Willfully blind to avoid flanking?

[Magus Coeruleus]

FAQ:

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 (the 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.

I know this question has come up long ago, but I never caught a thread considering this FAQ response in relation to it:

Can you willfully ignore an opponent to deny another flanking status?

Looking at this FAQ response, and considering how you can intentionally blind yourself to (i.e. not look at) an opponent to avoid gaze attacks, doesn't it seem to follow that you could avert your gaze and attention from an opponent to avoid being flanked?

Granted, if you can do this, the ignored opponent gets a +2 to hit, and you lose your Dex bonus to him or her. This could be very nasty, especially if that opponent can sneak attack.

But if that opponent can sneak attack, he or she would get to do so anyway due to flanking. And if you don't have a Dex bonus to begin with, then it would seem you're better off this way. That +2 for the opponent being effectively invisible is no better than the +2 for flanking, and at least now the guy on the other side doesn't get the +2 in addition. And if that opponent you're focusing on IS a sneak attacker, well, this could be a pretty smart move.

Heck, it could be a good move even if there are no sneak attackers around, for instance if you'd rather sacrifice your (possibly nonexistent) Dex bonus to a lowly minion while you focus on a big boss who you really don't want to get that extra +2.

Thoughts?

 

[LordAO]

I think it is kind of stupid that a rogue flanking someone can sneak attack them, but if that someone closes his eyes he can't be sneak attacked anymore.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I think it is kind of stupid that a rogue flanking someone can sneak attack them, but if that someone closes his eyes he can't be sneak attacked anymore.

Well, given that if you close your eyes you lose your Dex bonus, you can still be Sneak Attacked...

... unless you have Blindfight or Uncanny Dodge.

Even with cannot-be-flanked Uncanny Dodge, you can still be sneak attacked by a Flanking rogue 4 levels higher. But if you close your eyes, he's just another invisible guy, and can't sneak attack you any more.

-Hyp.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I think it is kind of stupid that a rogue flanking someone can sneak attack them, but if that someone closes his eyes he can't be sneak attacked anymore.

This isn't true. If someone closes his eyes, every attacker is considered invisible in relation to him, and can thus freely sneak attack him, flanking or no. (Oooh! A thought: the rogue medusa. Look at her and get turned to stone, close your eyes and get +7d6 sneak attack!)

Blindness prevents flanking, but it does not prevent sneak attacking, by far.

The question about willfully denying flanking has been brought up before, and I think it just winds up a list of various posters' house rules. Mine would be that yes, you can do that. But the opponent you are flanking can now freely CDG you every round. I know it circumvents the normal rules for CDG, but in my mind, CDG is the best 3e mechanic to represent the extreme openness you'd be giving that opponent.

Edit: D'oh! The smurf beats me by 2 minutes while I was writing my reply!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Having said that, I loathe that FAQ response with a passion, and wish it had never been written.

Nowhere in the Core Rules does it say that flanking is contingent upon the awareness of the attacker. And it opens up weird cans of worms.

For example, if you have an invisible attacker pinpointed via a touch attack, Listen check, Spot check, or Scent, he still can't provide flanking for his ally.

That's insane.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Mine would be that yes, you can do that. But the opponent you are flanking can now freely CDG you every round. I know it circumvents the normal rules for CDG, but in my mind, CDG is the best 3e mechanic to represent the extreme openness you'd be giving that opponent.

There is already an example - Gaze Attacks, as MC pointed out. If you deliberately turn your back / close your eyes on an opponent, you treat them as invisible. Not as though you're helpless.

-Hyp.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

For example, if you have an invisible attacker pinpointed via a touch attack, Listen check, Spot check, or Scent, he still can't provide flanking for his ally.

That's insane.

-Hyp.

I don't know about that. I mean, even if you know there's in invisible guy on the other side of you, it doesn't mean you can effectively guard against him. Flanking occurs because you're defending yourself from both foes, catching blows on your weapon, shuffling this way and that, etc. Actively putting up two defenses, which is why they are both weaker than normal.

But how are you supposed to be defending against a sword you can't see? How do you block his swings? Shuffle out of the way? And if you can't do so, then all your attention is back on the foe you can see, undividedly.

Or so it would seem.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

There is already an example - Gaze Attacks, as MC pointed out. If you deliberately turn your back / close your eyes on an opponent, you treat them as invisible. Not as though you're helpless.

-Hyp.

That's why I said it was a house rule. I don't think that invisible is enough, because the only foe who can really make use of it is a rogue. If you completely turn your back on the fighter so the rogue can't sneak attack you, I think the fighter should be doing a lot more than just getting +2 to attack vs. your flat-footed AC. He should be able to set himself, take aim, and smack you really, really hard. CDG as a mechanic works perfectly for what I think should happen in such a situation

 

[Hypersmurf]

But how are you supposed to be defending against a sword you can't see? How do you block his swings? Shuffle out of the way? And if you can't do so, then all your attention is back on the foe you can see, undividedly.

So why doesn't your CDG House Rule apply to any invisible attacker?

-Hyp.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

So why doesn't your CDG House Rule apply to any invisible attacker?

-Hyp.

Hmmm. You know, I was going to point out the difference between willfully ignoring a flanking foe, and doing your best to defend against an invisible one. After all, you could still wildly swing around hoping to deter an invisible foe, while willfully focusing on the rogue to prevent sneak attacks would seem to provide a better opening.

But I suppose that you could focus on the rogue, but still throw the occasional undirected swing in the other foe's direction, in the same way. And it would provide the same quality of defense. So the one should logically be equal to the other.

Still, throwing out my CDG rule seems to make it far too easy to nullify a rogue's main source of sneak attacks. I mean, the fighter's probably going to hit you anyway. So how much is the 3-4 average loss to AC really worth, when it would allow a foe to avoid several die of sneak attack damage. I suppose the fighter's secondary attacks would be more likely to hit, which could swing damage the other way, but at least on the surface it still doesn't sit well with me...