D&D 5E Greater Invisibility and Flanking?

[Oofta]

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.

The rules don't cover this and as a DM I don't follow the letter of the rules when they don't apply.

 

[TwoSix]

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?

I would definitely rule that if a defender deliberately ignores an attacker, that puts the attacker into an auto-hit or auto-crit situation.

Invisible attackers still need to hit AC and miss pretty often, so it's not like the defender's ability to defend doesn't matter.

 

[MarkB]

If the invisible player is physically affecting the target and meets the flanking rules I'd allow it. The attacked player would be reacting to whatever was physically affecting them. (including any illusionary or other mental effects). the point of flanking is with two or more attackers they are harder to deal with so I'd say yes. Now if the invisible creature was in place and had done nothing to noticeably affect the target I'd say no because the first attacker would get no break from any distraction.

What if the invisible character attacks and then sneaks away? Does the visible character gain flanking because the opponent thinks the invisible one is still there?

 

[Oofta]

I would definitely rule that if a defender deliberately ignores an attacker, that puts the attacker into an auto-hit or auto-crit situation.

Invisible attackers still need to hit AC and miss pretty often, so it's not like the defender's ability to defend doesn't matter.

They still need to penetrate armor, the target is still moving and dodging out of the way of an opponent, probably in unpredictable ways.

Advantage doesn't stack so ther is no super advantage.

 

[TwoSix]

They still need to penetrate armor, the target is still moving and dodging out of the way of an opponent, probably in unpredictable ways.

Advantage doesn't stack so ther is no super advantage.

I was responding specifically to your "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? " use case, with the assumption that the defender was choosing to ignore the invisible attacker.

If a defender took a deliberate action to not try to defend from the invisible attacker to focus entirely on the visible attacker, I would rule that the visible attacker no longer benefits from flanking, but the invisible attacker will auto-hit, and possibly auto-crit.

As you said, "The rules don't cover this and as a DM I don't follow the letter of the rules when they don't apply", so I think a particular ruling is needed to cover this abnormal use case.

 

[Oofta]

I was responding specifically to your "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? " use case, with the assumption that the defender was choosing to ignore the invisible attacker.

If a defender took a deliberate action to not try to defend from the invisible attacker to focus entirely on the visible attacker, I would rule that the visible attacker no longer benefits from flanking, but the invisible attacker will auto-hit, and possibly auto-crit.

As you said, "The rules don't cover this and as a DM I don't follow the letter of the rules when they don't apply", so I think a particular ruling is needed to cover this abnormal use case.

There is little or nothing the PC can do to protect themselves from an invisible attacker. They have no way of knowing where the attack is coming from before it lands, therefore the invisible attack gets advantage. In the meantime, if they ignore the other guy on their opposite side that enemy will get advantage because once again they don't see the attack coming.

Two attackers and not knowing where the next attack is coming from is worse than paying attention to the one you can see. The invisible attacker already gets advantage and by the rules advantage does not stack. It's not that the person being attacked is just giving up and standing still, they're just paying attention to the attacker they can do something about. In that case the invisible attacker still gets advantage but the other opponent doesn't gain any advantage from flanking.

I stick by my ruling and my logic.

 

[TwoSix]

There is little or nothing the PC can do to protect themselves from an invisible attacker. They have no way of knowing where the attack is coming from before it lands, therefore the invisible attack gets advantage.

This is probably where we differ. To me, it's obvious a defender can do something to protect themselves for the attacker, otherwise the attacker would certainly hit.

Choosing to ignore an attacker entirely when they are in melee range of you, to my mind, is a different narration than we would assume during normal combat, and thus deserving of a special mechanical penalty.

"Advantage doesn't stack" is a general truism, but enough narrative advantages can push combat into a place where the normal combat rules are no longer applicable. It's why I don't require combat checks to slit the throat of a bound prisoner, just as an example.

 

[Mannahnin]

I was responding specifically to your "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? " use case, with the assumption that the defender was choosing to ignore the invisible attacker.

If a defender took a deliberate action to not try to defend from the invisible attacker to focus entirely on the visible attacker, I would rule that the visible attacker no longer benefits from flanking, but the invisible attacker will auto-hit, and possibly auto-crit.

As you said, "The rules don't cover this and as a DM I don't follow the letter of the rules when they don't apply", so I think a particular ruling is needed to cover this abnormal use case.

Right. In the real world and fantasy you CAN engage in defensive maneuvers against an unseen attacker. You can ward them off/obstruct their attacks by covering your head and vital areas, swinging your weapon defensively to hinder their advance, etc. That's why it's only Advantage for the invisible attacker to hit, not an auto-hit.

Narratively and realistically, if you completely abandoned any attempt to ward off the unseen attacker, they could just stab you in the throat/bash your head in. It'd be an automatic coup de grace.

 

[Oofta]

This is probably where we differ. To me, it's obvious a defender can do something to protect themselves for the attacker, otherwise the attacker would certainly hit.

The defender is still moving around, probably in ways that are practically random to the invisible attacker. The defender is still wearing armor.

Choosing to ignore an attacker entirely when they are in melee range of you, to my mind, is a different narration than we would assume during normal combat, and thus deserving of a special mechanical penalty.

"Advantage doesn't stack" is a general truism, but enough narrative advantages can push combat into a place where the normal combat rules are no longer applicable. It's why I don't require combat checks to slit the throat of a bound prisoner, just as an example.

A bound prisoner is completely helpless. Not paying attention to the attacker A while actively defending yourself from attacker B would normally grant A advantage. Since A already has advantage it has no impact.

But I think we've explained our sides, we just disagree.

 

[MarkB]

Not paying attention to the attacker A while actively defending yourself from attacker B would normally grant A advantage. Since A already has advantage it has no impact.

That sounds like a character using metagame knowledge to determine their course of action. How do they know that leaving themselves open against the invisible attacker doesn't make them any more vulnerable than actively defending against them?