Post/Author/DateTime	Post
curan69 01-20-08, 09:21 PM	Just trying to figure out the interaction of all these rules. Lets say we have an Invisible bard. Not too good in combat but he wants to help the fighter without getting his butt handed to him. Assuming the enemy knows the bard is there, maybe not exactly where but still has to consider him a threat. Can said bard move into a position to flank the enemy and also use aid another to give the fighter a +4 to attack without becoming visible?
Rood_Inverse 01-20-08, 09:34 PM	If you’re in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner. I'm still learning the mechanics... so wait for someone better to answer after me, but I want to try to field this one. If you're in position to make a melee attack, you threaten. If you threaten, and your buddy is in the opposite square, you're flanking. You don't have to make any attacks, just take a standard action. I'd say, yes, your ally, by RAW, would get a +4 on his next attack roll for being aided and flanked. Nothing disallows it, per se. HOWEVER... There was a discussion on this board about whether or not you could legitimately threaten if you can't be seen. (I don't know how that debat ended, and I don't want to troll through the archives right now.) Also consider the wording on "Aid Another" where it says you have to interfere or distract the opponent. Wouldn't interacting in any way (much less this specific way, that grants a combat advantage) with the opponent cause your invisibility to drop? . . . Again, RAW doesn't strictly disallow it. But, as a DM, I would say no, you couldn't aid your ally and give him a +2 bonus. I also personally don't believe you can flank (ie, to flank, you must be a "known threat" that would split the opponent's attention, causing a combat penalty) while invisible. It doesn't make sense to me otherwise.
Faren 01-20-08, 09:48 PM	Just attempting this one with logic, rather than in game experience so don't take what I say to much to heart, but, like Rood, I think I'll give this one a shot. If the idea of flanking an opponent is that you, like previously stated, draw the opponents attention, or if it's to cause the opponent to fight differently, then you'd actually have to engage the opponent in order to make him fight differently that would give the fighter an advantage. I mean, the opponent could swing his sword at the fighter's mid section and, with out realizing it, crash his hand into the bard's sword. If he knew the bard was there, he wouldn't pull that maneuver because he didn't want to leave himself open or smack his hand into your blade or even be that close to two opponents, but since the bard is invisible, he's going to act as if he wasn't flanked and then face the role playing consequences, rather than the roll playing consequences. (not my term, read it on a book description)
curan69 01-20-08, 09:58 PM	WOW!!!, and i mean that!!! I REALLY respect your answer. I like how you seperated your opinion and the way you think it should work from how RAW reads. I would have no problem playing in a game with a DM who ruled like that!! Of course I believe that a lot of people get hung up on vision when there are so many other things to consider, especially in a fantasy game. Take Police officers, They are taught to watch a suspects hands. If someone won't show their hands then the Police get nervous. So they are taught to be threatned by something they CAN'T see!! But of course even I differ from RAW in that I think that you just have to be aware (not see) of an opponent to be flanked.
weasel0 01-20-08, 11:47 PM	You don't need to agressivly interact to use aid another. Simply clearing your throat and goin, "IT'S STABBIN TIME!!!!!" I think would absolutely be enough to distract the opponent and alert him to your closeness(though not nessecarily your exact position) thus granting your ally the flanking and aid another bonuses. Kicking dirt around, scrapping dagger along a wall/the floor, rub the dagger against another dagger, chant out a really disturbing image of death for the opponent(he is a bard after all); these are all examples of what the Aid Another skill COULD be representing.
Ivellius 01-21-08, 12:05 AM	Well, despite what may seem to be against common sense, I would say that you can certainly use aid another based on the spell's description and possibly flanking (RAW supports both). As a DM, I'd rule that if you make your position known, you'd confer the flanking bonus on your ally, but your opponent would know which square to target and this get a chance to attack into that square against you.
Colmarr 01-21-08, 12:21 AM	Rood Inverse is more-or-less correct. Nothing in the RAW prevents an invisible creature from flanking an opponent. Likewise, nothing in the RAW aid another action requires the creature to attack the opponent to give the aid another bonus. As such, an invisible creature can per RAW flank and aid another without becoming visible.
Nom 01-21-08, 01:51 AM	Alternatively, you "threaten any square into which you can make a melee attack". Can you remain invisible and attack into the square in question?
mvincent 01-21-08, 12:35 PM	From the 3.0 FAQ (if desired): "You get a flanking bonus from any ally your foe can see (and who is in the correct position to flank). If your foe can’t see you, you don’t provide a flanking bonus to any ally. Sharp readers will note that this means you cannot flank a blind creature; however, truly blind creatures are effectively flanked already (they can’t use their Dexterity bonus to AC and you a +2 bonus to attack them). Creatures with the blindsight ability effectively “see” within blindsight range and can be flanked." While I'm not sure I completely agree with it, it's an answer for those that want it. As for aid... yes, you could certainly aid another while invisible, but interfering with an opponent appears to count as an attack (and so could end a regular invisibility spell).
weasel0 01-21-08, 12:56 PM	Alternatively, you "threaten any square into which you can make a melee attack". Can you remain invisible and attack into the square in question? The crux of the matter belongs to the word "can." No you can't attack into the square without losing normal invisibility, but it doesn't remove the ability to do so. You can attack into the square. If you don't want to cancel invisible, you choose not to, but you still have the ability to = "can." Most times, you can't put the effect(canceling invisbility) before the cause(attacking). That's why it's cause and effect, not effect and cause.
