Invisibly flanking [Archive] - Wizards Community

Invisibly flanking [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Fitz10019
12-04-07, 01:24 PM Suppose a caster uses his last spell to become invisible. Can he draw a dagger and go to a position to provide flanking bonus to his melee ally? (Or better yet, a reach weapon, despite the lack of proficiencies.)

Flanking as described is based on what you threaten, and an armed invisible creature threatens, even if he does not want to attack (which would end the inviz). The spirit of flanking seems to be that the opponent is worrying about what's in front and what's behind. The opponent would not be worried about a rear attack if he is not aware of the invisible character's location. Maybe this is a case of rules mechanics v. common sense.

Opinion Poll:
Is the enemy's awareness of the flanker required for flanking?
If yes, what if the invisible character were talking (or otherwise noisy) enough to reveal their location?
LSMFT
12-04-07, 02:32 PM Technically, awareness of the flanker isn't required. If you're there, and you threaten, your ally gets the bonus.

I don't particularly care for this. It would seem that your wizard should be doing just a little bit more than standing there with a dagger in his hard while the opponent remains blissfully unaware of his presence.

I've never had this come up, but I think I'd at least consider ruling (house ruling) that you have to be actively engaged somehow, and that the process of doing so would enable the opponent to know which square you were in (though you’d retain all other benefits of invisibility.)
omnicrondelicious
12-04-07, 02:52 PM RAW, an opponent who is unaware of a flanking combatant still counts as flanked. You are not the first to be bugged by this. In one of the "Rules of the Game" articles on sneak attacks (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a) the designers discuss their house rule for this, so you can kinda-sorta consider it an unofficial official houserule:

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.)

Emphasis is mine.

cheers,
.o.
StevenO
12-04-07, 02:57 PM I'd allow the invisible character to set up a flank only if they are willing to let that opponent know they are there. That means that if the opponent automatically knows which square you are in should they chose to attack you although they still suffer the 50% miss chance. If they have no idea you're there it why would they need to worry about you and give up a flanking bonus to your ally when it could just be an empty space which wouldn't grant flanking?
mvincent
12-04-07, 03:00 PM Suppose a caster uses his last spell to become invisible. Can he draw a dagger and go to a position to provide flanking bonus to his melee ally?From the 3.0 FAQ (pg. 42):
"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."

I haven't found anything in 3.5 that would invalidate this clarification (meaning it's still technically valid).

Edit: ah yes, the RotG has this clarification too (I have the hardest time finding it though... it never seems to show up in my searches).
Fitz10019
12-04-07, 03:58 PM All good feedback. Thanks.
PenderGrass
12-04-07, 04:41 PM Personally, I consider threatening a target as a direct attack action - which normally breaks the invisibility spell.

Problem solved.

:dragon:
*****
Tedronai
12-04-07, 06:26 PM According to the RotG house-rule, you automatically provoke an AoO from any invisible (or otherwise undetectable) foe each round, regardless of what you actually do in that round, and in addition to any AoOs that you may provoke with your actions, but only if that foe is providing a flanking benefit for another foe (and why that last point would be in place baffles me).

Now, don't get me wrong, I won't complain if one of my DMs implements this, they should just be prepared for my to come in with a Pixie Ninja and jump into melee at every opportunity.

mvincent, as to your claim concerning the clarification of 3.0 rules, that actually is invalid due to the fact that the rules to which it pertains are also now invalid. The clarification concerns a book which has been rendered obsolete by 3.5. Thus the clarification itself is also invalid as it clarifies something that no longer exists.

To put this another way...Would you contest that a clarification to the use of THAC0 that was similarly not specifically invalidated by 3.5 rules to be still in place?

