Flanking: question about a special case

[Beckett]

In my games, I've ruled that invisible characters cannot provide flanking bonuses. If you're in front of me, I'm going to act the same whether your invisible ally is behind me, or no one is behind me.

Some of my players have pouted about this decision, but unless I decide to hand out the flanking bonus everytime there might be an invisible opponent behind you, I'm sticking with it.

So, I'm with the Rules of the Game, but the RAW seem to lean the other way. I figure it's a common sense ruling, and my players are just pissy because it works against them. I'm pretty sure the pouters would react the same if monsters started getting +2 to hit thanks to an invisible foe flanking.

 

[power2084]

Unless the OP's character had see invisibility or some kind of ability like Linked Mind with his comrade, neither his PC, nor the enemy would even know the 2nd rogue was even there until Rogue 2 attacks nad broke the invisibility.

No Flank, IMO.

I'm the original poster.
I KNEW the other rogue was there, and I could see him (barely, but still).

And I just thought of another thing, Irdeggman's post seems to imply that there was no flanking since the other rogue didn't threaten the enemy's square.

But obviously, if the enemy would have done something that grants an attack of opportunity (like casting a spell), the invisible rogue would have been able to make that attack of opportunity. And since you have to THREATEN a square to make an attack of opportunity...doesn't that mean that he was IN FACT threatening the square ??

Hehe...food for thoughts.

 

[ainbimagh]

Sage's ruling was that invisible flankers do not create a flanking situation.

Also as quoted above and the ruling to be found @ http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040302a

You get a flanking bonus from any ally your foe can see

Therefor if you are standing in front of a giant and there are 11 invisible rogues waiting to pounce on him at every adjacent position you still do not get a flank.

 

[Sound of Azure]

I'm the original poster.
I KNEW the other rogue was there, and I could see him (barely, but still).

And I just thought of another thing, Irdeggman's post seems to imply that there was no flanking since the other rogue didn't threaten the enemy's square.

But obviously, if the enemy would have done something that grants an attack of opportunity (like casting a spell), the invisible rogue would have been able to make that attack of opportunity. And since you have to THREATEN a square to make an attack of opportunity...doesn't that mean that he was IN FACT threatening the square ??

Hehe...food for thoughts.

Agreed. But that just makes the enemy flat-footed against your ally, because he isn't aware of him. The benefits of flanking occur because the the flanked person is splitting their attention between two enemies. If you're not aware of one of them, you can't split your attention, can you?

Your PC must have a great spot check!

 

[power2084]

I suppose that what you meant was "invisible characters that the defender isn't aware of".

Allright. Perhaps they don't create a flanking situation.

But they can make attacks of opportunity, right ?

 

[Sound of Azure]

That's how I would rule also (but that is a house-ruling not necessarily a strict RAW one), but I only pointed out the sources I could find. . .

I probably would have done the same, had you not gotten to it first.

 

[power2084]

Agreed. But that just makes the enemy flat-footed against your ally, because he isn't aware of him. The benefits of flanking occur because the the flanked person is splitting their attention between two enemies. If you're not aware of one of them, you can't split your attention, can you?

Your PC must have a great spot check!

Sound of Azure, it seems that IN ALL OF THIS, ignorance is sometimes beneficial.
It's hard to understand the logic behind it.

 

[Sound of Azure]

I suppose that what you meant was "invisible characters that the defender isn't aware of".

Invisibility is one thing that can make someone unaware of someone else, yes.

Allright. Perhaps they don't create a flanking situation.

But they can make attacks of opportunity, right ?

Yes.

 

[Sound of Azure]

Sound of Azure, it seems that IN ALL OF THIS, ignorance is sometimes beneficial.
It's hard to understand the logic behind it.

Aye, it's a strange game we play in, that's for sure.

 

[ainbimagh]

Also a nice chance to mention a houserule we play.

You may choose to ignore one or more flanking threats to focus your attention on the most threatening foe you face. When doing so the target you are focusing on gains no flanking benefits, all others retain normal flanking benefits and an additional +2 to hit and you are flat-footed for the purposes of their attacks.