Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Patryn of Elvenshae" data-source="post: 1999809" data-attributes="member: 23094">Correct.Just like you can be invisible, and have your opponent not be denied their Dex bonus to AC.Just like you can be flanking (even under the "standard melee only" definition), and not get to apply your Sneak Attack dice to your attack.In the first case, anyone with Uncanny Dodge retains their Dex bonus to AC when faced with an invisible attacker.  You would not then rule that the attacker was not invisible, would you?In the second case, anyone immune to critical hits does not suffer from extra Sneak Attack damage.  Would you then rule that the Rogue who is attacking him is not flanking, and therefore doesn't get a +2 bonus on his attack rolls when he engages the Iron Golem?If you maintain that the attacker in the first case is still invisible, and that the rogue in the 2nd is still flanking, why is it so hard to agree that you might still be flanking even if you aren't getting a +2 on your attack roll?In other words, if you agree that you can possess a condition even when you do not gain all the benefits of that condition, you must apply such a ruling across the board.Correct.Huh?  Go back and read the post (<a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=1998194&postcount=43" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=1998194&postcount=43</a>).  I said:They get no flanking bonus on their attack rolls because neither is making a melee attack.They are still flanking, just like the rogue who is engaged in melee combat with a skeleton may still flank it.Only if he makes a melee attack, which is the only "flanking bonus" ever mentioned (as distinct from, say, a morale bonus, or an enhancement bonus).See my above link.  I don't think we running into a language issue here; are we?</blockquote>

Verification