|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A cleric (invisible) and a rogue are flanking a fighter, as depicted below. The fighter, having failed his Perception check, is unaware of the cleric. Does the rogue get sneak attack? After all, the fighter will not be responding to the cleric's presence.
(C)FR
I can imagine situations where the rogue could get the flank, but I must ask- is the cleric supposed to REMAIN completely unnoticed afterwards?
I mean, for example, bumping into the attack, interrupting their arm while they are trying to attack/defend... that seems like enough to justify a flanking bonus and open you up for an attack to the vitals.
But obviously the other party would think "wait, did I just bump into something?"
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.By the rules the requirement is "threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner". Invisible doesn't prevent threatening. Nothing requires the victim to be aware of someone for them to count as threatening (thank you rules terms for making english even more complicated). So they could both be invisible and both would still get the flanking bonus.
Yes, we realize there is most likely not a rule for that... but the silliness makes you question "should there be?"
I would want there to at least be a penalty for remaining unnoticed by the flanked creaturewhile invisible. Mostly due to actions needed to run interference.
I just end up imagining an invisible cleric standing completely still for the +40 bonus, and still flanking without anyone even realizing they are there.
Heck, imagine if the rogue doesn't even know the cleric is there? (friendly 3rd party; party member left behind/sent ahead; etc.)
|
Yes.
As Bob Bob Bob quoted, the flanking condition doesn't care if the fighter knows if the cleric is there. Only that the cleric is able to pose a threat.
As for "silliness" keep in mind that this is a game that is very combat heavy. Not a simulator. And in a game that is already very rules heavy going into this much minutia at the table could very easily grind things to a halt.
If the cleric is just standing there, without actually attacking the fighter, the fighter doesn't even notice him. So there should be no bonus.
I believe the flanking rules are made to reflect that when flanked, one tries to pay attention to both enemies, and so isn't fully focused in any of them. That's why he has his defenses lowered. One could say that when flanked, he can choose whether to give that bonus, or to give an enemy of his choice his full attention. In that case, the other enemy could treat him as flatfooted. Because really, there is a pit fiend that has a 20th level paladin in front and a 10 year old kid trying hopelessly to hurt him with a stick. He does not pay attention to the kid, and so the paladin does not gain the +2.
Even if the cleric was using greater invisibility, and was attacking each round, but without success, and so the fighter doesn't notice him, the fighter would focus entirely on the rogue. I'd say.
if the cleric isn't trying to be threatening and isn't attacking i don't think he should qualify as threatening for purposes other then making am attack of opportunity and afterwards he would then be flanking.
just my feel of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of those oddball cases in which the GM needs to use his or her discretion. If there's nothing that has revealed the invisible priest to the target, then it doesn't really make sense for the target to be flanked with respect to the rogue's attacks. I'm perfectly ok with a character bring unable to concentrate on just one opponent and be forced into being flanked, but as I see it, he needs to be aware of opponents to be subjected to flank.
It's also like a simplification of the "Facing" rules..which don't exist.
If two creatures are in a flanking position this means the targets back is to one of them.
I've allowed players to ignore attackers and be flat-footed to them as Lich Bard describes...I find that it's a good fix, with the caveat that the target would be aware of the cleric attacking him...even if invisible.
I'd let him ignore him if the player declared he was doing so...but it's in no way RAW.
I'd also give the 10yr old +2 to hit the Pit fiend (like invisibility bonus to hit), for what it's worth :)
|
A cleric (invisible) and a rogue are flanking a fighter, as depicted below. The fighter, having failed his Perception check, is unaware of the cleric. Does the rogue get sneak attack? After all, the fighter will not be responding to the cleric's presence.
(C)FR
I imagine the fighter would be reacting to the cleric even more than to the rogue! Just because he can't see the cleric doesn't mean he is ignorant of invisible foes! has he never heard of invisibility? Did he not see the cleric go invisible? A lot of questions? But in the end the rule is not meant to be 'realistic' in every situation. It is meant to facilitate game play.
