PDA

View Full Version : Do invisible creatures provide flanking?



TricksyAndFalse
2007-02-27, 06:00 PM
Long timer lurker, first time poster, here.

So, my full question is, if a creature using a form of invisibility that ends when they make an attack (such as the invisibility or invisibility sphere spells, but not greater invisibility) is not willing to break that invisibility by making an attack of opportunity, can they really be said to be threatening the squares in their threat zone?

If you believe this creature does threaten these squares, do you also believe an allied creature gains the flanking advantage if correctly positioned? Let's assume that neither the visible ally nor the opponent are aware of the location of the invisible creature.

Dhavaer
2007-02-27, 06:02 PM
Technically, yes. They probably shouldn't, though.

Santanya
2007-02-27, 06:06 PM
Its hard to say, and would be the DM call I would think. Flanking works by threatening the person, so they're on guard against both people, trying to guard against both. If the victim doesn't know the person is there, then he's not guarding against him, so would lose their dex bonus to ac against it, but is on full guard against the visible opponent.

TheOOB
2007-02-27, 06:10 PM
Just because you can't see a target doesn't mean you arn't trying to defens agienst them.

Anyways, invisibility provides flanking for the same reason that you can't ignore say a fighter so his rogue buddy doesn't get flanking.

PaladinBoy
2007-02-27, 06:11 PM
I would say it really doesn't matter if they threaten those squares or not if they're not going to attack. Even if they are, the point at which everyone should learn about the threat is when the sword (or other weapon) comes out of nowhere.

As for flanking...... no, I don't think I'd give the visible ally the flanking bonus. I think that represents a distracted enemy trying to divide his attention between two people on different sides. I would probably rule that the enemy is considered flat-footed against the invisible character's attack, if he tried one.

brian c
2007-02-27, 06:14 PM
Long timer lurker, first time poster, here.

So, my full question is, if a creature using a form of invisibility that ends when they make an attack (such as the invisibility or invisibility sphere spells, but not greater invisibility) is not willing to break that invisibility by making an attack of opportunity, can they really be said to be threatening the squares in their threat zone?

If you believe this creature does threaten these squares, do you also believe an allied creature gains the flanking advantage if correctly positioned? Let's assume that neither the visible ally nor the opponent are aware of the location of the invisible creature.

By RAW, the invisible creature does threaten the opponent, so both the visible ally and invisible creature should get flanking bonuses. There's nothing about flanking in the PHB 3.5 errata, and the errata also specifically states that if another rulebook contradicts the PHB (just in case you find rules for flanking elsewhere that aren't Variant) then you should accept the PHB rules. The PHB description of the Invisitbility spell, and the concealment in combat section it references, do not mention whether or not Invisible creatures count as threatening squares, or for flanking. "Threat range" in the PHB refers only to critical threat range.

However, I think it would be completely reasonable for the DM to rule that the visible ally, since they aren't aware that they are flanking, receives no flanking bonus, and the invisible creature, which is aware that it is flanking, should receive the bonus (in addition to catching the opponent flat-footed and any sneak attack bonus the invisible creature has).

edit: while I wrote this, 4 other people responded. Was I thorough enough? :p

Krellen
2007-02-27, 06:14 PM
I would probably rule that the enemy is considered flat-footed against the invisible character's attack, if he tried one.Good idea, since the rules say that too. :smallbiggrin:

I would agree with the consensus: the rules don't really say so, but I wouldn't let an invisible character that hasn't taken hostile action provide flanking. One protected with greater invisibility who has already attacked, on the other hand, I probably would.

PinkysBrain
2007-02-27, 06:14 PM
No threatening no flanking, common sense rule.

brian c
2007-02-27, 06:18 PM
No threatening no flanking, common sense rule.

Assuming the invisible creature is close enough to the opponent to attack it (and has at least 5ft reach) then it does threaten the opponent. I agree with you that there's no flanking bonus for the visible ally, but the invisible creature is definitely threatening

Mewtarthio
2007-02-27, 06:18 PM
Just because you can't see a target doesn't mean you arn't trying to defens agienst them.

What? How can you possibly attempt to defend against something you don't even know is there?


Anyways, invisibility provides flanking for the same reason that you can't ignore say a fighter so his rogue buddy doesn't get flanking.

Even if you know that lowering your guard against the Rogue will make you suffer dearly, you can't ignore the Fighter that's five feet away from you. It's psychological (I could see a feat that let you focus on a single opponent to remove the flanking bonuses, but it would have to deny you Dex to AC against everyone else, rarely a wise choice). An invisible creature may very well be five feet away from you, but you don't know it's there and therefore have no reason to lower your guard against the other opponent (and thus you are denied Dex to AC against the invisible guy).

brian c
2007-02-27, 06:22 PM
What? How can you possibly attempt to defend against something you don't even know is there?

Welll... I know this wasn't the poster's question, but if the opponent made a spot check to "see" (become aware of) the invisible creature, then it would be probably trying to defend against it also and could get flanked by the visible ally. Once again though, the original poster's situation specified that the opponent is not aware of the invisible creature.

Jack Mann
2007-02-27, 06:23 PM
It really depends on whether or not the defender knows the invisible creature is there. If he does, then I would rule that flanking does occur. If not, then no flanking.

Saph
2007-02-27, 06:49 PM
I don't see how it could give a flanking bonus even if the defender knows it's there, since the defender doesn't know exactly which there it's in. Is it in the opposite square, or the one next to it? What if it's moving around between strikes?

So either you say that the invisible creature gives a flanking position from every square the defender thinks it might be in, or you just say invisible = no flanking.

I'd say the second, since I think the flanking bonus comes from the defender trying to watch both enemies at once. If he can't watch one of them, there's no flanking.

- Saph

PinkysBrain
2007-02-27, 07:04 PM
Assuming the invisible creature is close enough to the opponent to attack it (and has at least 5ft reach) then it does threaten the opponent.
From his perspective, yes ... from the opponents perspective, no.

