Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Peter Gibbons" data-source="post: 2605682" data-attributes="member: 35541">No, it doesn't.  To contradict the primary entry, the glossary entry would have to explicitly allow ranged flanking...which it does not.  You're assuming your conclusion, here.Remember your own argument.  You acknowledged that the rules clearly limit the flanking bonus to attackers making melee attacks.  Then you suggested that because you can flank without receiving that bonus, you must be able to flank with a ranged weapon.  There is no definite indication, you argued, that receiving the flanking bonus is equivalent to flanking.Then someone (me) points out to you that there is, in fact, such an indication--in the glossary.  And suddenly, your argument mutates and becomes: "Ah, yes...but because the glossary doesn't reproduce all of the rules for flanking, it actually supports my position!"Directly on the other side of him, actually.  That undermines your argument (though it is technically incorrect, since you can threaten with a reach weapon).Why in the world would we go only by the glossary entry?Listen, if you're going to insist on misinterpreting the rules, there's really no point having this debate.  All available evidence points to ranged flanking being against the rules, for all that a strained reading of a single sentence, taken out of context, might permit the possibility.</blockquote>