Flanking: question about a special case

[Jhulae]

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

Yeah, except, you're in a *worse* position if you do that.

Sure, if the rogue is flanking with her fighter buddy, they both get a +2 to attack you and you get an SA from the rogue.

Close your eyes, and the fighter doesn't get the +2 to hit you, but the rogue still gets her +2 (or rather your AC is at -2) *and* you lose your dex bonus *and* still get a sneak attack.

Doesn't outweigh the benefits of ignoring flanking, now does it?

And, get surrounded by 8 rogues and you cloes your eyes? Sure, no flanking, but they *all* still have the equivalent of a +2 to hit *and* you lose your dex bonus *and* you get SAs from them all.. Still seem like the wise course of action?

 

[Shellman]

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.

Per your own statement the RAW states clearly when flanking applies. You are applying your own interpretation of that rule as written, which as a DM you can.

But if you apply the flanking bonus according to the RAW, then that would be considered a fair and balanced application of the rules to both players and npc's/ monsters.

IMO, your interpretation of the rule hinders Rogue's, who usually rely on flanking to apply sneak attack damage. As a DM that would not be fair to your Rogue PC.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

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.

This whole flank/invis thing has been gone over a number of times. The HR you suggest is not good because a single Rogue in a party would then almost always lose thier Sneak Attack.

The version I use is much easier. You may chose to ignore an opponent who threatens you and focus on another. This opponent is treated as if invisible to your character.
- This way the opponent you are ignoring can become lethal very quickly...they would still benefit from Flanking on top of the benefits of being 'invisible'

But.. this really belongs in the HR forum along with the previous incarnations of this

On Topic, I go with the Rules of the Game reading of how the rules interact on this.

 

[Beckett]

Per your own statement the RAW states clearly when flanking applies. You are applying your own interpretation of that rule as written, which as a DM you can.

But if you apply the flanking bonus according to the RAW, then that would be considered a fair and balanced application of the rules to both players and npc's/ monsters.

IMO, your interpretation of the rule hinders Rogue's, who usually rely on flanking to apply sneak attack damage. As a DM that would not be fair to your Rogue PC.

Per my statement, I don't think the RAW states clearly when flanking is applied. I think that the lack of mention of how invisibility works with flanking is a hole in the rules. In much the same way that by the RAW a character with 18 strength can carry 12 great swords and fight without penalty, I feel common sense needs to be applied (common sense as it applies to my table. If you want invisible characters to flank, and everyone at your table is fine with that, great. I'm unwilling to play that way; we all have our little areas where we make out stands)

My interpretation only hurts rogues who are trying to flank with an invisible partner, a situation that I don't see as any different than the rogue trying to flank with someone who could be there, but isn't.

Now, if the opponent has blindsense, or See Invisible, or some other way to perceive the invisible character, I'll gladly give the rogue flanking, even if he doesn't know the invisible character is there.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

So, can anyone help or even explain what set of rules the previous poster was referring to ?

No, cause it sure ain't from the Core rules!

 

[Sithobi1]

Would you allow someone to get flanking bonuses from...say...Mirror Images, then?

 

[Darklone]

Mirror Images aren't far away from the caster to be in flanking position.

Back the example of the guy surrounded by 8 rogues: If he would cast invisibility somehow on 4 of them, it would be an advantage for him (there would be no flanking, only 4 invis attackers). Sick, that's why I don't like that ruling.

 

[Sithobi1]

Mirror Images aren't far away from the caster to be in flanking position.

Back the example of the guy surrounded by 8 rogues: If he would cast invisibility somehow on 4 of them, it would be an advantage for him (there would be no flanking, only 4 invis attackers). Sick, that's why I don't like that ruling.

That's not what the spell says...

These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you.

 

[Darklone]

Hmm, this part was differently quoted last time that question came up (another board). Then it was something like within 5 feet of you and one other figment...

If you allow them to be farther away than 5 ft (in a chain), what happens if one in the chain is hit/dispelled? Do the others disappear as well?

 

[Phlebas]

Had this situation a few weeks back IMC, Invisible Rog/Sorc moved behind NPC fighter, Other Rog/Fighter had delayed & then moved to flank.

I ruled that flanking wouldn't occur as NPC wasn't aware (call it HR if you dispute RAW). Rog/ Fighter wasn't happy, but readied action to attack when opponent was flanked. eventually Invisible PC attacked (with flanking), then readied action kicks in for Rog/Fighter as NPC now flanked. Silly damage ensued due to double sneak attack and NPC hit the dust

Seems to meet the spirit of the rules..........