who all is immune to flanking?

[Hypersmurf]

With all due respect, I think you're wrong about the flanking thing. You don't have to be attacking to be flanking, you only have to be attacking to get the flanking bonus.

That same argument can be used to say that if I'm a rogue with a shortbow, 30 feet from an orc, and I have an ally a hundred feet away from the orc but on the opposite side, then I can sneak attack (since I am flanking and within 30 feet), but I can't get a +2 flanking bonus (since I'm not making a melee attack and my ally doesn't threaten).

The 3E wording was much better: "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."

So, the opponent can be flanked even if neither of the flankers is attacking; they only have to threaten.

The text you've quoted doesn't mention threatening at all. By the argument you're taking, threatening is only required to gain the flanking bonus, but not to flank, just like the 'making a melee attack'.

-Hyp.

 

[The Gryphon]

Hypersmurf,

The paragraph/sentence previous to the one Vigwyn posted from the SRD reads:

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.

Which reads with the same intent as the 3.0 version, while the paragraph Vigwyn quoted explains the rules for deciding if two friendly creatures are flanking a target. Which based on the previous paragraph quoted can only happen in melee combat, exactly the same as 3.0, therefore your example is flawed.

If you check the definition of "flank" in the glossary of the PHB it says "To be directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another character. A flanking attacker gains a +2 flanking bonus on attack rolls against the defender."

Note the word "attacker". IMO this means that a character can be flanked without being attacked, but an attacker gains a benefit from this situation.

IMO Vigwyn is therefore correct in that you don't have to be attacking to flank an opponent, just threatening it. The +2 flanking bonus is only relevant if one or both characters engage the flanked creature in melee.

 

[andargor]

This is a handy reference to have, so I'll list what I see here and in the SRD.

Cannot be flanked:

• Elementals
• Oozes, including Oozelike monsters such as the Phaeton
• Swarms
• Xorns, Tojanidas and other creatures with All-Around Vision (Ex)
• Worm that Walks
• Under the effect of the Ubiquitous Vision power
• Eyes in the Back of your Head feat
• Wearing a Robe of Eyes
• (Improved) Uncanny Dodge feat or class ability
• Formians
• Gibbering Mouthers, Phasms and other creatures with Amorphous (Ex)
• A diety with the Battlesense salient ability
• Opponent is Tiny, Diminutive or Fine

Andargor

 

[Zodar]

One minor gripe with your post Andargor:

The feat 'Eyes in the back of your head' only denies the flanking attacker his +2 bonus to hit you, but still lets you be flanked. Otherwise it would be uncanny dodge as a feat.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

That's right.

When do you get a flanking bonus? When a/ you're making a melee attack, and b/ your ally threatens.

When are two creatures flanking? When you can draw a line between them through opposite borders.

Notice that the requirement for threatening, in the Flanking section of the 3.5 PHB, only applies to the bonus, not to the question of whether you're flanking... just like the requirement of a melee attack.

Which reads with the same intent as the 3.0 version, while the paragraph Vigwyn quoted explains the rules for deciding if two friendly creatures are flanking a target. Which based on the previous paragraph quoted can only happen in melee combat, exactly the same as 3.0, therefore your example is flawed.

No, based on the previous paragraph, only the bonus can occur in melee combat.

If you check the definition of "flank" in the glossary of the PHB it says "To be directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another character. A flanking attacker gains a +2 flanking bonus on attack rolls against the defender."

Note the word "attacker". IMO this means that a character can be flanked without being attacked, but an attacker gains a benefit from this situation.

IMO Vigwyn is therefore correct in that you don't have to be attacking to flank an opponent, just threatening it. The +2 flanking bonus is only relevant if one or both characters engage the flanked creature in melee.

The glossary does seem to contain additional information that doesn't appear in the main text - that to be flanking, the ally must threaten. But it still doesn't exclude the possibility of a rogue who is directly on the other side - but thirty feet away - from flanking with a ranged weapon and sneak attacking. He doesn't get the +2 bonus, since he isn't making a melee attack, but if we are separating 'flanking' from 'eligible for +2 bonus', he doesn't need to make a melee attack to be considered flanking, and sneak attack is contingent upon 'flanking'... not upon 'receives a +2 flanking bonus'.

-Hyp.

 

[Particle_Man]

re: formians, what if all the flankers except the slowest flanker delay their actions so that all the flankers strike simultaneously?

 

[Particle_Man]

Also, the Formian description may show a difference between the intention of the writers and the strict letter of the rules. I would assume that the writers intended for it to be possible for formians to be flanked if enough people were around them. I also extrapolate that people are to be considered flanked if two people are around them, threatening them in a meelee kinda way, etc. In this I feel I am both going against the strict letter of the rules and applying the intended spirit of the rules, and freely choose the latter. I am not sure that would even count as a house rule, although those who consider the letter of the rules to always trump designer intentions that can be concluded from the text would consider my interpretation to be a house rule. Whatever.

 

[Hypersmurf]

re: formians, what if all the flankers except the slowest flanker delay their actions so that all the flankers strike simultaneously?

They still end up going one at a time.

-Hyp.

 

[The Gryphon]

The glossary does seem to contain additional information that doesn't appear in the main text - that to be flanking, the ally must threaten. But it still doesn't exclude the possibility of a rogue who is directly on the other side - but thirty feet away - from flanking with a ranged weapon and sneak attacking. He doesn't get the +2 bonus, since he isn't making a melee attack, but if we are separating 'flanking' from 'eligible for +2 bonus', he doesn't need to make a melee attack to be considered flanking, and sneak attack is contingent upon 'flanking'... not upon 'receives a +2 flanking bonus'.

To quote "threaten" also from the glossary "To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space. A creature typically threatens all squares within its natural reach, even when it is not its turn to take an action."

Therefore the rogue 30 ft. away with a bow, which itself can't threaten anyone as a bow is not a melee weapon, isn't threatening the target.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

He doesn't need to, because the rules don't mention that you need to threaten your opponent in order to flank him.

Specifically, the rules very clearly define:

1. A rogue may sneak attack when he / she is flanking.
2a. A creature who is flanking gets a +2 flanking bonus on melee attack rolls.
2b. In order to get a flanking bonus, the ally on the opposite side of your target must threaten your opponent.

The rules do not very clearly define:

1. The state of flanking.
2. The state of being flanked.

Seriously, Hyp and I went back and forth on this awhile back. You can find it under a thread called "Sneak Attacks with a Wand of Acid Splash" or something similar.

We went back and forth because I maintained that, despite the fact that he was using a wand against a creature he threatened, the Rogue should be allowed his SA damage.

Hyp disagreed, and we eventually settled on the fact that the RAW aren't terribly clear on the point.

Look it up, if you can - it was a good thread.