Flanking: question about a special case

[Squire James]

If one sticks strictly to the RAW, then the rogues flank the target regardless of the target's awareness of the situation. I can see how some DM's might rule otherwise in this situation, though I personally do not agree with them. I believe that the flanking bonus (i.e. +2 to hit and possibly sneak attack) is not entirely due to the target dividing his attention between two targets. I think that sometimes a flanking bonus results from two allies making a coordinated attack.

Hypothetically, consider a blind-deaf-mute kid (let's call him Tommy) with basic Uncanny Dodge ability to avoid sneak attacks from ways other than flanking (because he's a pinball wizard or something like that). He cannot suffer sneak attacks BECAUSE he can't perceive foes at all? How strange.

 

[Squire James]

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.

I'd make that a feat. Not every low-average Dex combatant should get away with doing something like that (they give up nothing for ignoring one flanker, their flat-footed AC being equal to their AC and all).

 

[Sound of Azure]

If one sticks strictly to the RAW, then the rogues flank the target regardless of the target's awareness of the situation. I can see how some DM's might rule otherwise in this situation, though I personally do not agree with them. I believe that the flanking bonus (i.e. +2 to hit and possibly sneak attack) is not entirely due to the target dividing his attention between two targets. I think that sometimes a flanking bonus results from two allies making a coordinated attack.

Hypothetically, consider a blind-deaf-mute kid (let's call him Tommy) with basic Uncanny Dodge ability to avoid sneak attacks from ways other than flanking (because he's a pinball wizard or something like that). He cannot suffer sneak attacks BECAUSE he can't perceive foes at all? How strange.

A character loses their dexterity bonus to AC from being blinded. Uncanny dodge only prevents losing Dex to AC for being flat-footed or being struck by an invisible attacker. Being blinded is a seperate condition.

 

[ainbimagh]

I'd make that a feat. Not every low-average Dex combatant should get away with doing something like that (they give up nothing for ignoring one flanker, their flat-footed AC being equal to their AC and all).

Incorrect, they give up 2 additional AC. Please re-read the feature.

 

[Darklone]

This is one of the things I don't agree with the Sage about.

Due to my melee fighting experience, I was glad about the flanking rules as in the books. To hit bonuses, AC, all that crap is useless. It's a game mechanic. Mechanically, you're in a good position if someone is behind your enemy, whether he notices that dude or not. You push him back, he ends up on the others blade or your buddy pushes him back onto your blade. Doesn't matter to me how, but it's an advantage. The flanking rules give you an advantage.

Not noticing that invis guy for a benefit doesn't make sense in any way at all.

 

[Sound of Azure]

This is one of the things I don't agree with the Sage about.

Due to my melee fighting experience, I was glad about the flanking rules as in the books. To hit bonuses, AC, all that crap is useless. It's a game mechanic. Mechanically, you're in a good position if someone is behind your enemy, whether he notices that dude or not. You push him back, he ends up on the others blade or your buddy pushes him back onto your blade. Doesn't matter to me how, but it's an advantage. The flanking rules give you an advantage.

Not noticing that invis guy for a benefit doesn't make sense in any way at all.

Fair enough, but what if you don't know your ally is there? I don't think you should get a benefit when you do not (this was not the case in the OP as it turns out, however).

 

[Darklone]

Example:
LARP: I fight blind sometimes. At night, spell or whatever reason (not voluntarily). There's an enemy close, I proceed into his direction and follow different slashing routines around myself with my weapons, first to protect myself and second to keep contact to the enemies, otherwise I'd lose them. Now I happened to chase two enemies into the direction of a buddy... who picked them up with some well-aimed strikes.

That was a benefit to me

 

[Sound of Azure]

I'm definitely no fighter, and have no martial ability whatsoever, but wouldn't that just be tactical movement? Your enemies merely went into your ally's zone of influence, and s/he took out the enemies. Benefit to you certainly, because it helped achieve your goal. In D&D terms, though you wouldn't have gotten a numerical advantage from doing so.

I get what you mean, though. I feel you're correct hen you can co-ordinate with your ally in that fashion... but in my opinion it really does rely on it being teamwork in that case. With an invisible ally opposite... your ally would get the flanking advantage, but you would not.

D&D doesn't really map real life that well, does it?

Anyway, enough quibbling... back to the Edition Wars, I guess.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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


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.

Conversely, if you are surrounded by Rogues, just close your eyes

 

[Sound of Azure]

Conversely, if you are surrounded by Rogues, just close your eyes

And get sneak attacked because I just effectively blinded myself? no thanks....