# Rogues flanking at range?



## Winterthorn (Mar 16, 2005)

Hello folks,

Quick question (I hope): is there a means to flank an opponent who hasn't lost their Dexterity bonus with a ranged weapon, say for example at 60 feet, in order to satisfy the requirements for a Sneak Attack?

IIRC Sneak Attacks normally require one of two conditions: 
1) both the attacker and an ally are flanking the opponent in melee, or 
2) the opponent has lost his/her Dex bonus (like being flat-flooted).

I know Rogues can sneak attack at up to 30 feet if the second case is true, but is there a means such as through a prestige class ability, or a feat, that permits one to flank with a  ranged weapon _outside of melee_  and thus, in the case of Rogues, satisfy the requirements to execute a sneak attack? (I can see that this is a very powerful stunt to pull -- I would like to know if there is a way to do it in some conditional manner using various rules. Perhaps it's just a matter of exploiting a tactical situation rarely encountered?)

I've checked the SRD v3.5... I am looking for a fair rules work-around for Rogues if they are using a ranged weapon beyond 30 feet and the target hasn't lost their Dex bonus. If I have to invent some costly feat or ability, as DM I will, but before I do I would like to know if there is something published, maybe even "official" that will help me respond to my player's question -- hopefully other than "it ain't possible" 

I dunno if this has been asked before (can't search here), but some info would be great!

Thanks in advance   

-W.


----------



## Deset Gled (Mar 16, 2005)

Simply put: no.  You cannot threaten at range, so you cannot flank at range.


----------



## mikebr99 (Mar 16, 2005)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Simply put: no.  You cannot threaten at range, so you cannot flank at range.



And I'll 2nd that.


Mike


----------



## IcyCool (Mar 16, 2005)

Winterthorn said:
			
		

> Quick question (I hope): is there a means to flank an opponent who hasn't lost their Dexterity bonus with a ranged weapon, say for example at 60 feet, in order to satisfy the requirements for a Sneak Attack?
> 
> IIRC Sneak Attacks normally require one of two conditions:
> 1) both the attacker and an ally are flanking the opponent in melee, or
> ...




Well, I think you mentioned that you know this, but it's worth repeating.  You can't flank with a ranged weapon, because you don't threaten with a ranged weapon.  You would need to have some way of threatening with a ranged weapon, which would then make it like a reach weapon (attacks of opportunity and such).  Doing this at a range of 60ft. seems, horribly powerful.

Now, denying someone their dex, that's easy.  Buy a ring of blinking.  That solves the problem of sneak attacking within 30ft.  From there I suppose you could add a feat that extends the precision range out to 60ft, Improved Point Blank or somesuch.  Put it in the Point Blank Shot tree.

Now that I think about it, I think there is something that lets you do precision damage at 60ft.  I'll look for it tonight if no one else chimes in.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Mar 16, 2005)

Winterthorn said:
			
		

> If I have to invent some costly feat or ability, as DM I will



As the DM, you know your game.  And just because something is extremely powerful does not necessarily make it unbalancing, depending on the nature of the campaign and the other PCs' abilities.

But I'd advise you to proceed with caution.  What you're suggesting giving to the rogue is indeed a very, very potent ability.  Note also that if you allow the rogue to _threaten_ at range, which is required to flank, he can effectively take an attack of opportunity against anything that moves more than 5', casts a spell non-defensively, drinks a potion, stands up, etc. within that same range.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 16, 2005)

Here's the trick, though.

The 3.5 rules changed the definition of flanking.  It no longer includes the stipulation that you are only flanking when you make a melee attack (a line which *was* in the 3.0 definition of flanking).

Now, you are considered flanking when:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers ... passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners ... )




Now, you certainly only get a +2 bonus on your attack rolls when:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> making a melee attack ... if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.




However, like everything else in D&D, you gain the bonuses or penalties for a condition when you posess the condition.  You do not gain the condition when you gain the bonuses or penalties for that condition.  Furthermore, having a condition does not require that you gain all the bonuses or penalties of that condition.

In other words, A implies B, but B doesn't necessarily imply A.

As an example, take invisbility.  Two of the bonuses of invisibility are that you get a +2 on your attack rolls and your opponent is denied its Dex bonus.  However, if you are striking a creature with Uncanny Dodge, that creature retains its Dex bonus.  Even though you do not keep all the bonuses and penalties asssociated with being invisible, you remain invisible.  Similarly, even though you don't get all the bonuses and penalties of flanking, you are still flanking.

And how is flanking determined?

When "an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers ... passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners ... )."

There is nothing in the newly-revised 3.5 definition of flanking that requires that you be making a melee attack - or even be threatening.  Note, once again, that this is a change from the 3.0 definition of flanking, which specifically that you be making a melee attack.

Make of this what you will.  

EDIT:

Note that, in both 3.0 and 3.5, it was not required that *you* actually threaten your opponent.  Both, however, required that your ally be threatening your opponent if you want a flanking bonus on attack rolls, and 3.0 mentioned that you were only flanking during the period that you were making a melee attack while your ally threatened.

Note that all of this makes it impossible - in 3.0 - to flank during an unarmed tavern brawl (barring the presence of monks or Improved Unarmed Strike-enhanced combatants).  In 3.5, it allows you to flank, but prevents you from gaining a +2 on your to-hit rolls.


----------



## Atherlos (Mar 16, 2005)

*Ranged flanking*

The PrC Whisperknife in Races of the Wild gives ranged flanking at 10' at 8th level or so. It's a halfling only PrC, requires quite a few feats, and I think it gives Rapid Shot or some other useful feat at 1st level. If I remember correctly it also lets you do ranged attacks without provoking AoO somewhere along the way.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Mar 16, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Note that all of this makes it impossible - in 3.0 - to flank during an unarmed tavern brawl (barring the presence of monks or Improved Unarmed Strike-enhanced combatants).  In 3.5, it allows you to flank, but prevents you from gaining a +2 on your to-hit rolls.



From the 3.5 SRD:







			
				srd said:
			
		

> *Tiny, Diminutive, and Fine Creatures:* <snip> Since they have no natural reach, they do not threaten the squares around them. You can move past them without provoking attacks of opportunity. *They also can’t flank an enemy.*



This seems to draw a strong correlation between being able to threaten, and being able to flank.







			
				srd said:
			
		

> 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.
> ...



This is the full quote that you cited in part earlier.  Note that the very first words are "when making a melee attack".  I'm not sure how you can argue that you can be making a ranged attack and be considered flanking, when the section itself begins with the stipulation that you be making a melee attack.  Also note again the stipulation that a creature without Reach (and therefore that does not threaten) is also barred from flanking.  Not barred from receiving a +2 bonus, not barred from giving an ally a flanking bonus.  Cannot flank, period.  Again, this suggests to me that if you don't threaten, you don't flank, even in 3.5.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Mar 16, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how you can argue that you can be making a ranged attack and be considered flanking, when the section itself begins with the stipulation that you be making a melee attack.



I wanna see an archer hit someone with his bow.

*WHACK*  You thought I wasn't threatening you, didn't you?


----------



## Winterthorn (Mar 16, 2005)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Simply put: no.  You cannot threaten at range, so you cannot flank at range.




One must threaten first in order to be able to flank... Makes sense mechanically (strictly by game term definitions). So "threatening" at range is not possible...

Then the trick would be to find some extraordinary means to flank at range even though we are too far to "threaten" as we would normally in melee? So then I prefer finding an exception to the standard rules: an exceptional means to Sneak Attack at range... Which is why I asked up if there were feats somewhere or other some such work-around to do this. I'm trying to find a plausible rules bend, something that would cost a Rogue if he/she were to pursue this tactic (so game balance is not totally thrown out of whack).

-W.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Mar 16, 2005)

Winterthorn said:
			
		

> I'm trying to find a plausible rules bend, something that would cost a Rogue if he/she were to pursue this tactic (so game balance is not totally thrown out of whack).



I think your best bet is to focus on the other means of gaining sneak attack: loss of dex bonus to AC.  This can be accomplished in a number of ways, ranging from spells/effects such as _Invisibility_ and _Blink_, to tactics such as sniping, to special abilities such as Hide-In-Plain-Sight.  You can also more easily reign in these abilities if the rogue's extra sneak attacking gets out of hand, with less headaches than tweaking the flanking/threatening mechanics.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 16, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> This seems to draw a strong correlation between being able to threaten, and being able to flank.




I disagree with "strong."  Moreover, the rules you quote just say that tiny things can't flank anything.  The problem, of course, is that small creatures can't even flank *each other* - even in melee combat.  I pity grig rogues (tiny fey) and their inability to sneak attack other grigs once combat has begun.




> Note that the very first words are "when making a melee attack".




No.  Note, instead, that the very first words are "when making a melee attack, you [get a particular named bonus given some conditions]."

It is no different than, "When affected by a Bless spell, you gain a +1 morale bonus on saves vs. fear."

If I never use my +1 morale bonus on a save vs. fear, was I still blessed?  Of course.
If I never use my +2 flanking bonus on melee attacks, was I still flanking?  Of course (in 3.5).



> I'm not sure how you can argue that you can be making a ranged attack and be considered flanking, when the section itself begins with the stipulation that you be making a melee attack.




I'm not sure how you can argue that you were blessed, when the section itself begins with the stipulation that you must make a save vs. fear.

Again, read the description of invisibility.  If I am invisible, you are denied your Dex bonus to AC.  If you have Uncanny Dodge, you get to keep your Dex bonus to AC.  Am I still invisible?  Yes, of course.

Similarly, if I am flanking, I get a +2 flanking bonus on melee attack rolls.  If I don't make a melee attack, I don't get a +2 flanking bonus.  Am I still flanking?  Yes, of course.

Note that the answer to the second question changed in the 3.0 -> 3.5 revision.  In 3.0, the answer would instead be, "No - you are only flanking when making a melee attack."

In 3.0, the method to determine the flanking condition was as follows:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> If a character is making a melee attack against an opponent, and an ally directly opposite the character is threatening the opponent, the character and the character's ally flank the opponent.




In 3.5, that text was *removed*, and the method to determine the flanking condition was amended to:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> 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.




Notice the difference?



> Also note again the stipulation that a creature without Reach (and therefore that does not threaten) is also barred from flanking.




Yep, and if you think about all the tiny fey rogues in the world, that's a damn silly rule.


----------



## Winterthorn (Mar 16, 2005)

Partyn of E: I'll think about that some... Funny how terms and definitions can make or break a game system.   

-W.


----------



## Seeten (Mar 16, 2005)

Flanking Shot: If you have an ally on an opposite corner of an opposing creature, and your missile weapon is out and visible, your target is denied his dexterity bonus for the purpose of determining sneak attacks that you may wish to launch. Note: The creature in question does not lose his dexterity bonus, only counts as losing it for the purpose of sneak attacks.

Hows this?

Edit: I'd put this in the ranged attack feat tree, after precise shot and point blank shot, with the additional requirement: Must have the sneak attack class feature


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Mar 16, 2005)

I'm sorry Patryn, I think your argument is pure sophistry and that the rules for flanking are perfectly clear.  They're borne out not only by the Flanking section itself, but by the various other rules built on the same premise.  Grigs can't flank because they can't threaten.  If they could flank with ranged weapons (despite not threatening), the rules wouldn't state that they can't flank.

However, that last bit of argument aside, I couldn't find any other cites in the SRD to further clarify my point, so I think it's safe to simply agree to disagree on this point. 

Edit to add:  Btw Patryn, I don't mean to be rude or snide when I claim your argument is sophistry.  I have a lot of respect for your discourse in this forum, and am not trying to be insulting by that comment.  Just wanted to clarify that, since upon rereading my post it occurred to me that the phrase might carrying a connotation I didn't mean to convey.  Good discussion, and I hope to have more in the future.


----------



## Winterthorn (Mar 16, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I think your best bet is to focus on the other means of gaining sneak attack: loss of dex bonus to AC.  This can be accomplished in a number of ways, ranging from spells/effects such as _Invisibility_ and _Blink_, to tactics such as sniping, to special abilities such as Hide-In-Plain-Sight.  You can also more easily reign in these abilities if the rogue's extra sneak attacking gets out of hand, with less headaches than tweaking the flanking/threatening mechanics.



I think it was the sniping part that the player was most interested in. He wanted to be able to get some advantage from a rooftop while his allies were already engaged with the enemy down on the street below... Move on roof, then shoot, then move again then shoot, and so on...

-W.


----------



## azmodean (Mar 16, 2005)

Sure, I'd allow Exotic weapon proficiency (longbow), it'd be fun


----------



## Winterthorn (Mar 16, 2005)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Flanking Shot: If you have an ally on an opposite corner of an opposing creature, and your missile weapon is out and visible, your target is denied his dexterity bonus for the purpose of determining sneak attacks that you may wish to launch. Note: The creature in question does not lose his dexterity bonus, only counts as losing it for the purpose of sneak attacks.
> 
> Hows this?
> 
> Edit: I'd put this in the ranged attack feat tree, after precise shot and point blank shot, with the additional requirement: Must have the sneak attack class feature



Okay! I'll keep your suggestion handy. Thankyou   

-W, still thinking...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 16, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Edit to add:  Btw Patryn, I don't mean to be rude or snide when I claim your argument is sophistry.  I have a lot of respect for your discourse in this forum, and am not trying to be insulting by that comment.  Just wanted to clarify that, since upon rereading my post it occurred to me that the phrase might carrying a connotation I didn't mean to convey.  Good discussion, and I hope to have more in the future.




Not a problem!  

I agree that the rules originally meant to say that flanking is a melee-combat-only kind of situation.  Heck, like I said, they expressly said so in 3.0.

Unfortunately, they took out the text that expressly limits it to melee when they moved to 3.5.

There are two possible reasons for this:

1.  Accident - Oops!
2.  Deliberate action

In the case of #1, you'd think that, at some point, there would have been an erratta to the effect of, "Add the following sentence to the definition of Flanking: etc."  There isn't.

In the case of #2, there's two reasons that I can see them doing this:

A.  Unarmed bar fights by non-IUS / non-Monk characters and NPCs are a staple of D&D.  Thus, by changing the definition of flanking such that the bonus to attack rolls is the only part of flanking dependent on 1) melee attacks and 2) your ally threatening, you can have a rogue to smash a bottle over someone's head in a sneak attack to knock them out.  In other words, the rogue is flanking when he attacks, even though his ally (without IUS) doesn't threaten the target.  The rogue doesn't get a bonus, but he can still apply his sneak attack dice.

B.  They wanted to open up the flanking condition (though not the bonus on attack rolls) to include the rogue or other flanker "shooting the opponent in the back" while the target was busily engaged with someone else.

I think it is *most* likely that they intended #2A and, unfortunately, #2B came along for the ride.

I think it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they also intended #2B.

Given that I don't have a mystic mindlink to the original [re]designer's intent, I can only read what they put in front of me.  What they put in front of me allows for both A and B.

Someone else, in a previous thread, brought up the fact that current RotG and FAQ answers have lent support to the melee-only position.

As I brought up in response, the RotG articles are, at best, shakey when it comes to actually getting the rules correct (and they seem to be getting worse) and the FAQ, more often than not, answers 3.5 questions with 3.0 answers - and I don't dispute what 3.0 says about flanking, but 3.5 changed the rules.  Thus, any FAQ answer that relies upon the fact that flanking is strictly melee-only by the RAW is on similar ground to an FAQ answer that relies upon the fact that only humans can be paladins: It was demonstrably true and explicitly stated in the RAW in a previous edition of the game, but the rules have changed since then.


----------



## Deset Gled (Mar 16, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> And how is flanking determined?
> 
> When "an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers ... passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners ... )."
> 
> There is nothing in the newly-revised 3.5 definition of flanking that requires that you be making a melee attack - or even be threatening.  Note, once again, that this is a change from the 3.0 definition of flanking, which specifically that you be making a melee attack.




I disagree with this.  My reasoning is quite simple: The test "an imaginary line..." is preceded by "When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent".  Since the flanking section states right before this that flanking applies "when making a melee attack", and in this case (ranged attack) there is no melee attack, there is no doubt that the characters in question are not flanking.  Hence the imaginary line test is not valid.

You are correct in pointing out that fact that the flanking rules are horrible.  The text is sloppy, the mechanics don't match up with the real life situation (divided attention between opponents), etc etc etc.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 16, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> There are two possible reasons for this:
> 
> 1.  Accident - Oops!
> 2.  Deliberate action




You misses one possibility:

3. They didn't think that they had to point out that the benefits of flanking and flanking go hand in hand, and thus when you don't qualify for one, you don't qualify for the other.

Strained and counterintuitive arguments like yours aside, the rules are pretty clear on this point. You have to threaten to gain the benefits of flanking.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 16, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> 3. They didn't think that they had to point out that the benefits of flanking and flanking go hand in hand, and thus when you don't qualify for one, you don't qualify for the other.




Except, of course, that the benefits of a condition and that condition don't go hand in hand.

Rather, when you have the condition, you get to benefit from the benefits - but not always.

See the invisibility example.  If you aren't denied your Dex bonus, I'm still invisible.  If I don't get a +2, I'm still flanking.



> Strained and counterintuitive arguments like yours aside, the rules are pretty clear on this point. You have to threaten to gain the benefits of flanking.




Incorrect, even with the "melee-only" reading of the rules.

At no point do *I* need to threaten my opponent in order to benefit from flanking.  Rather, *my ally* does.

In other words, a Rogue *can* sneak attack in melee with an unarmed strike, even without the IUS feat, and a barbarian *can* gain a +2 on his to-hit roll when, after his axe is sundered, he attempts to grapple his opponent - so long as the ally opposite is threatening the target.

In neither case do either of these character threaten an opponent.  However, they *are* both flanking.

In other words, you really *should* have the basics of the rules correct before you call someone else's argument "strained" or "counterintuitive."


----------



## kenobi65 (Mar 16, 2005)

Ya know...a few weeks back, this *exact* same discussion / argument came up, ate more bandwidth than the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, and had no resolution.  Why are we starting it back up?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 16, 2005)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> Ya know...a few weeks back, this *exact* same discussion / argument came up, ate more bandwidth than the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, and had no resolution.  Why are we starting it back up?



 Because.

Ugh, at least the last one eventually died off...all this gets down to is "From my reading, its this way!" and "No, it says this!" again and again and again.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Mar 16, 2005)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> Ya know...a few weeks back, this *exact* same discussion / argument came up, ate more bandwidth than the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, and had no resolution.  Why are we starting it back up?



Nostalgia.  Do you have a better thread to start?  We'll go there.


----------



## Lasher Dragon (Mar 16, 2005)

I love when this argument pops back up.

Personally, we allow ranged flank within 30 feet, unless they have farshot, then we allow ranged flank/sneak attack/point blank at 45 feet.

Works great, no complaints so far - and we've been playing this way since 3.0 I believe. (Yeah I know it was specifically against 3.0 RAW, but that's never stopped us before    )


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 16, 2005)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> I disagree with this.  My reasoning is quite simple: The test "an imaginary line..." is preceded by "When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent".




Right.  So, I'm standing here on Bob's left, and you're standing there on Bob's right.  Do we flank?  Yep.

Back me off about 30'.  Do we still flank?  You want to say "No," which means there is "doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent."  So, we draw an imaginary line.  Does it pass through opposite sides of Bob's square?  Yes, it does.  So, according to the definition of flanking, we're flanking.



