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

[two]

This is the FAQ ruling:

"Q: Suppose an ally of mine is attacking one foe, then I
somehow become invisible, draw my sword, and move to
the other side of that foe, thus flanking the foe. Does my ally
still get a flanking bonus even if I am invisible?

A:You get a flanking bonus from any ally your foe can see (and
who is in the correct position to flank). If your foe can’t see
you, you don’t provide a flanking bonus to any ally.
Sharp readers will note that this means you cannot flank a
blind creature; however, truly blind creatures are effectively
flanked already (they can’t use their Dexterity bonus to AC and
you a +2 bonus to attack them). Creatures with the blindsight
ability effectively “see” within blindsight range and can be
flanked."

______________________

So why are people making fun of this ruling/up in arms about it?


The "threatening" and "flanking" rules are very simple by design. This FAQ ruling is necessary to counteract Problem#1.

Problem #1 (illustrated): Joe walks across a field. A rabid pony runs up to him and attacks. Joe pulls out his sword and gets ready for some hack-a-whack. Rabid pony kicks at him, and the DM says to Joe's player "well, since Joe is flanked, the pony gets +2 to hit." Joe's player says, "huh?" DM says, "yeah, the rabid pony's invisible+silenced pal Goon the goblin is standing behind Joe with a rusty spoon, a weapon in which Goon is proficient." Joe's player says "so what? Joe is not even aware of Goon! How can this make Joe easier to hit by the pony?" DM says, "them's the rules, buddy."

Problem #1 is this: "flanking" requires some interaction on the part of the person flanked and the thing flanking. Otherwise, it's just silly, and is impossible to justify, as illustrated above. Note that by the old rules the invisible Goon the Goblin NEVER has to attack and break invisibility, simply needs to stand there and "threaten" in order to give flanking bonuses.

This is silly, and the ruling resolved it. Since you still get sneak attack if you are invisible, it does not hurt rogues at all.

However.

It does cause a problem, problem #2.

(illustrated): Randy the Rogue and Izzy the Improved Invisible rogue attack Stupid the Wizard in a well-lit alley. They chase down Stupid after two rounds of running (nobody is flatfooted anymore) and both rogues attack in round 3 of combat. They have moved into flanking position but only Izzy gets sneak attack damage (since Izzy is invisible) while Randy gets no sneak attack. However, if Izzy had NOT been invisible, both Randy and Izzy would get sneak attack damage (because they could flank). So it is better to be attacked by two unbuffed visible rogues than one invisible and one visible rogue! Which seems to go against "common sense," given that invisible opponents should make things tougher.

So, either the "invisible flanking" issue needs to be made more complicated (invisible creatures can threaten but only after they have attacked once and the enemy is aware of them in some way/defending against them, or something like that) or you are going to get this problem.

I'm not going to touch problem #3, uncanny dodge, btw. No way.

So which problem is "worse?" Which is harder to justify? Personally, I find Problem#1 completely ludicrous. This is something that HAD to be fixed, even if the fix caused other problems. Problem#2 is also somewhat bad, but not (in my view) as bad as Problem#1. I can at least justify #2 mentally (flanking is a result of the defender reacting, sometimes by instinct, from sharp things poking him from two sides at the same time. If one of the things on one of the sides is invisible, even if the defender knows something is there, it's just not as distracting as SEEING the sword coming down). It's a stretch, I know, but I can at least work with #2. But I can't justify #1 at all, by any means.

In my view, yeah, it's too bad for the rogues in this rare case (#2). Artifact of the rules, which are kept simple. Too bad. However, I think the "invisible can't flank" rule overall is for the better.

To do it right would require more complexity with the flanking/threatening rules, which is probably not needed... or maybe it is...

 

[Norfleet]

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. Actually, the ability to do this would bring us to clean, unified system of flanking: Any time a combatant attempts to pay attention to more than one critter at a time, he gets flanked. If he ignores the other creatures, they gain bonusses as if they were invisible, but no longer count for flanking purposes....

Which brings us to the NWN method of flanking: Anyone who isn't your active battle target is considered to be flanking, whereas the person you are facing and attacking is never flanking. This, I feel, makes excellent sense.

 

[Dursk Starkfire]

Problem #2 perfectly illustrates why this was such a terrible ruling by the sage. I assume that this will be immediately rectified in the 3.7 edition of the players handbook.

 

[two]

Problem #2 perfectly illustrates why this was such a terrible ruling by the sage. I assume that this will be immediately rectified in the 3.7 edition of the players handbook.

