Invisibility, AoO's and Flanking

[squishycube]

Because the posts about this question in the Q&A thread were racking up and I think we weren't done.

I think it is absurd that you seem to be able to flank opponents whom you can't see. On a similar note it is ludicrous to be able to make attacks of opportunity against an opponent you can't see. The RAW (+errata) do seem to allow it. I suppose this is a slip up by the designers.
I agree with Silvanos that the Rules of the Game articles can give insight in how certain rules were intended and are a good place to start if you are looking to houserule some of the sillier things in D&D.
Skip is not infallible though and in this instance there is something very strange about the way he fixed this particular mistake: He mentions creatures you threaten, instead of squares you threaten. The rules about AoOs always talk about squares, not creatures. I think this is a problem in Skip's solution.

On to flanking:
I can be short about this: flanking invisible creatures is stupid.

It has been suggested that you cannot flank a creature that cannot perceive you. I think this is also stupid, but it's not RAW so I don't think it is a problem. Anyway: In the rules, flanking is about the attackers, no the defender. It is a bonus for the attacker, not a penalty for the defender. The fluff might describe it as dividing your attention between several attackers, but that's just that: fluff. It can be changed to anything you like (Up to: whenever two attackers are opposite each other with an enemy between them, God comes down from heaven and helps them attack better.)

GitP rules lawyers, don't fail me now

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I think you are making this worse than it really is.

Let us take the simplest one first:

On a similar note it is ludicrous to be able to make attacks of opportunity against an opponent you can't see.

As I already quoted in the FAQ thread the rules cover this:

Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

The more complicated situation:

I think it is absurd that you seem to be able to flank opponents whom you can't see.

Flanking requires that you opponent is threatened by an ally opposite to you and that you make a melee attack.

FLANKING

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.

The total concealment entry says:

You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies.

I think this is pretty clear indication that you cannot flank an invisible creature:
- you cannot take AoOs against the opponent
- you cannot even attack the opponent

[Aximili]

It has been suggested that you cannot flank a creature that cannot perceive you. I think this is also stupid, but it's not RAW so I don't think it is a problem.

By raw, you flank a creature if you threaten it from a side oposite to your ally. An invisible creature still threatens his opponents. So, by raw, invisible creatures still flank.

[Variable Arcana]

I think I'd rule it that just standing on the far side of an invisible creature doesn't provide your allies with a flanking bonus -- however, if you spend your attack trying to hit the invisible creature (attacking the square it's in, taking the 50% chance of missing) that you *do* provide your ally on the other side with a flanking bonus.

Similarly, I'd rule that an invisible creature provides its allies with a flanking bonus as long as it's actually attacking -- but not just by standing there unnoticed.

(Not saying this is what the RAW say -- just how it makes sense to me.)

[Aximili]

Similarly, I'd rule that an invisible creature provides its allies with a flanking bonus as long as it's actually attacking -- but not just by standing there unnoticed.

(Not saying this is what the RAW say -- just how it makes sense to me.)

The raw might say something about this. Maybe only active creatures can threaten (but that would mean you couldn't AoO someone who runs by you while you're just standing and holding your weapon).

If it doesn't say anything, than it's perfectly reasonable to say you only flank if you actively threaten. So you can't just stand there, you have to offer harm to your enemy (and that's what happens 98% of the time, even if you're not attacking).

[squishycube]

I think you are making this worse than it really is.

I think you read more in the rules than there is. It's no problem though, I think what we want from the rules is the same in this instance; we have a disagreement whether the rules actually say what we want.
We agree to disagree, mmmk?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I think you read more in the rules than there is. It's no problem though, I think what we want from the rules is the same in this instance; we have a disagreement whether the rules actually say what we want.
We agree to disagree, mmmk?

It could have been worded a bit clearer

The important think is that sanity prevails, as you say

[its_all_ogre]

i would allow an invisible person to benefit from flanking if their ally is in a flanking position to the enemy.
but not the other way around.
you are flat footed against an invisible enemy, unless you have special circumstances(blind fight feat etc etc)
simple

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Technically you are not flatfooted, but the invisible opponent can ignore your Dexterity bonuses to AC.