If i were aware of a visible rogue to one side, and an invisible foe to the other, guess which one I' be paranoid about! Even if I was naive and had never heard of invisibility, or had no idea that an invisible foe was threatening me, I'm still being threatened! When that invisible cleric taps me with his hammer, or coughs, you bet your codpiece I'm looking both ways.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A cleric (invisible) and a rogue are flanking a fighter, as depicted below. The fighter, having failed his Perception check, is unaware of the cleric. Does the rogue get sneak attack? After all, the fighter will not be responding to the cleric's presence.
(C)FR
Again, you might as well ask if a blind character surrounded by 8 opponents can be flanked! After all, he won't be reacting to any of them!!!!!!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If flanking were based on awareness of an enemy, rather than an actual threatening enemy, using an illusion to provide a flank wouldn't require a feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say that it depends on what that invisocleric is doing. I'd say that to be threatening, the target has to be aware of you. This does NOT mean see you. That blind guy surrounded by eight foes is probably aware he is in The Wrong Part of Town.
Now, that cleric is still invisible. With all the happy benefits that it gives. (Until after he takes the swing at the poor fighter, unless it's that superior invisibility stuff.) So yes, if the cleric's posing an active threat, flank bonus, fighter's aware that something's nearby, paranoid, has a good chance to whiff retaliation shots due to not seeing, and will probably keep the lights on at camp that night after the fight.
And here I'd draw a line: THREAT doesn't end invisibility, but the other guy knows you're a threat. Somewhere. Even if you're just yelling at him and banging your spear on your breastplate. But characters can just not threaten -- if that cleric's just standing there dropping buffs on nearby allies, and keeping silent/still/under the radar, no AoO from the fighter.
Finally, shouldn't that cleric invest in a longspear? Still can flank, and the fighter won't know your square. (Seriously, if you're going to do this, might as well make it even harder on them.)
Not knowing a threat is there doesn't make you immune to that threat.
If it did rogues wouldn't exist.
Agreed. The main question is 'does that threat change how you respond to other threats?'. Which is why invisible rogues are so annoying.
In the example given, the question is whether the invisocleric is actually providing enough threat to the fighter to allow the rogue to sneak attack. I think to provide that much threat, the fighter would be aware that something's there. Again, not enough to pinpoint or hit or even know what it is, just 'a threat is there'.
I'd say that to be threatening, the target has to be aware of you.
Could you please cite the section of the rules that says this? I can't seem to find anything that says the target needs to be aware of you.
I'd say that to be threatening, the target has to be aware of you.Could you please cite the section of the rules that says this? I can't seem to find anything that says the target needs to be aware of you.
Well, considering all the stuff hacked off the quote (I had to dig to find out where I'd actually witten that ... )
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys.
Or, in this case, cause some weird issues of interpretation. Something like this doesn't seem to have been thought of by playtesters, so it falls into judgment calls. So let's look at this.
(First, whoever cast invisibility on the cleric had better have a REALLY good explanation why. I can't think of many touch spells that would trump a rogue sneak attack, and clerics are usually somewhat less squishy too.)
If this were more properly done, with an invisible rogue, do most GMs let the cleric gain flank benefits when that rogue hasn't done anything overt to draw attention? And if that rogue is sizing up his target, the whole point is that the target is paying no attention at all.
It's hard for me to not see the effects of being flanked as being visible. Which itself would reveal the presence of a flanker somewhere -- not enough to break the spell or pinpoint or avoid all the penalties, but enough that it's there.
In this, it's more not believing that there's a circumstance that would allow that invisible 'flanker' to remain totally unnoticed while acting in a way to maintain a flank bonus for someone else.
I'd say that to be threatening, the target has to be aware of you.Could you please cite the section of the rules that says this? I can't seem to find anything that says the target needs to be aware of you.Well, considering all the stuff hacked off the quote (I had to dig to find out where I'd actually witten that ... )
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys.Or, in this case, cause some weird issues of interpretation. Something like this doesn't seem to have been thought of by playtesters, so it falls into judgment calls. So let's look at this.
