I thought back stab was a full action?

[atom crash]

I don't intend to muddy the waters here, but the glossary defines flanking as such:

"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."

The SRD says:

"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."

IIRC, 3.0 was more specific in requiring that you threaten with a melee weapon in order to flank. But 3.5 removed that part, making it only necessary for your ally to threaten. This gives rise to the interpretation that you can flank with a ranged weapon but cannot receive a flanking bonus with one, as the flanking bonus requires a melee attack.

Thus, fighter with melee weapon and rogue with ranged weapon can flank an opponent, but only the fighter gets the flanking bonus.

I don't know if it's by the RAW, I thought it was - but when a melee person is on one side of an opponent, and an archer or other ranged person is on the opposite side within 30', the archer gets flank, but the melee person does not. I could swear it's by the RAW but it may be a house rule, not sure.

In this case, by the rules, the archer is flanking, but neither receive a flanking bonus.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

Was that by chance rule in 3.0? Maybe it was a carry-over we never realized was updated...

Personally I think it's pretty ridiculous not to allow a ranged person flank in those circumstances. Like I said, in our games, the ranged person receives the flank bonus, but he doesn't bestow flank bonus to the melee character. Therefore we have plenty of rogues who end up being superb archers.

Thinking about it realistically (gasp, I know, it's D&D LOL) if someone were in melee with an enemy, and behind him another enemy were shooting him in the back, I don't see how that could not be at the very least distracting.

Oh well, I guess I'm lucky, all the DMs I play with use this house rule, and none of them go to this awesome website

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I don't intend to muddy the waters here, but the glossary defines flanking as such:

"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."

The SRD says:

"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."

IIRC, 3.0 was more specific in requiring that you threaten with a melee weapon in order to flank. But 3.5 removed that part, making it only necessary for your ally to threaten. This gives rise to the interpretation that you can flank with a ranged weapon but cannot receive a flanking bonus with one, as the flanking bonus requires a melee attack.

Thus, fighter with melee weapon and rogue with ranged weapon can flank an opponent, but only the fighter gets the flanking bonus.

I understand what you're saying, but in the Flanking section on pg.153 of the PHB, it constantly says 'you', meaning the player must be the one doing the flanking to get the bonus. If you don't get the bonus, you aren't flanking.

Also, looking at the definition of Sneak Attack in the Rogue's section it specifically says, "...or when the Rogue flanks her target". Meaning that you MUST be the one doing the flanking.

 

[Zephyrus]

the Wizards website has a 4 part segment (Rules of the Game) detailing Sneak Attack.

Part 1: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040217a
Part 2: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040224a
Part 3: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040302a
Part 4: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a

the artical goes into more depth but the basic is...

Sneak attacks require one of two basic conditions:

* The target must be denied his Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (whether he actually has a Dexterity bonus or not) against the attack.

--or--

* The attacker must flank the target.

Provided it is possible for you to make a sneak attack at all, you can make multiple sneak attacks when you use the full attack action. For example, if you have a higher initiative result at the beginning of an encounter, your foe is flat-footed and every attack you make is a sneak attack. The same is true if you flank your foe.

Anything that allows you to make extra attacks during the full attack action gets you extra sneak attacks as well: fighting with two weapons, the haste spell, and the monk's flurry of blows are the most common ways of getting extra attacks.

Remember the earlier note about invisibility effects, however. If you're relying on invisibility to set up a sneak attack, you'll only have the effect for the first attack you make during your turn. You'll still get all your extra attacks, but only the first will be a sneak attack. You don't have this problem if you're using a greaterinvisibility effect.

That and it states that sneak attack extra damage is in the form of the base form of the attack (so if sneak attacking with a arrow the additional damage is also peircing, if sneak attacking with a ray of frost its cold energy).

 

[atom crash]

Originally posted by Ankh-Morpork Guard
I understand what you're saying, but in the Flanking section on pg.153 of the PHB, it constantly says 'you', meaning the player must be the one doing the flanking to get the bonus. If you don't get the bonus, you aren't flanking.

Also, looking at the definition of Sneak Attack in the Rogue's section it specifically says, "...or when the Rogue flanks her target". Meaning that you MUST be the one doing the flanking.

I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I think what you're saying is basically you can't flank an opponent unless you receive a flanking bonus.

I'm arguing that you can flank even in cases when you don't receive a flanking bonus. In ever case that you get a flanking bonus, you are flanking. But in every case of flanking, you don't always necessarily get a flanking bonus.

All squares are rectangles. But not all rectangles are squares.

I don't have my PHB handy, so I don't know if it provides a better definiton of flanking. So I looked to the SRD instead. It told me that I get a flanking bonus if I make a melee attack on someone if I stand next to them opposite another attacker who is threatening them (with a melee weapon, by the definition of "threaten").

But no definition of "flanking." Just an explanation of when I get a "flanking bonus."

So next I look to the glossary on the Wizards Web site. It tells me that "flanking" is when I am directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another character. It doesn't specify that I (or "you" by the book) have to threaten. Merely that a)I'm on one side and b) someone on the other side is threatening.

Thus I contend that I can flank even when I don't get a flanking bonus.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

IIRC, 3.0 was more specific in requiring that you threaten with a melee weapon in order to flank. But 3.5 removed that part, making it only necessary for your ally to threaten. This gives rise to the interpretation that you can flank with a ranged weapon but cannot receive a flanking bonus with one, as the flanking bonus requires a melee attack.

That's alright, because you don't threaten with a ranged weapon.

 

[kenobi65]

That's alright, because you don't threaten with a ranged weapon.

Exactly. The term "threaten" automatically assumes you're wielding an effective melee weapon. "Threaten with a melee weapon" is redundant.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

PHB pg. 153:

"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."

Note that it is melee only and that you cannot threaten with a ranged weapon.

 

[IcyCool]

"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."

The SRD says:

"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."

This gives rise to the interpretation that you can flank with a ranged weapon but cannot receive a flanking bonus with one, as the flanking bonus requires a melee attack.

Thus, fighter with melee weapon and rogue with ranged weapon can flank an opponent, but only the fighter gets the flanking bonus.

The fighter does not get the flanking bonus, as the rogue doesn't threaten with a bow.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Ankh: Hyp and I went back and forth on this awhile back.

The starter was someone asking if he could flank with a wand of acid splash.

The *trick* is that 3.5 changed the wording of the rules regarding flanking, such that the rules on flanking now say:

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.

However, the text never actually says that you must be in melee yourself - and, in fact, defines flanking as:

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.

In order to get a Flanking bonus on melee attack rolls, you must be Flanking, obviously.

It is not clear, however, that you are only Flanking when you receive the bonus.