Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Patryn of Elvenshae" data-source="post: 2100544" data-attributes="member: 23094">Here's the trick, though.The 3.5 rules changed the definition of flanking.  It no longer includes the stipulation that you are only flanking when you make a melee attack (a line which was in the 3.0 definition of flanking).Now, you are considered flanking when:Now, you certainly only get a +2 bonus on your attack rolls when:However, like everything else in D&D, you gain the bonuses or penalties for a condition when you posess the condition.  You do not gain the condition when you gain the bonuses or penalties for that condition.  Furthermore, having a condition does not require that you gain all the bonuses or penalties of that condition.In other words, A implies B, but B doesn't necessarily imply A.As an example, take invisbility.  Two of the bonuses of invisibility are that you get a +2 on your attack rolls and your opponent is denied its Dex bonus.  However, if you are striking a creature with Uncanny Dodge, that creature retains its Dex bonus.  Even though you do not keep all the bonuses and penalties asssociated with being invisible, you remain invisible.  Similarly, even though you don't get all the bonuses and penalties of flanking, you are still flanking.And how is flanking determined?When "an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers ... passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners ... )."There is nothing in the newly-revised 3.5 definition of flanking that requires that you be making a melee attack - or even be threatening.  Note, once again, that this is a change from the 3.0 definition of flanking, which specifically that you be making a melee attack.Make of this what you will.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />EDIT:Note that, in both 3.0 and 3.5, it was not required that you actually threaten your opponent.  Both, however, required that your ally be threatening your opponent if you want a flanking bonus on attack rolls, and 3.0 mentioned that you were only flanking during the period that you were making a melee attack while your ally threatened.Note that all of this makes it impossible - in 3.0 - to flank during an unarmed tavern brawl (barring the presence of monks or Improved Unarmed Strike-enhanced combatants).  In 3.5, it allows you to flank, but prevents you from gaining a +2 on your to-hit rolls.</blockquote>

Verification