Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sullivan" data-source="post: 2074900" data-attributes="member: 28152">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)". <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification