Ok, just something I was wondering about...if a rogue or ninja is under the effects of the Greater Invisibility spell and closes in for a full round attack on an enemy, would his entire round of attacks qualify as sneak attacks, seeing as he is still unseen by the enemy?
Yes.
Until the enemy has gotten a turn in the initiative order, it remains flat-footed against foes it was previously unaware of.
Does anyone find a dual-wielding Rogue who can get up to 6 attacks, and thus do a potential of 60d6 sneak attack a little over powered? Not starting a witch hunt here, just a little confused on where the balance is...
Roll a will save.
Failed?
You die!
60d6 = peanuts :p
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Until the enemy has gotten a turn in the initiative order, it remains flat-footed against foes it was previously unaware of.
Wrong.
There is nothing like being "flat-footed against foes it was previously unaware of". You are either flat footed during the surprise round and possibly during your first regular round until you have acted or you aren't flat footed. (There are exceptions using specific feats and abilities, but those are specific exceptions, not the base rule)
What there is is having your dexterity denied against enemies of which you are unaware or that are invisible. Having your dexterity denied allow the use of sneak attack against you.
Being flat footed and having your dexterity denied aren't interchangeable terms as they have similar but not identical game effects.
Seeing it actually work to full effect in a real game is a lot different
I've seen it...my assassin does it often...it's not OP in any way
At the point you would have access to that many attacks and greater invisibility many of the things you will fight have good DR, high AC, and can see through invisibility
Also rogues/ninjas have a lower BAB and since most are dex builds they don't have near the strength a fighter or barbarian STR build has
The static damage + full BAB that those classes get more than out damages the sneak attack dice and it has no set up time or resource use...just swing and hit
I say all of this LOVING my rogue/assassin
Also 60d6 fails in comparison to my assassin one hit killing a CR EDIT: 14 Dragon :) most terrirfying d20 roll of my life
Thanks for that goes to BBT for telling me about Dampen Presence
Roll a will save.
Failed?
You die!60d6 = peanuts :p
This is true for a generic rogue who fails to address their weaknesses; however, there are feats, traits and items that can take this negative away, yet few things that enemies can do to prevent the damage dealt by this, save fortification armor.
|
This is true for a generic rogue who fails to address their weaknesses; however, there are feats, traits and items that can take this negative away, yet few things that enemies can do to prevent the damage dealt by this, save fortification armor.Roll a will save.
Failed?
You die!60d6 = peanuts :p
There's AC, the bane of rogues. Especially natural armor.
Basically Rogue + Full Attack + Two Handed Fighting Feats + Greater Invisibility = Death Machine
..which is not a bad thing, it is supposed to be the way rogues deal damage.
It should be precised that the rogue does not need to be invisible to do all theses sneak attacks : a simple Flanking partner allow the rogue to sneak on all attacks too (and can be done for free from 1st leve).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention that most rogues will only be hitting on 2 maybe 3 of the 6 possible attacks. So more like 20 or 30d6. On average thats between 70 and 105 damage from sneak attack on a full attack. Add in other modifiers and we will say generously 15 more damage form other stuff bringing us between 100 and 150 damage on a full attack sneak attack at level 20. I'd say thats on par with what fighters and barbarians can do on a full attack round, but they don't need any set up to do it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as a 10th level rogue with 3 natural attacks, and having played a dual-wielding rogue to 14th level in the past, it is generally much harder in practice to ever get off all your sneak attacks. Whether it's enemies with high initiative mods, or concealment effects, or who can see invisibility, or have reach and make it dangerous to get into flanking positions, or your party just doesn't position themselves to help you, Sneak Attacks seem to happen less and less as the levels climb.
Sure, when it all goes according to plan, and you hit, it can be glorious. But there are other classes out there that do glorious things all day, every day. The rogue is situational.
Now, traps, that's where I generally shine the most. +30 something to Perception and Disable Device, and the Trap Spotter talent, puts a lot of party members at ease.
@Claxon : +1.
A rogue will be lucky if he manages to hit 2 or 3 times actually. And that supposes its target is not immune to sneak attack in the first place.
(some races are immune, items can make you immune, light condition can make you immune, spells can make you immune, no flanking partners/no not affected by invisibility means no sneak attack, ...).
|
This is true for a generic rogue who fails to address their weaknesses; however, there are feats, traits and items that can take this negative away, yet few things that enemies can do to prevent the damage dealt by this, save fortification armor.Roll a will save.
