who all is immune to flanking?

[Particle_Man]

They still end up going one at a time.

-Hyp.

If that is true, I am invoking rule zero right now. The idea of two spring attacking rogues timing their attacks to nip in, get flanking on an opponent, and nip out again, is simply too cool not to be allowed.

 

[The Gryphon]

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.

You two might have agreed, but I don't find flanking is that poorly defined

Friendly creatures can only flank an opponent if they are on the opponent's opposite border or opposite corner, and then only creatures that threaten the opponent can be considered for flanking.

You can only threaten a square if you're armed, and being armed is limited to the following methods: armed with a melee weapon or by armed unarmed attacks which are a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with claws, fangs, and similar natural physical weapons. You are not considered armed if the method you are using to attack can provoke an AoO in melee combat.

What I think throws a few people is the fact that the example for the +2 flanking bonus (which you only get while flanking an opponent and attacking the opponent you're flanking), only specifically states that the other creature must be threatening the opponent. What some people seem to miss is that by attacking with a melee weapon the attacker in the example is also threatening the opponent. Thus they are both threatening and flanking the opponent, but the character who is only listed as threatening has possibly decided not to attack that particular opponent.

Maybe that will clear it all up

If not check the diagrams on pages 152 and 153 of the 3.5 PHB. Note there are NO examples of a creature flanking an opponent if they don't threaten it in melee combat.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You two might have agreed, but I don't find flanking is that poorly defined

Well, if you don't believe me by now, you probably won't after this, but I'll try anyway...

Friendly creatures can only flank an opponent if they are on the opponent's opposite border or opposite corner, and then only creatures that threaten the opponent can be considered for flanking.

Actually:

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.

When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.

Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent.

So...

1. You get a flanking bonus to melee attack rolls if the opponent is threatened by the guy opposite you.
2. To determine flanking, draw a line between the two "flankers-to-be." If it crosses opposite borders / corners, then the opponent is flanked.
3. You can't get a flanking bonus unless the other guy threatens your opponent.

Note that the only flanking bonus mentioned is a +2 flanking bonus on melee attack rolls. That means the last statement is redundant, as it repeats the first statement in slightly different words.

Note, also, that none of the statements specificy that *you* must threaten your opponent.

Therefore, the rest of this paragraph:

You can only threaten a square if you're armed ...

Doesn't matter.

What I think throws a few people is the fact that the example for the +2 flanking bonus (which you only get while flanking an opponent and attacking the opponent you're flanking), only specifically states that the other creature must be threatening the opponent. What some people seem to miss is that by attacking with a melee weapon the attacker in the example is also threatening the opponent.

Actually, what *you* are missing is that nowhere does it say that you must also threaten your opponent - merely that the flanking bonus to hit only applies on melee attacks, and then only when your compatriot is also threatening.

Therefore, two rogues, one 25' East of a goblin, and one 25' west of a goblin, are flanking that goblin - the line between them "passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders)," so therefore "the opponent is flanked."

Neither would receive a +2 flanking bonus on his or her to hit roll - since the ally opposite does not threaten - but both would be eligible to do sneak attack damage:

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.
...
Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

I sense that you are about to make the argument that you are only flanking when you receive for the +2 flanking bonus on your to hit roll.

There are problems with such a line of reasoning, however.

For example:

Another combat modifier is the -4 / - penalty (melee / ranged) assigned for being prone. If your argument above - that you are only flanking when you receive the +2 flanking bonus on your to hit roll - is true, then a character is only prone when he receives the -4 penalty on his melee attacks.

This is obviously not the case, so it must be true that it is possible for a condition to exist - flanking, prone, higher ground, whatever - even if all the modifiers of that condition do not currently apply. Similarly, a person may be flanking even if all the modifiers of the flanking condition - in this case, a +2 flanking bonus on melee to hit rolls - are not actively applied.

Moreover, as Hyp has pointed out, if you argue that the definition of flanking is dependent on the attacker receiving the bonus, you have a problem with the hive mind creatures. Since only one creature may attack at any given moment in time, only one creature may be flanking at any given moment in time, and thus 2 formians (et. al.) can never be flanked - it is impossible to meet the "all formians must be flanked in order for any to be flanked" condition.

If not check the diagrams on pages 152 and 153 of the 3.5 PHB. Note there are NO examples of a creature flanking an opponent if they don't threaten it in melee combat.

Immaterial; there are no diagrams of a character jumping from a roof provoking an AoO for movement, either.

 

[The Gryphon]

Well, if you don't believe me by now, you probably won't after this, but I'll try anyway...

So...

1. You get a flanking bonus to melee attack rolls if the opponent is threatened by the guy opposite you.
2. To determine flanking, draw a line between the two "flankers-to-be." If it crosses opposite borders / corners, then the opponent is flanked.
3. You can't get a flanking bonus unless the other guy threatens your opponent.

Note that the only flanking bonus mentioned is a +2 flanking bonus on melee attack rolls. That means the last statement is redundant, as it repeats the first statement in slightly different words.

