|
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?
Of course he does. Just because he doesn't know his ally is a threat doesn't mean it's not so. In fact there's a spell that does exactly that. Unwitting Ally
How does the Rogue know where the Cleric is, when the Cleric is being quiet and still and also invis?
How is the Rogue able to use this to his/her advantage?
I'm now thinking of turning this around and saying you know when your opponent is receiving a flanking bonus - therefore you automatically become aware of the invisible cleric. This isn't contradicted by the rules AFAIK.
I don't think they say whether you do or not.
Given the game mechanical effects of flanking that the players can observe, I think we can infer that the invisible cleric providing flanking isn't "doing nothing". The fact that the rogue inflicted sneak attack damage reveals the existence and location of his invisible ally -- so from that we can infer that the invisible cleric did SOMETHING to draw at least a little bit of attention to himself, even if he did not do enough to actually break invisibility. The only cause the players would have to cry foul would be if the GM insisted that the player characters had not thereby located an invisible enemy. This is enough of a hazard to the invisible cleric that he might seriously consider NOT providing flanking to his allies -- but it is strictly the invisible character's decision.
What if the cleric was invisible, was perfectly silent, scentless, hovering above the ground (negating tremorsense) and had nondetection up and wasn't moving? What if the person being attacked was also blind and deaf?
You would think it wouldn't, right? Perhaps my games and those I play in are the exception but I have ran into some very similar situations and my table were all perplexed which way to rule.
...anyway, why does it matter why it matters? The question stands.
Answer: it is exactly the same as any other situation where the target of the flanking is unaware of a flanker. RAW: yes, the undetectable cleric provides flanking. Common house-rule: no, he doesn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A better question would be "Can a character choose NOT to flank someone?"
Of course they can. In the invisible-hovering-blind etc etc etc example, the cleric isn't obligated to provide a bonus, he is just entitled to.
alexd1976: Hm. That is even more interesting, but you are correct.
I will have to remember this in my next game. I'll have to ask my players if they want to provide flanking for their enemies.
From more of a fluff/roleplay perspective... The rogue is recognizing that her opponent has left an opening that can be exploited to attack one of the vitals. She doesn't really care why her opponent left the opening (unless she has reason to believe that it's a ruse) -- maybe the guy just realized he left the oven on, or maybe he heard something behind him. It doesn't matter; the opening is there and the rogue takes advantage of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do mindless creatures/undead know they are flanking?
If they don't, does that mean they can't benefit from flanking?
If they don't, can they not help set up a flank?
Do mindless creatures/undead recognize they've been flanked?
If not, do they take no penalty from being flanked?
Do you see why the rules just say "Are you threatening, which is defined as wielding a weapon you can reach them with? Is so, are you directly across from an ally? Great. You are flanking." This is one of those situations where the RAW actually is crystal clear, and any "but that doesn't make sense" falls squarely into house rule territory.
From more of a fluff/roleplay perspective... The rogue is recognizing that her opponent has left an opening that can be exploited to attack one of the vitals. She doesn't really care why her opponent left the opening (unless she has reason to believe that it's a ruse) -- maybe the guy just realized he left the oven on, or maybe he heard something behind him. It doesn't matter; the opening is there and the rogue takes advantage of it.Guys, this isn't a general question, but specific to the scenario regarding an invisible flanker.
Does the opponent indeed react to the invisible flanker, thus automatically triggering the sneak attack, and thus automatically pinpointing the square with an invisible enemy?
No, the fighter doesn't react to the invisible cleric. They don't know its there.
Yes, the rogue gets sneak attack. (S)he is flanking.
No, the fighter doesn't know where the cleric is, or even that there's a cleric there. They just got hit extra hard.
If that doesn't make sense, you are free to house rule it. But you are changing the RAW.
From more of a fluff/roleplay perspective... The rogue is recognizing that her opponent has left an opening that can be exploited to attack one of the vitals. She doesn't really care why her opponent left the opening (unless she has reason to believe that it's a ruse) -- maybe the guy just realized he left the oven on, or maybe he heard something behind him. It doesn't matter; the opening is there and the rogue takes advantage of it.Guys, this isn't a general question, but specific to the scenario regarding an invisible flanker.
Does the opponent indeed react to the invisible flanker, thus automatically triggering the sneak attack, and thus automatically pinpointing the square with an invisible enemy?
By the rules, the invisible creature has not been pinpointed unless one of the following conditions is met:
A) The invisible creature has struck the target and has not move since. However, if the invisible creature has a reach greater than 5 feet, they have not been pinpointed.B) The creature that wants to pinpoint succeeds at a perception check. If the invisible creature has moves, they are no longer pinpointed.
C) The creature that wants to pinpoint has used a standard action to make a touch attack into two adjacent squares and successfully touches the invisible creature. Again, if the invisible creature moves, they are no longer pinpointed.