Finally, I should state that I would not object to a house-rule eliminating flanking bonuses provided by invisible or otherwise undetectable foes. Just call it what it is: a house-rule. Regardless of whether it's in the 3.0 FAQ, if it's not in a 3.5 book, 3.5 errata, or the 3.5 FAQ, then that's what it is.
mvincent
12-04-07, 06:33 PM According to the RotG house-rule, you automatically provoke an AoO from any invisible (or otherwise undetectable) foe each roundNo. The RotG method applies only if you deliberately ignore a flanker.

mvincent, as to your claim concerning the clarification of 3.0 rules, that actually is invalid due to the fact that the rules to which it pertains are also now invalid. The clarification concerns a book which has been rendered obsolete by 3.5.That is incorrect. 3.0 FAQ clarifications (like most 3.0 stuff) are generally still valid unless there is a demonstrated reason for them not to be (i.e. a rules change, superseded by a new rules or clarifications, etc.). The 3.0 FAQ clarifications were simply never carried over into the 3.5 FAQ, even though the clarifications were still used (and needed). This has been confirmed by WotC custserv, and previously discussed here (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-758553).
Tedronai
12-04-07, 06:35 PM And I quote:

"If you can't see (or locate) the flanker, you disregard the flanker by default, and you provoke the attack of opportunity."
Marcus Majarra
12-04-07, 07:52 PM Opinion Poll
I would go with the variant rule proposed by the RotG article omnicrondelicious quoted.
weasel0
12-05-07, 12:04 AM have the wizard use "Aid Another" to get the ally the flanking bonus in some other way non-"aggresive" like.... like whistling suddenly, or shouting, or tapping the guy on the shoulder, sneezing, making fart noises, random chanting like a spell or any of a thousand other distracting things.
Voran
12-05-07, 03:59 AM It makes sense to me. Flanking, to me, envisions a situation where the reason you open yourself up to 'being flanked' is cause you're caught trying to pay attention to multiple foes. That split attention is the thing a Rogue can exploit.

But if you chose to ignore one of the would be flankers, and focus on your primary threat, I can still see you being able to disregard flanking.

In a weird way, its like WWE wrestling, where some babyface wrestler is fighting a heel wrestler, and the heel wrestlers 'manager' aka walking boobies. Technically, aside from grabbing a chair and banging the head of the babyface, or lowblowing him, the manager can't do much as a physical threat. However, if the babyface turns to face the manager, because she's done something noteworthy, like bang him with a chair, or show off her goodies or something, he completely opens himself up to 'sneak attack' bonus from the heel.

In general, it's not very smart to purposefully open yourself to AoOs, but if you're a decent enough tactician and have faith in your defenses, I could see you ignoring one foe to deny that flanking bonus. You wouldn't do it if faced by 2 credible threats, but faced with a mage with a dagger vs that rogue that seriously wants to skewer you, you'd be better off facing the rogue full on.

And hoping to hell that mage doesn't decide to nuke you instead.
DMDaddy
12-05-07, 08:30 AM I have a Pixie Rogue in my party who is always greater invisible. I houserule:
No flanking unless the opponent is aware of the invisible flanker. I works fine as far as balance.

We did it the other way for some time and while another rogue was in the party. They would flank everything even when the pixie was invisible and not attacking, just flanking for flanking sake.
Nom
12-05-07, 08:45 AM Personally, I consider threatening a target as a direct attack action - which normally breaks the invisibility spell.As do I. It's consistent with RAW, and doesn't introduce any nasty corner cases or other oddities.

Note that I allow a creature that is otherwise eligible to threaten to declare that are actually doing so at any time. This will void invisibility, sanctuary, and the like, but allow them to provide flanking, make an AoO, or whatever.
runestar
12-05-07, 08:59 AM Simply ignoring the flanker seems too simplistic.

I mean, you can pretend that he does not exist, but he may not let you act that way. His actions can impede your own movement and distract you subconsciously even if you are taking it that he is not there.
Marcus Majarra
12-05-07, 01:10 PM Simply ignoring the flanker seems too simplistic.

I mean, you can pretend that he does not exist, but he may not let you act that way. His actions can impede your own movement and distract you subconsciously even if you are taking it that he is not there.
I think you might be taking the idea a little too literally. I'm guessing that, when flanked, you're dividing your attention equally between your flankers, which is why they both enjoy benefits against you. The variant rule from the RotG was proposed as a way to divide your attention unevenly between your flankers, allowing you to choose against whom you want to be better defended. It stands to reason that, if you're flanked by an adept fighter and a fail wizard, you'll be focusing a lot more on what the fighter is doing.
Loren Pechtel
12-06-07, 05:32 PM In general, it's not very smart to purposefully open yourself to AoOs, but if you're a decent enough tactician and have faith in your defenses, I could see you ignoring one foe to deny that flanking bonus. You wouldn't do it if faced by 2 credible threats, but faced with a mage with a dagger vs that rogue that seriously wants to skewer you, you'd be better off facing the rogue full on.