> Since the flanking section states right before this that flanking applies "when making a melee attack", and in this case (ranged attack) there is no melee attack,




Agreed.  Therefore, the rest of that particular rule does not apply.  What does that rule say, exactly?  That I can get a +2 flanking bonus on any melee attack I make, so long as you are threatening Bob.  If I don't make a melee attack, we're still flanking.



> there is no doubt that the characters in question are not flanking.  Hence the imaginary line test is not valid.




Rather, there is a great deal of doubt as to whether the characters are flanking.  So much, in fact, that you are willing to categorically say that they aren't.  Therefore, you *must* perform the line test.  The line test, however, says we're flanking.



> You are correct in pointing out that fact that the flanking rules are horrible.




And, in their current incarnation, they are horrible in such a way that flanking no longer requires that *I* be making a melee attack.  They merely stipulate that, if I'm flanking, and I make a melee attack, I get a bonus so long as you threaten Bob.

The determination of whether or not I'm flanking, however, no longer cares what I'm doing.  I'm flanking so long as the line test returns true, unlike in 3.0, where I was only flanking during the instant I made a melee attack.

EDIT:

Everyone's favorite rejoinder is, "You're only flanking when you benefit from the +2!  Therefore, you're only flanking when you make a melee attack."

The proble, of course, is that this is not true across the rest of the ruleset, where you can possess a given condition - invisibility, bless, prone, etc. - and not get all the benefits and penalties of that state.

For instance, the Thief-Acrobat from Complete Adventurer gains an ability to ignore the -4 on melee attacks and -4 to AC penalties when prone.  Also, he can stand as a free action that does not provoke AoOs.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Prone:* The character is on the ground. An attacker who is prone has a –4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A defender who is prone gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks.
> Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.




The argument, then, is as follows:

1.  When is someone "Prone"?  "The character is on the ground."
2.  What are the benefits of being "Prone"? +4 bonus to AC against Ranged attacks
3.  What are the penalties of being "Prone"? -4 penalty on melee attacks, can't used most ranged weapons, -4 penalty to AC against melee attacks, standing is a move action that provokes an AoO

Similarly:

1.  When is someone "Flanking"?  Imaginary line test.
2.  What are the benefits of being "Flanking"? +2 on melee attack rolls when opponent is threatened by ally, rogues (etc.) may sneak attack
3.  What are the penalties of "Flanking"? None

Now, look at the Thief Acrobat.

He's "on the ground."  He gets a +4 bonus to AC against Ranged attacks and still can't use most ranged weapons, but does not suffer the -4 penalty on melee attacks, and standing is a free action that does not provoke an AoO.

Is he still "Prone"?

Of course he is; he's on the ground.  However, by the "When you get a +2 bonus!" argument, he's not prone because he doesn't get all the penalties and all the bonuses of the condition.


----------



## AuraSeer (Mar 16, 2005)

Winterthorn said:
			
		

> I think it was the sniping part that the player was most interested in. He wanted to be able to get some advantage from a rooftop while his allies were already engaged with the enemy down on the street below... Move on roof, then shoot, then move again then shoot, and so on...



Have the rogue make a Hide check. If he's out of sight while attacking, the target loses its Dex bonus to AC. As long as the rogue is within the 30' limit, he gets his sneak attack dice.

The rogue can then move to another place on the roof and Hide again, to set up for his next round's attack. Or, if he's a badass, he can remain hidden in the same spot by making another Hide check at -20.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 16, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Incorrect, even with the "melee-only" reading of the rules.
> 
> At no point do *I* need to threaten my opponent in order to benefit from flanking.  Rather, *my ally* does.
> 
> ...




I'd throw the whip example in there as well.

With a whip, you're making a melee attack, but you don't threaten.  If your ally threatens, however, you get your flanking bonus.

You can even get your flanking bonus if your partner is using a bow... as long as he's a Peerless Archer with the 'Ranged Threat' class ability that lets him threaten at 10 feet.  However, _he_ can't get the bonus - he's not making a melee attack, and you don't threaten...

-Hyp.


----------



## kenobi65 (Mar 16, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Nostalgia.




Either that, or it's a group effort to help Patryn catch up to Crothian.


----------



## Arkhandus (Mar 16, 2005)

Ugh.  We had this discussion weeks ago.  You cannot flank with a ranged weapon.  Period.  I quoted the SRD several times in my response to that thread, and I'll not go to the bother of finding and posting the same quotes again.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 16, 2005)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Ugh.  We had this discussion weeks ago.  You cannot flank with a ranged weapon.  Period.  I quoted the SRD several times in my response to that thread, and I'll not go to the bother of finding and posting the same quotes again.




Ugh.  We had this discussion weeks ago.  You *can* flank with a ranged weapon.  Period.*  I quoted the SRD several times in my response to that thread, but being a nice guy, I'll go to the bother of finding and posting the same quotes again.  

* Whether it was an intended change or not!  

EDIT:

For the record, I realize that this is an awful large windmill I'm tilting at.  As such, I realize that I'm not ever going to convince most people that the rules allow this.  I am, however, striving to reach the point where everyone can look at the arguments, go, "Yeah, I see what he's sayin'; how funny!" and go back to treating flanking the way 3.0 did.


----------



## Lasher Dragon (Mar 16, 2005)

I think it's very fishy that they changed the wording from 3.0 to 3.5 in a way that allows this argument to come up time & time again. I think that the current RAW allows for both interpretations, therefore I think it's a judgement call on the part of the DM. The way we have read it is, to receive flank, a buddy of yours must be on the opposite side (the whole straight-line thing) AND HE (That Buddy) MUST be threatening the enemy. It says nothing about you yourself threatening the poor sap betwixt you. If those conditions are met, then you receive the benefit of flanking. Your buddy does not, seeing as how you are not threatening. That's how we do it, like I said before, it may not be entirely CORRECT as far as RAW goes, but it works and we love it.


----------



## OrChasmatron (Mar 16, 2005)

Winterthorn said:
			
		

> is there a means to flank an opponent who hasn't lost their Dexterity bonus with a ranged weapon, say for example at 60 feet, in order to satisfy the requirements for a Sneak Attack?




The whole point of the sneak attack being limited to 30' is the fact that you have to be able to see the target well enough to hit a vulnerable spot.  You can't aim at a vulnerable spot that you can't see.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 16, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> As such, I realize that I'm not ever going to convince most people that the rules allow this.  I am, however, striving to reach the point where everyone can look at the arguments, go, "Yeah, I see what he's sayin'; how funny!" and go back to treating flanking the way 3.0 did.




I can understand that.

It's the same as my contention that, strictly as written, someone suffering from Ray of Enfeeblement can't be killed by a Shadow... or that while a Ftr10 can use a Ring of Evasion in heavy armor, a Ftr9/Rog1 can't.  I might not run those rules that way... but it's what they _say_.

On the other hand, certain other disputed rules, I use as they're written.  A Flaming Sphere doesn't damage someone except when it moves into their square... if they both just hang around doing nothing for three rounds, no more damage is taken.  A lance used in one hand while mounted gets +4 on Disarm checks and 2-for-1 Power Attack.  Etc.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 16, 2005)

Winterthorn said:
			
		

> I know Rogues can sneak attack at up to 30 feet if the second case is true, but is there a means such as through a prestige class ability, or a feat, that permits one to flank with a  ranged weapon _outside of melee_  and thus, in the case of Rogues, satisfy the requirements to execute a sneak attack?




If you're a multiclassed Rogue / Arcane caster, you can sneak attack from beyond 30 feet, but you still require the opponent to be denied his Dex bonus.

With a Spectral Hand delivering a touch spell (like Shocking Grasp, for example), you can sneak attack from Medium range (100' + 10'/level)... if he's denied Dex.

-Hyp.


----------



## atom crash (Mar 16, 2005)

Just for the record, I agree with Patryn. Not that I think my opinion holds significant weight, but he's not the only one who holds this funny notion that in 3.0 the flanking rules said rather explicitly that you can't flank with a ranged weapon and the 3.5 revision muddied the waters. Intentional change or just some dumb random mistake? I tend to think it was intentional. After all, if I chalked it up to a dumb random mistake and kept going I might lay awake at night wondering what else in the 3.5 revision might be messed up.

So, in a nutshell, here it is:

You *cannot* gain a +2 flanking bonus with a ranged weapon. The rules explicitly say you only get the flanking bonus on a melee attack.

You *can* flank with a ranged weapon. Flanking isn't conditional on the bonus; the bonus is conditional on flanking. Flanking is conditional on your position in relation to an ally and an opponent.


----------



## Deset Gled (Mar 16, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Everyone's favorite rejoinder is, "You're only flanking when you benefit from the +2!  Therefore, you're only flanking when you make a melee attack."
> 
> The proble, of course, is that this is not true across the rest of the ruleset, where you can possess a given condition - invisibility, bless, prone, etc. - and not get all the benefits and penalties of that state.
> 
> *snip*




You are correct.  This was, in fact, going to be my response.  However, your arguement about why it doesn't work does not convince me.  The problem is a difference of definition.  

Your arguement is that a condition can exist without a character receiving all consequences of the condition.  I agree with this statement.  The problem is that (IMO), the +2 is not a consequence of flanking, it is the definition of flanking.  There is a subtle but profound difference.

To be more specific, I believe the definition of flanking to be the sentence "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."  The sentences that you refer to as a definition are "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."  The reason that I do not agree that the second quote is a definition is because of the clause "When in doubt" and because it directly follows the sentence I claim is the definition.  In my definitive sentence, the only room for doubt is in what constitutes being "on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner," which is exactly what the "when in doubt" sentence clarifies (I suppose there's also a question as to what constitutes "friendly", but that's not an area I feel is relevant).  You seem to be reading the clause "when in doubt" to mean whenever somebody asks a question about whether or not they are flanking.  I believe this to be problematic, because it means that the clause "when in doubt" is effectively meaningless.

Unfortunately, due to the problem of poor definition, the above paragraph and discussion of the true definition of flanking will boil down to designer intent, which we can never get a definitive answer on.  Accordingly, I am happy to agree to disagree with you on the matter.

On a slightly different (but related) topic, isn't it about time in this thread to bring up the question of balance?  I believe that allowing characters to flank with ranged weapons is very unbalanced.  Allowing a rogue to get a full attack worth of sneak attacks with no cost to themselves seems very unbalanced to me.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 16, 2005)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> The reason that I do not agree that the second quote is a definition is because of the clause "When in doubt" and because it directly follows the sentence I claim is the definition.




Actually, it's in the next paragraph.  To my mind, that's enough separation to make it a distinct thought.

However, I understand where you're coming from.



> In my definitive sentence, the only room for doubt is in what constitutes being "on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner," which is exactly what the "when in doubt" sentence clarifies




My reading, however, is that in the base scenario (one 5'x5' creature in melee with a 5'x5' creature with a 5'x5' ally directly opposite, also in melee) is so obviously a flanking situation that the imaginary line test would not need to be invoked.

Therefore, the imaginary line test is meant to apply to situations where that is not the case - either the opponent or the attackers are not 5'x5', the orientation is slightly off, or the distance is greater than base-touching.  This distance can be caused by anything that increases the distance between two characters: natural reach, weapon reach, or ranged weapons, for example.



> (I suppose there's also a question as to what constitutes "friendly",




Heh, heh, heh.  Amen to that!  



> I believe this to be problematic, because it means that the clause "when in doubt" is effectively meaningless.




Or, as above, the base case is obvious and doesn't need to be tested.  Anything else *might* need to be tested.



> On a slightly different (but related) topic, isn't it about time in this thread to bring up the question of balance?  I believe that allowing characters to flank with ranged weapons is very unbalanced.  Allowing a rogue to get a full attack worth of sneak attacks with no cost to themselves seems very unbalanced to me.




That's a good question.

The reasons I don't believe it would be particularly unbalanced are as follows:

1.  The "flanking possible squares" are rather limited.  You still have to be directly opposite an ally, which basically limits your firing positions to straight lines.

2.  Ranged sneak attacks still have a 30' limit to them, which places them well within move-attack and / or charge range of most creatures - and sometimes within a creature's base reach!

So, while it does make certain kinds of sneak attacks easier to pull off, I don't believe it would be overwhelmingly powerful to the extent that it would be game-breaking.

The *real* problem with the flanking rules, though, is the fact that particularly small creatures can't flank anything, at all, ever, whether you allow ranged flanking or not.  What kind of sense does that make?  Pixies and Petals unite!


----------



## Nareau (Mar 17, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It's the same as my contention that, strictly as written, someone suffering from Ray of Enfeeblement can't be killed by a Shadow... or that while a Ftr10 can use a Ring of Evasion in heavy armor, a Ftr9/Rog1 can't.  I might not run those rules that way... but it's what they _say_.



Hyp, I'm always amazed at your ability to see the rules more clearly than anyone else.  And I'm fascinated by the above.  So in the interest of not hijacking this thread, I've started a new one.  Would you mind visiting that thread, and explaining these weird permutations?

Spider


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 17, 2005)

Yeah yeah, and the Rules As Written say that a Prayer Beads: Karma Only is FREE, and WOTC has not to date errated it despite the OBVIOUS miscalculation in the pricing formula.  WOTC failing to fix things is not, in itself, much of an arguement that something wonky was actually intended.

To me, it's blatantly obvious that you can only flank with a melee weapon, period.  I think the whole "When in doubt" portion of the paragraph makes it utterly and completely clear that we are not in any way speaking about a different situation, but the exact same situation just described in the prior sentence (which says "melee").


----------



## Shellman (Mar 17, 2005)

So someone tell me how a Rogue could actually sneak attack with a ranged weapon!

I assume the conditions would be very strict like:

An invisible Rogue is standing within 30 ft of a target ready to take a shot from a Shortbow.

Are there any other conditions?


----------



## Mark Chance (Mar 17, 2005)

You could always arm the rogue with a longspear. Then he could flank at sort-of-like-at-range.


----------



## provik (Mar 17, 2005)

*Perfect Wight*

There's a reason why this ability is limited to an Epic Level prestige class.

Perfect Wight's class ability is potent and limited to a specific number of times per day.  Also, it is limited to epic level characters (actually, at epic level, it makes it a little easier on the GM because it takes a little more of the positioning staging out of a combat and let's rogues get on with the damage dealing, making mundane events flow faster and the more complex issues of epic level combat come forward).

But anything less than epic level giving them that ability?  

I seem to recall something recently in the Races of the Wild, the Whisper Knife, I believe.

Again, something that's not easily attainable right away and requires some sacrifice to get into.


----------



## Seeten (Mar 17, 2005)

I contend you make the ability into a feat, and allow it or disallow it based on your campaign. In our campaign, the rogue is the 90 pound weakling, and never pulls his weight. Ranged sneak attacking still wouldnt make him "the best" or even second best, but it'd go a long way to making him better.

Never mind that it'd take him 6 levels to get the feats necessary.


----------



## GimbleRaulnor (Mar 17, 2005)

Winterthorn said:
			
		

> I think it was the sniping part that the player was most interested in. He wanted to be able to get some advantage from a rooftop while his allies were already engaged with the enemy down on the street below... Move on roof, then shoot, then move again then shoot, and so on...
> 
> -W.




The tactical feat 'Woodland Sniper' from Races of the Wild is exactly what you're looking for.


----------



## Goobermunch (Mar 17, 2005)

Atherlos said:
			
		

> The PrC Whisperknife in Races of the Wild gives ranged flanking at 10' at 8th level or so. It's a halfling only PrC, requires quite a few feats, and I think it gives Rapid Shot or some other useful feat at 1st level. If I remember correctly it also lets you do ranged attacks without provoking AoO somewhere along the way.




Of course, the above fact makes Patryn of Elvenshae's argument a little shakier.  While I realize that the core rules trump all else, in the case of ambiguity, we should probably try for an interpretation that gives full effect to all of WotC's rules.

If we can agree that the rule is, at least, ambiguous, then we should look to other sources for clarification.  As far as I can tell, neither the current 3.5 FAQ nor the 3.5 errata are particularly helpful.  I'm disinclined to rely on the 3.0 versions of these documents, because the wording of the rules has changed.

However, the Whisperknife's ranged flanking ability strongly indicates that Patryn's interpretation is not the intended interpretation and is not shared with the designers at WotC.  If it were, it would be unnecessary to provide a "ranged flanking" ability at 10', because all PCs would have that ability whenever they were armed with ranged weapons (and at greater ranges).

Based on this datum, it is more reasonable to construe the rule against a general ability to flank at range.  If anyone has other instances in the rules that would militate in favor (or against) of resolving the ambiguity in favor of ranged flanking, please post them here.

--G


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 17, 2005)

Shellman said:
			
		

> So someone tell me how a Rogue could actually sneak attack with a ranged weapon!




(Note: all apply to a rogue attacking with a ranged weapon from within 30 feet).

If the rogue is attacking someone who was being grappled.

If the rogue is attacking while invisible.

If the rogue is attacking someone who does not have Uncanny Dodge while they are flat footed at the beginning of combat.

If the rogue is attacking someone who is running.

If the rogue is attacking someone who is climbing.

And so on.


----------



## mikebr99 (Mar 17, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> (Note: all apply to a rogue attacking with a ranged weapon from within 30 feet).
> 
> If the rogue is attacking someone who was being grappled.
> 
> ...



I'd just like to add the Sniping mechanic within the Hide skill to this list.


Mike


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 17, 2005)

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> Of course, the above fact makes Patryn of Elvenshae's argument a little shakier.




On the contrary!

You of course recall the excellent Prestige ability (of the Exotic Weaponmaster? class, I believe) from Complete Warrior which allows you, among other thing, to Power Attack 2-for-1 when wielding an exotic 1-handed weapon in two hands, don't you?



			
				Complete Warrior said:
			
		

> When wielding a one-handed exotic melee weapon in two hands, you can focus the power of your attack so that you deal extra damage equal to your Str bonus x2. If you have the Power Attack feat, you treat the weapon as two-handed for purposes of determining your bonus on damage rolls







			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Special: If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls.




In other words, just because it's a PrC ability, it doesn't mean the designer of that PrC has:

1. A complete understanding of the rules
2. Added anything that can't already be done in the base rules

In other words, it's happened before, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to happen again.

EDIT:

Moreover, there's no indication at all that the designer of the Whisperknife PrC is the same person who redesigned the 3.5 flanking rules.  Therefore, "designer intent" cannot be determined from this data point.

EDIT 2:

The possbility exists, however, that the new PrC ability allows the Whisperknife to benefit from the +2 flanking bonus to attack rolls, previously limited to melee attacks.  In which case, it is consistent with a more general ranged-allowed reading of the flanking rules.


----------



## atom crash (Mar 17, 2005)

The following conditions cause a character to lose his/her Dex bonus to AC and allow rogues to sneak attack:

- Blinded
- Cowering
- Flat-Footed
- Helpless (effective Dex is 0 and allows sneak attack; includes the conditions paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping and unconscious)
- Stunned

An invisible rogue may sneak attack, but becomes visible after the first such attack. Remember that an unseen rogue who is hiding and sniping is effectively invisible. A rogue with darkvision can sneak attack an opponent who cannot see in the dark; snuff the light source and fire away. Or hide in the shadowy illumination of a light source and fire away at a target in the light.

A character that is balancing is considered flat-footed.

And I just want to point out that the danger of sneak attacking an opponent that is grappling is you have a 50% chance of sneak attacking your buddy instead.


----------



## mikebr99 (Mar 17, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> And I just want to point out that the danger of sneak attacking an opponent that is grappling is you have a 50% chance of sneak attacking your buddy instead.