[daggaz]

I agree with Lord Silvanos as to the things he posted. As for the ability of an invisible attacker to provide flanking without actually attacking (or making himself duly known as a threat), then people are pushing the letter of the law well into the Plane of Sillyness, much to the anger of the holy denizens of the spirit of the law, who will come down from heaven, very angry, and fight you in order to retain the precious cosmic balance. Like Lord S. said, you gotta look at the basis of the laws to ascertain their use, in order to circumvent the poorly worded and sometimes frankly, obvious mistakes of WotC.

First off, the basics. Flanking provides an attack bonus. Some people would argue that the position of this bonus (on the attacker versus a penalty on the defender) provides some weight to the the ruling in the direction of the attacker. Poppycock. The position of the bonus provides no weight in either direction.

Take the case of size bonuses to AC, and the accompanying hit modifiers. If you increase in size, you lose an AC point. You are easier to hit. Note that you get the penalty, instead of everybody else getting a bonus for when they attack you. You also get a -1 to hit. I don't have the PHB on me, but the balancing effects of this situation are explicitly explained within, for example with two small sized opponents, who's various size related bonuses and penalties cancel out when they fight.

The point is, Wizards considers this to be 100% completely balanced, and they choose the bonus/penalty target not based on some 'tip the scales slightly for hard DM calls' idea, which is completely unssuported in any literature, but simply based on which target will require the least amount of paperwork to follow while keeping the balancing factors limited to the participants.. The flanking situation is the same. It is completely balanced, and the attackers get a bonus rather than the defender getting a penalty, simply because not everybody will be in position to take advantage of the -2 to AC, had they put a penalty on the flankee, which would result in all sorts of headaches as you would have to give a -2 to hit to any nonflankers in the area to keep it balanced. (This leads to another seperate argument, about why a third man who is not in flanking position doesn't get to take advantage of the defenders situation as well. This is a seperate little 'gift' from wizards and is besides the point for now.)

That said, on to the main argument.

Why does flanking provide an attack bonus? Because the poor sap in the middle is too busy with two or more opponents to give either one his special undivided attention. In fact, and this is critical, he has to turn his head to pay either one attention at any one time. This is apparent in the rules of flanking, saying you need to be able to draw a straight line between the attackers, which will bisect the defender. It is impossible for the defender to see and deal with both threats without turning his head, and it is the act of turning his head which divides his attention, thus allowing the bonus/penalty. You will note that creatures with 360 degree vision or similiar senses, or a character with a robe of many eyes, cannot be flanked. He doesn't need to turn his head.

Notice, two attackers who attack from the front do not get a flanking bonus, even tho they both threaten the square. So the act of threatening alone isn't enough, as we all well know. You also have to be in flanking position. However, people are using the argument that invisible flankers can flank, based soley on the fact that they threaten the square. They are forgetting that burried in the flanking definition, as well as the rules for when a creature can't be flanked, is the two-part stipulation that the defender must be both aware of the threat and actively required to turn his head to deal with it. The proof of the first part of the stipulation is simple and follows from the necessity of the second; a defender who is unaware of a threat simply won't turn his head, and thus, will not be flanked.

In conclusion, the flanking bonus is an unweighted balanced factor that has no mitigating result on the ultimate balance of the case. A defender is flanked, because he is aware of more than one threat and must turn his head to ascertain both threats equally, thus providing the balanced ac penalty/attack bonus factor. And finally, an invisible opponent, standing in the right area, does not provide a flanking bonus to another attacker simply by passively threatening the square of the defender. He MUST make his presense known in a way causing the defender to turn his head, which can be hard to do without breaking invisibility in the first place.

In my final statement, your honor, I would like to bring to light what a good DM could do in this situation, for the sake of the jury's considerations. A good DM might allow flanking, if the invisible attacker made, say, a loud and threatening noise, for example. Or managed in some other way to get the defenders attention in a threatening manner without breaking the spell. Furthermore, a good DM would probably also allow the defender, after a round or two of this ultimately harmless distraction, to make a will save versus said distraction, at which point he could choose to ignore it completely until at a time which that said distraction were increased, say, by actually attacking the defender.

I rest my case. Let the jury's deliberations commence.

[Desaril]

@ daggaz

Great analysis of the reasoning behind the rule flanking, but it suffers from at least one problem. If a third attacker appears and takes a position 90 degrees away from the initial two attackers, he does not get a flanking bonus. Further, additional flankers does not provide an additional bonus. I think both should be true, once you are flanked, all attackers should get a bonus (or the defender should lose AC).

