Does a Rogue flank you if you're not sure a creature that the Rogue uses to flank is actually threatening?
Situation: Fellow party member cast Magic Jar. I did not make my Spellcraft because I was in the middle of a dust storm and deaf.
Now the creature that he was controlling adjacent to me. On the other side of me was a creature that was a Rogue. I attacked the mage on my turn because I believed it was an enemy (the mage could not communicate with me in its controlled creature). The mage said that he was "not threatening" and intentionally lowered his guard to make him easier to hit.
Personally, my opinion is that whether the rogue things he's an ally or not has no bearing.
Its whether the enemy believes him to be threatening.
The fluff behind sneak attack for flanking is that your opponent is splitting his attention between you and your friend, so he's open to attack because he pays less attention to you.
So following that logic (there are no rules on this, its DM fiat) I'd say if your opponent thought the flanker was threatening, he'd split his attention, and the rogue would sneak attack. If your opponent didnt believe the flanker to be threatening, the rogue would not.
I'd go with that, too. If the flankee thinks he has to guard himself against two creatures, his attention is divided and he can be flanked if either of them is trying to flank him.
I'd go with that, too. If the flankee thinks he has to guard himself against two creatures, his attention is divided and he can be flanked if either of them is trying to flank him.
I like this...I'll present it to the group. Thanks.
|
This came up in one of my games not too long ago. Our rogue was attempting to gain a flanking bonus with our bard, who was 10' away on the other side with a scorpion whip. As most creatures have at least simple weapon proficiency, most creatures may realize that a whip doesn't threaten at lower levels, but it can at higher levels with feats from Ultimate Combat. So the enemy may look at the bard and think, "Hmmm, I wonder how she good is with that thing really?" You can't tell just by looking at someone carrying a whip whether they have the whip tier feats or not. Likewise, you can't tell just by looking an unarmed person standing next to you whether they have the improved unarmed strike feat or not. So I came up with this house rule: the flanked enemy can make a Sense Motive check against a DC equal to 10 plus the questionable character's level (or questionable monster's CR) to decide whether they believe that character or creature threatens or not. Failing the check means they remain unsure, which is just as distracting as knowing they threaten, so it is treated as a successful flank. Succeeding at the check means they were able to read the flanker's body language and correctly determine whether they threaten or not (i.e. realizing they are flanked by someone with improved unarmed strike or the whip tier feats, or that they are not flanked, because the character is just pretending).
...So I came up with this house rule: the flanked enemy can make a Sense Motive check...to decide whether they believe that character or creature threatens or not.
Wow, talk about a rule that opens a can of Worms and screws the Rogue.
Going by that logic a Monster could "fail" it's check by default and thus declare the Fighter is not a threat in order to avoid Sneak Attacks from the Rogue which would be a good deal.
There is only one rule for this - the flanked creature must be aware of the flanker - done. Going to extremes and making rules for how much of a threat the flanker is and how much he can/want/should hurt the oponent is taking it to far by far.
|
It has nothing to do with the PC's desires or ignorances. If the enemy is actively hampering him and threatening him, he is distracted and flanked. If the magic jaree is trying to stay subtle, he may choose not to flank you (not threaten at all), but otherwise it is assuming he is beginning to harass you. This is similar to how you can recognize "hostile intent" in enemies and beat them in initiative, though they haven't truly acted yet (assuming you are aware of them).
There is only one rule for this - the flanked creature must be aware of the flanker - done.
Citation?
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. (...) 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."
You can flank a sleeping creature. You can flank during a surprise round. You can flank someone using a Dream spell. You can flank while invisible. If the defender is threatened by an enemy, there can be flanking.
Harmor: Your ally is not an enemy, even when possessing an orc or whatever, he does not provide flanking for the enemy rogue. (Unless he is angered by you striking his orc body, in which case he could decide to become your enemy which would change everything)
Nightwish: If the Bard is not threatening the creature, he does not provide flanking. It doesn't matter what (or if) the creature thinks. I realize you're describing a relevant house rule, which is fine, but it does open all sorts of other mechanical questions. Mindless creatures, invisibility, illusions, tiny creatures, etc.