(First, whoever cast invisibility on the cleric had better have a REALLY good explanation why. I can't think of many touch spells that would trump a rogue sneak attack, and clerics are usually somewhat less squishy too.)
If this were more properly done, with an invisible rogue, do most GMs let the cleric gain flank benefits when that rogue hasn't done anything overt to draw attention? And if that rogue is sizing up his target, the whole point is that the target is paying no attention at all.
It's hard for me to not see the effects of being flanked as being visible. Which itself would reveal the presence of a flanker somewhere -- not enough to break the spell or pinpoint or avoid all the penalties, but enough that it's there.
In this, it's more not believing that there's a circumstance that would allow that invisible 'flanker' to remain totally unnoticed while acting in a way to maintain a flank bonus for someone else.
Would it also be your judgement to allow a flanking bonus if an illusionary combatant were in a flanking position? If it's entirely based on awareness of and paying attention to a threat.
If not, why the inconsistency?
I'd say no to the flank as well.
Not only is the Fighter unaware of the invisocleric, how is invisoclerics friend able to determine where invisocleric is so they can work together.
Seems the only person who knows where the cleric is happens to be the cleric - and as it transpires, he's not even a combatant.
I'd say that to be threatening, the target has to be aware of you.Could you please cite the section of the rules that says this? I can't seem to find anything that says the target needs to be aware of you.
Have you seen A Few Good Men with Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson and Demi Moore?
Once the rogue has used the flanking bonus I think the fighter should be aware that they were flanked, as they would be of other conditions which have affected them. The fighter could then reason where the flanker must be, possibly incorrectly if there's something like reach or the gang up feat involved.
Without a perception check - or an attack from the rogue which doesn't get the flank bonus - the fighter isn't going to know if the cleric has moved and the flanking has ended though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being flanked is also just a physical situation.
Your either flanked or not whether you know it or not.
If you have attackers on both sides of you, you are literally(by definition) flanked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A cleric (invisible) and a rogue are flanking a fighter, as depicted below. The fighter, having failed his Perception check, is unaware of the cleric. Does the rogue get sneak attack? After all, the fighter will not be responding to the cleric's presence.
(C)FR
I imagine the fighter would be reacting to the cleric even more than to the rogue! Just because he can't see the cleric doesn't mean he is ignorant of invisible foes! has he never heard of invisibility? Did he not see the cleric go invisible? A lot of questions? But in the end the rule is not meant to be 'realistic' in every situation. It is meant to facilitate game play.
If i were aware of a visible rogue to one side, and an invisible foe to the other, guess which one I' be paranoid about! Even if I was naive and had never heard of invisibility, or had no idea that an invisible foe was threatening me, I'm still being threatened! When that invisible cleric taps me with his hammer, or coughs, you bet your codpiece I'm looking both ways.
But then we have schrodinger's cleric.
If a cleric gets behind the fighter, but the fighter doesn't have the perception bonus to notice (lets say it is an invisible, silenced cleric), does he get flanked?
If he does get flanked because he THINKS there might be a cleric, what happens if the cleric in the same situation moves AWAY instead, and ther is no cleric? From the fighter's perspective, he can sense the exact same amount of information about a cleric in the square behind him.
And what if no one knows there is a cleric at all? What if the cleric of a ninja god had just happened to be doing surveilance, and decided to help the rogue since it gets the fighter assassinated in a way that can be written off? But what if the cleric never touches ANYONE, or make their prescence appearant at all? Does it still count?
Overall...there is a reason why I argue for a descrease in stealth check. I would just want the invisible cleric to play SOME KIND OF INTERFENCE. Blocking the fighter's sword before it gets into place to stop the rogue's sneak attack. That would make flanking less about perception, and more about actual action
So, rather than homebrewing, 3rd partying, or whatever...just use the GM fiat built into the system with circumstance bonuses/penalties to the fighter's perception/cleric stealth. That is what it is for, isn't it? Or am I misunderstanding that bonus?
By RAW, yeah, flankcity.
In my opinion, it probably shouldn't because it makes no sense.
