@bbangerter: And that's what I'm trying to address. Characters should have a reason as to why they are/are not receiving bonuses, otherwise we're simply coming up with random numbers out of nowhere. "I GOT A PLUS 10 TO HIT BECAUSE I'M TALKING LOUD AND I WANNA WIN" isn't a rules-valid reason to apply such a bonus, nor is it applicable in any situation (except maybe Munchkin, where somebody got a card labeled as such, but that is neither here nor there).
There is no reason, in-character, for either the Fighter or the Rogue to acknowledge the Cleric's existence, because A. They failed their perception checks (ironic for the Rogue, must have rolled a 1), and B. The Cleric has otherwise not made himself visible or apparent in the current combat.
As far as the Rogue can see, the Fighter's attention/defenses is not diverted, therefore, he would not get flank, because as far as the Rogue is concerned, it's a one-on-one fight. As far as the Fighter is concerned, it's a one-on-one fight.
Even if the Cleric is the Rogue's ally, the Rogue doesn't know his position, nor does he know if the Fighter is aware of his presence. Hell, in the above scenario, he doesn't even know there is a Cleric. All he knows is that there's a Fighter, and he's fending for his life.
There is zero reason, whatsoever, in this scenario, to provide flank, other than because the physical conditions are met (two "ally" creatures on opposite sides of an enemy creature who threaten the square[s] the enemy occupies). Even if the Cleric threatens, the Rogue doesn't see or know that. He doesn't even know if there is an invisible creature nearby. If the reverse was the case (the Cleric was the Fighter's ally), the same paradoxes would still apply, and that's because of the very thing you say applies: the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does the rogue need to know 'why' he is getting a flanking bonus. From an in character perspective, all the rogue cares about is that the fighters attention was diverted, which provided an opening for the rogue to strike a vital spot. The rogue absolutely does not care or need to know why the fighter got distracted to take advantage of that opening.
This is why i mentioned a different view on flanking (and one that kind of makes more sense from the ground up). It needs to be determined if flanking is a result of a shared tactic between allies on both sides of an enemy, or if it is the result of the enemy having to pay attention to two assailants, on two fronts, as it were. The latter makes a lot more sense to me, and in that explanation, the Rogue would not in any way need to know if the cleric was there to get the flank bonus - but at the same time, the fighter would need to KNOW the cleric was there to even start to defend against him. The fact that the fighter DOESN'T know the cleric is there, and that he is in no way defending against him, is WHY he is flat-footed against the cleric. THAT is the benefit the invisibility is giving in this scenario. After the cleric is detected or attacks and becomes visible, the fighter will begin defending against him, which THEN would split his attention, and both the cleric AND the rogue would gain the flank bonus.
If you want to get that far down into it (and again I'll mention that the rules are an abstraction that sacrifice realism in some cases for the sake of simplicity), it really doesn't matter at all if the rogue knows the cleric is there.
If the fighter is distracted enough to leave an opening, the rogue reacts to the fighter and nothing else. It doesn't matter if the opening is because the fighter though he heard something behind him, realized he left the oven on, or suddenly saw someone attractive across the street.
Also, looking over the invisibility stuff again, the perception DC should be pretty low to recognize something is wrong. According to this, you can notice an invisible creature with a DC 20 perception check. If you count the creature as being in combat, the DC is reduced by 20, though it is also increased by 20 as long as the cleric does not move at all. Unless you happened to walk into just the right spot, though, the cleric will have to move at some point, reducing the DC by at least 5 and possibly 10.
Personally, if the cleric is wielding a weapon and moving into a flanking position, I'd count that as being "in combat", since the cleric will need to react to the fighter's movement (which is abstracted away as all taking place in one 5' square). So, DC -10 assuming the cleric moves more than half his speed.
Even the fighter should be able to hit that. Heck, even adding the +20 to pinpoint only brings it up to a DC 10 check.
Essentially, its the "reptile" part of the brain going "Whoa, something is fundamentally wrong here!"
