Invis and Flanking
- Thread starter Hypersmurf
- Start date
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
"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."
It gets worse!
According to this ruling, if O is a first level barbarian, he can't be sneak attacked by B, since A is unseen so that O loses his Dex bonus.
If O is a 2nd-4th level barbarian, he gets Uncanny Dodge - he keeps his Dex bonus against A, and therefore B can sneak attack him. He is penalised for having Uncanny Dodge!
At 5th level, he can no longer be flanked, so it ceases to be an issue. But that's just wrong!
-Hyp.
It gets worse!
According to this ruling, if O is a first level barbarian, he can't be sneak attacked by B, since A is unseen so that O loses his Dex bonus.
If O is a 2nd-4th level barbarian, he gets Uncanny Dodge - he keeps his Dex bonus against A, and therefore B can sneak attack him. He is penalised for having Uncanny Dodge!
At 5th level, he can no longer be flanked, so it ceases to be an issue. But that's just wrong!
-Hyp.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Vague?
"If you are making a melee attack against a creature, and an ally directly opposite you is threatening the creature, you and your ally flank the creature."
There's not a lot of wiggle room in there... given that "threatening" is a clearly-defined 3E term.
-Hyp.
nimisgod
LEW Judge
Lol! cute!
I suppose then that the Sage could use some better wording for his rulings. God knows how many of them are so unclear, despite the fact that they are supposed to clarify things.
I tend to visualize my combats to get a better feel of 'em. I can't imagine why B would be able to sneak attack O if A was invisible beyond the normal rules.
Then again, D&D was designed to be simple. If flank automatically = +2 bonus, it would make combat a lot simpler.
Does the Sage's ruling go against the Core Rules? Yup.
Is his wording unclear? Yup.
Is the spirit of his ruling reasonable nonetheless? IMO, Yup.
IceBear
Explorer
Hypersmurf said:
Vague?
"If you are making a melee attack against a creature, and an ally directly opposite you is threatening the creature, you and your ally flank the creature."
There's not a lot of wiggle room in there... given that "threatening" is a clearly-defined 3E term.
-Hyp.
Hyper, I can't remember, are you for or against getting AoO against invisible opponents? If you're against, then for consistency wouldn't you have to rule the same way as the Sage here?
IceBear
IceBear said:
I am not sure I see the relation here... Well, I do see it but find it a little thin (IMO, YMMV and such)
In one case, I won't allow an AoO because you can't see there's an opportunity (let's not restart this thread. I am simply stating my opinion on it )
In the other, I allow flanking because although you can't see the guy behind you, he's bashing your head with a keen great sword +3 which I consider distraction enough (don't try it at home
)In other words, I think that an invisible opponent gives enough distraction when attacking to allow flanking bonus to an ally but does not give enough cues for an AaO when driking a potion 5' away (except in some rare circumstances)
IceBear
Explorer
Tar-Edhel said:
I am not sure I see the relation here... Well, I do see it but find it a little thin (IMO, YMMV and such)
In one case, I won't allow an AoO because you can't see there's an opportunity (let's not restart this thread. I am simply stating my opinion on it )
In the other, I allow flanking because although you can't see the guy behind you, he's bashing your head with a keen great sword +3 which I consider distraction enough (don't try it at home
In other words, I think that an invisible opponent gives enough distraction when attacking to allow flanking bonus to an ally but does not give enough cues for an AaO when driking a potion 5' away (except in some rare circumstances)
Yeah, I think I explained my point better in another thread. IF you don't know the flanker is there, then no flanking bonus. However, what happens if the flanker attacks you in round 1 and moves away in round 2 (without you knowing). Shouldn't the defender still behave like he is flanked? It gets kinda weird. I think the Sage was just going with a cut and dried answer that doesn't fit every scenario.
BTW - hitting someone with a weapon isn't enough for flanking to occur, otherwise, this is flanking:
xAx
xDx
Axx
where A=attacker, D=defender, and x=empty square.
Since the two attackers have to be directly opposite from each other it makes it harder to understand how the defender can be flanked if he doesn't know where the invisible opponent is.
My ruling will be that if the invisible opponent attacks the defender previously in the round then the visible opponent will get flanking bonuses for attacking from the opposite square later in the same round.
IceBear
Last edited:
IceBear said:
You did, I just came back from that thread
Here's how I woul deal with it, Sage notwithstanding
An invisible ally grants flanking bonus when he starts to attack. He stops giving it when he stops.
I am aware that the las part makes less sense. It is simply the easiest way to adjudicate the situation, IMO. Otherwise, I need to decide how many rounds the opponent (the one that was flanked) will still be expecting attacks, which gets complicated when in the middle of a combat.
Note that I won't allow flanking bonuses from an invisible ally that just stands behind the opponent while a friend attacks it frontally. The way I see it, the invisible ally must distract his opponent to give flanking bonuses.
But I do understand your position. At that point, I guess that everyone simply applies what makes sense in his campaign.
