Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JustSayNo 03-24-07, 09:51 AM	has anyone noticed if you have Blindfight feat you can close your eyes if you are being flanked by beings without ranged attacks they cannt sneak attack you anymore because with your eyes closed all your opposition are considered to have 100% concealment so are counted to be Invisible and Invisible beings do not provide flanking for others . With Blindfight you dont lose your dex when blinded :) unless attack by ranged weapons ! quote from Rules of the Game 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. You literally cannot flank a blind creature; however, a blind creature loses its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against your attacks (so you can sneak attack it), and you get a +2 to attack it to boot. Creatures with the blindsight ability effectively "see" within blindsight range and can be flanked
Weab 03-24-07, 12:03 PM	Creatures with the blindsight ability effectively "see" within blindsight range and can be flanked I'm not sure what the heck you were trying to say, but the gist seems to be that creatures with blindsight can close their eyes and not be flanked (and therefore not sneak attacked). yet you quote this in your post...which uh...says the exact opposite. maybe try either 1. being more clear or 2. reading what you quote in case it contradicts your point.
ScipioX 03-24-07, 01:40 PM	I'm not sure what the heck you were trying to say, but the gist seems to be that creatures with blindsight can close their eyes and not be flanked (and therefore not sneak attacked). yet you quote this in your post...which uh...says the exact opposite. maybe try either 1. being more clear or 2. reading what you quote in case it contradicts your point. He said blindfighting, not blind sight. And that's an interesting point. Of course, you still are closing your eyes, so you can't see to attack very well...
ShinAkuma2 03-24-07, 03:10 PM	He said blindfighting, not blind sight. And that's an interesting point. Of course, you still are closing your eyes, so you can't see to attack very well... ...Open your eyes before you attack.
PhaedrusXY 03-24-07, 03:51 PM	Wow... that's an interesting result of saying that invisible attackers can't flank. :rofl: I hadn't thought of that before.
jaelis 03-24-07, 04:52 PM	I would say that if you have blind-fight, then invisible attackers don't follow the normal rules for invisibility and they are now able to flank you. Normally, invisible attackers can't flank because you don't respond well enough to them to make a difference for anyone else attacking you. But with blind-fight, you are able to respond better, which requires more attention, which enable flanking.
JustSayNo 03-24-07, 09:24 PM	no unless you have some other sense then they have 100% concealment there for they are Invisible to you . Flanking is that you cannt concentrate on 2 being on either side of you so they gain a +2 to hit and you can also Sneak Attack someone :)
PhaedrusXY 03-24-07, 09:44 PM	edit: never mind....
paladin2019 03-24-07, 11:18 PM	Okay, if I understand the argument... Invisible creatures do not create flanking because the target cannot perceive them and thus cannot be distracted by them. However, it doesn't really matter to the invisible attacker because it still gets the +2 to hit it would normally receive from flanking, and the target loses its Dex bonus which allows the invisible attacker to sneak attack which it would again be able to do if flanking. However, because a creature with Blind-Fight does not lose its Dex bonus against an invisible attacker it cannot be sneak attacked, nor does the creature allow an invisible attacker a +2 to hit. So a "blind" creature with Blind-Fight effectively has improved uncanny dodge that cannot be overcome. And said creature can become "blind" simply by closing its eyes in combat. I would argue that the negation of invisibility benefits Blind-Fight provides also negates the flanking benefits of invisibility; since you perceive the invisible target enough to retain your Dex bonus and prevent the +2 to hit, you perceive them enough to be distracted and allow flanking. To do otherwise is to allow a 1st level character a 5th level class ability.