Exactly. If you don't allow ignoring flankers you open up some cheesy tactics. What happens if you have a high level gish who prepped some quickened summons--he uses them to summon minor opponents to flank his enemy.
Loren Pechtel
12-06-07, 05:34 PM As do I. It's consistent with RAW, and doesn't introduce any nasty corner cases or other oddities.

Note that I allow a creature that is otherwise eligible to threaten to declare that are actually doing so at any time. This will void invisibility, sanctuary, and the like, but allow them to provide flanking, make an AoO, or whatever.

I don't think you need to break invisibility until you actually make the AoO.
Nom
12-07-07, 06:51 AM I don't think you need to break invisibility until you actually make the AoO.That way lies all sorts of problems, such as being flanked by a creature that you don't know exists or isn't interacting with you. The sensible options seem to go with Skip's clunky rules about visibility and whatnot, or just say that flanking requires you to be treated as if "attacking". The latter seems much cleaner, IMO.
PenderGrass
12-07-07, 04:12 PM That way lies all sorts of problems, such as being flanked by a creature that you don't know exists or isn't interacting with you. The sensible options seem to go with Skip's clunky rules about visibility and whatnot, or just say that flanking requires you to be treated as if "attacking". The latter seems much cleaner, IMO.
Agreed.

If you want to grant a flanking bonus on someone, you will sacrifice your invisibility since it is considered a targeted aggressive action in my game.

If you just want to stand next to someone that is fine in my game - your invisibility is safe. You can get an AoO if that someone provokes, but you can't be invisible and grant flanking bonuses.

It really does make things far more simple as well as being far more intuitive, at least IMHO.

:dragon:
*****
Loren Pechtel
12-07-07, 06:16 PM That way lies all sorts of problems, such as being flanked by a creature that you don't know exists or isn't interacting with you. The sensible options seem to go with Skip's clunky rules about visibility and whatnot, or just say that flanking requires you to be treated as if "attacking". The latter seems much cleaner, IMO.

I would not say you flank until you break the invisibility. I would allow you to take an AoO, though.
Loren Pechtel
12-07-07, 06:17 PM If you just want to stand next to someone that is fine in my game - your invisibility is safe. You can get an AoO if that someone provokes, but you can't be invisible and grant flanking bonuses.

You're agreeing with the guy disagreeing with me--yet you are stating exactly my position!
PenderGrass
12-07-07, 06:35 PM You're agreeing with the guy disagreeing with me--yet you are stating exactly my position!
Well there are two different circumstances you guys are talking about. In my game this is how I would play it out:

1. Flanking Invisibly - not possible. If you want to grant a flanking bonus, you will typically give up your invisibility.

2. AoO Invisibly - sure. You can invisibly stand in a spot next to a caster with your sword out and as soon as he casts, take an AoO (which then breaks your invisibility). Now, while standing there invisibly, you are not granting flanking bonuses.

:dragon:
*****
Nom
12-07-07, 07:39 PM I would not say you flank until you break the invisibility. I would allow you to take an AoO, though.Sorry, Loren, I misunderstood. You quoted a post about threatening, but you were actually referring to just AoOs.

In which case I agree. At any time, I'd allow the invisible character to say "oh, I'm threatening now" (assuming it was otherwise legal). This could be followed by ".. so I grant a flanking bonus" or ".. so I can take an AoO". In either case, invisibility or sanctuary would be voided as soon as the current event was resolved.
Voran
12-08-07, 05:02 AM Heh if the invisibly flanking flanker didn't actually have to DO anything, you wouldn't really need him in the first place.

I guess that's what the Bluff skill is for, besides feinting, you can go "My invisible buddy will stab you!" Even when you don't have one.
Rood_Inverse
12-08-07, 03:07 PM Question... Flanking, in theory, reflects you and your ally working together to cause one opponent more grief.

If that's correct, then does this make sense?