Further, ranged attacks/non-touch spells don't threaten and therefore cannot be used for flanking. The mere fact that someone is a "threat" is not enough for flanking.

That said, I agree that a good DM would require the invisible attacker to do something to distract the attacker. In the alternative, the invisible character gets the flanking bonus, but not the visibile one until the invisible attacker uses the bonus and makes an attack.

But here's an interesting twist. What happens if the invisible attacker then regained invisibility? The defender would then be distracted by the potential threat of another invisible attack. That would be even more distracting than a visible attacker (the defender has to spend more time trying to avoid an invisible attacker). I would make the defender choose to accept the flanking modifier from the visible attacker and watch his back or ignore the potential invisible attack and give the bonus to the visible attacker.

Likewise, I would allow a defender to ignore a flanker in any situation, thereby giving one opponent a bigger bonus and denying it to the other. For example, a fighter is flanked by a halfling with a dagger and giant with a greataxe. He could choose to ignore the halfling and pay attention to the giant. This would give the halfling a better bonus, but the giant would not get the flanking bonus.

Not at all allowed by RAW, but is consistent with the reasoning behind the rules.

[daggaz]

Great analysis of the reasoning behind the rule flanking, but it suffers from at least one problem. If a third attacker appears and takes a position 90 degrees away from the initial two attackers, he does not get a flanking bonus. Further, additional flankers does not provide an additional bonus. I think both should be true, once you are flanked, all attackers should get a bonus (or the defender should lose AC).

I mentioned this explicitely in my presentation as a seperate problem with the rules regarding flanking. It has no direct bearing on the case, but is instead a problem dealing with the extension of the rules of flanking; ie adding a third party. The initial problem at hand looks at a two person situation, which is the common (and really only) situation readily provided for in the rules. I would assume wizards left out multiple people merely for the sake of simplicity, or perhaps to keep things balanced (remember you have a party of four, theres gonna be a lot of 3:1 and 4:1 fights eventually). That is of course mere speculation at this point.

Further, ranged attacks/non-touch spells don't threaten and therefore cannot be used for flanking. The mere fact that someone is a "threat" is not enough for flanking.

Another lapse in the rules, tho one could argue that spells (and even arrows) are more or less instantaneous, and it requires a person in close proximity to bring the threat to the needed level. (Note that standing at 5 ft. and using a bow or spells _will_ give the flanking bonus.) Also, it could be another balance issue, as the flanking bonus is nice, and it would be rather easy (and risk free) for a ranged attacker to provide it otherwise. As for the bold (my emphasis), that is actually one of my main arguments if you read carefully.

In the alternative, the invisible character gets the flanking bonus, but not the visibile one until the invisible attacker uses the bonus and makes an attack.

Here I would disagree. I would simply rule that the invisible attacker catches the defender unaware, and thus, flat footed. Sneak attack would then be applicable.

But here's an interesting twist. What happens if the invisible attacker then regained invisibility? The defender would then be distracted by the potential threat of another invisible attack. That would be even more distracting than a visible attacker (the defender has to spend more time trying to avoid an invisible attacker). I would make the defender choose to accept the flanking modifier from the visible attacker and watch his back or ignore the potential invisible attack and give the bonus to the visible attacker.

Twist any situation enough, and you quickly enter the realm of house rules. The books are only there to provide a basis for a game, they cannot provide for every conceivable intention, indeed, it is not even their purpose. Doing so would elliminate any freedom of movement on the part of players.

Likewise, I would allow a defender to ignore a flanker in any situation, thereby giving one opponent a bigger bonus and denying it to the other. For example, a fighter is flanked by a halfling with a dagger and giant with a greataxe. He could choose to ignore the halfling and pay attention to the giant. This would give the halfling a better bonus, but the giant would not get the flanking bonus.

I would agree, but I would rule that it would require a will save to execute, and probably a concentration check as well, to continue ignoring while taking damage from behind. Realistically, its possible, but it would be hard to manage, as it goes against basic instincts. Training, pure physical endurance, and a strong will would help immensely. And besides, it's abusable by both players and DM's, as often in flanking situations, one of the combatants is noticeably weaker than the other.

[Hallavast]

I mentioned this explicitely in my presentation as a seperate problem with the rules regarding flanking. It has no direct bearing on the case, but is instead a problem dealing with the extension of the rules of flanking; ie adding a third party. The initial problem at hand looks at a two person situation, which is the common (and really only) situation readily provided for in the rules. I would assume wizards left out multiple people merely for the sake of simplicity, or perhaps to keep things balanced (remember you have a party of four, theres gonna be a lot of 3:1 and 4:1 fights eventually).

