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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zaebos" data-source="post: 2118653" data-attributes="member: 1499">Thank-you Storm, I could not have said it better.The rules do state that you are not threatening when making a melee unarmed attack, page 137 under threatened sqaures, exception one.Exception 2, page 121 under the whip entry also says you don't threaten squares into which you can make an attack.Most rules have exceptions, thats just the life of D&D.Atom, in order to make an attack into a square, you threaten that square (with the exceptions noted above).Al is using a whip, Bob is using a sword (type up to you), and we have a creature who is not immune to flanking attacks.A...CBSince Al Does not threaten the square the creature is in, Bob does not get a flanking bonus to attack.  Al does not meet the requirement of threatening the opponent.Al, however does get a flanking bonus to attack with his whip since Bob meets all the requirements to give Al the flank.But as mentioned b4, if this seems unreasonable to you, then don't allow it.Similarly, Al is unarmed and Bob is using a sword.ACBSame situation, Bob does not get the flank bonus, but Al does.  The rules seem clear that inorder to get a flank bonus, your ally must meet the requirements, not you.Each exception to the rule of threaten does not invalidate the flanking rule, all it does is make clear in what types of situations you can flank.  Given that the wording is clear and unabigious, a literal interpretation of the rule is all that we can go on.  It does not leave much room for obscure interpretation.These two exceptions to the rule (and there may be more), must be allowed considering the wording of the flanking rule.Similarly a creatures that threatens a square does not mean that they can flank or likewise give a flank to someone else as in the case of smaller than small creatures.  This is yet another exception to the rule.</blockquote>

Verification