In practice, I would cut the Rogue some slack and let him get Sneak Attacks. My god, does he need them.
|
|
I can see a narrow argument that it doesn't make sense. If the cleric were silenced, his armor wasn't clinking, the rogue wasn't talking to him telling him to use his invisibility to get into flanking position, etc. But in all honesty not only is it RAW, it does make sense. The perception check just means the fighter doesn't know what square the cleric is in. It's very unlikely the fighter has no clue the cleric is there.
If the cleric has not acted he is flat-footed and does not threaten. If he has acted he has moved into flanking position and, if necessary, grunted or cursed or clinked, so the fighter knows he is being threatened.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the rules, the fighter is flanked. Being invisible does not prevent a creature from threatening. Not attacking does not prevent you from threatening. If you are threatening, you provide a flank.
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.
There is no language about awareness in the flanking rules.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"They move to flank you."
"Oh no they don't! I willfully ignore everyone except one guy. No flanks for them!"
"Curse your willful ignorance!" *shakes tiny fist in impotent fury*
"And once again, the world is saved by willful ignorance."
This message brought to you by People for Willful Ignorance. What you don't know, can't hurt you.
Willful ignorance houserule: you may ignore any number of flanking enemies to deny flanking bonuses to one enemy. All other enemies get a +4 flanking bonus to hit and sneak attack as a rogue of half their level. If any of the characters you are ignoring already have sneak attack, increase the damage they do with the sneak attack by 50%.
Actually, I thought illusions COULD flank all this time as long as they weren't disbelieved. Some of them don't work on it ('Wait, that sword just went through me and it didn't hurt ... '), but other than that why wouldn't an illusionary ogre provide a flank if it's believable enough? There's even a mechanic to measure that (Will save when interacting, here defined as 'in battle with'.
Hold on ... 'Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.' And invisibility is a glammer. So wouldn't interaction include 'in melee combat'?
Remember, this is not whether the fighter sees through the invisibility completely. It's whether the cleric is having enough of a combat presence to help the rogue but keep low key enough to maintain the illusion of not being there.
If flanking were based on awareness of an enemy, rather than an actual threatening enemy, using an illusion to provide a flank wouldn't require a feat.
i would say the feat expenditure is showing a specific focus on making your illusions seem threatening enough to "threaten" as opposed to illusion simply being there swinging swords that just phase through you.
So if I fail to notice there is an enemy on my back, the one -enemy- in front of me* can't flank me?
*Yes, I know there is no front and back in Pathfinder. I was being a bit caustic.
Sorry, as Ronnie pointed out, I do not recall any rule or set of rules that imply not knowing there is an enemy, makes that enemy's threatening area disappear.
More even, I can't recall any rule or set of rules that imply that if you can't see your ally, that ally's threatening area also disappear.
I'm gonna go check for them.
Is it not realistic? Well, sometimes, when Dragons start to fly, and Fireballs start to explode, realism gets a bit obsolete, and nobody complains about realism.
"But ... DRAGONS!!!"
Sigh.
I know right, how crazy to assume non-realistic standards when discussing magic and fantasy gaming. What terrible thinking.
i feel that if you're flat footed to an opponent then he isn't "flanking" you
I know right, how crazy to assume non-realistic standards when discussing magic and fantasy gaming. What terrible thinking.So if I fail to notice there is an enemy on my back, the one -enemy- in front of me* can't flank me?
*Yes, I know there is no front and back in Pathfinder. I was being a bit caustic.
Sorry, as Ronnie pointed out, I do not recall any rule or set of rules that imply not knowing there is an enemy, makes that enemy's threatening area disappear.
More even, I can't recall any rule or set of rules that imply that if you can't see your ally, that ally's threatening area also disappear.
I'm gonna go check for them.
Is it not realistic? Well, sometimes, when Dragons start to fly, and Fireballs start to explode, realism gets a bit obsolete, and nobody complains about realism.
"But ... DRAGONS!!!"
Sigh.
i'm not sure how someone can seriously hold this position on this extreme...