Flanking and Invisibility

[Hammerhead]

How does Flanking and Invisibility work? The way I see it, when a character is flanked he must pay attention to two characters at once, and both can attack at the same time, netting a +2 attack bonus. However, if the creature being flanked is unaware of an invisible rogue behind it, how does flanking work? It would clearly not pay any attention to the invisible character, thus leaving it more vulnerable to that character.

 

[kreynolds]

Its in the faq.

 

[Dog Faced God]

Great reply there, K. If you're going to site another source, how about linking to it? I just checked the official FAQ, and I don't see this question answered anywhere.

Most characters (flanked or not) are denied their DEX bonus to AC on attacks from invisible characters. In addition, an invisible character gets a +2 to attack (PHB, page 132, Table 8-8).

 

[Hypersmurf]

A recent thread.

-Hyp.

 

[IceBear]

I think there are couple of things here. By the rules, I think it can be argued that you could flank while invisible and at the same time suffer AoO while invisible. However, many people find it illogical to allow AoO against someone if you can't see them take the AoO causing action. That same group should, to be consistent, also rule that the invisible person can't flank (a - the defender has no idea that he is being flanked, b - the other attacker doesn't know where he is to coordinate his attacks).

Perhaps, once the defender becomes aware of the invisible attacker he spends so much effort to try and locate the invisible attacker that he's sufficiently distracted to be considered flanked regardless of where the invisible creature is (though that would get really messy - invisible guy attacks once and then moves away leaving the defender flanked until he realizes the invisible attacker has left? - and definitely be a house rule)

Maybe only if the invisible person attacks first do the other's get the flanking bonus?

Hmmm - this definitely isn't cut and dried as I can imagine scenarios where he should flank and others where he can't. I think I would go with a flanking bonus to the other guy if the invisible flanker hits first but nothing to the invisible guy if his ally hits first (the defender is already as bad off with repect to the invisible attackers attack as he can be anyway - though it would get weird if the defender was a barbarian).

IceBear

 

[kengar]

I agree with one of the posters in the other thread. The invisible combatant gains a flanking bonus from their visible ally. The visible ally does not get the flanking bonus if the foe is unaware of the invisible combatant.

I would rule however, that if a combatant with Improved Invisibilty were attacking the flanked foe, once the foe knew an opponent was there somewhere, the visible ally would get the flanking bonus because the foe would be splitting his attention.

For balance's sake, flanking bonuses would end when the invisible ally moved out of flanking position unless special pains were taken to "slip away" unnoticed, so the foe might believe he was still there (Move Silent, Bluff/Feint, etc.).

 

[IceBear]

The problem is just knowing that you are being attacked by an invisible opponent isn't enough to give someone a flanking bonus (at least according to the rules). The invisible attacker also has to be directly opposite the other attacker, so if you allow the invisible opponent to give flanking bonus then the defender at least knows what 5ft square he's in. I can buy the being attacked by an invisible person is distracting, but no more distracting than someone who isn't opposite the other other flanker, and since the defender can't tell where the other person is then why should it be treated any differently?

Again, I mainly posted on this thread because of everyone blasting the Sage. This seems to be a more complicated issue than the answer he gave, I agree, but I guess he was just trying to give a quick and dirty ruling.

IceBear

 

[kengar]

The problem is just knowing that you are being attacked by an invisible opponent isn't enough to give someone a flanking bonus (at least according to the rules). The invisible attacker also has to be directly opposite the other attacker, so if you allow the invisible opponent to give flanking bonus then the defender at least knows what 5ft square he's in.

Sorry, IB. I didn't make it clear in my post, but I meant that the invisible combatant was in "flanking position" as well. When it comes to the flanked opponent's attacks (if any) against the invisible flanker, even though he knows which square he in, the miss chance from the concealment would still apply.