Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 2773597" data-attributes="member: 32740">Addendum to my previous post:Ah yes I think I remember now.  I was discussing this somewhere at the time The Sage made the ruling that invisible opponents cannot participate in flanking.  Regarding flanking in particular I suppose it MIGHT depend somewhat on how you choose to believe the flanking benefits come about.  Personally, I don't see how that should matter, in part because one of the reasons FACING was eliminated is that it was in every way sensible to assume that a combatant would at all times put up his best defense possible against all potential attackers regardless of their positioning around him.  The defender is assumed to position himself optimally at all times, just as an attacker is assumed to SEEK optimal positioning for attack.  The exceptions or added penalties TO HIS DEFENSE (that is to his AC) then only apply when opponents otherwise have him at an ever greater vulnerability.  So the Sages idea of an invisible opponent not being able to help flank (IIUC) comes from the assumption that invisibility means not even knowing where to defend in the first place, and thus the advantages to the invisible attacker in essense already reflect both the defenders best possible defense and the attackers best advantages.  In a sense it supersedes the benefits of flanking as much as prevents them from applying.Myself I kinda think that's bunk since there is also an inherent assumption that even against an invisible opponent a defender gets SOME idea at some point where the attacks are coming from because he CAN defend AT ALL against the invisible attacks.  You can't KNOW where the invisible attacker is as such but you can get a good enough idea to not only defend against his attacks but to initiate attacks back at him.  Thus, ruling that an invisible attacker can't help flank only creates unnecessary questions about how flanking advantages apply in the first place - and silly ideas like "I'll just ignore one of them" in the second place.One thing that might help the discussion - if anyone still thinks this NEEDS discussing - is to define quite specifically what is meant by "Ignoring an attacker".  Some people are proposing solutions to the dilemma that quite obviously still assume that the defender maintains an awareness and a basic level of defense against even an "Ignored" attacker and that goes quite against any basic understanding I have of what it means to "Ignore" an attacker.  If you "Ignore" someone then you IGNORE them.  Thus the only time I think it could even theoretically make sense to do so is if the ignored attacker is utterly non-threatening in the first place.In D&D rules it is plainly possible for your minimal defenses to be so good that an attacker effectively cannot cause you harm.  It thus seems that you don't need to even TRY to defend against such an attacker but that again ignores the assumption that you are putting up your best defense against potential attackers at all times, however minimal that may be.  Attackers don't just wail away at you hoping that at some point you slip up and their mindless attack gets through.  They attack with the specific intent of avoiding and reducing as much of your defense as possible.  If you ignore them you cease to even put up minimal defense at least as far as the ignored individual is concerned.Gotta get moving for work now but one more thing that might help to remember is that flanking is not a penalty to your defense - it is a bonus to the opponents attack roll.  That is not insignificant.</blockquote>

Verification