I thought back stab was a full action?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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

Well, it's close, but it's not entirely certain.

You see, in the rewrite, they mentioned:

Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

Now, the only "flanking bonus" ever mentioned in those words is the +2 flanking bonus on melee to-hit rolls.

You could expand that definition and rule that "flanking bonus" actually includes any and all benefits of flanking (including, but not limited to, the bonus on melee attacks and the allowance of Sneak Attacks).

That's probably how I'd rule it, but with the way the rules are currently written (whether intentionally or un-):

H...............S...................E

The Human (H) and the Elf (E) could *technically* be considered flanking the Spider (S), because:

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.

If each humanoid were to fire a bow shot, neither would get a bonus on to-hit rolls (since neither would be making a melee attack), but you might make an argument for them getting bonus Sneak Attack dice (so long as I don't have 31' worth of ......s).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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

Exactly.

You can get a bonus on attack rolls when you are flanking, but it is not necessary to get a bonus on your attack rolls to be considered flanking.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Exactly.

You can get a bonus on attack rolls when you are flanking, but it is not necessary to get a bonus on your attack rolls to be considered flanking.

The only thing about that is...where do you get that idea? I honestly don't see any reference to Flanking that defines it as anything but a +2 bonus in melee. Even the glossary definition mentions the +2.

There just isn't any evidence that flanking is any different from the +2 bonus. They are the same. The melee requirement is there for the attack to be made. Reach is fine, but don't you think they would have specified an example with ranged? Especially considering there's one for reach AND large sized creatures.

And of course, it also makes ranged weapons and Rogues much much more powerful.

((Yes, I said I was backing out, but this is just getting to me. ))

 

[ThirdWizard]

You could expand that definition and rule that "flanking bonus" actually includes any and all benefits of flanking (including, but not limited to, the bonus on melee attacks and the allowance of Sneak Attacks).

That's probably how I'd rule it, but with the way the rules are currently written (whether intentionally or un-):

H...............S...................E

The Human (H) and the Elf (E) could *technically* be considered flanking the Spider (S), because:



If each humanoid were to fire a bow shot, neither would get a bonus on to-hit rolls (since neither would be making a melee attack), but you might make an argument for them getting bonus Sneak Attack dice (so long as I don't have 31' worth of ......s).

I think the "When in doubt" clause shouldn't come into play here. It isn't in doubt because noone is threatening, which is a requirement for flanking. The "When in doubt" paragraph should only be used when you actually arn't sure whether or not they are flanking, and only when the situation is ambiguious such that the characters are in an odd formation. The rules are quite clear that to get the bonus someone has to threaten, so there is no doubt that they are not flanking.

EDIT: misplaced anecedant

 

[Darkness]

Ah, so your argument is not exactly what ThirdWizard said. Very well.

If each humanoid were to fire a bow shot, neither would get a bonus on to-hit rolls (since neither would be making a melee attack), but you might make an argument for them getting bonus Sneak Attack dice (so long as I don't have 31' worth of ......s).

I see. If one of them was in melee, he would also get the sneak attack dice then?

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

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.

So...how is it flanking if only one person gets the benefit? Doesn't flanking require two? Shouldn't BOTH get the benefit for flanking or none? Am I speaking some non-human language here?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

For example, consider the state "Invisible."

Now, when you are invisible, your opponents are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC and you get a +2 on your attack rolls.

If Invisible, Then +2_Attack && Deny_Dex

If A, Then B and C

Right? With me so far?

Similarly:

If Flanking, Then Sneak_Attack_OK && +2_Melee_Attack

So, once again:

If A, Then B and C

Now, let's look at what happens when someone with who is invisible goes up against someone with Uncanny Dodge.

Uncanny Dodge (Ex): Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker.

Uh oh ... You're invisible, so your target loses it's Dexterity bonus, right? Except, now they don't.

So, where we once had:

If A, Then B and C

we only have

If A, Then B

Would you then argue that, because all the benefits of the invisible condition are not realized, that our player is now no longer invisible? No, of course not. They just don't get all the benefits of their condition.

Apply that now to Flanking.

Does your answer change? If so, why?

 

[atom crash]

The first sentence under the "flanking" header in the combat modifiers section that has been repeatedly quoted is not the definition of "flanking." It provides information on modifiers in combat that arise from flanking. To understand my point, look at the organization of the page (I'm using this link). It's on p. 153 of the 3.5 PHB under the header "Combat Modifiers."

For a definition of "flanking," look at the online glossary at Wizards.com ( here) or the glossary entry on p. 308 of the 3.5 PHB:

"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."

Compare the flanking section to another entry on the combat modifiers page: "cover." The entry under "cover" doesn't first define the term. It gives the modifiers to combat that arise from cover. Nowhere under the cover entry does it give you a definition of cover. It just lists examples and the relevant modifiers. For a definition of cover, again you have to go to the glossary:

"Cover: Any barrier between an attacker and defender. Such a barrier can be an object, a creature, or a magical force. Cover grants the defender a bonus to Armor Class."

Next entry, "concealment." Again, you have examples of concealment and the relevant modifiers. But, again, for a definition of concealment you'd have to refer to the glossary:

"Concealment: Something that prevents an attacker from clearly seeing his or her target. Concealment creates a chance that an otherwise successful attack misses (a miss chance)."

Note that in each of the three examples, first we get a definition and then a vague mechanical modifier. The combat modifiers section gives us a more precise detailing of those modifiers, but not the general definition.

Edited for spelling and clarity.

 

[ThirdWizard]

So...how is it flanking if only one person gets the benefit? Doesn't flanking require two? Shouldn't BOTH get the benefit for flanking or none? Am I speaking some non-human language here?

The problem is that only one person needs to threaten for flanking to take place. It mentions nowhere that the flanking character must threaten.

Take another situation.

This assumes that someone without Imporoved Unarmed Strike cannot threaten. If I'm wrong correct me.

F is someone without Improved Unarmed Strike and no weapon.
B is someone wielding a weapon.
D is the defender that they are flanking.

They are arranged as:

FDB

F is not threatening D, but B is threatening D. Thus, F is flanking, but B is not.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I see. If one of them was in melee, he would also get the sneak attack dice then?

IF you rule that a "flanking bonus" applies only to the +2 flanking bonus to melee attack rolls, then they are flanking by the rules which determine when two creatures are flanking (the line between them yadda yadda).

Therefore, they'd both get to apply Sneak Attack dice, but no one would get any bonuses on attack rolls.

The archer wouldn't because he's not making a melee attack roll, and the swordsman wouldn't because the guy on the other side doesn't threaten, and therefore can't "help an attacker get a flanking bonus."

Only when both are threatening the opponent and making melee attacks can anyone get a flanking bonus on melee attack rolls.