Rogues flanking at range?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

.....I can't believe this thread is still going. Patryn, you cannot flank with a ranged weapon. I can't believe you came up with some convoluted way of misinterpreting the rules when I posted the SRD quotes verbatim. Now I'll just waste my time posting them again.

Well, that's nice, because I can't believe this thread is still going. Arkhandus, you can flank with a ranged wearpon. I can't believe you came up with some convoluted way of misinterpreting the rules when I posted the SRD quotes verbatim many, many more times than you have. Now, I'll just waste my time shutting down your objections ... again. You know, you could actually *read* what I've written before, before posting the same objections I've already addressed many, many times.

Emphases above are mine. See how the very first line states right off that it only applies with melee attacks?

I agree. Notice, however, that the first paragraph also only applies:

1. At the exact instant that I am making a melee attack, and
2. Only discusses when you get a "flanking bonus" on your attack rolls.

If you want to argue that this consitutes the definition of flanking, then Formians et al. are immune to flanking. See my above posts for why.

If you want to argue that this does not constitute the definition of flanking, then you need to read the 2nd paragraph. The second paragraph says nothing about: threatening, range, melee, or attack.

Therefore, any interpretation of the second paragraph which relies on any of those words is erronious.

The middle paragraph about drawing the imaginary line doesn't matter for ranged flanking, because you cannot flank with a ranged weapon, because you only get the flanking bonus in melee.

Again, there are many, many instances throughout the rules which say that in a particular situation you have a particular bonus or penalty, such as being invisible, prone, etc. If you do not take the particular penalty, the situation is still extant. Therefore, claiming you only get a flanking bonus when making a melee attack is a non-starter. Of course you only get a "flanking bonus" when making a melee attack. It says so right there in the first paragraph.

What it does not say, however, is that you are flanking if and only if you are using that particular bonus.

You might wish to read it as such, but it does not say that.

In 3.0 it did. In 3.0, I wouldn't be arguing this.

In 3.5, it doesn't. In 3.5, I will be arguing this.

That paragraph does not say anything that infers you should ignore the first sentence, it is only clarification on the first point, which already specifies that you only get flanking with melee attacks.

Again, no, it doesn't. It says you only get a flanking bonus with melee attacks under certain circumstances. I accept that, and do not argue that.

I do not, however, believe that getting a flanking bonus on any particular attack is necessary and sufficient condition to be considered flanking.

Because, if it is, then anything with a special ability that says "One is only flanked when all are flanked" is, actually, immune to flanking.

In other words, you must first be flanking - as defined in the paragraph that talks about determining whether or not two creatures are flanking - in order to qualify for a flanking bonus.

The first sentence takes precedence, because no later sentences say that they are exceptions, so they must follow the precedence set by the first sentence in the Flanking description.

Agreed. The first sentence takes precedence. It, however, only applies to a very limited number of possible flanking situations - specifically, one in which someone is currently making a melee attack. If someone is not currently making a melee attack, the second paragraph holds.

Again, absolutely nothing in the Core Rules ever infers that you can flank with a ranged weapon.

You keep saying that, but I've shown you many, many places in which it does. Therefore, some things in the Core Rules infer that you can flank with a ranged weapon.

To make this short and sweet ...

Can I flank someone when it is not currently my turn?

 

[Philip]

.....I can't believe this thread is still going. Patryn, you cannot flank with a ranged weapon. I can't believe you came up with some convoluted way of misinterpreting the rules when I posted the SRD quotes verbatim. Now I'll just waste my time posting them again.

Really, Arkhandus, Patryn's logic is impeccable.

Maybe it doesn't make a lot of sense, but there are no inherent flaws in his reasoning.

What I attempted to show in my previous post was that when you apply and extend Patryn's logic, it would result in characters flanking their targets almost all of the time. Which seems stupid and undesireable.

Maybe you are getting the intention of the RAW right Arkhandus, but Patryn's interpretation certainly isn't that far-fetched and your objections do nothing to counter his arguments.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Nope.

However, there is a 30' range limit on ranged sneak attacks. So, there's still a hard limit to the benefits of flanking - even at range.

His point is that if I'm within 30 feet of you in Tyrsis, and I can draw a line from me to a creature friendly to me in Palanthas, that happens to pass through opposite borders of your square - a line miles and miles and miles long that goes through walls, mountains, people, etc, etc - then it fits your definition for flanking and allows me to sneak attack. My friend doesn't have to be within 30 feet of you... only I do.

-Hyp.

 

[Storm Raven]

Well, that's nice, because I can't believe this thread is still going. Arkhandus, you can flank with a ranged wearpon. I can't believe you came up with some convoluted way of misinterpreting the rules when I posted the SRD quotes verbatim many, many more times than you have. Now, I'll just waste my time shutting down your objections ... again. You know, you could actually *read* what I've written before, before posting the same objections I've already addressed many, many times.

Except your entire argument revolves around a false premise. You parse the "when making a melee attack" sentence and the "when in doubt" sentence separately, which is both foolish and incorrect. The "when in doubt" sentence is clearly dependent upon and nothing more than a clarification of the first sentence. And as a result, it doesn't ever enter into the question of whether one can flank at range.