Waterhammer 03-25-07, 12:11 AM	Okay, if I understand the argument... Invisible creatures do not create flanking because the target cannot perceive them and thus cannot be distracted by them. However, it doesn't really matter to the invisible attacker because it still gets the +2 to hit it would normally receive from flanking, and the target loses its Dex bonus which allows the invisible attacker to sneak attack which it would again be able to do if flanking. However, because a creature with Blind-Fight does not lose its Dex bonus against an invisible attacker it cannot be sneak attacked, nor does the creature allow an invisible attacker a +2 to hit. So a "blind" creature with Blind-Fight effectively has improved uncanny dodge that cannot be overcome. And said creature can become "blind" simply by closing its eyes in combat. I would argue that the negation of invisibility benefits Blind-Fight provides also negates the flanking benefits of invisibility; since you perceive the invisible target enough to retain your Dex bonus and prevent the +2 to hit, you perceive them enough to be distracted and allow flanking. To do otherwise is to allow a 1st level character a 5th level class ability. This is a fairly reasonable solution. If it is not used, remember that there is a 50% miss chance (that the Blind-fight allows a re-roll for). Furthermore the eyes-closed individual does not know what square the enemies might be in after they move. when fighting with eyes closed all your enemies would be invisible. Nor would their attacks cause them to become visible, as is normally the case.
PhaedrusXY 03-25-07, 01:03 AM	I think it is fine to allow it as-is. They can still be sneak attacked with ranged weapons, and closing your eyes has enough disadvantages of its own. I would just not let them get the benefit of doing this, and then open their eyes on their turn, make their attacks, and then close them again. Combat is supposed to happen simultaneously. So either they can keep their eyes closed and benefit from this "trick", or open them and be flanked (but not suffer from being "blinded").
G_Mancer 03-25-07, 02:10 AM	Okay, if I understand the argument... Invisible creatures do not create flanking because the target cannot perceive them and thus cannot be distracted by them. However, it doesn't really matter to the invisible attacker because it still gets the +2 to hit it would normally receive from flanking, and the target loses its Dex bonus which allows the invisible attacker to sneak attack which it would again be able to do if flanking. However, because a creature with Blind-Fight does not lose its Dex bonus against an invisible attacker it cannot be sneak attacked, nor does the creature allow an invisible attacker a +2 to hit. So a "blind" creature with Blind-Fight effectively has improved uncanny dodge that cannot be overcome. And said creature can become "blind" simply by closing its eyes in combat. I would argue that the negation of invisibility benefits Blind-Fight provides also negates the flanking benefits of invisibility; since you perceive the invisible target enough to retain your Dex bonus and prevent the +2 to hit, you perceive them enough to be distracted and allow flanking. To do otherwise is to allow a 1st level character a 5th level class ability. sneak attack works if you have the opponent flat-footed. some people have the dex bonus while beign flat-footed, yet are flat-footed none the less and therefor still get sneak attacekd.
JustSayNo 03-25-07, 03:37 AM	also remember you dont provide Flanking for others as well as you do have to hit with a 50% twice rolled as well . Its also only on melee attack so range away but it was a thought I had if your fighter or some other not one with uncanny dodge ability which covers all attacks even flat footed ! so its a lot weaker than uncanny dodge ability . Its a risky move but if I had 4 people sneak attacking me and being unable to get out of it sucks but its a option if you cannt move or should not move . when higher level rogues start attacking you for over 5d6+weapon damage on you it hurts if that was 3 or 4 attacks for each one (no I am not saying they will all hit) say 2 hit for each so thats 4X(5d6+5d6)=40d6 damage+4Xweapon normal damage lol ouch !
ShinAkuma2 03-25-07, 09:45 AM	sneak attack works if you have the opponent flat-footed. some people have the dex bonus while beign flat-footed, yet are flat-footed none the less and therefor still get sneak attacekd. That's wrong, sorry. Sneak Attack does not work when you have a flat-footed opponent. It works when your opponent is "denied a Dexterity bonus to AC". If an opponent has Uncanny Dodge, he is not denied his Dex to AC when flat-footed, and thus cannot be Sneak Attacked. Also, this whole business of "invisible creatures can't flank you" is horse hockey. I dare you to find anything in the core books to tell you such a thing. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean you can't sense and try to react to them. It also doesn't mean that they're any easier to deal with when they surround you.
paladin2019 03-25-07, 01:33 PM	Also, this whole business of "invisible creatures can't flank you" is horse hockey. I dare you to find anything in the core books to tell you such a thing. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean you can't sense and try to react to them. It also doesn't mean that they're any easier to deal with when they surround you. It's in the rules for flanking. No detection by the target means no flanking possible. It's somewhat contradictory with the invisibility special ability in that said special ability goes out of its way to make an invisible character detectable in combat. So, as I see it, as Blind-Fight prevents most of the advantages of an attacker being invisible, said invisible attacker is deteceted and thus provides flanking.
