|
You win initiative and move in front of a monster with your weapon drawn. Your ally casts invisibility and moves behind the monster while drawing his weapon. It's your turn again and you attack the monster. Both you and your ally are threatening the space from opposite sides, but neither you nor the monster are aware of your invisible friend. Do you still get the flanking bonus if you don't know you're in a flank?
Ah. An OLD question.
Yes. You are flanking.
The rules for flanking are as follows:
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.
When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank an opponent.
As you can see, there are no provisions for invisible creatures, so nothing different from the norm happens when one is present.
You or your GM (if you are a player) are free to rule otherwise if the rules as written don't seem to fit for you in this instance, however.
RAW yes, but don't be surprised if a GM does not allow it.
They are right. It is RAW. This is an issue that has been brought up several times on many different boards and created a big stir as RAW goes against logic. Personally in every game I have played in it has been house ruled against RAW. I wouldn't be surprised if I found a table that went by RAW though and I wouldn't really argue it either way. I would just ask your GM, or come to a concensus at the table before you play so you know.
Oh, just another note though:
The invisible party member would definately get a flanking bonus from his visible ally providing the flanking whether you rule the invisible foe gets the bonus or not.
Yes, RAW says you're still flanking.
Common sense says that only the invisible attacker would get the flanking bonus. The fact that the visible attacker does not get the flanking bonus is more than offset by the fact that the invisible attacker gets the benefit of the defender being denied its Dex bonus to AC, further improving hit chance and allowing sneak attack damage. I don't know if Paizo has ever commented on this mechanic, but there it is.
|
A somewhat related question: you threaten a square if you are performing an action that require 1 or more rounds, like casting a summoning spell (1 round casting time)?
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). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
My opinion is that you don't as making an AoO would interrupt and cancel your action, but I am interested in other people opinions.
An easy way to logicaly get invisibile and still threaten is to let the enemy know you are there. When you move, just tell him, "hey pincushion, I am gonna hurt you!" If your DM really wants to use logic rather than RAW, the target should be worse off than just being flanked. Now he knows that something is standing right next to/behind him, and he doesn't know what it is! That would make me jump and look over my shoulder more than an approaching enemy that I knew was coming.
As to the 1 round action - Yes, you still threaten. But like you said, if you take that AoO, you would give up your spell. You are still standing there with whatever weapon you have, you have just chosen not to use it yet.
|
|
The inverse of this is what happens if an opponent ISN'T really threatened, but THINKS that they are? For instance, what if the enemy is 'flanked' by your character and an illusion of another fighter? Does your character receive flanking bonuses because the enemy is splitting its attention? I'd rule that it works, but the target would be 'interacting' with the illusion and thus get a saving throw to disbelieve each round or automatically know that it was fake if they 'hit' it even once.
Likewise, if it is a split attention issue can an enemy CHOOSE to ignore one of the attackers entirely? If someone is flanked by a high level rogue and a 1st level old peasant woman whacking them with a broom can they simply ignore the old woman to concentrate entirely on the rogue and thus deny him flanking (and sneak attack) bonuses? I'd rule yes, but then the ignored attacker gets to strike as if they were 'invisible'... you aren't paying attention so you get no dex bonus against their attack.
Neither of these would work under RAW. Rather they follow the logic of how flanking is supposed to work. The first (and the original 'unknown flanker' issue) don't change things much, but the second is a significant problem for rogues and thus might be unbalancing in some games.
I think I came across an optional rule somewhere... allowing you to actually ignore an opponent (who received a bonus equal to being invisible to you, plus an extra +2 for you not being actively defending). Positive effect? An ignored opponent does not provide any flanking bonus to his allies. Non-perceptible opponents are automatically counted as 'ignored'.
Might be a viable house rule...
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/2011/september/v5748dyo5lcml?Stealth-Playtest-R ound-TwoStealth#35
It is the intent that you are flanking.
My personal interpretation is that if you are invisible and trying to remain undetected, you do not provide flanking. If you are just invisible but still fighting, you do provide flanking, but in that case your opponent is aware that there is an invisible person in your square just as if you had made an attack on them.