Raum
2007-02-27, 07:10 PM
RAW, yes an invisible flanker both gets and provides a flanking bonus. The only requirements for flanking (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#flanking) are to threaten and have a reach greater than 0.

As for metagame / fluff issues, victims are capable of defending themselves against known invisible attackers and with the right feat they even keep their Dex bonus. So, known invisible attackers should definitely provide and receive a flanking bonus. Unknown invisible attackers are a bit more problematic when looking for a metagame reason for the flanking bonus. But since the flank bonus is dependent on ally actions and not on your adversary's actions, it makes sense to get the flanking bonus even when the victim is unaware of the invisible attacker.

PinkysBrain
2007-02-27, 07:19 PM
"But since the flank bonus is dependent on ally actions"

That is begging the question, it's also bull. From a metagame/fluff perspective the only way flanking makes sense is that you get the bonus because of distraction. Your invisible ally can't make the opponent defend himself any differently whether your ally waves his weapon, stands on his head or walks away.

Common sense ruling ... an invisible character can get a flanking bonus on his own attacks but he does not provide flanking for his visible counterpart(s).

ken-do-nim
2007-02-27, 07:28 PM
A little off topic, but I also allow a creature being flanked the option to not be flanked and simply allow itself to be flat-footed against one or more of its foes. Again this represents the creature saying, "You know what? I'm not going to allow myself to be distracted by this foe since I know it can't hurt me." I do this when the pcs try to flank using a weapon or summoned animal or what not that can't penetrate the enemy's dr and the enemy knows it.

Raum
2007-02-27, 07:30 PM
"But since the flank bonus is dependent on ally actions"

That is begging the question, it's also bull. Actually, per RAW it's fact. I'd suggest reading the rules on flanking again, they're linked in my previous post.


From a metagame/fluff perspective the only way flanking makes sense is that you get the bonus because of distraction. That's one interpretation, but the PHB never mentions flanking as distracting the victim. It could as easily be the attackers coordinating actions, finding openings because of the potentially broad front which must be defended, or possible it's just an abstracted bonus to represent a combination of facing and multiple opponents which aren't dealt with directly by game mechanics. The last is the one I favor.


Your invisible ally can't make the opponent defend himself any differently whether your ally waves his weapon, stands on his head or walks away.If the defender knows the invisible attacker is there he certainly will defend against that attacker. Remember, the flanker doesn't need to wave a weapon or stand on his head or whatever, he simply needs to threaten.

Orzel
2007-02-27, 07:32 PM
invisible creatures count as flanking. If you choose to COMPLETELY ignore them, you get coup de graced because you are not attempting to defend youself in anyway. Not flinching, Not wiggling when you feel the tip of the blade. You stand there any take the hit.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-27, 07:43 PM
invisible creatures count as flanking. If you choose to COMPLETELY ignore them, you get coup de graced because you are not attempting to defend youself in anyway. Not flinching, Not wiggling when you feel the tip of the blade. You stand there any take the hit.

The same thing happens if an invisible guy ambushes you. You have no idea he's there, so you can't defend yourself properly. In effect, you're ignoring him. You don't choose to ignore him, because he's invisible and you have no choice.

brian c
2007-02-27, 07:48 PM
From his perspective, yes ... from the opponents perspective, no.

the RAW doesn't distinguish. If they threaten, then they can provide flanking.

ken-do-nim
2007-02-27, 07:51 PM
invisible creatures count as flanking. If you choose to COMPLETELY ignore them, you get coup de graced because you are not attempting to defend youself in anyway. Not flinching, Not wiggling when you feel the tip of the blade. You stand there any take the hit.

That's an interesting interpretation. So therefore if a demon with dr 15 is flanked by the party wizard and chooses to ignore him, the party wizard could actually chip in a point with the automatic hit & critical. Thanks, I'll use that.

Orzel
2007-02-27, 08:00 PM
The same thing happens if an invisible guy ambushes you. You have no idea he's there, so you can't defend yourself properly. In effect, you're ignoring him. You don't choose to ignore him, because he's invisible and you have no choice.

But your body automatically "via HP" doesn't ignore the ambusher. It's like when someone says boo and stabs you, you get scared and move. If you choose NOT to move but forcing yourself not to move (and give up your HP), you get brave and die.

Thomar_of_Uointer
2007-02-27, 08:02 PM
A little off topic, but I also allow a creature being flanked the option to not be flanked and simply allow itself to be flat-footed against one or more of its foes. Again this represents the creature saying, "You know what? I'm not going to allow myself to be distracted by this foe since I know it can't hurt me." I do this when the pcs try to flank using a weapon or summoned animal or what not that can't penetrate the enemy's dr and the enemy knows it.

I believe this is a highly overpowered option, and it causes all sorts of problems. It basically allows any character with a Dexterity of 11 or less to ignore rogues he's aware of without penalty unless he's flanked by more than one of them.

By the RAW, flanking occurs if a character is threatened from opponents on opposite sides of him, invisibility is never mentioned.

PinkysBrain
2007-02-27, 08:03 PM
Actually, per RAW it's fact.
Which is relevant how given the way you started the paragraph?

Raum
2007-02-27, 08:26 PM
Which is relevant how given the way you started the paragraph?"Fluff" is the story which explains or gives an example of game mechanics in narrative form. "Metagame" generally refers to out of game knowledge of game mechanics, plot lines, or story arcs.

Neither is used to change game mechanics.

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 08:37 PM
What? How can you possibly attempt to defend against something you don't even know is there?

Go to NYC sometime and watch the crazies wander around the streets swatting at swarms of things that are not there. That's how people try to defend against things they are not certain is there.

