What are the biggest rules debates?

[FreeTheSlaves]

I'm not sure if it is a big enough debate but there is the half orc's stat penalties are not balanced by its str bonus.

 

[Shin Okada]

What is death effect and what is death attack.

Description of Raise Dead spells and such mention about Death Effects. But there is no entry for Death Effects either in PHB glossary nor in DMG. On the other hand, there is an entry to describe "Death Attacks" in DMG glossary, wich says someone killed by a death attack cannot be raised. Then 3.0e FAQ said assassin's death attack is not a death effect and thus the victim can be raised.

 

[Khaalis]

Undead do not sleep, breathe, or eat. So vampires don't have to drink blood, they just like to.

Sorry - thinking of the Libris Mortus rules on undead metabolism and feeding requirements.

 

[glass]

But, you're still not flanking unless you're "making a melee attack."

In 3.0, exactly. That was what they removed in 3.5.


glass.

 

[Pinotage]

In 3.0, exactly. That was what they removed in 3.5.


glass.

The Hypertext SRD says the following:

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.

Is that not correct? It says melee attack, it says opposite border, meaning adjacent border. I don't see where the confusion lies.

Pinotage

 

[glass]

The Hypertext SRD says the following: Is that not correct? It says melee attack, it says opposite border, meaning adjacent border. I don't see where the confusion lies.

That says when you get the +2 flanking bonus, not when you are flanking.


glass.

 

[Pinotage]

That says when you get the +2 flanking bonus, not when you are flanking.


glass.

Ah, I see. Thanks. Still, it says it's a flanking bonus. Presumably you can only get a flanking bonus when you're actually flanking, no? So the conditions that grant a flanking bonus should be the same as the conditions that imply flanking?

Pinotage

 

[Storm Raven]

Ah, I see. Thanks. Still, it says it's a flanking bonus. Presumably you can only get a flanking bonus when you're actually flanking, no? So the conditions that grant a flanking bonus should be the same as the conditions that imply flanking?

Some people assert that you can flank, but not be eligible for a flanking bonus. I think it is a pretty silly argument, but others disagree,

 

[atom crash]

Ah, I see. Thanks. Still, it says it's a flanking bonus. Presumably you can only get a flanking bonus when you're actually flanking, no? So the conditions that grant a flanking bonus should be the same as the conditions that imply flanking?

If you are flanking only when you receive a flanking bonus, then you are only flanking at the moment when you make an attack. Therefore no two people can be flanking at the same time, right?

So then how can you ever flank a creature like a formian, an ambush drake or any creature with the axiomatic template? These creatures are not considered flanked unless all creatures in the group are.

If you can only flank when you receive the flanking bonus, which characters will get only when they attack, thus one at a time, you can never have all creatures in the group flanked, therefore none will be considered flanked. This interpretation makes the wording of the hive mind/telepathic link/linked minds ability make no sense, as it implies that there is a situation in which the creatures can be considered flanked. If you consider flanking = flanking bonus, then the abilities in effect could be read as "no creature in the group can be considered flanked."

However, if you consider that a character can flank even when you do not receive the flanking bonus, then the hive mind/telepathic link/linked minds abilities make perfect sense.

Some people assert that you can flank, but not be eligible for a flanking bonus. I think it is a pretty silly argument, but others disagree

It's not such a silly argument, really.

 

[Storm Raven]

It's not such a silly argument, really.

Actually, it is. You note that I said "eligible for a flanking bonus", while you said "receive a flanking bonus". There is a difference. And the difference is what makes the "flanking at range" argument silly.