Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hypersmurf" data-source="post: 1399786" data-attributes="member: 1656"><a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040302a" target="_blank">Up at WotC.</a> Ah well.&nbsp; I guess it couldn't last.Conditions for flanking: &quot;To flank an opponent, two allies must be on opposite sides of that opponent, and they both must threaten the opponent.&quot;Not accurate.&nbsp; One must threaten; the other must make a melee attack.&nbsp; You can make a melee attack with a whip or an untrained unarmed strike and still benefit from flanking, even if you don't threaten, as long as your ally threatens.The visible rule: &quot;You get a flanking bonus from any ally your foe can see (and who is in the correct position to flank). If your foe can't see you, you don't provide a flanking bonus to any ally.&quot;This rule did not exist in the 3E Core Rules.&nbsp; It first appeared in a Sage Advice chat, with slightly different mechanics.&nbsp; Then it showed up in the 3E FAQ, essentially the same as it appears in this article.&nbsp; Then 3.5 was released, and the rules were the same as 3E: You flank when you're making a melee attack, and an ally directly opposite threatens the opponent.&nbsp; No mention of whether the opponent can see your ally.This rule doesn't exist, and it's being brought up again as if it did... which leads to the Blinking Barbarian situation, where it's actually advantageous for someone with Uncanny Dodge flanked by two high level rogues (or two low-level rogues, if he doesn't have Improved Uncanny Dodge) to close his eyes at the end of his action.&nbsp; It also introduces the situation where someone flanked by a rogue and a non-rogue can deliberately turn his back (per the rules in the Gaze Attack section) on the non-rogue to deny the rogue his flanking advantage and thereby his sneak attacks.And, of course, one of the most common Uncanny Dodge questions - Does Uncanny Dodge trump Feint? - isn't addressed in the article.It was going so well <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :("&nbsp; data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />-Hyp.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hypersmurf, post: 1399786, member: 1656"] [URL=http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040302a]Up at WotC.[/URL] Ah well. I guess it couldn't last. Conditions for flanking: "To flank an opponent, two allies must be on opposite sides of that opponent, and they both must threaten the opponent." Not accurate. One must threaten; the other must make a melee attack. You can make a melee attack with a whip or an untrained unarmed strike and still benefit from flanking, even if you don't threaten, as long as your ally threatens. The visible rule: "You get a flanking bonus from any ally your foe can see (and who is in the correct position to flank). If your foe can't see you, you don't provide a flanking bonus to any ally." This rule did not exist in the 3E Core Rules. It first appeared in a Sage Advice chat, with slightly different mechanics. Then it showed up in the 3E FAQ, essentially the same as it appears in this article. Then 3.5 was released, and the rules were the same as 3E: You flank when you're making a melee attack, and an ally directly opposite threatens the opponent. No mention of whether the opponent can see your ally. This rule doesn't exist, and it's being brought up [i]again[/i] as if it did... which leads to the Blinking Barbarian situation, where it's actually [i]advantageous[/i] for someone with Uncanny Dodge flanked by two high level rogues (or two low-level rogues, if he doesn't have Improved Uncanny Dodge) to [i]close his eyes[/i] at the end of his action. It also introduces the situation where someone flanked by a rogue and a non-rogue can deliberately turn his back (per the rules in the Gaze Attack section) on the non-rogue to deny the rogue his flanking advantage and thereby his sneak attacks. And, of course, one of the most common Uncanny Dodge questions - Does Uncanny Dodge trump Feint? - isn't addressed in the article. It was going so well :( -Hyp. [/QUOTE]

Verification