Failed?
You die!60d6 = peanuts :p
If you mean other than Blind-fight, Uncanny Dodge, Blindsight, True Sight, See Invisibility, Invisibilty Purge, ooze traits, elemental traits, swarm traits, animated object traits, high flat-footed AC, Anti-magic Shell, a plethora of other spells I haven't listed, or any form of concealment, your right. There just aren't that many ways to stop a greater invised rogue other than fortification.
If you mean other than Blind-fight, Uncanny Dodge, Blindsight, True Sight, See Invisibility, Invisibilty Purge, ooze traits, elemental traits, swarm traits, animated object traits, high flat-footed AC, Anti-magic Shell, a plethora of other spells I haven't listed, or any form of concealment, your right. There just aren't that many ways to stop a greater invised rogue other than fortification.This is true for a generic rogue who fails to address their weaknesses; however, there are feats, traits and items that can take this negative away, yet few things that enemies can do to prevent the damage dealt by this, save fortification armor.Roll a will save.
Failed?
You die!60d6 = peanuts :p
You forgot Scent and Tremorsense. ;)
|
|
You forgot Scent and Tremorsense. ;)If you mean other than Blind-fight, Uncanny Dodge, Blindsight, True Sight, See Invisibility, Invisibilty Purge, ooze traits, elemental traits, swarm traits, animated object traits, high flat-footed AC, Anti-magic Shell, a plethora of other spells I haven't listed, or any form of concealment, your right. There just aren't that many ways to stop a greater invised rogue other than fortification.This is true for a generic rogue who fails to address their weaknesses; however, there are feats, traits and items that can take this negative away, yet few things that enemies can do to prevent the damage dealt by this, save fortification armor.Roll a will save.
Failed?
You die!60d6 = peanuts :p
That's because neither actually stops you from being flat-footed against an invisible rogue. They only let you know what square he is in.
You forgot Scent and Tremorsense. ;)That's because neither actually stops you from being flat-footed against an invisible rogue. They only let you know what square he is in.
To be precise, Invisibility\Greater doesn't make you flat-footed against a foe. It denies you your DEX Bonus.
The Scent entry on the PRD states the following:
A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.
If it can detect it as though it were visible, then I'd argue that it can react to it as though it were visible.
Tremorsense uses similar language in its description - i.e., you can pinpoint the location of anything that is touching the ground.
So it would essentially be a GM call, IMO, as to whether you could sneak attack something with either of those abilities, since there's no definition of 'pinpoint'; the fact that you know the creature's exact location would indicate that they could get AoOs versus the target, and (to me) that would indicate enough awareness of the creature to deny the attacker its SA damage.
Stealth doesn't really help against creatures with scent, and since it's the same principle, I assume that it will apply to invisibility too.
Definition of pinpoint is knowing the square. The square still has total concealment from you. Well, I guess the creature in the square still has total concealment.
|
|
That's because neither actually stops you from being flat-footed against an invisible rogue. They only let you know what square he is in.You forgot Scent and Tremorsense. ;)If you mean other than Blind-fight, Uncanny Dodge, Blindsight, True Sight, See Invisibility, Invisibilty Purge, ooze traits, elemental traits, swarm traits, animated object traits, high flat-footed AC, Anti-magic Shell, a plethora of other spells I haven't listed, or any form of concealment, your right. There just aren't that many ways to stop a greater invised rogue other than fortification.This is true for a generic rogue who fails to address their weaknesses; however, there are feats, traits and items that can take this negative away, yet few things that enemies can do to prevent the damage dealt by this, save fortification armor.Roll a will save.
Failed?
You die!60d6 = peanuts :p
None of these remove being flat footed:
Blind-fight, Blindsight, True Sight, See Invisibility, Invisibilty Purge, ooze traits, elemental traits, swarm traits, animated object traits, high flat-footed AC, Anti-magic Shell, a plethora of other spells I haven't listed, or any form of concealment, your right.Some of them remove the invisibility benefit but against most of them you can still use stealth (read the FAQ about stealth).
Some creature are immune to sneak attacks (animate objects aren't immune to them, BTW, they are constructs and there is a thing called "animated construct traits") but they aren't so common as your main enemy.
