# Invisibility, Stealth, and Sneak Attack.



## SnowleopardVK (Aug 11, 2011)

I'm either missing something here, or what I've got is a question of whether or not to follow the rules word for word when they stop making sense... Anyways, here's a simple scenario to help explain the circumstances of my question:

Let's say we have a stealthy ranged rogue hiding from a single melee-based enemy. It's round 1 of combat and she's won initiative. She fires from stealth, and let's assume even with that -20 she manages to remain hidden.

That first shot of hers gets her sneak attack bonus. Now its the enemy's turn but he can't find her since she's managed to remain hidden.

Round 2. As far as I can tell, the rules state she no longer gets her sneak attack bonus even though he doesn't know where she is because he's aware there's an enemy shooting at him from somewhere.

What I wonder about is why she would continue to get sneak attack bonus if she were invisible, but not if she were hidden? Does being invisible mean that he remains unaware of her shooting even as he's filled with arrows? No. Is the rest of the situation generally the same? As far as I can tell yes. 

I think it'd be a reasonable houserule to say that a rogue who managed to hide that well should continue to get her sneak attack bonuses until she's actually spotted. But I'd like to make sure I'm not missing something from somewhere else in the rules that explains the seemingly nonsensical official ruling. 

In short, I can't see why invisibility, which is essentially just a (really) good way of boosting your stealth doesn't work the same as far as sneak attacks go as an exceptional stealth roll, aside from "Because the rules say so".


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Aug 11, 2011)

If she made the hide check, she can keep sniping once per turn and getting sneak attack to damage, as she'd be catching the foes flatfooted.  Hiding means the enemy can't see you, just like invisibility.  Thus, he is flatfooted, and you get the +2 bonus to hit and can sneak attack.

Note also that if a foe has not gotten a chance to act yet in the combat, he is flatfooted till he does so.  If the Rogue wanted to just alpha strike as hard as she could, she could shoot in the surprise round (if there is one), then if she has higher initiative, she could full attack sneak attack on round 1 as well.  She'd just be visible and probably in danger after that.


----------



## SnowleopardVK (Aug 11, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> ...If the Rogue wanted to just alpha strike as hard as she could, she could shoot in the surprise round (if there is one), then if she has higher initiative, she could full attack sneak attack on round 1 as well.  She'd just be visible and probably in danger after that.




For my scenario I just assumed that either there was no surprise round (for some reason) or the rogue managed to successfully pull off the -20 stealth sniping roll twice. Either way, the point being is that by the end of round 1 she's still hidden.

Hunh, every DM I've ever had who I've brought up the issue of flat-footedness with has said that an enemy can't be flat-footed if they're aware that combat is happening, even if they're not specifically aware of where it's happening from. Or even more bizarrely some have said that an enemy being aware of one of my fellow party members means I can't catch him flat-footed. 

It's nice to get a break from the bad logic...


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Aug 11, 2011)

SnowleopardVK said:


> Hunh, every DM I've ever had who I've brought up the issue of flat-footedness with has said that an enemy can't be flat-footed if they're aware that combat is happening, even if they're not specifically aware of where it's happening from. Or even more bizarrely some have said that an enemy being aware of one of my fellow party members means I can't catch him flat-footed.




While the opponent is no longer flat-footed, because he's had his turn in combat, he's still denied his dexterity bonus to AC, because you're attacking him while unseen (effectively invisible).

So...  You can still sneak attack him (since he's denied his Dex bonus) even though he's not flat-footed.


----------



## irdeggman (Aug 11, 2011)

As long as the "condition" exists the rogue can sneak attack.

In this case the condition is that the opponent is denied their dex bonus to AC.

As pointed out if the rogue is hidden to the opponent he is "invisible" to that opponent.  The Rules Compendium made that rules change (that the opponent consideres the rogue invisible).

Being invisible also gives the attacker an additional +2 attack bonus as well as denying the target their Dex bonus to AC {something to keep in mind}.

As far as your DMs saying that the PCs are not flat-footed as long as they are aware of combat - well have them read the PHB pg 135 under initiative "A character is flat-footed until he or she takes an action."

 or pg 308

"flat-footed: Especially vulnerable to attacks at the beginning of a
battle. Characters are flat-footed until their first turns in the
initiative cycle. A flat-footed creature loses its Dexterity bonus to
Armor Class (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity."

The Rules Compendium also has words to this effect.

