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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 1141934" data-attributes="member: 2011">An assumption on your part. You have to set up the rules so that they take into account all situations, not just likely ones.The invisible rogue might not be moving to flank.The defender might have been the one who moved and now the invisible rogue is threatening him.Hmmm. According to the rules, though, the invisible rogue IS both threatening and flanking.Whether he chooses to take advantage of that is his business.Whether his ally, the visible rogue gets a flank, however, is dependent on some circumstance.The circumstance that you specified is that the invisible rogue was attacking. That, to me, indicates that the defender basically knows that there is an invisible creature there anyway. No different than my earlier point on the visible rogue getting a flank only after the defender is aware of the invisible threatening character.And, what about future rounds? What if the invisible rogue (say Improved Invisibility) gets distracted with another opponent or decides to drink a cure potion or something?Does the visible rogue get to continue to attack with flank, even though the invisible rogue is no longer attacking (with your "attacking theory")? Probably not. But, the invisible rogue is still threatening the defender and can still get an AoO if the defender tries to cast a spell or move, just like if he were visible. Why should the flank rules for whether a character is actually attacking be different based on whether he is invisible or visible?The defender and the visible rogue should have no clue that the invisible guy is doing something else, hence, the defender should still be flanked by both rogues as long as the invisible rogue is still threatening him (via the books definition of threatening).</blockquote>

Verification