By the rules, an invisible creature still threatens. If two creatures threaten a third creature and are on opposite corners or sides of that creature, the creature in the middle is flanked.
And finally, the Sneak Attack class feature states that "The rogue's attack deals extra damage ... when the rogue flanks her target."
So, without any house rules:
No, the invisible flanker has not been pinpointed.
Yes, the rogue deals sneak attack damage.
EDIT: As Dallium says, this is a case where the rules are crystal clear. Do they make perfect real-world sense? No, not really, but that's how abstractions work. We ignore fiddly bits that may be difficult to keep track of or take into account in favor of simpler execution.
The rules say when it happens, just give no actually meaningful reason as to why or how it happens.
And that irks me a little bit.
Fluff it however you like. The fluff that the Sneak Attack description provides is that the opponent is unable to defend himself effectively. Why this applies because of the invisible cleric is up to you.
Maybe the guy just has that feeling that someone he can't see is watching him.
Maybe he saw the cleric go invisible, and is now just extra paranoid about it (and rightly so!).
It really doesn't matter. You can come up with plenty of reasons to explain the outcome of the rules, if that's what you need to do in this circumstance.
What if the cleric was invisible, was perfectly silent, scentless, hovering above the ground (negating tremorsense) and had nondetection up and wasn't moving? What if the person being attacked was also blind and deaf?
Unmoving. Entirely still ... which means he's electing to NOT threaten. You can imitate a tree all you want, but once you WANT TO swing at things, you're moving at least a little.
Don't forget: I'm not saying the cleric is pinpointed; that I'll grant is impossible merely because there are multiple squares that can provide a flank to the rogue here. You don't know what you're being threatened with. It could be something normal ... or something with reach, and there are three reach squares that would get you flanked there.
So yes, you know you're flanked. You know SOMEONE is on that flanking side. You can ASSUME he's in that square right there, but that'd be an awful time to find out you're dealing with one of Shelyn's friends, wouldn't it?
If nothing else, there's no way in hell you're going to convince the fighter's player that he's flanked if you refuse to let him assume someone else is there. Otherwise that player would (with reason) insist that there's no flanker, so no sneak attack, so give back those damn hit points. Here you have a game mechanic that reveals SOME information by its existence. Remember that it's not a dead giveaway.
Wait, what? What multiple squares? Typically for a medium creature, there is one square that will provide flanking.
As far as I can tell, you can flank with a reach weapon. (Unless this has been errata'd into oblivion. If it has, it kills a rules question I have about those things.)
I wouldn't question that the Cleric gets the bonus. Take Improved Invisibility, and it's no contest that he gets this on all of his attacks, as well as Invisibility bonuses too.
I'd rather question if the Rogue gets Flanking bonuses, however.
I'm not saying that because the Fighter can't see or properly perceive the Cleric, that Flanking doesn't count, but I'd definitely state that the Rogue getting the Flanking bonus is dubious at best, because unless the Rogue has See Invisibility, he wouldn't properly know if the Fighter is being jumbled himself or if something else is impeding his actions, unless he made his Perception check of the Cleric (and with it being at +20, it's certainly difficult to do in the lower levels).
So, I personally would agree with the OP of denying Flanking, but not in the sense that Flanking is 100% denied. It would be denied for the Rogue, because he can't see or perceive anything on the opposite side of the creature he's fighting, technically speaking, and if he can't see that, then he shouldn't get a bonus (because he's effectively flat-footed to the Cleric's presence). The Cleric, on the other hand, gets both Flanking and Invisibility bonuses (as well as Flat-Footed benefits if he acts before the Fighter does).
why is this still a thing? RAW says you threaten and flank, tons of people think the RAW is dumb, and not RAI. end of story.
why is this still a thing? RAW says you threaten and flank, tons of people think the RAW is dumb, and not RAI. end of story.
Shhhhh.
If more people used this logic, the rules forums would be dead by the end of the weak. How are we supposed to keep people showing up here without all the inane but mildly entertaining arguments that are only tangentially related to what the rules say?
Wait, what? What multiple squares? Typically for a medium creature, there is one square that will provide flanking.
@ZZTRaider:
If you can come up with a self-consistent reason that doesn't give away the invisible, perhaps even silenced creature's presence while, at the same time, not allowing a sneak attack when an invisible creature is not actually flanking, such as with a ghost sound coming from that same location, I would really love to hear it.
Using your two examples:
Why would either of them apply ONLY when the Cleric was actually in a flanking square, and NOT apply when the Cleric was in any other adjacent square? Remember, the Cleric is not actually taking any hostile action, he/she just threatens the opponent.
I can't think of anything that maintains consistency.
Like I said, fluff it however you want. RAW is completely clear. Anything else is a house rule.
|
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 creature while 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.)
To threaten the cleric should participate in the fight. Until he has acted in the first/surprise round he is no participating.
After that, what he has done?
