D&D 5E Greater Invisibility and Flanking?

[ECMO3]

He should have been flanked if you are using that rule.

Overall that optional rule in general sucks though.

 

[aco175]

Nobody thinks there might be an issue with the ally PC not being able to tell where the opposite side of the monster is? I know the invisibility rules are easier now, but it came up as maybe not knowing where the opposite side is to be able to take advantage of the flanking rule.

I think it is generally easy to gain flanking and in this not common circumstance it may not be a big deal and just grant it.

 

[Seramus]

The invisible PC attacked first, so the monster is very aware and on guard against threats from the invisible PC - he's now flankable!

The normal PC should have no issue telling where the invisible PC is since you know the location of an invisible person unless they are also Hidden.

Plus, the monster is probably freaking out and looking towards where the invisible attack came from, but that's just fluff.

 

[Immoralkickass]

Now, does the ally know exactly where their friend is so they can align themself for the flanking bonus? Probably...

By RAW, as long as the invisible creature is not hidden or trying to hide, everyone knows where his exact location is.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

By RAW, as long as the invisible creature is not hidden or trying to hide, everyone knows where his exact location is.

Minor quibble (and I could be wrong about the actual RAW wording) with the word "exact". If everyone knew the "exact" location of an invisible creature, why is there disadvantage for attacking said creature? Perhaps it is more accurate to say that that, unless hidden, everyone knows the "approximate" location of the invisible creature. That harmonizes mechanics and fiction, IMO.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think "approximate" location would be more accurate in this situation.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Getting a little more meta: you know what square(s) they're in, and can target the creature unless the effect specifies targets you can see. They're no chance you'll attack 5 feet to their left in melee. If they were hidden, you'd have to first guess their location and if you guess wrong you miss.

But you can't see their active defenses, so they've got a much easier time blocking or dodging.

 

[Mannahnin]

Minor quibble (and I could be wrong about the actual RAW wording) with the word "exact". If everyone knew the "exact" location of an invisible creature, why is there disadvantage for attacking said creature? Perhaps it is more accurate to say that that, unless hidden, everyone knows the "approximate" location of the invisible creature. That harmonizes mechanics and fiction, IMO.

Getting a little more meta: you know what square(s) they're in, and can target the creature unless the effect specifies targets you can see. They're no chance you'll attack 5 feet to their left in melee. If they were hidden, you'd have to first guess their location and if you guess wrong you miss.

But you can't see their active defenses, so they've got a much easier time blocking or dodging.

Right. By "exact location" I'm sure they meant the square(s). Meaning you can target them, but you're still at disadvantage because you can't see them clearly. Which is consistent both mechanically and fictionally.

 

[Oofta]

When it comes to invisibility or otherwise being heavily obscured, you have to guess where the enemy is. Even if they are not hidden, it does not mean you necessarily know exactly which square they're in (especially since in-world there is no grid). As it states under Unseen Attackers and Targets "If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly."

So details of how accurately you know an invisible enemy's location is largely up to the DM. In the case of flanking I'm not sure it matters, it's the knowledge that there's an enemy that could attack from your flank that matters that would matter to my ruling.

On the other hand this whole scenario is obviously an edge case not covered by any rules and why we have DM rulings. I might give the flanked enemy some kind of check such as an intelligence check. There is nothing they can do about the invisible enemy one way or another, so why even bother defending from an attack you cannot see coming?

 

[Voadam]

There is nothing they can do about the invisible enemy one way or another, so why even bother defending from an attack you cannot see coming?

Mechanically it is binary and they will get advantage, not much you can do there.

Narratively you really want to keep your shield up to block some potential blows you can't see coming and swing your sword to try to keep them at bay.

Mechanically it is also not a choice to ignore a visible flanking opponent to keep your guard up against the other flanking one.