How do you accomplish teamwork when your ally can not know if you're in position? Outside of using OOC knowledge, I don't find this applicable.

The invisible player would have to do something to reveal himself to his ally (and thus reveal himself to his opponent at the same time) to benefit from flanking bonuses - the result of teamwork.

Just my gut instinct, and totally house-ruled... But does it make sense to anyone else to play it like that?
runestar
12-09-07, 04:40 AM Heh if the invisibly flanking flanker didn't actually have to DO anything, you wouldn't really need him in the first place.

But apparently, your ally is contributing just by him standing there and absolutely doing nothing.:P
pmurray@bigpond.com
12-09-07, 07:41 PM I don't much like the rule that an ignored flanker gets an AAO. I would prefer that you are flatfooted against an ignored flanker - in fact, that you are flat-footed against any foe that you ignore. I would say that "ignore" means the same as "choose not to threaten". This means that you don't get AAOs vs an ignored opponent either.

This means that an invisible flanker gets no bonus beyond what invisibility already grants. If you are flanked by a rogue and a fighter, you can choose to ignore the fighter and go after the rogue - no sneak attacks from the rogue, but the fighter potentially has an easier time hitting you. That's fair - rogues that get into melee and start going for the kidneys should expect to be smacked down.
Tedronai
12-10-07, 12:20 AM I don't much like the rule that an ignored flanker gets an AAO. I would prefer that you are flatfooted against an ignored flanker - in fact, that you are flat-footed against any foe that you ignore. I would say that "ignore" means the same as "choose not to threaten". This means that you don't get AAOs vs an ignored opponent either.

This means that an invisible flanker gets no bonus beyond what invisibility already grants. If you are flanked by a rogue and a fighter, you can choose to ignore the fighter and go after the rogue - no sneak attacks from the rogue, but the fighter potentially has an easier time hitting you. That's fair - rogues that get into melee and start going for the kidneys should expect to be smacked down.

