Assuming flanking functions while you are invisible, do you get a +2 to attack from being invisible and another +2 from flanking?
Yes.
A simple house rule: you are flanked if you have reason to think there is a threat to you on the opposite side to your attacker - so an illusion can provide flanking, but an invisible character who has not given any hint of his presence does not.
This isn't much more complicated than RAW, and makes logical sense.
Illusions do not provide flanking. There is a special feat (in Gnomes of Golarion, I think) which allows it though.
Invisible does grant +2 to hit as well. It isn't a very well known rule but it is written in the CRB.
No invis doesn't give +2, it makes it so that they don't get their dex bonus, and are "flat footed"
Flanking gives the +2,
Yes you can flank while invisible
But invis does not make opponent flat footed.
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). See the invisibility special ability.
In is doesn't make them flat-footed but it does deny them their dex bonus to AC which is essentially the same thing. It says so in text you quoted.
Except "flat footed" is not the same as "denied dex". When you are flat footed you are denied dex but not the other way around. Why does this matter? For feats like Sap Master.
Edit: I see the post was retracted. But I'll leave this here.
For SCIENCE!
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
You are invisible, so you get +2 (and the target is denied its DEX bonus).
Your barbarian ally (who is visible BTW) threatens your target and you are in the required position to get the flanking bonus, so you also get this +2.
i do not see why people are making so much fuss on this thread about an invisible attacker getting a benefit from the fact that his target is threatened by a very visible barbarian :-))
I agree, though, that getting the usual flanking bonus is not realistic. The bonus to the invisible attacker should be higher than +2 :-P
i do not see why people are making so much fuss on this thread about an invisible attacker getting a benefit from the fact that his target is threatened by a very visible barbarian :-))
This example makes sense. But how about the barbarian getting a the +2 flanking bonus when his ninja friend is flanking but invisible. I think this is the usual problem people have. Or two invisible ninjas flanking one opponent. Nevermind that they probably don't know they are flanking but that is not he issue here.
The problem I think people are having is they think Flanking is dependent on 2 pc's deciding to work in tandem. That is not the case flanking bonus depends on the enemy being threatened period. threatened from 2 opposite sides. one pc could only have vision of 10 feet he would still get the flanking bonus.
flanking bonuses arent about team work per se. it is about the defender having to defend against 2 attacks form opposite sides. there doesnt have to be a plan in place between to pcs
People forget the simultaneous nature of the game. Turns are used to simplify things, but everything is happening at essentially the same time. The reason an invisible creature can flank is because he is trying to stab the guy at the same time as the one accross from him. And whether or not you are aware of the sourse, a blade swinging at your neck will distract you.
If 2 rogues are attacking you, rogue 1 should not be less effective (unable to flank) because rogue 2 is invisible.
The problem people (I) have is that flanking "just happens" even if the invisible flankers never attack the person (from now on known as the 'victim') they are flanking. How does the victim know there are invisible knives at his neck if he cannot sense the flankers because they have never attacked... they are just there... being threatening. Or should we just shrug and say "hey the rules arn't meant to make sense" and turn a blind eye.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well then you have a bigger problem, which is more fundamental, and it probably involves implementing facing rules. IE you have a certain arc that you threaten instead of 360 around you. But you end up with a far more complex combat system then you have now. To me thats not worth it. To others it might be.
The problem people (I) have is that flanking "just happens" even if the invisible flankers never attack the person (from now on known as the 'victim') they are flanking. How does the victim know there are invisible knives at his neck if he cannot sense the flankers because they have never attacked... they are just there... being threatening. Or should we just shrug and say "hey the rules arn't meant to make sense" and turn a blind eye.
Role Playing Game. It's an abstraction of reality, not some kind of battle simulator. So yes, the rules arent meant to make "sense".
c'mon ppl... blind eye... not even a snicker? tough crowd. :p
To be honest I am playing a bit of the devils advocate here since... I play a ninja. And I have had my "+2 flanking bonus while invisible" denied constantly because I "am already getting the +2 bonus from being invisible". It hasn't mattered much since the attack usually hits anyway.
Still to continue with my advocating:
Even if you implement a facing, it wouldn't matter since all the attackers/flankers are invisible.
