Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Deset Gled" data-source="post: 2101276" data-attributes="member: 7808">You are correct.&nbsp; This was, in fact, going to be my response.&nbsp; However, your arguement about why it doesn't work does not convince me.&nbsp; The problem is a difference of definition.&nbsp; Your arguement is that a condition can exist without a character receiving all consequences of the condition.&nbsp; I agree with this statement.&nbsp; The problem is that (IMO), the +2 is not a consequence of flanking, it is the definition of flanking.&nbsp; There is a subtle but profound difference.To be more specific, I believe the definition of flanking to be the sentence &quot;When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.&quot;&nbsp; The sentences that you refer to as a definition are &quot;When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.&quot;&nbsp; The reason that I do not agree that the second quote is a definition is because of the clause &quot;When in doubt&quot; and because it directly follows the sentence I claim is the definition.&nbsp; In my definitive sentence, the only room for doubt is in what constitutes being &quot;on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner,&quot; which is exactly what the &quot;when in doubt&quot; sentence clarifies (I suppose there's also a question as to what constitutes &quot;friendly&quot;, but that's not an area I feel is relevant).&nbsp; You seem to be reading the clause &quot;when in doubt&quot; to mean whenever somebody asks a question about whether or not they are flanking.&nbsp; I believe this to be problematic, because it means that the clause &quot;when in doubt&quot; is effectively meaningless.Unfortunately, due to the problem of poor definition, the above paragraph and discussion of the true definition of flanking will boil down to designer intent, which we can never get a definitive answer on.&nbsp; Accordingly, I am happy to agree to disagree with you on the matter.On a slightly different (but related) topic, isn't it about time in this thread to bring up the question of balance?&nbsp; I believe that allowing characters to flank with ranged weapons is very unbalanced.&nbsp; Allowing a rogue to get a full attack worth of sneak attacks with no cost to themselves seems very unbalanced to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Deset Gled, post: 2101276, member: 7808"] You are correct. This was, in fact, going to be my response. However, your arguement about why it doesn't work does not convince me. The problem is a difference of definition. Your arguement is that a condition can exist without a character receiving all consequences of the condition. I agree with this statement. The problem is that (IMO), the +2 is not a consequence of flanking, it is the definition of flanking. There is a subtle but profound difference. To be more specific, I believe the definition of flanking to be the sentence "When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner." The sentences that you refer to as a definition are "When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked." The reason that I do not agree that the second quote is a definition is because of the clause "When in doubt" and because it directly follows the sentence I claim is the definition. In my definitive sentence, the only room for doubt is in what constitutes being "on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner," which is exactly what the "when in doubt" sentence clarifies (I suppose there's also a question as to what constitutes "friendly", but that's not an area I feel is relevant). You seem to be reading the clause "when in doubt" to mean whenever somebody asks a question about whether or not they are flanking. I believe this to be problematic, because it means that the clause "when in doubt" is effectively meaningless. Unfortunately, due to the problem of poor definition, the above paragraph and discussion of the true definition of flanking will boil down to designer intent, which we can never get a definitive answer on. Accordingly, I am happy to agree to disagree with you on the matter. On a slightly different (but related) topic, isn't it about time in this thread to bring up the question of balance? I believe that allowing characters to flank with ranged weapons is very unbalanced. Allowing a rogue to get a full attack worth of sneak attacks with no cost to themselves seems very unbalanced to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification