| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure that for the rogue to get a sneak attack bonus from invisibility, he has to be invisible, not his item.
Also, he better not lose it!
No. What you're describing is basically this sans spell storing, speed, and the on-crit thing.
It just gives a bonus to feinting.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the real-world reasons that karossii stated above, and for the purposes of game balance, I would say no to the sneak attack. If I, as the GM, were caught off guard by such a tactic, I might be generous and say that defending opponents would get a -2 to AC, or something like that. But now that I think of it, the one official case of an invisible sword that I know of only gives the wielder a +5 bonus on Bluff checks to feint.
Think the bigger issue is that you would get a penalty yourself for not seeing your weapon. Also no sneak attack, and maybe a 5% miss chance? :P
I don't agree that it would give you sneak attack. Sneak attack works when the target has no idea you are there or when you make him look somewhere else such as feinting or flanking.
My Opinion: (if you don't put that the forum police will cry about this being a rules forum)
Now, I would rule that you gain a +1 Circumstance bonus to attacks because your opponet will have a difficult time blocking/dodging your weapon.
I do not believe that it would cease being invisible because it is used in an attack.
I would also rule that if disarmed, it will take you a while to find your weapon.
And finally, I would not give you any negatives due to the fact that you can't see the weapon because IMHO, anyone who is going to try this tactic is going to practice with it before they employ it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BY RAW, no the rogue only gets sneak attack when invisible because his opponent is denied his dex to AC because the rogue is invisible. The sword being invisible gives no benefits according to any RAW exmaples, excepting a bonus to feint.
So, no an invisible weapon wont let you sneak attack. Nor would any intelligent GM let you do this to always get sneak attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW doesn't cover this situation. If I were the GM in this situation, I would rule that an invisible sword would give you a +5 bonus on attempts to feint in combat-- assuming that you can see the blade. (If not, I'd still give you the +5 bonus on feinting, but also a -4 penalty on your attack roll.) Note that a sword with a permanent invisibility effect that the possessor of the sword could see is certainly more expensive to craft than just casting invisibility on the item!
After a successful feint, your opponent is denied its Dex bonus, and you can Sneak Attack.
(This is similar to a one of the abilities of the sword Baraket, the Sword of Pride, one of the Seven Swords of Sin, from Artifacts and Legends).
The first attack might be a sneak attack if they don't know you are holding a sword yet.
A person who goes to swing\stab with an invisible sword would still be visibly taking a hostile action. It would look like she was getting ready to make an unarmed attack.
Because of that, I wouldn't allow sneak attack damage; the target still is aware that he's being attacked, even if he thinks that it's a different attack from what is actually being performed, and so he is able to defend himself to some extent.
After the first successful attack, odds are the blade would no longer be invisible...
But to put it in real life terms; the person watching a foe's WEAPON is the person losing a match. You watch the eyes, the hands, the body language... those all telegraph the attack.
I would have to agree here. I think I would give a bonus to feint, and that is all.
This Weapon Ability from 3.5 looks about right to me.
You wouldn't catch many off guard when you appear to be gripping and swinging something when coming at me, no. Especially not a greatsword. That's a pretty bulky weapon. Do you carry it on your back? On your shoulder? How do you draw it in battle?
Any trained warrior will recognize that you have SOMETHING in your hands by the way you stand, carry yourself, and shift your gear around.
You're also coming at them rather obviously (which you would have to do, wielding a greatsword) with an attack of some kind. That's going to put anyone on edge enough to retain their dex bonus.
MAYBE I'd let you get one in on a surprise round, depending on contextual circumstances.
I don't know about sneak attack. Trying to jam more than 6inches of steel into a vital area, possibly between pieces of armor, seems to be a tall order if your blade is invisible. Try threading a needle with your eyes closed.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure that for the rogue to get a sneak attack bonus from invisibility, he has to be invisible, not his item.
Also, he better not lose it!
What would be funny is if he lost it and then held a bunch of bad guys at bay afterwards pretending it was still there.
|
|
K what about spiked chain, or 3-section nunchucks? or other exotic weapons that consist of misguiding and distracting movement?
You get sneak attack, but have a 90% chance of hitting yourself due to the fact that you are flailing an invisible lethal weapon that needs practice and patience to learn to use and the training is requires sight. And the invisibility wears of after first attack. You can reduce the chance to 80% if you are a rogue with trapfinding and make a DC 90 perception check without trapfinding at a -5 penalty due to you are used to using your eyes to look and now you must hear. Why? Because otherwise it is broken and IRL, if you can't see something, you are very likely to wack yourself in the head. No rules for this, just my houserule if someone brings this to my table.
K what about spiked chain, or 3-section nunchucks? or other exotic weapons that consist of misguiding and distracting movement?
By RAW, invisible weapons provide no benefit to allow you to sneak attack. Period.
RAW is silent about it, they don't specifically say "when attacking with an invisible weapon, your opponent is NOT considered flat-footed" or anything of the sortK what about spiked chain, or 3-section nunchucks? or other exotic weapons that consist of misguiding and distracting movement?By RAW, invisible weapons provide no benefit to allow you to sneak attack. Period.
RAW is also silent about dead people being unable to take actions; that doesn't mean they can.
The argument, "Whatever is not explicitly prohibited is allowed," doesn't hold much weight, especially when you consider how many times the designers (SKR and JB specifically) have said, "When there's a question, assume the rules do exactly what they state and nothing more."
I as a GM would not allow this.*
*I'd allow the character to spend the money, but they would gain no benefit from it.
the dead people comment was just a dumb remark, thats completely illogical
Your argument is that that because the rules don't state something explicitly, it should be allowed. All I did was change the details. It's called a 'reductio ad absurdum' argument, and you're right that it sounds illogical - but its basis is the exact same argument that you're using.
As to what I disallow or allow for my specific games is irrelevant because of the forum. The Rules forum is about what RAW says.
In this case, RAW is silent on the matter, and the standard practice in that case is that the rules do what they say, and nothing more.
As for spiked chain, you see your opponent "dancing" and have no idea that theres a barbed chain about to suckerpunch you on the cheek.
The rules state that you retain your DEX if you are able to react to an attack.
When you're dealing with a world wherein you have to be wary of an enemy even touching you (he could be getting ready to deliver a maximized intensified empowered Shocking Grasp), an opponent who's "dancing" is going to be marked as a threat and is going to be actively defended against - i.e., you are able to react to a potential attack from him, even if you don't know the specific method of attack he's using.
RAW is silent about it, they don't specifically say "when attacking with an invisible weapon, your opponent is NOT considered flat-footed" or anything of the sortK what about spiked chain, or 3-section nunchucks? or other exotic weapons that consist of misguiding and distracting movement?By RAW, invisible weapons provide no benefit to allow you to sneak attack. Period.RAW is also silent about dead people being unable to take actions; that doesn't mean they can.
The argument, "Whatever is not explicitly prohibited is allowed," doesn't hold much weight, especially when you consider how many times the designers (SKR and JB specifically) have said, "When there's a question, assume the rules do exactly what they state and nothing more."
I saw PigP4nda's post and my response was going to be almost literally the same thing. The rules are strangely silent about what dead characters can and can't do. Nothing in the rules says they don't gain all the powers of 20th level wizards and clerics and can't take any actions nor does it say they don't become gods. However, the rules are often paired with the intention of using common sense. Not with the intention of exploitation.
What makes you think that need to go through and clearly list all possible combinations that don't work? That would be an insurrmountably long list. Rather, it is better to assume that nothing works unless explicitly stated to do so. Or at least you should have some grounds to imply that it might work. But what I'm really hearing is, is there some dubious way for me to get around the limitations of invisibility so I can always have a sneak attack? In my world the answer would be yes, but everyone would have Improved Uncanny Dodge.
By the rules an invisible weapon would not work. From a logical perspective the weilder can't see the sword either, and even if he could the defender still knows he is being attacked, and there is no reason he can't move out of the way, meaning he keeps his dex bonus to AC.
If I recall correctly, the Paizo Module Carnival of Tears has a short sword that can become invisible 3 times per day, and if the victim failed a DC 25 perception check then they were flat-footed against attacks from that weapon for the round.
Is that even an Pathfinder product? It looks like it might be 3.5. What is "acceptable" in Pathinder changed from 3.5.
Even with the issues that Pathfinder has at times, I don't want to go back to 3.5. Those were dark times, dark dark times.
Looks like it's a Gamemastery product written for Pathfinder as 3.5 material, according to the link path at the top of its product page.
From a quick web search, the sword in question is a named magic item called Shadow; the stats Strange Package mentioned are correct, save that it refers to a DC25 Spot check (a clear indicator that it was intended for 3.5 use, not Pathfinder per se).
If it doesn't cause them to be Flat-Footed(which it doesn't) then it doesn't allow for SA. Its that simple.
I could easily say that attacking with a bananna causes someone to be flat-footed because the rules dont say otherwise. The rules dont have to specify everything that DOESNT qualify... they simply have to state what does. Invisible weapons are not one of those things. It gives no benefit according to the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Moral of the story:
RAW doesn't say anything. Therefore, completely up the the GM.
I just really dislike this statement so much to indicate that something is allowable. As mentioned, RAW doesn't say anything about dead people not being allowed to take any actions, but most people would think you were crazy if you asserted that they could. Just because something isn't stated outright isn't grounds to assume that it should be possible.
The game doesn't say a lot of things, and it shouldn't have to just because somebody on the internet comes up with some crazy idea that isn't explicitly forbidden.
In a country where murder isn't illegal would most people still consider it morally wrong?
[quote Dragonamedrake]If it doesn't cause them to be Flat-Footed(which it doesn't) then it doesn't allow for SA. Its that simple.
Not true. Flat-footed and "denied DEX to AC" are two distinct terms. Flat-footed means the target is denied its DEX to AC, but a target denied its DEX to AC is not always flat-footed.
This important because there are abilities that require the target to be flat-footed that don't function if the target is simply denied its DEX to AC.
[quote Dragonamedrake]If it doesn't cause them to be Flat-Footed(which it doesn't) then it doesn't allow for SA. Its that simple.
Not true. Flat-footed and "denied DEX to AC" are two distinct terms. Flat-footed means the target is denied its DEX to AC, but a target denied its DEX to AC is not always flat-footed.
This important because there are abilities that require the target to be flat-footed that don't function if the target is simply denied its DEX to AC.
Your correct. I should have said denied Dex to AC... my statement is still true though.
|
No, you don't get to sneak attack something just because your greatsword is invisible, which by the way would make it a heck of a lot harder to wield given you wouldn't be able to see if it was swinging close to things above you. You might have had a chance if you'd said "dagger" but even then I'd still probably say no.
Just because something is under the effects of the Invisibility spell doesn't mean it's utterly undetectable. Your rogue is still swinging around a 5 foot long, 8# two-handed sword. That makes noise as it whooshes through the air or when you inevitably smack it against the floor/wall/etc and make it clang. Your still obviously putting effort into swinging it about (or are an amazingly good Mime) as well.
It certainly is unusual and crazy but that doesn't make someone totally let their guard down while in a fight.
If you want your sneak attack dice I suggest getting a flanking bonus as often as possible. +2 to hit and extra damage almost all the time when your flanking with now silly tricks required. Your playing a game with your friends for a reason after all.
Your correct. I should have said denied Dex to AC... my statement is still true though.[quote Dragonamedrake]If it doesn't cause them to be Flat-Footed(which it doesn't) then it doesn't allow for SA. Its that simple.Not true. Flat-footed and "denied DEX to AC" are two distinct terms. Flat-footed means the target is denied its DEX to AC, but a target denied its DEX to AC is not always flat-footed.
This important because there are abilities that require the target to be flat-footed that don't function if the target is simply denied its DEX to AC.
Agreed.
As an interesting side thought, I believe the RAW would indicate that you could make a weapon invisible and then use the Invisible property to cause it to deny a target its DEX. That wouldn't really do much good since the weapon wouldn't possess an inherent ability to sneak attack but :P...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you could make your finger invisible--just your finger--would you think your target would be denied his Dexterity to your touch attacks?
Mind you, if you're in a group playing RAW and the GM allowed it, as you didn't include when quoting me, I would call that BS.
Not that it's particularly relevant, but I think you may have edited your post after the original posting to include the lines after what I quoted, as I don't remember removing anything from between the quotes. Though I honestly I can't remember, but I can't think of why I would have removed those bits.
Your correct. I should have said denied Dex to AC... my statement is still true though.[quote Dragonamedrake]If it doesn't cause them to be Flat-Footed(which it doesn't) then it doesn't allow for SA. Its that simple.Not true. Flat-footed and "denied DEX to AC" are two distinct terms. Flat-footed means the target is denied its DEX to AC, but a target denied its DEX to AC is not always flat-footed.
This important because there are abilities that require the target to be flat-footed that don't function if the target is simply denied its DEX to AC.
Agreed.
As an interesting side thought, I believe the RAW would indicate that you could make a weapon invisible and then use the Invisible property to cause it to deny a target its DEX. That wouldn't really do much good since the weapon wouldn't possess an inherent ability to sneak attack but :P...
first of all, when talking about sneak attack, being denied dex to ac or being flatfooted are one in the same along with being flanked. it is the same for the purpose of allowing a sneak attack.
as far as the weapon being invisible, this would actually make sneak attacks impossible. here is why: a rogue can only make a sneak attack when he can see and attack specific vital areas of the enemy. to do this a rogue must be able to place his weapon (via eye to hand coordination) into said vital area. if the rogue cannot see his weapon (which he wouldn't be able to unless he was the target of the invisibility instead of the weapon) then he cannot know for sure that he is actually hitting those vital areas. he may be targeting them, sure, but he cant say for sure that hes hitting them. this would be the ultimate form of kentucky windage.