In a sense, being aware there is some sort of thing, possibily invisible, running around should give almost anyone flanking against anyone aware that someone is invisible, and not knowing where. I don't know that he is next to me, but I don't know that he isn't either. I just know he is somewhere, and wants me dead.
That would get you agitated and distracted.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-27, 08:45 PM
Go to NYC sometime and watch the crazies wander around the streets swatting at swarms of things that are not there. That's how people try to defend against things they are not certain is there.

That sounds to me like someone defending against something that isn't really there, but they think it is.

Besides, somebody unaware of an invisible attacker won't make any moves to defend himself against it. That's where flanking comes in: You have to block blows coming from both sides of you, and that makes you easy to hit.


In a sense, being aware there is some sort of thing, possibily invisible, running around should give almost anyone flanking against anyone aware that someone is invisible, and not knowing where. I don't know that he is next to me, but I don't know that he isn't either. I just know he is somewhere, and wants me dead.
That would get you agitated and distracted.

A) The victim is completely unaware of the invisible creature.
B) Nervous != Flanked. Unless you're actively defending youself against an invisible creature (which you can't do: You can't read the creatures moves anyway), you can't be considered flanked.
C) Do you mean to imply that anyone who sees someone turn invisible is automatically flanked by anything that engages him in melee, even if the invisible guy runs away to Bermuda and takes a nap?

cupkeyk
2007-02-27, 08:46 PM
Given that the Invisible creature is an unseen servant, can it flank an opponent even if Unseen servants may never make an attack role? It threatens the area, being a medium creature and all.

I can even tell the unseen servant: swing this sword around threateningly behind the guy fighter is fighting. d00d would go... oh crud a floating sword!!!

ken-do-nim
2007-02-27, 09:02 PM
I believe this is a highly overpowered option, and it causes all sorts of problems. It basically allows any character with a Dexterity of 11 or less to ignore rogues he's aware of without penalty unless he's flanked by more than one of them.

By the RAW, flanking occurs if a character is threatened from opponents on opposite sides of him, invisibility is never mentioned.

The only time this has come up is when the 10 strength party sorcerer, armed with a mere non-magical dagger, tried to flank the dr 10 demon to give the rogue a sneak attack. I ruled that the sorcerer didn't actually threaten the demon since he couldn't possibly do it any damage and the demon knew it.

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 09:04 PM
The point I was making is that the opponant is thinking something is there, and is unable to just pretend he doesn't care. He is still going to be looking for tell tale shimmers, thinking in the back of his head "is my spine exposed?" stuff like that. He won't be paying attention solely on his opponant, or even as much as he probably should be. That is what opens him up a bit.

Now, of course if he has no clue the invisible opponant is there, he probably should not be flanked by the visible opponant, but perhaps be completely flat footed vs the invisible.

In terms of groups, paranoia and uncertainty are what break morale and win battles. Is that accounted for in RAW? Not really. But if the enemy sees some big warrior become invisible, they are all going to be extra careful trying to pick out where he is as opposed to focusing on those they can see. What you don't know is always scarier than what you do, even if you don't know the fellow just took a nap.

Is any of that RAW? Apparently not. Just saying it makes sense.

Raum
2007-02-27, 09:07 PM
Given that the Invisible creature is an unseen servant, can it flank an opponent even if Unseen servants may never make an attack role? It threatens the area, being a medium creature and all.

I can even tell the unseen servant: swing this sword around threateningly behind the guy fighter is fighting. d00d would go... oh crud a floating sword!!!Unseen servants can't attack, therefore they can't threaten or flank.

Raum
2007-02-27, 09:35 PM
To restate the RAW flanking rules:
1: Attackers must have the correct positioning (be opposite each other with the opponent between them) and capabilities (non-zero reach and the ability to threaten) in order to flank.
2: Defenders are only mentioned in relation to the attackers' positions.
Conclusion: Flanking is based on the flankers' positions and capabilities, not on anything the defender does.

Based on RAW, one potential reason for the existence of flanking bonuses is that it's purely based on position and nothing else. Another potential reason is that it's an abstracted bonus gained from position, facing, and multiple opponents working together.

Visibility or lack there of is immaterial to flanking as long as it allows the flankers to threaten. You can even have two attacker's flank an invisible opponent. For that matter all three could be invisible (what a mess, lol). That's RAW.

To me, the ability to flank an invisible opponent invalidates the idea that flanking bonuses might be based on the opponent's reaction to his flankers. The flankers get a flanking bonus because of their positioning, whether or not they can see their opponent's reaction. Or even if the opponent doesn't react.

Of course none of that stops anyone from house ruling differently or coming up with different reasons for the bonus such as the flanked opponent being distracted.

cupkeyk
2007-02-27, 09:44 PM
The only time this has come up is when the 10 strength party sorcerer, armed with a mere non-magical dagger, tried to flank the dr 10 demon to give the rogue a sneak attack. I ruled that the sorcerer didn't actually threaten the demon since he couldn't possibly do it any damage and the demon knew it.

Actually, that sorc should still provide flanking. A demon would know that a sorc can have touch spells that can drop him in one round. The knife is basically there to prevent being unarmed. Otherwise, the demon should not have ignored the sorc at all.

Regardless, having the option to ignore someone as inconsequential seems like a viable option.

Wizzardman
2007-02-27, 10:01 PM
Actually, that sorc should still provide flanking. A demon would know that a sorc can have touch spells that can drop him in one round. The knife is basically there to prevent being unarmed. Otherwise, the demon should not have ignored the sorc at all.

Regardless, having the option to ignore someone as inconsequential seems like a viable option.

...I dunno. I suppose it depends on your definition of inconsequential.

If a Pit Fiend is being flanked by a decently-powerful rogue and a commoner with a knife, it sounds like the Pit Fiend should be able to ignore the commoner easily--after all, his knife can't penetrate the Pit Fiend's DR. And sure, the commoner can't exactly do any damage to the Pit Fiend...