ShinAkuma2 03-25-07, 05:20 PM	It's in the rules for flanking. No detection by the target means no flanking possible. Can you please provide a quote, or a reference page? I scoured the PHB and DMG to the best of my ability, and came up with nothing that suggests you have to see an enemy to be flanked by it. You can be fully aware of invisible enemies, so there's no reason that being surrounded by them is no harder than having them stand side-by-side. RotG articles are not core rules.
PhaedrusXY 03-25-07, 05:24 PM	As far as I know, it's just something (made up) in RotG.
ClementWillowbreaker 03-25-07, 06:01 PM	It is also a good requirement that got ignored in the Flanking description for the sake of brevity/not expounding endlessly on (relatively) rare permutations. In fact, it is one of the few things in RotG that is both 1) sensible and 2) not directly contradicted by the core rules the author didn't bother to read fully. If you allow invisible flankers flat-out, then a lvl5 caster can just invis his familiar and tell it flank with the fighter but never make an attack, giving out a free +2 to hit. You should need to be aware of the attacker to be flanked, just out of common sense. Kind of like how if two humans carrying torches are 45ft or more apart, they can hide from each other- the concealment rules don't distinguish between darkness and obstructions, after all, and any line of sight passing through darkness gives concealment. In addition, I don't think Blindfight is enough awareness to call for flanking- you don't even know what square the opponent is in. He could just as well be in the other 7 squares that don't give him flanking. Blind/Tremorsense and Blindsight are more specific, and should allow flanking without a doubt.
Cartigan 03-25-07, 06:13 PM	If you are able to blindly defend yourself in melee without an advantage to your opponent, then I would say they should be able to flank you because you obviously know where the attack is coming from.
PhaedrusXY 03-25-07, 06:22 PM	It is also a good requirement that got ignored in the Flanking description for the sake of brevity/not expounding endlessly on (relatively) rare permutations. In fact, it is one of the few things in RotG that is both 1) sensible and 2) not directly contradicted by the core rules the author didn't bother to read fully.I agree completely with this. If you allow invisible flankers flat-out, then a lvl5 caster can just invis his familiar and tell it flank with the fighter but never make an attack, giving out a free +2 to hit. You should need to be aware of the attacker to be flanked, just out of common sense. Which is a bigger "abuse"? A "free" flanking buddy, or being able to ignore being flanked by closing your eyes? I'm not actually stating my opinion on which is worse, but I do think it is a valid question, and I think many would likely think the latter is.
Cartigan 03-25-07, 06:45 PM	Which is a bigger "abuse"? A "free" flanking buddy, or being able to ignore being flanked by closing your eyes? I'm not actually stating my opinion on which is worse, but I do think it is a valid question, and I think many would likely think the latter is. Both of those are absurd readings of the rules, especially the latter in the context of this thread. The first could possibly be both plausible and absurd if the character had Blindsense or Blindsight.
Moribund 03-25-07, 10:46 PM	A Tiny familiar cannot flank as it does not have reach. A condition of flanking a creature is being able to threaten it. It is entirely sensible not to let an invisible ally flank if they don't pose a credible threat (i.e. they aren't attacking, just sitting there). However it you close your eyes the opponents on either side of you are still credible threats that you are aware of, and there is no logic to saying they cannot flank. Lack of illumination between two light sources does nothing to limit the visibility at those light sources. The rule mentioning concealment for line of sight passing through an area has to do with things like fog or undergrowth that actually block vision, not just an area of darkness. The game designers (wrongfully) expect people to apply some common sense to "real-world" effects.
