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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 1144118" data-attributes="member: 5834">reI think so as well.X would receive both a flanking bonus and invisibility bonus. I agree, B's awareness or lack of awareness doesn't not take away from X's ability to flank. A is threatening.Yes. I think of "purposely decides not to attack while invisible" as "not threatening and standing there quietly giving a flank bonus for metagame reasons". That is something I won't allow.As long as the invisible person alerts the attacker to his presence and proceeds to threaten the person by eventually attacking or at least fighting (irregardless of whether the attack actually hits), then he is flanking. Yes, I do expect them to attack. They just don't have to actually hit.I will give a situation where I will not consider B flanked rather than the conditions for. If X stands there quietly attempting to preserve his invisibility and not attacking at all, I am not going to consider B flanked after a number of rounds. It will be entirely arbitrary based on the certain factors like B's intelligence and general awareness. Its really a hard thing for me to have a hard fast rule on. I don't allow metagame abuse. I know it when I see it, but a reasonable level of rules manipulation I allow so as not to discourage clever combinations on the part of the players. Rules like "illusions don't threaten and can't flank" really hurt the game by ruining clever uses of illusion spells, an often overlooked branch of spells. I certainly don't want to create an unreasonable rule for invisibility. I would arbitrate according to the circumstances.The example I used was how a scenario such as the one mentioned would happen in my game more than something that could be applied to everyones game.</blockquote>

Verification