...but he can be a distraction. Said Commoner can just stand there, watch the Pit Fiend's movements, and shout where the devil's gonna move; he can stick his foot in the way while the Pit Fiend is trying to move in on the Rogue; he can even push on the Pit Fiend occasionally--he won't move the great bloody thing, but he can certainly make it hard for the Pit Fiend to shift his weight properly, or dodge out of the way. Keep in mind, the whole point of flanking is to have one opponent distract the other, so while the commoner certainly can't do much against the Pit Fiend, he can annoy the Pit Fiend enough to give a +2 bonus to said rogue. And said Rogue can take advantage of this little distraction to do what he does best.

Now, if the commoner is invisible, and the Pit Fiend doesn't know that the commoner is there, and the commoner doesn't do anything to let said Pit Fiend know, then I suppose the Pit Fiend isn't flanked.

PinkysBrain
2007-02-27, 10:41 PM
Neither is used to change game mechanics.
We change a lot of things when it conflicts with common sense, but to each his own. Regardless, you were trying to justify your position from the "metagame / fluff" perspective. When that justification doesn't hold water you using rules to patch it up doesn't make sense, the rules were what you were trying to justify to begin with.

PinkysBrain
2007-02-27, 10:53 PM
In terms of groups, paranoia and uncertainty are what break morale and win battles. Is that accounted for in RAW? Not really. But if the enemy sees some big warrior become invisible, they are all going to be extra careful trying to pick out where he is as opposed to focusing on those they can see. What you don't know is always scarier than what you do, even if you don't know the fellow just took a nap.

Is any of that RAW? Apparently not. Just saying it makes sense.
Not really. If the paranoia was what did it then what would it matter if someone was actually behind you or not? Essentially with that reasoning you should always get a flanking bonus on opponents who thought there were invisible creatures about. There can be no justification for the flanking bonus which does not involve in some way the opposing flanker being perceptible to the opponent.

This isn't abstraction, this is just plain silly.

Toric
2007-02-27, 11:01 PM
Seems like we have an answer here if I read the discussion right. By RAW, an invisible creature that neither ally nor enemy is aware of may threaten a creature for flanking, but, as with most things, it comes down to Rule 0. The DM makes the call. The only way I see this working in practice though is the invisible guy shouting at the enemy just before the rogue strikes, causing the opponent to be off guard, while the rogue just accepts the stroke of good fortune.

In short, this is another "RAW yes, but subject to DM interpretation."

brian c
2007-02-27, 11:14 PM
Seems like we have an answer here if I read the discussion right. By RAW, an invisible creature that neither ally nor enemy is aware of may threaten a creature for flanking, but, as with most things, it comes down to Rule 0. The DM makes the call. The only way I see this working in practice though is the invisible guy shouting at the enemy just before the rogue strikes, causing the opponent to be off guard, while the rogue just accepts the stroke of good fortune.

In short, this is another "RAW yes, but subject to DM interpretation."

Yeah, that's about the consensus here.

also: someone mentioned something about unseen servants. The original poster didn't say it was an unseen servant; he said that the invisible creature was not going to attack, but that doesn't mean that it was unable to. If the invisible creature cannot attack, then it does not threaten and therefore cannot confer flanking bonuses. If it can attack (even if it cannot feasibly do damage) then it threatens.

Raum
2007-02-27, 11:23 PM
We change a lot of things when it conflicts with common sense, but to each his own.Granted! We even change things simply because we'd like to try it differently or dislike the way something works. Not sure what this has to do with RAW though...or was I mistaken when I thought we were discussing the RAW mechanics of invisible flankers?


Regardless, you were trying to justify your position from the "metagame / fluff" perspective. When that justification doesn't hold water you using rules to patch it up doesn't make sense, the rules were what you were trying to justify to begin with.Err, you seem to have cause and effect backwards. I came up with metagame reasons for RAW game mechanics. My "position" is RAW.

If my interpretation of RAW is incorrect in your opinion please let me know how it is incorrect and what you're basing it on. I've stated my premises and conclusions. What are yours?

ken-do-nim
2007-02-28, 12:18 AM
...I dunno. I suppose it depends on your definition of inconsequential.

If a Pit Fiend is being flanked by a decently-powerful rogue and a commoner with a knife, it sounds like the Pit Fiend should be able to ignore the commoner easily--after all, his knife can't penetrate the Pit Fiend's DR. And sure, the commoner can't exactly do any damage to the Pit Fiend...

...but he can be a distraction. Said Commoner can just stand there, watch the Pit Fiend's movements, and shout where the devil's gonna move; he can stick his foot in the way while the Pit Fiend is trying to move in on the Rogue; he can even push on the Pit Fiend occasionally--he won't move the great bloody thing, but he can certainly make it hard for the Pit Fiend to shift his weight properly, or dodge out of the way. Keep in mind, the whole point of flanking is to have one opponent distract the other, so while the commoner certainly can't do much against the Pit Fiend, he can annoy the Pit Fiend enough to give a +2 bonus to said rogue. And said Rogue can take advantage of this little distraction to do what he does best.

Now, if the commoner is invisible, and the Pit Fiend doesn't know that the commoner is there, and the commoner doesn't do anything to let said Pit Fiend know, then I suppose the Pit Fiend isn't flanked.

Actually that's accounted for in the rules - you're describing the aid another action which coincidentally also gives a +2 (but only to one attack).

The distinction here involves not so much flanking as threatening. We both agree that the commoner doesn't threaten without a knife, since he's unarmed. I'm saying he doesn't threaten with the knife either, since it can't get through the fiend's damage reduction. Therefore he doesn't flank.

In regards to the sorcerer, the question came up when the rogue wanted a sneak attack. At the time, the sorcerer was holding a dagger and was not holding the charge to a touch spell. So I ruled the sorcerer wasn't threatening the demon. Next time this comes up, I will allow the sorcerer a coup de grace attack on his next action because the demon ignored him. Somehow, I don't think the player of the sorcerer will take me up on it :-)

Sorry to get off topic regarding invisibility flanking, but I have found this side angle an interesting aspect of it.