When the orc becomes possessed, you instantly stop treating him as a threat, even though you don't know he's been possessed? Would it work the other way too, if an ally was suddenly possessed, you could tell because you were flanked, even before he did anything?
Presumably, the orc, having been possessed, would either lower his weapons and stand there waiting for instruction, or immediately turn and start threatening whomever his "new" enemy is. This would be a fairly obvious transition.
Similarly, if an ally gets possessed, and was instructed to no longer threaten one of his "new" allies, he would stop acting in a threatening fashion toward his "old" target, and begin acting threateningly toward his "new" target.
Barring a situation like the invisible attacker (who should be choosing not to threaten spaces until he acts, for fear of interacting with his opponents, and thus losing invisibility), it should be pretty easy to tell at a glance who is threatening whom.
|
|
Some things don't make 100% sense in any given game system, and are just added to keep the mechanical benefits fairly easy. Characters used to have "facing" rogues used for backstabs, but that was found needlessly complicated. This is just one of the things that don't make sense but make the game easy.... like fighting at full strength @ 2 HP.
|
|
...So I came up with this house rule: the flanked enemy can make a Sense Motive check...to decide whether they believe that character or creature threatens or not.Wow, talk about a rule that opens a can of Worms and screws the Rogue.
Going by that logic a Monster could "fail" it's check by default and thus declare the Fighter is not a threat in order to avoid Sneak Attacks from the Rogue which would be a good deal.
There is only one rule for this - the flanked creature must be aware of the flanker - done. Going to extremes and making rules for how much of a threat the flanker is and how much he can/want/should hurt the oponent is taking it to far by far.
Only if you fail to read the rest of the house rule:
Failing the check means they remain unsure, which is just as distracting as knowing they threaten, so it is treated as a successful flank.
So, if the monster volunteers to fail, they are treated as flanked by default. This makes it so that a character without improved unarmed strike can "fake it" and pretend to threaten to allow the rogue a sneak attack.
BTW this sounds like a valid use of bluff/sense motive for me. Don't need all the stuff about level DC's and such. Just make a bluff check vs the targets sense motive (with all the situational +/-) and if the sense motive succeeds then they know that the bluffer is not threatening, and thus are not flanked.
Also, for the original poster. If the "man-in-the-middle" feels that they are threatened by both, then they are flanked. If they realize that one is an ally, then they are not.
Grick:
That may all be RAW, but it doesn't make any sense.I always understood the flanking bonus (and the ability to sneak attack) came from the defender having to split his attention between attackers on opposite sides. If that's not it, why does it exist?
As a mechanical benefit for getting attackers on both sides of the enemy.
Part of the fluff behind flanking can also be that you have less options for dodging when there's a guy ready to strike you from the back, even if you're not immediately aware of the threat, etc. Rather than making you provoke from an invisible attacker just for being attacked by someone on the opposite side (due to dodging the attack in a way that leaves you open to the unknown threat), a different mechanic is used, granting the attacker +2 on their attack and the ability to sneak attack.
It's also there because the rogue needs a way to do sneak attack damage and get attack roll boosts on a full attack, because mechanically it would not be a viable class otherwise. Flavor these sneak attacks however you like. If the target is aware of the opposing threat, cite its split attention giving the rogue an opening at the guy's vitals. If the enemy is not aware of the flanker, flavor it as the enemy attempting to dodge the rogue backwards only to find something blocking his way, which then diverts his attention. Or if you don't like any of that fluff, just flavor it as a mechanical necessity for making the rogue viable, and don't think too much about it.
So are you saying that threatening a space is actually active? If you threaten someone, you're actively poking and stabbing at him, even if your actual attacks are at a different target?
And that it's that harassment, not divided attention that gives the flanking bonus?
Assuming this was responding to me, what I said was that it should be pretty easy to tell in combat which person you're poking your sword at.
