| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flanking is flanking, it is a rule that benefits the attacker(s) and not the defender. Beyond house-rules, it is what it is.
The invisible cleric grants flanking to the rogue in the OP's diagram. The fighter doesn't get a trophy mulligan to not be flanked, RAW/RAI/etc.
This might be a case of over-thinking things. Flanking is flanking, and rogues have precision damage via Sneak Attack. It's their Thing, let them have their Shiny.
And kudos to the player combo that has an invisible cleric and a rogue teaming up to flank a fighter in the first place, only to net the precision damage - those are some big brass ones, my friends.
| 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
No. The fighter is not diverting his attention from the rogue, so no sneak attack from him.
Citation, please? You know this isn't how it works.
If the cleric is a healbot without any damage potential, he may very well be the right target for the invisibility: if put on the rogue he would only get a single hit worth of sneak attack instead of mins/level worth of sneak attacks.
Allowing 'attention' as a means of selectively preventing flanking is absolutely fraught with peril. It completely de-tooths the rogue as an opponent can just be flat-footed to the non-rogue flanking partner who gains very little from it. Please don't be mean to the rogue.
It doesn't make sense that you could hurt a 10ft tall Orge because you can't reach anything vital and he's too stupid to notice his legs are hurt. I've decided you can't hurt Ogres because it doesn't make any sense. Also, since Ogre's a bigger than you, if they hit you, they hit you in the head, so I'm going to roll a d6 when they hit you. If it's even, you're unconcious. If it's odd, you're dead. Hmm? I don't see how you being level 18 with 142 HP is relevant. Honestly, the whole level system is pretty unrealistic too.
| 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
No. The fighter is not diverting his attention from the rogue, so no sneak attack from him.
Citation, please? You know this isn't how it works.
If the cleric is a healbot without any damage potential, he may very well be the right target for the invisibility: if put on the rogue he would only get a single hit worth of sneak attack instead of mins/level worth of sneak attacks.
Allowing 'attention' as a means of selectively preventing flanking is absolutely fraught with peril. It completely de-tooths the rogue as an opponent can just be flat-footed to the non-rogue flanking partner who gains very little from it. Please don't be mean to the rogue.
This is how I play. Until the invisible person makes their presence known they do not provide flank. Flanking is due to the person being attacked having to divert their attention in 2 different directions. So therefore the rogue could get his sneak attack in when the person isn't fully paying attention to him. If the person being flanked is only paying attention to one opponent that opening never occurs. I care little for RAW in this case. And this is RAI IMO.
I could have sworn they clarified this as yes. Stephen Macfarley I think... will dig more tomorrow.
Until then just invisibly sneak up behind people and whisper sweet nothings in their ear.
i just personally don;t think you can be involved with a flank if the target is flat footed against you, it makes little to no sense.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
as per RAW (and as lots of people already said) : Cleric provides flank. being noticed by the fighter is irrelevant.
my "point of discussion" would be more on the following :
should the cleric grant flank if the ROGUE can't see it ?
if the cleric is stealthy and invisible and unnoticed and not attacking (while still threatening), then why should then rogue get flanking IF HE DOES NOT see him, does not even know the cleric is there.
if you can get a flanking bonus from someone not-noticed and not attacking, then shouldn't you always be considered flanking ?
In this particular case: maybe designers could study the case of invisibility and portrait a thousand exceptions for the rules so the whole system remains 'realistic', but I can't see why they should do it, because next would be how Fly and Bull-Rush interact on a low gravity plane, and we do not need all those to have fun, and designers do not have that much time.
Of course they don't have time, but GMs do. That's why RPGs have to have space for rulings as well as rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
as per RAW (and as lots of people already said) : Cleric provides flank. being noticed by the fighter is irrelevant.
my "point of discussion" would be more on the following :
should the cleric grant flank if the ROGUE can't see it ?if the cleric is stealthy and invisible and unnoticed and not attacking (while still threatening), then why should then rogue get flanking IF HE DOES NOT see him, does not even know the cleric is there.
if you can get a flanking bonus from someone not-noticed and not attacking, then shouldn't you always be considered flanking ?
Being seen by anybody doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not the conditions for flanking are met. Those conditions are (assuming no feat or class ability shenanigans) two hostile forces on opposite sides of the target. That's it.
If you personally don't jive with this it's cool, just make some house rules and roll with it at your table. But according to the book and any PFS adventures the only conditions that need to be met are the ones that have been listed several times.
Opening up this rules set for "realism" creates nothing but problems. Look at falling rules, what happens when a creature cuts its way out of another's gullet or even just the binary system of 1hp vs. 0hp. It's a game, sometimes you either need to just go with or if you can't find a different game.
However the cleric gets to hit against this flatfooted AC, and the rogue may survive to tell his party wizard to put the invisibility spell ON THE RIGHT PERSON NEXT TIME.
