Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="two" data-source="post: 1134991" data-attributes="member: 9002">This is the FAQ ruling:"Q:  Suppose an ally of mine is attacking one foe, then Isomehow become invisible, draw my sword, and move tothe other side of that foe, thus flanking the foe. Does my allystill get a flanking bonus even if I am invisible?A:You get a flanking bonus from any ally your foe can see (andwho is in the correct position to flank). If your foe can’t seeyou, you don’t provide a flanking bonus to any ally.Sharp readers will note that this means you cannot flank ablind creature; however, truly blind creatures are effectivelyflanked already (they can’t use their Dexterity bonus to AC andyou a +2 bonus to attack them). Creatures with the blindsightability effectively “see” within blindsight range and can beflanked."______________________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...</blockquote>

Verification