Deset Gled said:
I disagree with this. My reasoning is quite simple: The test "an imaginary line..." is preceded by "When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent".
Right. So, I'm standing here on Bob's left, and you're standing there on Bob's right. Do we flank? Yep.
Back me off about 30'. Do we still flank? You want to say "No," which means there is "doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent." So, we draw an imaginary line. Does it pass through opposite sides of Bob's square? Yes, it does. So, according to the definition of flanking, we're flanking.
Since the flanking section states right before this that flanking applies "when making a melee attack", and in this case (ranged attack) there is no melee attack,
Agreed. Therefore, the rest of that particular rule does not apply. What does that rule say, exactly? That I can get a +2 flanking bonus on any melee attack I make, so long as you are threatening Bob. If I don't make a melee attack, we're still flanking.
there is no doubt that the characters in question are not flanking. Hence the imaginary line test is not valid.
Rather, there is a great deal of doubt as to whether the characters are flanking. So much, in fact, that you are willing to categorically say that they aren't. Therefore, you
must perform the line test. The line test, however, says we're flanking.
You are correct in pointing out that fact that the flanking rules are horrible.
And, in their current incarnation, they are horrible in such a way that flanking no longer requires that *I* be making a melee attack. They merely stipulate that, if I'm flanking, and I make a melee attack, I get a bonus so long as you threaten Bob.
The determination of whether or not I'm flanking, however, no longer cares what I'm doing. I'm flanking so long as the line test returns true, unlike in 3.0, where I was only flanking during the instant I made a melee attack.
EDIT:
Everyone's favorite rejoinder is, "You're only flanking when you benefit from the +2! Therefore, you're only flanking when you make a melee attack."
The proble, of course, is that this is not true across the rest of the ruleset, where you can possess a given condition - invisibility, bless, prone, etc. - and not get all the benefits and penalties of that state.
For instance, the Thief-Acrobat from Complete Adventurer gains an ability to ignore the -4 on melee attacks and -4 to AC penalties when prone. Also, he can stand as a free action that does not provoke AoOs.
SRD said:
Prone: The character is on the ground. An attacker who is prone has a –4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A defender who is prone gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks.
Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
The argument, then, is as follows:
1. When is someone "Prone"? "The character is on the ground."
2. What are the benefits of being "Prone"? +4 bonus to AC against Ranged attacks
3. What are the penalties of being "Prone"? -4 penalty on melee attacks, can't used most ranged weapons, -4 penalty to AC against melee attacks, standing is a move action that provokes an AoO
Similarly:
1. When is someone "Flanking"? Imaginary line test.
2. What are the benefits of being "Flanking"? +2 on melee attack rolls when opponent is threatened by ally, rogues (etc.) may sneak attack
3. What are the penalties of "Flanking"? None
Now, look at the Thief Acrobat.
He's "on the ground." He gets a +4 bonus to AC against Ranged attacks and still can't use most ranged weapons, but does not suffer the -4 penalty on melee attacks, and standing is a free action that does not provoke an AoO.
Is he still "Prone"?
Of course he is; he's on the ground. However, by the "When you get a +2 bonus!" argument, he's not prone because he doesn't get all the penalties and all the bonuses of the condition.
