What are the biggest rules debates?

[Hypersmurf]

Or, as Hypersmurf (I think) put it:

I don't think that was me.

Though the sentiment isn't bad

-Hyp.

 

[Nail]

Practiced Spellcaster

Prerequisites: You must suck.

Benefit: You suck less.

Exactly.

The mechanical benefits of this feat are substantial in only a few cases, but hardly out of line even in those. The DM in question was worried about 1 or two extra magic missiles? Yeesh. Welcome to the "big leagues", I guess. (Or perhaps: "Yer still in th' kiddie pool bucko, just near the slightly deeper end. " )

In any case, this isn't a "rules debate" as defined by the OP.

 

[molonel]

And what does threatening have to do with anything? Note that, even under the 3.0 definition of flanking, I don't have to threaten in order to flank something. You do.

From the SRD under flanking:

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.

To the best of my understanding, you must have two or more characters (opponents, whatever) threatening in order to set up a flank. Missile weapons do not threaten, and may therefore not be used to flank.

Note: I just returned to the thread, and noticed the discussion was carried on further after this quote. I am reading it right now.

 

[atom crash]

To the best of my understanding, you must have two or more characters (opponents, whatever) threatening in order to set up a flank. Missile weapons do not threaten, and may therefore not be used to flank.

I think you'll find that this has been covered.

Both allies need not threaten in order to flank an opponent. Only one does, and it is not the person actually making the attack. The character opposite the one making the attack must threaten in order for the attacker to get a flanking bonus.

Assuming two allies are in the correct position in relation to an opponent, can one threaten when the other does not? Sure. In that case, can the one that is not threatening still get a flanking bonus, even though the other does not? Sure.

 

[molonel]

I think you'll find that this has been covered.

Both allies need not threaten in order to flank an opponent. Only one does, and it is not the person actually making the attack. The character opposite the one making the attack must threaten in order for the attacker to get a flanking bonus.

Assuming two allies are in the correct position in relation to an opponent, can one threaten when the other does not? Sure. In that case, can the one that is not threatening still get a flanking bonus, even though the other does not? Sure.

Covered somewhat, yes, but not to my satisfaction.

I don't find the logic that you can flank without getting a flanking bonus particularly compelling, nor the idea that someone can be standing across the room and not even threatening somehow provides a flanking opportunity.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I don't find the logic that you can flank without getting a flanking bonus particularly compelling

Describe.

And note that, even in 3.0, it was not required that I be threatening my target in order to flank. It was only required that I be making a melee attack and that you threatened - and during my attack, we were both flanking.

During your attack, we weren't (because I don't threaten).

 

[molonel]

Describe. And note that, even in 3.0, it was not required that I be threatening my target in order to flank. It was only required that I be making a melee attack and that you threatened - and during my attack, we were both flanking. During your attack, we weren't (because I don't threaten).

Sure. This is from the 3.0 SRD:

http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/SRDCombatBasics.rtf

Flanking
If a character is making a melee attack against an opponent, and an ally directly opposite the character is threatening the opponent, the character and the character's ally flank the opponent. A character gains a +2 flanking bonus on the attack roll. A rogue in this position can also sneak attack the target. The ally must be on the other side of the opponent, so that the opponent is directly between the character and the ally.

http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/SRDCombatModifiers.rtf

When it describes flanking under attack role modifiers:

*A character flanks a defender when the character has an ally on the opposite side of the defender and that ally threatens the defender.

-

So, I don't find your statements about 3.0 rules and flanking to be correct. Do you have something further from the books which is not mentioned in the SRD. I'm at work, so it's entirely possible because I don't have access to my books at the present.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, I don't find your statements about 3.0 rules and flanking to be correct.

Huh?

What you just quoted from the 3E SRD says exactly what Patryn said it does...?

Let's say I'm punching you, and my ally with a longsword is standing opposite me.

I'm making a melee attack, my ally threatens; we're both flanking.

Now he attacks. He's making a melee attack, but I don't threaten (since I don't have Improved Unarmed Strike), so neither of us are flanking.

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

But in 3E (following molonel), by RAW, you did threaten with an unarmed strike. It wasn't until 3.5 that the "if you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten" got into the core rules (which btw creates the contradiction with Table 8-4's note about using unarmed attack forms for AOOs).

The ability to make a melee attack is, in fact, the definition of threatening.

 

[glass]

Well my thought is that it applies to all effects. Meaning Fighter 4/Wizard 1 can cast his Magic Missile as if he was caster level 5.

But in one of my games the gm argued that although it increases the duration of spells like Mage's armor and the DC of Sleep and such, It will not increase the damage of spells, otherwise it would be too strong of a feat.

Note that it doesn't apply to save DCs, any more than caster level does normally. It does affect everything that caster level normally affects, though.


glass.