Rogues flanking at range?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

All sophistry aside concerning the "line test" and so on, to flank an opponent, you must attack an enemy who is currently threatened by an ally with your own melee attack.

And, therefore, Formians are totally immune to flanking, and the description of their abilities in the MM is in error.

Axiomatic creatures are similarly immune to flanking.

Actually, it was ther "Let Patryn fail to define the situation fully" game.

You cannot have two individuals without improved unarmed strike act together to flank an opponent, which is how I interpreted your example.

Uh, no. I said:

Likewise, there's no threatening with an unarmed strike without being a monk or taking the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, so you can't flank when making an unarmed strike.

Right?

The fact that you chose to read more into that statement and construct your own situation in which you are correct does not mean you weren't wrong earlier.

Because the correct answer, as you've now backtracked to argue, is, "Yes, you can gain a flanking bonus with an unarmed strike, but only so long as your ally threatens the opponent."

 

[Hypersmurf]

You can't sneak attack from beyond 30 feet within the standard rules...

That's not the case - you can't sneak attack with a ranged attack from beyond 30 feet.

A kraken rogue, for example, could sneak attack from 60 feet away with a tentacle, since it's a melee attack, not a ranged attack.

-Hyp.

 

[Storm Raven]

And, therefore, Formians are totally immune to flanking, and the description of their abilities in the MM is in error.

Nope, you just have to be able to flank all of them at once (i.e. they must all be theatened by two or more enemies when you make an attack upon a formian). Your interpretation is merely a strained and unreasable application of the rules, which demonstrates how little your argument is worth.

The fact that you chose to read more into that statement and construct your own situation in which you are correct does not mean you weren't wrong earlier.

Your "example" to dignify it with the term, didn't define anyone as having a weapon in the scenario. Therefore, I made the reasonable assumption that no one did. Your retrofitting the example as a "gotcha" is silly, and just underscores the inherent weakness of your position.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Nope, you just have to be able to flank all of them at once (i.e. they must all be theatened by two or more enemies when you make an attack upon a formian).

Which brings us back to what you just said:

No. To be flanking an opponent, you must be attacking an enemy who is threatened by an ally.

M1A2B

Where M = Me, 1 = Formian 1, A = Al the Ally, 2 = Formian 2, and B = Bill the Also Ally

So, if I'm attacking Formian 1 and A threatens him, I'm flanking him. Unfortunately, A is not simultaneously attacking Formian 2.

Therefore, by your own ruling, Formian 2 isn't flanked by anyone because, in order "to be flanking an opponent, you must be attacking."

Since Formian 2 isn't flanked, Formian 1 isn't flanked either.

Because it is impossible in D&D for two actions to be simultaneous, it is impossible to attack Formian 1 while Formian 2 is being attacked. Therefore, Formians are immune to flanking.

So, either you must be making a melee attack in order to flank, or you don't need to be making a melee attack in order to flank. Pick one.

Note, also, that it is not required to threaten anything in order to flank. Rather, your ally needs to threaten in order to "gain a flanking bonus."

Your interpretation is merely a strained and unreasable application of the rules, which demonstrates how little your argument is worth.

Aww, you'll hurt my feelings! At least get your own argument straight before you decide to lamely attempt to poke holes in mine, mmkay?

Your "example" to dignify it with the term, didn't define anyone as having a weapon in the scenario.

I asked if it was impossible to flank with a non-improved unarmed strike. You and someone else said that it was. It is possible to flank with a non-improved unarmed strike. Therefore, you're still wrong.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I must interject.

Your "example" to dignify it with the term, didn't define anyone as having a weapon in the scenario. Therefore, I made the reasonable assumption that no one did. Your retrofitting the example as a "gotcha" is silly, and just underscores the inherent weakness of your position.

It wasn't actually an example, it was a question...

Likewise, there's no threatening with an unarmed strike without being a monk or taking the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, so you can't flank when making an unarmed strike.

"there's no threatening with an unarmed strike without..."

Not, "in this situation" but "you can never threaten." To which you answered, that that was correct, which was wrong.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So, to put in a quick summary of point:

There are two possible ways to read the rules that determine whether or not you are flanking:

1) Melee Attack and Line Test: You are flanking if and only if you are making a melee attack against an opponent threatened by an ally while simultaneously fulfilling the line test with that ally.

2) Line Test: You are flanking any time you and an ally fulfill the line test.

