Can you flank with a non-ally?

[el-remmen]

I don't see why you wouldn't get the bonus in that case.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't see why you wouldn't get the bonus in that case.

So with AC 8, and the +2 from Flanking, I need a 6 to hit him.

If he falls unconscious, he stops moving, his AC drops to 7... and since I no longer get the +2, I need a 7 to hit him.

Does common sense require that someone gets harder to hit when they stop moving?

-Hyp.

 

[airwalkrr]

According to RAW, on page 153 of the PH, it is pretty clear that the creature has to be at least friendly towards you.

Now a simple house rule that lets any creature that threatens allowing flanking is reasonable.

 

[el-remmen]

Does common sense require that someone gets harder to hit when they stop moving?

-Hyp.

Nope. that's why I'd give the player a +2 circumstance bonus for the trog being knocked out and call it a day. . .

Circumstance Bonuses: For when the rules get wonky. . .

 

[phindar]

Rules tend to break at the extreme high and extreme low end of the system. Its okay to me that it might wonk a bit in the case of characters with a +0 attack bonus fighting a Dex 1 enemy who then passes out. (If only because very few combats continue on after the enemy has passed out, and when they do, its usually just the players saying "We beat him to death.") The situation is rare enough that I'd be fine with however the GM adjudicated it, either with a circumstance bonus, or just by following the RAW and making an unconscious guy slightly harder to hit than the conscious, crippled and flanked guy.

To me it comes down to what you consider "flanking" to be. Does the bonus derive from two allies coordinating their strikes to minimize the opponent's defenses (say, with one striking high while one strikes low), or is it something that happens to the defender when he has to split his attention in two directions? If you rule its the former (which the PHB seems to), then only allies can flank. If you rule its the latter (which is understandable), then its something two unallied attackers could do to a third.

Even if you rule attackers must cooperate in order to provide flanking bonuses, there's no reason why two enemies beset by a third couldn't agree to work together. I'd rule if two characters are seeking flanking on a third, they'd get it, even if they weren't allies. (I also could see two characters in a slow 5' step chase around a larger creature, taking their flanking bonuses each round but waiting to get back to the business of killing one another when the third opponent drops.) On the other hand, say in the case of a fighter trying to kill a rogue who are attacked by an ogre, I could see the fighter denying flanking just to make the rogue's life harder (or shorter). To me, this would be funnier if the fighter had to 5' step out of flanking every time the rogue moved into it, which is why I'm leaning towards the second interpretation of flanking.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The situation is rare enough that I'd be fine with however the GM adjudicated it, either with a circumstance bonus, or just by following the RAW and making an unconscious guy slightly harder to hit than the conscious, crippled and flanked guy.

As I see it, 'following the RAW' still leaves the unconscious guy easier to hit, because there's no reason flanking stops working.

I'm making a melee attack on him, and a creature friendly to me and directly opposite threatens him. I'm flanking and get a +2 bonus, whether he's conscious or not.

-Hyp.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

To me it comes down to what you consider "flanking" to be. Does the bonus derive from two allies coordinating their strikes to minimize the opponent's defenses (say, with one striking high while one strikes low), or is it something that happens to the defender when he has to split his attention in two directions? If you rule its the former (which the PHB seems to), then only allies can flank. If you rule its the latter (which is understandable), then its something two unallied attackers could do to a third.

I disagree that the PHB rule is that the allies are cooperating in a flank, except by the "friendly" language. All you have to do to flank is threaten. The two characters do not have to be attacking the flanked foe. If you had a battle line that looked like : A - 1 - B - 2 where A and B were allies and 1 and 2 were allies, B could be full attacking 2 while fighting defensively and declaring 2 his dodge 'target' and he would still provide flanking to A in A's attack on 1. Technicly I'm not even sure he has to know A is there, as long as he is threatening 1.

Also, the improved uncanny dodge allows you to not be flanked. Unless its by a rogue who has 4 more rogue levels than you have uncanny dodge providing levels. But there's no indication that the high level rogue can grant the flanking benefit to the person on the other side too. This indicates that flanking is mostly a function of the flanked individual - he can train himself out of the distraction and lowered gaurd that comes from having people on both sides of you - but a person can be so good at flanking that she can still take advantages of the tiny loss of focus that remains.

 

[Laurel]

2 attacking middle = flanked

If all three are attacking each other (10 ft. reach) then no flanking bonus.

If 2 are attacking the middle character reguarless of friend status then flanking applies. Though it would not be hard to say for the sake of those rounds the characters are friendly as they are working together for a common goal -kill the middle character.

 

[mvincent]

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Agreed. Note that the glossary says:
"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."

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Now that's a good rules quote! Best argument in favour I've seen yet.