About concealment:
Shadow Strike (Combat)
You accurately strike even those you cannot clearly see.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can deal precision damage, such as sneak attack damage, against targets with concealment (but not total concealment).
Stealth doesn't really help against creatures with scent, and since it's the same principle, I assume that it will apply to invisibility too.
Definition of pinpoint is knowing the square. The square still has total concealment from you. Well, I guess the creature in the square still has total concealment.
But concealment is mostly irrelevant in regards to determining whether an attacker deals SA damage.
For instance, a Rogue who dashes behind a wall and then stabs at a foe through a hole in the brickwork has concealment versus his enemy, but he doesn't get SA damage because his target knows he's there. A Rogue with Blur on doesn't get SA damage for the duration of the spell, even though he has concealment from his target.
|
|
You forgot Scent and Tremorsense. ;)That's because neither actually stops you from being flat-footed against an invisible rogue. They only let you know what square he is in.To be precise, Invisibility\Greater doesn't make you flat-footed against a foe. It denies you your DEX Bonus.
The Scent entry on the PRD states the following:
A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.If it can detect it as though it were visible, then I'd argue that it can react to it as though it were visible.
Tremorsense uses similar language in its description - i.e., you can pinpoint the location of anything that is touching the ground.
So it would essentially be a GM call, IMO, as to whether you could sneak attack something with either of those abilities, since there's no definition of 'pinpoint'; the fact that you know the creature's exact location would indicate that they could get AoOs versus the target, and (to me) that would indicate enough awareness of the creature to deny the attacker its SA damage.
While you are right on the flatfooted bit the rules for Invisibility specifically state that an invisible creature who has has his location pin-pointed still gains the benefits of total concealment. Both Tremorsense and Scent specifically use the word "pinpoint".
While you are right on the flatfooted bit the rules for Invisibility specifically state that an invisible creature who has has his location pin-pointed still gains the benefits of total concealment. Both Tremorsense and Scent specifically use the word "pinpoint".You forgot Scent and Tremorsense. ;)That's because neither actually stops you from being flat-footed against an invisible rogue. They only let you know what square he is in.To be precise, Invisibility\Greater doesn't make you flat-footed against a foe. It denies you your DEX Bonus.
The Scent entry on the PRD states the following:
A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.If it can detect it as though it were visible, then I'd argue that it can react to it as though it were visible.
Tremorsense uses similar language in its description - i.e., you can pinpoint the location of anything that is touching the ground.
So it would essentially be a GM call, IMO, as to whether you could sneak attack something with either of those abilities, since there's no definition of 'pinpoint'; the fact that you know the creature's exact location would indicate that they could get AoOs versus the target, and (to me) that would indicate enough awareness of the creature to deny the attacker its SA damage.
I don't disagree that it grants total concealment.
Please point out to me in the rules where "total concealment" denies a target its DEX bonus.
The rules don't actually say that anywhere. The definition of 'total concealment' does not state that it grants you SA automatically, or that it denies the target its DEX.
Concealment - total or otherwise - is mostly irrelevant in determining whether an attacker deals SA.
Indeed, there are a lot of ways to screw a rogue out of sneak attack. I primarily like an equal level barbarian with come and get me.
"Sure Mr. Rogue attack me, I totally don't have Improved Uncanny Dodge. I also don't get to attack you for every attack you make against me either." *wink wink*
Behind the wall would be total cover not concealment right?
Also for normal concealment no...but total concealment would work nonetheless. They know what square you are in...they still cannot react to your attacks, attack you directly, or make AoOs against you.
As for total concealment granting SA...I believe when they made that last change (or FAQ) about stealth they had also mentioned that while it doesn't explicitly say that stealth doesn't give sneak attack that being hidden or having total concealment means you cannot react to the attacks of the opponent, meaning that you lose your DEX bonus
I thought I had saved that post but I guess I didn't...I will look for it
Behind the wall would be total cover not concealment right?
Also for normal concealment no...but total concealment would work nonetheless. They know what square you are in...they still cannot react to your attacks, attack you directly, or make AoOs against you.
You're right, that's a bad example. Change that to "The Rogue is hiding in thick brush."
