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

[KarinsDad]

Unless I am missing something, one solution to these various problems sounds fairly simple, but requires a house rule.

A B X

B is flanked by A and X. X is invisible.

Before X is perceived by B as attacking, A's attacks are not flanking (it's as if X did not yet exist).

After X is perceived by B as attacking, A's attacks are flanking.

X's attacks are always flanking and always invisible (until A walks away when they merely become invisible).

So, X gets +4 (both invis and flanking), all other flanking advantages (like Sneak Attack if able), and B gets no dex against him.

A gets +2 against B (flanking) and all other flanking advantages, but only after B perceives X attacking.

The round after B perceives X, B can ignore X (for example, if he does not consider him a threat) and concentrate on A. If B ignores X, then A does not get a flanking bonus. Note: A should get at least one attack against B with flanking (i.e. it takes a moment for B to decide to ignore X at which point he will defend against X) to make this fair for A.

However, if you ignore someone in combat, it should be the equivalent of being off balance. You are not actively defending against them. So, if B is ignoring X and if X was not invisible, then X should get +4 against B (flanking and ignored) and all other flanking advantages. If B is ignoring X and if X is invisible, then X should get +6 against B (invis, flanking, and ignored), all other flanking advantages, and B gets no dex against X.

There is no rules on being ignored, but I think the +2 to hit for both melee and ranged attacks equivalent of off balance works. Granted, actually being off balance also means that you lose your Dex bonus, but the problem is that many unfavorable conditions (like Surprise, hence, the reason to not use Surprise or Flatfooted here) means that the defender loses his Dex bonus (which makes it difficult for unrelated conditions to stack) and since Invisibility is one of them, I thought that ignored should not.

On top of this, until B perceives X's attacks, it is as if X is ignored (B doesn't know about him after all). So, until his attacks are noticed, X is not at +4 (both invis and flanking), all other flanking advantages, and B gets no dex against X(as mentioned originally above before I introduced the house rule), X is at +6 against B (invis, flanking, and ignored), all other flanking advantages, and B gets no dex against X until B perceives X's attacks.

So effectively, B gets to decide if he wants A at +2 with flank and X at +4 with flank and no dex, or if he wants A at +0 with no flank and X at +6 with flank and no dex. Either way, A and X are at the advantage.

This solves all of the problems mentioned (if I remember correctly), but it does introduce the +2 to hit concept of being ignored to do so. That's the way it is with unresolvable problems based on the given rules. You have to adjudicate a house rule to resolve them. Otherwise, some aspect of it will still remain unresolved (at least to the satisfaction of a given GM).

 

[Celtavian]

re

Remember folks, you don't need to think about the round that the defender is unaware of the invisible attacker. A Surprise Round will resolve the initial attack if the defender is unaware. If the defender is aware, then he will know he is flanked and be concentrating on defending against both attackers as normal.

Don't forget about the surprise round. The surprise round will happen before the normal round actions take place. This completley eliminates the need to account for the first round the defender may not be aware.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

My .02:

I think invis should be able to flank. I also think that if you are flanked, you should have a right to know that you are flanked, which can give you hints at an invisible creature's location. Sometimes it's clear anyway (because someone just got sneak attack damage on you and you're not flat-footed), but many times, there's no specific reason why a player, for instance, would be told that someone is getting +2 to attack him. But I think he should know he's being flanked.

I like the suggestion that an invisible creature should have the option NOT to reveal his presence, in exchange for not attacking and not contributing to a flanking situation (in essence, declining to threaten a specific area).

Similarly, I think visible creatures should have the option NOT to flank. How? Same as above, by declining to threaten a certain area. Why bother? Consider this situation. Two creatures that are on opposite sides of a common foe need not necessarily be allies. What if someone is flanked by a rogue (who wants to make sneak attacks and kill the foe) and a dagger-wielding wizard (who wants to charm the person in the middle, or do something else hostile but not involving melee attacks or lethal force)? I think the wizard should be able to deny the rogue sneak attacks by declining to threaten with his dagger, just as if he were a friend of the guy in the middle.

