Ranged Sneak Attacks

[Artoomis]

Well, I have to go... I'll check in Sunday night to see how this has progresses.

 

[fett527]

Well, I have to go... I'll check in Sunday night to see how this has progresses.

I just want to see the response to Murrdox's last post.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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

He's not saying X could sneak attack B. He's saying that if X and Q were allies, X would be flanking A, since a straight line between X and Q passes through opposite sides of A's square.

-Hyp.

 

[fett527]

He's not saying X could sneak attack B. He's saying that if X and Q were allies, X would be flanking A, since a straight line between X and Q passes through opposite sides of A's square.

-Hyp.

He's not? I thought that was the crux of the argument.

 

[Infiniti2000]

He's not? I thought that was the crux of the argument.

Perhaps Murrdox made a typo? The ranged sneak attack point in his example would be on A, as Hyp says. Not B.

 

[DamionW]

He's not? I thought that was the crux of the argument.

I think the crux of the argument is that X can sneak attack A (within 30', provided), because by the straight-line determination, Q and X flank A. Murrdox implied that because A and C place B in a state of "flanked" that Patryn claims any ally, even Q and X could get sneak attacks from B being in the state of "flanked." This is misrepresentative of the argument. The argument is whether straight lines crossing an opponents space with an ally on either end, one of which threatens the opponent in melee results in the allies flanking. Some people believe the straight line test is sufficient to define flanking. Others interpret that both allies must be threatening a melee attack. This is the debate.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Quick moderator's note: Smilies may sometimes soften a harsh (not rude) reply, but not always. Putting a smily in your post following a rude comment does not make it less rude. Thanks.

 

[Lord Wyrm]

Here's one for everyone: Stop arguing and ask the DM, he's got final say regardless. Its his world he can rule it as he wants.

Personally I allow rogues to sneak attack if they pass the "line test". Course on a side note in my games being flanked in melee negates your Dex bonus to AC, it discourages getting yourself flanked in the first place and encourages a surprise round Area Effect bombardment by the mages, rogues, and clerics.

 

[Murrdox]

He's not saying X could sneak attack B. He's saying that if X and Q were allies, X would be flanking A, since a straight line between X and Q passes through opposite sides of A's square.

-Hyp.

Actually it seemed to me that the argument being made was pointing in the direction that if B is "flanked" ie, flanked by anyone, then everyone around him, ally or not, attacking or not, can treat him with a "flanked" status.

Which is why I'm asking Patryn to explain who, if anyone, is flanking ANYBODY in that diagram, and who gets +2 flanking bonuses and who gets to sneak attack.

If A is flanked by Q and X, then explain how X manages to sneak attack when he passes the "line" test but not the "melee" test.

 

[DamionW]

If A is flanked by Q and X, then explain how X manages to sneak attack when he passes the "line" test but not the "melee" test.

The line test defines the attacking state of "flanking" per the second paragraph of the flanking section. The first paragraph, or melee test, defines how to get a bonus to your attack roll. Sneak attacking only requires you to be in an attacking state of flanking, not to have a bonus to your roll. Therefore X could sneak attack A, but with no bonus to the roll. There's a difference between the defender being in a blanket state of "flanked" and two allied attackers being in a state of "flanking" one opponent.