Ranged Sneak Attacks

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The first comment is completely false, since it explicitly contradicts the RAW. Succinctly, it disallows the following flanking situation:

RTA

R is a rogue who does not have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. T is a target, and A is an ally with a sword who threatens T. When the rogue attacks with an unarmed strike, he is flanking the Target by both my and your readings of the rules:

1. He's making a melee attack
2. He's directly opposite his ally
3. His ally threatens
4. Therefore, he's flanking and gains a +2 bonus to his attack roll

In 3.0, this defined the flanking "condition." It also meant that, although the rogue in question was flanking, his ally was not.

They removed this defining sentence in 3.5 - and I suspect they had their reasons for doing so (see my first post in this thread). Sticking to the outdated definition of flanking causes problems - with formians, yes, but also with things like the Elusive Target feat.

I'm glad Skip's word is good enough for you. It's not good enough for me - when he's wrong.

 

[TheEvil]

Hey, folks! I am thinking of starting a poll on this topic to see what the general consensus is. Since I always seem to catch feces about my wording for polls, I figured it couldn't hurt to get some input on how to phrase the question for this one.

 

[Murrdox]

The second reading - that the line test is all that matters - does not have the issue above. It does, however, allow ranged flanking, something many people don't like.

You left out half of the rule posted in the 3.5 SRD. It still specifically says "when making a melee attack"

All you posted was this much:

"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."

but note the bold:

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.

So where the heck are you getting this that the 3.5 flanking rules allow for Ranged flanking? I don't see it.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You left out half of the rule posted in the 3.5 SRD. It still specifically says "when making a melee attack"

No, I don't dispute that part of the rule, and I apply it to exactly what it says it applies to: when making melee attacks in certain situations, you get a +2 bonus on your attack roll.

What the rule doesn't say is whether or not "certain situations" can exist outside of the time period in which you are making a melee attack.

For answers about that, we turn to the section on how to determine whether or not two beings are flanking a third - the line test. The line test paragraph mentions neither "melee" nor "threaten."

Accordingly, neither are important when it comes to determining whether or not someone is flanking someone else.

And, back to you, by insisting on "when making a melee attack," you've changed Formians into "impossible to flank" creatures and made the Elusive Target feat a lot less powerful - even if you don't realize you're doing it.

Diverting Defense – If you are flanked and have chosen one of the flankers as your Dodge opponent, that opponent’s first attack on you each round actually targets the other flanker, who is considered Flat-Footed. Any additional attacks that round are treated normally.

If what you argue is true, this tactical maneuver is useless because I can only be flanked by one creature at a time (i.e., "when he's making a melee attack"). Accordingly, there's no other flanker to direct the first attack each round against.


EDIT:

Consider the case of an invisible attacker, striking someone with the Uncanny Dodge class ability.

Is the attack still invisible?

 

[TheEvil]

*snip*
And, back to you, by insisting on "when making a melee attack," you've changed Formians into "impossible to flank" creatures and made the Elusive Target feat a lot less powerful - even if you don't realize you're doing it.

Originally Posted by Elusive Target Feat
Diverting Defense – If you are flanked and have chosen one of the flankers as your Dodge opponent, that opponent’s first attack on you each round actually targets the other flanker, who is considered Flat-Footed. Any additional attacks that round are treated normally.

If what you argue is true, this tactical maneuver is useless because I can only be flanked by one creature at a time (i.e., "when he's making a melee attack"). Accordingly, there's no other flanker to direct the first attack each round against.

I don't follow your argument. The rules on flanking say two things: What happens when you attack a flanked target and When a target is flanked. Anytime you have to allies on either side of an enemy, that enemy is flanked, baring the usual exceptions. It says nothing at all about an enemy only counting as flanked during an attack. Granted, since BEING flanked doesn't give the target any penalties, it doesn't really matter. It only gives the attacker bonuses.

p.s. - If I don't see any suggestions for how to phrase the poll, I will assume that anyone who critizes it after it goes up is just being a jerk.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Anytime you have to allies on either side of an enemy, that enemy is flanked, baring the usual exceptions.

That's exactly my point. Which rules determine "anytime you have t[w]o allies on either side of an enemy"?

These:

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.

You'll notice a distinct lack of the words "melee," "threaten," "reach," etc. - in short, there's nothing here that enforces those conditions. Anyone enforcing those conditions is doing so because that's the way it was in 3.0 (including, but not limited to, official sources).

EDIT: To respond to your Edit:

As long as you have a poll option, "Technically, it's allowed via a loophole in the 3.5 revision, even though you don't like it," that'd be fine with me.

 

[Rystil Arden]

You'll notice a distinct lack of the words "melee," "threaten," "reach," etc. - in short, there's nothing here that enforces those conditions. Anyone enforcing those conditions is doing so because that's the way it was in 3.0 (including, but not limited to, official sources).

What about this from the exceptions:

Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent.

Are you telling me that a Pixie with a bow at range would not get Sneak Attack because of this, but a Human with a bow would?

 

[TheEvil]

That's exactly my point. Which rules determine "anytime you have t[w]o allies on either side of an enemy"?

These:



You'll notice a distinct lack of the words "melee," "threaten," "reach," etc. - in short, there's nothing here that enforces those conditions. Anyone enforcing those conditions is doing so because that's the way it was in 3.0 (including, but not limited to, official sources).

EDIT: To respond to your Edit:

As long as you have a poll option, "Technically, it's allowed via a loophole in the 3.5 revision, even though you don't like it," that'd be fine with me.

I prefer simple Yes or No polls. Let the complications be in the explaination of the question in the text of the message.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

What about this from the exceptions:

That's a bit odd in and of itself.

First, Pixies are small fey, and have a reach of 5'. Pixies, then, have no trouble flanking anyone at all.

To continue with what your point really is, consider the poor Grig rogue (another type of Sprite).

In fact, consider the poor Grig rogue, his friend the other Grig rogue, and their target the Grig merchant. The Grig rogues are wielding griggish shortswords, and have moved into position around the Grig merchant such that, if they were bigger creatures, no one (me included!) would have any difficulty in calling it flanking.

However, because of the "0 Reach = No Flanking" rule, they don't flank him. No sneak attacks for those poor Grig highwaymen!

So, no, I don't consider that particular passage to be definitive proof one way or the other, because it, in and of itself, is weird.

 

[Rystil Arden]

So, no, I don't consider that particular passage to be definitive proof one way or the other, because it, in and of itself, is weird.

Well, I consider the other passage to be weird The weird exception for the grig highwaymen is no less absurd and unintentional than allowing ranged sneak attacks (although both could indeed be technically construed as true if you read only one section of the flanking definition). If you're going to use extremely literal readings of the text to reach odd results, which is fine with me, then you can't dismiss others, at least not without creating a double-standard by bringing in the ability to select 'weird' outcomes.