If it's not Greater Invisibility, then the rogue would only get to make use of it for a single sneak attack; a buffing/healing/flanking/summoning cleric can benefit from regular invisibility for an entire combat and beyond.
My house-rules for these situations are that you can be flanked by illusions if you're not aware they're illusions, you can't be flanked by something if you don't know it's there, and you can use 'wilful ignorance' by (on your round only) designating an enemy and suffering all the penalties of fighting them as an invisible opponent until you start paying attention to them again.
I apply these rules because I think of the flanking bonus as a bonus you get because your target is being distracted by the another threat, and without these house-rules the logic breaks down.
I cannot see this being a no, simply because its so exploitable.
All someone with uncanny dodge would have to do to get greater uncanny dodge is shut their eyes.
That would mean that someone with uncanny dodge can close their eyes off turn and essentially be immune to a significant chunk of sneak attack triggers.
That's...kind of dumb. Closing your eyes makes it *harder* to kill you by stabbing your vitals. Not really very "logical".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would rule that the Cleric is the one in control of this. If the Cleric wants to actively participate in the rogues attack, provide some sort of distraction, say boo etc., he can provide a flanking bonus, but this would automatically reveal his location to the fighter. If the cleric would rather remain covert, then the rogue wouldn't get the flanking bonus and the fighter would remain unaware of the cleric.
I don't have any particular rules that support this, but it makes sense to me and seems to preserve both the feel of flanking and of invisibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW seems to allow it.
I would rule that you can't threaten an opponent and also remain hidden, as others have mentioned.
That would mean that someone with uncanny dodge can close their eyes off turn and essentially be immune to a significant chunk of sneak attack triggers.
That's...kind of dumb. Closing your eyes makes it *harder* to kill you by stabbing your vitals. Not really very "logical".
half the game falls apart when someone willfully closes their eyes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having the invisible cleric not provide flanking violates the (unwritten but intuitively true) rule that players should not be penalized for having and using good abilities. In this case, the proposal is that a character who fails to perceive the cleric is not flanked -- so he would actually benefit from having a poor Perception and/or lacking the ability to see invisible creatures.
This idea is as bad as the idea I have seen in some pre-D&D 3E games where a foe got a bonus to intimidation for having a low charisma, with the idea being that ugly foes are scarier.
If you are rewarding a character for failing at or being unable to perform a task, you are probably doing something wrong.
it's more like not rewarding someone for trying to "game" it or specifically rely on hard coded rules to cause an unintentional side effect or combo.
Since being blinded is worse than being flanked, the case of closing your eyes should pose fewer problems. If the rogue were invisible and the cleric visible, there would be far less of an issue since an invisible rogue would get his sneak attack damage either way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having the invisible cleric not provide flanking violates the (unwritten but intuitively true) rule that players should not be penalized for having and using good abilities. In this case, the proposal is that a character who fails to perceive the cleric is not flanked -- so he would actually benefit from having a poor Perception and/or lacking the ability to see invisible creatures.
Let's put the shoe on the other foot and say that it's a monster or NPC doing the invisible lurking to flank PCs with his thieves' guild buddies. Only the GM knows where the thing is except that suddenly PCs start being subject to sneak attacks without reason. No feints are occurring. Nobody is apparently flanked. Nobody is flatfooted. And the invisible NPC? He's just standing there, motionless with a dagger in his hand, to avoid being detected but still, technically, threatening.
I'm not certain the players are going to be quite so concerned about being penalized for having and using good abilities as much as they may be irritated about unfair, GM-contrived situations.
I'm not certain the players are going to be quite so concerned about being penalized for having and using good abilities as much as they may be irritated about unfair, GM-contrived situations.
Very good point. I know I would never do that to the players - feels like cheating to a degree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having the invisible cleric not provide flanking violates the (unwritten but intuitively true) rule that players should not be penalized for having and using good abilities. In this case, the proposal is that a character who fails to perceive the cleric is not flanked -- so he would actually benefit from having a poor Perception and/or lacking the ability to see invisible creatures.
Let's put the shoe on the other foot and say that it's a monster or NPC doing the invisible lurking to flank PCs with his thieves' guild buddies. Only the GM knows where the thing is except that suddenly PCs start being subject to sneak attacks without reason. No feints are occurring. Nobody is apparently flanked. Nobody is flatfooted. And the invisible NPC? He's just standing there, motionless with a dagger in his hand, to avoid being detected but still, technically, threatening.
I'm not certain the players are going to be quite so concerned about being penalized for having and using good abilities as much as they may be irritated about unfair, GM-contrived situations.
But it is a situation that the players could just as well have set up in reverse. In this case, the first time one of them is subjected to such a sneak attack, everyone can figure out that there in an invisible combatant and which square he is in -- it is quite obvious that there is something they failed to perceive. To be fair, when this occurs the GM should probably place an "invisible" figure in that location and then remove it whenever that creature's turn comes up.
