I thought back stab was a full action?

[atom crash]

And why is it that you dismiss the Rules of the Game quote? Just because it doesn't agree with you? It is NOT based on 3.0. It is from AFTER 3.5, which means that it is based on the 3.5 rules. It seems to me that you absolutely refuse any possibility that you are wrong, even when the most recent evidence(the Rules of the Game article), like it or not, does not support you. As dcollins has said, get an actual designer to say something, but if you're going to disregard one article, you can't go picking and choosing which one you want just because it doesn't support you.

I don't presume to answer for Patryn, but I believe his point is that the rulings from the Sage and RotG are often, well, less than accurate, and it appears that the RotG on sneak attacks, which published roughly 5 months after the release of 3.5, is based on the 3.0 version because it references wording from the 3.0 version that was changed in v3.5.

Basically, the argument goes, "the RotG may say otherwise, but the credibility of that source is questionable."

Edited to make subject and verb agree.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Ankh:

1. Because examples are just that. Examples. They are, by their nature, non-exhaustive.

2. You continually use the "attacking in melee" quote while ignoring the "when in doubt" quote. The "attacking in melee" only applies if the when in doubt quote has already been resolved. There is no indication, ANYWHERE, that you can't satisfy the "when in doubt" quote with a ranged weapon. There is indication that you can't satisfy the "attacking in melee" quote with a ranged weapon, but that doesn't matter as it applies only to a specific type of bonus on attack rolls, and not to the status of flanking in general. It even specifies that creatures with reach 0 cannot flank (in melee or in ranged). They can't even flank themselves (i.e., two Grig rogues can't gang up on a 3rd and Sneak Attack him, even in melee!).

3. As Atom-crash said.

EDIT: To add, see post #77 ( http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=1998556&postcount=77 ) for more info on why gaining a particular kind of bonus is not necessary and sufficient to have a status, nor is not gaining a particular kind of bonus necessary and sufficient to not have a status.

 

[dcollins]

"Official WOTC Publications" also say things like...

Now you're changing the subject. In the face of multiple overwhelming evidence against your position, you need to get a designer to say it, then I listen. In fact, since you insist on wasting time on silliness like this, now you're ignored.

 

[Thanee]

(though not, of course, getting a +2 flanking bonus, which only applies to melee attacks).

Erm...

You are saying that "flanking" and "getting a bonus to flank" is not the same thing, right?
That is, you can flank without getting a bonus to flank.

That's the claim, which leads you to believe that you can flank with a ranged attack (as long as that imaginary line crosses opposite borders...), yes?

And then you go on and say, that you OF COURSE do not get a flanking bonus with a "flanking ranged attack", if you are a large creature, yet the rules say that black on white?

If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.

So, if one square counts for flanking - which according to your claim exists also in ranged combat - then a large creature also gets a flanking bonus.



You are right, that it contradicts the spirit of the flanking rule, as shown below.

What I say there is equally ridiculous as your whole claim.

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.

Because flanking only ever works in melee. There is no ranged flanking!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

It's not a loophole, its the rules. =/

Yeah, as is (if that part is true) the rule, that if you are large, you even get the flanking bonus then, since if you are flanking with at least one of your squares (and occupy more than one), then you get the flanking bonus.

In fact, of course, both the paragraphs below the first, just clarify some special cases and the whole rule (which includes, that you have to perform a melee attack to flank) is in the first paragraph, but well...

That really does look like the intent of the rules.

So you really think it's the intent of the rules, that you can be flanking without getting any benefit from it (unless you happen to be a rogue)!?

Bye
Thanee

 

[atom crash]

Now you're changing the subject.

That's not changing the subject at all. It's refuting the reliability of a source of rulings that you do not question.

If a dependable source tells you something, you would believe it. If, however, that source has a history of giving confusing or inaccurate information -- as the example illustrates -- you wouldn't be so quick to rely on the information provided.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Erm...

You are saying that "flanking" and "getting a bonus to flank" is not the same thing, right?
That is, you can flank without getting a bonus to flank.

Correct.

Just like you can be invisible, and have your opponent not be denied their Dex bonus to AC.
Just like you can be flanking (even under the "standard melee only" definition), and not get to apply your Sneak Attack dice to your attack.

In the first case, anyone with Uncanny Dodge retains their Dex bonus to AC when faced with an invisible attacker. You would not then rule that the attacker was not invisible, would you?

In the second case, anyone immune to critical hits does not suffer from extra Sneak Attack damage. Would you then rule that the Rogue who is attacking him is not flanking, and therefore doesn't get a +2 bonus on his attack rolls when he engages the Iron Golem?

If you maintain that the attacker in the first case is still invisible, and that the rogue in the 2nd is still flanking, why is it so hard to agree that you might still be flanking even if you aren't getting a +2 on your attack roll?

In other words, if you agree that you can possess a condition even when you do not gain all the benefits of that condition, you must apply such a ruling across the board.

That's the claim, which leads you to believe that you can flank with a ranged attack (as long as that imaginary line crosses opposite borders...), yes?

Correct.

And then you go on and say, that you OF COURSE do not get a flanking bonus with a "flanking ranged attack", if you are a large creature, yet the rules say that black on white?

Huh? Go back and read the post (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=1998194&postcount=43). I said:

all result in the giant (X) and the elf (E) flanking when they shoot their bows

They get no flanking bonus on their attack rolls because neither is making a melee attack.

They are still flanking, just like the rogue who is engaged in melee combat with a skeleton may still flank it.

So, if one square counts for flanking - which according to your claim exists also in ranged combat - then a large creature also gets a flanking bonus.

Only if he makes a melee attack, which is the only "flanking bonus" ever mentioned (as distinct from, say, a morale bonus, or an enhancement bonus).

See my above link. I don't think we running into a language issue here; are we?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Now you're changing the subject. In the face of multiple overwhelming evidence against your position, you need to get a designer to say it, then I listen. In fact, since you insist on wasting time on silliness like this, now you're ignored.

Awwww, poor baby!

Does anyone know why it is necessary to make a big, "You're IGNORED!!!!" post? Couldn't you do it quietly, and on your own?

Or does that not make the splash you think is required to salve your ego?

So, on to the matter at hand, even though you won't read this post (I'm INGORRED!).

I am not changing the subject.

You insisted that only a statement by a WotC designer would allow you to believe my point of view.

I pointed out that the SRD was written by a WotC designer.

This wasn't good enough, and you insisted that the quote be from an FAQ or an Errata or similar source, because you had a different source by a different WotC designer that claimed to disprove my point.

I pointed out that the FAQs and Erratas - let alone the RotG articles - are, themselves, known for containing multiple errors of ruling and citation and that, in the past, you've had no trouble saying, "That FAQ answer is wrong; I will ignore it." Alternatively, you have no trouble listening to Hyp or Shilsen or any of a hundred other rules monkeys saying, "Look at the error I found in WotC Publication Y. They are making rulings that are wrong."

However, now that you have a sub-FAQ-level answer that supports your point, WotC is infallible, and only a WotC source may trump a WotC source.

That is called hypocrisy.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

As kind of a weird aside here, brought up by Patryn's post, I have another question/conundrum - OK, what happens when a rogue flanks a fighter wearing Full Plate of Heavy Fortification, basically making him immune to crits? I would assume he'd be immune to sneak attack as well. Yet I don't think it specifically says he is immune to crits, it says he has 100% chance to take normal damage instead of crit damage. Weird.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Actually, it's easier than that, LD.

Fortification says:

When a critical hit or sneak attack is scored on the wearer, there is a chance that the critical hit or sneak attack is negated and damage is instead rolled normally.