ClementWillowbreaker 03-25-07, 11:18 PM	A Tiny familiar cannot flank as it does not have reach. A condition of flanking a creature is being able to threaten it....The game designers (wrongfully) expect people to apply some common sense to "real-world" effects. First of all, all the familiar has to do is enter the creature's square, and it all of your allies flank the creature DMG p29. Second of all, blind creatures don't stop threatening (although they can't make AoOs since everyone has complete concealment against them), so a blind ally flanks just as well as a seeing one, if you think that threatening should be the only requirement. It is just as absurd as getting flanked by creatures you can't see. And you aren't closing your eyes to negate flanking. You are forgoing your Dex against and giving +2 to hit on all ranged attacks against you, giving yourself a 1/8 chance of swinging at the correct square to attack someone in melee, and doing so with a 25% chance of hitting should you select the proper square and hit their AC, all for a feat. You are just as boned as you were when you were getting full-round-flanking-sneak-attacked. This isn't a trick that lets you improve your combat ability. It is about as useful closing your eyes against a gaze attack (but this costs a feat to try)- you negate your one of your opponent's offensive advantages, and completely gimp yourself in the process- the only way you are actually winning the fight is if you suck it up and get flanked/make your saves. RotG thinks that losing your Dex and provoking an AoO is a fair tradeoff for negating flanking. So there is the developer's imput on what they consider a fair (and featless) combat choice. Overpowered this is not. Most importantly, the existing blindness and flanking rules are not adequate for these situations, putting us into house-ruling to fix your self-confessed logical quibbles. So it is a difference in opinion. I think zoning out flankers while blindfighting is a acceptable and not-broken consequence of demanding logic in flanking in the first place.
JustSayNo 03-26-07, 01:39 AM	to put it another way you have a human fighter with Blind-Fighting in a place where there is no light . Now everyone to him is 100% concealed so there are invisible to him . Now one of those tried to attack him and they have dark vision . They also have sneak attack attacking him but they dont get sneak attack because of his Blind-fight feat . What is the difference if someone has closed their eyes ?? you also dont threaten someone who is invisible because you cannt see them !! for the same reason you cannt get Attacks of OP either . Just think of it as everyone else is invisible to the one person .
JustSayNo 03-26-07, 01:43 AM	Both of those are absurd readings of the rules, especially the latter in the context of this thread. The first could possibly be both plausible and absurd if the character had Blindsense or Blindsight. as I said at the very start you cannt have some other way of seeing because then you negate the Blind-fighting part of what I am calling attention to . Because you can now see them it doesnt matter if you close your eyes or not . Blindsense would be ok because all that gives you is that somethings in that square and you dont know what its doing . you still have a 50%miss chance
Nom 03-26-07, 03:48 AM	Personally, I much prefer the interpretation that "threatened area" is an active rather than passive thing. To "threaten" someone, you must move into a mode where you are "able to make a melee attack", and that voids (standard) invisibility. Or, to put it another way, if you are unwilling / unable to "make a melee attack", then you don't threaten. It deals with all this flanking rubbish in one fell swoop.
antsu 03-26-07, 09:10 AM	My two cents: If you have BF and are in melee combat situation with invisible attackers, you can sense incoming melee attacks and therefore cannot be sneak attacked by them unless you are flat footed, flanked or some other how loose your DEX bonus to AC... But since you can sense incoming attacks (because of BF) therefore you can be flanked by invisible attackers even tho they wont get normal bonuses for being invisible. This works the same way wether you close your eyes, are in total darkness or someother how just can not see your opponents. One question pops up into my mind: how invisible creatures can flank you if they can not see each other?
Cartigan 03-26-07, 09:16 AM	One question pops up into my mind: how invisible creatures can flank you if they can not see each other? I think it would be more relevant on whether or not you know they are there and they are in the proper flanking positions.
antsu 03-26-07, 09:27 AM	I think it would be more relevant on whether or not you know they are there and they are in the proper flanking positions.Exactly, how they can be in proper flanking positions if they dont see each other... Specially if you are moving around so that attackers need to also move to hit you.
PhaedrusXY 03-26-07, 10:48 AM	Personally, I much prefer the interpretation that "threatened area" is an active rather than passive thing. To "threaten" someone, you must move into a mode where you are "able to make a melee attack", and that voids (standard) invisibility. Or, to put it another way, if you are unwilling / unable to "make a melee attack", then you don't threaten. It deals with all this flanking rubbish in one fell swoop.I've seen that suggestion before, and now that it is put into this context, I do think it is a sensible one. It still doesn't really address the guy closing his eyes, though. Whether his flankers actively attack him or not, they are still going to be invisible.
