Flanking and Uncanny Dodge paradox

[melkoriii]

I think we have a winner!!

I say level 10 rogue gets sneak attack, level 1 rogue is on full defensive trying to make sure above suggestion doesn't happen.

But if the R1 is Full defensive then he is not threatening the B and so R10 gets no Flanking.

 

[Crothian]

He threatens, just not attacks. He still gets AoO.

 

[Kyamsil]

My humble opinion?

R1 doesn't get a flanking bonus or sneak attack before being cleaved apart by B6

R10 gets flanking bonus and sneak attack damage, but only if he acts before B6 makes R1 go to meet his maker

 

[melkoriii]

He threatens, just not attacks. He still gets AoO.

Nope


<snip fron SRD>

Threatened Area

A combatant threatens the area into which it can make a melee attack, even when it is not a combatant's action. An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened area may provoke an attack of opportunity from a combatant.
A combatant normally threatens all adjacent spaces. "Reach weapons" and "natural reach" can change the threatened area.

Total defense [Standard][AoO: No]

Description: A combatant doesn't attack or perform any other activity other than moving at base speed, but the combatant gets a +4 dodge bonus to AC for 1 round. The combatant's AC improves at the start of this action, so it helps against any attacks of opportunity provoked while moving.

</snip>

As states in Total defense "A combatant doesn't attack or perform any other activity 1 round." as from Threatened Area "A combatant threatens the area into which it can make a melee attack"

By takeing the Total defense you can not attack for one round. Since you can not attack you do not threaten any space.

 

[RedShirtNo5]

As states in Total defense "A combatant doesn't attack or perform any other activity 1 round."

What you quoted doesn't say that. What you quoted says "the combatant gets a +4 dodge bonus to AC for 1 round".

The Sage has stated that you still get AoO if you take Total Defense.

-RedShirt

 

[Albereth]

Threatened Area

A combatant threatens the area into which it can make a melee attack, even when it is not a combatant's action. An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened area may provoke an attack of opportunity from a combatant.
A combatant normally threatens all adjacent spaces. "Reach weapons" and "natural reach" can change the threatened area.

Italics added by me. It says you threaten an area into which you can make a melee attack. Just because you choose not to do so and go on total defense does not mean that you no longer threaten the area. You could have decided not to go total defense and attack the area.

{edit to fix missing close of italic code}

 

[AGGEMAM]

The PHB is more specific in this area than the SRD.

PHB, page 25 and 48
Uncanny Dodge: ... At (*)th level the (*class*) can no longer be flanked. ... The exception to this defense is that a(nother) rogue at least four levels higher than the (*class*) can flanke him (and thus sneak attack him).

That means a rogue or barbarian cannot be flanked by anyone at all, except by rogues at least four levels higher.

So it would take two rogues of 4 levels higher to effectively flank a character with this ability.

 

[Uller]

The PHB is more specific in this area than the SRD.



That means a rogue or barbarian cannot be flanked by anyone at all, except by rogues at least four levels higher.

So it would take two rogues of 4 levels higher to effectively flank a character with this ability.

Why _two_? The criteria for flanking is that you have an ally opposite you and he threatens your target. There is nothing mentioned that he must also be capable of flanking your foe. So, IMO, if you have a R10 and a Fighter on either side of a Rog6, the Rog10 is flanking when he attacks, but the fighter does not.

From the SRD:

If a combatant is making a melee attack against an opponent, and an ally directly opposite the combatant is threatening the opponent, the combatant and the combatant's ally flank the opponent*. A combatant gains a +2 flanking bonus on the attack roll. A rogue in this position can also sneak attack the target. The ally must be on the other side of the opponent, so that the opponent is directly between the combatant and the ally.

It seems to me, to get your interpritation of the rule, you need to add the following at the * in the above quote: "...unless the combatant's ally is not capable of flanking the opponent, in which case, neither the combatant, nor the combatant's ally flank the opponent". Or some such...

YMMV.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Well, Uller, because Uncanny Dodge grants a rogue of 4 levels higher than the character with Uncanny Dodge the ability to flank that character.

It still requires two persons with the ability to flank on opposite sides of the character with Uncanny Dodge.

Normally, everything you threaten you can flank, but Uncanny Dodge overrules that. At least IMO, threatening does not equal flanking.

Therefore, the fighter on the opposite side might be threatening the character with Uncanny Dodge but is not considered threatening him for the purpose of flanking, IMO.

Here the reasoning:

PHB, page 130

Flanking

If you are making a melee attack against a creature, and an ally directly opposite you is threatening the creature, you and your ally flank the creature.

Basically the PHB is the same wording as the SRD.

I read it the last part like you CANNOT flank IF not BOTH you AND your ally ACTUALLY flank.

Does that make sense to you.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Basically the PHB is the same wording as the SRD.

I read it the last part like you CANNOT flank IF not BOTH you AND your ally ACTUALLY flank.

Does that make sense to you.

Two characters attack a mid-level barbarian, one a high-level rogue and one a low-level rogue (or non-rogue). Both are on opposite sides and threaten the creature. Thus, by the definition, both flank it. But wait! Uncanny Dodge negates the low-level rogue's flank. Nothing say the high-level rogue loses it... nothing.