If I am invisible do I still count as flanking


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I have greater invisibility on I am attacking a guy so is the barbarian in front of me do we still flank even if I am invisible ?

The bad guy is between us

Shadow Lodge

By raw I think so, I don't know any rule saying you don't, though I don't see why a programmed image wouldn't when this does.


I say yes the flanking is not about the barb seeing me but the bad guy defending against. 2 opponents at once


Lobolusk wrote:
I say yes the flanking is not about the barb seeing me but the bad guy defending against. 2 opponents at once

But if the bad guy doesn't see you why is he defending against you? You are invisible and getting an attack on the bad guy as if he is flat footed right? If the bad guy is flat footed he doesn't know you are there so why is he defending?.

Imo


The bad guy is an serpent folk the barbarian is an ally to clarify I using greater vanishing trick

I am invisible


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My previous is edited for confusion. Lol


http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#_flanking
It has do do with threatening not defending I am still threatening the guy and stabbing him every round


I say no, but I believe invis attackers get a +2 to attack anyways.


Read the description of flanking

Flanking

Flanking Example

#1: The fighter and the cleric are flanking the ogre because they can draw a line to each other that passes through opposite sides of the ogre. Both the fighter and the cleric receive a +2 bonus on attack rolls made against the ogre.

#2: The rogue is not flanking the ogre because she cannot draw a line to the fighter or the cleric that passes through opposite sides of the ogre. The rogue cannot draw a line to the sorcerer because the sorcerer is not adjacent to the ogre and does not threaten it.

#3: The goblin and the ogre flank the sorcerer, as they can draw a line between them that passes through opposite sides of the sorcerer's square. If the ogre didn't have reach to the sorcerer, though, he and the goblin would not be flanking her.

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 think the key wording in this is "threatened". I am not threatened by you if I cant see you. See where I am coming from? I am surprised or flat footed by you but not threatened.


Yes you are being threatened means I can take Aoo or hit you with my attacks


threatened past participle, past tense of threat·en (Verb)
Verb
State one's intention to take hostile action against someone in retribution for something done or not done.
Express one's intention to harm or kill (someone): "the men threatened the customers with a handgun"


You are a threat but you haven't threatened.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Threatened, as in the established game terms of threatening.

Both threaten, and Flanking requirements are met.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Threatened, as in the established game terms of threatening.

Both threaten, and Flanking requirements are met.

Could you provide a resource for the established terms? I am not familiar with them.


Threatened Squares


It makes no sense but there it is. Any square you can make a melee attack into whether your invisible or not. I learned something. Thanks.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

RAW doesn't necessarily make sense a lot of the time. You get used to it :p


1 person marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
RAW doesn't necessarily make sense a lot of the time. You get used to it :p

Or you house rule it. Which is what I would do.

Common sense > RAW

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

That would great way to screw the already screwed Rogues.

Inserting too much "realism" into combat causes the rules to degrade.

Sovereign Court

It's an example of Keywording. A Keyword is a word with a special meaning defined in the game rules, different or more precise than its ordinary English meaning.

"Threatened" is a Keyword; if you see it in game mechanics, it's not about hostile intentions or anything; it means "in melee range".

The game uses a lot of these Keywords to keep descriptions sharp and precise, but not everything is written using Keywords. The absence of a Keyword doesn't mean something is not a rule, though. In the case of new mechanics there often isn't a Keyword handy, for example. Keywords are used for concepts that are re-used a lot, so make them all work in the same predictable (easier to remember) manner.

The Exchange

I think it makes sense if you think about the fact the guy in the middle can her someone behind him, and can certainly feel the steel sinking into his side. He's going to spend time turning and dodging to try and avoid whatever it is sticking him in the back, even though he can't see it. That means he's not fully focusing on the guy he can see. This is what provides the flanking bonus.

The invisible guy also gets his bonuses for invisibility too, so the snake man in the middle is on a world of hurt to be honest.


