I pose this question:
Suppose we have character A and his familiar B. Let's suppose they flank enemy C together.
If B is Invisible, and A knows where B is, do the bonuses from Flanking and Invisibility stack together for A's Hit Roll?
Is "B" tiny-sized?
Not sure, I assume that flankers must be medium sized to impart bonuses? Does it matter with the invisibility?
Tiny-sized creature don't threaten adjacent squares.
Hm...small size familiar then. If it's possible. This was was a random thought tangent that I thought would benefit a character that needs a constant flanking partner. Invisible familiar seems like a safer method of deployment.
|
There are small-sized familiars. There is also a way to give a tiny-sized familiar reach, so that it can threaten adjacent squares.
But if your question was just about invisibility and flanking, yes, A and B can flank C. A would get the +2 from flanking, and if B attacked it would get +2 from flanking, +2 from Invisibility, and deny C its Dexterity bonus.
While it might seem weird that you can get a flanking bonus from a creature the defender isn't even aware of, you can in fact do so, even if the invisible flanker never attacks (but still threatens) the defender and never reveals herself.
While it might seem weird that you can get a flanking bonus from a creature the defender isn't even aware of, you can in fact do so, even if the invisible flanker never attacks (but still threatens) the defender and never reveals herself.
Ok, so under that logic:
Player A has the Gang Up Feat and is invisible. If he approaches enemy D, flanked by players B and C. Does he get both invisibility and flanking bonuses to his attack rolls, while denying the target his Dex bonus?
Yes.
And Players B & C don't even need to be flanking for this to work; they only need to be threatening.
It could look like this:
.
A
BD
C
Where B & C are simply threatening D, then A, with his Gang Up feat, can get the benefits of flanking and, using invisibility, he can add that bonus too while denying the enemy his DEX bonus against A's attack.
Yes.
And Players B & C don't even need to be flanking for this to work; they only need to be threatening.
It could look like this:
.
A
BD
CWhere B & C are simply threatening D, then A, with his Gang Up feat, can get the benefits of flanking and, using invisibility, he can add that bonus too while denying the enemy his DEX bonus against A's attack.
Too bad Death from Above only works with charges; Gang Up takes advantage of flight's wonkiness with flanking, and a +5 to hit is sick. Rhino Charge could Ready the ability for next turn, but that burns a standard action for a hit every other turn. So...maybe? It's more a strength build thing anyhow, with Power attack and all.
Moonlight Stalker feats are designed for attacking from concealment, which can be useful. Outflank is also nice.
A Rogue 3/Magus 4/Arcane Trickster 10 has a Base Attack Bonus of 10. Is there a way to boost the to hit rolls high enough to justify the build? Damage wise, I don't think there's an issue; AT's capstone lets you convert Sneak attack die into spell damage, meaning it'll multiply in Spellstrike's crit range and bypasses sneak attack defenses. 22d6 damage at level 17 is a fine start before you start multiplying, so the problem becomes landing the blows, insuring the critical hits are successful, overcoming spell resistance, and being smart enough to avoid getting swarmed in a fight.
I wonder if when invisible and flanking, you'd also fight defensively and aid another to boost his/her attack???? It would give a bad chance for a roll but an awesome AC boost. I wonder if that kind of action removes the invisibility or not????
I will check and get back on that.
EDIT: I checked and am not sure. Would aid another count as causing harm indirectly ??? Technically you are threatening and it seems you are not attacking directly. How much AC boost is that??? and aid another roll???
Aid another roll: -4 for fighting defensively.
AC boost: +2 for fighting defensively and a 50% miss chance for invisibility. Did I forget something??
Is aid another not an attack roll vs AC 10? I understood it is and would rule that every kind of attack roll breaks invisibility.
Is aid another not an attack roll vs AC 10? I understood it is and would rule that every kind of attack roll breaks invisibility.
That was the old understanding of invisibility. But that concept has loosened a bit. Inanimate objects may be struck without losing invisibility and indirekt attacks are allowed (like for instance summoning magic)
So I am wondering here.I would rule that in order to effectively flank someone, the invisible creature must make him/her self known to the one being flanked. Otherwise the object of flanking is not aware of the second attacker and will not leaves gaps in his/her defence towards the one he/she is aware of. This will tell the exact square the invisible creature is occupying to the one being flanked. The one being flanked can still not see the invisible creature but will know what square to attack. The invisible flanker can easily distract and threaten the one being flanked by screaming and hitting the ground beside the one being flanked (shouting: missed him/her) and maintain his/her invisibility. Because aiding another is not an attack as it does no direkt damage, I'd think that it would be allowed as an action that does not remove invisibility, but I am not sure.