Cartigan 03-26-07, 11:28 AM	Exactly, how they can be in proper flanking positions if they dont see each other... Specially if you are moving around so that attackers need to also move to hit you. Why do they need to know they are flanking? If you know where they are coming from, you know if they are flanking. But, I don't care to roleplay so excessively as to argue against flanking position rules.
antsu 03-26-07, 03:00 PM	Well if they want only to hit you then no prob... but if they happen to have Sneak Attack ability they might want to use it (against defender with BF feat) and therefore try get in to flanking position as often as possible. As pointed out it may happen that by chance they get to be in flanking positions during some point of fight and so on... But what if they really try to get to flank the moving defender each round, should it be easy or not. All sorts of things might happen while two ore more invisible people are moving in some area, they may bump on to each other while moving around and such... unless they have really practiced their invisible moving and flanking manouvers in current environment.
Killer_DM 03-26-07, 04:01 PM	Why attackers would loose the "sneak attack" because they are considered to have 100% concealment to you, it does not make them invisible. They can still see you and each other, the only difference is in how you treat your attackers not how they treat you. I do not see anywhere in the rules where invisible people cannot flank. Even if they could not closing your eyes makes them invisible to you, not each other. If what you are contending where true closing your eyes would make everyone invisible to everyone else....and that does not happen. Your attackers are considerend invisible for you not everyone else.
antsu 03-27-07, 02:56 AM	Why attackers would loose the "sneak attack" because they are considered to have 100% concealment to you, it does not make them invisible. They can still see you and each other, the only difference is in how you treat your attackers not how they treat you. I do not see anywhere in the rules where invisible people cannot flank. Even if they could not closing your eyes makes them invisible to you, not each other. If what you are contending where true closing your eyes would make everyone invisible to everyone else....and that does not happen. Your attackers are considerend invisible for you not everyone else.If they have 100% concealment but are not invisible (as invisibility spell) then it is different situation than what I meant... but my point is that if the attackers cannot see each other (for some reason) then it should be hard for them to react to movevement of each other in a way that keeps the moving defender constantly flanked. If defender closes his eyes :) the attackers can still see each other and can flank him easily (only if defender has BF or equivalent otherwise they cannot flank him but then they get normal attack bonuses from being invisible and thus can use SA)...
JustSayNo 03-27-07, 03:40 AM	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. You literally cannot flank a blind creature; however, a blind creature loses its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against your attacks (so you can sneak attack it), and you get a +2 to attack it to boot. Creatures with the blindsight ability effectively "see" within blindsight range and can be flanked. this is from Rules of the Game . http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040302a they are not rules but maybe clearing of rules maybe ?
Cartigan 03-27-07, 07:09 AM	Arn't we talking about Blind-fight... And you can't flank a blind creature who doesn't know how to fight when blind. If any moron closes their eyes, they can't be flanked. If you are able to defend yourself from attack or attack without penalty, then you would know you are flanked and should be treated accordingly. Of course this is logically so who knows.
JustSayNo 03-27-07, 07:11 AM	yes but Blind-fight feat against sneak attack and how concealment affects sneak attack. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) to the blinded character and if you have Blind-fight feat you dont lose Dex and no +2 to be hit . Sorry about that Cartigan I sent it in without finishing and the boards closed down before I could change it here
Cartigan 03-27-07, 07:17 AM	yes but Blind-fight feat against sneak attack and how concealment affects sneak attack What?
