Invisible Things can't Flank: What's the big dealio?

[Keith]

"Any ruling that indicates being invisible can automatically make you a less effective combatant should be thrown out."

I don't really see this. There are pros and cons to being invisible, that is all. You would have great difficult getting the attention of friends while invisible, or silently pointing out a danger, for example. You would also not be able to help a friend in combat by providing the distraction that results in a flanking bonus. Your attacks are always improved by being invisible, but your overall presence is changed drastically, with some disadvantages.
I think it adds some nice balance to being invisible. It isn't a "better at everything" or even a "better at combat" spell, but something unique and fun to deal with. I think the rules are pretty clear and reasonable on this one. Or maybe the rules on invisibility are actually kind of opaque, I don't know.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You would also not be able to help a friend in combat by providing the distraction that results in a flanking bonus.

Now find where, in the rules for Flanking, it says anything about a distraction.

-Hyp.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

When you are visible there are automatic assumptions about your behavior with respect to threatening. When you are invisible (by this ruling above) there are different automatic assumptions about your behavior with respect to threatening. That is just sloppy mechanics.

You would also not be able to help a friend in combat by providing the distraction that results in a flanking bonus. Your attacks are always improved by being invisible, but your overall presence is changed drastically, with some disadvantages.

Nonsense. A combatant with Improved Invisiblity certainly can distract -- probably better than any visible combatant ever could. You cannot look at the simplest case and extrapolate easily from there.

Your underlying assumption is that threatening is some kind of passive activity involving waveing your weapons harmless about. That is the real problem. That is what is causing confusion.

(I am not denying there are disadvantages to being invisible.)

 

[Trainz]

About that, would you say it's perfectly justifiable for a flanked PC to say "I totally ignore the rat and concentrate on the ogre", and thus having the ogre fight with no flanking bonuses, but giving the rat the benifits of invisibility (although he is considered spotted) ?

It's important I know this for my campaign... thanks in advance for any responses.

 

[Hypersmurf]

About that, would you say it's perfectly justifiable for a flanked PC to say "I totally ignore the rat and concentrate on the ogre", and thus having the ogre fight with no flanking bonuses, but giving the rat the benifits of invisibility (although he is considered spotted) ?

Assuming you're using the Sage's ruling on flanking:

In 3E, yes. The rules for Gaze Attacks allow you to treat a creature as invisible, and invisible creatures can't flank.

In 3.5, it's uncertain. The rules for Gaze attacks allow you to grant a creature total concealment. Whether this means that, by the Sage's ruling, he can't provide a creature with a flanking bonus is not really defined.

In 3E, blind, invisible, and total concealment all pretty much meant the same thing.

In 3.5, blindness grants everyone total concealment. Invisibility grants one creature total concealment. Total concealment obviates the need for Hide checks. But it's not really clear if total concealment = invisible...

-Hyp.

 

[TheTaxMan]

It would make sense to me if you only got something like 1/2 flanking bonus if your ally can't see you. You can't coordinate an attack if you can't see what you're coordinating with. I guess this depends on what flanking really is (a shared effrot or a singular person taking advantage of something).

 

[Hypersmurf]

I guess this depends on what flanking really is.

What flanking really is is you making a melee attack when an ally directly opposite you threatens the opponent.

Anything else is people making up rules to fit their own flavour text.

-Hyp.

 

[TheTaxMan]

Ultimately, you can play whatever text you want. In reality flanking something is more than just standing opposite.

 

[Norfleet]

About that, would you say it's perfectly justifiable for a flanked PC to say "I totally ignore the rat and concentrate on the ogre", and thus having the ogre fight with no flanking bonuses, but giving the rat the benifits of invisibility (although he is considered spotted) ?

Well, think about it: If you were fighting an ogre, and some insignificant rodent were behind you, would you even pay attention to it? No! You're battling with an OGRE. The rat is something you'd likely accidentally step on in the process. It's quite easy to ignore something when the threat value posed by that is insignificant compared to your real target. You might even be dimly aware that there is, in fact, a rat somewhere behind you, but it's simply not something you care enough to pay attention to.

Otherwise, you'd have ridiculous flanking situations occurring where a very dangerous attacker, such as a rogue with a high sneak attack value, is able to achieve "flanking" due to the help of something which doesn't pose a credible threat at all, such as a cat.

After all, if something which is invisible can be ignored and not provide flanking, something which is visible but on the opposite side of your objective can similarly be ignored. Therefore, a coherent, unified ruling is reached: Something which the defender is unaware of, or is willfully disregarding as a credible threat, will not aid in flanking. An invisible opponent attacks with the benefit of of being invisible: Once it does so, the defender is aware of it, and can be distracted by the presence of an invisible opponent, unless the defender willfully ignores it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Otherwise, you'd have ridiculous flanking situations occurring where a very dangerous attacker, such as a rogue with a high sneak attack value, is able to achieve "flanking" due to the help of something which doesn't pose a credible threat at all, such as a cat.

A cat with a Tiny longspear with the Opposable special ability?

Or a cat with Animal Growth on it?

Otherwise cats can't flank, since they have a 0 reach...

-Hyp.