If someone changes allegiance mid-combat (due to a mind control of some kind, or what have you), then that person is going to swing around and start poking their sword at another person, and no longer act in a threatening way toward their new ally. Over the course of a round of combat, there's lots of dodging, parrying, and stabbing that occurs for cinematic purposes... it's just that there's only one (or two, or three, depending on BAB) points in the round where an opponent's guard is lowered/diverted enough for a hit to actually "count". Therefore, the testing and probing of an opponent's defenses that one character does can help facilitate an opening for another character... hence the flanking bonus.
When teaching the game to new players, I point out that, when a character runs through another character's threatening zone, that the one can take an AoO, if they choose. Similarly, when/if new players find themselves in a situation where they could provide flanking bonuses on an ally, I point out the option, if they want to declare aggression toward a team mate.
The actions in the above paragraph are done solely to help demonstrate how the combat system works, not to encourage PvP behavior among new players.
In short, I do consider the harassment of multiple threats, placed such that a target must divide their attention between them (i.e. can't make a case for being in their field of vision at the same time) to be what causes the flanking bonus. This is represented by the rule that a character with people threatening them from opposite sides causes the flanking bonus.
I don't think that invisibility interpretation is RAW either. It's not interacting with opponents that makes you lose invisibility (though it might make them suspect there's an invisible opponent around). As far as I know, threatening an area does not break invisibility. Nor are you required to make an AoO when you have the chance.
Note that by the rules quoted above, the invisible character does threaten and thus does flank. I suppose he could choose not to, by not wielding a weapon if nothing else, but he doesn't have to.
You're right about the invisible characters. By RAW, invisible characters can still threaten spaces without breaking invisibility. That wasn't the main point of my comment, through. Don't agree with it, but it's one of the quirks that make this system what it is.
|
My view: You must be visible to help someone else get flank, but need not be to get flanking benefit yourself.
If an invisible and a visible attacker are on opposite sides of the opponent, the visible attacker does not get flanking because their opponent is ignoring what they cannot sense. The invisible attacker then strikes, attacking their opponent's flat-footed AC with a +2 flanking bonus due to their target being distracted by the ally on the other side.
Another opinion: A character should rarely (if ever) have an ambiguous threatening state*. Those skilled in unarmed combat hold themselves drastically differently than those who are not, and if they don't that means they aren't in combat mode and thus do not threaten (in other words, they are flat-footed). Those who can threaten with a whip use it notably (and visibly) different from those who cannot. It doesn't take much (if any) intelligence to notice when someone seems to be capable of striking at you with a moment's notice.
FWIW I *do* allow opponents to ignore an attacker who threatens in order to avoid flank from the other. Given that this makes them flat-footed to that opponent (I make this choice bypass uncanny dodge) and still allows them (but not their ally) the flanking bonus, the chances of this being a good idea are slim and usually involve the pitiful wizard trying to help the combat-master on the other side flank, which is a situation I am totally okay with breaking.
*I suppose bluff would be a way to make this ambiguous, but that's to be expected.
|
|
A low-Dex creature could care less about being flat-footed to someone, so removing the mechanical benefit of flanking would be easy. Also, you're taking the already-pretty-bad rogue and making it even worse.
If there's a flanking rogue in the party, they flank with the big buff melee guy who will also be in the party. You do not wish to ignore either, as the one you ignore still gets a +2 flanking bonus (with the way I rule it) in addition to treating you as flat-footed.
Ignore the big buff fighter? Watch him do an untrained combat maneuver against you without provoking (you're ignoring him, after all). Maybe he trips you so both him and the rogue can get an extra +4 to-hit. Maybe he disarms you. Either way, bad things happen very quickly.
Ignore the rogue? Nothing really changes. He still gets the +2 and sneak attack. Congratulations on accomplishing nothing. If he's a thug rogue (or has agile maneuvers) he may just try to use a maneuver as well. You know, for kicks.
For obvious reasons, my ignore rule does not allow you to ignore a person you attack.
My view: You must be visible to help someone else get flank, but need not be to get flanking benefit yourself.
Are you discussing a house rule, or interpreting the rules as written?
.
..
...
....
.....
My other favourite bard uses his Inspire Courage ability to buff his allies, which, in to his mind, is everyone fighting, on all sides.
Much more enjoyable.
FIGHT!
