Invis and Flanking

[Hypersmurf]

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?

I am one of the foremost proponents of AoOs on invisible opponents

So I am being consistent.

-Hyp.

 

[Stalker0]

I think the Sage's reply makes the most logical sense as far as a combat scenario would go, but from a rules point of view its completely wrong. By the book, the invisible guy is flanking. Its very clear in the rules.

 

[magnas_veritas]

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?!

Perhaps what he's thinking is that the flanking is based on teamwork between the flankers...that in the case of the invisible rogue and the visible fighter flanking the ogre, the fighter can't see the rogue's attacks to coordinate with. Sure, the ogre's trying to react to opponents on both sides of him (loses Dex bonus), but you can't see when the rogue's going to go for the kidneys so you can prepare to exploit the opening that follows.

That makes somewhat more sense, though I find it a tad silly.

Brad