And
Even if it is an abstraction the system still has to make some smidgen of sense or the suspension of disbelief is shattered which, in turn, decreases enjoyment of the game. A rule needs to be rationalized. In this case a flanker gains a bonus against a victim. The rationale is that the victim has to split his attention between the two flankers. But make those flankers invisible and there is nothing for the victim to be distracted by. The system is broken because the rationalization fails. Please provide another in game rationalization and it will win people back to the "correct" rules. As an example I could use the new Stealth rules update.
c'mon ppl... blind eye... not even a snicker? tough crowd. :p
To be honest I am playing a bit of the devils advocate here since... I play a ninja. And I have had my "+2 flanking bonus while invisible" denied constantly because I "am already getting the +2 bonus from being invisible". It hasn't mattered much since the attack usually hits anyway.
Still to continue with my advocating:
Even if you implement a facing, it wouldn't matter since all the attackers/flankers are invisible.
And
Even if it is an abstraction the system still has to make some smidgen of sense or the suspension of disbelief is shattered which, in turn, decreases enjoyment of the game. A rule needs to be rationalized. In this case a flanker gains a bonus against a victim. The rationale is that the victim has to split his attention between the two flankers. But make those flankers invisible and there is nothing for the victim to be distracted by. The system is broken because the rationalization fails. Please provide another in game rationalization and it will win people back to the "correct" rules. As an example I could use the new Stealth rules update.
It does need to make a smidgen of sense. The sense comes from what is conceptually ment by 'threatening'. In a turn you dont just swing your sword once. You are constantly harrying and thrusting at opponents. FIghters will make several strikes that are merely there to set up the 'real strike' That real strike is the actual attack roll, not all the harrying strikes. The game assumes 360 degree facing, so you harry everyone you threaten around you. That part is a bit of a stretch in capability, but it was done to keep facing rules out of the game.
If you can accept the above concept, that hte people you threaten are not threatened because they are looking at you, but instead because they are forced to try and fend off your harrying strikes, it explains why you can flank someone even if you dont actually attack them, and even if the opponent is unaware of you (IE you are invisible). Even if the invisible attack doesnt focus on the enemy (and actually attack) he has sent a few weapon swings their way, bouncing off armor, or missing close enough to distract the enemy while his buddy goes in for the kill.
c'mon ppl... blind eye... not even a snicker? tough crowd. :p
To be honest I am playing a bit of the devils advocate here since... I play a ninja. And I have had my "+2 flanking bonus while invisible" denied constantly because I "am already getting the +2 bonus from being invisible". It hasn't mattered much since the attack usually hits anyway.
Still to continue with my advocating:
Even if you implement a facing, it wouldn't matter since all the attackers/flankers are invisible.
And
Even if it is an abstraction the system still has to make some smidgen of sense or the suspension of disbelief is shattered which, in turn, decreases enjoyment of the game. A rule needs to be rationalized. In this case a flanker gains a bonus against a victim. The rationale is that the victim has to split his attention between the two flankers. But make those flankers invisible and there is nothing for the victim to be distracted by. The system is broken because the rationalization fails. Please provide another in game rationalization and it will win people back to the "correct" rules. As an example I could use the new Stealth rules update.
What if the flankee decides to ignore one of the flankers and not "split his attention", can he avoid granting one of them a flanking bonus? Why not?
What if the flankee is blinded? Can he now not be flanked?
What if the inviible flanker says "I'm here, invisible, behind you with a knife."? Now would he get flanking bonuses?
A flanking unarmed Fighter doesn't grant the bonus, but a flanking unarmed Monk does. Does the bad guy see their class written above their head to know he has to "split his attention"?
Why can dumb undead/plants be flanked? They don't have "attention" to split.
A simple house rule: you are flanked if you have reason to think there is a threat to you on the opposite side to your attacker - so an illusion can provide flanking, but an invisible character who has not given any hint of his presence does not.
This isn't much more complicated than RAW, and makes logical sense.
Good house rule to oncomplicate things.
I don't think that someone can be threatened by an invisible flanker unless they are aware the flanker may be there, so instead of flanking the flankee is flat-footed or surprised. Once the flanker hits the flankee they may be flanked by an invis. attacker.
The invis. attacker may make a stealth check to "hide" so as they are no longer flanking and they will surprise the flankee again next time they attack.
If I don't know your there I don't feel threatened by you. You stab me, im surprised by you. I now feel threatened by your presence. You make a stealth check. I don't know if you are still there or not (cuz the bonus to stealth from invis is stupidly high) and assume you may have left if I am un-intellegent or dim-witted.
BTW I feel like this has been asked before...oh well
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure why we are still debating this, there is a link to a dev post further up that confirms you flank while invisible.
...
If you can accept the above concept, that hte people you threaten are not threatened because they are looking at you, but instead because they are forced to try and fend off your harrying strikes, it explains why you can flank someone even if you dont actually attack them, and even if the...
