Post/Author/DateTime	Post
goawayugh 06-22-06, 08:34 AM	To flank someone, you and an ally have to be oppisite eachother and threatening the creature. What if your Invisible? Do you still help to give your ally a flanking bonus? You still threaten the creature (you can make AoO if he provokes), but he doesnt know your there and has nothing to be worried about from you. (assuming normal senses).
primemover003 06-22-06, 08:53 AM	No an invisible creature doesn't count toward Flanking even if he's opposite his ally. The threatened creature must be aware of the threat to be flanked. Besides the invisible attacker already has a better advantage than flanking (+4 to hit, defender loses dex to AC). After the first attack by the invisible character however the flanking bonuses would kick in (because you become visible).
Nom 06-22-06, 12:00 PM	There's a whole "can a creature that you can't see contribute to flanking" discussion that goes on. RAW, the answer is yes - the criteria is simply that the creature must threaten. Alternative rulings abound. The more interesting question is whether a creature that is prevented from attacking (eg inivisibility, sanctuary) can flank. My interpretation is that they can flank, but the act of flanking immediately voids their spell effect. This is derived from the definition of threatening, which is "able to make a melee attack (at given target)". If you cannot attack without voiding your spell, then you similarly cannot threaten without voiding your spell, because threatening requires that you are able to attack.
Alcalientre 06-22-06, 12:27 PM	If this is true, then wouldn't it be logical that you can choose to completely ignore one of the people flanking you, and focus only on defending against one person? This would mean that the person being ignored would effectively be invisible to the defender, so they would get to ignore the dex bonus and get the +4 to AB. This could be very useful when one enemy is significantly more powerful than another.
Tusz 06-22-06, 12:30 PM	This also brings up the question of improved/greater/natural invisibility and flanking. If an attacker is invisible, and remains so after attacking, can he get the bonuses from flanking, since the defender knows he's there (kinda)?
mvincent 06-22-06, 01:47 PM	If this is true, then wouldn't it be logical that you can choose to completely ignore one of the people flanking you, and focus only on defending against one person? This would mean that the person being ignored would effectively be invisible to the defender, so they would get to ignore the dex bonus and get the +4 to AB. This could be very useful when one enemy is significantly more powerful than another.This Rules of the Game article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a) offers this suggestion: "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."
Nom 06-22-06, 07:37 PM	This also brings up the question of improved/greater/natural invisibility and flanking. If an attacker is invisible, and remains so after attacking, can he get the bonuses from flanking, since the defender knows he's there (kinda)?RAW, whether the defender knows he is there is irrelevant. If he is there, and threatens, and is allied to the attacker, a flanking bonus is provided. This somewhat implies that the attacker must know he is there. I'll also note that it's almost impossible for the defender not to know that he is there. Flanking requires threatening, which at a minimum involves being able to make a melee attack. From an AoO model perspective (as opposed to RAW), threatening applies because you have some melee presence when you are in combat, even if not actively using your weapon. Thus, in order to threaten (for flanking) you must be somewhat fighting. To be completely undetectable to someone you are flanking would therefore require that they can neither see, hear or feel you - a fairly unusual situation when you're occasionally hitting their shield or weapon with yours. I think Skip's house rule is too weak. Loss of Dex to AC is insufficient penalty - you should also suffer at least a -2 if not -4 to AC, since you are basically saying "I'm not even going to try to avoid letting you hit me".
Ryu Katsuragi 06-22-06, 08:07 PM	I think Skip's house rule is too weak. Loss of Dex to AC is insufficient penalty - you should also suffer at least a -2 if not -4 to AC, since you are basically saying "I'm not even going to try to avoid letting you hit me". Isn't that what a loss of Dex to AC is, though? Your ability to dodge? If you lose your Dex bonus to AC, then you're -not- trying/able to avoid letting them hit you.
mvincent 06-22-06, 09:02 PM	I think Skip's house rule is too weak. Loss of Dex to AC is insufficient penalty - you should also suffer at least a -2 if not -4 to AC, since you are basically saying "I'm not even going to try to avoid letting you hit me".I believe that is represented by the ignored person getting a free AoO. Loss of more than Dex to AC doesn't have much of a precedence in D&D (i.e. you get that even to unknown attackers out of combat)
Nom 06-22-06, 11:16 PM	Loss of more than Dex to AC doesn't have much of a precedence in D&D (i.e. you get that even to unknown attackers out of combat)Among others: blind (loss Dex and -2 AC), helpless (loss Dex, Dex 0, -4), prone or squeezing (-4 AC), cowering or stunned (loss Dex and -2 AC). Some of these don't grant loss of Dex on their own (eg prone and squeezing), but will stack with some conditions that do. In this case, the target is not merely passively not dodging, but they are actively not dodging. The rules seem to assume that a flat-footed target will still make some attempt to defend himself as soon as he realises he is being attacked; in this case, the target knows he is being attacked and is intentionally not responding. Personally, I think a target that is completely unaware that there is a combat situation (or is actively ignoring their attacker) should suffer the same -2 penalty as a blinded, stunned or cowering target. As soon as you have a chance to react, this penalty is removed. Thus, it would apply during the initial attack of an ambush when you weren't 'expecting trouble', but not during regular flat-footed situations.
GhostStepper 06-23-06, 12:46 AM	Among others: Personally, I think a target that is completely unaware that there is a combat situation (or is actively ignoring their attacker) should suffer the same -2 penalty as a blinded, stunned or cowering target. As soon as you have a chance to react, this penalty is removed. Thus, it would apply during the initial attack of an ambush when you weren't 'expecting trouble', but not during regular flat-footed situations. Thats how it actually works, other than the actively ignoring the attacker part. Being attacked by an unseen foe (invisible or by surprise) has all the same modifiers as being blind.