If I were to have some invisible minions could they flank for me? They never attack because that would breach their invisibility, but they will always be on the other side of my enemies.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You can also Flank a Blind creature.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

A invisible attacker of which you are aware surely flank you.

The question can be if a attacker of wick you are unaware (invisible or not) give the flank bonus to his comrade.


invisible doesn't unrealized, only unseen. They could easily know you are there, just not your precise location.

It's just one of those things, for example if you are paralyzed and still manage to cast a spell (say still spell and silent spell metamagics are used) you still provoke.

The Exchange

Abraham spalding wrote:

invisible doesn't unrealized, only unseen. They could easily know you are there, just not your precise location.

It's just one of those things, for example if you are paralyzed and still manage to cast a spell (say still spell and silent spell metamagics are used) you still provoke.

That's....kind of sad actually. If no one has any idea you're casting because you're still and silent at the time I don't know how they'd stick you. I guess you're already paralysed though, so shoving a sword into is pretty easy anyway.

Still, I must look into this some more.

Cheers


Macgreine wrote:
Lobolusk wrote:
I say yes the flanking is not about the barb seeing me but the bad guy defending against. 2 opponents at once

But if the bad guy doesn't see you why is he defending against you? You are invisible and getting an attack on the bad guy as if he is flat footed right? If the bad guy is flat footed he doesn't know you are there so why is he defending?.

Imo

This is a misunderstanding of pf combat. People do not stab every 6 secs and stand around the rest of the time doing nothing. If people are on nieghbouring squares and hostile, they are engaged in meele (per archery rules) and that means they are more or less constantly interacting im some way during the 6 secs. So the guy knows there is someone behind him, from the constant knife stbs trying to get through his armor.

Only at start, while the invisible guy has not yet done anything to the other, he would not be aware.


It's a silly corner case of the rules ... just houserule it if you're the DM.

If it wasn't such a huge nerf to rogues I think there should be some way to just outright ignore opponents too ... but that would change the game a bit too much.


carn wrote:
Only at start, while the invisible guy has not yet done anything to the other, he would not be aware.

You can be flanking him without him ever becoming aware you're there ... not during the 6 seconds and not after the 6 seconds.


Pinky's Brain wrote:

It's a silly corner case of the rules ... just houserule it if you're the DM.

If it wasn't such a huge nerf to rogues I think there should be some way to just outright ignore opponents too ... but that would change the game a bit too much.

You can. If you completely ignore an opponent you are helpless towards him, because you are unable to react towards his actions.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am not seeing the big deal.

We know how RAW works here.

I guess when it comes to forcibly inserting reality into a fantasy game, some people just want to watch the world burn.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I would say if the person knows something is there then yes they would have to account for you thus granting flanking. If they do not, like you sneak up on them, they do not notice you and you do not attacked then maybe no. I guess if they saw you before you went invisible then they would you were somewhere...

Dark Archive

Just because you can not see an enemy does not mean you are not aware of their presence or threat.


Yep on flanking.

I use a slightly variant rule, probably because I am a bit too much into strategy.

The line through works, and counts as flanking, as does an attack from an opponent on the left or right flank. As in, they are attacking your flanks (and if the situation is reversed, you are attacking their flanks). Yes, I do facing.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

If this is regarding a home game, and the players are the ones using the invisible/blind/flanking tactics, just make sure they know it might be a tactic used on them some day =)


Flanking comes not only from the fact the creature must defend itself from two sides, but also that you CAN cooperatively attack. As long as you're there and able to do so, I don't see why being invisible would ruin this. In fact many movies including invisibility have included hijinks on the part of the invisibility party to allow the visible party to attack the enemy. House-rule wise that is.

RAW there is absolutely no issue, and as this falls under rules questions, thats the answer I guess.


The first time a blade slashes across your armor from the back you are aware someone is behind you- even if you glance over and can't see them.

In all but the lowest of intelligent foes, people should generally be aware of the existence of low level magics and their general effects.
So yeah, 3 guys storm into the room and as one of the mooks is fighting he feels something slash across his back. He looks and sees nothing.
Nothing is there? Or invisible foe?
he may not *know* there is someone invisible there but he now suspects *something* is there and unless he wants to get gutted at either end he's going to respond to it and he's generally aware that some foes can become invisible. Invisibility exists.

