Mirror Image Sage Advice

[Anubus]

Skinwalker, you hit nail on the head with that one buddy; I wholeheartedly agree.

I'm planning on annoucing that I'm being more liberal with the free actions next play session. Tell my players that quickened spell thing, and such, but of course never admit to them that I made a mistake.

So if someone trys to pull that little number on you though, smack em once for me too!

 

[kreynolds]

...of course never admit to them that I made a mistake.

Ya' know, it takes a big man to...bah, what's the point.

 

[James McMurray]

_____________________
But according to the FAQ, if you're blind, you can't be flanked. So if you're attacked by a flanking rogue four levels higher than you, he can sneak attack you... but if you close your eyes, he can't.
_____________________

If I tried FooFaa like this on my players they would dye me like a rainbow and use my skin as a windsock.

And well they should, because that rogue can sneak attack you, given that one of the penalties of having your eyes closed is the loss of a dex bonus.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And well they should, because that rogue can sneak attack you, given that one of the penalties of having your eyes closed is the loss of a dex bonus.

... unless you have Uncanny Dodge, which you'll note was the entire premise of the message.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I have to wonder does this actually make sense from a game play perspective rather than a game rule mechanic perspective.

Ah! Well, in that case...

I reject the FAQ ruling as unsupported by the text of the Core rules.

There is nothing in them to suggest that flanking is dependent upon the perception of the defender... except that certain abnormally perceptive cretures (Eyes in the Back of your Head feat, Beholder, etc) have specific abilities that prevent them being flanked.

However, unless there is a special ability in play, then you are flanking any time you make a melee attack against a creature, and an ally directly opposite is threatening the same creature.

There is nothing outside of the FAQ to support the idea that the defender must be able to perceive that ally.

So yes, as a DM, if someone was flanked by two invisible opponents, I would give both of those opponents +2 for being invisible and +2 for flanking (assuming no Uncanny Dodge involved).

I don't consider it within the FAQ's jurisdiction to make up new rules unless it acknowledges the existing rules to be in error.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well this is just a stupid ruling.

Oh, I agree completely, and have stated so on numerous occasions

Nevertheless, if someone does accept the FAQ's authority to make that ruling, the scenario I've outlined is the inevitable consequence thereof.

... which is why I personally don't accept that authority, in this instance

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Bizarre... my replies are getting inserted above the messages I'm replying to... :-\

-Hyp.

 

[TuDogz]

_________________
The difference is that if you have Uncanny Dodge, you don't lose your Dex bonus against an invisible attacker, and therefore can't be sneak attacked by him (for being invisible) - no matter who he is.

If you're flanked, however, your Uncanny Dodge only protects you from sneak attacks unless the attacker is a rogue at least four levels higher than you.

But according to the FAQ, if you're blind, you can't be flanked. So if you're attacked by a flanking rogue four levels higher than you, he can sneak attack you... but if you close your eyes, he can't.
__________________

Hyp,

I understand the mechanic that is operating here. I have to wonder does this actually make sense from a game play perspective rather than a game rule mechanic perspective. What is the rationalization for what this mechanic is portraying? After all, the rules are tools to help adjucate/simulate situations. Is this a particular stacking of the rules you would use or is it just an interesting flaw in their logic? Looking for your perspective rather than your interpetation. If anything this looks, to me, like an argument for the rogue to stack the +2 blindness bonus with a +2 flanking bonus. But that is my leaning anyway so my judgement is suspect.

-TuDogz

 

[volcivar]

But according to the FAQ, if you're blind, you can't be flanked. So if you're attacked by a flanking rogue four levels higher than you, he can sneak attack you... but if you close your eyes, he can't.

Well this is just a stupid ruling. No offense Hyp as you are just the messenger.

All things being equal, if he could sneak attack you while you could see, becoming blind should only make it easier on the attacker, not worse.

I definitely will NOT play by that ruling.

 

[Caliban]

Oh, I agree completely, and have stated so on numerous occasions

Nevertheless, if someone does accept the FAQ's authority to make that ruling, the scenario I've outlined is the inevitable consequence thereof.

-Hyp.

I disagree. If you have Uncanny Dodge, you are aware of your attackers even while blind (aware enough to avoid their blows normally), and can thus be flanked normally.

Thus, only one condition or the other applies, and Uncanny Dodge does not give you the ability to negate both conditions at once (unless you have Improved Uncanny Dodge).