Remember combat is fluid, it doesn't actually happen in 6 second increments in truth the person who is invisible would run up and then start what ever his next action would be. just like (assuming held action) player one is fighting a monster, the rogue with spring attacks runs up and its it and runs off, if when the rogue was directly behind him player 1 could use his action to make an attack with flanking bonus.
You call my simple explanation of RAW a protest, LazarX?
Seeing as I may well rule as you would on the matter in my own games, your statement made me chuckle.
My personal interpretation is that if you are invisible and trying to remain undetected, you do not provide flanking. If you are just invisible but still fighting, you do provide flanking, but in that case your opponent is aware that there is an invisible person in your square just as if you had made an attack on them.
This is exactly how my group rules it.
Does a PC who is unarmed also threaten?
Does a PC who is unarmed also threaten?IIRC, only if they have IUS or have a held charge from a spell that is a melee touch spell.
That's what I thought but where does it say that?
|
Does a PC who is unarmed also threaten?IIRC, only if they have IUS or have a held charge from a spell that is a melee touch spell.
You recall correctly. The rule is that you have to be wielding a melee weapon to threaten. Characters with natural weapons, Improved Unarmed Strike, or holding the charge of an offensive touch spell are considered armed for these purposes.
That's what I thought but where does it say that?Does a PC who is unarmed also threaten?IIRC, only if they have IUS or have a held charge from a spell that is a melee touch spell.
Here. Ctrl+F for "unarmed attacks". There are a few paragraphs on the subject.
|
|
That's what I thought but where does it say that?Does a PC who is unarmed also threaten?IIRC, only if they have IUS or have a held charge from a spell that is a melee touch spell.
The basic rule on threatened squares is in the Combat section of the rules, under Attacks of Opportunity.
The rules for Unarmed Attacks cover that you cannot make AoOs while unarmed, this is also in the Combat chapter. That section also addresses "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, which covers IUS, natural weapons, and touch attack spells.
|
|
That's what I thought but where does it say that?Does a PC who is unarmed also threaten?IIRC, only if they have IUS or have a held charge from a spell that is a melee touch spell.
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). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
|
|
Perception is also sound-based, and scent-based. Just because something flanking you is invisible doesn't mean you are restricted to ignoring it as a threat. In fact, if anything, it's more of a threat, because it smells awful, it's making a horribly threat with its wheezy voice and you have no idea where its coming from. Hell yes you better pay attention to that!
Also, as a DM in my home games, I've played creatures with DR 10/magic who ignore the threat presented by the nonmagical 1d3 small sickle-wielding halfling once they got hit and nothing happened. He doesn't threaten because he can't harm the creature, so the creature can ignore his potential threat until he's been given cause to be concerned. He just simply turns his back on the halfling - haha!
Sliska, I think that everyone understands that you CAN sense an invisible person by multiple means. But that doesn't mean that you DO. If you fail your perception check then you do not know they are there. You don't hear them, you don't smell them and you don't see them. A strong arguement could be made for taste as well and I'm sure you do not feel them until they strike. ;)
If you do not know that the threat is there then I don't think it is too far out in left field to rule them not flanking.
If you fail your perception check and don't know what square they are in, then the only effect they have on you is the same effect regardless of what square they are in (unease of having an invisible opponent possibly behind you, but not actual flanking).
I like the idea that if the invisible person is threatening, and thus actually taking swipes at the target, then the victim should know what square the invisible attacker is in based on this interaction.
The compromise being that the invisible attacker gets to count as an ally for flanking if he gives up his position.
Still has 50% miss chance, and still benefits from the target losing Dex, etc.
I'm not talking RAW here, just how I feel on the situation of course...
Kaisoku: But what if they dont even know that an invisible person is about? Like they never saw the person go invisible and have no reason to believe they aren't alone with a single opponent.
Since the invisible person is threatening them, and the person is aware of what square they are in because of that (in my house rule/reasoning), then they would not be unaware.
As soon as the invisible person decides to threaten him, he gives up his position, so to speak.
Note, I see this as a compromise between the rules focusing on the attackers (flanking), for something that should clearly be an effect on the victim (split focus of being flanked).
It's easier to adjudicate the way the RAW does it for all situations other than the unique "unaware" or "voluntarily ignore" situations.
As a DM, I'd probably go with what feels logical (my suggestion), unless the players (or my own recurring villain) uses this tactic on a repeated basis, at which point I'd evaluate and adjust according to how it affects gameplay and balance (cleaving as close to logic first, and RAW second).
