Rogues flanking at range?

[Zaebos]

Smaller than small creatures can't give a flank bonus because they don't threaten the squares around them. They also can't gain a flank bonus. PH 149 Tiny, Diminutive and Fine Creatures.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Smaller than small creatures can't give a flank bonus because they don't threaten the squares around them. They also can't gain a flank bonus. PH 149 Tiny, Diminutive and Fine Creatures.

Right, I know. That's stupid, though, because it means that particularly small creatures can't even flank each other.

See my post a couple pages ago dealing with this.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Smaller than small creatures can't give a flank bonus because they don't threaten the squares around them. They also can't gain a flank bonus. PH 149 Tiny, Diminutive and Fine Creatures.

No, they can't flank because of their size. (Unless they gain reach, I think). [this is pure semantics, but I think its important because nowhere does it mention threatening in the flanking rules, so drawing conclusions from this is sketchy]

A House Rule I have is that when combat involves lots of tiny or smaller creatures, I switch the "view" of the battlemat so that 5' creatures take up 2x2 squares with 2 square reach, Tiny take up 1x1 square with 1 square reach. Then I allow everything to play out in that environment. It works quite well for our group.

 

[Seeten]

I'd just like to say I appreciate Zaebos for providing me with a huge laugh here at work, and Patryn for his patience. Very impressive.

 

[Zehaeva]

In such a case, the defender could just decide that he's unaware of the toad. In which case, the toad is treated as invisible as far as the defender is concerned.

This may have unforseen side effects, however ... Specifically, I'm thinking of a Rogue 4 or Barbarian 2 with the Blind-Fighting feat just deciding to close his eyes and become unaware of everyone.

I'm not sure that this would actually benefit him enough, other than to deny everyone flanking ...

but wouldnt you need to be aware of the two opponents to fight back with blind fighting?

also this would just seem easier to just say, "you've already seen them and sticking your head in the sand doesnt make them go away"

~zehaeva

 

[ElectricDragon]

The Archmage can gain the Arcane Reach ability allowing him to make touch attacks at a range of 30 feet (thus threatening) and if the ability is taken twice the range increases to 60 feet. This is the only exception I could find for extreme flanking.

Ciao
Dave

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

but wouldnt you need to be aware of the two opponents to fight back with blind fighting?

also this would just seem easier to just say, "you've already seen them and sticking your head in the sand doesnt make them go away"

Except you can always close your eyes, making everything invisible. You now have to pick a square to attack, rather than a creature, and they gain a 50% miss chance (as per total concealment) and no longer provoke AoOs.

Generally, you also lose your Dex bonus against them (though Uncanny Dodge [melee and ranged] and the Blind Fighting feat [melee only] allows you to retain that bonus).

 

[Zehaeva]

Except you can always close your eyes, making everything invisible. You now have to pick a square to attack, rather than a creature, and they gain a 50% miss chance (as per total concealment) and no longer provoke AoOs.

Generally, you also lose your Dex bonus against them (though Uncanny Dodge [melee and ranged] and the Blind Fighting feat [melee only] allows you to retain that bonus).

isnt think thats a bit too costly an exchange?? hehe just seems like even though it is a loop hole it seems to put you at a larger disadvantage than just the flanking

 

[ThirdWizard]

Psh. If you follow the Sage Advice.

Personally, I don't even read the stuff.

 

[Nail]

So......a rogue using a bow could sneak attack an enemy in the middle of combat, if

• a buddy of his was on the opposite side and threatening the enemy, and
• the enemy was within 30ft?