But then you must also agree that if you are invisible and flanking then the victim automatically pinpoints the flanker which is currently not by RAW. Normally an invisible flanker is pinpointed when he actually attacks.
What if the flankee decides to ignore one of the flankers and not "split his attention", can he avoid granting one of them a flanking bonus? Why not?
Why can't a character decide not to take the -4 penalty for shooting into melee? It's the rules.
What if the flankee is blinded? Can he now not be flanked?
This should have the same result as when the both flankers are invisible. (Whatever that might be).
What if the inviible flanker says "I'm here, invisible, behind you with a knife."? Now would he get flanking bonuses?
That would make sense. And be scary as hell. but could also pin point the flanker. Maybe this is enough rationale? Your blade makes wooshing noises as they go by from your side and so putting the flankee on edge... I could run with this.
A flanking unarmed Fighter doesn't grant the bonus, but a flanking unarmed Monk does. Does the bad guy see their class written above their head to know he has to "split his attention"?
I assume they are invisible. So the unarmed fighter is not flanking because he isn't making wooshing noises. right?
Why can dumb undead/plants be flanked? They don't have "attention" to split.
So you are saying mindless creatures should be immune to flanking?
Not sure why we are still debating this, there is a link to a dev post further up that confirms you flank while invisible.
Spoilsport :p
Why can't a character decide not to take the -4 penalty for shooting into melee? It's the rules.
Flanking while invisible is also "the rules".
That would make sense. And be scary as hell. but could also pin point the flanker. Maybe this is enough rationale? Your blade makes wooshing noises as they go by from your side and so putting the flankee on edge... I could run with this.
You mean know the invisible person is in the square? What if they announce they have a reach weapon? What if they have no weapon at all? What if they use Ghost Sound to mimic their presence, but they're not there at all. Bluff checks? How many rules are you willing to add just to cover this one case which already has defined rules?
I assume they are invisible. So the unarmed fighter is not flanking because he isn't making wooshing noises. right?
I assume they're not invisible. I'm asking about your interpretation about attention being split which AFAIK is purely your interpretation and written no where. How does the flankee determine that he does not have to split his attention in one case, but not the other?
Also, invisible Monks can't flank now?
So you are saying mindless creatures should be immune to flanking?
You want even MORE house rules? House rules that are based on an interpretation that's no where in the rules?
invisable or not this doesnt mean your target is stil looking for you and is stil feeling your presence you can stil distract him by making random noises or touching him real quiq just to make it easyer for your buddy to attack him.
you are invisible not in a difrent layer of space!
I understand what you are saying...
But Invisibility would not grant you flanking...
The opponent has to be Aware of your location, and your ally has to be aware of your location as well...
Flanking is a coordinated attack from both allies... Now technically if you can argue this either way but unfortunately you will not get the flanking bonus for this... This effect takes place on more than 1 level.
Your ally needs to see you and your Opponent needs to be aware of your location... Now if the enemy had Scent or some way of locating Invisible creatures then yes
I believe you are wrong here it is a common misunderstanding about Flanking being a coordinated attack. that is all fluff By The Rules all that is required for a flanking bonus is for 2 creatures on opposite sides threaten a creature in between them that is all. there is no plan there is no "you stab high I stab low" it is only "oh crap i have 2 things both trying to kill me form opposite ends this is really hard to defend against"
EDIT: here is the flanking rules where does it state you have to see or plan each other?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.
...
I am not talking about flanking in general but strangely about the topic of this thread which is "flanking while invisible". But you have raised a good point. What is the rationale behind flanking in the first place? What does it actually mean to be flanked? Why would someone get a bonus to attack for flanking someone? The rules just say "you flank!" rather than saying why it is so. The system is attempting to simulate something. But what is it?
My rationale was that the flankee was trying to dodge attacks from both sides at once (which you don't need a mind to do, otherwise mindless creatures would not have a dex modifier to AC) but because it can't see everywhere at once (see all-around-vision abilities), it must constantly divide it's attention between the two flankers. That is all well and good. It seems to fit and explains flanking nicely. But it is obviously wrong. So please give me a rationale that makes sense and allows for invisible flankers.
For those talking about ignoring an opponent, one of the Devs has commented that that is not the way of things, but for the sake of the argument, if you were to allow it, you would NOT be flat-footed, rather you would be HELPLESS. Meaning, that opponent you ignored could coup de grace you.