I think putting the onus on the invisible potential flanker to reveal his presence (though not necessarily exact location) in order to provide a flanking bonus is better than denying him the ability to flank, and that allowing characters to willfully ignore visible creatures (a la rat and ogre) creates too many headaches. I have no problem with the idea of willful ignorance, but I don't like that the character is allowed (in fact required) to make decisions of that sort when it is not his or her turn.

I am not comfortable, for instance, with this scenario: Mid-level character (Mildred) is approached and attacked by a low-level foe (Lola). Because no one else threatens her at this time, Mildred pays full attention to Lola during this attack. Next in intiative, a high-level threat (Heidi) approaches, flanking (with Lola), and attacks Mildred. Before the attack, Mildred declares that she is no longer paying attention to Lola, even though she paid full attention to her a moment before, and even though it is not yet her turn, so as to deny the Heidi a flank. Next, it's Mildred's turn. She attacks Heidi, gets lucky, and kills her. She now declares that she resumes paying full attention to Lola.

Usually, flanking happens on the turn of flankers. That is, people don't usually move in between opponents to allows themselves to be flanked. That means that to be worth utilizing, a house rule for willful ignorance is often going to require multiple shifts of attention, some of which happen out of a character's turn, and others than happen in the midst of their turn. Yes, you could only allow a character to willfully ignore on his or her turn and make it stick until the next round, but I suspect that option will be nearly worthless.

I think staying away from willful ignorance house rules and letting potential flankers decide whether to flank (including invisible creatures, who may have to choose between flanking and remaining better hidden) is a better way to go.

 

[niteshade6]

" [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. "

Nah even when your flat footed your trying not to get killed. This is a much more extreme situation where your saying you don't care if the weapon is coming right at your neck, your going to completely ignore it and not make the slightest attempt to move out of the way. That sounds pretty suicidal to me, and any rules around it should reflect this. Of course it might be easier to just use the rules as presented and not allow it at all.

 

[KarinsDad]

The problem with Surprise or Flatfooted solutions is that the Invisible character already has that advantage (i.e. target loses Dex bonus).

So, you are right back where you started from.

A B X

A does not get a flanking bonus.

X does get a flanking bonus.

Nothing has changed.

 

[NPC]

I like Magus Coeruleus's suggestion. It puts the onus on the invisible attacker to choose how he's acting. Threaten, flank, and be revealed, or don't threaten, don't flank, and stay hidden.

Side note: I don't like houserules that allow the defender to choose to ignore a flanker. The flanked defender should not be able to make a bad situation better through ignoring a threat.

For example, if you're flanked by a bard and a rogue, and you were allowing a flankee to ignore a flanker, you'd probably choose to ignore the bard so you don't get sneak attacked by the rogue.

 

[Celtavian]

re

The problem with Surprise or Flatfooted solutions is that the Invisible character already has that advantage (i.e. target loses Dex bonus).

So, you are right back where you started from.

A B X

A does not get a flanking bonus.

X does get a flanking bonus.

Nothing has changed.

Only if you use the Sage's Ruling. If you intend on the using a House Rule allowing invisible attackers to flank, there is no need to bother with the question of whether or not the defender is initially aware of the attacker. That will be resolved with a surprise round or a successful Spot or Listen check.

An invisible attacker reveals its presence and general location when it successfully attacks.

Now I would rule that the visible attacker has no idea where the invisible flanker is, so would not be able to position for the flank him or her self. The invisible attacker can position for the flank because he knows exactly where the visible attacker is.

Given that combat rounds are abstract at some point during the round the defender will know that he is being attacked from both sides. That will cause him to react accordingly.

Flanking is real abstract. I have no idea why the Sage feels an invisible attacker wouldn't provide a flanking bonus. Just seems like a really poor call on his part.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Only if you use the Sage's Ruling. If you intend on the using a House Rule allowing invisible attackers to flank, there is no need to bother with the question of whether or not the defender is initially aware of the attacker. That will be resolved with a surprise round or a successful Spot or Listen check.