You see, no one is in doubt if you are flanking or not when you are not making a melee attack, because you are not eligible for the flanking bonus. No eligibility for the flanking bonus, no flanking. Parsing the sentences seprately leads you to an erroneous conclusion. Face it, your claims are unsupportable, despite your very heroic efforts to make them so. Perhaps you might look to the fact that you have thus far managed to convince no one that your interpretation is correct as evidence of the absurdity of your position.

You are the sort of person who would have made arguments to the effect that under the 3.0 rules, people without a Dexterity bonus could not be sneak attacked (since it only applied when you were denied a Dexterity bonus, and if you didn't have one to begin with, you cannot be denied one).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

His point is that if I'm within 30 feet of you in Tyrsis, and I can draw a line from me to a creature friendly to me in Palanthas, that happens to pass through opposite borders of your square - a line miles and miles and miles long that goes through walls, mountains, people, etc, etc - then it fits your definition for flanking and allows me to sneak attack. My friend doesn't have to be within 30 feet of you... only I do.

Agreed - so long as someone friendly to you is standing on that line. Of course, the chances that they are standing on that particular line in the middle of combat is slim to none, but the chance is there.

I would also get flanking bonuses when I'm standing next to you invisible, my ally standing next to you and across from me is invisible, and you have no idea either of us are there. Moreover, I get flanking bonuses even if *I* don't know my ally is there. Even more outlandish, we could both get flanking bonuses even if we aren't entirely sure where you are (and just happen to pick the appropriate 5' square to make our attacks into).

Now, if the flanking rules mentioned that the defender needs to be aware of both the attacker and the friendly allowing him to flank, and the flankers need to be aware of each other, then all the strangeness you, Phillip, and I pointed out go away.

They, don't, though, so strangeness persists.

 

[ThirdWizard]

His point is that if I'm within 30 feet of you in Tyrsis, and I can draw a line from me to a creature friendly to me in Palanthas, that happens to pass through opposite borders of your square - a line miles and miles and miles long that goes through walls, mountains, people, etc, etc - then it fits your definition for flanking and allows me to sneak attack. My friend doesn't have to be within 30 feet of you... only I do.

-Hyp.

This is where Patryn's and my definitions differ, as I require that the ally be threatening the enemy and he doesn't. So this can't come up in my interprietation.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Except your entire argument revolves around a false premise.

So say you.

You parse the "when making a melee attack" sentence and the "when in doubt" sentence separately, which is both foolish and incorrect. The "when in doubt" sentence is clearly dependent upon and nothing more than a clarification of the first sentence. And as a result, it doesn't ever enter into the question of whether one can flank at range.

You say "Clearly," I say, "Clearly not."

Therefore, all you are doing is saying that the sufficient and necessary conditions to determine flanking is the first paragraph combined with the second paragraph, as I have mentioned many, many times before.

Congratulations; Formians and Axiomatic creatures are now immune to flanking.

You are the sort of person who would have made arguments to the effect that under the 3.0 rules, people without a Dexterity bonus could not be sneak attacked (since it only applied when you were denied a Dexterity bonus, and if you didn't have one to begin with, you cannot be denied one).

Well, I'm glad you've gotten your bit of off-target psychoanalysis done for the day.

I would have never, ever argued that. That would be a really, really stupid argument. Why?

Sneak Attack: Any time the rogue's target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not),

So, yeah, don't make stupid arguments and personal jibes.

For the record, I was pretty certain in 3.0 that you could, in fact, Sneak Attack things that still had their Dex bonus (like, say, Barbarian 2s and Rogue 4s). Why?

Because of "any time the rogue's target would be denied a Dex bonus."

Combat starts, so this particular Barbarian 2 is flat-footed. If something was flat-footed, would it be denied its Dex bonus? Yes. Therefore, even though this particular character gets to keep his Dex bonus, he is in a situation which would normally deny a Dex bonus. Therefore, he is eligible for Sneak Attacks - the barbarian's AC is just higher than it otherwise would be.

So, uh, there.

 

[Saeviomagy]

And where are you pulling that out of the rules?

Ok, here goes.

Flanking, flanked and flank are not defined terms.

We have to assume that the section on flanking SOMEHOW tells us how to apply them.

If we shift into patryn-mode (ie - the way in which you are reading and arriving at a conclusion as if each paragraph is seperate and self contained):
Your particular section just tells us when someone IS FLANKED, not when someone flanks, or when people are flanking. Remember? We look at it when we're in doubt whether people are flanking, but it never actually helps with this. It never says "they flank when...". To make your particular interpretation work, we have to make the leap that the two people that we're checking will be flanking a target if the target is flanked.

If we shift into Saeviomagy-mode (in which we read the entire section as a whole):
My particular interpretation basically says the same, BUT with the limitation that it only applies to anyone who could potentially be contributing to gaining a flanking bonus. IE - two people on either side of the target who threaten the target.

No matter which version we use, we have to interpret what is written and make assumptions.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Agreed - so long as someone friendly to you is standing on that line. Of course, the chances that they are standing on that particular line in the middle of combat is slim to none, but the chance is there.

Are we assuming a round(ish) globe?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If we shift into Saeviomagy-mode (in which we read the entire section as a whole):
My particular interpretation basically says the same, BUT with the limitation that it only applies to anyone who could potentially be contributing to gaining a flanking bonus. IE - two people on either side of the target who threaten the target.

One who threatens, and one who is making a melee attack.

It's an important distinction to whip-wielding rogues.

-Hyp.