That's really only mechanized for barbarians and rogues, who get the 'heeby jeebies' of an impending attack from their Uncanny Dodge ability, which prevents them from being flat footed. If that fighter was a barbarian with uncanny dodge, he would not be flat footed against the cleric, but he also wouldn't be defending against him unless his spidey sense was triggered by the cleric's attack, because until that spidey sense is triggered, he still doesn't know the cleric is there (unless from a perception success).
? What and where are you getting your numbers from.
You can notice if an invisible creature 'is around' with a DC20 perception check, that does not pinpoint the creature. And that also presumes you are not distracted by, say, being in combat, which adds a +5 to the DC for being in combat.
An invisible creature that is stationary gets a +40 to stealth, a +20 if moving around.
Where do you get a DC10 check to pinpoint an invisible creature?
I did miss the +5 for being in combat; I'd thought there was a penalty, but I only scanned the Perception page for "combat," not "distracted".
Invisibility doesn't actually required that you're making stealth checks. Though it is fair to assume the cleric is attempting to stealth here.
I still think that the more reasonable case is that the cleric needs to move into position at some point, so let's stick with that. I'll assume the cleric is wearing a masterwork breastplate, reducing his movement to 20 feet, and needs to move more than 10 feet to get into the correct position.
DC 20 base to notice.
-20 because the cleric is moving to threaten, and thus in combat.
+5 because the fighter is also in combat, and thus distracted.
+17 + 1d20 because the cleric is using stealth, including armor check penalty (a cleric dedicated to this tactic may be trained or have a dex bonus, but I'm assuming not for the moment).
-10 from moving at above half speed. This penalty is listed under invisibility.
-5 from moving at above half speed. This penalty is listed under stealth.
So, DC 7 + 1d20 to notice. That's still not hateful at all, assuming the fighter has ranks in perception.
The DC 27 + 1d20 to pinpoint is a fair bit higher, true. But that's also not even necessary here for the fighter to reasonably get distracted by the cleric.
You don't take the moving penalty AND the combat penalty. They are graduated steps of motion.
Essentially, the DC is modified by one of the following, based on the invisible creatures level of movement:
+20 Completely still
0 Standing around
-5 Moving at half speed
-10 Moving at full speed
-20 Combat
Also, moving into threatening range is not "in combat", especially if the cleric is not attacking, and not being attacked.
Also, moving into threatening range is not "in combat", especially if the cleric is not attacking, and not being attacked.
If he's not planning to fight, this might render the whole flanking thing moot. Invisitree flanks no-one.
So back to the original scenario, how would you rule this?
Think about the Fighter entangled with the rogue, no penalties or bonuses either way. The invisible cleric sneaks up behind him - nothing has changed for the Fighter or the Rogues situation, so there are still no bonuses or penalties going on here.
Now, the Cleric has two options. He can take advantage of his surprise to make a single attack against the fighter, where he'd be attacking against the fighter's flat-footed AC due to the surprise. Or, the Cleric can yell at the fighter (virtually guaranteeing a successful passive perception check so the fighter now knows there's a threat behind him. The fighter is now trying to locate where the yell came from, and try as best he can to bob and weave to defend against the inevitable attack which never comes. He has now divided his attention, and I would then state that the rogue gets the flank bonus against the fighter, and can use this situation to sneak attack him.
This is not unlike a Feint Partner move, except instead of utilizing the precoordinated teamwork that the Feint Partner feat represents, where they'd BOTH get a sneak attack (if capable), in this case, they are using positioning and surprise to accomplish this for only one of the combatants (the rogue). This seems balanced, and is in essence the cleric using up his turn to provide the better suited character the change to strike.
You don't take the moving penalty AND the combat penalty. They are graduated steps of motion.
I don't see anything included with that table to suggest that only one applies. "In combat or speaking" really doesn't come off to me as being considered as part of movement.
That's part of the whole argument. By RAW it doesn't matter at all in he plans to attack or not, as long as it's 'possible' (he's armed and able) then he threatens. That's what's causing the consternation.
So is the cleric wielding a weapon or not? If he's wielding, there is some level of intent (certainly enough so for me to consider him in combat) and he threatens. If he's just carrying a weapon, he does not threaten and the whole scenario is moot.
If you want to get that far down into it (and again I'll mention that the rules are an abstraction that sacrifice realism in some cases for the sake of simplicity), it really doesn't matter at all if the rogue knows the cleric is there.
