"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."
This rule is almost as poor as the logic problem it is trying to resolve.
It should be that you don't provide a flanking bonus to an ally if your foe is not aware of you, not that you don't provide it if the foe cannot see you.
A lot of blind creatures have other senses that compensate for their blindness. They should not get an immunity to flank just because they cannot see.
My house rule was basically an awareness rule. So, an illusion would give the flanking creature flank, but not an invisible creature unless the foe was aware of the invisible creature.
The other problem with this rule as written is that it is talking about the wrong bonuses / penalties for a blind creature. A blind creature is supposed to be at -2 to AC and loses his Dex bonus, his opponent is not get +2 to hit and the blind creature loses his Dex bonus. Mathematically, it does not make a difference, but a rules article should at least know the rule.
What should happen according to the rules is:
1) Invisible Attacker: +2 to hit, opponent loses Dex to AC
2) Blind Defender: -2 to AC, lose Dex to AC, opponent does not gain to hit for being invisible
3) You get +2 to flank for any opponent who is flanked (i.e. threatened on opposing flank squares).
With the article as written above, here is what happens in the following situations:
Invisible character has visible ally in a flanking position. He attacks with:
+2 Flanking +2 Invisible -Dex of opponent
However, two flanking characters against a blind opponent get:
-Dex of opponent who also gets -2 to his AC (or +2 to hit him if you use that text)
The quote above explicitly states that if your opponent cannot see you, your ally does not get a flank bonus. Which means that if you are invisible, you have a better to hit chance when flanking (as long as the foe can see your flanking ally) than if you cast a Blindness spell on someone (where you do not get flank at all).
You sometimes have to take anything from Rules of the Game with a grain of salt because I do not think they review those with a team of designers.
This rule is almost as poor as the logic problem it is trying to resolve.
It should be that you don't provide a flanking bonus to an ally if your foe is not aware of you, not that you don't provide it if the foe cannot see you.
A lot of blind creatures have other senses that compensate for their blindness. They should not get an immunity to flank just because they cannot see.
My house rule was basically an awareness rule. So, an illusion would give the flanking creature flank, but not an invisible creature unless the foe was aware of the invisible creature.
The other problem with this rule as written is that it is talking about the wrong bonuses / penalties for a blind creature. A blind creature is supposed to be at -2 to AC and loses his Dex bonus, his opponent is not get +2 to hit and the blind creature loses his Dex bonus. Mathematically, it does not make a difference, but a rules article should at least know the rule.
What should happen according to the rules is:
1) Invisible Attacker: +2 to hit, opponent loses Dex to AC
2) Blind Defender: -2 to AC, lose Dex to AC, opponent does not gain to hit for being invisible
3) You get +2 to flank for any opponent who is flanked (i.e. threatened on opposing flank squares).
With the article as written above, here is what happens in the following situations:
Invisible character has visible ally in a flanking position. He attacks with:
+2 Flanking +2 Invisible -Dex of opponent
However, two flanking characters against a blind opponent get:
-Dex of opponent who also gets -2 to his AC (or +2 to hit him if you use that text)
The quote above explicitly states that if your opponent cannot see you, your ally does not get a flank bonus. Which means that if you are invisible, you have a better to hit chance when flanking (as long as the foe can see your flanking ally) than if you cast a Blindness spell on someone (where you do not get flank at all).
You sometimes have to take anything from Rules of the Game with a grain of salt because I do not think they review those with a team of designers.
