I thought back stab was a full action?

[apesamongus]

Unfortunately, that first part was removed in the 3.5 version.

Funny. My 3.5 SRD still says "melee attack".

 

[apesamongus]

Remember that Invisibility ends immediately after you make one attack against anyone. Improved Invisibility ends immediately after the second attack you make against anyone; it doesn't have to be a second attack in the same round, just the second attack you try during the Improved Invisibility's entire duration.

I don't know what "Improved Invisibility" is, but "Greater Invisibility" doesn't have any limitations on how often you can attack without becoming visible.

 

[Arkhandus]

Regarding Improved Invisibility, my apologies, that's the 3.0 name for the spell now called Invisibility, Greater in 3.5. I just checked and you are correct about that spell, 3.5 changed it to persist regardless of attacks. In 3.0 Edition, Improved Invisibility ended after 1 attack.
SRD 3.5 quote:

Invisibility, Greater
Illusion (Glamer)
Level: Brd 4, Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S
Target: You or creature touched
Duration: 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
This spell functions like invisibility, except that it doesn’t end if the subject attacks.

As for ranged sneak attacks, a quote from the 3.5 SRD, emphasis mine:

Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.
Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

Ranged sneak attacks only work within a range of 30 feet, and only when the opponent is flat-footed (because you can't flank with a ranged weapon).
SRD 3.5 quote, emphasis mine:

FLANKING
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.
When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, 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.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Funny. My 3.5 SRD still says "melee attack".

It's the PHB glossary that got changed. "Flanking" doesn't say anything about melee attacks, and they specifically took it out (you having to threaten). If they meant for you to only flank with a melee weapon, why take the wording out?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Funny. My 3.5 SRD still says "melee attack".

Right. As part of this sentence:

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.

I don't disagree with you. You obviously only get a +2 Flanking bonus on your attack roll if you are making a melee attack and your ally opposite threatens your opponent.

I agree 100% with that statement.

Unfortunately, that's not really the bone of contention. In 3.0, Flanking was defined as:

If a character is making a melee attack against an opponent, and an ally directly opposite the character is threatening the opponent, the character and the character's ally flank the opponent.

Thus, you and I were flanking when either I or you made a melee attack from opposite sides of a creature and while the other threatened.

Compare that to the 3.5 definition of Flanking:

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

Note that nowhere in this new, purposefully altered definition does the word "threaten" appear.

EDIT TO ADD:

Arkhandus: Read that text you highlighted very, very carefully. *All* it says is that you only recieve a bonus to your attack roll when you make a melee attack. Presumably, one must already be flanking to get such a bonus, right?

Then go to the next paragraph.

It defines the conditions that must be fulfilled in order to be considered flanking, and, as I mentioned above, none of those conditions require:

1) Melee attacking, or
2) Threatening

 

[Darkness]

Patryn, I think I got it but I'd like to make sure. Please tell me:

Thus, a Rogue 30' away from a spider could technically be considered as flanking the spider, so long as there was a Fighter on the other side of the spider. Note that, the way the rules are written, the Fighter doesn't even have to be threatening the spider.

Let's say the Fighter is actually a Fighter/Assassin. Can he flank the spider as well in this situation, thus enabling him to make a Sneak Attack? (But not gaining the +2 flanking bonus, of course.)

If the answer is yes, I have a follow-up question.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Patryn, please tell me:

Let's say the Fighter is actually a Fighter/Assassin. Can he flank the spider as well in this situation, thus enabling him to make a Sneak Attack? (But not gaining the +2 flanking bonus, of course.)

If the answer is yes, I have a follow-up question.

I'm not Patryn, but according to his (and my) interprietation, no he cannot flank because there isn't anyone on the other side threatening the spider. Flanking is defined as being "directy on the other side of a character who is threatened by another character." In this situation there is no other character threatening, so he cannot flank.

 

[Darkness]

Ok, that's what I thought, meaning I don't need any further questions in order to understand Patryn's reasoning. Thanks.

 

[rvalle]

Hi.


I think the key rules here are:

Pg 50 in the PHB

Sneak Attack:
... or when the rogue FLANKS her target.

And Flank is:

Pg 153 in the PHB
When making a MELEE attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus...

So in order to Flank you have to be able to make a melee attack and in order to sneak attack you have to flank (in the case of this argument).

You guys had me doubting there for a min.

rv

 

[Darkness]

I think the key rules here are:

Patryn & co. are arguing that flanking and getting a flanking bonus is not synonymous.