Question:
Does an invisible attacker provide a flanking bonus to the visible attacker on the other side? What if the invisible attacker hasn't actually attacked yet, and neither the target nor the visible ally knows of his presence? Where would the rules support for this be?
Question:
Does an invisible attacker provide a flanking bonus to the visible attacker on the other side? What if the invisible attacker hasn't actually attacked yet, and neither the target nor the visible ally knows of his presence? Where would the rules support for this be?
There's no rules on it that I know of, but common sense says the invisible attacker only provides a flanking bonus if the defender is aware of him. So you would have, imho, the following situations :
1) Wally Wizard is Invisible, Bob Barbarian isn't. Both are attacking Davy Deadguy. Wally get's a +2 to attack and ignores Davy's Dex Bonus to AC (as well as his dodge and shield bonuses and any other bonuses that disappear when you are denied dex). Bob Barbarian uses normal AC, as Davy is using all his AC against the visible threat. After Wally attacks, he becomes visible and Davy get's his Dex AC back, but is now flanked.
2) Wally Wizard has Greater Invisibility instead of invisibility. The only difference from 1, imho, is that after Wally attacks, he not only continues to ignore the dex bonus to ac for Davy (and all other bonuses dependent on dex bonus) but he now flanks Davy so Bob get's a bonus too (Davy's trying to avoid being stabbed in the kidneys again by Wally, who he's now aware of, even if he can't see him).
3) Wally puts GI on both himself AND Bob, so first round both of them get invisibility attacks against a flat-footed Davy, and once they are both attacking from either side they both get flanking and invisibility bonuses.
A good answer...
That's pretty much how I ruled it on the fly. Then came this counterpoint: But surely he heard me [Mr. Inviso] coming! Why wouldn't he be aware of me?
(The whole point of this maneuver was to provide the visible attacker (a rouge) with flanking and sneak attack. I ruled he didn't gain such because the target didn't know someone was behind him.)
Then two other questions arose: What if someone is "merely behind him" and not actually attacking--does that provide a flanking/sneak attack scenario? And, what if the target purposefully ignore whatever threat comes from one attacker to focus on the other? Does he negate flanking bonuses in exchange for "taking his lumps" from the one?
A good answer...That's pretty much how I ruled it on the fly. Then came this counterpoint: But surely he heard me [Mr. Inviso] coming! Why wouldn't he be aware of me?
(The whole point was to provide the visible attacker (a rouge) with flanking and sneak attack. I ruled he didn't gain such because the target didn't know someone was behind him.)
Then two other questions arose: What if someone is "merely behind him" and not actually attacking--does that provide a flanking/sneak attack scenario? And, what if the target purposefully ignore whatever threat comes from one attacker to focus on the other? Does he negate flanking bonuses in exchange for "taking his lumps" from the one?
Well, if the character who was invisible was yelling 'HA HA HA IN MA BELLY!' then he could probably provide a flanking bonus to the visible person.
An enemy behind him that threatens his square provides flanking. Even if he's not attacking that person. The idea is, that guy with that big pointy thing might stick it in my kidney if I don't keep an eye on him. ;)
On the other hand, if he can't threaten, or he's unarmed and doesn't have Improved Unarmed Defense, he doesn't count as flanking. (Unless he's using touch attack spells, then he does, as that's a weapon that threatens 5 feet).
There's no rules for 'Ignoring B'. However, in my games, I usually allow a defender to concentrate on A. He get's full AC against A and anyone else that flanks him get's a +4 instead of a +2. That's a houserule though.
There's no rules for 'Ignoring B'. However, in my games, I usually allow a defender to concentrate on A. He get's full AC against A and anyone else that flanks him get's a +4 instead of a +2. That's a houserule though.
Which I like, and have just borrowed!
Thanks, mdt, for your great assistance here (and the workable house rule)!
Malachi
There's no rules for 'Ignoring B'. However, in my games, I usually allow a defender to concentrate on A. He get's full AC against A and anyone else that flanks him get's a +4 instead of a +2. That's a houserule though.Which I like, and have just borrowed!
Thanks, mdt, for your great assistance here (and the workable house rule)!
Malachi
LOL
No problem. Glad to help.