I thought back stab was a full action?

[Furtive Noise]

Yeah, though many players still want it, the sneak attacking archer rogue is really not all that viable; if you want to get a lot of sneak attacks (which really can add up to a lot of damage if you get a full attack in flanking each one is a sn. attack) then you really need to focus on hand to hand more. Its kind of a good trade off, high damage but high risk of the rogue getting splattered.

I think there might be a rule for shooting from cover then re-hiding at a big penalty toward your hid check.. this might help a shooting rogue get more than one or two sneak attacks in a fight but I'm not sure of the rule off the top of my head.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I think there might be a rule for shooting from cover then re-hiding at a big penalty toward your hid check.. this might help a shooting rogue get more than one or two sneak attacks in a fight but I'm not sure of the rule off the top of my head.

It's called sniping. -20 to hide again even though they know where the arrow came from. But you still need that move-action to rehide, so no multiple arrows.

For multiple ranged sneak attacks, you need greater invisibility or the like.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Ridiculous enough?

No, and I don't understand your point.

The exception just states that a creature that takes up space greater than 5' by 5' can choose any square it occupies when determining Flanking.

If X is a giant, S is a Spider, H is a human warrior, and E is an elf warrior ...

XX
XX........SH

-and-

XX........SH
XX

and

E..........SH

all result in the giant (X) and the elf (E) flanking when they shoot their bows (though not, of course, getting a +2 flanking bonus, which only applies to melee attacks).

In other words, many people claim that the only time you are flanking is when you get the bonus to your attack rolls. This, however, is a claim that is not strictly supported by the rules, and therefore is just as "far out" as the claim that you can be flanking even when you don't get the bonus to your attack rolls.

EDIT: Added another example.

 

[Caliban]

No, and I don't understand your point.

The exception just states that a creature that takes up space greater than 5' by 5' can choose any square it occupies when determining Flanking.

If X is a giant, S is a Spider, H is a human warrior, and E is an elf warrior ...

XX
XX........SH

-and-

XX........SH
XX

and

E..........SH

all result in the giant (X) and the elf (E) flanking when they shoot their bows (though not, of course, getting a +2 flanking bonus, which only applies to melee attacks).

In other words, many people claim that the only time you are flanking is when you get the bonus to your attack rolls. This, however, is a claim that is not strictly supported by the rules, and therefore is just as "far out" as the claim that you can be flanking even when you don't get the bonus to your attack rolls.

EDIT: Added another example.

Do you actually believe this is how the rules work? Do you actually play this way?

Or are you just argueing for the sake of argueing?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

1. Does it matter?

2. Why do you care?

 

[Caliban]

1. Does it matter?

I asked the question, so it obviously matters to me on some level.

2. Why do you care?

If you are just wasting our time with some pointless hairsplitting, then I won't bother participating the "discussion".

I like to participate in intelligent discussions. Pointless hairsplitting doesn't qualify, and just irritates me. So I've learned to avoid them. It's better for everyone involved.

However, your evasive response has provided an answer to my question. You may continue your "discussion" without any further interference from me. Have a nice day.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Wow... just... wow... I hadn't noticed that at all.

To be directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another character. A flanking attacker gets a +2 flanking bonus on attack rolls against hte defender. A rogue can sneak attack a defender that she is flanking."

Note that is in no way says that you must be threatening the defender in order to be considered flanking. Thus, there is really no way to defend an argument that states you cannot be considered flanking with a ranged weapon. You won't give the other character a flanking bonus, however.

I assume "directly" is referring to the fact that you have to be able to trace a line through two opposite sides of the face that the defender is occupying, not that you have to be right on the other side of the defender.

It is interesting that they would change how this worked. It seems almost designed to specifically allow letting ranged sneak attacks take place through flanking. I can't see any other reason to change the way flanking worked.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Do you actually believe this is how the rules work? Do you actually play this way?

Or are you just argueing for the sake of argueing?

Not trying to turn this into a philosophical debate, but...

Isn't it more important to know what the rules actually state so that one might make an informed decision when determining how to run one's own game? In other words, whether or not you like the rule has little bearing in knowing how the rule works. I have house rules, but I don't let them affect my interprietation of the rules when discussing them with others. I acknowlege that they don't work the way I prefer and change them for my game.

EDIT: Applolgoies if that made it sound like I was decalring myself correct. I am not. I am merely stating that it is important to stand by my own interprietation for the moment because I at least believe I am right. I am perfectly willing to admit I might be wrong if such is proven. I would rather be proven wrong than go on believing I am right if that isn't true.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

In that case, I won't bother to post my reasoning for you, Monkeyboy.

Instead, for anyone else who's still watching, I think that it's possible that the rules were changed in the 3.0 to 3.5 conversion for one of (or possibly two of) two reasons:

1. In 3.0, someone who was making an unarmed strike without IUS against a target they would have flanked had they been using, say, a dagger, was not considered flanking. This is because someone who is using only an unarmed strike without IUS does not threaten any squares.

This, in turn, means you can't have a good, stand-up, knock-down bar brawl, and bar brawls are nothing if not a staple of D&D.

2. It was noticed that, despite the fact that you can "stab someone in the back" (i.e., gain a bonus due to flanking when engaging someone in melee combat), there was no provision for "shooting someone in the back." Thus, the rules were expanded to allow front-line warriors to distract attention from the archers / flankers who were circling behind the melee by opening up the definition of flanking. Note that, in any case, the archer still needs to be within 30' of his target to make the most of this rules change.

I think that possibility #1 is the most probable, but I can't rule out possibility #2. Moreover, the rules change that allow #1 also allow #2, so whether or not it was intended, it's there.

How'd'ya like them apples? Or do you prefer ... bananas?

 

[Caliban]

In that case, I won't bother to post my reasoning for you, Monkeyboy.


How'd'ya like them apples? Or do you prefer ... bananas?

And that basically sums up why I avoid these types of discussions. The smug personal attacks from people who think they have found a clever new loophole to abuse.