Navigator 03-28-07, 09:57 AM	Sneak Attack: 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. The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. Blind-fight(abbr.): An invisible attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you in melee. That is, you don’t lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, and the attacker doesn’t get the usual +2 bonus for being invisible. The invisible attacker’s bonuses do still apply for ranged attacks, however. I think it's pretty clear cut, unless you have a very strict reading of the phrase "any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC". This should have been said with "is" instead of "would be" to make it more clear. I can't find anything specific regarding total concealment and flanking. Though, I'm pretty sure that being threatened by an invisible attacker would not grant anyone a flanking bonus. So yeah, aside from the 25% flat chance to miss in melee, this tactic can make you completely immune to sneak attacks in every situation when you have your eyes closed (except for Telling Blow). It does kind of seem absurd. But so do many things in D&D. This is a pretty powerful feat when you consider that.
Killer_DM 03-28-07, 10:33 AM	It does not make you immune to sneak attacks, if you where flanked with your eyes open, with your eyes closed you are still flanked, flanking attackers still get their +2 flanking bonus and sneak attacks if they have them. Blind Fighting would eliminate a sneak attack from an invisible attacker, but not a flanking attacker.
Navigator 03-28-07, 04:28 PM	It does not make you immune to sneak attacks, if you where flanked with your eyes open, with your eyes closed you are still flanked, flanking attackers still get their +2 flanking bonus and sneak attacks if they have them. Blind Fighting would eliminate a sneak attack from an invisible attacker, but not a flanking attacker. Imagine this situation: What if you (a being unable to see in darkness) were within a darkness effect and surrounded by bearded devils (can see in darkness)? Would they still flank you?
ShinAkuma2 03-28-07, 04:58 PM	Imagine this situation: What if you (a being unable to see in darkness) were within a darkness effect and surrounded by bearded devils (can see in darkness)? Would they still flank you? Yes. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean you're not aware of them at all. Even without your dex bonus, you still have a certain ability to react to enemy attacks, which is why you still retain the Base 10 AC. You can't avoid being Sneak Attacked, but you can still dodge lesser blows. The only way flanking should be denied is if you stop dodging at all. Since you're not trying to avoid being hit, there's no advantage to surrounding you. This would be akin to dropping your Dex to 0. Being surrounded by enemies is disadvantageous, whether you can see them or not.
ClementWillowbreaker 03-28-07, 05:00 PM	What if you (a being unable to see in darkness) were within a darkness effect and surrounded by bearded devils (can see in darkness)? Would they still flank you? You would be flanked, because darkness gives shadowy concealment, not pitch darkness. I'll assume you meant total darkness, in which case you would have be underground/inside/no moon/whatever. Without any feat, you would suffer all the penalties for blindness and be flanked (+4 to hit you, no Dex to AC, you miss a lot and move slowly). RotG and common sense say you would be blinded but not flanked, since it doesn't make sense for a blind creature to be flanked. With Blind Fight, you would negate many of the penalties of being blind (no +2 to hit, you keep your Dex, you have 25% better chance of hitting, move at 75% speed), and still get flanked (another +2 to hit). The RotG and common sense says you shouldn't get flanked, because Blind Fight doesn't help you see, which should be the condition for being flanked. So Shin and I have different requirements for being aware of your opponent. He thinks that Blind Fight in itself is enough to be aware. In which case, similar abilities such as Uncanny Dodge and a Monk's AC bonus should also get you flanked while blind as well. I say you need to at least be aware of the enemy's square to be forced to split your attention in two directions, and therefore you need to be taking advantage of Blindsense/Tremorsense/really awesome Listen checks, which also help direct your attacks to the proper square. Blind Fight is purely passive. The danger of being surrounded- that means that you are getting more and more attacks thrown your way, making it more unlikely to dodge them all in a given round by pure statistics. I don't think that requires a flanking bonus to reflect the tactical disadvantage, since your situation is already bad enough.
Cartigan 03-28-07, 05:42 PM	which should be the condition for being flanked. Why? Flanking in D&D requires that the attacker be behind you, thus "unseeable." Your logic doesn't mesh. since it doesn't make sense for a blind creature to be flanked. Unless of course you are able to defend yourself against attacks and attack competently. I say you need to at least be aware of the enemy's square to be forced to split your attention in two directions, Which somehow doesn't work with Blind-Fight? Then you wouldn't be flanked if a Rogue snuck up behind you but hadn't attacked yet - even if you wern't blind. I don't think that requires a flanking bonus to reflect the tactical disadvantage, since your situation is already bad enough. But doesn't Blind Fight negate 'bad situation' effects of being blind?