And would an intelligent creature with a low Dex (10 or less) ever choose NOT to do this? I can see the rogues dying en masse already...
If the only penalty is that you're selectively flat-footed, and selective flat-footed-ness doesn't have a significant impact on your combat ability, then you really aren't suffering any negative effects.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Fitz10019 12-04-07, 01:24 PM	Suppose a caster uses his last spell to become invisible. Can he draw a dagger and go to a position to provide flanking bonus to his melee ally? (Or better yet, a reach weapon, despite the lack of proficiencies.) Flanking as described is based on what you threaten, and an armed invisible creature threatens, even if he does not want to attack (which would end the inviz). The spirit of flanking seems to be that the opponent is worrying about what's in front and what's behind. The opponent would not be worried about a rear attack if he is not aware of the invisible character's location. Maybe this is a case of rules mechanics v. common sense. Opinion Poll: Is the enemy's awareness of the flanker required for flanking? If yes, what if the invisible character were talking (or otherwise noisy) enough to reveal their location?
LSMFT 12-04-07, 02:32 PM	Technically, awareness of the flanker isn't required. If you're there, and you threaten, your ally gets the bonus. I don't particularly care for this. It would seem that your wizard should be doing just a little bit more than standing there with a dagger in his hard while the opponent remains blissfully unaware of his presence. I've never had this come up, but I think I'd at least consider ruling (house ruling) that you have to be actively engaged somehow, and that the process of doing so would enable the opponent to know which square you were in (though you’d retain all other benefits of invisibility.)
omnicrondelicious 12-04-07, 02:52 PM	RAW, an opponent who is unaware of a flanking combatant still counts as flanked. You are not the first to be bugged by this. In one of the "Rules of the Game" articles on sneak attacks (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a) the designers discuss their house rule for this, so you can kinda-sorta consider it an unofficial official houserule: 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.) Emphasis is mine. cheers, .o.
StevenO 12-04-07, 02:57 PM	I'd allow the invisible character to set up a flank only if they are willing to let that opponent know they are there. That means that if the opponent automatically knows which square you are in should they chose to attack you although they still suffer the 50% miss chance. If they have no idea you're there it why would they need to worry about you and give up a flanking bonus to your ally when it could just be an empty space which wouldn't grant flanking?
mvincent 12-04-07, 03:00 PM	Suppose a caster uses his last spell to become invisible. Can he draw a dagger and go to a position to provide flanking bonus to his melee ally?From the 3.0 FAQ (pg. 42): "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." I haven't found anything in 3.5 that would invalidate this clarification (meaning it's still technically valid). Edit: ah yes, the RotG has this clarification too (I have the hardest time finding it though... it never seems to show up in my searches).
Fitz10019 12-04-07, 03:58 PM	All good feedback. Thanks.
PenderGrass 12-04-07, 04:41 PM	Personally, I consider threatening a target as a direct attack action - which normally breaks the invisibility spell. Problem solved. :dragon: *****
Tedronai 12-04-07, 06:26 PM	According to the RotG house-rule, you automatically provoke an AoO from any invisible (or otherwise undetectable) foe each round, regardless of what you actually do in that round, and in addition to any AoOs that you may provoke with your actions, but only if that foe is providing a flanking benefit for another foe (and why that last point would be in place baffles me). Now, don't get me wrong, I won't complain if one of my DMs implements this, they should just be prepared for my to come in with a Pixie Ninja and jump into melee at every opportunity. mvincent, as to your claim concerning the clarification of 3.0 rules, that actually is invalid due to the fact that the rules to which it pertains are also now invalid. The clarification concerns a book which has been rendered obsolete by 3.5. Thus the clarification itself is also invalid as it clarifies something that no longer exists. To put this another way...Would you contest that a clarification to the use of THAC0 that was similarly not specifically invalidated by 3.5 rules to be still in place? Finally, I should state that I would not object to a house-rule eliminating flanking bonuses provided by invisible or otherwise undetectable foes. Just call it what it is: a house-rule. Regardless of whether it's in the 3.0 FAQ, if it's not in a 3.5 book, 3.5 errata, or the 3.5 FAQ, then that's what it is.
mvincent 12-04-07, 06:33 PM	According to the RotG house-rule, you automatically provoke an AoO from any invisible (or otherwise undetectable) foe each roundNo. The RotG method applies only if you deliberately ignore a flanker. mvincent, as to your claim concerning the clarification of 3.0 rules, that actually is invalid due to the fact that the rules to which it pertains are also now invalid. The clarification concerns a book which has been rendered obsolete by 3.5.That is incorrect. 3.0 FAQ clarifications (like most 3.0 stuff) are generally still valid unless there is a demonstrated reason for them not to be (i.e. a rules change, superseded by a new rules or clarifications, etc.). The 3.0 FAQ clarifications were simply never carried over into the 3.5 FAQ, even though the clarifications were still used (and needed). This has been confirmed by WotC custserv, and previously discussed here (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-758553).
