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

[Kichwas]

Flanking comes from the issue of being distracted by the people on opposing sides. If one cannot see one of those people, how can that person cause a distraction?

I suppose you could use noise, but once you have enough noise to distract you've also made enough noise to be targeted.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Flanking comes from the issue of being distracted by the people on opposing sides.

No, flanking comes someone making a melee attack while an ally threatens from the opposite side.

"Distraction" does not appear in the conditions for flanking in 3E or in 3.5.

If Gary the Goblin is unconscious, and Fred the Fighter doesn't want to take the full-round action to CDG him, he can make a melee attack against Gary's AC (with a -5 Dex modifier for being helpless). If Rory the Rogue is standing directly opposite holding a shortsword, Fred gets a +2 bonus on that roll.

Gary's awareness and Rory's visibility don't come into it, by the Core Rules as written.

-Hyp.

 

[two]

Quite

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.

Yes, this is the issue. Lack of flavor, actually.

Problem #1 arises from this very simple definition of threatening/flanking. Problem #2 arises from the fix.

So far, I've seen a few justifications to "make sense" of Problem #2, such as "invisiblity is not always better for reasons X,Y,Z" etc. but have yet to see anyone give any justification for #1.

I'm not even brining up the dire rat flanking a Solar, that's another obscurity of the overly? simplistic threaten/flank mechanics.

Besides the argument that "the rules were the rules before the Sage FAQ'd em" I don't really see why Problem #1 is smaller or less "silly" than Problem #2. In fact, I think it's sillier.

So I'm asking for somebody to give a justification for #1, in any terms you can think of, besides simply quoting rules and saying "it's just mechanics." I need flavor, you see. Flavor. Else, Problem #1 is more serious to me than #2.

I don't want to stare at my players, who have raised a perfectly logical objection, and simply say, shamefully, "uh, that's just the rules, illogical as they are in this case."

 

[Hypersmurf]

So I'm asking for somebody to give a justification for #1...

That's why, if I decided it was a problem and I needed to house-rule it, I would add the caveat that providing a flanking bonus reveals one's presence.

I don't see the flanking bonus as necessarily requiring the person to perceive you as a credible threat, or to turn around and look at you.

Flavour: Your presence there is a disruption to his defence. He goes to take a step back to avoid a blow, and bumps into something in his way. He attempts to parry a stab, and his blade briefly catches on yours en route.

In these examples, it's obvious that there's "something there" - hence the house-rule cited above - but since you're not actually making an attack, simply being inconvenient, invisibility is not broken.

But as I've said, I don't see this as being a problem - any more than the fact that someone can be surrounded by three people, none of whom qualify for flanking bonuses, even though his attention would in theory be even further split than with two on opposing sides.

-Hyp.

 

[Gez]

This is pretty silly, yes, since it implies that a character could simply willfully ignore one or more of the flanking parties, suffering the "blind" penalty against that creature, but negating the flanking effect.

I don't find this silly at all. In fact, it could be a houserule I would adopt.

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

It's not the one who is invisible who is a less effective combatant. It's the one who is visible.

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

And if you are not aware of a threat (let call it a "ghost threat", or a "phantom menace"), are you acting as if you're threatened?

 

[bensei]

The reason for such problems is obviously the fact that the D&D combat system is non-facing. This is fine, and I like it, but at the point of flanking, it causes trouble, as flanking is something which has to so with facing (if I had eyes on both sides of my head and arms working equally well to both sides, flaking would be no disadvantage for me).

Consequently, the only possibility to make the flanking, invisible, etc. issue consistent, is to introduce some aspect of facing again. For example by the following house rule:
A flanked character has to define one mail opponent (as with the dodge feat). Against this opponent, he fights normally, while the opponent on the other side is considered invisible.
(Still, of couse, this would not be completely consitent, in the case of almost flanking or more than two opponent ganging up, but better than nothing.)

I could think about introducing this rule, as I would allow an archer without Precise Shot not to take a -4 penalty, but to roll randomly, which of the guys in melee is being hit.

 

[niteshade6]

Well the problem with ignoring a threat to avoid being flanked is that the whole hit point system assumes that you are making some attempt to avoid being killed by your enemy, even when you are stunned or just don't know he's there. When you say that you ignore a foe, that's like saying your not making any effort to move out of the way of his attacks, and keep him from sticking his rusty dagger right into your throat.

If somebody really wanted to do it, I'd allow the person he was ignoring to do a Coup de Grace on him. That way if the threat really was harmless (like a dire rat threatening a solar) he could safely ignore it. Anything else would pose a serious threat if he stopped making any attempt to get out of the way, and that's how it should be.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I like the ruling that invisible attackers don't provoke AOO's. I don't however like this ruling and don't intend to use it.

Flanking attackers get the bonus not because the defender is unaware of the attackers, but because a defender can't defend all sides. After 1 round, the defender would be trying to defend equally against both, the round after the invisible attacker hit him.

Now, that 1 round isn't all that important to me in the course of a combat. I would not bother to note that on round 1 the defender might not be flanked because he is unaware of the attacker. I would just assume that the invisible attacker let him know either on the partial surprise round the attacker would most likely receive due to being invisible or the defender heard the invisible attacker.

Either way, it is most likely that the invisible attacker struck first because of surprise alerting the defender to his presence or the defender heard the invisible attacker making him aware that he is now being flanked.

Bad Sage ruling IMO.

 

[Gez]

Well the problem with ignoring a threat to avoid being flanked is that the whole hit point system assumes that you are making some attempt to avoid being killed by your enemy, even when you are stunned or just don't know he's there. When you say that you ignore a foe, that's like saying your not making any effort to move out of the way of his attacks, and keep him from sticking his rusty dagger right into your throat.

This isn't exactly a situation where you could perform a merciful strike, however. You are jerking to dodge the blows from opponent A, which don't makes it easy for opponent B to carefully aim for your throat.

The simple fact that you're actively moving in not-so-predictable patterns is enough to not make you helpless, even if you ignore the threat.

Rather than making you helpless with regard to opponent B, I would consider you flat-footed WRT opponent B. You don't have your Dex bonus to AC against him (since you're not dodging him at all), but that don't mean you're a sitting duck target for him.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And if you are not aware of a threat (let call it a "ghost threat", or a "phantom menace"), are you acting as if you're threatened?

A character threatens any square into which he can make a melee attack.

"Threaten" doesn't mean "make someone believe they're in danger" in 3E. It means "be able to attack".

Whether they know you're there or not, you can still threaten them, in the 3E sense of the word.

-Hyp.