sblaxman 01-21-08, 03:57 PM	Attacking anything will cancel invis... You could try to distract the monster by hooting and hollaring, but it does not mean it "will" be distracted by you... in other words, you can TRY to aid/flank him to give your fighter a bonus, but you wouldn't automatically do anything... At best I'd give a will save to see if it ignores you or not
weasel0 01-21-08, 04:18 PM	Except by RAW, it does work. If it were to work that way, you wouldn't have a skill check, you'd have an "Aid Another Level" like a Caster Level to determine DC of a will save. If house ruling, please specify it as such.
curan69 01-21-08, 06:15 PM	From the 3.0 FAQ (if desired): "You get a flanking bonus from any ally your foe can see (and who is in the correct position to flank). If your foe can’t see you, you don’t provide a flanking bonus to any ally. Sharp readers will note that this means you cannot flank a blind creature; however, truly blind creatures are effectively flanked already (they can’t use their Dexterity bonus to AC and you a +2 bonus to attack them). Creatures with the blindsight ability effectively “see” within blindsight range and can be flanked." While I'm not sure I completely agree with it, it's an answer for those that want it. As for aid... yes, you could certainly aid another while invisible, but interfering with an opponent appears to count as an attack (and so could end a regular invisibility spell). Must admit that quote from the FAQ had me for a minute...then i realized it was 3.0 I always found it an interesting idea that two drow flanking a human in the dark would not get a flanking bonus because the human cant see them.
mvincent 01-21-08, 06:19 PM	then i realized it was 3.0 Curious: why does that make a difference to you?
Merestil Haye 01-21-08, 06:22 PM	Must admit that quote from the FAQ had me for a minute...then i realized it was 3.0 I always found it an interesting idea that two drow flanking a human in the dark would not get a flanking bonus because the human cant see them.If the drow are flanking a human who can see them, they get +2 to hit and can sneak attack the target (assuming they have SA and nothing else is voiding it.) If the Drow are attacking in darkness, they get +2 to hit, can sneak attack and deny their target any Dex bonus to AC. So the Drow get flanking benefits and more. Much better deal. ;)
curan69 01-21-08, 06:25 PM	Curious: why does that make a difference to you? Because there is an up to date FAQ based on the new rules.
mvincent 01-21-08, 06:41 PM	For the same reason I ignore the 3.0 FAQ when it comes to "haste" There is an up to date FAQ for 3.5Ah. I used to feel the exact same way. However, here on the boards it has been concluded that the 3.0 clarifications are valid for 3.5 unless superseded or invalidated (i.e. a new ruling is giving, or it can be shown that the applicable rules have changed enough to make the ruling invalid). The reasons: 1) None of the 3.0 FAQ clarifications were carried over into 3.5 FAQ 2) Many of those clarifications were still needed and used. 3) As a general WotC rule, 3.0 material is useable in 3.5 unless superseded (i.e. invalidated in some way). 4) We could not presume that the writer's intent has changed between editions (unless it can be demonstrated otherwise) 5) It has been previously confirmed with custserv The matter has been discussed several times before... the rule-lawyery types here have generally agreed on this conclusion. The 3.0 FAQ does indeed have its uses. However, the following might illuminate (or possibly obfuscate) the 3.0 FAQ's author's current view on this subject: From the 3.5 Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a): "A Totally Unofficial Rule for Dealing with Foes Trying to Flank You Jonathan Tweet (co-designer of the D&D 3rd edition game) and I have had many opportunities to ponder the tactical aspects of flanking and what you might be able to do about it if you find yourself flanked. After one extended discussion not long ago, Jonathan proposed the basics of the following rule, and I present it here, with some tweaks: You can disregard attacks from an opponent flanking you. When you do, that opponent doesn't get the +2 flanking bonus when attacking you and that opponent does not provide a flanking bonus to any of its allies. Ignoring a flanker, however, provokes an attack of opportunity from that flanker, and you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against that flanker. You do, however, continue to threaten that flanker. If the flanker is out of attacks of opportunity, you can ignore the flanker (and deny the flanking bonus) with impunity. If you can't see (or locate) the flanker, you disregard the flanker by default, and you provoke the attack of opportunity. You must make the decision to disregard a flanker as soon as the foe moves into a flanking position. You can change your decision as a free action on your turn. (You still must disregard a flanker you can't see.)"
curan69 01-21-08, 06:43 PM	If the drow are flanking a human who can see them, they get +2 to hit and can sneak attack the target (assuming they have SA and nothing else is voiding it.) If the Drow are attacking in darkness, they get +2 to hit, can sneak attack and deny their target any Dex bonus to AC. So the Drow get flanking benefits and more. Much better deal. ;) But they are entitled to an aditional +2 for flanking besides the +2 for effectively being "invisible" in the darkness. The rules have clear mechanics for determining if you realize someone is standing behind you and even provide mechanics for attacking creatures you cant see. I have always stated I felt that the target must be aware of the flanker to get the flanking bonus, but even my opinion is not supported by the RAW.
StevenO 01-21-08, 11:39 PM	This may only be an opinion but my take is an invisible creature can flank provided its general location is known. That means an undetected creature doesn't provide a flanking bonus but if the opponent knows you are there, and thus could try to attack you, then you provide a flank. If an unknown/undetected invisible creature can provide a flank then everyone should be flanked all the time by unknown assailants. Granted there are a number of ways to "aid another" I'd probably count that action as an invisibility breaking attack if the aid goes against an opponent.