Without looking at the abilities closely, I think you'll get the +4, since they are typeless. Or at least one of them is.
We've had this discussion on the boards, and I'll present the same viewpoint.
Invisible creatures can't flank, because flanking depends on the creature you're flanking splitting his attention between enemies, who receive a better chance to hit him. If you're invisibile, and he's flat footed to you, that indicates to me that he is unaware of you, and thus isnt splitting his attention.
Just my thought process
|
Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any).
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.
If the target is threatened by another enemy on the opposite side of the invisible character, he gets the +2 flanking bonus, as well as the +2 bonus for being invisible.
RAW he gets the +2 bonus while invisible from flanking, but I don't think it is RAI. You don't know where the invisible guys are so you can't really have your attention split the way flanking forces you to. I think this has been FAQ'd, but no answer has been given in previous threads.
It is just like the question of whether or not someone should get a flanking bonus if the other flanker is really an illusion, but the victim does not know the illusion is not real. RAW no, because an illusion is not really there, but I can see the argument for it causing a real distraction..ergo flanking bonus.
I could see it being intended that you don't get the flanking if the target doesn't know where you are (different from being invisible).
Most of the time you won't know where the invisible person is unless he is talking while flanking you just so he can get the flank while invisible assuming my RAI was the actual rule.
It is one of the only times when you would want to fail a perception check or make yourself deaf. :)
|
If we're reasoning this out instead of just going by the rules (which, as written, make it look like they stack), then I would say the invisible character SHOULD get both bonuses. If anyone should be deprived of the flanking bonus, it's the person on the other side of the flank.
Think of it this way: If you are the invisible character, you are not only invisible, but your opponent is absorbed in combat and has his back to you.
In contrast, if you are the person on the other side of the flank, your foe is not distracted by the invisible character behind him, and is focusing 100% of his attention on you.
Of course, crafting the rules like I just described would make flanking needlessly complicated. It's enough to make me say, "Let them stack."
The interpretation as I stated would deprive both you and your flanking partner of a flanking bonus, as the enemy isnt splitting his attention.
Your bonus comes from invisible and him being flat footed, which is substantial already.
Also, there is no 'his back to you' because facing is 360 degrees. He simply doesnt know you're there, which is shown by the flat footed penalty, and your +2 bonus (as if you were flanking already)
Absolutely, and if that came across as me stating it was RAW, then I apologize. I was going much more for RAI with that, its a deviation for sure.
I see no reason why you would not get the flanking bonus, though I fully understand why you would not grant the flanking bonus.
The enemy's attention is not split, that is correct--it is fully on the guy he can see. You should definitely get the flanking +2, since his attention is not fully on you.
I could see an argument that your ally would not get the +2, though, since he's not really paying attention to someone he can't see. I don't actually think that's the rule--I'm pretty sure by RAW he'd get the +2 as well, but I could see the argument and would accept such a ruling without question.
And remember, flanking has nothing to do with being flat-footed. If someone is flanking a flat-footed enemy, they get the +2 to hit in addition to denying the enemy their dex bonus to AC.
yes. but the spell already provides +2 for his attention not being on you, its written into invisibility. he didnt know you were there before, why do you get an extra +2 for stepping up behind him if that fact doesnt change?
yes. but the spell already provides +2 for his attention not being on you, its written into invisibility. he didnt know you were there before, why do you get an extra +2 for stepping up behind him if that fact doesnt change?
You don't know what that +2 written into Invisibility is for. It could be anything. Well, anything except Flanking, since it would say so if it was that. ;)
I have to be honest though, I just tried to look it up and couldn't find any mention of +2 to hit in the spell description or the Invisibility entry in the glossary.