Invisible flanking?

[Kaffis]

Okay, our gnome warlock did something today that feels like it needs attention and a careful ruling.

He got hit, faded away, and then misty stepped into position to provide two allies flanking on two enemies.

I looked up invisibility, flanking, and combat advantage, and it looks like by the RAW, invisible creatures (or hidden ones, as this character frequently conceal-stealths himself, too, taking advantage of shadow walk's concealment-from-out-of-the-blue) can provide flanking bonuses to enemies.

This makes little sense logically, though, so I'm pondering whether it's worth a house rule. Flanking grants combat advantage because the flankee is forced to divide its attention and defensive awareness between the current threat and threats behind. But if the flankee is unaware of the threat behind, how does the attacker get the benefit of his distraction?

On the other hand, fade away's invisibility only lasts the one turn, and if this character is to provide flanking for long, he's not moving his 3 squares to trigger shadow walk and allow himself to hide, so this turns into one of my few chances to actually have enemies take shots at him. So perhaps until my party can cast invisiblity on a few hirelings and sustain it (or hire a level 6 wizard as a hireling, hah) so the hirelings can stand around, unthreatened in their invisibility, and flank (without attacking, so as not to break it), I can just leave it be.

Thoughts? Amused observations? Comments? Corrections?

 

[Danceofmasks]

If you want to provide flanking bonuses, you'll have to make your foes aware of your location (no actual rule, it's just sensible).
Still invisible and have total concealment, but they know what square you're in.

 

[On Puget Sound]

There's a risk in following the logic that a target must be aware of a threat in order to be flanked. Namely, what if the target is aware of the threat but chooses to ignore it, either because tactically that makes sense to it, or because the target zombie/ animated statue/ gelatinous cube simply does not alter its behavior baased on the presence or absence of threats?

Flanking grants combat advantage to the flankers because the defender can't defend with full effectiveness against both at once. The game assumes that the defender always spends an equal amount of attention on each flanker. Modifying this rule so that the target could (or might have to, given an undetected flanker) give one foe +4 and the other one no bonus seems to me a big can of worms better left unopened. Compared to knocking swarms prone, or firing 9 crossbow bolts in 6 seconds into the eyes of 9 opponents (Blinding Barrage, Rogue daily-1), the default assumption in this case is a minor bit of unrealism I'd prefer to live with.

 

[FireLance]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the invisible flanker does something to distract or hinder his opponent in order to give his flanking ally the bonus.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I looked up invisibility, flanking, and combat advantage, and it looks like by the RAW, invisible creatures (or hidden ones, as this character frequently conceal-stealths himself, too, taking advantage of shadow walk's concealment-from-out-of-the-blue) can provide flanking bonuses to enemies.

Right.

This makes little sense logically, though, so I'm pondering whether it's worth a house rule. Flanking grants combat advantage because the flankee is forced to divide its attention and defensive awareness between the current threat and threats behind. But if the flankee is unaware of the threat behind, how does the attacker get the benefit of his distraction?

You're making up flavour text that doesn't exist, then finding that the mechanics don't fit with the flavour text. Solution? Make up different flavour text.

Flanking grants combat advantage. You're flanking if you and an ally are on opposite sides, if you and your ally are able to attack, if you and your ally have line of effect to the enemy, and if you aren't prevented from taking opportunity actions.

If you satisfy those criteria, you're flanking and you gain combat advantage.

This is true whether or not you're invisible, whether or not the enemy is blind, and indeed whether or not the enemy is conscious. Of course, usually if the enemy is blind or unconscious, you'll have Combat Advantage anyway.

When you won't get combat advantage is if the enemy becomes invisible.

The enemy doesn't need to be aware of you for you to cause difficulties for him against your flanking ally. Perhaps you foul his ankle or his weapon at a critical instant, leaving an opening your ally can exploit while the enemy blames the uneven terrain for hampering him. Perhaps you distract him briefly by making a sound he flinches towards, only to see nothing behind him.

If you satisfy the mechanical requirements (opposite, able, and allied), the flavour can be described to justify the result (combat advantage).

-Hyp.

 

[Oompa]

Shadowwalk, gives concealment, not invisibility...

So someone is still vissible, but he is harder to see if you look at him, even at 5ft distance...

 

[DracoSuave]

Yeah... you -know- he's around -somewhere-... and that makes you nervous... and the fact he fades in just long enough to blast you before fading out is a real pain.

 

[Khaim]

Shadowwalk, gives concealment, not invisibility...

...and concealment allows you to make a Stealth check. Which is very much like being invisible. While I personally wouldn't allow a Warlock to run around "invisible" all the time, there's a fairly strong rules argument for exactly that.

 

[lukelightning]

If you want to provide flanking bonuses, you'll have to make your foes aware of your location (no actual rule, it's just sensible).

Invisible flanking gnome, eh? Sounds like it's ripe for all sorts of fun.

"wooooo, this is the ghost of your father...."
"You call that an attack? A half-dead gibberling could do better."
"I can see your underpants!"

I think getting heckled by an invisible enemy right behind you would count as flanked