Reading #1 makes any creature with a "hive mind" - Formians, Axiomatic creatures, etc. - completely and totally immune to flanking (rather than just resistant, as their statblocks indicate).

Reading #2 allows for ranged flanking, but limits the +2 bonus on attack rolls to melee attacks made while your ally also threatens. It allows, among other things, rogues in a barfight to throw "sucker punches" without someone drawing steel or being a monk (i.e., an unarmed strike made without IUS while their ally, also without IUS, fulfills the line test).

Pick which one you like better.

 

[GimbleRaulnor]

M1A2B

Where M = Me, 1 = Formian 1, A = Al the Ally, 2 = Formian 2, and B = Bill the Also Ally

So, if I'm attacking Formian 1 and A threatens him, I'm flanking him. Unfortunately, A is not simultaneously attacking Formian 2.

Therefore, by your own ruling, Formian 2 isn't flanked by anyone because, in order "to be flanking an opponent, you must be attacking."

Since Formian 2 isn't flanked, Formian 1 isn't flanked either.

Because it is impossible in D&D for two actions to be simultaneous, it is impossible to attack Formian 1 while Formian 2 is being attacked. Therefore, Formians are immune to flanking.

So, either you must be making a melee attack in order to flank, or you don't need to be making a melee attack in order to flank. Pick one.

Note, also, that it is not required to threaten anything in order to flank. Rather, your ally needs to threaten in order to "gain a flanking bonus."

That's not right:

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner. When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.

Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent.

It looks very clear to me that both formians are flanked. Just draw the lines... This has nothing to do with actively attacking, threatening, and simultaneousness, at all. The only requirement for being flanked is having an opponent on each side of you.

Wether anyone get's any bonusses, that's a different story.

Right?

(I'm just gonna say 'Right?' at the end of each post. If I'm not right I can just say 'Sorry, folks, but thanks for playing the "Let GimbleRaulnor Trick You" game.' Sad..)

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It looks very clear to me that both formians are flanked. Just draw the lines...

Ah - so you like my reading, then, that the Line Test is the only criteria that matters?

In that case, you've opened up flanking to ranged combat. Congratulations!

This has nothing to do with actively attacking, threatening, and simultaneousness, at all. The only requirement for being flanked is having an opponent on each side of you.

No, the requirements for flanking are, as I said above, either the first paragraph combined with the second paragraph (melee attack + line test) or the second paragraph (line test).

If you go with the 1st-and-2nd ruling, then you are only flanking when you make a melee attack. As you posted from the SRD:

When making a melee attack,

Not "When you could possibly make a melee attack," or "When an opponent is in range of a melee attack," but "When making a melee attack."

And, therefore, you are flanking only during that instant in which you are making a melee attack. Because of this, no one else is flanking during that instant in which you are making a melee attack, because they fail the test put forth by the first clause of the flanking rules.

Therefore, the Formians are immune to flanking because when I'm trying to flank one of them, Bob isn't flanking the other one, and vice-versa.

However, if you decide that flanking does not depend on making a melee attack (which is what *I* am arguing), then the only criteria that matters is:

When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

Note that this paragraph says absolutely nothing about threatening, being in melee range, or making a melee attack at all.

Therefore, as I posted above, you have two choices when reading the flanking rules:

1) Only when making a melee attack and passing the line test

2) Only when passing the line test

You cannot rule any other way and be supported by the rules.

Wether anyone get's any bonusses, that's a different story.

Now that's funny.

(I'm just gonna say 'Right?' at the end of each post. If I'm not right I can just say 'Sorry, folks, but thanks for playing the "Let GimbleRaulnor Trick You" game.' Sad..)

Sad, but true. In fact, if you go back a long, long way into this topic, you'll notice that I've supported all along the fact that I can flank with a non-improved unarmed strike, so long as I've got an ally that passes the line test.

The fact that I led two others into contradicting the rules in their efforts to prove me wrong on ranged flanking is nothing more than a humorous jibe.

 

[atom crash]

This issue crops up from time to time, every 4 to 5 weeks or so. it's usually met with overwhelming opposition, but each time it comes up, one or two people say, "Hmm, Patryn may be on to something."

At this rate, I predict he converts everyone by 2079, just in time for 12th Edition!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

At this rate, I predict he converts everyone by 2079, just in time for 12th Edition!

In the year
Twenty-five twenty-five ...