I should note: From a table rules perspective, I believe total concealment should always grant sneak attack dice. I'm primarily playing devil's advocate here, because if you read over the description of 'total concealment', "You are denied your DEX bonus against targets with total concealment," doesn't appear anywhere in there.
And the recent Stealth FAQ, while it clarified a lot, simply determined that you should get SA damage when your target isn't aware of you (and therefore can't react to you). Scent\tremorsense makes you aware of your target; based on the recent discussion over Stealth and SA, this removes one of the most critical necessities for dealing SA (i.e., being unaware of the target).
|
|
While you are right on the flatfooted bit the rules for Invisibility specifically state that an invisible creature who has has his location pin-pointed still gains the benefits of total concealment. Both Tremorsense and Scent specifically use the word "pinpoint".You forgot Scent and Tremorsense. ;)That's because neither actually stops you from being flat-footed against an invisible rogue. They only let you know what square he is in.To be precise, Invisibility\Greater doesn't make you flat-footed against a foe. It denies you your DEX Bonus.
The Scent entry on the PRD states the following:
A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.If it can detect it as though it were visible, then I'd argue that it can react to it as though it were visible.
Tremorsense uses similar language in its description - i.e., you can pinpoint the location of anything that is touching the ground.
So it would essentially be a GM call, IMO, as to whether you could sneak attack something with either of those abilities, since there's no definition of 'pinpoint'; the fact that you know the creature's exact location would indicate that they could get AoOs versus the target, and (to me) that would indicate enough awareness of the creature to deny the attacker its SA damage.
I don't disagree that it grants total concealment.
Please point out to me in the rules where "total concealment" denies a target its DEX bonus.
The rules don't actually say that anywhere. The definition of 'total concealment' does not state that it grants you SA automatically, or that it denies the target its DEX.
Concealment - total or otherwise - is mostly irrelevant in determining whether an attacker deals SA.
Right back at you. Please show me in the rules where it says pinpointing the square a target is in negates any benefit from invisibility other than the ability to not let you opponent know what square you are in. In every instance of pinpointing a square I can find it mentions no other benefit and the reference to concealment clearly makes it obvious that it is not all inclusive regarding invisibility.
Found it
Couple of notes I want to add here...
1. For simplicities sake, it should be assumed that those making Perception checks get to do so at the most favorable point during the movement of a character using Stealth, to avoid making checks every time the condition changes. Technically, I think you would get a check whenever the conditions change, but that might make things overly complicated during play.
2. Creatures are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC "if they cannot react to a blow" (CR pg 179 under AC). It was our intent that if you are unaware of a threat, you cannot react to a blow. I think we probably should have spelled this out a wee bit clearer, but space in the Stealth description was extraordinarily tight and ever word was at a premium. That said, I think these changes clear up the situation immensely (compared to where they were.. which was nebulous at best).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Now that still doesn't say total concealment gives SA but...
They did change Stealth so that you effectively have total concealment against anyone that doesn't perceive you (beats your stealth with perception)
I take that to mean that RAI total concealment = SA
"you cannot react to a blow" if you cannot see it coming right?
Reducing the quote pyramid.
Right back at you. Please show me in the rules where it says pinpointing the square a target is in negates any benefit from invisibility other than the ability to not let you opponent know what square you are in. In every instance of pinpointing a square I can find it mentions no other benefit and the reference to concealment clearly makes it obvious that it is not all inclusive regarding invisibility.
Touché.
In that instance, Invisibility is technically granting SA damage not because of the target's awareness of his attacker necessarily, but because the condition specifically says it does. In this case, 'specific trumps general'.
Excellent counterarguments, btw. :)
|
|
Reducing the quote pyramid.
Right back at you. Please show me in the rules where it says pinpointing the square a target is in negates any benefit from invisibility other than the ability to not let you opponent know what square you are in. In every instance of pinpointing a square I can find it mentions no other benefit and the reference to concealment clearly makes it obvious that it is not all inclusive regarding invisibility.Touché.
In that instance, Invisibility is technically granting SA damage not because of the target's awareness of his attacker necessarily, but because the condition specifically says it does. In this case, 'specific trumps general'.
Excellent counterarguments, btw. :)
Thank you. That is unexpectedly gracious for an Internet argument. Makes me feel like I should be counter bowing with a flair of my feathered dueling hat. :)