I thought back stab was a full action?

[ThirdWizard]

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?

For me, an erratta would be nice.
Andy was the main revision guy, so I would be interested in knowing his thoughts on the subject. But, intent isn't really what's being debated here. The designers can mean to make something one way, but if they don't write it that way then it isn't that way. Not to say design intent has never changed how I run things in my own game, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[Thanee]

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."

But they did no such thing.

The part you always refer to quite certainly is not the definition for flanking.
It doesn't even state what flanking actually does.

It's just a clarification for what "opposite border/corner" exactly means. Nothing else.


The definition for flanking is right under the headline, where it belongs.
In the very first paragraph:

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.

That is flanking.


And only...

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

...you...

...trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

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

Not according to your claim. If it is as you say, the +2 bonus has nothing to do with flanking.

Bye
Thanee

 

[atom crash]

The definition for flanking is right under the headline, where it belongs.

I disagree. That is a description of the combat modifiers arising from flanking. Just as that page of the SRD describes the combat modifiers of other circumstances, including cover and concealment. The actual definition of flanking is found elsewhere.

 

[Thanee]

Where? In the glossary? That's just a short version for quick reference.

The combat chapter defines how combat works and the Flanking section defines how flanking works.

And the only *rule* in that section is the very first paragraph. The rest are just clarifications and additions to that rule.

Bye
Thanee

 

[dcollins]

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."

An excellent case study. Note that the language there is fundamentally identical to that in the 3.0 PHB glossary. "Threatening" itself means "melee only" in both 3.0 and 3.5.

So if that's your example of a rules change, then it fails. You've proven that the rule is in fact unchanged between 3.0 and 3.5. Even if it's not written with ironclad mathematical precision, the intent is for flanking to be a symmetric operation, and "threatening" can only be done with a melee weapon, as referenced in your glossary quote.

 

[atom crash]

It clearly says there (in both versions) that the other character must be threatening for flanking to occur. It doesn't say that my character must be threatening.

Well, actually, it did say both characters had to be threatening in 3.0 version but was removed in 3.5. That, sir, is the rule change. And if we're arguing intent, then what was the intent of the change?

Edited to remove sarcasm that, upon further reflection, seemed a bit disrespectful and uncalled for. Sorry.

 

[RigaMortus]

I see there being a lot of evidence pointed to "flanking" not having to be melee only. As much as I'd hate to admit it...

That said, I think I will take the safe bet and play it the way it has always been playing (in 3.0). That ranged attackers can not flank (or gain a flanking bonus, if you think they are not one in the same). There is no reason for the rule to change, and it if was changed intentionally, they never gave a reason why or an example of a ranged flanked attack. I firmly believe this is just a case of bad wording. Feel free to play it your way though.

 

[dcollins]

It clearly says there (in both versions) that the other character must be threatening for flanking to occur. It doesn't say that my character must be threatening.

Well, actually, it did say both characters had to be threatening in 3.0 version but was removed in 3.5. That, sir, is the rule change. And if we're arguing intent, then what was the intent of the change?

No, actually it did not. From the 3.0 PHB glossary:

flank: To be directly on the other side of an enemy that is threatening the enemy a character is attacking. A flanking attacker gains a +2 flanking bonus to attack rolls against the defender. A rogue can sneak attack a defender that she is flanking.

How about that, you're just making stuff up without looking at the 3.0 PHB.

 

[RigaMortus]

How about that, you're just making stuff up without looking at the 3.0 PHB.

-2 points of credability...