Ranged Sneak Attacks

[Dimwhit]

Unfortunately, your rather strong assertion is wrong there. I say that monks cannot qualify for INA but also that one cannot flank at range

Hey, I'm perfectly willing to say I was generalizing with that comment.

I'll amend to say that 'many' of the people are on the same side this time around. Fair 'nuff?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Patryn, the sentence with the line test is clarifying the sentence tha begins immediately before.

Which is why it's a separate paragraph?

No, I don't think so. I think the rules of English will support me just fine here, thanks.

 

[Slobber Monster]

I find it bizzarre that something as clearly spelled out as the flanking rules could even be a source for debate. The only problem is the poorly conceived and worded formian entry. There is no "flanked" condition for an individual, not in the sense that there is a "stunned" or "flat-footed" condition. Flanking is a property of the attacker - i.e. for any given foe on the attackers turn the flanking rules are applied to determine if they get the flanking bonus or not. The Formian entry needs to be rewritten to something along the lines of "A creature can not flank a Formian unless all Formians in a group could be considered flanked by the attackers allies". I would bet dollars to doughnuts that's what the designer intended.

 

[Murrdox]

Just so I get this correct Patryn...

You think that if you have setup

A-B-C

if B is flanked by A and C, then we can do this...

Q X
A-B-C

Z

Q, X, and Z all flank B as well? So if these are all rogues, no matter what kind of attack they make, it is a sneak attack?

 

[Dimwhit]

Which is why it's a separate paragraph?

No, I don't think so. I think the rules of English will support me just fine here, thanks.

OK, it looked like one paragraph. Still doesn't matter. The entire flanking section begins with 'When making a melee attack.' Never in the course of that brief section was that condition changed or modified, so the ensuing section is dealing with melee attacks, not ranged. No other way to read it.

EDIT: Let me correct that an say there is no other way to read it correctly.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Just so I get this correct Patryn...

You think that if you have setup

Well, the board may have messed with your formatting, but only A and C pass the line test. Therefore, they're the only ones flanking.

EDIT:

And, for the record, keep in mind that they would not receive any bonuses on their to hit rolls (which is explicitly limited to melee attacks) and they'd only get SA damage if they are within 30'.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

OK, it looked like one paragraph. Still doesn't matter. The entire flanking section begins with 'When making a melee attack.'

And therefore only applies during the instant in which you are making a melee attack.

In which case, Formians are invulnerable to flanking, and the Elusive Defender feat is increasingly useless.

 

[Dimwhit]

And therefore only applies during the instant in which you are making a melee attack.

In which case, Formians are invulnerable to flanking, and the Elusive Defender feat is increasingly useless.

Well, it's hard to get a +2 to attack when you're not in the act of attacking.

Besides, so what if the Formian can't be flanked? I'm not conceding they can't (I don't have that book) but they'd hardly be the first that can't be flanked. Big deal.

 

[Slobber Monster]

And therefore only applies during the instant in which you are making a melee attack.

In which case, Formians are invulnerable to flanking, and the Elusive Defender feat is increasingly useless.

Not sure about Elusive Defender, but in the case of Formians that would be correct as written. This is a problem with the wording of the Formian entry, though, not the flanking rules. The intent of the Formian rules is pretty clearly along the lines of "When you attack a Formian, evaluate all of your allies to see if they are flanking a Formian. If each Formian in a group is not flanked at least once by this evaluation, then you are not flanking your target Formian."

 

[Murrdox]

Well, the board may have messed with your formatting, but only A and C pass the line test. Therefore, they're the only ones flanking.

EDIT:

And, for the record, keep in mind that they would not receive any bonuses on their to hit rolls (which is explicitly limited to melee attacks) and they'd only get SA damage if they are within 30'.

Nope, no messing, that's how it was meant to come out.

so... with


Q Z
A-B-C


X

Explain to me how X gets a sneak attack with a crossbow, since...

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.
Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

Since even if you want to consider "B" flanked by A and C, X certainly isn't doing any of the flanking.

In addition to that, where is this Elusive Defender feat coming from? Because I've never heard of it before. Is this in one of the "Complete" books?