Tedronai 12-04-07, 06:35 PM	And I quote: "If you can't see (or locate) the flanker, you disregard the flanker by default, and you provoke the attack of opportunity."
Marcus Majarra 12-04-07, 07:52 PM	Opinion Poll I would go with the variant rule proposed by the RotG article omnicrondelicious quoted.
weasel0 12-05-07, 12:04 AM	have the wizard use "Aid Another" to get the ally the flanking bonus in some other way non-"aggresive" like.... like whistling suddenly, or shouting, or tapping the guy on the shoulder, sneezing, making fart noises, random chanting like a spell or any of a thousand other distracting things.
Voran 12-05-07, 03:59 AM	It makes sense to me. Flanking, to me, envisions a situation where the reason you open yourself up to 'being flanked' is cause you're caught trying to pay attention to multiple foes. That split attention is the thing a Rogue can exploit. But if you chose to ignore one of the would be flankers, and focus on your primary threat, I can still see you being able to disregard flanking. In a weird way, its like WWE wrestling, where some babyface wrestler is fighting a heel wrestler, and the heel wrestlers 'manager' aka walking boobies. Technically, aside from grabbing a chair and banging the head of the babyface, or lowblowing him, the manager can't do much as a physical threat. However, if the babyface turns to face the manager, because she's done something noteworthy, like bang him with a chair, or show off her goodies or something, he completely opens himself up to 'sneak attack' bonus from the heel. In general, it's not very smart to purposefully open yourself to AoOs, but if you're a decent enough tactician and have faith in your defenses, I could see you ignoring one foe to deny that flanking bonus. You wouldn't do it if faced by 2 credible threats, but faced with a mage with a dagger vs that rogue that seriously wants to skewer you, you'd be better off facing the rogue full on. And hoping to hell that mage doesn't decide to nuke you instead.
DMDaddy 12-05-07, 08:30 AM	I have a Pixie Rogue in my party who is always greater invisible. I houserule: No flanking unless the opponent is aware of the invisible flanker. I works fine as far as balance. We did it the other way for some time and while another rogue was in the party. They would flank everything even when the pixie was invisible and not attacking, just flanking for flanking sake.
Nom 12-05-07, 08:45 AM	Personally, I consider threatening a target as a direct attack action - which normally breaks the invisibility spell.As do I. It's consistent with RAW, and doesn't introduce any nasty corner cases or other oddities. Note that I allow a creature that is otherwise eligible to threaten to declare that are actually doing so at any time. This will void invisibility, sanctuary, and the like, but allow them to provide flanking, make an AoO, or whatever.
runestar 12-05-07, 08:59 AM	Simply ignoring the flanker seems too simplistic. I mean, you can pretend that he does not exist, but he may not let you act that way. His actions can impede your own movement and distract you subconsciously even if you are taking it that he is not there.
Marcus Majarra 12-05-07, 01:10 PM	Simply ignoring the flanker seems too simplistic. I mean, you can pretend that he does not exist, but he may not let you act that way. His actions can impede your own movement and distract you subconsciously even if you are taking it that he is not there. I think you might be taking the idea a little too literally. I'm guessing that, when flanked, you're dividing your attention equally between your flankers, which is why they both enjoy benefits against you. The variant rule from the RotG was proposed as a way to divide your attention unevenly between your flankers, allowing you to choose against whom you want to be better defended. It stands to reason that, if you're flanked by an adept fighter and a fail wizard, you'll be focusing a lot more on what the fighter is doing.
Loren Pechtel 12-06-07, 05:32 PM	In general, it's not very smart to purposefully open yourself to AoOs, but if you're a decent enough tactician and have faith in your defenses, I could see you ignoring one foe to deny that flanking bonus. You wouldn't do it if faced by 2 credible threats, but faced with a mage with a dagger vs that rogue that seriously wants to skewer you, you'd be better off facing the rogue full on. Exactly. If you don't allow ignoring flankers you open up some cheesy tactics. What happens if you have a high level gish who prepped some quickened summons--he uses them to summon minor opponents to flank his enemy.
Loren Pechtel 12-06-07, 05:34 PM	As do I. It's consistent with RAW, and doesn't introduce any nasty corner cases or other oddities. Note that I allow a creature that is otherwise eligible to threaten to declare that are actually doing so at any time. This will void invisibility, sanctuary, and the like, but allow them to provide flanking, make an AoO, or whatever. I don't think you need to break invisibility until you actually make the AoO.
Nom 12-07-07, 06:51 AM	I don't think you need to break invisibility until you actually make the AoO.That way lies all sorts of problems, such as being flanked by a creature that you don't know exists or isn't interacting with you. The sensible options seem to go with Skip's clunky rules about visibility and whatnot, or just say that flanking requires you to be treated as if "attacking". The latter seems much cleaner, IMO.
