Flanking with unseen allies


Rules Questions


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Can you flank an enemy if you cannot see the ally opposite you? How might the situation change if the enemy you're attempting to flank can or can't see one or both of you as well? Does it make any difference if you are aware of your ally's presence and position (but still cannot see him)?


I would say Yes. Basing this off these two sections in the PRD.

"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner."

"Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus."

As long as the requirements are fulfilled, the defender is flanked.

Shadow Lodge

Can you flank an enemy if you cannot see the ally opposite you?
Yes.

How might the situation change if the enemy you're attempting to flank can or can't see one or both of you as well?
It doesn't.

Does it make any difference if you are aware of your ally's presence and position (but still cannot see him)?
No.

Relevant snips:
Flanking: "When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner."

Flanking: "Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus."

Threatened Squares: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally)."


RAW: It doesn't matter at all if they're seen or not by either party. They still provide flanking.
One of the older threads on the subject


Matthew Downie wrote:

RAW: It doesn't matter at all if they're seen or not by either party. They still provide flanking.

One of the older threads on the subject

Yep. It doesn't make much sense, but flanking is a really shoddy abstraction. Unfortunately, abstractions like flanking are kinda like democracy in that it's the worst form of system for handling facing...aside from all the other systems people have tried from time to time. There isn't really a good way to fix or replace flanking that doesn't massively increase complexity or boil down to GM fiat.


Visibility doesn't effect flanking.

Cheapy wrote:
Developer commentary here.


My house-rule is that if you have reason to believe you have enemies on opposite sides of you, you're unable to focus on either, so they get the flanking benefits against you - even if one of them is an illusion - but if there's an invisible creature you're entirely unaware of, it doesn't provide flanking. Not massively complicated, only mild levels of GM fiat.


Flanking, IMHO, was simply designed wrong. Flanking should not be a function of the attackers, it should be a Flanked condition on the defender. Doing so makes it much clearer to understand.

O O O
A V B
O C O

In the current rules, A and B can both hit V easier because V is trying to defend against both on opposite sides of him. But C gains no advantage, as if V can fully defend himself from him while not able to as well from A and B. That's ridiculous, and frankly, impossible to apply to non-standard situations such as the invisible assailants in any way that would be universally accepted.

O O O
A V B
O C O

If flanked was a condition, instead, then because V is trying to defend against both A and B, then he would be flanked, and get a -2 to his AC in relations to anyone attacking him. If, however, he didn't know A was there, he'd be defending against only B and C, which being in the same hemisphere, would be easier to defend against, and he'd not be flanked, so no penalty to his AC. But at the same time, he is not defending against A at all, so he would be flat-footed to A.

This rule change could be extrapolated out to voluntarily ignore an assailant to avoid the flanked condition:
O O O
A V B
O O O

A is a rogue, B is a dog. It might make tactical sense to not leave an opening to the rogue, knowing that he would take great advantage of it, so V chooses to ignore the dog. He is flat footed to the dog, but the rogue can't get a sneak attack in.

Obviosly, these are houserules, but the do demonstrate how it likely would have been better if flanking worked differently from the start.

Sovereign Court

What if both flankers are visible, but one of them is secretly an illusion? Can an illusion threaten for the purpose of flanking?


In our games we use the rules.

The rules don't discuss minutia like whether or not flankers need to be perceptible to grant the bonus.

They just grant it, cause the rules say so.

Next topic!


Ascalaphus wrote:
What if both flankers are visible, but one of them is secretly an illusion? Can an illusion threaten for the purpose of flanking?

Technically no, but it is a very common house rule to allow it.


Ascalaphus wrote:
What if both flankers are visible, but one of them is secretly an illusion? Can an illusion threaten for the purpose of flanking?

By RAW, you need a feat.

Some people might imagine that if someone's fooled by an illusory monster coming up behind them, they'll feel threatened, and automatically be distracted.

But no, you have to be a gnome caster, you have to take the Spell Focus (Illusion) feat, followed by the Threatening Illusion feat, and you have to use a slot one level higher than normal for your illusion spell, and then you can provide flanking (from a single 5 foot square within your illusion).

This is, of course, much better than using a level one Summon Monster spell to do the same thing.

Sovereign Court

... That is a very peculiar feat. Only one square of the ogre threatens? What were they smoking when they wrote that?

I agree that the house rule makes more sense. But it's good to know the baseline for PFS.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Flanking with unseen allies All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.