ClementWillowbreaker 03-28-07, 08:02 PM	Seriously, Cartigan, read before posting. There is no facing in DnD- no one can be behind you in combat, and you can see in all directions equally. You must be able to draw a line between you and your ally's center which passes through opposite sides/corners of your opponent's square. RotG states that being detected (and says being unseen doesn't qualify) by your target is a common-sense requirement. Rogues sneaking up behind you = flatfooted and surprise round, which makes you lose your Dex. Being blinded has nothing to do with it. Read what blindness does and what Blind-Fight does. Blind Fight lessens some of the penalties, but leaves significant issues (as I even listed them for your benefit). Do you really think that having to guess your opponent's square and having a 25% miss chance qualifies as "defend yourself against attacks and attack competently"? So catch up before saying my logic doesn't mesh.
Nom 03-28-07, 08:46 PM	I will note at this point that the PH at no point even hints that awareness is a requirement for flanking. The requirements are simple: (1) an ally on the other side threatens the opponent (2) you're making a melee attack Of course, awareness does come into play at one point; some creatures with extraordinary or supernatural awareness (or for whom it is irrelevant) typically can't be flanked. But it is super-awareness that negates flanking, not lack thereof. I also note that the AoO rules (and several others) assume that a threatening opponent is in some (at least token) way attempting to engage the creature in melee combat ("she is weaving, dodging, and even threatening the orc with a weapon to keep the orc a little worried for his own hide"). If you can't do this, then you can't flank. If you can, then your weapon is at least in some manner interacting with any potential enemies. The flanking bonus is not generated because some guy is standing there leaning on his sword and whistling; it's because he's in some small way attacking the same guy as you are! Whether the target can see isn't the point; swords don't cease to hit you because you can't see them. I do have some sympathy for house rules for 'ignoring the flanker', but at the minimum such rules should including provoking an AoO and treating the attacker as if he is invisible to you, regardless of any abilities that you have that would normally prevent this.
ClementWillowbreaker 03-28-07, 10:43 PM	Welcome to the first page of the thread. We have already gone over how the core rules don't make any mention of awareness. The Rules of the Game talks about how it really should matter, and it doesn't make any sense to have invisible flankers. This is one of the rare times it doesn't just make sh!t up and pretend its core. None of us are saying it is core. But if your game made any better by having invisible flankers? PS The ignore-a-flanker thing is another of those rare, "Here is a suggestion that is totally a house-rule" comments made by WotC. But since that involves assigning new penalties to balance the novel condition of Ignore Attacker, and this issue is how sensible flanking should react with the preexisting condition of blindness, it doesn't have much relevance beyond the fact that avoiding flanking should have hefty penalties. Oddly enough, like being blinded, which are much worse.
Killer_DM 03-29-07, 08:13 AM	Imagine this situation: What if you (a being unable to see in darkness) were within a darkness effect and surrounded by bearded devils (can see in darkness)? Would they still flank you? The answer to your question is, yes concealment does not make a square "un-threatened" thus they would still flank you. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/darkness.htm Darkness This spell causes an object to radiate shadowy illumination out to a 20-foot radius. All creatures in the area gain concealment (20% miss chance). Even creatures that can normally see in such conditions (such as with darkvision or low-light vision) have the miss chance in an area shrouded in magical darkness. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#flanking Flanking 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. When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked. Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking. Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus. Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm Threatened Squares You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.
JustSayNo 03-29-07, 02:03 PM	hmm this seems to be still hard to put down . Has anyone gone through the Rules of the Game in Wizards of the Coast here ? http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040302a have a read of it and see what you think :) Quote 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. You literally cannot flank a blind creature; however, a blind creature loses its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against your attacks (so you can sneak attack it), and you get a +2 to attack it to boot. Creatures with the blindsight ability effectively "see" within blindsight range and can be flanked. the first line is very interesting it says you get the flanking if your foe can see them not that you both can see him ?
