Can you flank with a non-ally?

[Kahuna Burger]

Does getting the advantages of flanking require that the person threatening from the opposite square be an ally, or merely that you and some other combatant threaten the same target from opposite squares?

For example, PC A who is a wizard of non-exalted morals decides that a Dretch is just what is needed to combat Evil Cultist of the Month, who is meleeing with the group. Dretch appears and attacks ECotM, but does not finish him off. Then, PC B who is a member of an organization dedicated to fighting demons and their summoners decides to attack the summoned demon. (we'll leave aside whether PC B should know it was PC A's demon, or whether this should effect the decision to attack, this is a mechanics question, not a party communciation one. ) If PC B is exactly opposite the dretch from ECotM, do they recieve flanking bonuses against the dretch? There has been no truce, however temporary, PC B would still take an attack of oppertunity if ECotM passed a threatened area, but for this one round one threatens a target the other is attacking in flanking position.

 

[javcs]

I think that the text says you can only flank with an ally, however, if you and a non-ally would otherwise be flanking a third faction (that is, someone who is allied with neither would be flanker) I would probably permit flanking bonuses. That may or may not be a house rule, though, I don't remember the exact text of flanking.
The rational is that, well, when you're flanked, you're dividing your attention between two or more enemies who both want to hurt you.

I wouldn't mind overly if a DM for a game I was in had a different opinion.

 

[Bacris]

Actual RAW: "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."

I'd say it's a reasonable houserule to allow a third faction to flank, as javcs mentions, as they are friendly to you in-as-much as they are attacking your enemy, but if it's a third party that is hostile to you, they might not want to help you flank, so in the end, it's a DM's call.

 

[javcs]

Actual RAW: "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."

I'd say it's a reasonable houserule to allow a third faction to flank, as javcs mentions, as they are friendly to you in-as-much as they are attacking your enemy, but if it's a third party that is hostile to you, they might not want to help you flank, so in the end, it's a DM's call.

Hey - "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
But really, how often this sort of situation comes up is game/DM dependent, in a game that it's common, the DM will probably houserule it, in a game where it's uncommon, the DM will probably rule 0 it on the fly.

 

[BlueBlackRed]

It doesn't come up all that often, but I think of the flanking bonus as more of an AC penalty since the target has to split his attentions between two targets that are hostile to him and not each other.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

Actual RAW: "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."

I'd say it's a reasonable houserule to allow a third faction to flank, as javcs mentions, as they are friendly to you in-as-much as they are attacking your enemy, but if it's a third party that is hostile to you, they might not want to help you flank, so in the end, it's a DM's call.

I had to look other stuff up. And you are right, in the Combat Chapter it uses the Phrase "Friendly to You" The Phrase Freindly leaves a lot for interpretation.

However, in the Appendix in the Back, Under Flank, it says: "To be Directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another Character. A flanking attacker gains...."

The friendly is left out.

Flanking seems to be designed around Having your attetion split between 2 (or more) foes.

Thus if the Wizard, Weilding Quarstaff Defensivly requires a Nat 20 to hit for 1d6-2 causes enough Distraction to Flank...

I'd say the Troll Barbarian armed with a +5 Vorpal Scythe ought to count as well.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

It doesn't come up all that often, but I think of the flanking bonus as more of an AC penalty since the target has to split his attentions between two targets that are hostile to him and not each other.

Hrm, why is it important that the targets not be hostile to each other? I guess I'm interested in whether the "friendly to you" requirement is actually thought out based on the possibility of 3 (or more) sided fights, or if its just the easiest way to stop folks from claiming flanking based on lining up with a foe's ally. ("hey, technicly he threatens, he might change sides in theory!" )

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Thinking about it further, the underlying question would seem to be : Is "flanking" a combat manuver two allies work together to accomplish, or is "flanked" a condition of a character splitting his attention between two foes? There are some interesting repercussions of either interpretation.

 

[Imre]

I think there are two aspects to flanking:

1) The division of attention of the victim;

2) The coordination of efforts by the flankers.

1) is clearly still in place in the "three-party system" while 2) is questionable. Monte Cook put forth a house rule (in some book or other) that allows a flanked creature to ignore one attacker and focus on the other. In this case, the ignored attacker counts as invisible while the other gains no benefits at all.

The coordination part is important because it stops the possibility of arguments like the one given above "well, evil things turn on each other all the time!!"

If two hostile parties knowingly attacked a mutually hostile third party, I would give flanking benefits. To my mind, the flankers are "effectively allied for the purposes of combat benefits", including flanking.

 

[el-remmen]

In a battle with three or more factions, allies and friendships can change from moment to moment.

I would (and do, as a DM that often has three, four and even five way fights) allow the flanking bonus in the case described.

Two combatants need not necessarily coordinate their attacks to take advantage of the distraction presented by the other. . . Which is to say, Character A can coordinate his attack with that of Character B, and vice-versa, without actually agreeing to coordinate with each other - and a smart combatant would do just that.