If the fighter is distracted enough to leave an opening, the rogue reacts to the fighter and nothing else. It doesn't matter if the opening is because the fighter though he heard something behind him, realized he left the oven on, or suddenly saw someone attractive across the street.
Also, looking over the invisibility stuff again, the perception DC should be pretty low to recognize something is wrong. According to this, you can notice an invisible creature with a DC 20 perception check. If you count the creature as being in combat, the DC is reduced by 20, though it is also increased by 20 as long as the cleric does not move at all. Unless you happened to walk into just the right spot, though, the cleric will have to move at some point, reducing the DC by at least 5 and possibly 10.
Personally, if the cleric is wielding a weapon and moving into a flanking position, I'd count that as being "in combat", since the cleric will need to react to the fighter's movement (which is abstracted away as all taking place in one 5' square). So, DC -10 assuming the cleric moves more than half his speed.
Even the fighter should be able to hit that. Heck, even adding the +20 to pinpoint only brings it up to a DC 10 check.
You keep mentioning things like "distracted". Distracted or otherwise mentally occupied (and therefore not wary of their surroundings or person) would most likely fall under the realm of Flat-Footed, and not Flanking. Flat-Footed and Flanking are not the same thing. They aren't even drawn by the same subjects; one requires that they are positioned properly so as to enforce exposure to weakpoints in their defenses, the other is a case of wondering where my keys went instead of noticing that a guy with a dagger is about to pierce my gullet.
All of these arguments support the factor that the Fighter is most likely Flat-footed to the Cleric, and I never argued that. In fact, I believe I specifically said just that. It does nothing to aid the argument that creatures who don't properly perceive their situation (i.e. know that there is an "ally" opposite to their current position) won't get the benefits.
To add on to your Worg/Hellhound example, these creatures, who hunt in packs, move in to flank when they perceive the rest of their pack backing them up. If they don't see their allies when they go in for the kill anyway (and it turns out they actually are there), do you think they should still get the incentive for something that they don't otherwise appear to understand? (They are Intelligence 6, they're smarter than some human beings, so...)
This argument you provide also has other implications. With the assumption of the Fighter making the skill check, that Cleric could be anywhere except in the proper position, but because the Fighter knows he's in this combat, he's going to be constantly considered Flanking for the Rogue, since he will be diverting his attention to two entities, one of which he cannot properly perceive (he just knows something is there. He don't know who, what, or where).
That's part of the whole argument. By RAW it doesn't matter at all in he plans to attack or not, as long as it's 'possible' (he's armed and able) then he threatens. That's what's causing the consternation.So is the cleric wielding a weapon or not? If he's wielding, there is some level of intent (certainly enough so for me to consider him in combat) and he threatens. If he's just carrying a weapon, he does not threaten and the whole scenario is moot.
what area of the rules deals with intent, if the fighter fails his perception check regardless of how low the DC may or may not be, can he be flanked?
Wow... this is still going...
I think it's become an intellectual battle at this point.
The answer to the OP is obviously "Yes", you can most certainly be flanked even if you are a blind,insensate,comatose slug.+2 to hit and sneak attack all day long.
Now it's about whether this makes any sense or not.
It seems like there's a valid argument for certain situations making the mechanics of flanking seem questionable.
The mental contortions needed to arbitrate consciousness based flanking are considerable,and i can understand why the developers didn't bother.
At the end of the day, nerfing flanking only puts more nails in the Rogues coffin.
Flanking by RAW covers the vast majority of situations and doesn't require an extra page of explanation.
what area of the rules deals with intent, if the fighter fails his perception check regardless of how low the DC may or may not be, can he be flanked?
That's part of the whole argument. By RAW it doesn't matter at all in he plans to attack or not, as long as it's 'possible' (he's armed and able) then he threatens. That's what's causing the consternation.So is the cleric wielding a weapon or not? If he's wielding, there is some level of intent (certainly enough so for me to consider him in combat) and he threatens. If he's just carrying a weapon, he does not threaten and the whole scenario is moot.
The ones where you are able to make an attack..because of your thinking is 'I don't want to attack at all' or 'Damn, I wish I had a weapon to threaten with other than my uneducated fist', you're not threatening.
