Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Patryn of Elvenshae" data-source="post: 2100865" data-attributes="member: 23094">Not a problem!  <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" />I agree that the rules originally meant to say that flanking is a melee-combat-only kind of situation.  Heck, like I said, they expressly said so in 3.0.Unfortunately, they took out the text that expressly limits it to melee when they moved to 3.5.There are two possible reasons for this:1.  Accident - Oops!2.  Deliberate actionIn the case of #1, you'd think that, at some point, there would have been an erratta to the effect of, "Add the following sentence to the definition of Flanking: etc."  There isn't.In the case of #2, there's two reasons that I can see them doing this:A.  Unarmed bar fights by non-IUS / non-Monk characters and NPCs are a staple of D&D.  Thus, by changing the definition of flanking such that the bonus to attack rolls is the only part of flanking dependent on 1) melee attacks and 2) your ally threatening, you can have a rogue to smash a bottle over someone's head in a sneak attack to knock them out.  In other words, the rogue is flanking when he attacks, even though his ally (without IUS) doesn't threaten the target.  The rogue doesn't get a bonus, but he can still apply his sneak attack dice.B.  They wanted to open up the flanking condition (though not the bonus on attack rolls) to include the rogue or other flanker "shooting the opponent in the back" while the target was busily engaged with someone else.I think it is *most* likely that they intended #2A and, unfortunately, #2B came along for the ride.I think it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they also intended #2B.Given that I don't have a mystic mindlink to the original [re]designer's intent, I can only read what they put in front of me.  What they put in front of me allows for both A and B.Someone else, in a previous thread, brought up the fact that current RotG and FAQ answers have lent support to the melee-only position.As I brought up in response, the RotG articles are, at best, shakey when it comes to actually getting the rules correct (and they seem to be getting worse) and the FAQ, more often than not, answers 3.5 questions with 3.0 answers - and I don't dispute what 3.0 says about flanking, but 3.5 changed the rules.  Thus, any FAQ answer that relies upon the fact that flanking is strictly melee-only by the RAW is on similar ground to an FAQ answer that relies upon the fact that only humans can be paladins: It was demonstrably true and explicitly stated in the RAW in a previous edition of the game, but the rules have changed since then.</blockquote>

Verification