PenderGrass 12-07-07, 04:12 PM	That way lies all sorts of problems, such as being flanked by a creature that you don't know exists or isn't interacting with you. The sensible options seem to go with Skip's clunky rules about visibility and whatnot, or just say that flanking requires you to be treated as if "attacking". The latter seems much cleaner, IMO. Agreed. If you want to grant a flanking bonus on someone, you will sacrifice your invisibility since it is considered a targeted aggressive action in my game. If you just want to stand next to someone that is fine in my game - your invisibility is safe. You can get an AoO if that someone provokes, but you can't be invisible and grant flanking bonuses. It really does make things far more simple as well as being far more intuitive, at least IMHO. :dragon: *****
Loren Pechtel 12-07-07, 06:16 PM	That way lies all sorts of problems, such as being flanked by a creature that you don't know exists or isn't interacting with you. The sensible options seem to go with Skip's clunky rules about visibility and whatnot, or just say that flanking requires you to be treated as if "attacking". The latter seems much cleaner, IMO. I would not say you flank until you break the invisibility. I would allow you to take an AoO, though.
Loren Pechtel 12-07-07, 06:17 PM	If you just want to stand next to someone that is fine in my game - your invisibility is safe. You can get an AoO if that someone provokes, but you can't be invisible and grant flanking bonuses. You're agreeing with the guy disagreeing with me--yet you are stating exactly my position!
PenderGrass 12-07-07, 06:35 PM	You're agreeing with the guy disagreeing with me--yet you are stating exactly my position! Well there are two different circumstances you guys are talking about. In my game this is how I would play it out: 1. Flanking Invisibly - not possible. If you want to grant a flanking bonus, you will typically give up your invisibility. 2. AoO Invisibly - sure. You can invisibly stand in a spot next to a caster with your sword out and as soon as he casts, take an AoO (which then breaks your invisibility). Now, while standing there invisibly, you are not granting flanking bonuses. :dragon: *****
Nom 12-07-07, 07:39 PM	I would not say you flank until you break the invisibility. I would allow you to take an AoO, though.Sorry, Loren, I misunderstood. You quoted a post about threatening, but you were actually referring to just AoOs. In which case I agree. At any time, I'd allow the invisible character to say "oh, I'm threatening now" (assuming it was otherwise legal). This could be followed by ".. so I grant a flanking bonus" or ".. so I can take an AoO". In either case, invisibility or sanctuary would be voided as soon as the current event was resolved.
Voran 12-08-07, 05:02 AM	Heh if the invisibly flanking flanker didn't actually have to DO anything, you wouldn't really need him in the first place. I guess that's what the Bluff skill is for, besides feinting, you can go "My invisible buddy will stab you!" Even when you don't have one.
Rood_Inverse 12-08-07, 03:07 PM	Question... Flanking, in theory, reflects you and your ally working together to cause one opponent more grief. If that's correct, then does this make sense? How do you accomplish teamwork when your ally can not know if you're in position? Outside of using OOC knowledge, I don't find this applicable. The invisible player would have to do something to reveal himself to his ally (and thus reveal himself to his opponent at the same time) to benefit from flanking bonuses - the result of teamwork. Just my gut instinct, and totally house-ruled... But does it make sense to anyone else to play it like that?
runestar 12-09-07, 04:40 AM	Heh if the invisibly flanking flanker didn't actually have to DO anything, you wouldn't really need him in the first place. But apparently, your ally is contributing just by him standing there and absolutely doing nothing.:P
pmurray@bigpond.com 12-09-07, 07:41 PM	I don't much like the rule that an ignored flanker gets an AAO. I would prefer that you are flatfooted against an ignored flanker - in fact, that you are flat-footed against any foe that you ignore. I would say that "ignore" means the same as "choose not to threaten". This means that you don't get AAOs vs an ignored opponent either. This means that an invisible flanker gets no bonus beyond what invisibility already grants. If you are flanked by a rogue and a fighter, you can choose to ignore the fighter and go after the rogue - no sneak attacks from the rogue, but the fighter potentially has an easier time hitting you. That's fair - rogues that get into melee and start going for the kidneys should expect to be smacked down.
Tedronai 12-10-07, 12:20 AM	I don't much like the rule that an ignored flanker gets an AAO. I would prefer that you are flatfooted against an ignored flanker - in fact, that you are flat-footed against any foe that you ignore. I would say that "ignore" means the same as "choose not to threaten". This means that you don't get AAOs vs an ignored opponent either. This means that an invisible flanker gets no bonus beyond what invisibility already grants. If you are flanked by a rogue and a fighter, you can choose to ignore the fighter and go after the rogue - no sneak attacks from the rogue, but the fighter potentially has an easier time hitting you. That's fair - rogues that get into melee and start going for the kidneys should expect to be smacked down. And would an intelligent creature with a low Dex (10 or less) ever choose NOT to do this? I can see the rogues dying en masse already... If the only penalty is that you're selectively flat-footed, and selective flat-footed-ness doesn't have a significant impact on your combat ability, then you really aren't suffering any negative effects.