That's a little harsh... I am focused on my target's kidnee, but hit my buddy's instead? Just because my new target (in error) has lost his DEX, doesn't mean it is automatically a SA.


Mike


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 17, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> And I just want to point out that the danger of sneak attacking an opponent that is grappling is you have a 50% chance of sneak attacking your buddy instead.




Yes, but the question was when a rogue could do it, not whether or not the tactic was risky.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 17, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> And I just want to point out that the danger of sneak attacking an opponent that is grappling is you have a 50% chance of sneak attacking your buddy instead.




Wait, where's that rule? It isn't under grappling.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 17, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Wait, where's that rule? It isn't under grappling.




It is.  Basically, if you make a ranged attack against someone involved in a grapple, your actual target is "determined randomly."

The actual method to "determine randomly" whom you hit is never actually spelled out.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> 3 Roll randomly to see which grappling combatant you strike. That defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC.


----------



## atom crash (Mar 17, 2005)

> *Footnote 3, Table: Armor Class Modifiers, Combat Modifiers, SRD:*
> 
> 3 Roll randomly to see which grappling combatant you strike. That defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC.




Any ranged attack at a grappling defender has an equal chance of striking either grappler.

It's kinda buried in there, but it's there. I don't have my PHB handy so I don't know if it's spelled out elsewhere in there.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 17, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> Any ranged attack at a grappling defender has an equal chance of striking either grappler.




That's going a bit farther than the rules do, however.  The rules don't actually say that the chance is "equal," merely that your actual target is determined "randomly."

50 / 50 (or 33 / 33 / 33, or whatever) is probably the easiest method, but may not be appropriate in all circumstances - like a halfling grappling with a dragon, for instance.


----------



## mikebr99 (Mar 17, 2005)

but if your target of an SA has some form of cover/concealment... which if he's grappled, he would (by the other guy)... then no SA.


Mike


----------



## PaulKemp (Mar 17, 2005)

deleted


----------



## atom crash (Mar 17, 2005)

> That's going a bit farther than the rules do, however. The rules don't actually say that the chance is "equal," merely that your actual target is determined "randomly."




You're absolutely right. I was assuming the grappling characters were of equal size; I should know better than to assume.



> but if your target of an SA has some form of cover/concealment... which if he's grappled, he would (by the other guy)... then no SA.




Not sure about this. Grappling gives no AC modifier to the defender; the chance of hitting the wrong defender is in effect the only "cover" provided. But cover doesn't deny sneak attack; concealment does. Grappling provides no concealment to either grappler.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 17, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> Grappling provides no concealment to either grappler.




But if your ally was under the effects of a Blur spell before he started grappling ...


----------



## mikebr99 (Mar 17, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> You're absolutely right. I was assuming the grappling characters were of equal size; I should know better than to assume.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure about this. Grappling gives no AC modifier to the defender; the chance of hitting the wrong defender is in effect the only "cover" provided. But cover doesn't deny sneak attack; concealment does. Grappling provides no concealment to either grappler.



Well Grappling & Concealment both provide a % miss chance... or at least a % not to hit the intended target.... YMMV


Mike


----------



## Kaffis (Mar 19, 2005)

Patryn of E said:
			
		

> ...The proble, of course, is that this is not true across the rest of the ruleset, where you can possess a given condition - invisibility, bless, prone, etc. - and not get all the benefits and penalties of that state.




But see, something like bless, where you get a +2 to your will saves on fear and whatnot -- you have that plus two, whether you are asked to make the roll or not. And invisibility -- uncanny dex overrides the flatfootedness, it doesn't deny it to you. I get to keep it *even though* you're taking it away from me. You're still taking it away from me, I just get to add it anyways because I'm uncanny.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 19, 2005)

mikebr99 said:
			
		

> Well Grappling & Concealment both provide a % miss chance... or at least a % not to hit the intended target.... YMMV




Uh... well, so does armor.  That doesn't mean someone with armor has Concealment, and is thus immune to sneak attacks.

Grappling does not equal concealment.

-Hyp.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 19, 2005)

Kaffis said:
			
		

> But see, something like bless, where you get a +2 to your will saves on fear and whatnot -- you have that plus two, whether you are asked to make the roll or not.




Exactly!

And when you're flanking, you have that +2, whether you make a melee attack roll or not.

Thank you for agreeing with me.


----------



## nak9788 (Mar 21, 2005)

Has anyone considered the prestige class: Order of the Bow Intitiate?  She gets a ranged sneak attack ability.  But also, she has the ability to shoot her bow at an adjacent target without provoking an AoO.  

Technically I think she still couldn't flank someone with her bow, even if she is adjacent but I don't see why.  I mean people get a flanking bonus basically because the flanked opponent has to react to someone in front of them as well as someone directly behind them, when he looks at one person, the other one stabs (or shoots) him in back.


----------



## kenobi65 (Mar 21, 2005)

nak9788 said:
			
		

> Has anyone considered the prestige class: Order of the Bow Intitiate?  She gets a ranged sneak attack ability.  But also, she has the ability to shoot her bow at an adjacent target without provoking an AoO.




Except that it's not, technically, a Sneak Attack.  It stacks with Sneak Attack, but it's a different kind of bonus damage (I don't have my book in front of me, and I can't remember the name off the top of my head).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 21, 2005)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> Except that it's not, technically, a Sneak Attack.  It stacks with Sneak Attack, but it's a different kind of bonus damage (I don't have my book in front of me, and I can't remember the name off the top of my head).




'Ranged Precision'.

The Sword and Fist OotBI got a sneak attack, from memory, but not the CW 3.5 version.

-Hyp.


----------



## atom crash (Mar 21, 2005)

The two abilities of the Order of the Bow Initiate in question are *ranged precision* and *close combat shot*. *Ranged precision* confers a precision damage bonus on a single ranged attack within 30 feet (as a standard action). You trade off multiple shots for a single shot that does more damage. And it stacks with sneak attack damage. It should also probably stack with skirmish damage.

*Close combat shot* allows an initiate to make a ranged attack in a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity. This attack does not threaten, so it can't be used to provide someone else with a flanking bonus. And since it isn't a melee attack, it also can't receive a flanking bonus.


----------



## kenobi65 (Mar 21, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> The two abilities of the Order of the Bow Initiate in question are *ranged precision* and *close combat shot*. *Ranged precision* confers a precision damage bonus on a single ranged attack within 30 feet (as a standard action). You trade off multiple shots for a single shot that does more damage. And it stacks with sneak attack damage. It should also probably stack with skirmish damage.




And, note that it can always be used...it doesn't have the limitations of a sneak attack (i.e., when the defender is denied his Dex bonus to AC, or is flanked).


----------



## irdeggman (Mar 22, 2005)

You need to check the actual rules and not the SRD. The printed text in the PHB includes several illustrations that that clearly point out (and include text) stating “When making a *melee attack*, a creature or character gets a +2 bonus on the attack roll if the creature is *being threatened by an enemy on its opposite side or corner.*”  it then goes on to say “When in doubt whether two characters flank a creature. . . “

There is indeed a difference of whether or not a character flanks another or when does someone benefit from flanking.


PHB pg 137 “You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack.”

In order to sneak attack a rogue must catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively. Basically when the target is denied his Dex bonus or the rogue is flanking him.

In order to get a bonus for flanking – a character must be using a melee weapon and his opponent must be “threatened” by a foe on its opposite side. In order to “threaten” a character must be within reach to make melee attack.

Now does this mean that a rogue within 30' using a ranged weapon is flanking a foe if an ally is on the foe's opisite side and threatening him?

That is a good question and the RAW does indeed leave this up for interpretation.  I would rule that in order to count as flanking both allies must be threatening the foe (which means melee weapons) - but this is an interpretation (although it does do along with RotG and Sage Advice) {which by the way I do think are really good {RotG that is and Skip's Sage Advice, Andy is no where near as good, IMO})


----------



## Saeviomagy (Mar 22, 2005)

Patryn:

I think the key to your argument is
"Flanking is a condition"

I contend that it is not, at least not in the SRD (If someone could check out the books, that'd be nice). There is no term to describe someone who is benefiting from a +2 flanking modifier to their attack.

Being flanked, on the other hand, IS a condition, which is what you are arguing. However it's not the condition necessary to have sneak attacks allowed against you. The rogue must be flanking you, not you must be flanked.

That's the sort of level you come to when you break down the description under "flanking" to the degree that you are doing. It, in fact, makes a rogue sneak attacking someone due to him being flanked impossible.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 22, 2005)

You know, while I personally disagree with Patryn's interpretation (I consider the conditions listed under Flanking for 'you receive a +2 flanking bonus' to be the conditions for Flanking), reading it the other way does lead to an oddity with Formians, for example.

The Hive Mind ability states that when you have more than one formian in a group, none of them are considered flanked unless they all are.

Since you only receive the +2 flanking bonus when you are making a melee attack, it's only possible to flank two formians if people are making melee attacks against both of them simultaneously... and with the initiative system, that can't happen.  Therefore, two formians cannot be flanked at the same time, which means as long as there is more than one formian in a group, none of them are ever considered flanked.

Patryn's interpretation, on the other hand, at least allows for the possibility - if you can draw lines between assorted allies bracketing all the formians, they can be considered flanked... and then one may receive the +2 bonus when attacking one of them.

-Hyp.


----------



## Evilhalfling (Mar 22, 2005)

I didnt have any doubt that my ruling last game was correct when the monk would go stand behind someone while the thief used SA with his bow.   The archer was considered flanking , the monk was not.  Reading all these arguments just got me confused.  So I quit reading the thread and turned to the PHB.  It seemed realtively clear, so I was goint to return with my findings but others had already posted them.  So add my vote? to the option listed below.  


			
				atom crash said:
			
		

> Just for the record, I agree with Patryn.
> 
> You *cannot* gain a +2 flanking bonus with a ranged weapon. The rules explicitly say you only get the flanking bonus on a melee attack.
> 
> You *can* flank with a ranged weapon. Flanking isn't conditional on the bonus; the bonus is conditional on flanking. Flanking is conditional on your position in relation to an ally and an opponent.




 Next session I will clarify that the thief does not get a +2 to hit, but still gets SA.  This combo has actually allowed the monk to use his deflect arrows feat ..... but that is a different kettle of fish.

Side note SA in the Sig. actually worked, as even though the target was now aware of the thief a fighter moved behind the enemy.


----------



## atom crash (Mar 22, 2005)

> You need to check the actual rules and not the SRD. The printed text in the PHB includes several illustrations that that clearly point out (and include text) stating “When making a melee attack, a creature or character gets a +2 bonus on the attack roll if the creature is being threatened by an enemy on its opposite side or corner.” it then goes on to say “When in doubt whether two characters flank a creature. . . “
> 
> There is indeed a difference of whether or not a character flanks another or when does someone benefit from flanking.




It's worth noting that the text in the PHB (and repeated in the example illustrations) is the same as the SRD version, except of course where the iconic character are referenced in the pictures.

I tend to post mostly while I'm at work, where I only have access to the online SRD. I like to come home, crack open my PHB and see how the two sources differ. In the case of flanking, they don't. Except the illustration also says, "Here, Regdar and Lidda give each other flanking bonuses, while Tordek enjoys a sandwich and Jozan sips lemonade." Okay so it doesn't really say that about Tordek and Jozan, but I think it sounds better that way.  Doesn't Tordek look like he enjoys the occasional sandwich?  

It's also worth noting that the example illustrations in the PHB are not all-inclusive in any other section, so I believe that they are also not all-inclusive in the flanking section either. Check out the one example for Attacks of Opportunity (p. 138), which covers movement, casting a spell and drinking a potion. These are the most common examples of actions provoking AoO, just as the illustrations cover the most common examples of flanking. Okay, maybe that's a stretch, but my point is that just because it's not illustrated doesn't mean it's not possible.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 22, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> You know, while I personally disagree with Patryn's interpretation (I consider the conditions listed under Flanking for 'you receive a +2 flanking bonus' to be the conditions for Flanking), reading it the other way does lead to an oddity with Formians, for example.




I knew there was another example I was forgetting.  Thanks for reminding me, Hyp.


----------



## The Gryphon (Mar 22, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If you're a multiclassed Rogue / Arcane caster, you can sneak attack from beyond 30 feet, but you still require the opponent to be denied his Dex bonus.
> 
> With a Spectral Hand delivering a touch spell (like Shocking Grasp, for example), you can sneak attack from Medium range (100' + 10'/level)... if he's denied Dex.
> 
> -Hyp.




You can't sneak attack from beyond 30 feet within the standard rules, and that's not what you're showing.

What you're showing is that a spell effect that allows you to make melee touch attacks at range from yourself can originate beyond the 30 feet limit, but the attack with which the sneak attack itself is made is still originating within 30 feet of the target no matter where the spell for the spectral hand is cast.


----------



## The Gryphon (Mar 22, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> You know, while I personally disagree with Patryn's interpretation (I consider the conditions listed under Flanking for 'you receive a +2 flanking bonus' to be the conditions for Flanking), reading it the other way does lead to an oddity with Formians, for example.
> 
> The Hive Mind ability states that when you have more than one formian in a group, none of them are considered flanked unless they all are.
> 
> ...




I also disagree with Patryn's interpretation, but as we've argued before (over the exact same interpretations) the +2 flanking bonus seems to be a sticking point with you.

It's just like having a situational modifier for being on higher ground, whether you enact an action which requires the use the modifier or not you're still on higher ground. So whether you need to use the modifier or not you still flank the target.

Patryn's interpretation, no more allows for the possibility than this. If all defending creatures are threatened and you can draw lines between assorted allies which threaten each formian, they can be considered flanked.

Example: Xs are PCs, # are Formains.

X1X
234
X5X

Assuming all Xs threaten in melee combat, all of the formains are flanked, then as each PC attacks they can gain the +2 flanking bonus against any Formian they flank. If any of the Formians move they cannot be flanked as no PC can move to a position which would allow all Formians to be flanked once again. If one of the PCs had a whip or was using an unarmed strike the Formians would also not be flanked as these weapons don't threaten any area into which it can make an attack and actually provoke an attack of opportunity.

Patryn's interpretation won't work if both PCs on the same side in the above diagram don't threaten their respective Formians (obviously neither will mine), but his interpretation does in general make it *easier* to flank (as both friendly creatures don't need to be considered to be flanking the same creature) which IMO is not a good situation.

A correction to the flanking description should probably be something like this "When making a melee attack, *with an attack that doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity* OR/AND *which threatens the opponent*, you get a ...". The second option feels best to me due to the fact that to be flanked the target must feel threatened enough to split its attention between multiple foes and leave itself more open to attack.

Also as has been said earlier in the thread. If you could flank in any situation other than by threatening a creature in melee combat (you'd think they would have provided one picture of a ranged example if it was possible - saying that the ranged attacker was flanking, but the melee attacker wasn't as the ranged attacker didn't threaten the target), why would creatures with a reach of 0 feet be unable to flank a target (this to me indicates the correction(s) I've made above)?

Example: T is Tiny rogue armed with a bow, M is medium ally, X is PC.

T    XM

According to Patryn's interpretation T (being 20 feet away) could normally sneak attack X, but because T is tiny it can't flank an opponent and therefore can't sneak attack. If T were medium though it could sneak attack as it can flank.

Now it's fair enough if the tiny creature can't flank as it provokes an AOO or doesn't threaten in melee, but if it can't do it at range when it's at no disadvantage that's a really big flaw in Patryn's interpretation of the RAW.


----------



## GimbleRaulnor (Mar 22, 2005)

IMO the reason why flanking gives any bonuses, is because the person being flanked cannot effectively defend itself against attackers from two sides. If he turns to one of the attackers, the other has an open space for an attack (AOO).

This has a direct connection to AOO's, and thus threatranges. And since there's no threatening with ranged weapons, there's no flanking with ranged weapons either.

At least, that's my interpretation of the flanking rules =)


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 22, 2005)

The Gryphon said:
			
		

> Patryn's interpretation, no more allows for the possibility than this. If all defending creatures are threatened and you can draw lines between assorted allies which threaten each formian, they can be considered flanked.
> 
> Example: Xs are PCs, # are Formains.
> 
> ...




Going off of the main thrust of the objection to my explanation, what you have said above is absolutely not true.

Succinctly, "Flanking" is not a condition dependent upon combat placement alone.  Rather, is a condition dependent upon combat placement *and* making a melee attack.

So, the top-left PC is not flanking unless and until he decides to make a melee attack against Formian 1.  As soon as he decides to make a melee attack against Formian 1, you may check the flanking conditions to determine whether or not he is, in fact, flanking.

1) Is TopLeft engaged making a melee attack against Formian 1?  *Yes.*
2) Is Formian 1 threatened by a friendly character opposite him, such that a line between the bases crosses opposite sides or corners of the Formian's square?  *Yes.*
3) Therefore, is TopLeft flanking Formian 1?  *Yes, but ...*
4) A given Formian may only be flanked when all are flanked.  Is Formian 4 flanked? *No, because no one is currently making a melee attack against it, therefore it fails test 1.*
5)  Therefore, Formian 1 is not flanked.

Therefore, using the "You are only flanking when you get a flanking bonus" ruling that those who don't like my reading are proposing, Formians are completely immune to flanking.

However, if you accept my reading, that the definition of flanking is dependent only upon combat positioning ("When in doubt ..."), then the situation you outlined above is one in which all the Formians are flanked.

Note that it is *only* by accepting my reading that Formians can be flanked at all.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 22, 2005)

The Gryphon said:
			
		

> Example: T is Tiny rogue armed with a bow, M is medium ally, X is PC.
> 
> T    XM
> 
> ...




Additionally, D is a Diminutive Rogue armed with a Diminutive *short sword*, M is a Diminutive ally (also armed with a Diminutive short sword) and X is a Diminutive target.

-----
-----
-DXM-
-----
-----

They're really, really small, so they can pack 5x5 in a given 5' square.  Therefore, all that action is happening within the same 5' square.  Reach is now no longer an issue.

Does D flank X?

Nope, because:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent.




In other words, the "tiny creatures" ruling - on account of the way threatened squares and reach works - neither supports nor detracts from my particular ruling.  Creatures with a reach of 0 can't flank an opponent, *ever*, regardless of whether or not they are using melee or ranged weapons, and regardless of the size of their target.  Heck, diminutive creatures can't even flank Fine creatures, which are even smaller than them.

This is not a valid objection, in other words.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 22, 2005)

GimbleRaulnor said:
			
		

> IMO the reason why flanking gives any bonuses, is because the person being flanked cannot effectively defend itself against attackers from two sides. If he turns to one of the attackers, the other has an open space for an attack (AOO).




Attacking one of two people threatening you does not provoke an AoO.



> This has a direct connection to AOO's, and thus threatranges. And since there's no threatening with ranged weapons, there's no flanking with ranged weapons either.




Likewise, there's no threatening with an unarmed strike without being a monk or taking the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, so you can't flank when making an unarmed strike.

Right?


----------



## Lasher Dragon (Mar 22, 2005)

<golf clap>


----------



## GimbleRaulnor (Mar 22, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Attacking one of two people threatening you does not provoke an AoO.




Ahh, I didn't mean 'just' attacking, but 'totally focussing on one of them'. In the flanking rules it's assumed you try to defend against both flankers equally, and there are no rules for ignoring one of the flankers, but I'd say doing so would provoke and AOO. A houserule ;-)





			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Likewise, there's no threatening with an unarmed strike without being a monk or taking the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, so you can't flank when making an unarmed strike.
> 
> Right?