I will gladly sacrifice a kidney if it means finding out where that ()#@$*#@ing invisible creature is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The correct answer is that everyone constantly walks around in fear that there are scentless, invisible, floating foes with non-detection up that are constantly flanking. Everyone is always flanked regardless of whether there is ACTUALLY an invisible creature there. (/sarcasm, expressing my distaste for the logic behind the rules)
No, it doesn't matter if they fail a perception check so bad they actually think there IS something flanking them.
No, it doesn't matter if they fail a perception check only bad enough to believe that someone is near them and are unable to pinpoint which square they are in.
No, it doesn't matter if they are a blind, deaf, paraplegic person with no sense of smell.
Flanking is two creatures on opposite sides of another creature.
That is the rule.
It is dumb because it doesn't take into consideration many things. But hey... at least it is simple.
Expect a lot of table variation and application of a fair amount of logic.
Close your eyes on a rogue? Well, you'll at least deserve what you get.
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not) ....
And you lose your Dex bonus to AC when blinded. Like, say, when you close your eyes. So if you're just standing there covering your eyes to metagame out of enemies around you..stabbity stabbity. I'd say that situation is ... a self-correcting one.
Yeah, seriously, 'close your eyes' is a solution?!
Flank bonus is a +2 to hit for the flankers, and sneak attack,
deliberately closing your eyes:
-2 to AC for _everyone_, not just a bonus to the flankers, PLUS you lose your dex so are even easier to hit and vulnerable to sneak attack.
Why is this posed as some sort of sneaky game breaker vs. flanking? It's uniformly and obviously worse in every way.
I cannot see this being a no, simply because its so exploitable.
All would have to do to get greater uncanny dodge is shut their eyes.
|
|
And invisible character that's not being detected is not threathening. Therefore he does not meet the condition to be a flanking partner.
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).
And invisible character that's not being detected is not threathening. Therefore he does not meet the condition to be a flanking partner.
Flanking is two threathening creatures on opposite sides of another creature.
.
That's not necessarily true nor is it really the problem. The invisible character, if appropriately armed, could make an attack of opportunity. He does threaten the spaces within reach. The problem is, if he isn't detected and isn't actually interacting with his enemy, how does that really translate into his enemy having impaired defenses against someone else?
With the normal flanking rules, a creature is flanked if he has enemies on opposite sides of each other. But suppose that creature doesn't perceive one of those other creatures around him as an enemy? Does he count as flanked if he's standing between a known enemy and someone he thinks is an ally (but who really isn't but just hasn't betrayed him yet)? Surely, that erstwhile ally may threaten his location but I don't think most GMs would give the known enemy a flanking bonus just for that. Is an undetected, invisible threat any different from a situation in which the threat is disguised and biding its time?
That's not necessarily true nor is it really the problem. The invisible character, if appropriately armed, could make an attack of opportunity. He does threaten the spaces within reach. The problem is, if he isn't detected and isn't actually interacting with his enemy, how does that really translate into his enemy having impaired defenses against someone else?
Its not that this isn't a good point, but its just that its
1) What the rules flat out say AND
2) the least brain breaking way of going about it in all of the options.
When there is no path to sanity, pick the least insane cantaloupe
Do you really play Uncanny Dodge as only preventing loss of Dex to AC in those two situations?
Well, you know how it is. Some people are sticklers about the flanking rules, some are sticklers about Uncanny Dodge...
|
|
You tell me.
|
|
Good thing I'm not in a Pathfinder game IRL.
A rogue is 'canny' enough to maintain full dex and AC while blinded, but has to feel his way around or risk falling down the stairs?
Yep. Because Uncanny Dodge is that 'spidey sense' allowing him to get out of harms way, not radar allowing him to avoid a misstep in the dark.
Blinded is a different condition than an invisible attacker.
So, no, you really, really don't want to close your eyes, even with Uncanny Dodge.
Yes, you really do
Uncanny Dodge (Ex): At 2nd level, a barbarian gains the ability to react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. A barbarian with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses the feint action against her.
Barbarian isn't feinted, barbarian isn't immobilized, barbarian still has dex bonus.
Or you could try to pile absurdity on absurdity and say that the barbarian loses their dex bonus against a hiding rogue but not an invisible one, but not a hiding one that is invisible. But really, you've taken the objections further than they can rationally go already.
FYI: You are all being flanked right now and don't even realize it.
[patton]That saves me the trouble of picking a direction to kill in![/patton]
Lightly skimmed this and am going to chime in anyway:
Who CARES if you can be flanked without knowing it, the example has one character NOT ACTING so that the rogue can do a bit of extra damage.
Let him.
I guess the cleric could channel or cast non-offensive spells, but then obviously the person being flanked would HEAR them...
In no way would I consider this tactic game-breaking. If it was, it would have been USED in one of the games I've played in the last twenty years...