1) If you are Invisible can you do an Aid Other action?
A) What if you have improved Invisibility?
2) Can you provide an ally a flanking bonus but not attack (i.e. speak so as to give away your position obviously to your enemy in a flanking square "Hello there, I'm right behind you!").
A) What if you moved after speaking, would the enemy still think you're there if they fail their Perception check vs. your Stealth (+20), check, thus providing your ally a flanking bonus still?
1) If you are Invisible can you do an Aid Other action?
A) What if you have improved Invisibility?2) Can you provide an ally a flanking bonus but not attack (i.e. speak so as to give away your position obviously to your enemy in a flanking square "Hello there, I'm right behind you!").
A) What if you moved after speaking, would the enemy still think you're there if they fail their Perception check vs. your Stealth (+20), check, thus providing your ally a flanking bonus still?
The rules don't say anything against either one, but I would not allow it since the idea is for you to be a known threat for flanking. If I am fighting an invisible enemy and a visible one I would try to kill the one I can see a quickly as possible. No need to worry about something I can't do anything about.
For aid another its says you can help on the attack roll, or improve your friend's AC. I guess you could help block an enemy attack while invisible or find another way to help your friend hit someone.
YMMV
1) If you are Invisible can you do an Aid Other action?
A) What if you have improved Invisibility?2) Can you provide an ally a flanking bonus but not attack (i.e. speak so as to give away your position obviously to your enemy in a flanking square "Hello there, I'm right behind you!").
A) What if you moved after speaking, would the enemy still think you're there if they fail their Perception check vs. your Stealth (+20), check, thus providing your ally a flanking bonus still?
Good questions!
1-I'd say yes, but it will pop you out of invisibility. In most situations at least, the idea of aiding other is in some way hindering or distracting their foe. I don't see anything strictly against it in the rules, but if I were DMing that's how I'd rule it.2-No. There was a ruling, and I don't know if it's official in PF, about ignoring flankers. In other words someone flanked can ignore one of the flankers, losing their dex bonus to them entirely, to negate the flanking bonus and potential SA damage from the other flanker. I'd say this is a similar occasion even if your foe isn't intentionally ignoring you.
2B-This is actually rather clever. I see no reason why one couldn't do this as long as you're not actually attacking. I'd say Bluff vs. Sense Motive to see if they are suitably distracted (perhaps with a bonus for the Bluffer) to provide a flank followed by a Stealth vs. Perception if you move.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
*raise thread*
I haven't found an official answer to this yet, so I've FAQ'ed it.
I am really interested in question (1A). One could argue that Aiding Another falls under "causing damage indirectly", and therefore does not dispel invisibility. On the other hand, it does involve direct interaction with the enemy (though no directly harmful interaction).
I'm adding a third question, too:
(3) Does the Precise Strike feat function if one or both of the attackers are invisible?
(3A) Does the Precise Strike feat work if one participant is only Aiding rather than attacking (I guess yes)?
Yes. Yes all around to all of these questions.
On the simple basis that we do not need to make the rogue worse.
1. Yes, to both versions.
2.RAW I think you can flank, but I don't think that was the intent becuase you are not providing a distraction. You could be anywhere in the room. The flank works because the opponent is trying to defend against two(or more) targets. He can't really defend against you if he can't see you.
3. Precise Strike is a class ability from the duelist PrC, not a feat.
RAW it does work. It does not make sense for it to work since the flavor is similar to sneak attack though. An argument could be made that it does not work against invisible creatures since their anatomy is not discernible while they are invisible.
1) If you are Invisible can you do an Aid Other action?
A) What if you have improved Invisibility?2) Can you provide an ally a flanking bonus but not attack (i.e. speak so as to give away your position obviously to your enemy in a flanking square "Hello there, I'm right behind you!").
A) What if you moved after speaking, would the enemy still think you're there if they fail their Perception check vs. your Stealth (+20), check, thus providing your ally a flanking bonus still?
Instead of invisibility, consider these cases if the target was blinded instead. That's a bit more black and white, but the same effect (you have total concealment vs. the target). Looking at RAW:
1) Can you aid another when attacking a blind target? Yes. GM call if it blows invisibility. I'd say yes.
2) Can you flank a blind target? Only criterion for flanking is that you threaten the target on opposite sides. Can you threaten a blind target? Yes. If you don't attack, you don't blow invisibility, IMHO. Probably another GM judgement call.
2a) Can you flank a blind target if you move beyond your reach? No, since you no longer threaten it. Doesn't matter if it feels threatened.
I agree it doesn't necessarily "feel" correct from an intuitive standpoint, but them's the rules.
I would allow it if the creature/PC being flanked saw the flanker PC turn invisible in the first place. The threat of an invisible attacker in an area would cause a distraction IMO. If the invisible flanker started the encounter invisible and the enemy never saw him coming then there would not be a distraction because the enemy wouldn’t know he was there in the first place.
My wizard was getting worn out by an invisible Drow with greater invisibly. He would hit and move. Just the idea that he could hit me caused me to worry about him while casting which would be the same as an invisible flank….not RAW but the intent of the rule. (As a side note the fix was the ranger told his wolf to guard me and the Drow couldn’t sneak past the wolf’s scent ability).
|
|
3. Precise Strike is a class ability from the duelist PrC, not a feat.
Actually, it's a teamwork feat from the APG.
OK, so there's been a few "yes" votes, but as far as I can tell everybody's just making stuff up according to what makes sense or to what they would like to see. I assume there is still no official ruling on these questions?
3. Precise Strike is a class ability from the duelist PrC, not a feat.Actually, it's a teamwork feat from the APG.
OK, so there's been a few "yes" votes, but as far as I can tell everybody's just making stuff up according to what makes sense or to what they would like to see. I assume there is still no official ruling on these questions?
I did not know they gave the same name to a feat and a class ability. I think it works like my last post also though.
PRD:
Precise Strike (Ex): A duelist gains the ability to strike precisely with a light or one-handed piercing weapon, adding her duelist level to her damage roll.When making a precise strike, a duelist cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield. A duelist's precise strike only works against living creatures with discernible anatomies. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is also immune to a precise strike, and any item or ability that protects a creature from critical hits also protects a creature from a precise strike.
PRD:
Precise Strike (Combat, Teamwork)You are skilled at striking where it counts, as long as an ally distracts your foe.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: Whenever you and an ally who also has this feat are flanking the same the creature, you deal an additional 1d6 points of precision damage with each successful melee attack. This bonus damage stacks with other sources of precision damage, such as sneak attack. This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit.
|
|
If you want RAW:1) Yes, you can Aid Another. Whether or not it breaks invisibility is questionable.
1A) Same as 1
2) Yes
2A) No
And by that logic:
3) Yes, Precise Strike only requires flanking by the partners, not visibility.
3A) Yes, since attack actions are not necessary to establish flanking, only the possibility of flanking is needed.
Whether or not the invisibility is broken by Aiding Another remains the big unanswered question...
And by that logic:3) Yes, Precise Strike only requires flanking by the partners, not visibility.
3A) Yes, since attack actions are not necessary to establish flanking, only the possibility of flanking is needed.Whether or not the invisibility is broken by Aiding Another remains the big unanswered question...
That's my understanding of the situation, although I personally wouldn't mind an errata that said something to the effect of you can't grant a flanking bonus to another if the target does not perceive you.
Basically, you should be able to flank with someone else while invisible, but they shouldn't be able to flank with you. Even moreso with "Teamwork" feats if the idea is that two characters are working together against a foe. Much more difficult to work in tandem if you can't see what your partner is doing...