In fact, most of the rules do. If you have a longspear stabbing cleric (with spiked gauntlets) in square 1, a greatsword swinging barbarian in square 2, and someone they both don't like in square 3, this does NOT flank the barbarian. The cleric's intent is 'I like my barbarian and do not wish to punch her or help the monster maul her', and the barbarian's intent is 'The cleric has my back very literally here, now let's both kill the monster'.
Now, were the cleric to suddenly betray the barbarian, things change and now she IS flanked. And probably upset. But the cleric's INTENT here determines -- he's choosing to not threaten the barbarian.
In the original post, the fighter's intent is 'kill stabby rogue I'm 1-on-1 with'. If the cleric is keeping himself from being detected, his intent is 'don't get involved in fight' and thus not really influencing it. If his intent is 'flank fighter', that breaks the 'fighter can't perceive' condition in the original post -- he's vaguely enough aware that he's being flanked, but can't tell what square the cleric's in (choice of four--one behind, two behind, and the two to the side of that). In fact, a smart cleric who wants to do this might want to have a longspear and park 10' away and be generally annoying.
Edit: Does the 'aid another' combat action break invisibility? I didn't think it did ... and damn that'd make things even worse for Fighty here.
I believe the area of intent concerned is really the classification as ally or enemy that's causing the effect. So the Clerics intent is significant in that regard...but that's the only distinction the system seems to allow it to make.
People are going to keep repeating "that's the rule even if it doesn't make sense" because this is the rules forum. On this forum, all that matters is the text of the rule and whether it's clear.
If you want to discuss why it doesn't make sense or how you can adjust the rule to make sense, you'll have much better luck on the Advice forum or the Homebrew forum. You might even get some from the same posters over there.
Over here, though, you'll get a repetition of the rules.
People are going to keep repeating "that's the rule even if it doesn't make sense" because this is the rules forum. On this forum, all that matters is the text of the rule and whether it's clear.
If you want to discuss why it doesn't make sense or how you can adjust the rule to make sense, you'll have much better luck on the Advice forum or the Homebrew forum. You might even get some from the same posters over there.
Over here, though, you'll get a repetition of the rules.
There's also "the rules will make LESS sense if you go contrary to raw"
I would rule that, at any time anyone can negate flank bonuses by ignoring one or both creatures that are flanking him, but doing so he draws an attack of opportunity from the ignored creatures.
Of course, house rule. But a good one.
I don't think you need to allow an attack of opportunity with it, simply treat the character as flat-footed to that assailant (which is essentially what flat-footed represents - not actively defending). The flat footed penalty is going to be worse than the flanking bonus that is being lost in most cases, and it allows a defender to (rightfully) focus on who he perceives to be the greatest threat.
I don't think you need to allow an attack of opportunity with it, simply treat the character as flat-footed to that assailant (which is essentially what flat-footed represents - not actively defending). The flat footed penalty is going to be worse than the flanking bonus that is being lost in most cases, and it allows a defender to (rightfully) focus on who he perceives to be the greatest threat.I would rule that, at any time anyone can negate flank bonuses by ignoring one or both creatures that are flanking him, but doing so he draws an attack of opportunity from the ignored creatures.
Of course, house rule. But a good one.
Unless you have a crappy dexterity or one of the assailants can sneak attack...
Ok, I tried to break this down into simple situations that let us confirm/deny what factors affect flanking. Conclusion: "It depends". RAW, I think you flank your allies most of the time. Trying to be reasonable about it, I can't find any obvious solution. My guideline would be that you flank when both actors flanking are aware of each other and the target and intending to threaten/flank the target, and if either of them were undetected/invisible, the attacked target (if intelligent) has enough reason to know someone's there and make perception checks or attack the space they think they might be in.
Here's my original rambling post in a spoiler. It doesn't really get anywhere:
I think there are a few factors that *could* affect flanking, and we'll try to make arguments for/against them.
1) The Rogue's perception of the Cleric
2) The Fighter's perception of the Cleric
3) The Fighter's perception of the Rogue
4) The Cleric's perception of the Rogue
5) The Cleric's perception of the Fighter
6) The Cleric's intention to flank
7) The Cleric's action to flank
There's also the Rogue's perception of the Fighter, but without that let's say there's no attack.