If he is playing bystander and doing nothing I wouldn't treat him as participating, so I wouldn't allow him to flank. If he has acted it almost guaranteed that the enemy know of his existence, so he flank even if unseen.
Essentially, until he hasn't acted in an hostile way he isn't an enemy for most things.
|
|
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?Of course he does. Just because he doesn't know his ally is a threat doesn't mean it's not so. In fact there's a spell that does exactly that. Unwitting Ally
you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature
If he think he is an ally he is not an enemy and don't fulfill the condition for threatening.
You don't get flanked in every battle from level 1 to 20 because Joe is a spy that will betray you at the end of the campaign.
alexd1976: Hm. That is even more interesting, but you are correct.
I will have to remember this in my next game. I'll have to ask my players if they want to provide flanking for their enemies.
The first one to say yes is getting lynched by the rest... ;)
Funny thing is, there may be situations where it is advantageous to do so (retributive strike builds seem to be a thing, after all).
From more of a fluff/roleplay perspective... The rogue is recognizing that her opponent has left an opening that can be exploited to attack one of the vitals. She doesn't really care why her opponent left the opening (unless she has reason to believe that it's a ruse) -- maybe the guy just realized he left the oven on, or maybe he heard something behind him. It doesn't matter; the opening is there and the rogue takes advantage of it.Guys, this isn't a general question, but specific to the scenario regarding an invisible flanker.
Does the opponent indeed react to the invisible flanker, thus automatically triggering the sneak attack, and thus automatically pinpointing the square with an invisible enemy?
the rules are silent on that, so one can assume that no, invisibility is not negated by a rogue getting a sneak attack.
Players will know, but this is meta knowledge, and should not be applied to characters... All the characters will know is that they are hitting easier/harder. Not why.
I agree with _Ozy_, and on that note, I would also like to see an explanation of how magic functions in the game, not just a dismissive "well, that's what the RAW says..."
...
So you have an ill defined ability that triggers under certain conditions with no consistent in-game explanation of how or why.
...
There's no in-game explanation. I'll give you all that.
But that's the case for more things than just this.The out-of-game explanation is: "That's how the rules work".
Lol, you realize there is a difference between 'realism' and self consistency I hope.
Unless you're now fluffing sneak attack as some magical or supernatural ability...
Are you? I mean, that's about what it would have to be to trigger in some of the scenarios listed previously.
I don't feel it is necessary to explain WHY certain class features work using in-game explanations.
The fluff of sneak attack is this: Sometimes rogues hit for more damage, because they train to occasionally hit for more.
The rules are printed.
There, fixed.
...
So you have an ill defined ability that triggers under certain conditions with no consistent in-game explanation of how or why.
...There's no in-game explanation. I'll give you all that.
But that's the case for more things than just this.The out-of-game explanation is: "That's how the rules work".
...again, I would like to see an in game explanation of how magic works.
It's equally relevant, isn't it? I mean, because magic is what made the ludicrous example with the invisible cleric possible...
The fact is that Flanking is a really flakey abstraction.
Take for example a creature that is unconscious and paralyzed - they cannot react in any way to attacking creatures...but somehow having another dude standing on the other side makes it easier to stab past their armor.
Just accept that the mechanic is a bit dicky and move on. Fixing it would require scrapping the mechanic entirely and starting over. You would probably end up scrapping the "loses Dex to AC" thing as well to make a coherent system. Unless you feel up to that, it isn't worth fussing over. If you do feel like that, then that's what the homebrew forums are for.
It's worth remembering that this is a world where dead characters can still act normally, so it really doesn't matter whether you get sneak-damaged or not. By RAW dead people don't suffer any action penalties, and unless you're one of those annoying GMs who insists on house-ruling everything for the sake of 'realism', you must either come up with your own in-game fluff for why all dead people can still walk and talk and fight normally, or you can just ignore it and accept that this is a world where magic works and real-world logic does not apply.
...
So you have an ill defined ability that triggers under certain conditions with no consistent in-game explanation of how or why.
...There's no in-game explanation. I'll give you all that.
But that's the case for more things than just this.The out-of-game explanation is: "That's how the rules work".
...again, I would like to see an in game explanation of how magic works.
It's equally relevant, isn't it? I mean, because magic is what made the ludicrous example with the invisible cleric possible...
Um, no, you need to demonstrate that the fluff that already explains how magic works is absolutely inconsistent with RAW.
Give that a try and we'll see if we can help explain the inconsistency.
I'm trying to communicate my lack of caring about how flanking works by drawing attention to how stupid the example is.
Never in my life have I seen a situation like the one described.
It isn't necessary to have 'fluff' cover all potential situations. it's just a short description of a class ability that was introduced in an attempt to build a class that could contribute something unique.
You want an explanation, I don't. I'm not obligated to provide one.
Sneak attack is explained as "If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage."
What more do you need? The magic allows for it, so the conditions are met. In-game explanation of fluff: "Must be magic".