Rogues flanking at range?

[ThirdWizard]

Ooh clever.

I can accept that as a valid rules interprietation, flanking not being an actual condition. That's the rule my group uses actually, because I was outvoted 3 to 1.

Darn my democratic DMing...

 

[Zaebos]

Ooh clever.

I can accept that as a valid rules interprietation, flanking not being an actual condition. That's the rule my group uses actually, because I was outvoted 3 to 1.

Darn my democratic DMing...

(bit off topic)

I have to say that voting on rules that are in question is a good way to preserve party cohesion. I usually just rule it one way, then research the rule online or in the books and then make an amendment to my judgement if need be next session.

(on topic)

I have honestly never had problems with the flanking rule until my logic got screwed up tonight. But basically, my last 2 posts is how we have been playing it also since 3.0 and 3.5 came out.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Flanking still has the word threaten in it.

But, again, it only has the word threaten in it in reference to the ally who is helping you flank, never in regards to you.

Since you can only flank as part of an attack action (edit: or full attack action), the answer is no you do not 'flank' when it's not your turn.

Then, once again, you've made Formians and Axiomatic creatures immune to flanking. Congratulations.

Any square you can melee attack is a threatend square. By this, the fact that under the flanking rule it says that "When making a melee attack...", it would be redundant to have the word threaten in since you already threaten the square into which you can make a melee attack as stated under the threaten rule.

Except, of course, that this is patently not true.

Whip: A whip deals nonlethal damage. It deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher. The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack.

If you are unarmed you don't normally threaten any squares...

Whip attacks and non-improved unarmed strikes are melee attacks. Neither of them threaten any squares. Therefore, you do not always threaten the squares into which you can make a melee attack.

Therefore, assuming they are one and the same, as you keep doing, is incorrect.

EDIT:
Wait, does this mean that it was possible to get a flanking bonus attacking unarmed in 3E too? You're making a melee attack, your ally is threatening, you're both flanking (only on your turn it seems - on his turn neither of you are flanking...).

I ask because that's been postulated as the reason why they changed it, but if its been like that the whole time, then that wouldn't be a reason.

I've postulated that this is a potential reason, but you're slightly misremembering that reason.

In 3.0, you could flank when making a non-improved unarmed strike so long as your ally had a weapon in hand or was a monk. Because of this, it was impossible to flank anyone in a "D&D Standard" tavern brawl until someone - you or them - drew steel.

In 3.5, by changing the wording to [potentially] allow flanking in a "D&D Standard" tavern brawl, they opened up the language enough that ranged flanking has become a possiblity. IMHO, of course.

 

[atom crash]

This solves the formian problem, but creates the "round the world" loophole which has been discussed.

Because the friendly characters have to be on opposite sides of the opponent, and rogues are limited to 30' for ranged sneak attacks, the so-called "round the world" loophole is really a non-issue, unless your world happens to have a circumference of 30 feet or less. On the Little Prince's planet it could be a big issue.

It does seem awkward, though, but to my knowledge no mechanical impact on flanking that could be abused.

 

[ThirdWizard]

It does seem awkward, though, but to my knowledge no mechanical impact on flanking that could be abused.

If you're using a whip or possibly even reach it might be argued that you're flanking from the other side of your ally.

But, really, it occured to me that a straight line will be tangential to the planet's surface in a round world, so it won't be a problem in that case. Now, in a donut shaped universe, though...

 

[Lasher Dragon]

What, your PCs have never heard of the Flat Earth Society?!?!

 

[atom crash]

What, your PCs have never heard of the Flat Earth Society?!?!

Actually, it's the Flat Oerth Society. It's been documented that the world is flat, and it's carried through space on the backs of 4 giant elephants that are in turn standing on the back of a turtle of enormous girth.

 

[Zaebos]

Holy... I have never seen such an obscure reading of the rules...
For the benifit of Patryn, I will go over this again.

By default, if you can melee attack into a square, you threaten it... some exceptions apply

Formian's are basically immune anyways, since "No formian in a group is considered flanked unless all of them are"(MM 108), don't see the problem there.

Exceptions to threatening are using a whip and being unarmed (unless you are armed unarmed such as with improved unarmed strike).

However, NORMALLY, it specified the word NORMALLY, you can normally threaten squares you attack into UNLESS you are unarmed or are using a whip... pretty obvious there.

You have to threaten in order to be considered flanking. Same with your ally... it is pretty clear in the rules.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

You have to threaten in order to be considered flanking. Same with your ally... it is pretty clear in the rules.

The only thing clear to me is that you get a +2 bonus when threatening an enemy that is also threatened on the opposite side by an ally.

 

[ThirdWizard]

In 3.5, by changing the wording to [potentially] allow flanking in a "D&D Standard" tavern brawl, they opened up the language enough that ranged flanking has become a possiblity. IMHO, of course.

Ahh, that's right, your definition is different than mine in that you use the line test more readily. I wouldn't allow two unarmed combatants to flank someone.

Actually, it's the Flat Oerth Society. It's been documented that the world is flat, and it's carried through space on the backs of 4 giant elephants that are in turn standing on the back of a turtle of enormous girth.

I had an old Data Structures book that had that picture on it. By the way, I don't like Terry Pratchett.