Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Gryphon" data-source="post: 2111980" data-attributes="member: 17286">I also disagree with Patryn's interpretation, but as we've argued before (over the exact same interpretations) the +2 flanking bonus seems to be a sticking point with you. It's just like having a situational modifier for being on higher ground, whether you enact an action which requires the use the modifier or not you're still on higher ground. So whether you need to use the modifier or not you still flank the target. Patryn's interpretation, no more allows for the possibility than this. If all defending creatures are threatened and you can draw lines between assorted allies which threaten each formian, they can be considered flanked. Example: Xs are PCs, # are Formains. X1X234X5X Assuming all Xs threaten in melee combat, all of the formains are flanked, then as each PC attacks they can gain the +2 flanking bonus against any Formian they flank. If any of the Formians move they cannot be flanked as no PC can move to a position which would allow all Formians to be flanked once again. If one of the PCs had a whip or was using an unarmed strike the Formians would also not be flanked as these weapons don't threaten any area into which it can make an attack and actually provoke an attack of opportunity. Patryn's interpretation won't work if both PCs on the same side in the above diagram don't threaten their respective Formians (obviously neither will mine), but his interpretation does in general make it easier to flank (as both friendly creatures don't need to be considered to be flanking the same creature) which IMO is not a good situation. A correction to the flanking description should probably be something like this "When making a melee attack, with an attack that doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity OR/AND which threatens the opponent, you get a ...". The second option feels best to me due to the fact that to be flanked the target must feel threatened enough to split its attention between multiple foes and leave itself more open to attack. Also as has been said earlier in the thread. If you could flank in any situation other than by threatening a creature in melee combat (you'd think they would have provided one picture of a ranged example if it was possible - saying that the ranged attacker was flanking, but the melee attacker wasn't as the ranged attacker didn't threaten the target), why would creatures with a reach of 0 feet be unable to flank a target (this to me indicates the correction(s) I've made above)? Example: T is Tiny rogue armed with a bow, M is medium ally, X is PC. T    XM According to Patryn's interpretation T (being 20 feet away) could normally sneak attack X, but because T is tiny it can't flank an opponent and therefore can't sneak attack. If T were medium though it could sneak attack as it can flank. Now it's fair enough if the tiny creature can't flank as it provokes an AOO or doesn't threaten in melee, but if it can't do it at range when it's at no disadvantage that's a really big flaw in Patryn's interpretation of the RAW.</blockquote>

Verification