Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Patryn of Elvenshae" data-source="post: 2101027" data-attributes="member: 23094">Right.&nbsp; So, I'm standing here on Bob's left, and you're standing there on Bob's right.&nbsp; Do we flank?&nbsp; Yep.Back me off about 30'.&nbsp; Do we still flank?&nbsp; You want to say &quot;No,&quot; which means there is &quot;doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent.&quot;&nbsp; So, we draw an imaginary line.&nbsp; Does it pass through opposite sides of Bob's square?&nbsp; Yes, it does.&nbsp; So, according to the definition of flanking, we're flanking.Agreed.&nbsp; Therefore, the rest of that particular rule does not apply.&nbsp; What does that rule say, exactly?&nbsp; That I can get a +2 flanking bonus on any melee attack I make, so long as you are threatening Bob.&nbsp; If I don't make a melee attack, we're still flanking.Rather, there is a great deal of doubt as to whether the characters are flanking.&nbsp; So much, in fact, that you are willing to categorically say that they aren't.&nbsp; Therefore, you must perform the line test.&nbsp; The line test, however, says we're flanking.And, in their current incarnation, they are horrible in such a way that flanking no longer requires that *I* be making a melee attack.&nbsp; They merely stipulate that, if I'm flanking, and I make a melee attack, I get a bonus so long as you threaten Bob.The determination of whether or not I'm flanking, however, no longer cares what I'm doing.&nbsp; I'm flanking so long as the line test returns true, unlike in 3.0, where I was only flanking during the instant I made a melee attack.EDIT:Everyone's favorite rejoinder is, &quot;You're only flanking when you benefit from the +2!&nbsp; Therefore, you're only flanking when you make a melee attack.&quot;The proble, of course, is that this is not true across the rest of the ruleset, where you can possess a given condition - invisibility, bless, prone, etc. - and not get all the benefits and penalties of that state.For instance, the Thief-Acrobat from Complete Adventurer gains an ability to ignore the -4 on melee attacks and -4 to AC penalties when prone.&nbsp; Also, he can stand as a free action that does not provoke AoOs.The argument, then, is as follows:1.&nbsp; When is someone &quot;Prone&quot;?&nbsp; &quot;The character is on the ground.&quot;2.&nbsp; What are the benefits of being &quot;Prone&quot;? +4 bonus to AC against Ranged attacks3.&nbsp; What are the penalties of being &quot;Prone&quot;? -4 penalty on melee attacks, can't used most ranged weapons, -4 penalty to AC against melee attacks, standing is a move action that provokes an AoOSimilarly:1.&nbsp; When is someone &quot;Flanking&quot;?&nbsp; Imaginary line test.2.&nbsp; What are the benefits of being &quot;Flanking&quot;? +2 on melee attack rolls when opponent is threatened by ally, rogues (etc.) may sneak attack3.&nbsp; What are the penalties of &quot;Flanking&quot;? NoneNow, look at the Thief Acrobat.He's &quot;on the ground.&quot;&nbsp; He gets a +4 bonus to AC against Ranged attacks and still can't use most ranged weapons, but does not suffer the -4 penalty on melee attacks, and standing is a free action that does not provoke an AoO.Is he still &quot;Prone&quot;?Of course he is; he's on the ground.&nbsp; However, by the &quot;When you get a +2 bonus!&quot; argument, he's not prone because he doesn't get all the penalties and all the bonuses of the condition.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Patryn of Elvenshae, post: 2101027, member: 23094"] Right. So, I'm standing here on Bob's left, and you're standing there on Bob's right. Do we flank? Yep. Back me off about 30'. Do we still flank? You want to say "No," which means there is "doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent." So, we draw an imaginary line. Does it pass through opposite sides of Bob's square? Yes, it does. So, according to the definition of flanking, we're flanking. Agreed. Therefore, the rest of that particular rule does not apply. What does that rule say, exactly? That I can get a +2 flanking bonus on any melee attack I make, so long as you are threatening Bob. If I don't make a melee attack, we're still flanking. Rather, there is a great deal of doubt as to whether the characters are flanking. So much, in fact, that you are willing to categorically say that they aren't. Therefore, you [b]must[/b] perform the line test. The line test, however, says we're flanking. And, in their current incarnation, they are horrible in such a way that flanking no longer requires that *I* be making a melee attack. They merely stipulate that, if I'm flanking, and I make a melee attack, I get a bonus so long as you threaten Bob. The determination of whether or not I'm flanking, however, no longer cares what I'm doing. I'm flanking so long as the line test returns true, unlike in 3.0, where I was only flanking during the instant I made a melee attack. EDIT: Everyone's favorite rejoinder is, "You're only flanking when you benefit from the +2! Therefore, you're only flanking when you make a melee attack." The proble, of course, is that this is not true across the rest of the ruleset, where you can possess a given condition - invisibility, bless, prone, etc. - and not get all the benefits and penalties of that state. For instance, the Thief-Acrobat from Complete Adventurer gains an ability to ignore the -4 on melee attacks and -4 to AC penalties when prone. Also, he can stand as a free action that does not provoke AoOs. The argument, then, is as follows: 1. When is someone "Prone"? "The character is on the ground." 2. What are the benefits of being "Prone"? +4 bonus to AC against Ranged attacks 3. What are the penalties of being "Prone"? -4 penalty on melee attacks, can't used most ranged weapons, -4 penalty to AC against melee attacks, standing is a move action that provokes an AoO Similarly: 1. When is someone "Flanking"? Imaginary line test. 2. What are the benefits of being "Flanking"? +2 on melee attack rolls when opponent is threatened by ally, rogues (etc.) may sneak attack 3. What are the penalties of "Flanking"? None Now, look at the Thief Acrobat. He's "on the ground." He gets a +4 bonus to AC against Ranged attacks and still can't use most ranged weapons, but does not suffer the -4 penalty on melee attacks, and standing is a free action that does not provoke an AoO. Is he still "Prone"? Of course he is; he's on the ground. However, by the "When you get a +2 bonus!" argument, he's not prone because he doesn't get all the penalties and all the bonuses of the condition. [/QUOTE]

Verification