And responding to it is what gives you the +2 bonus. He's not concentrating on one foe anymore he's trying to focus on two, and that makes him easier to gib for both parties. (until he 5ft steps outta the flank, anyway).

As was said earlier- folks aren't just standing there smoking a joint waiting for their one swing every 6 seconds. You just have one shot at really getting in a telling blow. The rest of them are parries, dodges, blocks, shield blocks, near misses, grazes against armor and the like.

-S


To add more detail to the scenario, based on the question. Let's say you and your ally are attacking someone, your ally charges in, Barbarian. You use your invisibility, but your ally doesn't see you go invisible, and you didn't discuss this tactic. You go behind the enemy. Your ally doesn't know you are there, and the enemy doesn't know you are there either. You have not attacked, because you had to use your full move to get behind the attacker, and you had to do other stuff to expend your other actions, draw a weapon, drink a potion, chew bubble gum, etc... Does your ally get the +2 for flanking, even though he has no clue you are there, and doesn't realize he has tactics that could help him in this situation? After you attack the enemy, then I would see the flanking +2 working. Of course, this is excluding things like scent, see invisibility, Blind fighting, etc...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hoardling wrote:
To add more detail to the scenario, based on the question. Let's say you and your ally are attacking someone, your ally charges in, Barbarian. You use your invisibility, but your ally doesn't see you go invisible, and you didn't discuss this tactic. You go behind the enemy. Your ally doesn't know you are there, and the enemy doesn't know you are there either. You have not attacked, because you had to use your full move to get behind the attacker, and you had to do other stuff to expend your other actions, draw a weapon, drink a potion, chew bubble gum, etc... Does your ally get the +2 for flanking, even though he has no clue you are there, and doesn't realize he has tactics that could help him in this situation? After you attack the enemy, then I would see the flanking +2 working. Of course, this is excluding things like scent, see invisibility, Blind fighting, etc...

If you threaten his square (that is you are capable of making attacks into it and are not using unarmed strike without the improved unarmed strikes feat), then by RAW yes.

Its easy to craft a specific scenario where any given rule in the game breaks down and makes no sense. GM's have the right to step in in these scenarios (outside of society play anyway) and modify the rules. But really in most cases it is just easier to not nit pick every corner case scenario.


I personally might be having a team of pugwhampi that I will be turning invisible before battle. I was planing on just having them stand by the enemies to decrease there odds, but if they can flank while invisible and stealthiness then they become even better.


Pinky's Brain wrote:

It's a silly corner case of the rules ... just houserule it if you're the DM.

If it wasn't such a huge nerf to rogues I think there should be some way to just outright ignore opponents too ... but that would change the game a bit too much.

In a home game I'd allow ignoring enemies. Means you're flat-footed to them, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're always welcome to ignore enemies. They still can threaten you, flank you, and kill you.


The Freys had flanking *throat cuts*.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

For me, complicating, and nerfing Flanking, is just annoying, and really only serves as a way of pleasing the DM's need to up his suspension of disbelief.

Even weirder, is these are usually the same DMs who disallow jumping charges, even though there are feats based around it.


So if I understand correctly, some people are suggesting:

- a visible creature gets a +2 while flanking

- an invisible creature attacking a defender aware of its presence gets +2 for flanking

- an invisible creature attacking an unaware defender doesn't get +2 for flanking... what?

An unaware defender shouldn't be harder to hit. They already lose their dex/dodge bonus to AC due to an invisible attacker so the ability to ignore enemies would basically let them bypass a penalty.


Assuming flanking functions while you are invisible, do you get a +2 to attack from being invisible and another +2 from flanking?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

It totally functions whilst invisible. Totally undisputed RAW.

Some people are just really angry about it, and want to complicate it with houserules.


That's not really answering my question :p


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.

1 to 50 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / If I am invisible do I still count as flanking All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.