Dirk
Players
Dirk... before the fattening.
Posts: 34 
|
Post by Dirk on Jan 19, 2015 9:01:57 GMT -7
I've came across flanking while invisible in a couple games, and each GM had a different interpretation of how this works. I just wanted a clear ruling for games going forward:
Here's what Paizo has for flanking rules:
"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner."
I wanted to point out the underlined portion -- is threatened by another enemy. It sounds like a creature counts as flanked if both enemies are in flanking position, regardless if the flanked creature is aware of both parties.
Here are the big questions to be answered:
1) Does being invisible count towards flanking? Alternatively, could an invisible creature count towards flanking if it made it's presence known to the flanking target?
2) Does an invisible flanker trigger appropriate flanking teamwork feats?
|
|
|
|
Post by shroudb on Jan 19, 2015 9:21:34 GMT -7
pathifnder strict raw: you get flanking
this should be the 3.5 ruling:
This is the FAQ ruling:
"Q: Suppose an ally of mine is attacking one foe, then I
somehow become invisible, draw my sword, and move to
the other side of that foe, thus flanking the foe. Does my ally
still get a flanking bonus even if I am invisible?
A: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."
pathfinder doesn't have such provision, but my gut feeling is that this is one of the DM territory things. Basically, my own answer would be "it depends"
p.e. situation 1:
so, an invisible familiar stays completly still, in flanking position, for a whole combat, and does nothing. Out of the thin air, the rogue now can deal sneak damage to the enemy, without the enmy realising why he is easier to hit somehow.
that is silly imo, and i would rule against it.
situation 2:
a ninja tells his ally that he is going to backstab target X. he then casts improved invisibility and moves to flank. His ally, who knows about where the ninja is moving and what he is trying to do, maneuvers and waits for the target to be distracted and then attacks (when the target is getting attacked by the ninja)
that would certainly be 100%
basically, if you go invisible and go and stand still and do nothing to hinder the target, then i would rule no, you dont flank.
if you did things to hamper the target, even if your ally didn't know your location, then you would get the flank.
|
|
tkul
Death Knight
Banned
Posts: 406
|
Post by tkul on Jan 19, 2015 9:22:14 GMT -7
As one of the people that this issue has come up against I'll go ahead and drop my interpretation of flanking while invisible -
1.) If a character is unaware of the flanker then they would not feel threatened by them. This benefit is built into invisibility and is what causes them to be flat footed against you, they're not reacting to you at all and have no defenses against you. This doesn't stop you from making attacks of opportunity if you're able since you can see and react to them, but if they can't see you, you can't distract them for your ally.
2.) Invisible characters do count for teamwork feats (my take on it nothing official says yay or nay), but if the feat requires flanking see answer 1. It could probably also be argued that teamwork feats require coordination that you can't do while your allies don't know where you are or what you're doing, but teamwork feats already have enough restrictions on them that cause people not to take them.
Now there is an additional aspect to this that also should be taken into account and that's the fact that your ally also does not know where you are to take advantage of you. I don't know how other GMs handle things but I give creatures behind other invisible creatures their proper cover for this reason as well. The attacker doesn't know there's cover in the way, and the target may not know either, but the arrow doesn't care, if something is in the way its in the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by shroudb on Jan 19, 2015 9:42:44 GMT -7
the only time i had to rule for this in DG was with Mulog.
thankfully for me, the creature had smell, so he noticed invisible mulog, and so, Mulog would indeed provide flanking bonuses (if he was in the correct position to do so)
but if it hadn't noticed mulog, and wasn't defending against him, i would also rule : no
|
|
Zanos
Leadership Council
No
how did i get here i am not good with computer
Posts: 684
|
Post by Zanos on Jan 19, 2015 10:04:00 GMT -7
"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner."