...I am not talking about flanking in general but strangely about the topic of this thread which is "flanking while invisible". But you have raised a good point. What is the rationale behind flanking in the first place? What does it actually mean to be flanked? Why would someone get a bonus to attack for flanking someone? The rules just say "you flank!" rather than saying why it is so. The system is attempting to simulate something. But what is it?
My rationale was that the flankee was trying to dodge attacks from both sides at once (which you don't need a mind to do, otherwise mindless creatures would not have a dex modifier to AC) but because it can't see everywhere at once (see all-around-vision abilities), it must constantly divide it's attention between the two flankers. That is all well and good. It seems to fit and explains flanking nicely. But it is obviously wrong. So please give me a rationale that makes sense and allows for invisible flankers.
Barbarian begins to swing his big weapon at you.
You begin to dodge out of the way.Invisible rogue hits you in the back and throws off your dodge (doesn't matter whether he does damage or not).
This just gave the barbarian a flanking bonus even though he couldn't see what the invisible rogue was doing.
Wrong again. It in fact requires house rules to rule that an invisible creature can't flank. It can indeed flank and provide flanking. The RAW supports it, and a post from a developer confirms it. I am not in the habit of willfully ignoring the words of the people who created the game. If they clarify their intent in regards to how something works, then that is how it works. You are welcome to implement any house rules in your home game, but this isn't the forum for that. I am not trying to be a jerk, so I hope I don't come off that way.
You begin to dodge out of the way.
Invisible rogue hits you in the back and throws of your dodge (doesn't matter even he does damage or not).This line of argument still requires houserules ... because you need to tell the flankee the invisible rogue is flanking him. Something like "You perceive weapons probing your defences, some invisible creature is flanking you".
If he can't perceive the semi-attacks at all and can remain completely unaware the flanker is there it would be silly to say his dodge could be thrown off.
What part of my fluff explanation for why RAW is as it is requires house rules?
I'm merely giving a possible fluff reason as to why the person being flanked doesn't even need to be aware of the invisible opponent at the time they are attacked by the barbarian.
The bonus to flanking could be:
- Because the opponents attention is divided.
- Because in real life both attacks go off near simultaneous and one attack messes up the flanked individuals attempt to dodge the other attack.
- Various other reasons. Invisible guy is making noises to make his presence known, sticks his foot between the guys legs just to make him stumble a little, grabs a hold of his clothing/backpack/belt and yanks on it as the attack is made, shouts 'boo' in his ear just at the right time causing the flanked person to jump, etc.
None of these possible fluff explanations for giving the barbarian +2 to hit require a house rule. They give possible explanations for why RAW allows the barbarian +2 to hit.
As long as you actively doing something to a Target while invisible you will provide Flanking and get a Flanking bonus... This will not work if you just stand there because you are technically not Threatening the Target... You are neither a Precised threat or acting against the target therefore you do count as Threatening....
This is not RAW. RAW (being paraphrase on my part) is you threaten all squares (and hence all opponents in those squares) into which you could make an attack. If you choose not to make an attack against a given opponent is irrelevant. If you are a caster casting create water over and over is irrelevant. So long as you can attack the opponent they are threatened by you. Anyone on the opposite side who is also attacking said opponent then gets a flanking bonus as a result.
If we're going to play this game, why does a level 1 Commonerusing a fork as an Improvised Weapon give the exact bonus as a level 20 Fighter?
Why would an evil level 20 Fighter fighting an good level 20 Fighter and said commoner, not ignore the commoner so that the good Fighter can't get his +2 bonus?
Oh, it's because the Commoner is pushing the evil Fighter and "doing other things"? Why is it the Commoner loses the ability to do those exact things if he drops the fork?
How does evil Fighter know he can stop paying attention to one unarmed guy but must keep paying attention to the other with Improved Unarmed? Did he look at his character sheet? (Yes he did).
Flanking is a gamist mechanic. This is a game. I'd like to point out that a raging Barbarian can fall out of a plane and simply dust himself off after he craters. It's. A. Game.
@Pinky, And... refer to my post up thread. Do you want to nit pick every corner case situation? But the thread isn't about the corner case - the original topic is about flanking still being active while invisible (the general case). You will find no rules on the corner cases because there are none - GM's are left to adjudicate it as they see fit and how many complexities they want to add to the game mechanics.
I mean if a player really told me, as a GM, "Okay, I move to a flank position with my barbarian friend, but I'm not going to actually do anything to threaten the guy so my friend doesn't get the +2 flanking bonus to hit". I'd raise my eyebrow and go, "Sure. No problem. No +2 for the barbarian this round..." and I'd expect the player playing said barbarian to look at his friend across the table with an expression of WTH on his face.