So ... what is your position on flanking providing a bonus for the attacker as opposed to a penalty for the defender with all things considered?

[Subotei]

@ daggaz
Likewise, I would allow a defender to ignore a flanker in any situation, thereby giving one opponent a bigger bonus and denying it to the other. For example, a fighter is flanked by a halfling with a dagger and giant with a greataxe. He could choose to ignore the halfling and pay attention to the giant. This would give the halfling a better bonus, but the giant would not get the flanking bonus.

If the fighter is actively ignoring the Halfling I'd rule that the fighter counts as a helpless target for any attacks the halfling makes. Also there is nothing to stop the Halfling doing an Aid Another action and giving the Giant a bonus that way.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

If the fighter is actively ignoring the Halfling I'd rule that the fighter counts as a helpless target for any attacks the halfling makes.

Helpless is too extreme.

Treat the Halfling as invisible to the Fighter.
(Without providing flanking of course )

[daggaz]

So ... what is your position on flanking providing a bonus for the attacker as opposed to a penalty for the defender with all things considered?

I would say that once again, its a situation where the wizards' ruleset simply begins to fail. However, and I did mention this before, there is also the issue of game balance to consider, which does have a profound effect on all of the rules.

If you give the penalty to the defender, then everything that attacks him gets to take advantage. Seems logical enough, right? After all, he is busy looking back and forth, fighting off two opponents to either side and scarcely has the time to pay attention to a third... But here you run into the balance monster.

Because as mentioned before, you will easily run into situations where it is 3:1 or 4:1, in which case the defender is already in dire straits, but now, with his lowered AC, he is royally screwed. And to make it even worse, anybody using ranged attacks does it without any risk as well. It's balance man. Without it, the game would be a boring cake-walk.

All of this was mentioned, either in the main presentation, or in the first rebuttal. I will reemphasize one final point, however. The DnD ruleset was built from the ground up. It is based on simplistic situations, and varying degrees of complications have been slowly added over the years. Complicating the situation until the existing rule set is no longer capable of maintaining with any logical sense does not prove in any way shape or form, that the rules do not work at the basic level for which they were designed. It merely means you have pushed them beyond their limits, which is one of many reasons that the game was designed with a DM to be the ultimate judge.

If somebody can come up with a simple argument, based on the basic rule set, which does not defy common sense, then I will happily concede. Until then, I stand by my convictions.

[Desaril]

Quote- (Note that standing at 5 ft. and using a bow or spells _will_ give the flanking bonus.)

I don't believe it will, becuase the flanker must threaten the square and to threaten the square you must have an "armed" melee attack.


The mere fact that someone is a "threat" is not enough for flanking.

You claim that this is one of your main arguments, but in your application all you require that's all you require. In fact, in your invisibility example, the invisible character doesn't have to threaten, just distract. I think we agree that the basis for the rule is you can't watch your own back, but the rules don't really put that into practice. If so, all the other things I mentioned should have rules, i.e. 3rd flankers, ranged flanking, etc.

Here I would disagree. I would simply rule that the invisible attacker catches the defender unaware, and thus, flat footed. Sneak attack would then be applicable.

I don't like flat-footed as a modifier, because it only helps against dextrous opponents or if the attacker has sneak attack. It is useless otherwise. Therefore, I would declare the defender flat-footed and give the invisible flanker the flank bonus (sneak attack is still available) because the defender is distracted by the visible fighter.

I agree with you about the Will or Con check to ignore an attacker. And although this rule would be subject to abuse, I draw upon your reasoning in your previous paragraph about giving the players "freedom of movement". I typically allow combatants to pick their poison. As long as the penalty is roughly balanced, I'll allow a reasonable alternative.

[Golthur]

@ daggaz

Great analysis of the reasoning behind the rule flanking, but it suffers from at least one problem. If a third attacker appears and takes a position 90 degrees away from the initial two attackers, he does not get a flanking bonus. Further, additional flankers does not provide an additional bonus. I think both should be true, once you are flanked, all attackers should get a bonus (or the defender should lose AC).

This is why I use homebrew swarming rules rather than RAW flanking rules. I basically rule that each creature beyond the first attacking you gets a +1 bonus on their attack rolls. If they're "behind" you (I use facing, as well) they count as two creatures for the purposes of swarming.