Note, also, that none of the statements specificy that *you* must threaten your opponent.

Therefore, the rest of this paragraph:

Doesn't matter.

Actually, what *you* are missing is that nowhere does it say that you must also threaten your opponent - merely that the flanking bonus to hit only applies on melee attacks, and then only when your compatriot is also threatening.

Therefore, two rogues, one 25' East of a goblin, and one 25' west of a goblin, are flanking that goblin - the line between them "passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders)," so therefore "the opponent is flanked."

Neither would receive a +2 flanking bonus on his or her to hit roll - since the ally opposite does not threaten - but both would be eligible to do sneak attack damage:

I sense that you are about to make the argument that you are only flanking when you receive for the +2 flanking bonus on your to hit roll.

There are problems with such a line of reasoning, however.

For example:

Another combat modifier is the -4 / - penalty (melee / ranged) assigned for being prone. If your argument above - that you are only flanking when you receive the +2 flanking bonus on your to hit roll - is true, then a character is only prone when he receives the -4 penalty on his melee attacks.

This is obviously not the case, so it must be true that it is possible for a condition to exist - flanking, prone, higher ground, whatever - even if all the modifiers of that condition do not currently apply. Similarly, a person may be flanking even if all the modifiers of the flanking condition - in this case, a +2 flanking bonus on melee to hit rolls - are not actively applied.

Moreover, as Hyp has pointed out, if you argue that the definition of flanking is dependent on the attacker receiving the bonus, you have a problem with the hive mind creatures. Since only one creature may attack at any given moment in time, only one creature may be flanking at any given moment in time, and thus 2 formians (et. al.) can never be flanked - it is impossible to meet the "all formians must be flanked in order for any to be flanked" condition.

Immaterial; there are no diagrams of a character jumping from a roof provoking an AoO for movement, either.

Looks like we might have to agree to disagree, but I'll also try again

First I'll refer back to the 3.0 flanking text: If you are making a melee attack against a creature, and an ally directly opposite you is threatening the creature, you and your ally flank the creature. You gain a +2 flanking bonus on your attack roll. A rogue in this position can also sneak attack the target. The ally must be on the other side of the defender, so that the defender is directly between you.

Now from the 3.5 SRD: 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.
When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent.

Both versions of the text ONLY refer to flanking a target in melee combat. In the 3.0 version it specifically refers to flanking a target before stating the situational modifier you receive from the situation. You'll also note in the 3.5 version that the exception specifies that if a flanker takes up more than 1 square it gets the flanking bonus if any suqare it occupies COUNTS for flanking, and that a creature with a reach of 0 feet CANNOT flank an opponent. Therefore it is logical that you can only flank an opponent in melee combat, otherwise a creature with a reach of 0 feet could flank with a bow.

Of course the text doesn't specifically say you need to threaten the target, because by being able to make a melee attack on the target you are already obviously threatening it.

Even if you don't believe my conclusion about the text as written in the PHBs, your example of two archers flanking an opponent is impossible as at least one of them by your own statements must threaten the opponent to allow the other to flank it. Just because a rogue can make a sneak attack at a range of up to 30 feet does not mean that they can flank a target while not using a melee attack.

There is no problem with my line of reasoning as your prone combat modifier example is flawed. If a character is prone then they are prone, but if that character does decide to make a melee attack then they suffer the -4 penalty as a situational modifier to their attack roll. This is exactly the same with flanking. I've never said you're only flanking when you receive the +2 flanking bonus, what I have said is that if you attack a creature while flanking it you receive the +2 flanking bonus which is again a situational modifier.

Your formian arguement also doesn't hold. As I've said above you can flank without gaining the +2 flanking bonus, as the +2 flanking bonus only applies against a creature YOU attack which IS flanked. If for example you have four creatures on your corner squares and they each have one of your allies on their corner square farthest from you then you are flanked by all four enemies, and they are each flanked by you and one of your allies. Whichever creature you attack you gain the +2 flanking bonus against it because you are flanking it and attacking it.

As for the diagrams being immaterial just because they don't represent your viewpoint, that's just wrong.

Anyway this is my last post on the subject as if this doesn't convince you nothing ever will.

 

[glass]

I think I agree with Hyp on this issue, but I am not sure and could be persuaded othewrwise. However...

Of course the text doesn't specifically say you need to threaten the target, because by being able to make a melee attack on the target you are already obviously threatening it.

...statements as obviously wrong as this on torpedo your whole argument, and make assertions like...

Anyway this is my last post on the subject as if this doesn't convince you nothing ever will.

...truly laughable.



glass.

 

[atom crash]

Originally posted by The Gryphon
You two might have agreed, but I don't find flanking is that poorly defined

Gryphon, you refer back to the text of the 3.0 PHB in part to support your definition of flanking. However, the text on flanking was changed -- rather dramatically, yet not very impressively -- in 3.5.

If you are of the belief that the changes in 3.5 were intentional, then it begs the question "why." If the 3.5 wording of flanking was changed for a reason, then that nullifies any support from the 3.0 wording. If the 3.0 version was so clear, why was it so revised in 3.5?