This is the only requirement. Invisibility does not alter it in anyway that I can see as the rules are written.
|
|
tkul
Death Knight
Banned
Posts: 406
|
Post by tkul on Jan 19, 2015 11:26:43 GMT -7
the only time i had to rule for this in DG was with Mulog. thankfully for me, the creature had smell, so he noticed invisible mulog, and so, Mulog would indeed provide flanking bonuses (if he was in the correct position to do so) but if it hadn't noticed mulog, and wasn't defending against him, i would also rule : no Same but in my case the person had no ability to detect mulog and mulog was not taking any offensive actions |
|
|
|
Post by wizardfrog on Jan 19, 2015 16:11:55 GMT -7
RAW, being invisible does not prevent flanking.
|
|
|
|
Post by shroudb on Jan 20, 2015 6:17:26 GMT -7
as i said before 3.5 had provisions for this, pathfinder doesn't.
raw is that indeed invisible provides flanking, rai? not certain, it seems stupid to me. (someone staying still, undetected,not taking hostile actions, and still providing flank that is)
this whole issue stems from the fact that "threatening" is 99% of the times something you do actively, you "threaten" someone so he has to defend against you, protect himself against you, and etc. but in 3.0ed+ "threatening" is like a passive condition that applies without you doing anything. You could stand still, drinking your beer, and still threaten an invisible rogue sneaking up to you with the beer bottle even if you don't know he even exists.
but if the council rules it this way then np adjusting to this
in general, the rules of pf are a mess.
take a look at scent vs invisibility p.e.:
invisibility entry states that:
A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.
scent entry states that:
When a creature detects a scent, the exact location of the source is not revealed—only its presence somewhere within range. The creature can take a move action to note the direction of the scent. When the creature is within 5 feet of the source, it pinpoints the source’s location.
so we have the same issue, on the same book, having 2 distinct different rules...
|
|
|
|
Post by Gryphyx on Mar 12, 2015 10:29:02 GMT -7
To be honest, we might want to look at how invisibility as a whole works in pathfinder. I would invite those interested to read invisibility rules for 4e. The short version is that under most circumstances being invisible does not mean that the creature doesn't know you're there. You still make noise. You still affect the environment around you (footprints, wakes, even giving off heat). It knows you're there. It just gets minus to hit you and has targeting issues for things that require sight. Since PF wasnt written with this in mind, we'd probably have to limit targeting more. If you wish for the opponent to not be aware of you you still need a stealth roll and are bound to normal stealth rules. The +20 to stealth for invis would not fully apply since you're seeing if they are aware of sounds you make or other environmental details. Just a thought for later. As it stands now invisibility is kinda silly. When you have situations where GMs feel the need to slap see invis on creatures on the fly you know you have an issue  EDIT: Forgot to tie it in to the thread. The 4e rules on invis would mean that the creature knows you're there and would feel threatened. EDIT2: Also, as Shroud, Z, and Wiz pointed out, the rules are very clear as they are so we shouldn't see table variance on this. This is the kind of thing people might build for and thus rightly expect to function as written (at least until I convince you all to change it ) |
|
|
|
Post by SaintYin on Mar 12, 2015 14:57:50 GMT -7
GryphyxNot really necessary, if people use all the rules available over Invisibility. For example, this source is rarely ever used. Stealthing in combat while invisible has the following penalties: 1) +20 if you're moving, +40 if you don't move. 2) DC to perceive is equal to stealth check. 3) Check takes -5 if moving above 1/2 movespeed. Their perception to detect an invisible creature is: 1) -20 because invisible creature is in combat 2) -5 or -10 if it moves (1/2 or normal, respectively). Increases to -20 if charging/running 3) +1 per 10 feet of distance 4) +20 to pinpoint position. As from the linked source, the base DC to perceive an invisible creature not trying to stealth is 20. In combat, this means it's a DC 0 to detect an invisible creature is within 30 feet of you, and it's a DC 20 to pinpoint its position (ignoring the +1 per 10 feet rule, obviously). If a creature is trying to move, this DC becomes ~0 to pinpoint on a charge/run action. If the creature's trying to hide while in combat, then you start comparing stealth to perception. This doesn't solve dexterity denial, but it certainly makes it easier to smack an invisible creature with dye, powder, or glitterdust. As to the topic at hand (can an invisible creatue provide flanking), yes. It functions per the rules as written.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gryphyx on Mar 12, 2015 15:28:26 GMT -7
For example, this source is rarely ever used. As from the linked source, the base DC to perceive an invisible creature not trying to stealth is 20. In combat, this means it's a DC 0 to detect an invisible creature is within 30 feet of you, and it's a DC 20 to pinpoint its position (ignoring the +1 per 10 feet rule, obviously). If a creature is trying to move, this DC becomes ~0 to pinpoint on a charge/run action. If the creature's trying to hide while in combat, then you start comparing stealth to perception. Ok this is really interesting. This puts pinpointing location well into the realm of doable and is yet more reason to always take perception. Thanks for this link. |
|