So Problem#1 is preferable in your view?

i.e. penalizing a defender for something they are not aware of and which does not necessarly effect them in any way? (besides granting a pal a bonus?)

Or are you trying to get to a point where Problem#1 and Problem#2 are both resolved, without adding a bunch of complication to the rules? If so -- tell!

Me curious.

 

[Norfleet]

Problem #1 is this: "flanking" requires some interaction on the part of the person flanked and the thing flanking. Otherwise, it's just silly, and is impossible to justify, as illustrated above. Note that by the old rules the invisible Goon the Goblin NEVER has to attack and break invisibility, simply needs to stand there and "threaten" in order to give flanking bonuses.

Maybe he's not attacking. Maybe he's just waving his arms in a noisy, whoosy manner and shouting "OOGA BOOGA!" in a very distracting way.

 

[Dimwhit]

I totally agree with the Sage. I don't think flanking bonuses should be given if the defender has no idea there is someone on one side of him. However, I don't think that entirely rules out invisibility giving flank. At least it shouldn't. If the defender knows there is an invisible opponenet on one side of him, but he just can't see him, then I would grant flanking bonuses. For example, if one of them has improved invisibility and is attacking or otherwise interacting, I think that should overrule the Sage's ruling. And this would solve problem #2. If one Rogue has improved invisibility and the other rogue is visible...if they are both attacking, they should get flank bonuses. The Wizard may only see one of them, but he knows they're both there because they're both attacking. But until he knows there is an invisibile rogue attacking, they shouldn't get a flank bonus.

It all makes sense to me. Of course, I don't know if The Sage would agree with my extended thought process on that.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I personally feel Problem 1 is a smaller problem than Problem 2.

And since Problem 1 results from the rules as written, and Problem 2 results from making up new rules that didn't previously exist, I'm very, very comfortable ignoring the FAQ on this matter.

If I were going to make a House Rule to "fix" Problem 1, it would be that an invisible creature who provides an ally with a flanking bonus reveals his presence, as if the opponent had made a DC20 Spot Check to detect (but not pinpoint) an invisible creature.

Given that he must be directly opposite, that gives a likely location... but not necessarily exact, as he may be using a reach weapon, or the opponent may have larger than a 5x5 face, or whatever.

-Hyp.

 

[tesuji]

File under "the way it ought to have been and be solely IMO"...

The key for flanking/not-flanking should always be the ACTIONS the attackers are taking, not the awareness of the defender. Flanking should occur as a direct result of specified actions, not a general mish mash of possibilities.

Option 1: A successful strike with a melle attack counts you as a "flanker" for one complete round OR until the target moves. Someone else, an ally of yours, who positions himself opposite you gains the benefit of flanking. If they strike successfully, then they also qualify as flanker and so you might gain the benefits next round.

Option 2: A successful aid other maneuver can provide flanker status and allow one ally to gain the flanking bonuses.

yes, compared to the awareness thingy this will take longer in some cases, and if you cannot hit the bad guy then you might not be able to flank him at all for your buddies... IE the pit fiend can ignore the summoned rat who cannot hit him and thus not be flanked by a rodent for your 19th level thief to backstab... but i really do not have trouble with either of these.

YMMV.

 

[niteshade6]

The problem with allowing a target who is aware of an invisible person to be flanked is that it means he is penalized for being aware. Not noticing the invisible person sneaking up on you should never be an advantage.

The problem with the sages ruling is that it builds in a disadvantage to being invisible that is not there while you are visible. It could also potentialy penalize you for seeing invisible. It leads to odd cases where closing your eyes or casting invisibility on your enemy works to your benefit. And it means that even when the invisible person is in the middle of combat with you, pounding on you, he still somehow can't flank you.

Really the only time the old pre-sage advice ruling caused any lapse of logic was when somebody invisible had not yet entered combat or attacked and nobody knew he was there, but yet he still provided flanking bonuses. This particular situation is quite rare and easier to just house rule.

If I were going to come up with a clear rule, I'd say that any time somebody is providing flanking bonuses against you on an attack, you know that there is somebody in that space, and that an invisible flanker may choose weither or not he wishes to provide a flanking bonus and reveal himself or not.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I am with Hypersmurf, problem #2 is worse than problem #1.

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

The REAL problem is not #1, it is that the concept of "threatening" is not as well thought out as one might hope. In 3.0 this generated exciting arguments about unarmed combatants, blind kobolds, and buckets of snails.

Our mental model is that threatening is something we actively do, while mechanically it is purely passive -- something that we automatically do to our enemies. While that is a convenient abstraction for a tabletop wargame, it does not always mesh well with an imaginitive RPG.