How about if a player makes a bluff check to fool his target into thinking there is an invisible flanker. Could he claim the flanking bonus due to his target's divided attention?
How about if a player makes a bluff check to fool his target into thinking there is an invisible flanker. Could he claim the flanking bonus due to his target's divided attention?
That would be a feint manouvre. And the target would be flatfooted if you succeeded.
Greater Invisibility Allows for striking without losing invisibility, so that's a higher-level alternative that works to reinforce the concept. It would be like Bilbo Baggins taunting the spiders along. Maybe.
Maybe if you make the presence of your weapon known? Like if it glows, so there's a glow where the blade would be. Would that be enough to give presence for flanking?
Greater Invisibility Allows for striking without losing invisibility, so that's a higher-level alternative that works to reinforce the concept. It would be like Bilbo Baggins taunting the spiders along. Maybe.
Maybe if you make the presence of your weapon known? Like if it glows, so there's a glow where the blade would be. Would that be enough to give presence for flanking?
I think Greater invisibility does work for flanking, but I was philosophysing if a character with normal invisibility may also provide threat in order to allow flanking.
And I think it's possible, however the invisible one may not attack direktly and that means he cannot take AoO as well for fear of losing invisibility. Making clear through sound in what square you are and making the target believe you threathen him should do the trick. As you may strike inanimate objects without losing invisibility you can strike the ground close to the target you want to flank in order to make the threat real for him/her. On top of that I think you can aid another as well as you do not attack the target direktly. And for added AC you could do that fighting defensively (total defence is out as you do not threaten if you use that).The only thing I am not sure of is the fact that I might be shaving it really close to the edge of what is permissable and a GM might have reasons to state that it is one step too far. But I think I remained within the bounderies of the maximally possible.
Is aid another not an attack roll vs AC 10? I understood it is and would rule that every kind of attack roll breaks invisibility.That was the old understanding of invisibility. But that concept has loosened a bit. Inanimate objects may be struck without losing invisibility and indirekt attacks are allowed (like for instance summoning magic)
So I am wondering here.
I would rule that in order to effectively flank someone, the invisible creature must make him/her self known to the one being flanked. Otherwise the object of flanking is not aware of the second attacker and will not leaves gaps in his/her defence towards the one he/she is aware of. This will tell the exact square the invisible creature is occupying to the one being flanked. The one being flanked can still not see the invisible creature but will know what square to attack. The invisible flanker can easily distract and threaten the one being flanked by screaming and hitting the ground beside the one being flanked (shouting: missed him/her) and maintain his/her invisibility. Because aiding another is not an attack as it does no direkt damage, I'd think that it would be allowed as an action that does not remove invisibility, but I am not sure.
That's reasonable. It isn't RAW, but it makes more sense than an invisible attacker somehow distracting the target when the target doesn't even know it's there.
You can flank when you're invisible, and your ally gets the benefit too.
As long as you don't attack, threatening will not break Invis and it will count for flanking.
Note: The real problem is knowing where the invisible ally is. If I'm flanking with my invisible friend, I will never know when I'm in the right position. The best I can do is to move to where I think I'm making it easy for my friend to approach and flank the enemy, then I swing away.
A good GM might prefer to not use a figure for the invisible ally, even if it's a PC - he'll make the invisible player tell him where he is, maybe with not or a text message, and then make the other ally guess where to go.
Of course, the invisible guy can always move to the right spot, unless both flankers are invisible, which makes it very hard indeed.
Also, any intelligent creature always knows when it's being flanked - the +2 attack bonus is BECAUSE that creature cannot easily defend itself from two flanking opponents, so if he's having a hard time, he MUST know he's having a hard time, even if he cannot pinpoint their location. Which means, because he's intelligent, he'll 5'Step out of flanking all day long, every chance he gets, which means the invisible flankers get to figure out their positioning over and over until the fight ends.
It can get painful quickly.
Step Up and/or Following Step would help alleviate the engagement method's flaws by making the repositioning less painful and more natural. Withdraw methods would still be a bear, but if they're withdrawing you might now want to follow blindly. Gang Up makes the invisible flanker's task easier, as he just has to help an ongoing flank to get flanking bonuses, which might also eliminate the need for Step Up. A weapon with Light Generation (see Magic Weapons) can't be concealed when drawn, which would maintain the character's invisibility but inform enemies of your continued presence for flanking purposes.