does invisblitiy make defenders flatfooted

[Jdvn1]

I can't provide a SRD quote because the relevent data is in a table. In fact, the relevent data is in the footnote of a table.

From the SRD, Combat II (Movement, modifiers, and special actions):

From the table for Attack Roll Modifiers:

If the attacker is Invisible, he gains a +2 to hit with melee or ranged weapons. In addition, the target is denied his dexterity bonus to AC.

Cool, thanks!

 

[KarinsDad]

The question I always wondered about is if the Invisible character could create the second side of a flank. Actually four questions:

i) One attacker in flanking position is invisible and the target is not aware that they are there.
2) Both attackers in flanking position are invisible and the target is not aware that they are there.
C) Does the result change one the target becomes aware. Basically is the bonus from flanking originate in the mind of the target.
four) What awareness of the flank does the Elusive Target(Diverting Defense) feat from Complete Warrior require?

EDIT: Now that I type it out I see a 5th question, if i) and 2) create a flank bonus for both attackers, if the Target incorrectly believes there to be a second attacker in flanking position but there isn't (typically due to some sort of illusion based situation) does the real attacker get a flanking bonus?

Ok, this will not make logical sense, but it is the rules. In my previous campaign, I even made up a house rule to modifiy this slightly to make logical sense.

1) He provides flank because he threatens all squares around him, regardless of whether the attacker is aware of him.

2) They both flank because they both threaten.

C) Awareness does not affect flanking. Also, I do not have the Complete Warrior book here at work. What does the feat say?


5th question answer: The illustion does not threaten, hence, the attacker does not get flank. Awareness is not an issue here.


Like I said, this does not make logical sense. But, it is the rules nonetheless.

 

[sullivan]

....Like I said, this does not make logical sense. But, it is the rules nonetheless.

I should have been more clear, I know there isn't anything in the SRD that specifically mentions Illusions or invisible attackers, and therefore while strictly defaulting to those answers you list is correct, it does make itself inviting to DM interpretation if they want to try treat it as an unmentioned interaction that they can apply logical sense too ("soft" house rule). What I was just wondering if anyone had heard a semi-offical discussion regarding this outside of the SRD or in one of the quickly multiplying supplimental books.

If you have Elusive Target(Diverting Defense) the first attack of one of the flankers in the round automatically misses you and the attack roll is diverted to the other flanker. You must make a concious choice to use the feat, and designate the flanker to miss by naming them also as the target of Dodge. It doesn't say though that conditions that negate the Dodge bonus negate also negate Diverting Defense. It gets very wierd because you could have named someone/something as the target you Dodge bonus but you don't even realise that they are flanking you. Because it's a concious choice feat (as per the general description of Tactical feats, and it's terminology that you "use" Diverting Defense) it's not clear if you can say you are using it if you are flanked without your knowledge. It would involve automatically knowing the location of a hidden attacker sololy because you have the feat.

P.S. That was "i)", not "1)".

 

[RigaMortus]

And Orchard, you are only flat-footed during the first round of combat... until you act.

Mike

And if you are Balancing... Or are struck by the Low-Blow feat (Races of Faerun)...

I am sure there are a couple other ways too

Edit: At one point, I was going to make a Halfling Samurai with pumped up Iajatsu Focus and the Low-Blow feat, so I could use Iajatsu Focus every round (not just the first).

 

[MerakSpielman]

And if you are Balancing... Or are struck by the Low-Blow feat (Races of Faerun)...

I am sure there are a couple other ways too

Edit: At one point, I was going to make a Halfling Samurai with pumped up Iajatsu Focus and the Low-Blow feat, so I could use Iajatsu Focus every round (not just the first).

Really? I thought flat-footed was a specific term to describe somebody who had not yet acted in combat.

My first impulse would be to say that, if those feats/abilities say that they make somebody flat-footed, that it was an error, and they should have instead said that they deny the target their dexterity bonus to AC.

 

[mikebr99]

FYI...

You get a flanking bonus from any ally your foe can see (and who is in the correct position to flank). If your foe can't see you, you don't provide a flanking bonus to any ally. You literally cannot flank a blind creature; however, a blind creature loses its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against your attacks (so you can sneak attack it), and you get a +2 to attack it to boot. Creatures with the blindsight ability effectively "see" within blindsight range and can be flanked.

Mike

 

[mikebr99]

Really? I thought flat-footed was a specific term to describe somebody who had not yet acted in combat.

My first impulse would be to say that, if those feats/abilities say that they make somebody flat-footed, that it was an error, and they should have instead said that they deny the target their dexterity bonus to AC.

My thoughs exactly...

Being Attacked while Balancing: You are considered flat-footed while balancing, since you can’t move to avoid a blow, and thus you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). If you have 5 or more ranks in Balance, you aren’t considered flat-footed while balancing.

Mike

 

[MerakSpielman]

Mike,
Thanks for that quote. That's the way most people rule it in-game, anyway.

However, for purposes of settling rules disputes, are the WotC Rules of the Game postings considered official additions to the rules?

 

[mikebr99]

Mike,
Thanks for that quote. That's the way most people rule it in-game, anyway.

However, for purposes of settling rules disputes, are the WotC Rules of the Game postings considered official additions to the rules?

I'd say they have more weight then those custserv answers...

Most of them are good articles... I just want one about wildshaping & magic items... [sigh]

Mike

 

[Hypersmurf]

However, for purposes of settling rules disputes, are the WotC Rules of the Game postings considered official additions to the rules?

Skip made up that rule in the 3E Main FAQ. It wasn't supported by the RAW then either

-Hyp.