So, three orcs in front of you, they're all getting +2. Two orcs in front, one behind, they're all getting +3.

As for invisible attackers - IMHO, like daggaz' thoughtful analysis, passive threatening is not enough. If you're just standing there behind the victim, not doing anything, you do not count for the purposes of swarming. On the other hand, if you do attack, the attack is coming from a completely unexpected source, so the victim is essentially flat-footed.

As for invisible defenders - I'd say that *IF* all the swarming attackers are aware there is an invisible creature there (but not exactly where they are), and they all attack the square, I'd give them swarming bonuses based on the miss chance - that is, all of them roll the miss chance before attacking; any who make the miss chance roll count as if they are a valid creature for the purposes of swarming.

[Subotei]

Helpless is too extreme.

Treat the Halfling as invisible to the Fighter.
(Without providing flanking of course )

I agree to disagree here - if you're not defending yourself against the second attacker you are, by definition, helpless. The flanking bonus is the price the defender pays to not be at the mercy of the guy behind him with a knife.

[Attilargh]

Logically, that would mean that an attacker could coup de grace a flatfooted person. Just walk up to him and splurtch away before he realises he should be defending himself.

Realistic? Probably. Fun? Naw, not in my opinion.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I agree to disagree here - if you're not defending yourself against the second attacker you are, by definition, helpless. The flanking bonus is the price the defender pays to not be at the mercy of the guy behind him with a knife.

I would like to have a reference to that definition then....

Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks gets no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.As a full-round action, an enemy can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless foe.
...

If a person is not defending themselves either because they do not know the attack is coming or are ignoring seems a lot more like being attacked by an invisible foe than being sleeping or bound....

Invisible: Visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents’ Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). ...

[Aximili]

If a person is not defending themselves either because they do not know the attack is coming or are ignoring seems a lot more like being attacked by an invisible foe than being sleeping or bound....

I agreee with you here, but game balance wise, it's not enough. If that were the case, people would be turning their backs to others in combat all the time. The rogue would never deal sneak for flanking again. After all, 70% of the melees don't care about loosing their DEX bonus agains the other guy, and 95% will very much rather loose the bonus than take the damage.

Helpless, however, is way too much. It should be something like considering him invisible and proking AoO every turn.

[Attilargh]

The rogue would never deal sneak for flanking again.

Instead, he'll Sneak Attack because of the denied Dexterity bonus.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I agreee with you here, but game balance wise, it's not enough. If that were the case, people would be turning their backs to others in combat all the time. The rogue would never deal sneak for flanking again. After all, 70% of the melees don't care about loosing their DEX bonus agains the other guy, and 95% will very much rather loose the bonus than take the damage.

Helpless, however, is way too much. It should be something like considering him invisible and proking AoO every turn.

I never said I would recommend or even implement it

I was just trying to put in game terms what a internally consistent house rule would look like.

[Aximili]

Instead, he'll Sneak Attack because of the denied Dexterity bonus.

The whole point in ignoring an opponent it to face the rogue, not turn your back to him.

[Attilargh]

Oh, right. Foolish me.

[Aximili]

Has anyone ever said that that grey Smilie really resembles your avatar?

[Subotei]

Ok, lets role-play it:

DM: The halfling moves into a position to flank you.
Fighter: I ignore him totally and concentrate on the giant.
DM: Are you sure? You're completely at the halflings mercy if you do this. He has a dagger and is going to plunge it into your kidneys if you do nothing about it. If you pay him some attention, you'll only give them a flanking bonus...
Fighter: And give the giant a better chance of smooshing me? No way. I ignore the halfling.
DM: Well if you're going to be that stupid, I hope your armour is good....

Seems reasonable to me.

[Aximili]

How about this one?
Fighter: "That halfling is really hurting my ribs. I totally ignore my other opponent."
DM: "Are you sure? You'll be completely at the mercy of your other opponent if you do this."
Fighter: "Of course I am! It's a stupid riding dog!"

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Example:
An invisible attacker sneaks up on you and stabs you.

Assume that you were not aware of him at all before he made his attack. (Failed Spot and Listen checks)

Now could you please explain how that is different from your "role-play example" and why you much worse off when you are attacked by someone you know is there, (and that you have actively chosen to ignore because you consider the attacks a minor nuisance)?