Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kaffis" data-source="post: 4341391" data-attributes="member: 10305">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?</blockquote>

Verification