Sneak Attacking allies

[Apophis]

Hello everyone.
First: My players were in the middle of a battle, and the rogue, while invisible, attacked another player (she then told the party that she was working for the BBEG).
Now, I know that the rogue's first attack was a sneak attack since she was invisible, but I don't know if her second attack would be considered one. Does anyone have any advice on how I should rule what happened?
We are playing 3.5.
Thanks in advance.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Uhm...

Well, if she's still invisible after the attack, then yeah. If not, then no. Unless she's flanking.

I... don't really see why this would be ruled any differently than normal sneak attack rules, personally, but maybe I am missing something.

[Psyren]

You should smack the rogue player upside the head.
(Hopefully your group is okay with PvP.)

Other than that, what Magic Myrmidon said:

1) Is the target player flatfooted? In this case, the answer will only be yes if the rogue is still invisible. (Combat is in progress, so there is no surprise round.)

2) Is the target player flanked? Use the normal flanking rules to determine.

If the answer to either 1 or 2 is yes, then the subsequent attacks are indeed sneak attacks.

EDIT: Make sure the target player hasn't lost their dex bonus to AC by some other means too. (e.g. they are balancing on a slippery floor.)

[Apophis]

I... don't really see why this would be ruled any differently than normal sneak attack rules, personally, but maybe I am missing something.

I was thinking less about the mechanics, and more about the RP aspect. The target player was stabbed in the back by someone who had saved her life a couple times, so I was curious if I should say that the target player would be flat-footed from this new enemy.

[MyLifeMyMusical]

I was thinking less about the mechanics, and more about the RP aspect. The target player was stabbed in the back by someone who had saved her life a couple times, so I was curious if I should say that the target player would be flat-footed from this new enemy.

I think after the first stab, they'd recognize the threat.

[Psyren]

Again, they're in the middle of battle. That implies some readiness/tension on the victim's part.

The first hit would be a shock, sure, but after that reflexes should kick in, unless the victim has a flaw of some kind or the rogue is still invisible.

[LibraryOgre]

I tend to agree... even discounting the invisibility, I'd let the first hit be a sneak attack, because the party wasn't expecting it. Any subsequent hits would rely on other sneak-attack enabling factors (invisibility, flanking).

Pulling this trick with style. (http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/ffn/index.php?date=2003-09-24)

[arrowhen]

I tend to agree... even discounting the invisibility, I'd let the first hit be a sneak attack, because the party wasn't expecting it.

I don't know if I'd be comfortable letting the rogue get a "free" sneak attack if there weren't any sneak-attack enabling factors.

In my extensive melee combat experience -- i.e., my friends and I going out into the woods and wailing on each other with sticks when we were kids -- it's just as important to be aware of the actions of your nearby allies as it is to be aware of those of your opponents. Trained combatants in a world where mind-affecting magic exists would need to be even more aware of what their allies were up to.

I'd probably let the victim roll Sense Motive vs. the rogue's Bluff to realize that the rogue's attack wasn't just a wild swing to be dodged but an actual attack to be actively defended against; if the victim succeeded, I'd deny the sneak attack damage and rule it just an ordinary attack.

[Coidzor]

I was thinking less about the mechanics, and more about the RP aspect. The target player was stabbed in the back by someone who had saved her life a couple times, so I was curious if I should say that the target player would be flat-footed from this new enemy.

No. No. and GOOD LORD MAN NO.


I tend to agree... even discounting the invisibility, I'd let the first hit be a sneak attack, because the party wasn't expecting it. Any subsequent hits would rely on other sneak-attack enabling factors (invisibility, flanking).

Pulling this trick with style. (http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/ffn/index.php?date=2003-09-24)

If by style you mean guaranteeing escalation....

[LibraryOgre]

I don't know if I'd be comfortable letting the rogue get a "free" sneak attack if there weren't any sneak-attack enabling factors.

Basically, I see the sneak-attack enabling factor being he's not ready for that person to be an opponent. I wouldn't, as the rogue, kick up a fuss at a Bluff v. Sense Motive check, but I would ask for some modifiers.... after all, this is my theoretical friend I am stabbing in the back.