PinkysBrain
2007-02-28, 01:10 AM
Err, you seem to have cause and effect backwards. I came up with metagame reasons for RAW game mechanics. My "position" is RAW.
Part of those metagame reasons was "But since the flank bonus is dependent on ally actions". When called on the fact that that was silly (when nothing your ally does can affect the opponent in any way) you backed up to the RAW again. So your metagame reason for the RAW is the RAW ... that's a bit circular.

TricksyAndFalse
2007-02-28, 06:54 AM
As for flanking...... no, I don't think I'd give the visible ally the flanking bonus. I think that represents a distracted enemy trying to divide his attention between two people on different sides. I would probably rule that the enemy is considered flat-footed against the invisible character's attack, if he tried one.

Well in addition to a +2 to attack, invisible creatures already deny their targets their Dex and Dodge bonuses, which I think is more-or-less what you have in mind.

The question came up while I was dreaming up potential tactics for a Beguiler character I'd like to play. This was not one of the tactics, but simply occured to me that the rules I'm aware of don't address. I think my DM will end up house-ruling it so that invisible creatures who want to stay invisible do not provide flanking.

NullAshton
2007-02-28, 08:07 AM
That's an interesting interpretation. So therefore if a demon with dr 15 is flanked by the party wizard and chooses to ignore him, the party wizard could actually chip in a point with the automatic hit & critical. Thanks, I'll use that.

Except that the demon is still moving around and dodging in combat, and he still gets the effective +5 AC that still having a dexterity score above 10 gets him. Being flatfooted removes the bonus, but you still 'keep' your penalty. Thus, since he does not get a -5 penalty to AC from having a dexterity score of 0, which is nessesary in order to be counted helpless, he should not be coup de graced.

Coup de grace is basically you positioning your pointy stick over a vital area, and then pushing the pointy stick into that vital area as hard as you can. It takes some time to do, which is why it's a full round action. I'm pretty sure that the demon won't let you hover over his vital spots for 6 seconds or so.

Raum
2007-02-28, 08:15 AM
Part of those metagame reasons was "But since the flank bonus is dependent on ally actions". When called on the fact that that was silly (when nothing your ally does can affect the opponent in any way) you backed up to the RAW again. So your metagame reason for the RAW is the RAW ... that's a bit circular.I've addressed this in previous posts already. The first section of post #33 for example shows why RAW supports the conclusion that flanking is based on ally actions.

It seems to me that you're avoiding a discussion of flanking based on substance and simply throwing out red herrings to redirect attention.

To repeat an earlier question, what premises are you using to support your conclusion?

Darrin
2007-02-28, 08:16 AM
Unseen servants can't attack, therefore they can't threaten or flank.

Oddly enough, though, the Unseen Servant could attempt to intimidate an opponent. Not entirely sure how, but they can make skill checks if the DC isn't higher than 10 and you can use the skill untrained. It could also use bluff to feint, but that'd be largely pointless.

silvermesh
2007-02-28, 09:48 AM
Except that the demon is still moving around and dodging in combat, and he still gets the effective +5 AC that still having a dexterity score above 10 gets him. Being flatfooted removes the bonus, but you still 'keep' your penalty. Thus, since he does not get a -5 penalty to AC from having a dexterity score of 0, which is nessesary in order to be counted helpless, he should not be coup de graced.

Coup de grace is basically you positioning your pointy stick over a vital area, and then pushing the pointy stick into that vital area as hard as you can. It takes some time to do, which is why it's a full round action. I'm pretty sure that the demon won't let you hover over his vital spots for 6 seconds or so.

of course by completely ignoring you, thats exactly what he's doing. coup de grace only works on a helpless target. if the target chooses not to defend, he is helpless against you.

that said, the ability to "choose" when you can and cannot get flanked(regardless of what you give up to do so) is ridiculously overpowered, and it really waters down the Improved uncanny Dodge ability. You could always "choose" to let your guard down on the guy who DOESN'T have sneak attack, in order to render the one who does worthless.

as for the invisible flanker, I would personally rule that if the invisible attacker is threatening, that means his weapon is drawn and he's making himself at least somewhat known with aggressive stance and movements. You could choose not to threaten if you wanted, this would prevent easy detection, but also disallow you any AoOs.

Dervag
2007-02-28, 10:20 AM
Just because you can't see a target doesn't mean you arn't trying to defens agienst them.But if you don't know the target even exists, then you probably aren't going to split your defense and make yourself vulnerable to flanking attacks.

Conversely, it might be possible to trick an enemy into defending against an 'invisible enemy' who doesn't exist, thereby conferring a bonus similar to flanking. Sort of like the old "look behind you!" trick from the movies.


Anyways, invisibility provides flanking for the same reason that you can't ignore say a fighter so his rogue buddy doesn't get flanking.But it only provides flanking if the victim of the flanking maneuver knows the flanker exists. I don't normally spread my defenses thinly in all directions against hypothetical invisible enemies when there is a real visible enemy attacking me. I only split my defenses (and therefore give my enemy a flanking bonus) when I have a reason to do so.


What? How can you possibly attempt to defend against something you don't even know is there?More to the point, why would you try?


Even if you know that lowering your guard against the Rogue will make you suffer dearly, you can't ignore the Fighter that's five feet away from you. It's psychological (I could see a feat that let you focus on a single opponent to remove the flanking bonuses, but it would have to deny you Dex to AC against everyone else, rarely a wise choice).It's also practical. The D&D hit point model is based on the assumption that characters are actively fighting and making at least some effort to defend against all attacks. In that context, it's fairly believable, because your ability to defend against attacks can plausibly increase with experience, giving you increased HP.