Completely right


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 22, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Likewise, there's no threatening with an unarmed strike without being a monk or taking the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, so you can't flank when making an unarmed strike.




Correct.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 22, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Likewise, there's no threatening with an unarmed strike without being a monk or taking the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, so you can't flank when making an unarmed strike.
> 
> Right?






			
				GimbleRaulnor said:
			
		

> Completely right






			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Correct.




*BZZZZZZZ*

Sorry, folks, but thanks for playing the "Let Patryn Trick You" game. 

All joking aside, in the flanking rules, it mentions threatening twice.  Specifically:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...
> 
> Only a *creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker* get a flanking bonus.




So, whenever *I* make a melee attack, the only person who needs to threaten the opponent in order to provide a "flanking bonus" is *you*.

This is true regardless of whether or not you accept the ranged flanking reading of the rules.

In other words, when we are on opposite sides of an opponent, and I'm attacking with my non-improved unarmed strike and you're attacking with a short sword, *I* get a flanking bonus because you threaten the opponent.  You don't, because I don't threaten.


----------



## Lasher Dragon (Mar 22, 2005)

<gives the bloated equine corpse another good kick>

Yeah, what Patryn said!!!

hehehe


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 22, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> In other words, when we are on opposite sides of an opponent, and I'm attacking with my non-improved unarmed strike and you're attacking with a short sword, *I* get a flanking bonus because you threaten the opponent.  You don't, because I don't threaten.




Now here's a related question.

Let's say that you're a rogue, and are still using that short sword.  If you attack the guy between us, would you get a Sneak Attack?

Keep in mind that we both pass the line test for flanking, but I don't threaten our mutual foe.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 22, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Now here's a related question.
> 
> Let's say that you're a rogue, and are still using that short sword.  If you attack the guy between us, would you get a Sneak Attack?
> 
> Keep in mind that we both pass the line test for flanking, but I don't threaten our mutual foe.




No. To be flanking an opponent, you must be attacking an enemy who is threatened by an ally. It is perfectly possible for one ally to be flanking and the other to not. All sophistry aside concerning the "line test" and so on, to flank an opponent, you must attack an enemy who is currently threatened by an ally with your own melee attack.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 22, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> *BZZZZZZZ*
> 
> Sorry, folks, but thanks for playing the "Let Patryn Trick You" game.




Actually, it was the "Let Patryn fail to define the situation fully" game.

You cannot have two individuals without improved unarmed strike act together to flank an opponent, which is how I interpreted your example.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 22, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> All sophistry aside concerning the "line test" and so on, to flank an opponent, you must attack an enemy who is currently threatened by an ally with your own melee attack.




And, therefore, Formians are totally immune to flanking, and the description of their abilities in the MM is in error.  

Axiomatic creatures are similarly immune to flanking.  



			
				SR said:
			
		

> Actually, it was ther "Let Patryn fail to define the situation fully" game.
> 
> You cannot have two individuals without improved unarmed strike act together to flank an opponent, which is how I interpreted your example.




Uh, no.  I said:



			
				Me said:
			
		

> Likewise, there's no threatening with an unarmed strike without being a monk or taking the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, so *you* can't flank when making an unarmed strike.
> 
> Right?




The fact that you chose to read more into that statement and construct your own situation in which you are correct does not mean you weren't wrong earlier.  

Because the correct answer, as you've now backtracked to argue, is, "Yes, you can gain a flanking bonus with an unarmed strike, but only so long as your ally threatens the opponent."


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 22, 2005)

The Gryphon said:
			
		

> You can't sneak attack from beyond 30 feet within the standard rules...




That's not the case - you can't sneak attack with a _ranged_ attack from beyond 30 feet.

A kraken rogue, for example, could sneak attack from 60 feet away with a tentacle, since it's a melee attack, not a ranged attack.

-Hyp.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 22, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> And, therefore, Formians are totally immune to flanking, and the description of their abilities in the MM is in error.




Nope, you just have to be able to flank all of them at once (i.e. they must all be theatened by two or more enemies when you make an attack upon a formian). Your interpretation is merely a strained and unreasable application of the rules, which demonstrates how little your argument is worth.



> The fact that you chose to read more into that statement and construct your own situation in which you are correct does not mean you weren't wrong earlier.




Your "example" to dignify it with the term, didn't define anyone as having a weapon in the scenario. Therefore, I made the reasonable assumption that no one did. Your retrofitting the example as a "gotcha" is silly, and just underscores the inherent weakness of your position.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 22, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Nope, you just have to be able to flank all of them at once (i.e. they must all be theatened by two or more enemies when you make an attack upon a formian).




Which brings us back to what you just said:



			
				SR said:
			
		

> No. To be flanking an opponent, you must be attacking an enemy who is threatened by an ally.




M1A2B

Where M = Me, 1 = Formian 1, A = Al the Ally, 2 = Formian 2, and B = Bill the Also Ally

So, if I'm attacking Formian 1 and A threatens him, I'm flanking him.  Unfortunately, A is not simultaneously attacking Formian 2.

Therefore, by your own ruling, Formian 2 isn't flanked by anyone because, in order "to be flanking an opponent, you must be attacking."

Since Formian 2 isn't flanked, Formian 1 isn't flanked either.

Because it is *impossible* in D&D for two actions to be simultaneous, it is impossible to attack Formian 1 while Formian 2 is being attacked.  Therefore, Formians are immune to flanking.

So, either you must be making a melee attack in order to flank, or you don't need to be making a melee attack in order to flank.  Pick one.

Note, also, that it is not required to threaten anything in order to flank. Rather, your ally needs to threaten in order to "gain a flanking bonus."



> Your interpretation is merely a strained and unreasable application of the rules, which demonstrates how little your argument is worth.




Aww, you'll hurt my feelings!  At least get your own argument straight before you decide to lamely attempt to poke holes in mine, mmkay?



> Your "example" to dignify it with the term, didn't define anyone as having a weapon in the scenario.




I asked if it was impossible to flank with a non-improved unarmed strike.  You and someone else said that it was.  It is possible to flank with a non-improved unarmed strike.  Therefore, you're still wrong.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 22, 2005)

I must interject.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Your "example" to dignify it with the term, didn't define anyone as having a weapon in the scenario. Therefore, I made the reasonable assumption that no one did. Your retrofitting the example as a "gotcha" is silly, and just underscores the inherent weakness of your position.




It wasn't actually an example, it was a question...



			
				Patryn said:
			
		

> Likewise, there's no threatening with an unarmed strike without being a monk or taking the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, so you can't flank when making an unarmed strike.




"there's no threatening with an unarmed strike without..."

Not, "in this situation" but "you can never threaten." To which you answered, that that was correct, which was wrong.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 22, 2005)

So, to put in a quick summary of point:

There are two possible ways to read the rules that determine whether or not you are flanking:

*1) Melee Attack and Line Test:*  You are flanking if and only if you are making a melee attack against an opponent threatened by an ally while simultaneously fulfilling the line test with that ally.

*2) Line Test:*  You are flanking any time you and an ally fulfill the line test.

Reading #1 makes any creature with a "hive mind" - Formians, Axiomatic creatures, etc. - completely and totally immune to flanking (rather than just resistant, as their statblocks indicate).

Reading #2 allows for ranged flanking, but limits the +2 bonus on attack rolls to melee attacks made while your ally also threatens.  It allows, among other things, rogues in a barfight to throw "sucker punches" without someone drawing steel or being a monk (i.e., an unarmed strike made without IUS while their ally, also without IUS, fulfills the line test).

Pick which one you like better.


----------



## GimbleRaulnor (Mar 22, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> M1A2B
> 
> Where M = Me, 1 = Formian 1, A = Al the Ally, 2 = Formian 2, and B = Bill the Also Ally
> 
> ...




That's not right:



			
				SRD-Flanking said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...




It looks very clear to me that both formians *are* flanked. Just draw the lines... This has nothing to do with actively attacking, threatening, and simultaneousness, at all. The only requirement for being flanked is having an opponent on each side of you.

Wether anyone get's any bonusses, that's a different story.

Right?

(I'm just gonna say 'Right?' at the end of each post. If I'm not right I can just say 'Sorry, folks, but thanks for playing the "Let GimbleRaulnor Trick You" game.' Sad..)


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 22, 2005)

GimbleRaulnor said:
			
		

> It looks very clear to me that both formians *are* flanked. Just draw the lines...




Ah - so you like *my* reading, then, that the Line Test is the only criteria that matters?

In that case, you've opened up flanking to ranged combat.  Congratulations!  



> This has nothing to do with actively attacking, threatening, and simultaneousness, at all. The only requirement for being flanked is having an opponent on each side of you.




No, the requirements for flanking are, as I said above, either the first paragraph combined with the second paragraph (melee attack + line test) or the second paragraph (line test).

If you go with the 1st-and-2nd ruling, then you are only flanking when you make a melee attack.  As you posted from the SRD:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> When making a melee attack,




Not "When you could possibly make a melee attack," or "When an opponent is in range of a melee attack," but "When making a melee attack."

And, therefore, you are flanking *only* during that instant in which you are making a melee attack.  Because of this, no one else is flanking during that instant in which you are making a melee attack, because they fail the test put forth by the first clause of the flanking rules.

Therefore, the Formians are immune to flanking because when I'm trying to flank one of them, Bob isn't flanking the other one, and vice-versa.

However, if you decide that flanking does not depend on making a melee attack (which is what *I* am arguing), then the only criteria that matters is:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> 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.




Note that this paragraph says absolutely nothing about threatening, being in melee range, or making a melee attack at all.

Therefore, as I posted above, you have two choices when reading the flanking rules:

1) Only when making a melee attack and passing the line test

2) Only when passing the line test

You cannot rule any other way and be supported by the rules.



> Wether anyone get's any bonusses, that's a different story.




Now *that's* funny. 



> (I'm just gonna say 'Right?' at the end of each post. If I'm not right I can just say 'Sorry, folks, but thanks for playing the "Let GimbleRaulnor Trick You" game.' Sad..)




Sad, but true. In fact, if you go back a long, long way into this topic, you'll notice that I've supported all along the fact that I can flank with a non-improved unarmed strike, so long as I've got an ally that passes the line test.

The fact that I led two others into contradicting the rules in their efforts to prove me wrong on ranged flanking is nothing more than a humorous jibe.


----------



## atom crash (Mar 22, 2005)

This issue crops up from time to time, every 4 to 5 weeks or so. it's usually met with overwhelming opposition, but each time it comes up, one or two people say, "Hmm, Patryn may be on to something."

At this rate, I predict he converts everyone by 2079, just in time for 12th Edition!


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 22, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> At this rate, I predict he converts everyone by 2079, just in time for 12th Edition!




In the year
Twenty-five twenty-five ...


----------



## GimbleRaulnor (Mar 22, 2005)

Patryn:

I think we're on the same line then, and obviously I'm supporting the 'line only' thingy.

To explain I'll just quote the SRD again:



			
				SRD - Flanking said:
			
		

> 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.




The first thing said is that there are bonusses on a melee attack when attacking someone who's flanked. Second thing is the way to determine when someone is flanked.

So what we have is a flanking bonus (the first line), and a flanked condition (last line). Just because the first is mentioned earlier in the text, doesn't make the latter depending on it. It's not like "You're only flanked when the bonusses apply". The opposite isn't necesarely true either, as it only applies to certainmelee attacks.

So yes, I do think you can put someone in a flanked state from a distance. This means the ranged attack qualifies for sneak attack (if it's within 30 ft, jada jada..). However, the +2 bonus only applies to melee attacks.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 22, 2005)

GimbleRaulnor said:
			
		

> I think we're on the same line then, and obviously I'm supporting the 'line only' thingy.




Ahah!  Then we're cool.  

It's just that earlier you said:



			
				GR said:
			
		

> This has a direct connection to AOO's, and thus threatranges. And since there's no threatening with ranged weapons, there's no flanking with ranged weapons either.




So you understand my confusion.  Then, yes, in the examples, the Formians are all flanked, anyone who wants to can add sneak attack dice, and anyone making a melee attack when their opposite is threatening gets +2 on their attack rolls.

Chalk up another one, eh, Atom Crash?


----------



## GimbleRaulnor (Mar 23, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> So you understand my confusion. Then, yes, in the examples, the Formians are all flanked, anyone who wants to can add sneak attack dice, and anyone making a melee attack when their opposite is threatening gets +2 on their attack rolls.




Ahh, I should've posted I changed my mind on that point


----------



## sullivan (Mar 23, 2005)

Shellman said:
			
		

> So someone tell me how a Rogue could actually sneak attack with a ranged weapon!
> 
> I assume the conditions would be very strict like:
> 
> ...




There is the Distract Assailant (Ass 1, Sor/Wiz 1) in the Complete Adventurer. The target gets a Will save, but if they fail it they are flat-footed until the beginning of the target's next turn. To boot it is a Swift spell (pretty damn sweet for a 1st level spell, perhaps too sweet   ). So the caster could then take a Full Attack plugging him full of holes, or if there was a team effort others could get in on the fun.


----------



## The Gryphon (Mar 23, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's not the case - you can't sneak attack with a _ranged_ attack from beyond 30 feet.
> 
> A kraken rogue, for example, could sneak attack from 60 feet away with a tentacle, since it's a melee attack, not a ranged attack.
> 
> -Hyp.




Although the kraken rogue itself is 60 feet away from the target, the melee attack itself originates from within 30 feet of the target. The attack doesn't start at the kraken rogue, it starts at the end of the tentacle (where the tentacle can actually hit you and you could grab it), otherwise itwouldbe a ranged attack as in effect the tentacle would be being fired at the target.

So again a flawed example of being able to sneak attack from beyond 30 feet, as the 30 feet limit describes where the attack itself takes place (when using a ranged weapon the attack takes place when the ranged weapon is fired/thrown as it is no longer in the attackers hands) not where the creature is


----------



## Saeviomagy (Mar 23, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> So, to put in a quick summary of point:
> 
> There are two possible ways to read the rules that determine whether or not you are flanking:
> 
> ...




Actually, there's a third possibility.

That third possibility is that the person who HELPS someone gain a flanking bonus is ALSO flanking, not just the person gaining the bonus. This is again based on the fact that "flanking" is never, ever defined, only "flanked".

In this interpretation, everything works just fine, and ranged attacks don't benefit from flanking...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 23, 2005)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Actually, there's a third possibility.
> 
> That third possibility is that the person who HELPS someone gain a flanking bonus is ALSO flanking




And where are you pulling that out of the rules?

It certainly isn't from here:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> 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.




Therefore, it must be from here:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> 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.




If ignore the rules in the first part - as you are doing, since you are no longer enforcing the "When *you* make a melee attack" clause - then you have accepted my ruling that the only thing that matters is the line test.  In which case, there're no rules that require melee attacks or melee range.

Thanks for finally agreeing with me, Saev.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 23, 2005)

The Gryphon said:
			
		

> So again a flawed example of being able to sneak attack from beyond 30 feet, as the 30 feet limit describes where the attack itself takes place (when using a ranged weapon the attack takes place when the ranged weapon is fired/thrown as it is no longer in the attackers hands) not where the creature is




And yet in 3E, where the whip was a ranged weapon, a titan with a 45' whip could not sneak attack from 45 feet away (despite the attack 'taking place' at the end of the whip) as it was a ranged attack... but in 3.5, he can, since it's a melee attack.

-Hyp.


----------



## The Gryphon (Mar 23, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Additionally, D is a Diminutive Rogue armed with a Diminutive *short sword*, M is a Diminutive ally (also armed with a Diminutive short sword) and X is a Diminutive target.
> 
> -----
> -----
> ...




It is a very valid objection as your interpretation changes the situation from only being able to flank in melee, for which the reach of 0 feet rule makes sense, to a situation which no longer makes sense as they aren't constrained by reach when using a ranged weapon.

As to whether tiny or smaller creatures could flank creatures of their size or smaller. The RAW assume a battle between at least some creatures that have space/reach of 5 ft./5 ft. or more (i.e. normal PC races). If a fight was only taking place between tiny or smaller creatures (for example 3 tiny familiars were fighting amongst themselves), I'd alter the assumed size of squares on a battle mat to suit the smaller creatures and alter the reach rules to make them proportional (their reach is equal to their space). So tiny creatures can flank tiny, diminuitive, and fine creatures, etc.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 23, 2005)

The Gryphon said:
			
		

> As to whether tiny or smaller creatures could flank creatures of their size or smaller. The RAW assume a battle between at least some creatures that have space/reach of 5 ft./5 ft. or more (i.e. normal PC races).




Does it actually say that anywhere?  If, in fact, it meant that, wouldn't it instead say "A creature with a reach of 0' cannot flank a creature with a reach of 5' or greater?"

No, it doesn't say that, and while you might decide to conjure up some Designer Intent - "They really meant X, see these rules?" - I can just as easily conjure up some additional Designer Intent - "They really meant to expand Flanking to ranged attacks in the 3.5 revision; see the new definition of flanking?"

And, notice that in order to remove a rather stupid ruling - that particularly small creatures cannot flank at all - you need to get rather heavily into house rules territory.


----------



## The Gryphon (Mar 23, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Going off of the main thrust of the objection to my explanation, what you have said above is absolutely not true.
> 
> Succinctly, "Flanking" is not a condition dependent upon combat placement alone. Rather, is a condition dependent upon combat placement *and* making a melee attack.




Not true, that is your interpretation of the text. Firstly please use the correct terms flanking is not a condition (check the DMG), it is a combat situation.

Of course flanking is not dependent upon combat placement alone. It is based on combat placement and *being able* to make a threatening melee attack (whether you make it or not).

In all of the graphic example provided on the page of the flanking action is shows which character would receive a +2 flanking bonus provided they attacked the target in question. Now obviously all of the characters which receive the +2 flanking bonus are threatening the creature in question otherwise they couldn't be providing a flanking bonus to their opposite character. Therefore by example all creatures that are flanking a creature must also threaten it. And before you say it, it doesn't matter whether the examples only show melee situations or not as they do all show flanking situations.



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> So, the top-left PC is not flanking unless and until he decides to make a melee attack against Formian 1. As soon as he decides to make a melee attack against Formian 1, you may check the flanking conditions to determine whether or not he is, in fact, flanking.
> 
> 1) Is TopLeft engaged making a melee attack against Formian 1? *Yes.*
> 2) Is Formian 1 threatened by a friendly character opposite him, such that a line between the bases crosses opposite sides or corners of the Formian's square? *Yes.*
> ...




Your analysis of my previous diagram is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. You are flanking as long as you *would receive* the +2 flanking bonus if you attacked the target, whether you use it or not is up to you. Now that's a fine differentiation as everyone who is flanking *has* the +2 flanking bonus, but if they decide not to attack a creature they flank then they obviously won't be able to use that bonus.

The same thing if I was prone. The modifiers only come into effect *if* they are triggered by an action which they are linked to. If I don't try to make a melee attack while I'm prone I won't *use* the -4 melee modifier, and if no one fires/throws a ranged weapon at me I won't *use* the +4 AC modifier.

Example:
__P__
__2X3
_O___
1____

Now if we work from the examples shown in the PHB characters 1-3 all have a +2 flanking bonus (1+2 vs. O, 2+3 vs. X). If 2 attacks P he can't use the +2 flanking bonus he could have used against X or O, but that doesn't mean that X or O are no longer flanked as they are still threatened. (Note: this example doesn't include formians )

Therefore formains aren't immune to flanking under my reading of the flanking rules either as as long as they are all threatened (which can only happen in melee combat in the core rules) they are all flanked.

