Invis and Flanking

[Hypersmurf]

From the Sage Advice chat transcript on the main page:

Q: Do creatures who use invisibility to flank an opponent with an ally grant a flanking bonus to their (uninvisible) ally? It is important for a combatant who has cast invisibility on oneself to remain invisible by not attacking. If awareness is a prerequisite for flanking, what about an invisible creature who purposely brings attention to himself by making loud noises?
A: No, they don't. If a creature is unseen so that an opponent loses his/her Dex bonus against that creature, then the creature can’t give any of its allies a flanking bonus. The creature can get a flanking bonus from an ally the creature can see, however.

Gah! What?!

-Hyp.

 

[hammymchamham]

Gah! What?!

-Hyp. [/B]

I agree

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Invis and Flanking

I agree

You agree with the Sage, or you agree it's a strange ruling?

-Hyp.

 

[Tar-Edhel]

That ruling makes no sense...

I thought flanking bonus came from the fact that you had to deal with attacks coming from both sides, your attention being diverted on two fronts.

I'd say that the invisible creature doesn't grant flanking bonus until it attacks. Once it starts attacking, the flanked opponent will have to deal with attacks on two fronts.

How would the fact that one of the flanker has see invisibility (thus seeing his invisible comrade who will then be granting flanking bonus) change anything to the flanked opponent?

 

[Hypersmurf]

How would the fact that one of the flanker has see invisibility (thus seeing his invisible comrade who will then be granting flanking bonus) change anything to the flanked opponent?

I have to assume there's a typo near the end there, and it should read "The creature can get a flanking bonus from an ally the opponent can see, however".

In other words, if we have:

A O B

where A is an Improved Invisible fighter and B is a visible rogue, then O can see B but not A. Therefore A gets a +2 flanking bonus, but B does not.

It also means that B can't make sneak attacks on O, despite the fighter flailing away on the other side, until O casts See Invisibility. Since O is no longer at such a disadvantage, he's suddenly vulnerable to sneak attacks.

Buh?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The definition of Flanking from the SRD:

If a combatant is making a melee attack against an opponent, and an ally directly opposite the combatant is threatening the opponent, the combatant and the combatant's ally flank the opponent.

The only conclusion I can draw from the Sage's ruling is that an invisible attacker does not threaten an opponent.

The definition of Threaten from the SRD:

A combatant threatens the area into which it can make a melee attack, even when it is not a combatant's action.

Obviously, therefore, an invisible attacker cannot make a melee attack.

So if your opponent has no ranged weapons, cast Invisibility on him, and he can't hurt you.

-Hyp.

 

[Tar-Edhel]

It also means that B can't make sneak attacks on O, despite the fighter flailing away on the other side, until O casts See Invisibility. Since O is no longer at such a disadvantage, he's suddenly vulnerable to sneak attacks.

Buh?

-Hyp.

It would make more sense but still...

Said otherwise, you get penalized from improving your view of the action around you. Kinda strange...

I do understand the ruling from a balance perspective though. I guess it was meant as a (clumsy) way to tone down invisibility.

 

[Tar-Edhel]

So if your opponent has no ranged weapons, cast Invisibility on him, and he can't hurt you.

-Hyp.

 

[hammymchamham]

Re: Re: Re: Invis and Flanking

You agree with the Sage, or you agree it's a strange ruling?

-Hyp.

I agreed with your reaction. Consider this* under my "ignore" list

*this being the sages ruling

 

[Hypersmurf]

I do understand the ruling from a balance perspective though. I guess it was meant as a (clumsy) way to tone down invisibility.

It ends up really hurting rogues, though.

The section on Gaze Attacks tells us that by "turning your back" on an opponent, you treat them as invisible.

Especially if you have a low Dex bonus, then when you're flanked by a fighter and a rogue, you can just ignore the fighter. Sure, he gets +2 for flanking, +2 for effective invisibility, and ignores your Dex bonus... but more importantly, the rogue can't sneak attack, and he doesn't have the hit points to stand up to too many whacks from your greatclub.

A sneak-attacking melee rogue is, as David Weber would describe it, an "eggshell armed with a hammer". Lots of damage... no staying power. 3E mechanics say your best strategy is to take out the little guy first... and if he can't even get his sneak attacks in, you're taking away his hammer, leaving just the eggshell...

-Hyp.