Note that if the DM is saying that once combat starts no one is flat-footed (which is what I read from your text) then there are huge ramifications to this.

That means, not only are they not susceptible to sneak attacks but that they can also make AoO - which totally messes with the "positioning" strategy of being able to act first (thus setting up flanking)


----------



## SnowleopardVK (Aug 11, 2011)

irdeggman said:


> As pointed out if the rogue is hidden to the opponent he is "invisible" to that opponent.  The Rules Compendium made that rules change (that the opponent consideres the rogue invisible).




I didn't know there was a change. Thanks.



irdeggman said:


> As far as your DMs saying that the PCs are not flat-footed as long as they are aware of combat - well have them read the PHB pg 135 under initiative "A character is flat-footed until he or she takes an action."




I believe most of them consider taking a turn in initiative order to be "taking an action" since they can still do something during that time.



irdeggman said:


> Note that if the DM is saying that once combat starts no one is flat-footed (which is what I read from your text) then there are huge ramifications to this.




Pretty much. More specifically as far as I can tell they're saying that after any particular combatant has taken their turn in round 1 they're no longer flat-footed.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Aug 11, 2011)

Once you get your first turn in combat (whether you choose to act, ready, or delay, doesn't matter), you ARE no longer flatfooted.  Until then, though, you are flatfooted, and it doesn't matter who else has acted or what you've seen.

However, hiding is separate from the "flatfooted at the start of combat" rules.  If you're hidden and the enemy didn't spot you, then he is flatfooted against you no matter what turn it is in combat.  They're completely different things.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 11, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> However, hiding is separate from the "flatfooted at the start of combat" rules.  If you're hidden and the enemy didn't spot you, then he is flatfooted against you




No, he isn't.

Your target is denied his Dexterity bonus against your attacks if you are invisible to him.

He is _not_ flat-footed.

The two are similar, but they are not identical.

It's a bit nitpicky, but calling the guy "flat-footed" when he's not just increases confusion.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Aug 11, 2011)

I'm aware they're different.  I just...never noticed that Invisibility doesn't make the foe flatfooted before...  That doesn't seem right...  But by RAW, you're correct.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 11, 2011)

Ah - I thought that you were misusing the term.  Sorry!


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Aug 11, 2011)

Nah, I've just been misusing the rules for a decade!

I mean seriously...the FIRST mental image I get for Uncanny Dodge is deftly evading attacks from an unseen assailant.  SO houseruling this!

EDIT; Actually, that's probably why I was mixed up.  Uncanny Dodge does protect you from unseen assailants...sometimes.

It specifically mentions invisible foes as you being able to retain your dex to AC against.  But if you're blinded, which mechanically should be (and with this exception basically is) the same as your foes invisible, in regards to attacking you, you would lose your dex to AC still.  Because Invis and blinded don't make you flatfooted, and only invis is specifically called out in Uncanny Dodge.  Yeah, don't like that.  Houseruling!


----------



## Friend of the Dork (Aug 11, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Nah, I've just been misusing the rules for a decade!
> 
> I mean seriously...the FIRST mental image I get for Uncanny Dodge is deftly evading attacks from an unseen assailant.  SO houseruling this!
> 
> ...




If you are blinded, enemies counts as invisible to you, so a blind Rogue should still retain his Uncanny Dodge. The only exception is being immobilized. Flanking still works until Im. UD of course.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 11, 2011)

Friend of the Dork said:


> If you are blinded, enemies counts as invisible to you, so a blind Rogue should still retain his Uncanny Dodge. The only exception is being immobilized. Flanking still works until Im. UD of course.




Yep!


----------



## concerro (Aug 11, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> If she made the hide check, she can keep sniping once per turn and getting sneak attack to damage, as she'd be catching the foes flatfooted.  Hiding means the enemy can't see you, just like invisibility.  Thus, he is flatfooted, and you get the +2 bonus to hit and can sneak attack.
> 
> Note also that if a foe has not gotten a chance to act yet in the combat, he is flatfooted till he does so.  If the Rogue wanted to just alpha strike as hard as she could, she could shoot in the surprise round (if there is one), then if she has higher initiative, she could full attack sneak attack on round 1 as well.  She'd just be visible and probably in danger after that.



Flat-footed and loss of dex are not the same thing. Flat-footed is an actual condition just like being stunned or sickened, that has loss of dex as a result. 
The difference is not that great, but it does matter if something has being flat-footed as a requirement.


edit: ninja'd by Patryn of Elvenshae


----------

