I thought back stab was a full action?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Ok, then point me to the "melee attack" in this quote, please

It's not there. But only because it doesn't need to be.

Because the quote references:

it gets the flanking bonus if any square

So, the question is, "What Flanking bonus is it talking about?"

According to the rules previously stated, there's only one flanking bonus:

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.

Now, there are two possible ways to read the quote you are interested in.

Either it is further explanation of the above text (must make a melee attack, only get it if your opponent is threatened by the ally opposite), or it overwrites the above text.

If it completely overwrites the above text, then not only do large creatures get a +2 flanking bonus on all attacks when they are flanking (melee or ranged), but they do so whether or not the ally opposite threatens the opponent.

I believe that it is clarification, rather than overwrite.

 

[atom crash]

Deep breath. Count to 10.

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.

I don't suggest throwing out the RotG because of another error in a different source (written by the same person btw). I suggest you look more closely at the information provided by that source given the fact that it has been inaccurate before. When, upon looking more closely at that source, I propose it be thrown out because it is based on the 3.0 wording of flanking rather than the 3.5 wording of flanking. If the source has been wrong before, you must entertain the idea that it can be wrong here. I don't think you're willing to do that.

If Chicken Little is crying the "sky is falling" and the little boy is crying "Wolf," is it time to head inside with the flock of sheep?

Has the 3.5 FAQ been referenced here? I looked through that thing, even did a search for the term "flank," but I didn't find a relevent entry.

Also, look again at the glossary definition of flanking, which is also on p. 308 of the 3.5 PHB. Is this not a core rules source?

"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."

So, the core rules doesn't disagree with me. It says that in order to flank, I have to be on one side of an opponent being threatened by another character. It says a rogue can sneak attack while flanking. it inplies that a rogue can sneak attack even when she doesn't get the flanking bonus. The logical extension is that you can flank even when you don't get a flanking bonus.

The flanking bonus indicates a melee attack, but it is not a definition of flanking, just a description of the modifiers to combat provided by the condition of flanking.

The FAQ gives no help in this matter. The Rules of the Game, an unreliable source, supports your position. BTW, this is the ONLY source that specifically says "You can't flank with a ranged weapon." And I think it's wrong (see reason above, and in 3 or 4 other responses in this thread).

Is there another source I'm leaving out?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Side note:

The Glossary definition does not limit the flanking bonus on attack rolls to melee attacks only. Moreover, it changes the definition of flanking to include the "ally must threaten" clause.

 

[Thanee]

It's not there. But only because it doesn't need to be.

That's how I see it as well, actually.

So, the question is, "What Flanking bonus is it talking about?"

The +2 flanking bonus, there is no other one. But that flanking bonus is only limited to melee attacks, if you accept the first paragraph of the flanking rule as the actual rule and the later part, which I quoted above, as a clarification (which, in all honesty, it must be (because otherwise you would have this ridiculous case, that big creatures get the bonus with ranged attacks, but small creatures do not )).

If it completely overwrites the above text, then not only do large creatures get a +2 flanking bonus on all attacks when they are flanking (melee or ranged), but they do so whether or not the ally opposite threatens the opponent.

I believe that it is clarification, rather than overwrite.

Yeah. It's quite obvious, that it cannot be meant any other way, really.

Reading it as a seperate rule (or as an overwrite as you put it) would be quite silly.


The same holds true for the part you refer to all the time. It also does not mention the "melee attack" specifically, yet it clearly references the first paragraph...

When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle...

So, only if you are in doubt, whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in melee combat while they are both threatening the target from opposite sites (in short: in the middle), only then you go on and read what the rest of that part says... it's not a seperate rule, it's just a clarification for the first paragraph.

The melee attack is not mentioned, because it does not have to, since the first paragraph already made clear that getting a flanking bonus and thus flanking only ever appears in melee combat.

It's the same for both the later paragraphs, the one with the imaginary line and the one with bigger creatures. Both are just clarifications for the rule, which is written in the first paragraph.

Both later paragraphs refer to flanking, while the first one does not, yet it should be clear enough from the context, that this flanking is not what you seem to think it is, but rather a modifier, which only ever appears in melee combat.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

"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."

It seems to me that it all comes down to that one word. Directly. What is directly on the other side? Patryn and others interpret that it doesn't require one to be adjacent. Yes?

Myself, dcollins, and others interpret it to mean being adjacent to the potentially flanked creature.

There IS 'support' for both sides of this, but its taking two completely different readings of the same words. I'm back to the point of deciding that no amount of back and forth is going to convince anyone of anything. Get the actual game designers(not FAQ, RoTG, or anything else, but an actual designer) to put a ruling on it. Otherwise, the side that doesn't agree will just pick at it until the end of time no matter how legitimate it may be.

 

[Thanee]

It isn't adjacent, but that doesn't matter, since flanking only applies in melee combat. That is the important part.

If it were adjacent, you could not flank with a reach weapon and a square between the target and yourself, but you can do so.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

It isn't adjacent, but that doesn't matter, since flanking only applies in melee combat. That is the important part.

If it were adjacent, you could not flank with a reach weapon and a square between the target and yourself, but you can do so.

Bye
Thanee

I was trying to avoid using the word 'melee' becuase I've already tried that one a few times.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I thought about the directly thing. I believe it means the whole center square to center square passing through two opposing sides thing. I do not think it is in reference to position related to the defender only.

There's lots of bickering over this issue. I think everyone knows why everyone else interpriets the way they do. I'm willing to say its muddy water. Maybe some overzealous editor thought he or she would "clear up" the glossary text by taking out such an unimportant thing like you needing to be threatening and in melee to be flanking. I don't know. Suffice to say it was changed, and for better or worse, here we are with a very large change that might or might not have taken place.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The same holds true for the part you refer to all the time. It also does not mention the "melee attack" specifically, yet it clearly references the first paragraph...

Possible.

I don't see it that way for several reasons. (Of course, right?)

If I were to summarize the Flanking section's paragraphs, it would be:

1. What bonuses accrue when Flanking?
2. How do you determine whether something is Flanking?
3. So, how does this affect big and small creatures?

The reason I have a hard time accepting that it's meant to be melee only now is that, in 3.0, they specifically stated "You are flanking only when you make a melee attack and an ally opposite threatens."

In 3.5, they changed the definintion to, "You are flanking when a line between you and an ally crosses opposite sides / corners of your enemy."

It would have been trivially easy to leave the melee-only statement in as part of the rules. The revision team didn't. I propose they changed the rules purposefully. Others propose they did so accidentally. I pick intention over incompetence.

The other, main reason, is that bonuses and penalties arise from various states. If you are invisible, you get a +2 on attack rolls, your opponent is denied his or her or its Dex bonus, and attacks against you suffer a 50% miss chance.

If you are Flanking, you get a +2 bonus on melee attack rolls, and can sneak attack.

If you are Disabled, you are limited to a move or standard action and take a point of damage if you strain yourself. ( )

I believe, and the rules support in multiple cases, that not getting all the benefits or penalties of your condition does not remove the condition from you.

A rogue flanking a vampire (and therefore unable to make sneak attacks) is still Flanking that vampire. An invisible attacker striking a barbarian with Uncanny Dodge is still invisible, even if the Barbarian doesn't lose his Dex bonus to AC.

I believe, likewise, that it is possible to still Flank your foe even if you don't get the +2 bonus on your attack roll.

 

[Mistwell]

So what source would be authoritative enough to provide a ruling on this issue to satisfy the folks who think the rule is something other than what most folks here think it is?