Can you flank with a non-ally?

[Hypersmurf]

Thinking about it further, the underlying question would seem to be : Is "flanking" a combat manuver two allies work together to accomplish, or is "flanked" a condition of a character splitting his attention between two foes? There are some interesting repercussions of either interpretation.

As written in the PHB:
Let's say we have an unconscious troglodyte. His AC is effectively 7: 10, -4 for being prone, -5 for an effective Dex of 0, +6 natural. I can take a full round action to CDG, hitting him automatically, but let's say I'm in a hurry and need to hit him and take a Move action; with my attack bonus of +0, I need to roll a 7. However, if a creature friendly to me and directly opposite also threatens the troglodyte, we are flanking him, and I get a +2; now I only need to roll a 5.

Nowhere in the flanking rules in the PHB is an opponent's awareness a condition for gaining the bonus.

With extra rules made up by Skip Williams:
Let's say we have a hobgoblin, and you and I (creatures friendly to each other with longswords) are standing on opposite sides of him. I am under the effects of a Greater Invisibility spell.

When I attack the hobgoblin, a creature friendly to me and opposite threatens the hobgoblin, so I am flanking and gain a bonus.

When you attack the hobgoblin, the hobgoblin can't see me, so even though I just attacked him from that square, even if he makes a 75 on his Spot or Listen roll, even if he has tremorsense or blindsense and knows exactly where I am... because he can't see me, I can't provide you with a flanking bonus. Indeed, Skip goes on to add, a blind creature may not be flanked.

-Hyp.

 

[frankthedm]

I too go with a foe on both sides = flanked.

Actual RAW: "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."

Looks like those who dislike rogues have one more way to defeat sneak attack!

Summon spells make the critter obey the caster, nowhere does the spells make the critter fiendly to the rogue.

...yes i know this is very mean and likely against designer intent.

 

[phindar]

One more on the "threatened on both sides=flanked" side.

But the Greater Invisibility/Blind thing doesn't quite gel for me. For one thing, a blind creature is already flat-footed, as well as flat-footed against invisible opponents (unless he has the Blind-fighting feat, or Uncanny Dodge). In that case, I'd rule the hobgoblin is flat-footed to the Invisible attacker, but not flanked to either.

But its actually easier to make flanked opponents flanked and not worry about it too much in the interest of expediency. I'm willing to accept that "realism" won't be much help in the context of invisible people fighting. (Imagine 8 Greater Invisiblitied opponents locked in a 20x20 room. Who flanks who? This is probably the Illithid concept of a sitcom. They cast See Invisibility through Scry and just laugh.)

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

... and likely against designer intent.[/I]

Based on?

Somehow I don't think the designers contemplated using summoned creatures to achieve flanking. Maybe they did, but I've seen no direct evidence to support that...

 

[el-remmen]

As written in the PHB:
Let's say we have an unconscious troglodyte. His AC is effectively 7: 10, -4 for being prone, -5 for an effective Dex of 0, +6 natural. I can take a full round action to CDG, hitting him automatically, but let's say I'm in a hurry and need to hit him and take a Move action; with my attack bonus of +0, I need to roll a 7. However, if a creature friendly to me and directly opposite also threatens the troglodyte, we are flanking him, and I get a +2; now I only need to roll a 5.

That is just about the dumbest way to enact that rule that I have seen. . . Sometimes common sense needs to trump the rules - and common sense says having my friend stand on the opposite side of an unconscious foe does not make killing that foe easier.

Thank god I never read the PHB too closely because that kind of thing is annoyingly dumb.

I would also rule that as long as you can sense that someone is adjacent to you (you were just attacked, you can smell or hear them, whatever. . . ) even if they are invisible than someone opposite that person would gain the benefit of flanking. . . Anywhere this causes a weird overlap or peculiar exception - well, that is the reason we have a DM, right?

 

[amethal]

Sometimes common sense needs to trump the rules

Not in this forum

 

[Hypersmurf]

But the Greater Invisibility/Blind thing doesn't quite gel for me. For one thing, a blind creature is already flat-footed, as well as flat-footed against invisible opponents (unless he has the Blind-fighting feat, or Uncanny Dodge). In that case, I'd rule the hobgoblin is flat-footed to the Invisible attacker, but not flanked to either.

Denied his Dex bonus rather than flat-footed, but yes.

And let's say he has Uncanny Dodge; he retains his Dex bonus against the invisible attacker, and (according to Skip) is not flanked either, despite not having Improved Uncanny Dodge...

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Sometimes common sense needs to trump the rules - and common sense says having my friend stand on the opposite side of an unconscious foe does not make killing that foe easier.

Common sense would also suggest that if Combat Reflexes lets me make three AoOs on someone who shoots three arrows, dropping his guard three times, then Combat Reflexes should also let me make three AoOs on someone who is paralyzed and thus has no guard at all for the entire turn.

Does common sense trump the rules in this case?

-Hyp.

 

[el-remmen]

Common sense would also suggest that if Combat Reflexes lets me make three AoOs on someone who shoots three arrows, dropping his guard three times, then Combat Reflexes should also let me make three AoOs on someone who is paralyzed and thus has no guard at all for the entire turn.

Does common sense trump the rules in this case?

-Hyp.

Those are two different conditions - so I would say no. . .

But generally speaking, my guideline is this:

If common sense can fit into the basic premise of the rule (i.e. it is harder to avoid getting hit when people are on either side of you) then go with common sense. If common sense changes the basic nature of how the rule comes into play (i.e. allowing a number number of attacks that would disrupt the balance of combat) then go with the rule.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If common sense can fit into the basic premise of the rule (i.e. it is harder to avoid getting hit when people are on either side of you) then go with common sense.

Let's say our troglodyte isn't unconscious after all. He's been tripped and zapped with an Empowered Ray of Clumsiness, and his Dex is 1.

So his AC is 8: 10 -4 (Prone) -4 (Dex) +6 (Natural Armor).

With my friend and I on opposite sides with our swords, do we get the +2 bonus? He's conscious, he can see us both, we're flanking him.

-Hyp.