Killer_DM 03-29-07, 03:31 PM	In general I do not accept "Rules of the Game" as an official source, when I see this in the FAQ then I would accept it (it might be there, I did not check). Even if we accept the ROG all the attacker has to do is throw his dagger or even use a bow to get a sneak attack. Since the feat says "The invisible attacker’s bonuses do still apply for ranged attacks, however". That means the defender is denied a dex bonus if the attacker is not using a melee weapon. Remember ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks if the target is within 30 feet. Since the defender is still blind the defender would not threaten any squares, thus would not get AOOs against the attackers when they use ranged weapons even if the attacker was within 5 feet.
ClementWillowbreaker 03-29-07, 03:42 PM	1) The FAQ is just as arbitrary and unofficial as the RotG. So you actually have to think and decide if what they say is a good idea or not. 2) And what is your problem with blind characters having more problem with ranged attacks than melee ones? Ranged attacks don't get flanking, but there is also no feat to negate the +2 bonus they get for striking a blind creature. Once again, no one is trying to make closing your eyes the BEST TRICK EVAR!!11! It has a lot of problems, and doesn't need poorly applied flanking rules to be fair.
JustSayNo 03-30-07, 01:18 AM	the thing is that if you are invisible to someone that you can threaten as much as you like but they dont know your doing it . its sort of the reverse of if someone moves across your threatened squares and they are invisible you get no attack of Op unless you have a good listen roll . So the only time the guy is aware of anyone else is if they make a listen roll on their turn . You have to know something happening to react . So when you have your eyes closed you dont know where anyone is because in combat people move around . So on his action he can make a listen roll to hear someone near him if he doesnt he doesnt even get to hit chance but if he makes his listen then he would be able to try . The thing about flanking they both try to distract the foe in the middle to get Flanking but its like pointing a gun at a blind person he doesnt know your doing it so he is not scared or distracted . Blind-fighting is only a reactive feat not a proactive feat really that sense of something about to hit you makes you move to defend yourself .
JustSayNo 03-30-07, 01:19 AM	Oh I just noticed its a Listen of DC 0 for a invisible creature in combat damn :)
Killer_DM 03-30-07, 07:37 AM	1) The FAQ is just as arbitrary and unofficial as the RotG. So you actually have to think and decide if what they say is a good idea or not. 2) And what is your problem with blind characters having more problem with ranged attacks than melee ones? Ranged attacks don't get flanking, but there is also no feat to negate the +2 bonus they get for striking a blind creature. Once again, no one is trying to make closing your eyes the BEST TRICK EVAR!!11! It has a lot of problems, and doesn't need poorly applied flanking rules to be fair. I did not poorly apply flanking rules, this thread is about the interaction between blind fighting and sneak attack. I noted that by the core rules there is nothing that says "invisible attackers do not flank", and someone mentioned the RoG article which I then read. In response I noted that if the attackers changed to range attacks they would be able to get sneak attacks because the Blind Fighting feat has no effect on invisible attackers using ranged weapons thus the defender would loose his dex bonus and be vulnerable to sneak attacks.
tetebetson 03-30-07, 08:12 AM	I think it is fine to allow it as-is. They can still be sneak attacked with ranged weapons, and closing your eyes has enough disadvantages of its own. I would just not let them get the benefit of doing this, and then open their eyes on their turn, make their attacks, and then close them again. Combat is supposed to happen simultaneously. So either they can keep their eyes closed and benefit from this "trick", or open them and be flanked (but not suffer from being "blinded"). i agree the real use for blind fight is if you sudenly find your self in complete darkness or obscuring mist or some such TIP ;blind fight is realy good for an enemy with lots of illusions of itself !
ClementWillowbreaker 03-30-07, 01:58 PM	Oh I just noticed its a Listen of DC 0 for a invisible creature in combat damn :) Keep on reading to where it says you need to beat it by 20 to know what square they are in. Not so DAMN anymore. EDIT for below- JustSayNo needs to read the section a third time. He still has it wrong.
JustSayNo 03-30-07, 02:34 PM	yes its DC 20 but if they are hitting and in combat its DC 0 you keep reading its in the DMG I am not saying there are modifiers but the starting DC is 0. Hva e a look at page 295 the table there .