A Flanker of One

[jaelis]

Except you don't threaten squares that have soft cover, so the giant rogue would also need an exotic reach weapon and Exotic Weapon Master allowing him to do so, at least how I see it.

No need for that. Recall the rules for low obstacles:

Low Obstacles and Cover
A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he’s closer to the obstacle than his target.

Say a giant has 15 ft reach and is more than twice as tall as you. You are standing adjacent to him. Then he threatens a square 15 ft away on the other side of you, and thus counts as occupying it with adaptable flanker.

(The Precise Swing feat would also work fine for anyone.)

 

[Will]

Well, this is straight from the faq:
Can a character with the Adaptive Flanker feat (Player’s Handbook II, 73) and a spiked chain flank an enemy all by himself (since he can choose to count as occupying the square opposite the enemy as well as his own square)?

No. This feat doesn’t let you get around the basic rule of flanking, which is that you need an ally to accomplish it—it just lets you pretend to occupy an extra space when figuring out if you’re actually flanking an enemy with your ally.


So the Sage response is official.

 

[Andor]

To those of you supporting the "flank with yourself" approach, let me ask you this.

Do you really want to fight a giant rogue with adaptable flanker that can flank anyone that threatens it by itself? Because if I was the dm and my players tried this trick (and I fell for it), I would certainly throw out a bunch of them, or other similar abusive "flank with myself" combos.

Bad idea.

Well, if you consider the Exotic weapon master trick a requirement you're talking about an investment of 5 feats (Combat reflexes, Vexing Flanker, Adaptable Flanker, Weapon Prof Exotic, Weapon Focus) plus a level in a decidedly mediocre prestige class. Even a human rogue couldn't pull it off before 10th level, and then it would be all he does.

Frankly given the buy-in I don't think it's outrageous to allow it, but I'm inclined to agree the it looks pretty shaky by the RAW and would require a lenient GM to work.

 

[Elethiomel]

Yes, between the Sage and Hyp., we really don't have much to go on here.

Nice snark.

I don't disagree with Hyp's interpretation of what the rules say. I just don't think it's the only interpretation.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I think the "two friendly characters" line is a legacy of nobody having thought of the Adaptable Flanker feat while writing the flanking rules.
I think Adaptable Flanker should have been written much more clearly.

The flanking rules already existed when Adaptable Flanker was written; it's not incumbent on the flanking rules to cater for Adaptable Flanker. Rather, Adaptable Flanker needs to be written so as to have its intended effect with respect to the rules for flanking as they already exist.

Since two characters are required in order to flank, Adaptable Flanker could cater for this by stating that the character counts as two creatures for purposes of flanking in the absence of an ally. Since Adaptable Flanker contains no such language, we know that a/ flanking requires two characters, and b/ Adaptable Flanker doesn't include the ability to count as two characters.

There's a difference between "written more clearly" and "introduce whole new benefits to the feat".

-Hyp.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

To those of you supporting the "flank with yourself" approach, let me ask you this.

Do you really want to fight a giant rogue with adaptable flanker that can flank anyone that threatens it by itself? Because if I was the dm and my players tried this trick (and I fell for it), I would certainly throw out a bunch of them, or other similar abusive "flank with myself" combos.

Bad idea.

I'd still rather fight that than a well-prepared wizard who's known he'll be seeing my party for days prior....

 

[Nifft]

A question that comes up here is "What does it mean, to threaten?", or, more specifically, "Do you threaten a square if you can't make an AoO into it?"

There are critters that provide flanking but cannot make AoOs. (Most obvious example is the Fire Elemental summoned by the Distracting Ember maneuver.)

Luckily, this rule isn't necessary to prohibit self-flanking.

Cheers, -- N

 

[moritheil]

It certainly seems to.

Effectively you are in two places at once,

Yes.

and may be treated as two characters.

No. I don't see where it says that. It only says you are basically counted as being in two places, to use your wording.