But the implied corollary to that is that if you don't even try to defend yourself against that big hairy barbarian behind you because you don't want to take a sneak attack from the rogue, the barbarian should have a fairly good chance of taking your head off (critical hit or coup de grace). Flanking occurs because, in real terms, you have to defend against both attackers in a fight or you will die very quickly. You have to maneuver against both attackers, parry both attackers' blows, and so on.

PinkysBrain
2007-02-28, 10:57 AM
I've addressed this in previous posts already. The first section of post #33 for example shows why RAW supports the conclusion that flanking is based on ally actions.
I never disputed your interpretation of the RAW. The assertion "the flank bonus is dependent on ally actions" is silly from a metagame/fluff perspective when those actions do nothing which affects the opponent . The fact that you can back up the assertion with the RAW does not make it any less silly.

It was you yourself who decided to go into "metagame / fluff issues" ... that's the part I'm sticking to.

To repeat an earlier question, what premises are you using to support your conclusion?Common sense, if an opponent does not change his behavior at all whether someone is "behind" him or not then you won't gain any benefit from that fact when attacking him.

ken-do-nim
2007-02-28, 11:12 AM
of course by completely ignoring you, thats exactly what he's doing. coup de grace only works on a helpless target. if the target chooses not to defend, he is helpless against you.

that said, the ability to "choose" when you can and cannot get flanked(regardless of what you give up to do so) is ridiculously overpowered, and it really waters down the Improved uncanny Dodge ability. You could always "choose" to let your guard down on the guy who DOESN'T have sneak attack, in order to render the one who does worthless.



Agreed. I reword to "the DM has the right to determine that sometimes an armed attacker still doesn't threaten." Besides the hopeless sorcerer with the dagger, there's also trying to use say a summoned monster I to flank with against said pit fiend. Just trying to inject a little common sense.

On the other hand, if the sorcerer with the dagger is invisible, there's no way the monster knows he is a threat or not. Even if he detects the presence of an invisible foe, he won't know that it can't harm him.

So maybe using common sense leads to pitfalls. I know that somebody's sig is "House rules suck. Even mine."

Edit: So us common sense fans have to go with the following rule: "Ignorance is bliss".
If the invisible foe hasn't been noticed, no flanking bonus. If he has, the other flanker gets the bonus. If the invisible foe attacks and becomes visible and then the monkey in the middle realizes he can't possibly be hurt by him (DM subjective), the flank goes away.

Titanium Dragon
2007-02-28, 11:32 AM
That's one interpretation, but the PHB never mentions flanking as distracting the victim. It could as easily be the attackers coordinating actions, finding openings because of the potentially broad front which must be defended, or possible it's just an abstracted bonus to represent a combination of facing and multiple opponents which aren't dealt with directly by game mechanics. The last is the one I favor.

Except for a major flaw, which is to say that from the perspective of that person, they don’t –have- multiple foes. There is absolutely no difference between fighting someone who is alone, and fighting someone who has their invisible friend standing directly behind you but not interacting with the combat in any way, or even an invisible friend who will attack but hasn’t yet. Until the person knows that there is a second person, there is no difference between the two situations, so it is completely illogical for the visible person to get a flanking bonus. The invisible person, once they should choose to attack, should obviously get the flanking bonus, and once the invisible person has attacked once then they should provide the flanking bonus to their visible friend. But until then, they should not because from the flanked person’s perspective, they are not flanked.

Basically, this is an instance where the rules fail because of a strange situation. The fact of the matter is that you get an advantage by flanking because the opponent has to pay attention to two people on opposite sides of them. If they are not aware of the second person, then they wouldn’t have their attention split. You can say “but the rules say”, and you’d be right, but I’d say that in this case the rules are wrong. *shrugs*

There’s also the somewhat minor issue that technically, according to the RAW, the DC to detect a flanking invisible creature is 0, even if they haven’t ever attacked.

So, to answer the OP:

1) Yes, they would flank, assuming they threatened the squares around them.
2) I personally would not allow someone to flank someone if the opponent is unaware of them.

Orzel
2007-02-28, 11:32 AM
Here's the thing

The HP system assumes that as long as the defender is not taken to 0 HP or lower by an attack's damage, the defender must have found a way to keep himself alive. Combat knowledge, a lucky glimpse of the weapon, a well made turn of the body, a last second parry or block. As the defender increases in level his last second "combat luck"; accidental or created on his own; also increase. Even if the attacker is invisible the "combat luck" is still there unless the defender turns it off or the defender is unable to apply it. Therefore an invisible character flanks because he is still subject to the HP system and the defender's "combat luck" is being dvided in some way to both attackers.

If the defender decides to ignore another character completely and ignore the info given by his "combat luck", any attack that deal damage is potentially a CdG.

Raum
2007-02-28, 11:51 AM
I never disputed your interpretation of the RAW. The assertion "the flank bonus is dependent on ally actions" is silly from a metagame/fluff perspective when those actions do nothing which affects the opponent . The fact that you can back up the assertion with the RAW does not make it any less silly.That assertion is a conclusion based on RAW. It isn't metagame or fluff in itself. To reiterate briefly, since flanking isn't dependent on the flankee's actions and is dependent on ally position and capability, the statement "the flank bonus is dependent on ally actions" is a simple restatement of RAW without the detail.


It was you yourself who decided to go into "metagame / fluff issues" ... that's the part I'm sticking to.I've actually tossed several potential explanations out. And while I did state I subscribe to a particular explanation which fits RAW, I'm not trying to stop you or any one else from choosing their own explanation.

There simply isn't any official fluff text for flanking in the PHB or DMG that I've found.


Common sense, if an opponent does not change his behavior at all whether someone is "behind" him or not then you won't gain any benefit from that fact when attacking him.That is a potential explanation. I dislike it because it doesn't fit RAW mechanics, but that's immaterial to your choice of explanation.

Combat in D&D is generally abstracted with a few areas detailed more than others. Because it's abstract I seldom try to look for specific actions / reactions in a cause and effect relationship. It's like trying to figure out how hit points relate to a real world version of health...difficult and incomplete at best.

