I thought back stab was a full action?

[dcollins]

Therefore, while it *is* widely known that in 3.0 you can't flank with a ranged weapon, that ruling no longer applies in 3.5 because they changed the rules.

Get a designer to say it, then I listen. Official commentary published at Wizards.com disagrees with you.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Get a designer to say it, then I listen. Official commentary published at Wizards.com disagrees with you.

OK.

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.

Point out to me, in that paragraph, where it says anything about threatening your opponent.

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

Point out to me, in this paragraph, where it says anything about me threatening my opponent, so long as you are threatening him.

Or would you care to argue that the SRD is not "from the mouth of the Designer Gods!"?

 

[dcollins]

Or would you care to argue that the SRD is not "from the mouth of the Designer Gods!"?

See above. Get a designer to support your interpretations. Official Wizards.com publication says the opposite.

 

[Storm Raven]

In our games, if a rogue has far shot, he can get flank from a melee-type from 45 feet away, and get sneak attack. Tends to get pretty nasty with rapid shot hehehe

Far Shot doesn't increase the range at which a rogue can inflict sneak attacks. It just increases your range increment with the weapon (which reduces distance penalties for long range shots).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Far Shot doesn't increase the range at which a rogue can inflict sneak attacks. It just increases your range increment with the weapon (which reduces distance penalties for long range shots).

Of course it doesn't. What he's explaining is his house rule that someone who has taken Far Shot can benefit from flanking within 45 feet.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

Storm Raven - oh that's not the least of it - in the DM's games I know, ranged weapons can flank an opponent, allowing sneak attack; a monk's abundant step can take friendlies along with it (as a matter of fact, one DM allows a monk's abundant step to take unfriendlies with it, provided they fail a will save - it is quite amusing to grab an enemy, abundant step 700 feet straight up, let 'em go, then featherfall or slow-fall back down); cure minor wounds cast by someone on themselves at 0 hp brings them to 1 hp; oh and most enemy archers don't wait for the spellcaster to start casting - they tend to shoot first, ask questions later hehe.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

See above. Get a designer to support your interpretations. Official Wizards.com publication says the opposite.

"Official WOTC Publications" also say things like:

How many Hit Dice does my 1st-level pixie rogue have? What would his effective character level be?

Unless noted otherwise, all 1-HD creatures (other than 1-HD humanoids) lose their racial HD when they gain class levels. Thus, your pixie would have 1 Hit Dice: one from his race, and one from his class level.

You have no problem throwing this particular ruling out because it is inconsistent.

If an "Official WOTC Publication" mentioned something about how only humans could be paladins, you'd correctly spot that and say, "Gee, they're basing their ruling on a set of rules that was changed between 2nd and 3.X edition, and therefore it's incorrect."

Likewise, the ruling you quoted was based on a set of rules that was changed between 3.0 and 3.5, and therefore it is equally incorrect.

This is not to say that the ability to flank even when you aren't making a melee attack is the *intended* direction the rules point, but they do point that way. Thus, until it is errata'd, any ruling which mandates that you be in melee combat is analogous to a ruling about human-only paladins: you know why they made it, you can point to the rules in the earlier edition which required it, but it no longer applies.

 

[Storm Raven]

Storm Raven - oh that's not the least of it - in the DM's games I know, ranged weapons can flank an opponent, allowing sneak attack; a monk's abundant step can take friendlies along with it (as a matter of fact, one DM allows a monk's abundant step to take unfriendlies with it, provided they fail a will save - it is quite amusing to grab an enemy, abundant step 700 feet straight up, let 'em go, then featherfall or slow-fall back down); cure minor wounds cast by someone on themselves at 0 hp brings them to 1 hp; oh and most enemy archers don't wait for the spellcaster to start casting - they tend to shoot first, ask questions later hehe.

So, I take it that these games are goofier than most.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

Storm Raven - In the case of the monk being able to abundant step enemies, certainly. Other than that DM, no, I would have to say these games are more fun than most. If a rule is worded inconsistently or vaguely, a good DM will always err on the side of the PCs. After all, if the DM wants a TPK (or even the death of just 1 or 2 annoying PCs ) he shouldn't have to resort to questionable RAW, he should be able to hand the PCs their collective behinds anytime he wants to.

It's all about a good time in the games I play in, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Don't get me wrong, it's not all hack & slash either - I think we just make sure the PCs are heroes, and can accomplish heroic things. Most of the time we get 32-36 point stat buys. PC's bite the dust quite a bit too, seeing how almost all monsters get their HPs maxed, and most will receive a class level or 3, along with some nice magic equipment to help them in their attempts to destroy us. So I suppose it evens out in the end. It's got a few places where some would saw the RAW has been warped to better serve the PCs, but it by no means makes the game a walk in the park.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

So...if this whole ranged flanking thing is really supported in the rules. Why is there no example? Why is it NEVER mentioned? Everything else is. Medium creatures, large creatures, medium creatues with reach, even LARGE creatures with reach. But never ranged weapons. In fact, ranged is never mentioned, even though melee is.

You continually use the 'when in doubt' quote while ignoring the 'attacking in melee'. The 'when in doubt' only applies if there is a conflict with the 'attacking in melee' and having an ally directly opposite you. There is no indication, ANYWHERE, that you can do this with a ranged weapon. It even specifies that creatures with reach 0 cannot flank. Why are ALL of the examples with melee weapons?

And why is it that you dismiss the Rules of the Game quote? Just because it doesn't agree with you? It is NOT based on 3.0. It is from AFTER 3.5, which means that it is based on the 3.5 rules. It seems to me that you absolutely refuse any possibility that you are wrong, even when the most recent evidence(the Rules of the Game article), like it or not, does not support you. As dcollins has said, get an actual designer to say something, but if you're going to disregard one article, you can't go picking and choosing which one you want just because it doesn't support you.