Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Patryn of Elvenshae" data-source="post: 2100999" data-attributes="member: 23094">Except, of course, that the benefits of a condition and that condition don't go hand in hand.Rather, when you have the condition, you get to benefit from the benefits - but not always.See the invisibility example.&nbsp; If you aren't denied your Dex bonus, I'm still invisible.&nbsp; If I don't get a +2, I'm still flanking.Incorrect, even with the &quot;melee-only&quot; reading of the rules.At no point do I need to threaten my opponent in order to benefit from flanking.&nbsp; Rather, my ally does.In other words, a Rogue can sneak attack in melee with an unarmed strike, even without the IUS feat, and a barbarian can gain a +2 on his to-hit roll when, after his axe is sundered, he attempts to grapple his opponent - so long as the ally opposite is threatening the target.In neither case do either of these character threaten an opponent.&nbsp; However, they are both flanking.In other words, you really should have the basics of the rules correct before you call someone else's argument &quot;strained&quot; or &quot;counterintuitive.&quot;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Patryn of Elvenshae, post: 2100999, member: 23094"] Except, of course, that the benefits of a condition and that condition don't go hand in hand. Rather, when you have the condition, you get to benefit from the benefits - but not always. See the invisibility example. If you aren't denied your Dex bonus, I'm still invisible. If I don't get a +2, I'm still flanking. Incorrect, even with the "melee-only" reading of the rules. At no point do [b]I[/b] need to threaten my opponent in order to benefit from flanking. Rather, [b]my ally[/b] does. In other words, a Rogue [b]can[/b] sneak attack in melee with an unarmed strike, even without the IUS feat, and a barbarian [b]can[/b] gain a +2 on his to-hit roll when, after his axe is sundered, he attempts to grapple his opponent - so long as the ally opposite is threatening the target. In neither case do either of these character threaten an opponent. However, they [b]are[/b] both flanking. In other words, you really [b]should[/b] have the basics of the rules correct before you call someone else's argument "strained" or "counterintuitive." :p [/QUOTE]

Verification