Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What are the biggest rules debates?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Vigwyn the Unruly" data-source="post: 2479659" data-attributes="member: 20345"><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Why would you still want to call it flanking?</p><p></p><p>Am I completely misreading you? I apologize in advance if I have missed something here.</p><p></p><p><strong>Edit:</strong> Maybe you're thinking about things like using Sneak Attack...</p><p></p><p>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. <em>However</em>, 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 <em>plain reading</em> of the Flanking section would be interpreted by the hypothetical <em>reasonable observer</em> as suggesting that you're only flanking when you qualify for the bonus.</p><p></p><p>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? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Vigwyn the Unruly, post: 2479659, member: 20345"] 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. [b]Edit:[/b] 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. [i]However[/i], 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 [i]plain reading[/i] of the Flanking section would be interpreted by the hypothetical [i]reasonable observer[/i] 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? :p 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What are the biggest rules debates?
Top