NullAshton
2007-02-28, 12:20 PM
of course by completely ignoring you, thats exactly what he's doing. coup de grace only works on a helpless target. if the target chooses not to defend, he is helpless against you.

that said, the ability to "choose" when you can and cannot get flanked(regardless of what you give up to do so) is ridiculously overpowered, and it really waters down the Improved uncanny Dodge ability. You could always "choose" to let your guard down on the guy who DOESN'T have sneak attack, in order to render the one who does worthless.

So by ignoring an enemy and focusing on someone, you're completely stationary? Wouldn't that mean that you would be helpless to BOTH attackers? Being helpless means that you're stationary in some way, like when paralyzed...

Matthew
2007-02-28, 04:04 PM
Hmmn. An Invisible Character should get a Attack Bonus to hit an opponent, since his attacks are much harder to anticipate. Seems like as long as the Defender is aware of his Invisible opponent, Flanking can logically apply.

Dausuul
2007-02-28, 06:03 PM
of course by completely ignoring you, thats exactly what he's doing. coup de grace only works on a helpless target. if the target chooses not to defend, he is helpless against you.

Not true at all. Helpless is a condition described in the rules (see the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm), you'll have to scroll down a ways); there's no such thing as "helpless against so-and-so." You're either helpless or you're not. If you are, that means you are not moving at all. A target that's up and moving around is not standing still enough to allow a coup de grace, even if it's not actually trying to defend itself against the attacker. Otherwise, invisibility + fly = win, because you could just fly up silently behind an enemy and perform a coup de grace.

I'd like to go with those who argue that flanking bonuses come from the flankers working together, rather than anything the defender does or does not do. Unfortunately, that position is undercut by the fact that creatures with the All-Around Vision ability (beholders, tojanida, xorn, etc.) are immune to flanking specifically because they can look in all directions at once.

So my conclusion is that flanking does represent distraction, but it's not so much a question of whether you choose to defend yourself against opponent X. It's more that opponent X stabbing you in the back (even for no damage), or his sword flashing past in your peripheral vision, distracts you for a vital moment and allows opponent Y to get a nasty shot in.

How does this apply to invisibility? Well, I would house rule <RAW off><house rules on> that an invisible creature can't provide a flanking bonus if the defender isn't aware of him. An unarmed creature can't flank, and an invisible creature who can't attack without breaking invisibility is effectively unarmed where flanking is concerned.

A creature with greater invisibility that does attack from flanking position provides a flanking bonus for the next round only. Even if the attack doesn't hit, the thump against the victim's backplate or the swish of the sword going over his head is enough to provide a distraction. However, the invisible creature has to attack at the end of its action in order to provide the benefit; it can't attack and then move. As soon as the defender loses track of where the invisi-flanker is, the benefit is lost.<house rules off><RAW on>

Raum
2007-02-28, 07:23 PM
I know it's a common assumption that a victim's distraction is what allows for a flanking bonus, but I'm not sure where the assumption started. I've gone through the SRD, PBH, and DMG without finding it. Is it in the FAQ? Some where else? Frankly, it was my assumption also till I read the rules in detail, so I'm kind of curious about where it started.


Except for a major flaw, which is to say that from the perspective of that person, they don’t –have- multiple foes. There is absolutely no difference between fighting someone who is alone, and fighting someone who has their invisible friend standing directly behind you but not interacting with the combat in any way, or even an invisible friend who will attack but hasn’t yet. Until the person knows that there is a second person, there is no difference between the two situations, so it is completely illogical for the visible person to get a flanking bonus. The invisible person, once they should choose to attack, should obviously get the flanking bonus, and once the invisible person has attacked once then they should provide the flanking bonus to their visible friend. But until then, they should not because from the flanked person’s perspective, they are not flanked.I'm not sure what source you're pulling some of your premises from, so I'll simply address it based on RAW.

The only things which matter when it comes to flanking are the attackers' positions relative to each other and to the victim and the attackers' abilities to threaten with a reach greater than zero. What the victim knows, does, thinks, or says is irrelevant as long as the attackers' capabilities and relative positions are maintained.


Basically, this is an instance where the rules fail because of a strange situation. The fact of the matter is that you get an advantage by flanking because the opponent has to pay attention to two people on opposite sides of them.Please reference the source of the alleged fact.


If they are not aware of the second person, then they wouldn’t have their attention split. You can say “but the rules say”, and you’d be right, but I’d say that in this case the rules are wrong. *shrugs*Hehe, I'd just call it a house rule. :)


There’s also the somewhat minor issue that technically, according to the RAW, the DC to detect a flanking invisible creature is 0, even if they haven’t ever attacked.Barring other situational modifiers, I think you're correct if referring to Listen. Of course Move Silently and other modifiers may apply. Spot requires a DC of 20 + Hide (and any situational modifiers) until they're in combat. Then a low or zero DC makes sense.

Dausuul
2007-02-28, 07:53 PM
I know it's a common assumption that a victim's distraction is what allows for a flanking bonus, but I'm not sure where the assumption started. I've gone through the SRD, PBH, and DMG without finding it. Is it in the FAQ? Some where else? Frankly, it was my assumption also till I read the rules in detail, so I'm kind of curious about where it started.

I'm not sure what source you're pulling some of your premises from, so I'll simply address it based on RAW.

The only things which matter when it comes to flanking are the attackers' positions relative to each other and to the victim and the attackers' abilities to threaten with a reach greater than zero. What the victim knows, does, thinks, or says is irrelevant as long as the attackers' capabilities and relative positions are maintained.

Please reference the source of the alleged fact.

First of all, nobody is disputing that according to the RAW, invisible creatures can flank. The question is whether that rule makes any sense, and if so, why, and if not, what would be a good house rule to resolve the problem.

