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

[Ridley's Cohort]

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?

I do not see why this is a problem. The DM can just inform the player that B is being flanked.

 

[HeavyG]

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.

Well, the problem is, if you allow coup de grace because a defender ignores attacker X, then you kinda have to allow them also whenever someone is unaware of their attackers, which would make the game very deadly indeed every time invisibility comes into action.

 

[KarinsDad]

I do not see why this is a problem. The DM can just inform the player that B is being flanked.

A B X

B is unaware of X.

A attacks B with a sneak attack because the DM knows about X.

The DM informs B that he is flanked.

Why?

How does B suddenly get the mystical information in his head that an invisible opponent is behind him if he cannot perceive that opponent?

Because A sneak attacked him?

That makes no sense. A should never get the opportunity to flank and sneak attack B unless B is aware of X. How does A suddenly mystically get a flank if B is fighting A the exact same way that B does if X is not there?


Let's take a different example.

A B X

This time, X is an illusion that cannot do damage, but B is aware of X and the illusionist is controlling X such that it "attacks and reacts" to B.

In this case, A and X both flank B because B thinks he is flanked and adjusts his actions accordingly. X cannot do any damage, but until B makes a perception that X is an illusion, he will defend against both flanking opponents as if X were real.


Flank should only occur if the defender perceives that he is threatened from multiple directions or if one of the attackers perceives that another attacker is there (i.e. X when invisible gets flank because B is fighting A).

 

[Hypersmurf]

This time, X is an illusion that cannot do damage, but B is aware of X and the illusionist is controlling X such that it "attacks and reacts" to B.

In this case, A and X both flank B because B thinks he is flanked and adjusts his actions accordingly. X cannot do any damage, but until B makes a perception that X is an illusion, he will defend against both flanking opponents as if X were real.

Illusions don't threaten an area (unless they're Shadows, and thus quasi-real).

You are only flanking if your ally threatens your opponent.

If X is an non-Shadow illusion, A is not flanking B.

-Hyp.

 

[Silverglass]

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

But the visible combatant is not less effective, they are just as effective as they would be in any combat, what they miss out on is an additional bonus to their effectiveness.

As per the Errata the invisible attacker gets the flanking bonus and the visible one does not. I don't see this as in inaccurate reflection of the fact that if you can't see one of your attackers then the one you can see gets more of your attention (and thus doesn't get the flanking bonus) but the one you can't see gets a larger bonus (+4 to hit and denies DEX and can sneak attack, being invisible and flanking). Which seems to adequately simulate arguments about ignoring something that you cannot see so poses no threat.

If you can see both attackers (e.g. see invisible) then they get the same bonus (flanking), which relects that fact that you have to respond to both.

The only time that this means a big difference in effectiveness is if both attackers have Sneak Attack, but I can live with that, as I suspect can my players as the invisible Rogue has a higher hit chance and thus will hit and sneak attack more often, if the target has 14 DEX the invisible attacker gets an effetive +6 to hit over the normal +2 so a 20% greater chance of hitting with each attack (assuming a reasonable attack bonus in the first place).

 

[KarinsDad]

Illusions don't threaten an area (unless they're Shadows, and thus quasi-real).

You are only flanking if your ally threatens your opponent.

If X is an non-Shadow illusion, A is not flanking B.

-Hyp.

Yup. Another stupid rule based on some weird set of metagaming concepts (i.e. what is threatening and what is not) as opposed to common sense concepts (i.e. what appears to be threatening and what does not). Whenever you find nonsensical rules like that, you should throw them out immediately.

According to the rules, if you have:

A B X

where X is invisible, B is in less trouble than if X were visible.

According to the rules, if you have:

A B X

where X is an illusion, B is in the same trouble as if X was never cast.

Huh?

The illusion does nothing and the invisibility makes the situation worse for the attackers.

Using magic to assist in the attack in these cases helps (or at least does not hinder) the defender.

That's lunacy with regard to rules. JMO.

 

[Celtavian]

re

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).

Its pretty simple to arbitrate really if you don't try to overintellectualize the problem.


Round 1: Visible Rogue and Invisible Rogue move into flanking position. Defender makes a listen check.

A. Fails Listen Check: Invisible rogue launches surprise attack on partial action surprise round. This alerts defender to presence of other attacker.

B. Succeeds at listen check. He is aware that invisible person is moving behind him.

Either way in the abstract world of D&D he is aware that he is being threatened by an invisible attacker. Thus he is flanked.


This all depends on how you view flanking though as well. Me personally, I view the defender as irrelevant in the flanking equation.

The defender is trying to defend from one side. He is stuck from the other. He tries to defend against the other side. He is stuck from the other. Basically, he turns to defend from attacks on either side as they happen, and is unable to do so. Kind of like a "tag your it" scenario between the defender and flankers

It really doesn't matter that he sees the attack, he knows it is happening. He can hear the person moving their feet, exerting, etc, etc. That is why it is a DC -5 Listen check to pick up on combat. He would basically have to roll a 1 not to be aware of an invisible attacker in melee range.

Given that D&D combat is completely abstract, I don't even worry about whether or not they actually hit. It becomes overly complicated if you do for many, many aspects of D&D combat.

 

[Zaruthustran]

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.

I agree. But this makes me think of illusions. Most illusions can't attack. So, most illusions can't flank? That doesn't seem right.

I guess you could argue that an illusion could be directed to act like it made an attack, and that counts as satisfying the rule for threaten.

Still, it's something to think about. I've always thought that illusions can be used to flank, as long as the target believes the illusion is real. That means that flanking is dependent on the awareness of the target.

-z

 

[Hypersmurf]

According to the rules, if you have:

A B X

where X is invisible, B is in less trouble than if X were visible.

No, according to the rules, B is in more trouble.

According to the Sage, he's in less trouble.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Its pretty simple to arbitrate really if you don't try to overintellectualize the problem.


Round 1: Visible Rogue and Invisible Rogue move into flanking position. Defender makes a listen check.

A. Fails Listen Check: Invisible rogue launches surprise attack on partial action surprise round. This alerts attacker to presence of other defender.

B. Succeeds at listen check. He is aware that invisible person is moving behind him.

Either way in the abstract world of D&D he is aware that he is being threatened by an invisible attacker. Thus he is flanked.

You are avoiding the issue.

Invisible Rogue moves into flanking position. He does not attack. Defender does not know about Invisible Rogue. Visible Rogue does not know about Invisible Rogue.

Why would Visible Rogue get a flank?

Invisible Rogue is still threatening Defender (e.g. he could do an AoO if Defender tried to cast a spell), but he has done nothing to alert either Visible Rogue or Defender to his position.

Why would Defender suddenly be aware of him?

Because of your house rule that invisible characters can flank?

That house rule is fine once the Defender knows about the Invisible Rogue, but until he does, it should be as if the Invisible Rogue is not even there.