Also note the first part of the flanking text says "When making a melee attack, ...". It doesn't say you *must* make a melee attack against the target to be flanking it (threatening it is enough to flank it), but what it does say is *when* you do make a melee attack against a creature you are flanking you gain a +2 flanking bonus.


----------



## The Gryphon (Mar 23, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And yet in 3E, where the whip was a ranged weapon, a titan with a 45' whip could not sneak attack from 45 feet away (despite the attack 'taking place' at the end of the whip) as it was a ranged attack... but in 3.5, he can, since it's a melee attack.
> 
> -Hyp.




As you've pointed out in 3e it was a ranged weapon so that handles itself doesn't it


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 23, 2005)

The Gryphon said:
			
		

> Of course flanking is not dependent upon combat placement alone. It is based on combat placement and *being able* to make a threatening melee attack (whether you make it or not).




Says you.  The rules do not say that, however.

The first paragraph only holds at the exact instant you are making a melee attack.  If you can find rules text to the contrary, I'd be *real* happy to see them.

You won't find them, however, because the first paragraph starts out with, "When making a melee attack ..."

Note, as I said before, it does *not* say, "When in position to make a melee attack," or "When you could make a melee attack," or even, "When you threaten an opponent."  It is therefore limited to exactly and only the moment in which *I* am making a melee attack - not you, not Bob, not anyone else, but me.

The second paragraph, which is what *might* allow flanking during the period in which you are *not* actually making a melee attack, does not mention any of the following: attack, melee, threaten, or range.

Therefore, if you wish to say that it is possible to be in the flanking "combat situation" (and, seriously, let's call a spade a spade, flanking is a condition) when you are not at that exact moment making a melee attack, then you are ruling that the first paragraph (beginning with "When making a melee attack ...") is not the necessary and sufficient condition to determine flanking.

Therefore, the second paragraph - the Line Test - *is* the necessary and sufficient condition to determine flanking.  And that Test says nothing about range, melee, or threatening.

Therefore, if you want to be able to flank during the period in which you are not making a melee attack, you must also allow flanking at range - whether or not you like it.  Otherwise, you're making up house rules.  



> In all of the graphic example provided on the page of the flanking action is shows which character would receive a +2 flanking bonus provided they attacked the target in question.




Need I remind you that these illustrated examples, by their very nature, are not exhaustive?  After all (going off of the 3.0 PHB, here), I've got a picture of Tordek surrounded by some rats.  There aren't any pictures of giants, or reach weapons, or giants with reach weapons, or giants with bows.  Should we then assume that, in 3.0 at least, one could not flank with a reach weapon?  Or when you were not a rat fighting Tordek?  I should think not!



> Therefore by example all creatures that are flanking a creature must also threaten it. And before you say it, it doesn't matter whether the examples only show melee situations or not as they do all show flanking situations.




Except, of course, that you're wrong.  It is not necessary for *me* to threaten a creature in order to flank it - even a strict melee-only reading of the Flanking rules doesn't require that.  Rather, it requires that, if I want a flanking bonus on a melee attack roll (which, above, you claim is not a requirement to be flanking in and of itself), then *you* must threaten my opponent and be opposite me (thus fulfilling the line test).

In other words, I can flank and gain a flanking bonus on my attack roll when I attack with a non-improved unarmed strike.  When you attack, you *don't* get a bonus on your attack roll, because I don't threaten.

But that's OK, because according to my ruling and now yours (the bonus is no longer necessary and sufficient conditions), you're still flanking the target - whether or not you get the bonus is immaterial.  




> Your analysis of my previous diagram is irrelevant as far as I am concerned.




Well, thank you for that daring insight!  Care to provide some actual reasoning behind your (see below) unsupported position, or are you just gonna call me dumb names?



> You are flanking as long as you *would receive* the +2 flanking bonus if you attacked the target, whether you use it or not is up to you.




Which, of course, is a position unsupported by the rules.  Unless you'd care to provide the text that you're citing for this ruling?



> Now that's a fine differentiation as everyone who is flanking *has* the +2 flanking bonus, but if they decide not to attack a creature they flank then they obviously won't be able to use that bonus.




Again, all you're saying here is that I can be considered flanking even when I don't get / use the +2 flanking bonus.

That's *my* position, you just haven't realized it yet.

The rules you seem to be using specifiy that you only get your +2 bonus at the exact moment you are making a melee attack (etc.).  If you've thrown out the requirement that you be actually making a melee attack, then there is no text in the rules that requires me to be in melee range of my opponent.

Seriously.  I challenge you to find it.



> Therefore formains aren't immune to flanking under my reading of the flanking rules either as as long as they are all threatened (which can only happen in melee combat in the core rules) they are all flanked.




Again, your use of "threatened" here is incorrect and is, I believe, interfering with your ability to actually read the rules.



> Also note the first part of the flanking text says "When making a melee attack, ...". It doesn't say you *must* make a melee attack against the target to be flanking it (threatening it is enough to flank it),




Again with the threatening!  Threatening doesn't ever enter the equation *for me* - it only enters the occasion for *you*.

And "When making a melee attack" doesn't mean you must make a melee attack?

:boggle:  That makes no sense.  Sorry.

Look, either you are flanking when you follow the rules in both the first and second paragraphs, or you are flanking when you follow the rules in just the second paragraph.

Those are your two choices.


----------



## The Gryphon (Mar 23, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Does it actually say that anywhere? If, in fact, it meant that, wouldn't it instead say "A creature with a reach of 0' cannot flank a creature with a reach of 5' or greater?"
> 
> No, it doesn't say that, and while you might decide to conjure up some Designer Intent - "They really meant X, see these rules?" - I can just as easily conjure up some additional Designer Intent - "They really meant to expand Flanking to ranged attacks in the 3.5 revision; see the new definition of flanking?"
> 
> And, notice that in order to remove a rather stupid ruling - that particularly small creatures cannot flank at all - you need to get rather heavily into house rules territory.




Why would it need to, flanking is listed in the PHB. As for designer intent it's pretty obvious. Does any PC race in the PHB have space/reach of anything other that 5 feet...no. How big is a square according to the rules...5 feet.

The problem with your blanket statement is that a fine or diminuitive creature can flank a tiny creature, doesn't seem right does it . To make a complete conditional line for that situation it would be very long and wouldn't come up often enough IMO to waste the space on. Which is likely why the 3.0 to 3.5 flanking listing was shortened as it was a superfluous line, based mostly on common sense, for anyone not trying to contort the flanking rules to their own ends .

Also, using your own reasoning, if ranged combat was part of flanking in the core rules they would have said "a creature with a reach of 0 feet cannot flank in melee combat, but can flank in ranged combat" as reach never effects ranged combat.

I imagine they thought it would be intuitive, and that people wouldn't try and bend the rules to suit their own interpretation. Honestly how often are you going to have tiny or smaller creatures fighting creatures of their own size or smaller...pretty much never as a PC from the core rules will be small or medium.

I'm not removing a stupid ruling, I'm modifying it as required for the situation (i.e. all creatures fighting only require a space of 2 1/2 feet so I can effectively treat them as if they were small creatures; if it's a tiny and a diminuitive then I can treat the tiny as a small and the diminuitive as having 0 reach).

If that goes heavily into house rules territory then I don't know where your interpretation goes


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 23, 2005)

The Gryphon said:
			
		

> The problem with your blanket statement is that a fine or diminuitive creature can flank a tiny creature, doesn't seem right does it .




You mean, just like a Medium creature or two can flank a Colossal creature?

Oh, the horrors!

Tongue firmly in cheek,


----------



## The Gryphon (Mar 23, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Says you. The rules do not say that, however.
> 
> The first paragraph only holds at the exact instant you are making a melee attack. If you can find rules text to the contrary, I'd be *real* happy to see them.
> 
> ...




What the first line does is showthe *bonus* (When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus), andthe* requirements* (if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent's opposite border or opposite corner) for flanking which must still be active when you make an attack.

Of couse it doesn't say when in position to, or whatever else as the *bonus* can only be used when a flanking character *attacks the defending character*. Nowhere does it say the opponent is not flanked before or after the attack, it just exhibits when the bonus is used and what is required to receive the bonus.

Note it also says in the requirements that the threatening character must be on the opponents opposite border or corner to you, which says very clearly that both characters *must* be in melee combat as they *must* be *on* the opposite border or corner.



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Therefore, the second paragraph - the Line Test - *is* the necessary and sufficient condition to determine flanking. And that Test says nothing about range, melee, or threatening.
> 
> Therefore, if you want to be able to flank during the period in which you are not making a melee attack, you must also allow flanking at range - whether or not you like it. Otherwise, you're making up house rules.




The line test is a subsequent test to those listed in paragraph one, for creatures with reach who are in melee combat, but are not in base to base contact with the target, and is not a sufficient condition by itself. Of course it doesn't say anything about threatening or anything else because that has been covered in paragraph one, and is a subsequent test to that paragraph not the primary test. Therefore the house rules are yours.  



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Need I remind you that these illustrated examples, by their very nature, are not exhaustive?




I never said the examples were exhaustive, I said that they are all example of flanking. If they were exhaustive they'd need their own library of books.



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Except, of course, that you're wrong. It is not necessary for *me* to threaten a creature in order to flank it - even a strict melee-only reading of the Flanking rules doesn't require that. Rather, it requires that, if I want a flanking bonus on a melee attack roll (which, above, you claim is not a requirement to be flanking in and of itself), then *you* must threaten my opponent and be opposite me (thus fulfilling the line test).
> 
> In other words, I can flank and gain a flanking bonus on my attack roll when I attack with a non-improved unarmed strike. When you attack, you *don't* get a bonus on your attack roll, because I don't threaten.
> 
> But that's OK, because according to my ruling and now yours (the bonus is no longer necessary and sufficient conditions), you're still flanking the target - whether or not you get the bonus is immaterial.




You've even managed to twist my statement. The bonus has never been the condition, the requirements listed after the bonus are the conditions of flanking. The bonus is what you get when you attack a target you flank.

The creature your unarmed character is attacking isn't actually flanked. While the unarmed character with your reasoning gains a flanking bonus because the other character threatens the target (I wouldn't allow it) the reverse isn't true so the creature isn't flanked.

Thanks for that, as I've just noticed a huge hole in your interpretation. Assuming the formians again, your system could never flank them unless all your attackers were in melee combat and armed as if two characters are on opposite sides of a formain and at least one is unarmed, as soon as the character opposite the unarmed (non-threatening character) attacks the formians are no longer flanked (as the character opposite him doesn't threaten the target which is a prerequisite of flanking).



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Well, thank you for that daring insight! Care to provide some actual reasoning behind your (see below) unsupported position, or are you just gonna call me dumb names?




I gave you a lot of very good reasons, your interpretation just won't allow you to see them.  



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Again, all you're saying here is that I can be considered flanking even when I don't get / use the +2 flanking bonus.
> 
> That's *my* position, you just haven't realized it yet.




No my position is that you can be flanking while in melee combat, when it is not your turn to attack as long as the requirements are met. That means that a character opposite you must be threatening the target, and you must be in the process of a melee attack. By process I mean you are holding a weapon which is capable of a melee attack and you are using it in that way, i.e. your not just holding your sword in your off hand while you cast stoneskin on your turn for example.



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> The rules you seem to be using specifiy that you only get your +2 bonus at the exact moment you are making a melee attack (etc.). If you've thrown out the requirement that you be actually making a melee attack, then there is no text in the rules that requires me to be in melee range of my opponent.




Of course the bonus only exists at the moment you make the attack as it is useless otherwise. I have a +2 flanking bonus to attack X creature, since I'm attacking Y creature this round that does me no good does it. Apart from the fact you need to be on the *opposite border or corner* of your target to be flanking (reading the word *border* as being able to touch something the other character has, even a reach weapon), no there's no reason you need to be in melee combat.  



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Again with the threatening! Threatening doesn't ever enter the equation *for me* - it only enters the occasion for *you*.




It should enter the equation as the character opposite the attacker *must* be threatening the target for you to flank it, and IMO unless you both flank the target it isn't flanked (as it isn't flanked all of the time on the attackers actions).

Glossary definition of Flank (first line): To be directly on the other side of a character who is being *threatened* by another character.



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> And "When making a melee attack" doesn't mean you must make a melee attack?
> 
> :boggle: That makes no sense. Sorry.




No that's slightly out of context (sorry if it was my mistake). When you make a melee attack means just that, if I choose not to make a melee attack I don't get the bonus...pretty clear isn't it. Nowhere does it say I *must* make a melee attack to flank in all of the flanking text, you're just assuming from the text "When making a melee attack" that's how it works. What it does say is when I do make a melee attack while flanking I'll get a little bonus for my tactical savvy.  



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Look, either you are flanking when you follow the rules in both the first and second paragraphs, or you are flanking when you follow the rules in just the second paragraph.
> 
> Those are your two choices.




I choose both paragraphs. You're the only one who thinks the latter half of the first paragraph means nothing about the requirements for flanking and is only linked to gaining the flanking bonus.  

At least this is increasing my post count, fun isn't it.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 23, 2005)

So, to summarize your point in as few words as possible, you define the flanking condition as, "You are flanking when:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.




"

Is that a fair statement?


----------



## Philip (Mar 23, 2005)

Can't believe I missed this thread.   

Woohoo! Thank you Patryn, from now on my Rogues don't need Ring's of Blinking, Invisibility or whatever, they just need enough friends!

Since with enough friends there is always someone in the world to which you can 'trace an imaginary line that passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space'. So from now on my opponents are always flanked (unless they be formians), and even with ranged weapons!  And my rogues can sneak attack forevermore!  

There is no mention of line of sight, line of effect or anything similar in the flanking description, right? No limit to the distance of the imaginary line, right?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 23, 2005)

Philip said:
			
		

> There is no mention of line of sight, line of effect or anything similar in the flanking description, right? No limit to the distance of the imaginary line, right?




Nope.

However, there is a 30' range limit on ranged sneak attacks.  So, there's still a hard limit to the benefits of flanking - even at range.  

EDIT:

And if you think this is weird, consider the fact that (even under a strict melee-only reading) two Improved Invisible assailants can both flank a target, even if the target *and the other assailant* are unaware of the attacker's position.


----------



## Arkhandus (Mar 23, 2005)

.....I can't believe this thread is still going.  Patryn, you cannot flank with a ranged weapon.  I can't believe you came up with some convoluted way of misinterpreting the rules when I posted the SRD quotes verbatim.  Now I'll just waste my time posting them again.



			
				3.5 SRD at wizards.com said:
			
		

> 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.
> ...




Emphases above are mine.  See how the very first line states right off that it only applies with melee attacks?  The middle paragraph about drawing the imaginary line doesn't matter for ranged flanking, because you cannot flank with a ranged weapon, _because you only get the flanking bonus in melee_.  That paragraph does not say anything that infers you should ignore the first sentence, it is only clarification on the first point, which already specifies that you only get flanking with melee attacks.  The first sentence takes precedence, because no later sentences say that they are exceptions, so they must follow the precedence set by the first sentence in the Flanking description.  Flanking is only a Combat Modifier, as listed in the SRD, not a status nor a condition.

Now, before you object by saying that you don't have to be the one flanking in melee, first let me refer you to another part of the SRD, the Conditions summary.  You'll see that neither the SRD, nor the DMG, nor the PH ever mentioned "flanked" as a condition.  It's not a condition.  You can flank an enemy in melee, but they are not considered to be "flanked", because "flanked" is not a condition.  Flat-footed is a condition.  Flanked is not.  When you are being flanked, it just means that an enemy is flanking you, not that you are under the condition of being "flanked".  Again, absolutely nothing in the Core Rules ever infers that you can flank with a ranged weapon.



			
				3.5 SRD at wizards.com said:
			
		

> Fascinated: A fascinated creature is entranced by a supernatural or spell effect. The creature stands or sits quietly, taking no actions other than to pay attention to the fascinating effect, for as long as the effect lasts. It takes a –4 penalty on skill checks made as reactions, such as Listen and Spot checks. Any potential threat, such as a hostile creature approaching, allows the fascinated creature a new saving throw against the fascinating effect. Any obvious threat, such as someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon at the fascinated creature, automatically breaks the effect. A fascinated creature’s ally may shake it free of the spell as a standard action.
> 
> Fatigued: A fatigued character can neither run nor charge and takes a –2 penalty to Strength and Dexterity. Doing anything that would normally cause fatigue causes the fatigued character to become exhausted. After 8 hours of complete rest, fatigued characters are no longer fatigued.
> 
> ...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 23, 2005)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> .....I can't believe this thread is still going.  Patryn, you cannot flank with a ranged weapon. I can't believe you came up with some convoluted way of misinterpreting the rules when I posted the SRD quotes verbatim.  Now I'll just waste my time posting them again.




Well, that's nice, because I can't believe this thread is still going.  Arkhandus, you *can* flank with a ranged wearpon.  I can't believe you came up with some convoluted way of misinterpreting the rules when I posted the SRD quotes verbatim *many, many more times than you have*.  Now, I'll just waste my time shutting down your objections ... *again*.  You know, you could actually *read* what I've written before, before posting the same objections I've already addressed many, many times.



> Emphases above are mine.  See how the very first line states right off that it only applies with melee attacks?




I agree.  Notice, however, that the first paragraph also only applies:

1. At the exact instant that I am making a melee attack, and
2. Only discusses when you get a "flanking bonus" on your attack rolls.

If you want to argue that this consitutes the definition of flanking, then Formians et al. are immune to flanking.  See my above posts for why.

If you want to argue that this does not constitute the definition of flanking, then you need to read the 2nd paragraph.  The second paragraph says nothing about: threatening, range, melee, or attack.

Therefore, any interpretation of the second paragraph which relies on any of those words is erronious.



> The middle paragraph about drawing the imaginary line doesn't matter for ranged flanking, because you cannot flank with a ranged weapon, _because you only get the flanking bonus in melee_.




Again, there are many, many instances throughout the rules which say that in a particular situation you have a particular bonus or penalty, such as being invisible, prone, etc.  If you do not take the particular penalty, the situation is still extant.  Therefore, claiming you only get a flanking bonus when making a melee attack is a non-starter.  Of course you only get a "flanking bonus" when making a melee attack.  It says so right there in the first paragraph.

What it does not say, however, is that you are flanking if and only if you are using that particular bonus.

You might wish to read it as such, but *it does not say that*.

In 3.0 it did.  In 3.0, I wouldn't be arguing this.

In 3.5, it doesn't.  In 3.5, I will be arguing this.



> That paragraph does not say anything that infers you should ignore the first sentence, it is only clarification on the first point, which already specifies that you only get flanking with melee attacks.




Again, no, it doesn't.  It says you only get a flanking bonus with melee attacks under certain circumstances.  I accept that, and do not argue that.

I do not, however, believe that getting a flanking bonus on any particular attack is necessary and sufficient condition to be considered flanking.

Because, if it is, then anything with a special ability that says "One is only flanked when all are flanked" is, actually, immune to flanking.

In other words, you must first be flanking - as defined in the paragraph that talks about determining whether or not two creatures are flanking - in order to qualify for a flanking bonus.



> The first sentence takes precedence, because no later sentences say that they are exceptions, so they must follow the precedence set by the first sentence in the Flanking description.




