Can you flank with a non-ally?

[RigaMortus2]

They could not get the flanking bonus,

Agreed...

nor assist someone else in flanking...

Can't seem to find support for this rule. Unless, you mean that the person using a ranged weapon doesn't threaten, so the creature friendly to them on the opposite side of the target would not get the benefits of flanking. I agree with that, but I don't agree the opposite is true.

so I could not say they were involved in flanking at all.

They are involved in flanking so much so that the creature friendly to them on the opposite side of the opponent satisfies the criteria for them (meaning the ranged attack) to be able to flank the enemy, but not other way around.

In addition to the 3.0 FAQ, the RotG also says:
"you cannot flank with a ranged weapon."

Sorry, I should clarify I am asking about what the 3.5 Core rules state. While the FAQ and RotG offer good advice and possible designer intent, they are often misleading with the RAW and tend to "make up" new rules on a whim. Just basically curious on if I am reading the 3.5 RAW correctly or not.

 

[mvincent]

I think that gaining the flanking bonus is necessary for being considered flanking, and therefore you are not flanking unless you are in the process of making a melee attack.

The PHBII has a maneuver that only functions while you are flanking someone. The implication of it is that you can be flanking someone even when no one is immediately attacking them (i.e. this must be so for the manuever to function).

 

[mvincent]

Sorry, I should clarify I am asking about what the 3.5 Core rules state. While the FAQ and RotG offer good advice and possible designer intent, they are often misleading with the RAW and tend to "make up" new rules on a whim. Just basically curious on if I am reading the 3.5 RAW correctly or not.

I believe much of my information will not be of help to you here (i.e. it involves things outside the SRD), so please consider it solely for the benefit of others.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The PHBII has a maneuver that only functions while you are flanking someone. The implication of it is that you can be flanking someone even when no one is immediately attacking them (i.e. this must be so for the manuever to function).

If you exclude the conditions for the flanking bonus as conditions for flanking, then all we're left with is the line test.

We have a hobgoblin in the centre of a room, between a door in the east wall and a door in the west wall. I'm behind door number 1, and a creature friendly to me is behind door number 2. Neither of us threaten the hobgoblin; neither of us can even see the hobgoblin; nevertheless, we satisfy the line test.

There are only two 'states' described in the flanking text. One is 'satisfies the line test'; the other is 'making a melee attack while a creature friendly to you and directly opposite threatens your opponent'. One of those two must describe what is necessary to be considered flanking; if it's the second, then the first is merely emphasising how to determine 'directly opposite'. If it isn't the second, then it's the first... and we can flank with ranged weapons, or through a door.

Since that strikes me as ridiculous, I read it that it's necessary to be making a melee attack while a creature friendly to you and directly opposite threatens your opponent in order to be considered flanking. If this means that the PHBII maneuver is ill-written, so be it.

-Hyp.

 

[green slime]

Rules of the Game

Oh. Ah well. I gave up on that site a long time ago.

 

[mvincent]

that strikes me as ridiculous

I previously discussed this (i.e. that someone could still be considered flanked during moments that no one is making an attack roll) for several pages on the WotC boards. In the end, I finally convinced the (solitary) opposition by referencing the text in the PHBII manuever (this fits with the more standard, dictionary use of the term flanked as well)

I would have provided a link for reference (as I frequently used to do), but unfortunately WotC has recently wiped their old threads. If I supplied the text (when I have access to my books this evening) would that help at all?

 

[mvincent]

Oh. Ah well. I gave up on that site a long time ago.

The general vibe of this board seems to be to look down on those that supply supplemental (WotC published) information on a topic. That just doesn't seem very "rules lawyery" to me.

 

[green slime]

The general vibe of this board seems to be to look down on those that supply supplemental (WotC published) information on a topic. That just doesn't seem very "rules lawyery" to me.

I find very little on that site that actually imparts anything to my game. Take that statement as you will.

I'm not much of a rules lawyer. My major concerns IMC are: "Is it fun" and "Does it make sense to us".

But as I on occassion run into rules lawyers, in the form of power gamers, I find it handy to have at least an inkling of what tricks they are trying to pull, and therefore frequent this forum. I will always regard supplementary information as just that. Not more or less valid than any other moderately informed opinion. It all has to be filtered.

It takes time and effort to stay informed. With two kids, an abode, and a few other things going on, like trying to put food on a table, I have to restrict myself to certain sites that have a high return value to me and my campaign. I find ENWorld provides a greater value for me than the WotC site. Thereof my original statement, which I stand by. YMMV.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I previously discussed this (i.e. that someone could still be considered flanked during moments that no one is making an attack roll) for several pages on the WotC boards.

But the only way to get to that point from the text in the definition of Flanking allows for ranged flanking and flanking-through-a-door as well.

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

I find very little on that site that actually imparts anything to my game.

I don't use it for my game (i.e. I don't personally need the clarifications it contains), so much as for debates on rules boards (where not everything can be taken for granted). The FAQ however has been very useful to me (and people constantly make the same disparaging remarks about it here).

It takes time and effort to stay informed. With two kids, an abode, and a few other things going on, like trying to put food on a table, I have to restrict myself to certain sites that have a high return value to me and my campaign.

I don't expect everyone to read all this supplemental information, but I see no need to disparage it when provided. Posters are downright rude here when I offer free research and information.