Invis and Flanking

[LuYangShih]

This ruling makes no sense. Theoretically, based on this, like Hypersmurf said, you could "ignore" a creature that was flanking you and the flanking bonus would be lost, since you are treating them as invisible. Thankfully, nothing the Sage says is treated as official any longer.

 

[FireLance]

This ruling makes no sense. Theoretically, based on this, like Hypersmurf said, you could "ignore" a creature that was flanking you and the flanking bonus would be lost, since you are treating them as invisible. Thankfully, nothing the Sage says is treated as official any longer.

I don't know - it makes perfect sense to me to ignore an opponent that has little chance of injuring you in order to concentrate fully on another that will damage you severely if you take your eyes off him for a moment.

Consider this scenario: a weretiger is being flanked by a fighter with a normal longsword and a rogue carrying a silver +1 shapeshifter bane longsword. Assuming for the sake of argument that the weretiger knows the situation it's in, wouldn't it want to ignore the fighter in order to prevent the rogue from getting its flanking bonus plus sneak attack?

Maybe a combatant (call him O) that wants to ignore one of its attackers (call him A) in order to focus on another (call him B) has to make a Concentration check DC 10 + damage dealt by A to do so. O has to make the Concentration check after A's action. If he fails, he is still flanked by B until A's next action. If he suceeds, he is not flanked by B. Either way, O treats A as invisible. O does not get his Dex bonus against A, and A gets a +2 bonus to hit for being effectively invisible on top of the +2 bonus to hit since he flanks O.

Does this sound fair?

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't know - it makes perfect sense to me to ignore an opponent that has little chance of injuring you in order to concentrate fully on another that will damage you severely if you take your eyes off him for a moment.

I've seen that sort of thinkg proposed many times as a House Rule, and I have no problem with that. I wouldn't use it, but there's nothing to stop people introducing things into their game.

But the Sage shouldn't be doing it! He should be interpreting the rules, and the rules are "You threaten, you flank", not "You threaten and they can see you, you flank".

-Hyp.

 

[Pax]

Yet more proof the Sage needs to be beaten soundly with a Clue-by-four. 8P

 

[nimisgod]

I don't know I think it kind of makes sense.

I suppose the reason someone gets a +2 flanking bonus to hit is because his enemy is distracted by two threatening opponents on opposite sides, right?

However, an invisible flanker doesn't really provide as much a distraction as a visible one.

The PHB says that combat is not static.

pg 122.
Even if a character's figure is just standing there on the tabletop like a piece of lead, you can be sure that if some orc with a battleaxe attacks the character, she is weaving, dodging and even threatening the orc with a weapon to keep the orc a little worried for his own hide

A O B
A= fighter w/ imp. invis.
B=visible rogue
O= flanked opponent

IMO, the invisible fighter would gain only the bonuses for invisibility. The rogue would not be able to sneak attack nor get a flanking if he or the opponent cannot see the fighter. why?

if the reason for the flanking bonus is bec. of distraction on the opponent's part, then the invis. fighter does not count as distraction.

Why? well since he is invisible, we can effectively consider him off the map for purposes of perception. the only enemy O can see is B and thus he focuses most of his attentions on B. Even if A is constantly harassing O with attacks and even if A threatens O, O is not sure of A's true position or the exact nature of the attacks upon him.

to conclude, O can see only one enemy and he cannot do anything meaningful against A (unless he can see invis or has a really good spot score). So he concetrates on B. Unlike the normal conditions for flanking, his attention is not divided and thus he is not distracted. Thus, B is not eligible to gain the +2 bonus to hit nor the sneak attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

to conclude, O can see only one enemy and he cannot do anything meaningful against A (unless he can see invis or has a really good spot score). So he concetrates on B. Unlike the normal conditions for flanking, his attention is not divided and thus he is not distracted. Thus, B is not eligible to gain the +2 bonus to hit nor the sneak attack.

You don't consider a couple of hits a round with a greatsword a 'distraction'?

Aside from that - anyone can attempt to attack an invisible opponent by choosing a square and taking the miss chance. If O decided to try and hit the invisible A - so he's no longer 'concentrating' on B - then does it make sense not to allow B his flanking bonus and sneak attacks?

-Hyp.

 

[nimisgod]

You don't consider a couple of hits a round with a greatsword a 'distraction'?

Not the same kind of distraction provided by a visible threatening opponent. If damage were a distraction, sneak attack and flanking should be working more like opportunist don't you think?

Aside from that - anyone can attempt to attack an invisible opponent by choosing a square and taking the miss chance. If O decided to try and hit the invisible A - so he's no longer 'concentrating' on B - then does it make sense not to allow B his flanking bonus and sneak attacks?

Ture, but like I said, the only one visible to O is B. He can watch out for B's threats but not for A's.

2
1 O
3

Following the same logic, if O can be surrounded by 3 opponents (who aren't flanking) but still not get a bonus to be hit nor be sneak attacked by those opponents (barring other conditions) bec. they don't provide the kind of distraction that would warrant those bonuses and special attacks.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And what if O makes a Spot or Listen check sufficient to be aware that A is nearby, but not sufficient to pinpoint him? Does that make any difference?

What if O makes a Spot or Listen check sufficient to know exactly where A is? Does that make any difference?

What if B can See Invisible, and readies his action to attack simultaneously with A (or immediately after)? A person struck by an invisible opponent without Reach knows exactly where that attacker at the moment of impact - so when B attacks, O is flanked by two attackers whose locations he knows exactly. Does that make any difference?

-Hyp.

 

[nimisgod]

And what if O makes a Spot or Listen check sufficient to be aware that A is nearby, but not sufficient to pinpoint him? Does that make any difference?

IMO, no. Though he's probably aware of something fishy going on bec. of the greatsword hits.

What if O makes a Spot or Listen check sufficient to know exactly where A is? Does that make any difference?

IMO, no. O may know what square but O doesn't know exactly what A is doing.

What if B can See Invisible, and readies his action to attack simultaneously with A (or immediately after)? A person struck by an invisible opponent without Reach knows exactly where that attacker at the moment of impact - so when B attacks, O is flanked by two attackers whose locations he knows exactly. Does that make any difference?

I was going to say probably not, but I suppose there is some sense in that. I guess its similar in a way to a guy using spring attack to move, flank, strike then retreat.

then again, I'm no rules guru. that's just my reasoning of how to adjudicate the scenario. I don't think Sage's ruling is totally out of whack. The situation is really messy and it happens pretty often. Flanking solves some problems and brings up a whole slew of new ones.

I guess, it really depends on how you answer this: Is being flanked a question of the one being flanked's (flankee's) awareness?

 

[Hypersmurf]

I guess, it really depends on how you answer this: Is being flanked a question of the one being flanked's (flankee's) awareness?

Yup. And there is nothing in the Core Rules to suggest awareness has anything to do with it.

-Hyp.