How does he give up his position just by being there? I understand you have a house rule but does your house rule preclude the perception check entirely?
Or are you saying that the invisible person has to decide to threaten him? (like by saying, "Hey, I'm about to backstab you!") Because honestly I could see that. I could see it as being a choice for the flanker. He could give away his position thereby granting himself flanking but also with the cost of the victim knowing his position. Or he could neglect the flanking bonus but retain the foe being unaware of his position.
That is basically how we do it too if thats the case. I honestly hadn't thought about purposefully giving away your position for the purpose of flanking though. And apparently neither has anyone in my group. It is interesting though, and I would rule the way you have.
A somewhat related question: you threaten a square if you are performing an action that require 1 or more rounds, like casting a summoning spell (1 round casting time)?
Combat chapter, Full-Round Actions, Cast a Spell: "You only provoke attacks of opportunity when you begin casting a spell, even though you might continue casting for at least 1 full round. While casting a spell, you don't threaten any squares around you."
Since this is referenced under full round actions, and all the above paragraphs deal with casting times beyond standard actions, it's reasonable to assume that you do still threaten while casting a standard action spell. (But not full round or longer)
Wonder how that works with splitting up FRA spells into two standard actions.
Wonder how that works with splitting up FRA spells into two standard actions.
From the time you begin casting to the time you finish, you don't threaten. You must concentrate that entire time (even if you're moving or something in between).
Here's a question:
Casting Time: "A spell that takes 1 minute to cast comes into effect just before your turn 1 minute later (and for each of those 10 rounds, you are casting a spell as a full-round action, just as noted above for 1-round casting times). "
and
"You only provoke attacks of opportunity when you begin casting a spell, even though you might continue casting for at least 1 full round."
So if you cast a spell that takes 1 minute, do you only provoke once, when you actually begin casting the spell, or do you provoke at the beginning of each of the full-round actions?
A somewhat related question: you threaten a square if you are performing an action that require 1 or more rounds, like casting a summoning spell (1 round casting time)?Combat chapter, Full-Round Actions, Cast a Spell: "You only provoke attacks of opportunity when you begin casting a spell, even though you might continue casting for at least 1 full round. While casting a spell, you don't threaten any squares around you."
Since this is referenced under full round actions, and all the above paragraphs deal with casting times beyond standard actions, it's reasonable to assume that you do still threaten while casting a standard action spell. (But not full round or longer)
Wow. Don't think I've ever seen that one before. You learn something new every day.
Flanking happens even if one guy is invsible. Even if the foe and his own ally do not know he is there. Combat, especially facing rules, are heavily abstracted for the sake of ease of play and balance. In truth, the regular flanking situation should probably be a more severe disadvantage than your foes getting a +2 to hit. Having someone on opposite sides from you both attacking is a pretty bad spot to be in.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The version holding that 'flanking is determined by the existence of threat regardless of whether the target is aware of/cares about the threat or not' is probably the way it was intended to work.
It just doesn't make alot of sense.
For example, an invisible street urchin with a club can stand on one side of an opponent they could never hit or injure (e.g. DR 15) while indeed never even TRYING to hit the opponent... and thereby provide 'threat' which allows a rogue to get sneak attacks on the target. Heck, cast Sanctuary on the invisible street urchin. Even though they cannot attack without breaking the sanctuary, they still provide 'threat' just by standing there with a melee weapon. So now the enemy needs to be able to locate the invisible street urchin AND save against Sanctuary in order to be able to harm them. Throw in silence, non-detection, protection from alignment, and various other things to make them harder to locate / attack. It doesn't matter if the spells limit them, because all they have to do is stand there pretending they might think about attacking some day. If you've got qualms about endangering street urchins... buy a dog and train it to NOT attack.
Throw in silence, non-detection, protection from alignment, and various other things to make them harder to locate / attack.
So for the price of a 3rd-level spell, two 2nd-level spells, and two 1st-level spells, and at least three rounds of casting (assuming you quickened the 1st-level spells thus using 5th level slots), someone can get flanking for a few rounds.
Wouldn't it be easier to just summon a monster or hire a guard? Then you get flanking and they can still attack, or aid another.