Now, as to why flanking appears to be the result of the victim being distracted rather than the flankers cooperating, I'll start with the rogue's sneak attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/rogue.htm):


Sneak Attack
If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.The rogue’s attack deals extra damage... when the rogue flanks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#flanking) her target.This implies that flanking renders the opponent unable to defend himself effectively from the flankers.

Next, consider Improved Uncanny Dodge, which grants immunity to flanking. The SRD does not go into detail, but the 3.5 Player's Handbook states in the description of Improved Uncanny Dodge that the rogue can "react" to flanking opponents as easily as to a single opponent. (I won't quote the exact text, but it's on page 50 of the PHB.) Again, this strongly implies that flanking relies on the victim's inability to react to two attackers on opposite sides.

Finally, consider the All-Around Vision extraordinary ability, possessed by tojanida (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/tojanida.htm) and xorn (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/xorn.htm) among others. This ability is described as the possessor being able to see in all directions at once, and grants immunity to flanking. The robe of eyes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm) likewise grants flanking immunity.

Nowhere in the RAW is it specifically stated that flanking relies upon the flanked creature's ability to react to opponents on opposite sides, but everything points that way.

The Valiant Turtle
2007-02-28, 09:43 PM
I'm in agreement with the whole RAW allows it but invoke rule 0 at the earliest opportunity approach to the question.

I find the most interesting aspect of the situation is that the visible attacker doesn't even know his friend is there. If you allow it then the attacker is getting a bonus that neither he nor the defender are aware of, that seems odd (reminds me of Durkon's forgotten bonuses strip). If the attackers had actually planned this in advance, I might consider letting them have the bonus, more as a reward for planning then anything else really.

AtomicKitKat
2007-02-28, 11:55 PM
I would say yes, he threatens for purposes of AoO and such, but no, he doesn't count as a flanker for his partner(unless the defender had reason to suspect his presence, or saw him go invisible. In this case, ignorance IS bliss.). The invisible attacker would, however, gain flanking bonuses from his partner(unless said partner was also invisible).

SeeKay
2007-03-01, 02:03 AM
Actually, Flanking has nothing to do with allies attacing it has to do with distracting a defender. Two non-coordinating attackers provide a flank bonus to each other if they are flanking a defender. It matters not if they are invisible or not.

A defender surrounded by invisible opponents that he is AWARE of will be distracted enough to provide flanking bonuses to (and they will provide flanking bonuses for) visible attackers. The question is "is the defender AWARE of the invisible attackers?" If the defender is not aware, there is no flanking bonus, but the invisible attacker should get a huge bonus for attacking from suprise. Once the invisible attacker attacks (and goes invisible again), he provides a flanking bonus.

Now this is where it gets tricky. House rules abound for this point on. If the invisible attacker (IA) makes a 5ft adjustment yet the defender thinks the attacker hasn't moved, would the defender still be virtualy flanked? If the IA doesn't attack, but instead makes himself known thru non-combat ways, would the defender feel thretened enough to provide the flanking bonus? If the IA had attacked one of the defender's allies and the defender guessed the IA was next to him (reguardless of if the IA is or not), would the square provide a flank bonus for attackers in the other side?

Ok. my mind is slowly imploding. I need to fill it with some booze and get some sleep.

Collin152
2007-03-06, 08:43 PM
Just because you can't see them does not mean you don't know they are there. They are not silent, after all.

Helgraf
2007-03-07, 12:47 PM
I don't see how it could give a flanking bonus even if the defender knows it's there, since the defender doesn't know exactly which there it's in. Is it in the opposite square, or the one next to it? What if it's moving around between strikes?

So either you say that the invisible creature gives a flanking position from every square the defender thinks it might be in, or you just say invisible = no flanking.

I'd say the second, since I think the flanking bonus comes from the defender trying to watch both enemies at once. If he can't watch one of them, there's no flanking.

- Saph

Which is great if the invisible opponent is also silenced and odourless.

But other senses still feed data, and although we certainly can't defend _with precision_ against an opponent whose maneuvers you can't see, you can still attempt to ward off attacks with broad parries and the like. You're still at a disadvantage (represented by the bonus to hit to the invisible critter), and you're definitely compromising your defense versus your original opponent to try and make up for the extra noseeum opponent, so I'd say the flanking bonus most definitely does apply.

The other factor is the fluid nature of D&D combat - remember an attack action is not a single swing of a sword, even in 6 seconds. It's the culmination of several attacks and the like. It could easily be ruled that a sneak attacking rogue is no different, and the invisibility goes away at the start of the attack action (not soon enough to cancel the SA damage, mind, as that violates intent of rule) - but the actual 'kidney thrust' or whatever can occur at any point in the next 6 seconds, and whether or not it succeeds depends on the normal mechanics of the die roll. Theretofore, as soon as the rogue comes out of invisibility ambush, the opponent is aware (but still flat-footed - no real time to react) of him, and automatically tries (poorly) to compensate, thus providing the flank bonus to the other combatant.

It's an argument of "all this happens in 6 seconds" vs. All this happens in six seconds in a discrete exact flow of actions every portion of a second.

In short, it's realism vs. rules - and in the end, rules still trump realism, unless the DM is altering the rules.

As for greater invisibility, same story, only the opponent is even worse off because the attacker he is suddenly aware of is still invisible, so defending against them is going to be quite difficult providing he survives the initial SA.

MobiusKlein
2007-03-07, 02:15 PM
I had this exact case come up. My Rogue / Sorc, with a Pseudo Dragon familiar was invisible. But, before trying any major sneak attacks, I put the idea before the GM. Seeing the potential for abuse (of the spirit of the rules at least.) we agreed that the invisible flanker has to at least intend to attack. Violation of that has no in game effect, but would be uncouth.

Otherwise, some attacking wizard would summon a band of flying bats, make them invisible with invis sphere, and tell them to never attack. Then the Rogue would be sneakattacking up a storm, all day. Just say no.