Let's dismiss 2 and 3. Without 3, it's an attack against flat-footed. If the fighter being flat-footed stops the distraction taking effect, then there's the potential that against opponents whose flat-footed is the same as their normal AC, catching them by surprise or even disabling them entirely loses you a bonus and makes them harder to hit. That's silly. I think we can dismiss the same grounds for 2, someone becoming unable to perceive should never increase their AC.
Let's confirm 6. Without 6, you would flank allies as long as everyone is aware of each other. The Cleric must intend to flank, and therefore must be aware of both the Rogue and Fighter, confirming 4) and 5).
Let's make a fun monster for 1). We'll call them Schrods, they're Schrodinger's flankers. Schrods are undetectable by all means, can attack, choose to never attack, detect everything, and do not prevent people occupying their space. No one has any idea they even exist.
RAW, Schrods can run around, and people randomly gain flanking bonuses with no idea why. No one understands why they suddenly hit easier or are easier to hit. This seems silly. Someone has to be aware of the Schrod/Cleric, or the Schrod/Cleric must do something. The rulebook-savvy villains should not be hiring imps to stand behind their foes with a dagger for free combat bonuses. If the Rogue is aware of the Cleric but the Cleric does nothing, the Rogue can only really use the space he occupies as a bonus, and a statue or wall should do that just as well. Maybe backing people against walls should give a bonus. It doesn't, so let's drop that line of thinking. The Rogue knowing the Cleric is there and intending to flank isn't enough.
The Cleric has to do something. Expansion on 4: If the Rogue is invisible instead of the Cleric, he should still probably provide flanking, so that must mean it's the Cleric's action providing the +2. If that be nudge the fighter, or saying 'boo', or blocking him from stepping back from the Rogue, and you know what there's exceptions for every possible combination of rules to make flanking valid. In most situations, just say it's flanking, but shut down obvious abuse cases and don't be a dick to each other over it.
2) The Fighter's perception of the Cleric
...
I think we can dismiss the same grounds for 2, someone becoming unable to perceive should never increase their AC.
2 is one of the more popular answers here. According to one interpretation of what flanking represents, the rogue gets a bonus to attack the fighter because the fighter is distracted by the cleric being on the other side of him. This only makes sense if the fighter knows the cleric is there.
I agree that not knowing the cleric is there shouldn't give a bonus against the cleric, but I don't see any particular reason it shouldn't make it easier for the fighter to focus on the rogue.
Wait, so people are really arguing that perception of a creature provides flanking? I mean if you think that not knowing a creature is there prevents it from flanking than the opposite (certain that a creature is there even if there isn't one) must provide flanking. In this way lies madness. 1st round of combat: the gnome rogue uses ghost sounds to mimic someone drawing a weapon behind the fighter and says "Ok bob, when he lets his guard down, hamstring him from behind." For the rest of combat (or at least until the fighter wonders why nothing has happened yet) the fighter is flanked. Heck, with a high enough bluff check you could probably convince the fighter even without ghost sounds. I am all for preventing a invisible caster from flanking if you are willing to let a couple skill ranks do the same thing. On a completely unrelated note, I have a rogue that I would love you play in a game you DM.
<.<
>.>
<.<
...what? no reason.
Wait, so people are really arguing that perception of a creature provides flanking? I mean if you think that not knowing a creature is there prevents it from flanking than the opposite (certain that a creature is there even if there isn't one) must provide flanking. In this way lies madness. 1st round of combat: the gnome rogue uses ghost sounds to mimic someone drawing a weapon behind the fighter and says "Ok bob, when he lets his guard down, hamstring him from behind." For the rest of combat (or at least until the fighter wonders why nothing has happened yet) the fighter is flanked. Heck, with a high enough bluff check you could probably convince the fighter even without ghost sounds. I am all for preventing a invisible caster from flanking if you are willing to let a couple skill ranks do the same thing. On a completely unrelated note, I have a rogue that I would love you play in a game you DM.
<.<
>.>
<.<
...what? no reason.
