What are the biggest rules debates?

[reveal]

Others, like me, believe that this change results in the likely-unintended consequence of allowing flanking at range.

Well, I looked up flanking and it said: "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."

And if you look up what is considering "threatening" you get: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action."

While the flanking write up is not explicit enough, these two rules together seem to suggest that a ranged attack can NOT help to flank.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

Well, I looked up flanking and it said: "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."

And if you look up what is considering "threatening" you get: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action."

While the flanking write up is not explicit enough, these two rules together seem to suggest that a ranged attack can help to flank.

LOL! That's really funny, because I read those rules as specifically saying that ranged attacks don't help at all.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

Cure Minor on self when disabled - 209 (and thread ended up locked?!?)

Yeah, that was ridiculous. I was really shocked when the mod locked that thread.

I think this issue is really one of the most open-to-interpretation.

 

[Legildur]

While the flanking write up is not explicit enough, these two rules together seem to suggest that a ranged attack can help to flank.

<blink><blink> Maybe it's just because I haven't had my morning coffee yet... but I didn't draw the same conclusion from the passages you quoted.

Not that I would ever try and obtain the benefits of a flank from a ranged weapon, but I'd like to your reasoning.

 

[reveal]

LOL! That's really funny, because I read those rules as specifically saying that ranged attacks don't help at all.

<blink><blink> Maybe it's just because I haven't had my morning coffee yet... but I didn't draw the same conclusion from the passages you quoted.

Not that I would ever try and obtain the benefits of a flank from a ranged weapon, but I'd like to your reasoning.

Oh crap! Big mistake on my part. I meant that ranged attacks do NOT help you flank. I updated my previous post. Geez, you forget one word and the entire meaning of your argument flies out the window.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Well, if I have a bow, and you have a sword, I can't help you get a +2 flanking bonus on your attack rolls because I don't threaten any squares with a bow.

Additionally, you can help me get a +2 flanking bonus on my attack roll, but I can't use it, because an attack with a bow is a ranged attack, and the flanking bonus only applies to melee attacks.

The real question, however, is what the right "order of operations" is. Am I flanking because I get the +2 bonus, or do I get the +2 bonus because I'm flanking? Which is the chicken, and which the egg?

The general counterargument to ranged flanking in 3.5 assumes the first is the correct order of operations: you are flanking if and only if you are currently getting a +2 flanking bonus on your current attack roll.

The rules don't necessarily require this, however, and I assume that the second is the the correct order of operations: you are flanking so long as you pass "the line test," and should you elect to make a melee attack, you get a bonus.

The second interpretation is supported by the fact that, in many cases, you can be in a particular situation without realizing all the benefits of that situation (like, say, an undead barbarian who enters a Rage).

The first interpretation is supported by the fact that that's the way it was in 3.0.

 

[dcollins]

- Do PCs have free reign to invent new magic items?
- Do PC-invented magic items count as Core Rules, or House Rules?
- Are Caster Levels on core wondrous magic items fixed, or creator-adjustable?
- (Corollary) Are Caster Levels on wondrous magic items a prerequisite?

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

Patryn, I really just don't understand this at all. What's the point of even saying you're flanking unless you want the +2 bonus?

I think when people ask whether ranged weapons facilitate flanking, they're really asking if they can get the +2 bonus. If your friend opposite is only able to make a ranged attack, then that person is not threatening, and you don't get a +2 bonus if you decide to make a melee attack.

Why would you still want to call it flanking?

Am I completely misreading you? I apologize in advance if I have missed something here.

Edit: Maybe you're thinking about things like using Sneak Attack...

OK, in that case, I can see your reasoning. I suppose that there is nothing in the rules that specifically says a person is only flanking if they qualify for the +2 flanking bonus to melee attacks. However, I must admit that in my opinion your position is a bit of a stretch. I think you have found a loophole that is correct according to the letter of the law but not its spirit. I think a plain reading of the Flanking section would be interpreted by the hypothetical reasonable observer as suggesting that you're only flanking when you qualify for the bonus.

Otherwise, the rule is a little bit silly. How could the defender be so distracted that a rogue can take his or her time to pick out just the right spot to attack, but not so distracted that the same rogue would have an easier time making that very attack?

Oh, and one more thing: If threatening was not a requirement for flanking, why would the rules specifically point out that creatures with 0 reach can't flank? After all, such creatures are perfectly capable of making ranged attacks from from opposing squares--they just can't threaten from opposing squares.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Patryn, I really just don't understand this at all. What's the point of even saying you're flanking unless you want the +2 bonus?

...

Edit: Maybe you're thinking about things like using Sneak Attack...

Exactly. And any other abilities that trigger on you flanking an opponent (I can't recall any off the top of my head, but I'm sure a feat or PrC somewhere mentions it).

There's also the fact that some abilities depend on you being flanked (at least one tactical feat that I can think of). If someone flanks you only when they get the bonus, then they flank you only during their turn, and only when they're actually attacking you (or on an AoO, but still limited to attacking you).

For instance:

The elusive target feat from Complete Warrior has an option called "diverting defence": "to use this manuver, you must be flanked and you must designate one of the flanking attackers to be affected by your dodge feat (dodge is a pre-requisite for the feat) the first attack of the round from the designated attacker automatically misses you and may strike the other flanking foe instead; the attacking creature makes an attack roll normally, and its ally is considered flat-footed. If the designated attacker is making a full attack against you, its second and subsequent attacks funtion normally."

If you are only flanking me while you make an attack, then I'm flanked only while you're making an attack, and there's no one else who is flanking. The rules text above is therefore nonsensical.

I suppose that there is nothing in the rules that specifically says a person is only flanking if they qualify for the +2 flanking bonus to melee attacks.

That's really where my argument stops.

Whether or not it's what they meant, that's what the rules say. I argue this position only as an exercise in the ancient art of "Huh ... I wonder if they meant to do that?" I don't actually expect anyone (let alone everyone) to adopt it.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Oh, and one more thing: If threatening was not a requirement for flanking, why would the rules specifically point out that creatures with 0 reach can't flank? After all, such creatures are perfectly capable of making ranged attacks from from opposing squares--they just can't threaten from opposing squares.

If you think that's weird, then consider the case of the poor, poor Grig Rogues (Tiny Fey).

Unless they get the drop on their opponents, two grigs cannot ever sneak attack anything - even another grig! They can't do this even in melee combat, regardless of how you feel about ranged flanking.

In short, I find the objection somewhat wanting.