you want to take sniping penalties.

I like the blur idea, but it should only work until your target becomes aware of you (like after you stab him). The stealth skill states, "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth." So once's your target has seen you, he's seen you, regardless if you are blurred. Although the spell is ongoing and you have concealment (and the miss chance), you haven't GAINED concealment, which is a requirement to use stealth while observed. The spell doesn't apply a new concealment effect each round.

Hmm, of course you could cast blur while in combat (and observed), and gain concealment, thus technically meeting the requirement to utilize stealth. Might be a great escape tactic assuming you cast defensively and make a good stealth roll.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:


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."

I am not finding any rules to support this. The beginning of combat seems to be based on intent or perception of danger. At the time initiative is rolled, nobody has performed any actions yet, and nobody has committed to performing any actions yet. It seems that they are able to decide not only what they want to do, but also whether they want to act at all, as their turn comes up in the initiative. I don't see anything that would prohibit a character from delaying action in the surprise round, even if they are the only combatant that is not surprised.

I think the problem is that the rules concerning surprise are intended for group vs. group (or at least group vs. creature) combat, not for a 1 on 1 situation. The surprise rules work well when there are a number of people who can act during the surprise round, but not so well when there is one lonely rogue getting the drop on some poor sap who got stuck on the night shift (who is probably 3 days from retirement).

That being said, as a long-time GM, I would allow a rogue to do this in my game. It may be over-powered in a PvP type scenario, but a 1-on-1 surprise round just isn't a common occurrence, at least not in any game that I've run. I say, let the rogue have their fun once in a while, and put a construct on guard duty next time.


sowhereaminow wrote:


Hmm, of course you could cast blur while in combat (and observed), and gain concealment, thus technically meeting the requirement to utilize stealth.

Not when observed.

You would have concealment, but would be observed and could not use stealth without doing something else or having another ability.

As to the person where the player metagames their init roll, you stop them from doing this, or from 'electing to retry' certain skills after seeing their d20 roll for it. Simply say no.

And if that doesn't work, then you protect the game from them. Make hidden rolls, etc.

-James


This is why I outright tell people Blur and Blink don't let you stealth in my game : p I don't like the idea of a rogue casting Blur or Blink and stealthing in the middle of a well-lit wide open area in a ballroom gallery during a party.

But then, I've been tinkering with Stealth for a little while, trying to figure out how to get it just right.


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

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.

First Full Round
Init 8: Rogue makes full attack.
Init 5: Guard may act, and is no longer flat-footed.

Everyone is assuming that rogue is better off if he skips attacking in the surprise round so that he gets his full attack. Guess what, he still gets the full attack even if he attacks in the surprise round. You don't have to argue about whether he is ALLOWED to skip his attack, because there is no reason to.

Surprise Round
Init 8: Rogue attacks guard.
Init 5: Guard surprised, can't act.

First Full Round
Init 8: Rogue makes full attack. Guard is STILL flat-footed.
Init 5: Guard may act, and is no longer flat-footed.

By attacking during the surprise round, the rogue gets an extra attack, with no penalty.


InvisibleMouth wrote:
Cpt. Caboodle wrote:

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.

First Full Round
Init 8: Rogue makes full attack.
Init 5: Guard may act, and is no longer flat-footed.

Everyone is assuming that rogue is better off if he skips attacking in the surprise round so that he gets his full attack. Guess what, he still gets the full attack even if he attacks in the surprise round. You don't have to argue about whether he is ALLOWED to skip his attack, because there is no reason to.

in that situation yes. but if the rogue has lower init then the guard it is better to skip or delay in the surprise round. So he can adjust his init to higher then the guards. you can only take standard action or move action in surprise round. Thus if you attack in the surprise round you become visible. see below just reversing the init. there are several situation i brought up in this thread. in which is better for rouge to skip attack see below.

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

Surprise Round
Init 8: Guard surprised, doesn't notice the rogue.
Init 5: Rogue attack guard. invisibility ends after attack Guard is flatfooted get sneak attack

First Full Round
Init 8: Guard may act, and is no longer flat-footed. attacks rouge
Init 5: Rogue makes full attack.(none are sneak attack) as he is no longer invis or attacking a flat footed target.

so it that situation is better for a rogue to to use his standard action until delay or ready until the start of the first round.

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

Surprise Round
Init 8: Guard surprised, doesn't notice the rogue.
Init 5: Rogue delays until next round change init to 99999

First Full Round
Init 99999 : Rogue makes full attack. all are sneak attack no because of invi but because the guard is flat-footed
Init 8: Guard may act, and is no longer flat-footed. attacks rouge

Silver Crusade

here's a question say a Shadow Dancer, three turns into combat, wants to disappear makes a stealth check, using hide in plain sight, succeeds and makes a a full attack using melee weapons. Does the enemy become flat-footed from this? If so is this only for the first attack or for all attacks that round? Note that the Shadow dancer is not invisible just hidden.