But now we are talking about contrived examples that differ from how characters working as a team would normally act.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately for the munchkins (you know who you are), this is not a simple, black and white issue that RAW decides for you without question. That is because RAW never defines what it means by "threatens" in this part of the rule:
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
"Threaten" is used in the book interchangeably between the ability to "threaten a square" (meaning having the ability to attack it without restraint) or to "threaten your opponent" (meaning to intimidate him or to show him you intend him harm). "Threaten" is never clearly defined as meaning only the former, and only if it is so do you threaten an opponent when he cannot see you.
I think the solution to this is common sense. Since flanking works by complicating a target's defense by forcing him to defend on two fronts, he cannot possibly be flanked unless the combatant behind him is engaging him or he is otherwise AWARE of that opponent. You simply CAN NOT - "not" is spelled N - O - T - be occupied and so distracted by somebody who you DO NOT KNOW IS THERE.
So the sequence for determining a benefit from flanking while invisible would be as follows:
Invisible - not flanking
Attack and lose invisibility - flanking
Improved Invisibility - not flanking until you attack, at which point target becomes aware he is flanked by (and distracted by - defending on two fronts) something or someone he cannot see, at which point you are successfully flanking him.
This is no houserule. This is common sense and it fits RAW as well as anything else until you can point to me where the word "threaten" has one, clear, concise definition that does not contradict itself.
YO BANG
Stop taking my posts out of Context... I said it is the only POSSIBLE argument...
Also for the record since you want be corrected
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack.
So therefore using Reach weapons in this scene would not give you flanking so... This makes you only half right!
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by doing nothing. Nothing as in literally nothing (e.g, lays down and goes to sleep), I'd agree with you. Nothing to specifically target and effect the flanked individual doesn't disqualify you for providing a flank. I was merely providing a clarification on the rules.
Unfortunately for the munchkins (you know who you are), this is not a simple, black and white issue that RAW decides for you without question. That is because RAW never defines what it means by "threatens" in this part of the rule:
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
"Threaten" is used in the book interchangeably between the ability to "threaten a square" (meaning having the ability to attack it without restraint) or to "threaten your opponent" (meaning to intimidate him or to show him you intend him harm). "Threaten" is never clearly defined as meaning only the former, and only if it is so do you threaten an opponent when he cannot see you.
I think the solution to this is common sense. Since flanking works by complicating a target's defense by forcing him to defend on two fronts, he cannot possibly be flanked unless the combatant behind him is engaging him or he is otherwise AWARE of that opponent. You simply CAN NOT - "not" is spelled N - O - T - be occupied and so distracted by somebody who you DO NOT KNOW IS THERE.
So the sequence for determining a benefit from flanking while invisible would be as follows:
Invisible - not flanking
Attack and lose invisibility - flanking
Improved Invisibility - not flanking until you attack, at which point target becomes aware he is flanked by something or someone he cannot see, at which point you are successfully flanking him.This is no houserule. This is common sense and it fits RAW as well as anything else until you can point to me where the word "threaten" has one, clear, concise definition that does not contradict itself.
You skipped most of this thread, didn't you?
You skipped most of this thread, didn't you?Unfortunately for the munchkins (you know who you are), this is not a simple, black and white issue that RAW decides for you without question. That is because RAW never defines what it means by "threatens" in this part of the rule:
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
"Threaten" is used in the book interchangeably between the ability to "threaten a square" (meaning having the ability to attack it without restraint) or to "threaten your opponent" (meaning to intimidate him or to show him you intend him harm). "Threaten" is never clearly defined as meaning only the former, and only if it is so do you threaten an opponent when he cannot see you.
I think the solution to this is common sense. Since flanking works by complicating a target's defense by forcing him to defend on two fronts, he cannot possibly be flanked unless the combatant behind him is engaging him or he is otherwise AWARE of that opponent. You simply CAN NOT - "not" is spelled N - O - T - be occupied and so distracted by somebody who you DO NOT KNOW IS THERE.
So the sequence for determining a benefit from flanking while invisible would be as follows:
Invisible - not flanking
Attack and lose invisibility - flanking
Improved Invisibility - not flanking until you attack, at which point target becomes aware he is flanked by something or someone he cannot see, at which point you are successfully flanking him.This is no houserule. This is common sense and it fits RAW as well as anything else until you can point to me where the word "threaten" has one, clear, concise definition that does not contradict itself.
Yeah, I guess I'm the only poster on the whole site who reads the first few then offers his opinion.
Put me in a firing line.