[Coidzor]

Basically, I see the sneak-attack enabling factor being he's not ready for that person to be an opponent. I wouldn't, as the rogue, kick up a fuss at a Bluff v. Sense Motive check, but I would ask for some modifiers.... after all, this is my theoretical friend I am stabbing in the back.

Yeah, with the last attack. Now he's no longer invisible and identified himself as a foe to a guy already in combat.

You're not flatfooted against an enemy for an entire turn who was previously unknown and pulled such shenanigans in the middle of a battle against other foes.

All such a ruling does is heighten the derailing of everything else by the PVP. And not even the fun kind like ToS, more the kind involving a scythe and waiting until the rest of the party is asleep.

[Katana_Geldar]

It;s shenanigans like that that can get you kicked out of a group.

[ffone]

I say no free sneak attack. If they want one they can try to feint (although moot in this case since the first one was invis). This situation is just one of the many possible fluffings of a feint.

(Yes, feinting w/o special abilities is rarely useful, b/c it takes a standard action, meaning you can't actually deliver the attack until after they've had a whole turn. But that doesn't mean this isn't a feint.)

[elpollo]

As the others have said, the first is a sneak attack, the rest aren't unless the PC was also flanked by a monster/flat-footed/whatever.

[Apophis]

Alright, thank you everyone. Hopefully my players will stop arguing about this now.

[Greenish]

Yeah, with the last attack. Now he's no longer invisible and identified himself as a foe to a guy already in combat.I do believe Mark Hall is speaking about that first attack - he would have ruled that it would have qualified for SA even without invisibility, because the target wasn't expecting it.

[Psyren]

Alright, thank you everyone. Hopefully my players will stop arguing about this now.

That should give you a hint that at least one of them is not happy and maybe allowing the PvP to continue will have consequences.

Just my 2 cp.

[LibraryOgre]

Yeah, with the last attack. Now he's no longer invisible and identified himself as a foe to a guy already in combat.

As Greenish said, I was removing invisibility from the equation for the first attack. "Can I get a sneak attack against an ally when invisible" is pretty clearly "Yes, provided they can't detect you some other way." If you take invisibility out of the question, however, it becomes a much more contentious question.

[Eldariel]

I'd allow a Spot for the targeted player and make him flatfooted otherwise.

[Coidzor]

As Greenish said, I was removing invisibility from the equation for the first attack. "Can I get a sneak attack against an ally when invisible" is pretty clearly "Yes, provided they can't detect you some other way." If you take invisibility out of the question, however, it becomes a much more contentious question.

It seems clear cut to me. :smallconfused: The only other influence I can think of would be how much you want to encourage rocket tag of sudden betrayal+instadeath in your players/games.

[Safety Sword]

As Greenish said, I was removing invisibility from the equation for the first attack. "Can I get a sneak attack against an ally when invisible" is pretty clearly "Yes, provided they can't detect you some other way." If you take invisibility out of the question, however, it becomes a much more contentious question.

Stabbing someone from behind who wasn't expecting it is pretty much the definition of Sneak Attack in my book. "Friend" just makes it a bigger surprise!

I would rule the first one is certainly a sneak attack in this instance.

After that the character is a known enemy and better have finished me off, because it's to the death!

[ffone]

Stabbing someone from behind who wasn't expecting it is pretty much the definition of Sneak Attack in my book. "Friend" just makes it a bigger surprise!

I would rule the first one is certainly a sneak attack in this instance.

After that the character is a known enemy and better have finished me off, because it's to the death!

DnD has no facing. 'Behind' is modeled by 'flanking or flat-footed (or otherwise Dex-denied)'.

A similar case: enemy casts Dominate Person on party rogue. No one IDs the spell with Spellcraft, or the domination with Sense Motive.

[Safety Sword]

DnD has no facing. 'Behind' is modeled by 'flanking or flat-footed (or otherwise Dex-denied)'.

A similar case: enemy casts Dominate Person on party rogue. No one IDs the spell with Spellcraft, or the domination with Sense Motive.

Thanks for taking my post to the literal extreme. Helpful.

As for your post: I know. I know. A thousand times: I know.