Stealth is just the first attack, similar to invisibility

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Sir Kibblesnbits wrote:
here's a question say a Shadow Dancer, three turns into combat, wants to disappear makes a stealth check, using hide in plain sight, succeeds and makes a a full attack using melee weapons. Does the enemy become flat-footed from this? If so is this only for the first attack or for all attacks that round? Note that the Shadow dancer is not invisible just hidden.

You need to animate a 4 years dead thread fir that question?

Barring specific abilities that explicitly say that they impose the flat footed conditions, you don't become flat footed after the fight has started and you have acted, even if your target disappear from your sight.


I apologize if this scenario has already been considered. I skimmed the posts and didn't find it.

How about this?

1) After combat has begun, my Rogue turns Invisible some how, and has his Shortbow ready.

2) My Rogue has Rapid Shot and the Ninja Vanishing Trick.

3) I shoot my arrow at my victim, and turn Visible.

4) I turn Invisible as a Swift Action with Ninja Vanishing Trick, then Shoot again using Rapid Shot.

Is that legal?


Chess Pwn wrote:
Stealth is just the first attack, similar to invisibility

I can think of an exception. When you are making Ranged Attack from Stealth, you have a chance to keep your cover: Stealth -20, normally. But there is a Rogue Talent, False Attacker, that lets you make a Bluff Check in Conjunction with your attack, if successful, you keep your Stealth because your target thinks the attack comes from somewhere else.


RAW: If you have total concealment against your opponent, they're denied their Dexterity to their AC.

So long as whatever you're doing gives you total concealment, you can apply your sneak attack. This includes stealth, invisibility, darkness, blindness, obscuring fog and the like.

Note however that unless you have some way to see the target clearly, you can't apply sneak attack if they also have concealment against you.

This all assumes your target doesn't have something that negates their loss of Dexterity, such as Uncanny Dodge. Uncanny Dodge is an edge case here, since the specific wording only states you're protected if you're attacked by an invisible opponent, not a concealed one. RAI, it probably still works if they're using stealth rather than invisibility, but that's a GM call.

Silver Crusade

sorry bout the necro didnt see the year. oops


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sir Kibblesnbits wrote:
sorry bout the necro didnt see the year. oops

Meh, Nettiquette is weird. Don't beat yourself up over it. You get told you're being rude for necroing an old forum, but you get told your being rude for starting a new thread when there already is an old thread on the same topic. But if your question is related to the thread, but not exactly, you get told you're derailing the thread.

Don't beat yourself up about it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I apologize if this scenario has already been considered. I skimmed the posts and didn't find it.

How about this?

1) After combat has begun, my Rogue turns Invisible some how, and has his Shortbow ready.

2) My Rogue has Rapid Shot and the Ninja Vanishing Trick.

3) I shoot my arrow at my victim, and turn Visible.

4) I turn Invisible as a Swift Action with Ninja Vanishing Trick, then Shoot again using Rapid Shot.

Is that legal?

If you have a way to become invisible multiple times in a round you will deny the target AC modifier to dexterity and be able to add your sneak attack damage to the attack every time you attack from invisibility (barring appropriate defenses like see invisibility and so on), but that don't make the target flat footed. Those are different conditions, even inf very similar. When speaking "informally2 we often use the two terms interchangeably, but from the point of view of the rules they are very different.

Note that if you have improved invisibility or there is no light but you can see and your target don't. because you have darkvision and your target hasn't it, you can deal sneak damage with all the attacks you can make, not only the first, as your target dexterity Ac bonus is negated, but he isn't flat footed.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I apologize if this scenario has already been considered. I skimmed the posts and didn't find it.

How about this?

1) After combat has begun, my Rogue turns Invisible some how, and has his Shortbow ready.

2) My Rogue has Rapid Shot and the Ninja Vanishing Trick.

3) I shoot my arrow at my victim, and turn Visible.

4) I turn Invisible as a Swift Action with Ninja Vanishing Trick, then Shoot again using Rapid Shot.

Is that legal?

If you have a way to become invisible multiple times in a round you will deny the target AC modifier to dexterity and be able to add your sneak attack damage to the attack every time you attack from invisibility (barring appropriate defenses like see invisibility and so on), but that don't make the target flat footed. Those are different conditions, even inf very similar. When speaking "informally2 we often use the two terms interchangeably, but from the point of view of the rules they are very different.

Note that if you have improved invisibility or there is no light but you can see and your target don't. because you have darkvision and your target hasn't it, you can deal sneak damage with all the attacks you can make, not only the first, as your target dexterity Ac bonus is negated, but he isn't flat footed.

Thank you.

I was pretty sure there was no problem with inserting a Swift Action into the middle of a Full Attack Action. The rules say you can take a 5' Step while Full Attacking, and 5' Step is a Swift Action, but it's reassuring to hear someone else say it, too.


A 5' step is not a swift action, it is no action type.

101 to 122 of 122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / How many sneak attacks for an invisible rogue All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.