Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Patryn of Elvenshae" data-source="post: 2599410" data-attributes="member: 23094">Yeah - there was a change in the way the flanking rules were written in between 3.0 and 3.5.&nbsp; In 3.0, you were flanking if and only if you were making a melee attack, and at no other point in the round.&nbsp; Specifically:In 3.5, they removed that sentence and replaced it with:You'll note it doesn't say anything about &quot;melee&quot; or &quot;threatening&quot; in that block of text.Accordingly, there are two ways of interpreting the new flanking rules.1) You are flanking if and only if you are currently receiving the flanking bonus on your attack.2) You are flanking whenever you successfully pass the &quot;line test&quot; (the rules text I quoted above)There are problems with both interpretations.The first interpretation absolutely does not allow ranged flanking.&nbsp; It does, however, run into problems in other areas:If I'm only flanking something during the attack I make while in an appropriate position, then I am the only one flanking anything at any given moment in combat.&nbsp; It is not possible - due to the way in which D&amp;D combat works - for more than one creature to be attacking at a time.&nbsp; Therefore, at most one creature can be flanked in any instant, and formians become not &quot;tough to flank&quot; but &quot;impossible to flank.&quot;&nbsp; This is a problem which is inherited from the 3.0 rules text on flanking.The second reading - that the line test is all that matters - does not have the issue above.&nbsp; It does, however, allow ranged flanking, something many people don't like.I personally believe that the designers really wanted to fix the &quot;Formian Problem&quot; when they rewrote the 3.0 flanking rules.&nbsp; Unfortunately, I think they allowed in the &quot;Ranged Flanking Problem&quot; when they did so.Even understanding the loophole they created, and the manner in which it was created, I'd be hard-pressed to rewrite the flanking rules to accomplish three goals:1. Limit it to hand-to-hand combat only2. Allow it to take place outside of your own turn3. Allow it to happen in &quot;non-RAW melee&quot; casesThe trick with #3 is this: the RAW define &quot;melee&quot; as a situation in which either one of two opponents threatens the other.&nbsp; In other words, if I've got a sword, and you don't, and we're fighting, we're in melee.&nbsp; If neither of us have swords (and neither of us has Improved Unarmed Strike), then neither threatens the other, and we aren't in melee - even if we're still fighting each other.We want the flanking rules to apply in such cases - which I like to call the &quot;Barfight Scenario&quot;: in a standard barfight, no one's got IUS, so no one threatens, so no one's in melee as the rules define it, but we still want someone to be able to sucker punch (i.e., sneak attack) their opponent when they sneak in behind him (in a flanking position, i.e., pass the line test).So, there you go.Pick which interpretation you like, and stick with it.&nbsp; Let your players know which you're going with.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Patryn of Elvenshae, post: 2599410, member: 23094"] Yeah - there was a change in the way the flanking rules were written in between 3.0 and 3.5. In 3.0, you were flanking if and only if you were making a melee attack, and at no other point in the round. Specifically: In 3.5, they removed that sentence and replaced it with: You'll note it doesn't say anything about "melee" or "threatening" in that block of text. Accordingly, there are two ways of interpreting the new flanking rules. 1) You are flanking if and only if you are currently receiving the flanking bonus on your attack. 2) You are flanking whenever you successfully pass the "line test" (the rules text I quoted above) There are problems with both interpretations. The first interpretation absolutely does not allow ranged flanking. It does, however, run into problems in other areas: If I'm only flanking something during the attack I make while in an appropriate position, then I am the only one flanking anything at any given moment in combat. It is not possible - due to the way in which D&D combat works - for more than one creature to be attacking at a time. Therefore, at most one creature can be flanked in any instant, and formians become not "tough to flank" but "impossible to flank." This is a problem which is inherited from the 3.0 rules text on flanking. 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. I personally believe that the designers really wanted to fix the "Formian Problem" when they rewrote the 3.0 flanking rules. Unfortunately, I think they allowed in the "Ranged Flanking Problem" when they did so. Even understanding the loophole they created, and the manner in which it was created, I'd be hard-pressed to rewrite the flanking rules to accomplish three goals: 1. Limit it to hand-to-hand combat only 2. Allow it to take place outside of your own turn 3. Allow it to happen in "non-RAW melee" cases The trick with #3 is this: the RAW define "melee" as a situation in which either one of two opponents threatens the other. In other words, if I've got a sword, and you don't, and we're fighting, we're in melee. If neither of us have swords (and neither of us has Improved Unarmed Strike), then neither threatens the other, and we aren't in melee - even if we're still fighting each other. We want the flanking rules to apply in such cases - which I like to call the "Barfight Scenario": in a standard barfight, no one's got IUS, so no one threatens, so no one's in melee as the rules define it, but we still want someone to be able to sucker punch (i.e., sneak attack) their opponent when they sneak in behind him (in a flanking position, i.e., pass the line test). So, there you go. Pick which interpretation you like, and stick with it. Let your players know which you're going with. [/QUOTE]

Verification