You just described exactly why you use the Bluff skill to feint, and why that feint causes someone to lose their dex bonus (because they stop defending the correct assailant to focus on the bluff).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you know why flanking works the way it does? It's because having to deal with two opponents on opposite sides, forces one to lower his defenses. It's also why certain creatures and classes, having superior abilities to deal with such distraction, can not be flanked. If he's not aware of an opponent on one side because the opponent is concealed, invisible, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, NOT DOING ANYTHING, then there is no basis for the flanked condition.Wait, so people are really arguing that perception of a creature provides flanking? I mean if you think that not knowing a creature is there prevents it from flanking than the opposite (certain that a creature is there even if there isn't one) must provide flanking. In this way lies madness. 1st round of combat: the gnome rogue uses ghost sounds to mimic someone drawing a weapon behind the fighter and says "Ok bob, when he lets his guard down, hamstring him from behind." For the rest of combat (or at least until the fighter wonders why nothing has happened yet) the fighter is flanked. Heck, with a high enough bluff check you could probably convince the fighter even without ghost sounds. I am all for preventing a invisible caster from flanking if you are willing to let a couple skill ranks do the same thing. On a completely unrelated note, I have a rogue that I would love you play in a game you DM.
<.<
>.>
<.<
...what? no reason.
No, flanking works the way it does because rules.
|
And unless a figure has TWO active threathening opponents, one on each side, rules say the figure isn't flanked. One person who is not perceived, and not active is by definition not threathening, and by rules, no flanking occurs.
What is the definition of "not active"?
As long as the invisible opponent has a melee weapon in hand, they can make AoOs and are therefore threatening.
And unless a figure has TWO active threathening opponents, one on each side, rules say the figure isn't flanked. One person who is not perceived, and not active is by definition not threathening, and by rules, no flanking occurs.What is the definition of "not active"?
As long as the invisible opponent has a melee weapon in hand, they can make AoOs and are therefore threatening.
Yes, and the Cleric would get flanking, because the Fighter is focused on the Rogue (and not the Cleric). He'd also get Flat-Footed and Invisibility benefits also.
The Rogue would not get flanking because A. He's unaware of the Cleric's position, and B. The Fighter doesn't have any attention drawn towards the Cleric.
And unless a figure has TWOactivethreathening opponents, one on each side, rules say the figure isn't flanked.One person who is not perceived, and not active is by definition not threathening, and by rules, no flanking occurs.
I fixed your statement by striking everything that's false. Stop adding extra bullshit to rules.
Invisibility isn't mentioned in the definition of threatening, so that argument is completely false. If you are holding a weapon, and aren't flatfooted, you are threatening. Full stop.
Active is not a word that is associated with flanking. You are making stuff up to try to make the rules conform to your notion of how you think the rule should work. That's fine, that's the definition of house ruling. Just don't try to pass it off as RAW.
In order to be threathening you have to be active in combat.
Citation required
What you're saying is an invisible character who uses stealth to close with an enemy might as well bring a band, because as soon as they're adjacent, the enemy knows they're there because they're threatening.
Pathfinder Designer Statement:
...
I would rule that, at any time anyone can negate flank bonuses by ignoring one or both creatures that are flanking him, but doing so he draws an attack of opportunity from the ignored creatures.
Of course, house rule. But a good one.
Personally, if someone suggested that they would like to completely ignore a combatant, I might say: "Sure, you're considered helpless to attacks from those enemies. Enjoy your CDG."
Yes. Because you can't flank your opponent unless you getting it's attention.
In order to be threathening you have to be active in combat.Citation required
What you're saying is an invisible character who uses stealth to close with an enemy might as well bring a band, because as soon as they're adjacent, the enemy knows they're there because they're threatening.
Repeating an assertion is not providing a citation. A citation is required, because that I cannot see where that assertion is supported by the rules. Show me where and why I am wrong in saying that if you threaten you provide a flanking bonus to an ally. There are no if's, but's, provisos or conditions.
You threaten, you grant an ally a flanking bonus - it really is that simple.
Amusing aside, threatening someone grants someone else a flanking bonus, not yourself. so invisi-guy could grant a flanking bonus to a visible unarmed fighter, but not receive one in return.