Agreed.  The first sentence takes precedence.  It, however, only applies to a very limited number of possible flanking situations - specifically, one in which someone is currently making a melee attack.  If someone is not currently making a melee attack, the second paragraph holds.



> Again, absolutely nothing in the Core Rules ever infers that you can flank with a ranged weapon.




You keep saying that, but I've shown you many, many places in which it does.  Therefore, some things in the Core Rules infer that you *can* flank with a ranged weapon.

To make this short and sweet ...

Can I flank someone when it is not currently my turn?


----------



## Philip (Mar 23, 2005)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> .....I can't believe this thread is still going.  Patryn, you cannot flank with a ranged weapon.  I can't believe you came up with some convoluted way of misinterpreting the rules when I posted the SRD quotes verbatim.  Now I'll just waste my time posting them again.




Really, Arkhandus, Patryn's logic is impeccable.   

Maybe it doesn't make a lot of sense, but there are no inherent flaws in his reasoning.

What I attempted to show in my previous post was that when you apply and extend Patryn's logic, it would result in characters flanking their targets almost all of the time. Which seems stupid and undesireable.

Maybe you are getting the intention of the RAW right Arkhandus, but Patryn's interpretation certainly isn't that far-fetched and your objections do nothing to counter his arguments.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 23, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Nope.
> 
> However, there is a 30' range limit on ranged sneak attacks.  So, there's still a hard limit to the benefits of flanking - even at range.




His point is that if I'm within 30 feet of you in Tyrsis, and I can draw a line from me to a creature friendly to me in Palanthas, that happens to pass through opposite borders of your square - a line miles and miles and miles long that goes through walls, mountains, people, etc, etc - then it fits your definition for flanking and allows me to sneak attack.  My friend doesn't have to be within 30 feet of you... only I do.

-Hyp.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 23, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Well, that's nice, because I can't believe this thread is still going.  Arkhandus, you *can* flank with a ranged wearpon.  I can't believe you came up with some convoluted way of misinterpreting the rules when I posted the SRD quotes verbatim *many, many more times than you have*.  Now, I'll just waste my time shutting down your objections ... *again*.  You know, you could actually *read* what I've written before, before posting the same objections I've already addressed many, many times.




Except your entire argument revolves around a false premise. You parse the "when making a melee attack" sentence and the "when in doubt" sentence separately, which is both foolish and incorrect. The "when in doubt" sentence is clearly dependent upon and nothing more than a clarification of the first sentence. And as a result, it doesn't ever enter into the question of whether one can flank at range.

You see, no one is in doubt if you are flanking or not when you are not making a melee attack, because you are not eligible for the flanking bonus. No eligibility for the flanking bonus, no flanking. Parsing the sentences seprately leads you to an erroneous conclusion. Face it, your claims are unsupportable, despite your very heroic efforts to make them so. Perhaps you might look to the fact that you have thus far managed to convince _no one_ that your interpretation is correct as evidence of the absurdity of your position.

You are the sort of person who would have made arguments to the effect that under the 3.0 rules, people without a Dexterity bonus could not be sneak attacked (since it only applied when you were denied a Dexterity bonus, and if you didn't have one to begin with, you cannot be denied one).


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 23, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> His point is that if I'm within 30 feet of you in Tyrsis, and I can draw a line from me to a creature friendly to me in Palanthas, that happens to pass through opposite borders of your square - a line miles and miles and miles long that goes through walls, mountains, people, etc, etc - then it fits your definition for flanking and allows me to sneak attack.  My friend doesn't have to be within 30 feet of you... only I do.




Agreed - so long as someone friendly to you is standing on that line.  Of course, the chances that they are standing on that particular line in the middle of combat is slim to none, but the chance is there.

I would also get flanking bonuses when I'm standing next to you invisible, my ally standing next to you and across from me is invisible, and you have no idea either of us are there.  Moreover, I get flanking bonuses even if *I* don't know my ally is there.  Even more outlandish, we could both get flanking bonuses even if we aren't entirely sure where *you* are (and just happen to pick the appropriate 5' square to make our attacks into).

Now, if the flanking rules mentioned that the defender needs to be aware of both the attacker and the friendly allowing him to flank, and the flankers need to be aware of each other, then all the strangeness you, Phillip, and I pointed out go away.

They, don't, though, so strangeness persists.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 23, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> His point is that if I'm within 30 feet of you in Tyrsis, and I can draw a line from me to a creature friendly to me in Palanthas, that happens to pass through opposite borders of your square - a line miles and miles and miles long that goes through walls, mountains, people, etc, etc - then it fits your definition for flanking and allows me to sneak attack. My friend doesn't have to be within 30 feet of you... only I do.
> 
> -Hyp.




This is where Patryn's and my definitions differ, as I require that the ally be threatening the enemy and he doesn't. So this can't come up in my interprietation.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 23, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Except your entire argument revolves around a false premise.




So say you.  



> You parse the "when making a melee attack" sentence and the "when in doubt" sentence separately, which is both foolish and incorrect. The "when in doubt" sentence is clearly dependent upon and nothing more than a clarification of the first sentence. And as a result, it doesn't ever enter into the question of whether one can flank at range.




You say "Clearly," I say, "Clearly not."  

Therefore, all you are doing is saying that the sufficient and necessary conditions to determine flanking is the first paragraph combined with the second paragraph, as I have mentioned many, many times before.

Congratulations; Formians and Axiomatic creatures are now immune to flanking.



> You are the sort of person who would have made arguments to the effect that under the 3.0 rules, people without a Dexterity bonus could not be sneak attacked (since it only applied when you were denied a Dexterity bonus, and if you didn't have one to begin with, you cannot be denied one).




Well, I'm glad you've gotten your bit of off-target psychoanalysis done for the day.

I would have never, ever argued that.  That would be a really, really stupid argument.  Why?



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Sneak Attack: Any time the rogue's target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (*whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not*),




So, yeah, don't make stupid arguments and personal jibes.

For the record, I was pretty certain in 3.0 that you could, in fact, Sneak Attack things that still had their Dex bonus (like, say, Barbarian 2s and Rogue 4s).  Why?

Because of "any time the rogue's target *would be* denied a Dex bonus."

Combat starts, so this particular Barbarian 2 is flat-footed.  If something was flat-footed, would it be denied its Dex bonus?  Yes.  Therefore, even though this particular character gets to keep his Dex bonus, he is in a situation which would normally deny a Dex bonus.  Therefore, he is eligible for Sneak Attacks - the barbarian's AC is just higher than it otherwise would be.

So, uh, there.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Mar 23, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> And where are you pulling that out of the rules?




Ok, here goes.

Flanking, flanked and flank are not defined terms.

We have to assume that the section on flanking SOMEHOW tells us how to apply them.

If we shift into patryn-mode (ie - the way in which you are reading and arriving at a conclusion as if each paragraph is seperate and self contained):
Your particular section just tells us when someone IS FLANKED, not when someone flanks, or when people are flanking. Remember? We look at it when we're in doubt whether people are flanking, but it never actually helps with this. It never says "they flank when...". To make your particular interpretation work, we have to make the leap that the two people that we're checking will be flanking a target if the target is flanked.

If we shift into Saeviomagy-mode (in which we read the entire section as a whole):
My particular interpretation basically says the same, BUT with the limitation that it only applies to anyone who could potentially be contributing to gaining a flanking bonus. IE - two people on either side of the target who threaten the target.

No matter which version we use, we have to interpret what is written and make assumptions.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 24, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Agreed - so long as someone friendly to you is standing on that line.  Of course, the chances that they are standing on that particular line in the middle of combat is slim to none, but the chance is there.




Are we assuming a round(ish) globe?

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 24, 2005)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> If we shift into Saeviomagy-mode (in which we read the entire section as a whole):
> My particular interpretation basically says the same, BUT with the limitation that it only applies to anyone who could potentially be contributing to gaining a flanking bonus. IE - two people on either side of the target who threaten the target.




One who threatens, and one who is making a melee attack.

It's an important distinction to whip-wielding rogues.

-Hyp.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Mar 24, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> One who threatens, and one who is making a melee attack.
> 
> It's an important distinction to whip-wielding rogues.
> 
> -Hyp.



Good catch. For instance my interpretation would also mean that in the case of a whip, it would still be possible for a rogue to gain a sneak attack against an opponent while a whip-wielding ally was within 15 feet and opposite him. Although he wouldn't get the flanking bonus...


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 24, 2005)

Wait, wait, thought. Take the example of Al (with a bow), Bob (with a short sword), and the poor Creature they're fighting:

A..........BC

Now, you can draw a line between Al and Bob with the creature in between assuming a non-flat world. It would not be the shortest line, but it still exists. It doesn't say you have to actually use this line as the direction of you're attack. Sooo... is A flanking C?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 24, 2005)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Good catch. For instance my interpretation would also mean that in the case of a whip, it would still be possible for a rogue to gain a sneak attack against an opponent while a whip-wielding ally was within 15 feet and opposite him. Although he wouldn't get the flanking bonus...




Hmm?  Lost me - that's backwards.

If the _rogue_ has a whip, he can get the bonus if his ally threatens, because with the whip, the rogue is making a melee attack.

If the ally has a whip, and the rogue threatens, the rogue can't gain a flanking bonus, because even though the rogue is making a melee attack, his ally is not threatening the opponent.

I'm not sure how you can justify giving the rogue a sneak attack if the ally has a whip, but not if the ally has a bow, since in neither case does the ally threaten...?

-Hyp.


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 24, 2005)

*No one reads the PH?*

I find it remarkable that no one really has looked up the definitions of flanking in the glossary of the PH3.5, however, I can't say that I have read the SRD since I have read the PH 3.5 many times.

Even on the WotC Website Glossary it's pretty clear what flanking is and its intended use during the game.

Flank
To be directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another character. A flanking attacker gains a +2 flanking bonus on attack rolls against the defender. A rogue can sneak attack a defender that she is flanking.

Source: PHB
cite http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_flank&alpha=F

Range Attack
Any attack made at a distance with a ranged weapon, as opposed to a melee attack.

Source: PHB 
cite http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_rangedattack&alpha=R

Threaten 
To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space. A creature typically threatens all squares within its natural reach, even when it is not its turn to take an action. For a Medium or Small creature this usually includes all squares adjacent to its space. Larger creatures threaten more squares, while smaller creatures may not threaten any squares except their own.

Source: PHB 
Cite http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_threaten&alpha=T

Cut and dry.  You must threaten your opponent in order to flank, to threaten an opponent you must be able to attack in melee, and by definition a ranged attack is not a melee attack.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 24, 2005)

Zaebos said:
			
		

> Cut and dry.




Except for your glaring mistake that you must threaten to flank. 

Some are saying you need to be making a melee attack in order to gain a flanking bonus, and flanking is not a condition, but it's pretty much a concensus that you don't have to threaten to flank. Reread your own quotes.


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 24, 2005)

no mistake... it says it right there...

YOU FLANK IF YOU THREATEN and if you attack you get a +2, you don't have to attack the flanked target, you just need to threaten it... pretty clear.

Edit: I suppose it bares mentioning (b4 my words are used against me), that you only get the +2 if you attack the flanked target.  You don't have to attack the flanked target, but neither do you get a bonus to attack should you not attack it.  Of course you still threaten it.

Edit: Also, you threaten a target IF you can make a melee attack against it, pretty clear that you don't have to attack it.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 24, 2005)

> To be directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another character. A flanking attacker gains a +2 flanking bonus on attack rolls against the defender. A rogue can sneak attack a defender that she is flanking.




"who is being threatened *by another character*"


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 24, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> "who is being threatened *by another character*"




and...? whats the problem 

I am not sure how this is soo confusing to people... it's very clear that in order to flank, two or more people need to threaten the target and that those threatening must be on opposite sides of the target.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 24, 2005)

You can gain the flanking bonus while the other person is not.

Unarmed strikes do not threaten.

Al the fighter is unarmed. Bob the rogue has a short sword. The Creature is between them.

ACB

Bob threatens, and Al does not. Al makes a melee attack against the Creature. Does he have an ally on the opposite side of C who is threatening? Yes. Is he making a melee attack? Yes. He gest a +2 bonus to the attack for flanking.

If Bob makes an attack, Al is not threatening. Therefore he does not get the flanking bonus.

See?

EDIT: If you had read the thread you would see that this has been discussed at great length. I suggest you go back and read and if you find an inconsistancy, bring that up. Otherwise, you won't get anywhere that this thread has not already gone.


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 24, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Unarmed strikes do not threaten.




But they do threaten... I can't find a single instance that says when you are unarmed you do not threaten.  In fact, multiple instances where it says that indeed an unarmed attack is a melee attack, and that fits with the threaten definition.  Of course without the Improved Unarmed Strike, Al would suffer an AoO unless Creature was also considered unarmed.

BTW, I have read the thread... I am commenting on peoples ability to read too much into what is normally a literal ruling.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 24, 2005)

SRD said:
			
		

> *An unarmed character can’t take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).*




But, that's not important.

What is important is that nowhere does it state that you have to threaten, only that your ally must threaten. It doesn't even imply that you have to threaten anywhere.


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 24, 2005)

Nor does it need to, since the only way you can get a melee attack on a creature is by threatening it and if you threaten a creature you can melee attack it.

Should an ally not be able to melee attack a creature for some reason (say by being knocked out), then you do not get the flank bonus.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 24, 2005)

Right.

Which doesn't contradict my interprietation at all. Your ally must threaten the enemy for you to be considered flanking. You must make a melee attack to get the +2 flanking bonus. All this has been covered.


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 24, 2005)

Correct... 

Except that you said 



> Wait, wait, thought. Take the example of Al (with a bow), Bob (with a short sword), and the poor Creature they're fighting:
> 
> A..........BC
> 
> Now, you can draw a line between Al and Bob with the creature in between assuming a non-flat world. It would not be the shortest line, but it still exists. It doesn't say you have to actually use this line as the direction of you're attack. Sooo... is A flanking C?




Since Al is ranged attacking, he is not threatening, and thus not flanking.

If you take an example of Al with a polearm, Bob with a sword and Creature, all in a nice little line like so:

ABC

There again the answer is no. Al and Bob arn't flanking Creature, since to flank, Al must be on the other side of Creature.

With the same people and weapons as above, should the situation be like so...
A.CB

Then both Al and Bob are flanking...

But if Al were to close like so:

ACB

Al would not be be threatening Creature since reach weapons can not attack at a 5' range and thus Bob could not gain the bonus of flank since Al can not make a melee attack.

Should people just read the literal meaning of it, much of this debate could have been avoided.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 24, 2005)

Ah, don't look at that quote as my interprietation of how flanking works. In that instance I was asking if Patryn's interprietation had that loophole. 

My interprietation is that given the same group, and with A wielding a bow:

A......CB

A is flanking, because there is an ally opposite him who is threatening C, and B is not flanking because there is not an ally opposite him who is threatening C.



> Since Al is ranged attacking, he is not threatening, and thus not flanking.




Can you at least try and give a quote that proves that you can't flank unless you're threatening? I'm getting my post count up, which is nice, but we're just going in circles here.


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 24, 2005)

I thought I did on my first post in this thread...

"Flank
To be directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another character. A flanking attacker gains a +2 flanking bonus on attack rolls against the defender. A rogue can sneak attack a defender that she is flanking."

This means you have to be DIRECTLY on the other side of someone who is being threatend by another.  It does not say that you can be at range (and I am pretty sure that if you could it would say it), rather DIRECTLY beside the target.

Now if the bowman were to close the distance and suffer the AoO, according to strict interpretation of the rules, you could get the bonus to flank, even if the melee attacker does not.


----------



## Shellman (Mar 24, 2005)

So take this situation and tell me your interpretation,

Bob has a melee weapon with a reach of 10 ft and threatens the Bad Guy, but he is not in base to base contact with the Bad Guy.

Al (Bob's buddy) is directly opposite Bob on the other side of the Bad Guy (flanking). Al is in base to base contact with the Bad Guy and has a melee weapon.

If you were to draw that imaginary line from Bob to Al, that line would bisect the Bad Guy's space.

Does Bob get the flanking bonus to attack the Bad Guy even if he is not in base to base contact, but still threatens with a reach weapon? I say yes.

What if Al does not attack but remains within threat range of his own melee weapon to the Bad Guy? I say yes.

Does Al get the flanking bonus with Bob flanking but not in base to base contact. I say yes.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 24, 2005)

Zaebos said:
			
		

> Now if the bowman were to close the distance and suffer the AoO, according to strict interpretation of the rules, you could get the bonus to flank, even if the melee attacker does not.




To me, directly means the line test. If it didn't mean the line test, then the illustrative example on page 153 of the PHB dealing with polearms would not be correct. The hobgoblin and orc are, in fact, flanking, and are not on opposite squares of the oppoenent.

Now instead of the hobgoblin wielding a polearm, give him a bow.


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 24, 2005)

Shellman said:
			
		

> So take this situation and tell me your interpretation,
> 
> Bob has a melee weapon with a reach of 10 ft and threatens the Bad Guy, but he is not in base to base contact with the Bad Guy.
> 
> ...





I would say that since Bob is not directly beside his attacker, Al would not get the flank bonus, but Bob would since Al is directly beside the attacker.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 24, 2005)

For clarity here's the diagram.

O=Orc
T=Tordek
H=Hobgoblin
.. = 5' square

.....TO
H


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 24, 2005)

Ok, now you got me running around in circles....

According to the flanking section on page 153

"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your oppent is threatend by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponents opposite border or opposite corner"

To threaten a creature you must be able to melee attack it, so ranged attacks can not threaten.

"Threaten 
To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space. A creature typically threatens all squares within its natural reach, even when it is not its turn to take an action. For a Medium or Small creature this usually includes all squares adjacent to its space. Larger creatures threaten more squares, while smaller creatures may not threaten any squares except their own."

A.CB

So now if Al has a pole arm, as in my previous example, and stays 10' away, he will give the flank bonus to Bob.  If Bob is able to make a melee attack, then he would give Al the flank bonus in return.

I must amend my statements before, I had forgotten about ranged weapons not threatening.

But if say Al was using a ranged weapon and stood say 30' away and Bob was on one side of the Creature...
A......CB
Al would not get the flank bonus since he can not make a melee attack as stated in the first line of the PHB under flanking.  Neither would Bob since Al can not threaten with a ranged weapon.

My goofs b4, sorry.


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 24, 2005)

Eureka... I found it...
I again must amend another statement...
Page 137 confirms the threaten and unarmed attacks.

"If you are unarmed you don't normally threaten any squares..."

I figured it was around, but I couldn't find it for a while.  Of course if you are 'armed' unarmed attacking, this is moot.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 24, 2005)

Zaebos said:
			
		

> I must amend my statements before...




Particularly the "I am not sure how this is soo confusing to people" one?  

-Hyp.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 24, 2005)

And the next part is where the differences lie.

Camp A says: You only flank if you're getting the flanking bonus. Which means you are only flanking on your own turn if you make a melee attack. This leads to the formian/axiomatic annoyance.

Camp B says: You are flanking so long as you meet the requirements. You do have to make a melee attack to get the +2 bonus to attack, but flanking isn't just the bonus you're getting; its the act of standing in a certain pattern. _Bless_ gives you +1 to attack, but you're still _bless_ed if you arn't making an attack, so to speak. This solves the formian problem, but creates the "round the world" loophole which has been discussed.

