Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hypersmurf" data-source="post: 951024" data-attributes="member: 1656">There actually are semi-official rules ever since the (bad! bad!) Sage Chat ruling that made it into the FAQ, that invisible creatures cannot provide flanking bonuses for allies.Under the rules for Gaze Attacks, we find that you can deliberately turn your back on someone (despite the normal &quot;No facing in 3E&quot; rule), at which point you treat them as if they were invisible.So, if the monk and the rogue are flanking you, allowing the rogue to get his Sneak Attack damage on every attack, you can turn your back on the monk under the Gaze Attack rule, and treat him as an invisible opponent.&nbsp; Since the FAQ rules that an invisible opponent does not grant an ally flanking bonuses, the rogue can no longer sneak attack.Sure, the monk gets +4 (+2 from invisible, and +2 for flanking since his ally isn't invisible) on his attacks against your flat-footed AC.&nbsp; But he doesn't do +7d6 damage on every single attack, either...If it is ruled that an invisible creature cannot use Bluff to Feint against an opponent who cannot see it*, then a character with Uncanny Dodge actually benefits from ignoring a rogue using Feints.&nbsp; He treats the rogue as invisible, and so cannot be bluffed, but since he has Uncanny Dodge, he does not lose his Dex against an invisible attacker, and thus cannot be sneak attacked.&nbsp; If he did not ignore the rogue, he could be successfully bluffed... which Uncanny Dodge does not protect against.*The rules for Bluff require that the target not be unaware of you, but it doesn't explicitly say they must be able to see you.&nbsp; It is possible that you could Bluff verbally while invisible, for example, although a DM would be well within his rights to rule that &quot;awareness&quot; requires visual contact.-Hyp.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hypersmurf, post: 951024, member: 1656"] There actually are semi-official rules ever since the (bad! bad!) Sage Chat ruling that made it into the FAQ, that invisible creatures cannot provide flanking bonuses for allies. Under the rules for Gaze Attacks, we find that you can deliberately turn your back on someone (despite the normal "No facing in 3E" rule), at which point you treat them as if they were invisible. So, if the monk and the rogue are flanking you, allowing the rogue to get his Sneak Attack damage on every attack, you can turn your back on the monk under the Gaze Attack rule, and treat him as an invisible opponent. Since the FAQ rules that an invisible opponent does not grant an ally flanking bonuses, the rogue can no longer sneak attack. Sure, the monk gets +4 (+2 from invisible, and +2 for flanking since [i]his[/i] ally isn't invisible) on his attacks against your flat-footed AC. But he doesn't do +7d6 damage on every single attack, either... If it is ruled that an invisible creature cannot use Bluff to Feint against an opponent who cannot see it*, then a character with Uncanny Dodge actually benefits from ignoring a rogue using Feints. He treats the rogue as invisible, and so cannot be bluffed, but since he has Uncanny Dodge, he does not lose his Dex against an invisible attacker, and thus cannot be sneak attacked. If he did not ignore the rogue, he could be successfully bluffed... which Uncanny Dodge does not protect against. *The rules for Bluff require that the target not be [i]unaware[/i] of you, but it doesn't explicitly say they must be able to see you. It is possible that you could Bluff verbally while invisible, for example, although a DM would be well within his rights to rule that "awareness" requires visual contact. -Hyp. [/QUOTE]

Verification