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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Patryn of Elvenshae" data-source="post: 2114230" data-attributes="member: 23094">Says you.  The rules do not say that, however.The first paragraph only holds at the exact instant you are making a melee attack.  If you can find rules text to the contrary, I'd be real happy to see them.You won't find them, however, because the first paragraph starts out with, "When making a melee attack ..."Note, as I said before, it does not say, "When in position to make a melee attack," or "When you could make a melee attack," or even, "When you threaten an opponent."  It is therefore limited to exactly and only the moment in which I am making a melee attack - not you, not Bob, not anyone else, but me.The second paragraph, which is what might allow flanking during the period in which you are not actually making a melee attack, does not mention any of the following: attack, melee, threaten, or range.Therefore, if you wish to say that it is possible to be in the flanking "combat situation" (and, seriously, let's call a spade a spade, flanking is a condition) when you are not at that exact moment making a melee attack, then you are ruling that the first paragraph (beginning with "When making a melee attack ...") is not the necessary and sufficient condition to determine flanking.Therefore, the second paragraph - the Line Test - is the necessary and sufficient condition to determine flanking.  And that Test says nothing about range, melee, or threatening.Therefore, if you want to be able to flank during the period in which you are not making a melee attack, you must also allow flanking at range - whether or not you like it.  Otherwise, you're making up house rules.  <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    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> Need I remind you that these illustrated examples, by their very nature, are not exhaustive?  After all (going off of the 3.0 PHB, here), I've got a picture of Tordek surrounded by some rats.  There aren't any pictures of giants, or reach weapons, or giants with reach weapons, or giants with bows.  Should we then assume that, in 3.0 at least, one could not flank with a reach weapon?  Or when you were not a rat fighting Tordek?  I should think not!Except, of course, that you're wrong.  It is not necessary for me to threaten a creature in order to flank it - even a strict melee-only reading of the Flanking rules doesn't require that.  Rather, it requires that, if I want a flanking bonus on a melee attack roll (which, above, you claim is not a requirement to be flanking in and of itself), then you must threaten my opponent and be opposite me (thus fulfilling the line test).In other words, I can flank and gain a flanking bonus on my attack roll when I attack with a non-improved unarmed strike.  When you attack, you don't get a bonus on your attack roll, because I don't threaten.But that's OK, because according to my ruling and now yours (the bonus is no longer necessary and sufficient conditions), you're still flanking the target - whether or not you get the bonus is immaterial.  <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" /> Well, thank you for that daring insight!  Care to provide some actual reasoning behind your (see below) unsupported position, or are you just gonna call me dumb names?Which, of course, is a position unsupported by the rules.  Unless you'd care to provide the text that you're citing for this ruling?Again, all you're saying here is that I can be considered flanking even when I don't get / use the +2 flanking bonus.That's my position, you just haven't realized it yet.The rules you seem to be using specifiy that you only get your +2 bonus at the exact moment you are making a melee attack (etc.).  If you've thrown out the requirement that you be actually making a melee attack, then there is no text in the rules that requires me to be in melee range of my opponent.Seriously.  I challenge you to find it. Again, your use of "threatened" here is incorrect and is, I believe, interfering with your ability to actually read the rules. Again with the threatening!  Threatening doesn't ever enter the equation for me - it only enters the occasion for you.And "When making a melee attack" doesn't mean you must make a melee attack?:boggle:  That makes no sense.  Sorry.Look, either you are flanking when you follow the rules in both the first and second paragraphs, or you are flanking when you follow the rules in just the second paragraph.Those are your two choices.</blockquote>

Verification