This is all because they changed the wording from 3E when they switched to 3.5. It used to be that you had to threaten, but they removed that wording.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 24, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> This is all because they changed the wording from 3E when they switched to 3.5. It used to be that you had to threaten, but they removed that wording.




No, it didn't.

But the wording did change.

From the 3E SRD:
_*Flanking*
If a character is making a melee attack against an opponent, and an ally directly opposite the character is threatening the opponent, the character and the character's ally flank the opponent. A character gains a +2 flanking bonus on the attack roll. A rogue in this position can also sneak attack the target. The ally must be on the other side of the opponent, so that the opponent is directly between the character and the ally._

In 3E, it's very clear - melee attack plus threatening ally = flank (which still leads to the Formian dilemma, but it's unambiguous).  Rather than the confusing "melee attack plus threatening ally = flanking bonus" of 3.5.

3E didn't require the attacker to threaten either, just the ally.  The attacker merely has to be making a melee attack.

-Hyp.


----------



## Lasher Dragon (Mar 24, 2005)

Just to be inane and throw my 2 cents in.....     (please note that this post is MY OPINION and it is how I and many others in my area interpret the rules. Right or wrong, this is how we play and we [total of around 20 people, both DMs and players] have had no problems with game balance and no problems with rogues stealing the spotlight.)

A.........BC

A = rogue w/bow within 30 feet of B
B = bad guy
C = ally of A wielding some sort of melee weapon

A is flanking B, however A does not receive a +2 bonus to hit because A is not using a melee weapon. A is still *technically* flanking B by the RAW however, because B is threatened by C, who is using a melee weapon. C is neither flanking B NOR does C receive a +2 bonus, because A is not threatening B.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 24, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> No, it didn't.
> 
> But the wording did change.
> 
> ...




Darn... its times like this I wish I hadn't given away my 3E books so I could reference them. Gotta work off memory when it comes to that, and my memory ain't too hot. And its late. I just want a download to be released so I can go to sleep. Darn my OCD in getting this series as soon as it comes out!

EDIT:
Wait, does this mean that it was possible to get a flanking bonus attacking unarmed in 3E too? You're making a melee attack, your ally is threatening, you're both flanking (only on your turn it seems - on his turn neither of you are flanking...).

I ask because that's been postulated as the reason why they changed it, but if its been like that the whole time, then that wouldn't be a reason.


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 24, 2005)

I got confused, but that was because I was trying to see into others logic.  It is clear again and it is the way I have understood it as b4.

Flanking still has the word threaten in it.

Flanking
"When making a melee attack (against an opponent), you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatend by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponents opposite border or opposite corner."PHB 153

It does not say that a requirement is that your ally attacks it.  Just that your ally must threaten it.

Threaten
"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)."PHB 137

You still get a +2 bonus to attack a flanked creature, even if you choose not to attack that creature.

Any square you can melee attack is a threatend square.  By this, the fact that under the flanking rule it says that "When making a melee attack...", it would be redundant to have the word threaten in since you already threaten the square into which you can make a melee attack as stated under the threaten rule.

So in order to get a flanking bonus, you must satisfy 3 things.
1) Your opponent is being threatend by an ally
2) By default, you threaten your ally (by making a melee attack against it)
3) Your ally is on an opposite border or opposite corner of your opponent or can reach your opponents opposite border or opposite corner (as the diagram shows on page 153).


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 24, 2005)

Hmmm... I'll ask you a question...

Can you be considered flanking when it isn't your turn?

Hint: Answer "no" and we're good, you use Hyper's interprietation. Answer "yes" and this could go on a while. 

(Although I might go to sleep soon... they don't seem to be releasing my show tonight... )


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 24, 2005)

Since you can only flank as part of an attack action (edit: or full attack action), the answer is no you do not 'flank' when it's not your turn.

But you do threaten squares when it is not your turn.  Should a creature do something to provoke an AoO, then you get to flank again since basically you are taking an attack action even when it is not your 'turn'. 

(sorry to hear about your show)


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 24, 2005)

Ooh clever. 

I can accept that as a valid rules interprietation, flanking not being an actual condition. That's the rule my group uses actually, because I was outvoted 3 to 1. 

Darn my democratic DMing...


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 24, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Ooh clever.
> 
> I can accept that as a valid rules interprietation, flanking not being an actual condition. That's the rule my group uses actually, because I was outvoted 3 to 1.
> 
> Darn my democratic DMing...




(bit off topic)

I have to say that voting on rules that are in question is a good way to preserve party cohesion.  I usually just rule it one way, then research the rule online or in the books and then make an amendment to my judgement if need be next session.

(on topic)

I have honestly never had problems with the flanking rule until my logic got screwed up tonight.  But basically, my last 2 posts is how we have been playing it also since 3.0 and 3.5 came out.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 24, 2005)

Zaebos said:
			
		

> Flanking still has the word threaten in it.




But, again, it only has the word threaten in it in reference to the ally who is helping you flank, never in regards to *you*.



			
				Zaebos said:
			
		

> Since you can only flank as part of an attack action (edit: or full attack action), the answer is no you do not 'flank' when it's not your turn.




Then, once again, you've made Formians and Axiomatic creatures immune to flanking.  Congratulations.  



> *Any square you can melee attack is a threatend square.*  By this, the fact that under the flanking rule it says that "When making a melee attack...", it would be redundant to have the word threaten in since you already threaten the square into which you can make a melee attack as stated under the threaten rule.




Except, of course, that this is patently not true.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Whip: A whip deals nonlethal damage. It deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher. The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack.






			
				SRD said:
			
		

> If you are unarmed you don't normally threaten any squares...




Whip attacks and non-improved unarmed strikes are melee attacks.  Neither of them threaten any squares.  Therefore, you do not always threaten the squares into which you can make a melee attack.

Therefore, assuming they are one and the same, as you keep doing, is incorrect.



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> EDIT:
> Wait, does this mean that it was possible to get a flanking bonus attacking unarmed in 3E too? You're making a melee attack, your ally is threatening, you're both flanking (only on your turn it seems - on his turn neither of you are flanking...).
> 
> I ask because that's been postulated as the reason why they changed it, but if its been like that the whole time, then that wouldn't be a reason.




I've postulated that this is a potential reason, but you're slightly misremembering that reason.

In 3.0, you could flank when making a non-improved unarmed strike so long as your ally had a weapon in hand or was a monk.  Because of this, it was impossible to flank anyone in a "D&D Standard" tavern brawl until someone - you or them - drew steel.

In 3.5, by changing the wording to [potentially] allow flanking in a "D&D Standard" tavern brawl, they opened up the language enough that ranged flanking has become a possiblity.  IMHO, of course.


----------



## atom crash (Mar 24, 2005)

> This solves the formian problem, but creates the "round the world" loophole which has been discussed.




Because the friendly characters have to be on opposite sides of the opponent, and rogues are limited to 30' for ranged sneak attacks, the so-called "round the world" loophole is really a non-issue, unless your world happens to have a circumference of 30 feet or less. On the Little Prince's planet it could be a big issue. 

It does seem awkward, though, but to my knowledge no mechanical impact on flanking that could be abused.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 24, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> It does seem awkward, though, but to my knowledge no mechanical impact on flanking that could be abused.




If you're using a whip or possibly even reach it might be argued that you're flanking from the other side of your ally. 

But, really, it occured to me that a straight line will be tangential to the planet's surface in a round world, so it won't be a problem in that case. Now, in a donut shaped universe, though...


----------



## Lasher Dragon (Mar 24, 2005)

What, your PCs have never heard of the Flat Earth Society?!?!


----------



## atom crash (Mar 24, 2005)

> What, your PCs have never heard of the Flat Earth Society?!?!




Actually, it's the Flat Oerth Society. It's been documented that the world is flat, and it's carried through space on the backs of 4 giant elephants that are in turn standing on the back of a turtle of enormous girth.


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 24, 2005)

Holy... I have never seen such an obscure reading of the rules...
For the benifit of Patryn, I will go over this again.

By default, if you can melee attack into a square, you threaten it... some exceptions apply

Formian's are basically immune anyways, since "No formian in a group is considered flanked unless all of them are"(MM 108), don't see the problem there.

Exceptions to threatening are using a whip and being unarmed (unless you are armed unarmed such as with improved unarmed strike).

However, NORMALLY, it specified the word NORMALLY, you can normally threaten squares you attack into UNLESS you are unarmed or are using a whip... pretty obvious there.

You have to threaten in order to be considered flanking.  Same with your ally... it is pretty clear in the rules.


----------



## Lasher Dragon (Mar 24, 2005)

Zaebos said:
			
		

> You have to threaten in order to be considered flanking.  Same with your ally... it is pretty clear in the rules.




The only thing clear to me is that you get a +2 bonus when threatening an enemy that is also threatened on the opposite side by an ally.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 24, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> In 3.5, by changing the wording to [potentially] allow flanking in a "D&D Standard" tavern brawl, they opened up the language enough that ranged flanking has become a possiblity. IMHO, of course.




Ahh, that's right, your definition is different than mine in that you use the line test more readily. I wouldn't allow two unarmed combatants to flank someone.



			
				atom crash said:
			
		

> Actually, it's the Flat Oerth Society. It's been documented that the world is flat, and it's carried through space on the backs of 4 giant elephants that are in turn standing on the back of a turtle of enormous girth.




I had an old Data Structures book that had that picture on it. By the way, I don't like Terry Pratchett.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 24, 2005)

Lasher Dragon said:
			
		

> The only thing clear to me is that you get a +2 bonus when threatening an enemy that is also threatened on the opposite side by an ally.




You don't have to threaten, you just have to be making a melee attack to get the bonus.


----------



## atom crash (Mar 24, 2005)

> You have to threaten in order to be considered flanking. Same with your ally... it is pretty clear in the rules.




Actually, your ally has to threaten and be in the correct position in order for you to receive a flanking bonus. You must make a melee attack in order to receive the flanking bonus, but it has been shown that you can make a melee attack even when you do not threaten. Therefore, the rules do not specify that you must threaten in order to flank.

When two friendly combatants are in the correct position relative to an opponent (i.e. on opposite sides) can one receive a flanking bonus while the other does not? And if one receives a flanking bonus while the other does not, are both combatants considered to be flanking? In this case, is the creature considered flanked?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 24, 2005)

Zaebos said:
			
		

> You have to threaten in order to be considered flanking.  Same with your ally... it is pretty clear in the rules.




Given that *you* just told *me* two situations in which you do *not* have to threaten in order to be considered *flanking*, you need to stop typing anything that resembles the above statement.

It's wrong, and you just _freakin'_ told me it's wrong.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 24, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Given that *you* just told *me* two situations in which you do *not* have to threaten in order to be considered *flanking*, you need to stop typing anything that resembles the above statement.




No he didn't. He gave you two exceptions to the rule that you have to threaten to make a melee attack. He didn't say anything about whether you could be flanking in those situations. In at least one (the standard unarmed attack), he explicitly said you can make a melee attack and not flank, because you don't threaten.


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 24, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No he didn't. He gave you two exceptions to the rule that you have to threaten to make a melee attack. He didn't say anything about whether you could be flanking in those situations. In at least one (the standard unarmed attack), he explicitly said you can make a melee attack and not flank, because you don't threaten.




Thank-you Storm, I could not have said it better.

The rules do state that you are not threatening when making a melee unarmed attack, page 137 under threatened sqaures, exception one.

Exception 2, page 121 under the whip entry also says you don't threaten squares into which you can make an attack.

Most rules have exceptions, thats just the life of D&D.

Atom, in order to make an attack into a square, you threaten that square (with the exceptions noted above).

Al is using a whip, Bob is using a sword (type up to you), and we have a creature who is not immune to flanking attacks.

A...CB

Since Al Does not threaten the square the creature is in, Bob does not get a flanking bonus to attack.  Al does not meet the requirement of threatening the opponent.

Al, however does get a flanking bonus to attack with his whip since Bob meets all the requirements to give Al the flank.

But as mentioned b4, if this seems unreasonable to you, then don't allow it.

Similarly, Al is unarmed and Bob is using a sword.

ACB

Same situation, Bob does not get the flank bonus, but Al does.  The rules seem clear that inorder to get a flank bonus, your ally must meet the requirements, not you.

Each exception to the rule of threaten does not invalidate the flanking rule, all it does is make clear in what types of situations you can flank.  Given that the wording is clear and unabigious, a literal interpretation of the rule is all that we can go on.  It does not leave much room for obscure interpretation.

These two exceptions to the rule (and there may be more), must be allowed considering the wording of the flanking rule.

Similarly a creatures that threatens a square does not mean that they can flank or likewise give a flank to someone else as in the case of smaller than small creatures.  This is yet another exception to the rule.



> If a creature has 0 reach, it must enter an enemy’s
> square to attack that enemy, correct? If the creature enters
> the enemy’s square, does it now threaten the enemy? Is it
> possible for the creature to flank the enemy? If so, where
> ...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 24, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> In at least one (the standard unarmed attack), he explicitly said you can make a melee attack and not flank, because you don't threaten.




Except, of course, that he's *wrong*.  And, by the by, you're also wrong.

ABC

A = Me, with non-improved Unarmed Strike.
B = Enemy.
C = Charlie, my ally, who is using a 2-handed sword.

When I attack with my non-improved Unarmed Strike:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> 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.
> ...
> Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.




1.  Am I making a melee attack?  *Yes*
2.  Is my opponent threatened by a character or creature friendly to me?  *Yes*
3.  Is Charlie on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner? *Yes*
4.  Am I therefore flanking? *Yes*
5.  Do I threaten B? *No*
6.  Is this, then, a case where I am flanking something even though I don't threaten it? *Yes*
7.  Therefore, is Zaebos completely incorrect when he states "You have to threaten in order to be considered flanking"?  *Yes*
8.  Should he and you therefore stop saying that? *Yes*
9.  Will he? *Probably not*


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 24, 2005)

In your example, given what I have already stated, this is an EXCEPTION to the rule.

A does not threaten B, so therefore C does not get the flanking bonus.

C Threatens B, so A does get the flanking bonus.

Pretty clear.

I am not completely wrong, just stating an exception to the rule.  I do not see what the problem is since we seem to be able to agree on this.

You don't need to threaten the enemy to gain the flank bonus, but your ally MUST threaten  the enemy in order to gain the flank bonus.

Al and Bob are unarmed.  Creature in the middle.

ACB

Al does not get a flank bonus, since Bob is not threatening the creature.

Bob does not get a flank bonus, since AL is not threatinging the creature.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 24, 2005)

Zaebos said:
			
		

> In your example, given what I have already stated, this is an EXCEPTION to the rule.




Except you are *not* stating an exception to an *ACTUAL* rule.

You made up a rule, and claimed it was actually in the RAW.

It's not.  Really, it isn't.  I promise you.

Therefore, you cannot base any conclusions you might wish to draw on your made-up rule.

Do you see my point?

I could just as easily state that, according to the RAW, all dwarves immediately die upon reaching 5th-level.  That high-level dwarf in the module? He's an exception to the rule.

I can not, then, go making rules arguments in the *rules forum* based on the fact that all dwarves die upon reaching 5th-level.  It's not in the rules.  I made it up.  Maybe I've got a good reason for making it up, but whatever that reason is, *it's not a real rule.*  I can't tell someone on this forum that their 6th-level Dwarven Fighter is wrong.

Am I making *any* sense here?


----------



## atom crash (Mar 24, 2005)

> You don't need to threaten the enemy to gain the flank bonus, but your ally MUST threaten the enemy in order to gain the flank bonus.




Incorrect.

You don't need to threaten the enemy to gain the flank bonus, but your ally MUST threaten the enemy in order FOR YOU to gain the flank bonus.

Correct.

Again, the rules do not specify that YOU must threaten in order to get a flanking bonus. Yes, in many cases you must threaten a square in order to attack into it. But that is not always the case, as has been stated in this thread.

Threatening comes into play once in the section on flanking: YOUR ALLY must threaten in order for YOU to receive the bonus; conversely, YOU must threaten in order for YOUR ALLY to receive the bonus.

Thus, when two combatants are in the correct position to flank, it is possible for one person to receive a flanking bonus while the other does not. In this case, then, is the creature considered flanked? Are both combatants considered flanking?


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 24, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> Incorrect.
> 
> You don't need to threaten the enemy to gain the flank bonus, but your ally MUST threaten the enemy in order FOR YOU to gain the flank bonus.
> 
> ...



 Ok, so I forgot to say YOU again... my apologies.  (semantics)

Edit: Flank bonus and flanking only apply during an attack, so if you are flanking during an attack, the creature is considered flanked and you are considered flanking "When making a melee attack...", Flank is not a condition, but part of the action you are taking.

Paytryn
I didn't make up a rule, it is the literal interpretation of the rule.

The exception is that (and if you read what I have cited in the past), you would see that it SPECIFICALLY says that while unarmed and using a whip YOU DO NOT THREATEN... and the rule of flanking specifically states that in order to give an ally the flank bonus, you MUST threaten the target, and that in order for you to gain the flank bonus your ally MUST threaten the target.  The exceptions are SPECIFICALLY stated in the sections where it needs to be.

If you do not threaten the target, you can not give your ally the flank bonus.  Right there in black and white.

"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." (PH 153)

No where does it say that you also must threaten the creature, however, in the Threatened Squares section under Attacks of Opportunity (PH 137), "You generally threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even if it is not your turn"

This means that you threaten the squares you can melee attack into.  The EXCEPTIONS are noted in the whip entry "The whip is treated as a melee weapon with a 15-foot reach, though you don't threaten the area into which you can make an attack" (PH 121) and in the Threaten Squares section in Attacks of Opportunity (PH 137) "If you are unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity (but see Unarmed Attacks, Page 139)."

That last part should also read "or give a flank bonus to an ally", but that would be redundant.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 24, 2005)

I give up.  Go ahead and make up new rules.


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 24, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I give up.  Go ahead and make up new rules.



 You have failed to say what rule it is I am making up.

Point out the exact rule that I am changing.  According to the strict wording, I can not find anything to suggest that indeed I am making new rules.

Infact you seem to agree with my assessment.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 25, 2005)

Zaebos said:
			
		

> You have failed to say what rule it is I am making up.




The actual rules on flanking follow:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> 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.
> ...




That's it.  There's nothing else.

However, you claim that, in fact, there's another rule that they forgot to write in there:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> FLANKING
> *You have to threaten in order to be considered 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.
> ...




Except, of course, that there's a problem with that.  Putting that in there actually contradicts what the rules say elsewhere.  Therefore, you say, what they actually forgot to write in the flanking rules was not merely the above, but also the *exceptions* to that rule.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> FLANKING
> *You have to threaten in order to be considered flanking, except in the cases where you don't.* 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.
> ...




Unfortunately, none of your additions are actually in the rules and, because of the way the rules are *already* written, they are needless complications that *change the rules*.

You aren't allowed to do that - at least, not in this forum.



> Infact you seem to agree with my assessment.




I agree with your assessment that I can flank with my non-unarmed strike.  Rather, you agree with *mine*, since I've been posting that in this thread longer than you have.

I don't need your additions to arrive at that conclusion, however.  In fact, they get in the way.  Therefore, your rules are superfluous and erroneous.

EDIT, To add:

What you've done is no different than:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> FLANKING
> *You have to be colored blue be considered flanking, except in the cases where you don't.* 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.
> ...


----------



## atom crash (Mar 25, 2005)

> Edit: Flank bonus and flanking only apply during an attack, so if you are flanking during an attack, the creature is considered flanked and you are considered flanking "When making a melee attack...", Flank is not a condition, but part of the action you are taking.




If this is true, then the Hive Mind ability of formians make them completely immune to flanking.



> *Hive Mind (Ex)*: All formians within 50 miles of their queen are in constant communication. If one is aware of a particular danger, they all are. If one in a group is not flatfooted, none of them are. No formian in a group is considered flanked unless all of them are.




If flanking only applies during an attack, then all formians can never be considered flanked. By the initiative rules of combat all combatants act one at a time, and at no time can more than one person be attacking simultaneously. If formians, by your logic, can only be considered flanked when they are attacked, then they can only be flanked one at a time, so therefore according to Hive Mind they cannot be flanked. 

If this is the intent of the designers of that ability, then why does it not read thus: "...If one in a group is not flatfooted, none of them are. No formian in a group can be flanked."

Instead, the wording of that ability implies that it is possible for all formians in a group to be considered flanked, thus for them to be individually considered flanked. Therefore, your interpretation must be incorrect.

Zaebos, you seem to be confused. In post #168 you were arguing that you must threaten in order to flank. Then you claimed that attacking with a whip was an exception to the flanking rules. Now you're arguing otherwise.

Receiving a flanking bonus while attacking with a whip or an unarmed strike (of course, assuming that your ally who is in the correct position and threatens your opponent) is not an  exception to any rule concerning flanking. It falls absolutely under the definiton of flanking.

Edited for spelling. Now I'm going home for a game. It's time to fireball things.


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 25, 2005)

Good Grief...

I have not stated that

 "You have to threaten in order to be considered 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.
"

All I have said that because you can melee attack, you threaten that square.  That is part of the definition of threatening. There are execptions to threatening, pointed out elsewhere in the rulebook.  

What you are saying is that because the flanking rule does not call out these exceptions (and likewise the threaten rule in regards to the whip) that the rules contradict themsleves.  This is incorrect.  They do not contradict themsleves, but provide clairity over the intended use of the particular rule.

You claim that I have altered the rules.  I say that if you look at it in a logical flow, then you will realize that no additions have been made.

I have not violated forum rules either.

Can you get a flank bonus?
Step
1 - Determine if your ally threatens your target
  1a - If yes, move to step 2
  1b - If no, you do not gain a flank bonus
2 - Determine if your ally is on the targets opposite border or opposite corner
  2a - If yes, move to step 3
  2b - If no, you do not gain a flank bonus
3 - Are you making a melee attack?
  3a - If yes, move to step 4
  3b - If no, you do not gain a flank bonus
4 - attack with a flank bonus

Pretty simple.


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 25, 2005)

I am not confused, all I said that if you were making a melee attack, you are threatening the square... then I clarified later with the exceptions.

Edit: You threaten when you melee attack, and if you melee attack you threaten.
Exceptions are if you attack with a whip (edit for grammer)or if you are unarmed.

Edit: ( I find it completely remarkable that people here are arguing semantics and grammar.  Using an obscure interpretation of what I said instead of using what I said.  Amazing.  I know why I haven't been here for 3 years now.)


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 25, 2005)

Zaebos said:
			
		

> Good Grief...




Now you know how I feel.



> What you are saying is that because the flanking rule does not call out these exceptions (and likewise the threaten rule in regards to the whip) that the rules contradict themsleves.  This is incorrect.  They do not contradict themsleves, but provide clairity over the intended use of the particular rule.




No, the rules are perfectly non-contradictory.  They're also complete, and therefore don't need your little addition.



> I have not violated forum rules either.




Well, that's good to know.  You are, however, adding to the rules.



> Can you get a flank bonus?
> Step
> 1 - Determine if your ally threatens your target
> 1a - If yes, move to step 2
> ...




Agreed.  Now, where in that logic flow was the step "Do you threaten your target?"

It wasn't there.  So stop trying to add it.  It is *not* needed.


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 25, 2005)

I have never stipulated that you NEED to threaten your target in order to get a flanking bonus, just I was pointing out that normally, if you can make a melee attack against target, you threaten your target, with the above exceptions noted.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 25, 2005)

Zaebos said:
			
		

> I have never stipulated that you NEED to threaten your target in order to get a flanking bonus,




Oh, well, in that case ... Waitaminute ...



			
				Zaebos said:
			
		

> You have to threaten in order to be considered flanking.




Ah!  You did!  See why I'm confused, now?



> just I was pointing out that normally, if you can make a melee attack against target, you threaten your target, with the above exceptions noted.




And I agree with that statement.  I do not agree with the "Earlier" statement.

Understand my confusion now?


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 25, 2005)

I can see why your confused, and I should have been more clear... typically, you do have to threaten a target to get your flank bonus.

The way I look at it is that that you need to threaten a target to gain your bonus. 
Melee attack and threaten are interchangeable, with the noted exceptions... it's just an easier way to look at the situation, since that is the way threaten is written.

"You threaten all squares in which you can make a melee attack..."  If you can't make a melee attack you don't threaten the square, if you don't threaten a square, you can't make a melee attack (with the noted exceptions of course).

So like I said, we have been arguing over semantics, but the outcome is still the same.

(Edit: For Grammer)

EDIT: Quick comment as well

just to reiterate... it is just an easier way to look at it.  By strict definition, to gain a flank bonus you must be able to melee attack your target, and by default, you must threaten your target.  Noted exceptions are with the whip and unarmed attack, where you do not threaten the target, but are still able to make a melee attack, and therefore able to get a flank bonus should the other criteria be met for flanking.

These situations are fairly rare, and infact, since 3.0 and 3.5 have come out, to date, no one has used a whip in my games.  It is just easier to use the word threaten when explaining the game to novice players and DM's, since most of them wont face this situation very often.

Again, threaten and melee attack are 2 different things, but one and the same in most cases.


----------



## Shellman (Mar 25, 2005)

Patryn,

 I am LMFAO! I think you need to sit Zaebos down and school him about the rules again!


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 25, 2005)

Shellman said:
			
		

> Patryn,
> 
> I am LMFAO! I think you need to sit Zaebos down and school him about the rules again!




School?  I am sorry, but the logic is there... people just need to get their heads out of thier books long enough to understand the rules.

I absolutely hate the fact that people here tend to obscure the facts with reasoning that would make my 6 year old cringe.

Laff all you want, I don't mind.  What I do mind are the blatant antagonistic antics that come up when people refuse to apply logic to a fairly simple system.


----------



## Demoquin (Mar 25, 2005)

Actually i was planning on using a whip for my next character. And since i dobr threaten i can always use a gaunlet for the 5' reach with my 15' reach  


Is there a 10' reach with the whip?


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 25, 2005)

Demoquin said:
			
		

> Actually i was planning on using a whip for my next character. And since i dobr threaten i can always use a gaunlet for the 5' reach with my 15' reach
> 
> 
> Is there a 10' reach with the whip?




Well, with your guantlet, you are still considered unarmed, just that you deal leathal damage.  You would not threaten with it (Since you can not threaten a square unarmed, barring Improved Unarmed Strike).

If your gauntlet was spiked, then you would be considered armed.

The whip is 15' reach, but if you talk it over with the DM, you might be able to use a 10' whip.


----------



## atom crash (Mar 25, 2005)

> The way I look at it is that that you need to threaten a target to gain your bonus.
> Melee attack and threaten are interchangeable, with the noted exceptions... it's just an easier way to look at the situation, since that is the way threaten is written.




You're confusing the rules again. This is a generalization that doesn't hold true. We -- even you have pointed out a few -- have shown cases where you can make a melee attack without threatening. Melee attack and threaten are NOT interchangeable, BECAUSE of the noted exceptions. The exceptions negate the rule you're trying to establish. Take a look at this statement, which uses the same logic:

"All puppies are brown, with the noted exceptions." 

See how ludicrous that statement is? If you can find one puppy which is NOT brown you've invalidated the first part of the statement, and the second part is completely superfluous and makes the whole thing nonsensical.



> By strict definition, to gain a flank bonus you must be able to melee attack your target ...




I'm with you, assuming the other conditions are also met.



> ... and by default, you must threaten your target.




Why do you continue to cling to this? It's a generalization that is just plain wrong. And it's the source of a lot fo confusion.



> These situations are fairly rare, and infact, since 3.0 and 3.5 have come out, to date, no one has used a whip in my games.




It's not rare to the character build that uses a whip. Or a non-improved unarmed strike with a gauntlet. Just because you've not seen it used in a game doesn't establish a statistical fact.



> It is just easier to use the word threaten when explaining the game to novice players and DM's, since most of them wont face this situation very often.
> 
> Again, threaten and melee attack are 2 different things, but one and the same in most cases




This shorthand generalization you're using is wrong, and it's just going to confuse players later on. It is much more beneficial to tell them what the rules actually say. There's a lot of inconsistencies in your posts, and I think it's because you're confusing making a melee attack and threatening.

Edit: I get what you're trying to say, and I agree that in some cases it holds true. But it does not hold true in all cases -- as in the examples used previously -- so you can't claim it establishes a rule that you have to threaten in order to flank.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 25, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> Edit: I get what you're trying to say, and I agree that in some cases it holds true. But it does not hold true in all cases -- as in the examples used previously -- so you can't claim it establishes a rule that you have to threaten in order to flank.




Especially when a very valid argument can be made for ranged flanking.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 25, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Especially when a very valid argument can be made for ranged flanking.




Note, however, that at no point can you actually get a "flanking bonus" - a +2 bonus on melee attacks - while making a ranged attack.

PrCs to the contrary notwithstanding.


----------



## Philip (Mar 25, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Especially when a very valid argument can be made for ranged flanking.




Except for the problem that the very same argument makes flanking when in base-to-base contact almost a certainty, because fully 8,3% of all possible lines drawn go through the opposite sides of the square of your opponent when in base-to-base contact (assuming equal bases and a flat world...). And if you have randomly dispersed 'allies' in the universe, you need about 12 allies (on average) to make you always flank when in base-to-base contact.

While I like the idea of flanking in an unarmed bar fight, I don't like the idea of your sleeping buddy enabling you to flank. And that's what this way of interpreting flanking does as well.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 25, 2005)

Philip said:
			
		

> And if you have randomly dispersed 'allies' in the universe, you need about 12 allies (on average) to make you always flank when in base-to-base contact.




Not if you require your ally to be threatening the enemy.


----------



## Philip (Mar 25, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Not if you require your ally to be threatening the enemy.




True, that seems a very sensible rule to me. But it does invalidate Patryn's reading of the rules, since if you interpret it in the way he explained, you don't need your ally to threaten, you just need the line.

If you don't use Patryn's reading you're effectively making up a house rule by adding this condition. No problem of course, you just lose the position of arguing that you can flank from range by the RAW.

And you still can't flank in a bar fight unless someone draws a knife.


----------



## atom crash (Mar 25, 2005)

> And you still can't flank in a bar fight unless someone draws a knife.




or unless someone has improved unarmed strike. or has a spiked gauntlet. or uses an improvised weapon of any type.

how often does someone use an improvised weapon in a bar fight? that _never_ happens in the movies.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 25, 2005)

Philip said:
			
		

> While I like the idea of flanking in an unarmed bar fight, I don't like the idea of your sleeping buddy enabling you to flank. And that's what this way of interpreting flanking does as well.




Which is why the flanking rules really need a clarification.  Alternatively, all these problems (or, at least, most of them) might go away if they were amended to say:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *FLANKING*
> 
> [To determine] whether two friendly[, non-helpless] characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace [the shortest possible] 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.  [Note that if the opponent is unaware of either of the two friendly characters, or if either of the friendly characters is unaware of the other or the opponent, the opponent is not flanked.*]  [If you want to explicitly limit it to melee only, then you need to also add something like: You are not considered flanking when making any ranged attack.]
> 
> ...




* - There would also need to be some verbiage somewhere else in the rules explicitly stating that you attackers of whom you are not aware as invisible (i.e., denied Dex bonus, +2 on attacks ...)

I think that closes all the appropriate loopholes.

EDIT: Added "non-helpless" to close the "my sleeping buddy helps me flank" problem.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 25, 2005)

Philip said:
			
		

> If you don't use Patryn's reading you're effectively making up a house rule by adding this condition. No problem of course, you just lose the position of arguing that you can flank from range by the RAW.




Incorrect.



			
				D&D Glossary said:
			
		

> [glossary]flank[/glossary]
> To be directly on the other side of a character *who is being threatened by another character*. A flanking attacker gains a +2 flanking bonus on attack rolls against the defender. A rogue can sneak attack a defender that she is flanking.




emphasis added

Patryn uses the "when in doubt" more readily than I do. I use it as the definition of "directly" in the quote above. He uses it as a test to determine flanking.


----------



## Philip (Mar 25, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I think that closes all the appropriate loopholes.




It goes a long way, but still allows for enough weirdness:

The arcane trickster who uses his toad familiar sitting on the other side of a ravine to flank his opponent. (both are aware, opponent is aware, toad and trickster have a good line).

The inmate shackled to the wall and behind an iron portcullis allowing his rogue jailbreaker to sneak attack the guard. (both aware, opponent aware, inmate and rogue have a good line)

So I think your new definition still needs work, matbe you need to do something with the threaten part in the definition. Maybe the problem in the flanking definition sits in the fact that some attacks don't (seem) to threaten. I would sure feel 'threatened' in a barfight regardless of the fact if my opponents practice martial arts or not.


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 25, 2005)

Since your sleeping buddy does not threaten your target, (can't make a melee attack into the targets square), even if it borders or corners the opposite with your character, it still can't make a melee attack and therefore can not give your buddy a flank bonus.


----------



## Philip (Mar 25, 2005)

To ThirdWizard and Zaebos:

The core of Patryn's argument was that you could read the second sentence of the SRD (in the combat section) apart from the first, and that the first should be used to determine when you get the +2 bonus on melee attacks (right Patryn?), and the second should be used to determine 'flanking'.

I just postulated that when reading it this way other kinds of weird situations would be possible: like the example of the sleeping buddy helping his friend to flank.

Because I find that weird as well, I do not use Patryn's logic, and would like to include the threatened portion to the definition. Unfortunately, this makes it impossible for flanking in an unarmed barfight.


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 25, 2005)

Yes it does make flanking impossible in an unarmed bar fight, until someone picks up a bottle, chair, mug, serving whench etc...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 25, 2005)

Philip said:
			
		

> The core of Patryn's argument was that you could read the second sentence of the SRD (in the combat section) apart from the first, and that the first should be used to determine when you get the +2 bonus on melee attacks (right Patryn?), and the second should be used to determine 'flanking'.




Exactly.



> I just postulated that when reading it this way other kinds of weird situations would be possible: like the example of the sleeping buddy helping his friend to flank.




I'm editing my above to account for that.  Thanks!


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 25, 2005)

Zaebos said:
			
		

> Yes it does make flanking impossible in an unarmed bar fight, until someone picks up a ...  serving whench




Somebody needs to teach the barbarian what a figure of speech is...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 25, 2005)

Philip said:
			
		

> The arcane trickster who uses his toad familiar sitting on the other side of a ravine to flank his opponent. (both are aware, opponent is aware, toad and trickster have a good line).




In such a case, the defender could just decide that he's unaware of the toad.  In which case, the toad is treated as invisible as far as the defender is concerned.

This may have unforseen side effects, however ...   Specifically, I'm thinking of a Rogue 4 or Barbarian 2 with the Blind-Fighting feat just deciding to close his eyes and become unaware of everyone.

I'm not sure that this would actually benefit him enough, other than to deny everyone flanking ...


----------



## Zaebos (Mar 25, 2005)

Smaller than small creatures can't give a flank bonus because they don't threaten the squares around them.  They also can't gain a flank bonus. PH 149 Tiny, Diminutive and Fine Creatures.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 25, 2005)

Zaebos said:
			
		

> Smaller than small creatures can't give a flank bonus because they don't threaten the squares around them.  They also can't gain a flank bonus. PH 149 Tiny, Diminutive and Fine Creatures.




Right, I know.  That's stupid, though, because it means that particularly small creatures can't even flank *each other*.

See my post a couple pages ago dealing with this.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 25, 2005)

Zaebos said:
			
		

> Smaller than small creatures can't give a flank bonus because they don't threaten the squares around them. They also can't gain a flank bonus. PH 149 Tiny, Diminutive and Fine Creatures.




No, they can't flank because of their size. (Unless they gain reach, I think). [this is pure semantics, but I think its important because nowhere does it mention threatening in the flanking rules, so drawing conclusions from this is sketchy]

A House Rule I have is that when combat involves lots of tiny or smaller creatures, I switch the "view" of the battlemat so that 5' creatures take up 2x2 squares with 2 square reach, Tiny take up 1x1 square with 1 square reach. Then I allow everything to play out in that environment. It works quite well for our group.


----------



## Seeten (Mar 25, 2005)

I'd just like to say I appreciate Zaebos for providing me with a huge laugh here at work, and Patryn for his patience. Very impressive.


----------



## Zehaeva (Mar 26, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> In such a case, the defender could just decide that he's unaware of the toad.  In which case, the toad is treated as invisible as far as the defender is concerned.
> 
> This may have unforseen side effects, however ...   Specifically, I'm thinking of a Rogue 4 or Barbarian 2 with the Blind-Fighting feat just deciding to close his eyes and become unaware of everyone.
> 
> I'm not sure that this would actually benefit him enough, other than to deny everyone flanking ...




but wouldnt you need to be aware of the two opponents to fight back with blind fighting?

also this would just seem easier to just say, "you've already seen them and sticking your head in the sand doesnt make them go away"

~zehaeva


----------



## ElectricDragon (Mar 26, 2005)

The Archmage can gain the Arcane Reach ability allowing him to make touch attacks at a range of 30 feet (thus threatening) and if the ability is taken twice the range increases to 60 feet. This is the only exception I could find for extreme flanking.

Ciao
Dave


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 26, 2005)

Zehaeva said:
			
		

> but wouldnt you need to be aware of the two opponents to fight back with blind fighting?
> 
> also this would just seem easier to just say, "you've already seen them and sticking your head in the sand doesnt make them go away"




Except you can always close your eyes, making everything invisible.  You now have to pick a square to attack, rather than a creature, and they gain a 50% miss chance (as per total concealment) and no longer provoke AoOs.

Generally, you also lose your Dex bonus against them (though Uncanny Dodge [melee and ranged] and the Blind Fighting feat [melee only] allows you to retain that bonus).


----------



## Zehaeva (Mar 26, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Except you can always close your eyes, making everything invisible.  You now have to pick a square to attack, rather than a creature, and they gain a 50% miss chance (as per total concealment) and no longer provoke AoOs.
> 
> Generally, you also lose your Dex bonus against them (though Uncanny Dodge [melee and ranged] and the Blind Fighting feat [melee only] allows you to retain that bonus).





isnt think thats a bit too costly an exchange?? hehe just seems like even though it is a loop hole it seems to put you at a larger disadvantage than just the flanking


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 26, 2005)

Psh. If you follow the Sage Advice. 

Personally, I don't even read the stuff.


----------



## Nail (Mar 27, 2005)

So......a rogue using a bow could sneak attack an enemy in the middle of combat, if 
a buddy of his was on the opposite side and threatening the enemy, and
the enemy was within 30ft?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 27, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> So......a rogue using a bow could sneak attack an enemy in the middle of combat, if
> 
> 
> a buddy of his was on the opposite side and threatening the enemy, and
> the enemy was within 30ft?





Ayup.


----------