An invisible attacker reveals its presence and general location when it successfully attacks.

Now I would rule that the visible attacker has no idea where the invisible flanker is, so would not be able to position for the flank him or her self. The invisible attacker can position for the flank because he knows exactly where the visible attacker is.

Given that combat rounds are abstract at some point during the round the defender will know that he is being attacked from both sides. That will cause him to react accordingly.

Flanking is real abstract. I have no idea why the Sage feels an invisible attacker wouldn't provide a flanking bonus. Just seems like a really poor call on his part.

Caveat: The following opinions are based on a "house rule" of letting invisible attackers flank. I am not citing rules here, but rather advocating for certain interepretations.

I disagree with the idea that the invisible flanker is a nonissue. I think that if an invisible creature is flanking, but not attacking yet (say because his visible buddy on the other side is attacking first), there is a very real issue of whether the defender gets to know that he's being flanked when the visible flanker attacks with a +2 and, if eligible, gets to make sneak attacks. If the invisible creature flank-assists, I think the defender should get to know he's being flanked, but nothing more. This does not reveal his location, but gives a clue. It could be a relatively easy clue, such as when there is one visible opponent and the defender somehow knows there is an invisible creature around, knows its size, and knows it doesn't have reach weapons--in this case it may be a no brainer to attack the square opposite the visible flanker. Or it could be a very vague situation, for instance, if you know nothing about any invisible attacker, whether it has reach weapons, whether it's some funky spell that magically "flanks" or whatever.

I think the invisible creature should have the possibility of getting screwed (however slight it is) by tipping off the defender to his presence while helping a visible ally flank. Perhaps the visible attacker goes first in initiative, then the defender, then the invisible guy. Perhaps the defender can guess the correct square, hit it despite the miss chance, and even kill the invisible guy before he got to attack. Some may think it sounds ridiculous that this could happen to an otherwise undetected invisible character, but I think it should be a reasonable concern for an invisible guy who wants to forgo total sneakiness in order to assist his visible ally in gutting the defender.

 

[KarinsDad]

Only if you use the Sage's Ruling. If you intend on the using a House Rule allowing invisible attackers to flank, there is no need to bother with the question of whether or not the defender is initially aware of the attacker. That will be resolved with a surprise round or a successful Spot or Listen check.

How?

A B X

Surprise rounds result in partial action and flatfooted. If the combat is already started, stating that the B is flatfooted to or surprised by X means nothing. B already lost his Dex bonus to X due to the invisibility. He loses nothing else for being surprised.

If you use the house rule of both characters flank with awareness being ignored, here is the problem:

A B X

B is fighting A. B does not know about X. A gets a flank bonus and does 30 points of sneak attack damage to B.

The player of B says: "What the heck just happened?"

The GM says: "He sneak attacked you."

B: "How?"

GM: "I cannot tell you." (telling him of the invisible opponent could be done, but it is metagaming knowledge that will affect his play if done)

I could see a player quitting a campaign over this kind of stuff.


However, if you make B's awareness of X a requirement for A to get flank, then at least the player of B is not (as) bothered by this.

The issue then becomes, if X surprises B, why does he fight with the exact same bonuses as he does after B knows about him?

There is no "bonus to hit" due to suprise.


So, maybe two simple house rules of:

1) X is at +2 to hit B for surprise on every round until B notices X.

2) A gets flank once B is aware of X (ignoring an opponent is not allowed).

 

[two]

How?
<snip>
If you use the house rule of both characters flank with awareness being ignored, here is the problem:

A B X

B is fighting A. B does not know about X. A gets a flank bonus and does 30 points of sneak attack damage to B.

The player of B says: "What the heck just happened?"

The GM says: "He sneak attacked you."

B: "How?"

GM: "I cannot tell you." (telling him of the invisible opponent could be done, but it is metagaming knowledge that will affect his play if done)

I could see a player quitting a campaign over this kind of stuff.

<snip>
QUOTE]

This is in fact Problem #1 identified on the first post on page one.

At least I'm glad other people have issues with it. I guess?