OT: It may not be RAW but, as a threat is typically (ALWAYS!) based on the perceiver's perception then, unless the perceiver perceives a target as a threat, they cannot be threatened by the target nor regard them as a threat.
Likewise, a perceived target may be treated (and reacted to) as a threat if the perceiver perceives them to be a threat, regardless of whether or not they are an actual a threat.
|
|
My view: You must be visible to help someone else get flank, but need not be to get flanking benefit yourself.Are you discussing a house rule, or interpreting the rules as written?
This is a house rule (as implied by the "another opinion" in a later paragraph).
Unfortunately, rules as written, an invisible and completely-not-intending-on-attacking-you* humanoid holding a thick book he declared as an improvised weapon can help flank, even if the person he's "helping" is not even aware of his presence.
As a DM, I refuse to acknowledge such silliness.
* Note that even if you get AoO opportunities, you are not required to take them to threaten.
EDIT: To continue the line of thought of BenignFascist, I DO allow an ally to flank with an image that an enemy fails to disbelieve. It's all about the perception of the one being flanked.
My view: You must be visible to help someone else get flank, but need not be to get flanking benefit yourself.Are you discussing a house rule, or interpreting the rules as written?
I think the discussion here is not so much RAW, since by RAW sight is not mentioned. I think that sometimes common sense has to bypass RAW. I can't really be distracted(and thus give the opponents a +2 to attack) by an enemy if I don't know they are there.
As an example blindfight specifically mentions that--> "An invisible attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you in melee."
Now by RAW an enemy that is hiding(unseen/virtually invisible), but not invisible still gets to make me lose dex, but how is one supposed to know the difference between when the attacker is just invisible or only well hidden if they don't even know they are there?
|
|
Now by RAW an enemy that is hiding(unseen/virtually invisible), but not invisible still gets to make me lose dex, but how is one supposed to know the difference between when the attacker is just invisible or only well hidden if they don't even know they are there?
Not any more. They are errata'ing the stealthing parameters to be exactly equivalent to invisibility for any opponent that fails their perception. It was in a blog post a few weeks ago.
This supports the RAI of "it's all about perception."
Now by RAW an enemy that is hiding(unseen/virtually invisible), but not invisible still gets to make me lose dex, but how is one supposed to know the difference between when the attacker is just invisible or only well hidden if they don't even know they are there?Not any more. They are errata'ing the stealthing parameters to be exactly equivalent to invisibility for any opponent that fails their perception. It was in a blog post a few weeks ago.
This supports the RAI of "it's all about perception."
I saw the blog when it came out and those are just playtest rules which will change if they do a change. For now I am still correct.
The troubles stem from the fact that the bonus gained from flanking is the same as the bonus from hitting an unaware opponent.
If the bonus for being unaware would be higher then it would all make sense:
Monster is unaware of Rogue
Fighter +0 - no flanking bonus
Rogue +4 - "unaware bonus"
Monster is somehow aware of Rogue
Fighter +2
Rogue +2
The troubles stem from the fact that the bonus gained from flanking is the same as the bonus from hitting an unaware opponent.
Are you talking about the bonus to hit from being invisible? Or the loss of Dex bonus to AC from being surprised?
Of course of the to hit bonus.
Surprise only comes into it in the surprise round.
Of course of the to hit bonus.
Surprise only comes into it in the surprise round.
This thread is really difficult for me to follow.
The to hit bonus from being invisible is numerically the same as the bonus from flanking. Invisibility has the extra benefit of denying the opponent their dex bonus to AC. They can both apply.
An opponent should be denied dex from an opponent he is unaware of (the sniping rogue, for example) even after the surprise round.
The proposals for creatures not providing flanking should probably be split into a new thread in the house rules section.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The proposals for creatures not providing flanking should probably be split into a new thread in the house rules section.
No it shouldn't. The mechanics assume certain things based on a certain logic. The problem is the logic of the flank and why it works was not explained. Has they said flanking works because you know you are defending against two enemies on opposite sides then the invisible guys not getting the flank would make sense to those who just care about RAW, but that was not put there so that is why we have a divide between RAW and RAI.