I thought back stab was a full action?

[Lasher Dragon]

Aye Patryn, and the heavy fortification is 100% chance of normal damage, so I take it that with heavy fortification, one cannot be sneak attacked.

 

[Terath Ninir]

This is why I don't like miniatures-based combat. Yeeck! That this even comes up is criminal...

 

[Thanee]

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).

Ok, then point me to the "melee attack" in this quote, please (it's the complete text from that part of the rule, much like your quote (the part with the line through the opposite borders) is the complete text of the part of the rule you use to base your hypothesis on):

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

It mentions both "flanking bonus" and "flanking" right there.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Aye Patryn, and the heavy fortification is 100% chance of normal damage, so I take it that with heavy fortification, one cannot be sneak attacked.

Yep.

And yet, you can still be flanked ...

 

[Lasher Dragon]

As I said earlier, I don't see what at all is so unreal about the situation. If you are having an intense swordfight with someone in front of you, I don't see how the archer taking careful aim at your back doesn't get some kind of bonus/benefit to you being quite distracted - and rightly so.

 

[el-remmen]

Twice in one day. . .

/me slips on the ole mod hat

I think folks need to take a deep breath and refrain from baiting, name-calling, accusations and insulting.

The thread has pretty much exhausted the original question - but new and interesting questions are still coming up so I will leave this open for now - but you stand warned I'll lock it in a second.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

As I said earlier, I don't see what at all is so unreal about the situation. If you are having an intense swordfight with someone in front of you, I don't see how the archer taking careful aim at your back doesn't get some kind of bonus/benefit to you being quite distracted - and rightly so.

Part of it is that archers are powerful enough already.

Another is...since there is no actual facing in 3e/3.5e, then you could make a case for this to occur in ANY case with an archer and someone in melee against an opponent.

I still hold to the point that if they had meant for ranged attacks to be possible, it would have been spelled out or at least mentioned. It never is. Other more complicated situations(such as large creature with reach) is pointed out and specifically mentioned...but why not ranged?

 

[dcollins]

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.

It's a spurious point of data, from an entirely different source, even. You don't get to throw out an entire source of rules evidence because of one somewhat poorly worded entry (or even a few). In this case, there is a preponderance of evidence against your interpretation: Core Rules, FAQ, and ROTG are all in synch in their disagreement with you.

 

[dcollins]

The thread has pretty much exhausted the original question - but new and interesting questions are still coming up so I will leave this open for now - but you stand warned I'll lock it in a second.

Wow, sometimes it's hard to refrain from throwing something incendiary into a thread on purpose to get it locked, if it seems to the betterment of the forums as a whole.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

LOL dcollins, please, pay a visit to the Featherfall Abuse thread!