And if you are of the belief that the designers just simply messed up when they changed the wording on flanking in 3.5, then that sort of nullifies the argument as well.

Originally posted by glass
I think I agree with Hyp on this issue, but I am not sure and could be persuaded otherwise

I'm with Patryn on this one, for the most part, but I'm also not completely sure. Again, I find it frustrating that flanking seemed so much clearer in 3.0. Version 3.5 was supposed to clarify combat, so why is flanking still so murky?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

First I'll refer back to the 3.0 flanking text:

Yes, in 3.0 it was pretty clear that you were only flanking when you attacked. However, this makes it impossible in 3.0 to ever flank a formian (no two people can attack at the same time, so all formians in combat can never be flanked simultaneously).

We are not, however, discussing the 3.0 rules at the moment, and therefore the text of the rule in 3.0 doesn't really matter, because it was *changed*.

So, were the changes *oversight* or *deliberate*?

Both versions of the text ONLY refer to flanking a target in melee combat.

Incorrect. The 3.0 version specifically calls out that you are flanking *only* when making a melee attack.

The 3.5 version specifically calls out that you only get a +2 bonus on your attack roll when making a melee attack.

Notice the subtle, yet important, difference?

You'll also note in the 3.5 version that the exception specifies that if a flanker takes up more than 1 square it gets the flanking bonus if any suqare it occupies COUNTS for flanking, and that a creature with a reach of 0 feet CANNOT flank an opponent. Therefore it is logical that you can only flank an opponent in melee combat, otherwise a creature with a reach of 0 feet could flank with a bow.

The "logical conclusion" you state does not flow from the rules.

It *does* flow from the 3.0 rules. It does not flow from the 3.5 rules.

Of course the text doesn't specifically say you need to threaten the target, because by being able to make a melee attack on the target you are already obviously threatening it.

And nowhere in the 3.5 rules does it say you need to make a melee attack in order to flank.

It does, however, say that if you are making a melee attack while flanking, you get a bonus on your attack roll.

Again, notice the difference between the two rulesets?

Even if you don't believe my conclusion about the text as written in the PHBs, your example of two archers flanking an opponent is impossible as at least one of them by your own statements must threaten the opponent to allow the other to flank it.

Not true. One or the other must threaten the target to grant a flanking bonus - and the only "flanking bonus" defined is a +2 on melee attack rolls.

Nowhere do the 3.5 rules state that you must threaten someone in order to flank them.

Note that in both cases - 3.0 and 3.5 - it is completely impossible for two grigs (a type of tiny fey) to flank a third under any circumstances.

Just because a rogue can make a sneak attack at a range of up to 30 feet does not mean that they can flank a target while not using a melee attack.

So sayeth you. The rules do not specify this, however - at least, not in 3.5.

There is no problem with my line of reasoning as your prone combat modifier example is flawed. If a character is prone then they are prone, but if that character does decide to make a melee attack then they suffer the -4 penalty as a situational modifier to their attack roll. This is exactly the same with flanking. I've never said you're only flanking when you receive the +2 flanking bonus, what I have said is that if you attack a creature while flanking it you receive the +2 flanking bonus which is again a situational modifier.

There is no problem with my line of reasoning, as your rebuttal is flawed.

If a character is flanking, then they are flanking, and if that character does decide to make a melee attack then they get a +2 flanking bonus as a modifier to their attack roll. This is exactly the same with being prone. I've never said you were only prone when you receive the -4 penalty, what I have said is that if you attack a creature while prone, you receive a -4 penalty, which is, again, a situational modifier.

The two logic flows are in parallel.

If prone, then -4 on melee attacks, even if you don't make any melee attacks.
If flanking, then +2 on melee attacks, even if you don't make any melee attacks.

In neither case is the status - flanking or prone - dependent upon the attack roll modifiers.

You are prone when you are knocked onto the ground (or drop willingly).
You are flanking when a line ... etc. - excepting that you are are a creature with reach 0, since they are specifically excluded from flanking (even against other reach 0 creatures, in both 3.0 and 3.5)).

As I've said above you can flank without gaining the +2 flanking bonus, as the +2 flanking bonus only applies against a creature YOU attack which IS flanked.

Exactly. Specifically, the bonus only applies against a creature YOU attack in melee.

Thus, you can flank without gaining the +2 flanking bonus, and my point is accepted by you.

As for the diagrams being immaterial just because they don't represent your viewpoint, that's just wrong.

They are no immaterial because the don't represent my viewpoint, they are immaterial because they are *not* an exhaustive, comprehensive list of occasions in which flanking can occur, just as the AoO diagrams are not an exhaustive, comprehensive list of occasions in which an AoO can occur.

The are select examples. They are a subset of all possible occurrences.

Anyway this is my last post on the subject as if this doesn't convince you nothing ever will.

Awwww... Gonna take your ball and go home, huh?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Nowhere do the 3.5 rules state that you must threaten someone in order to flank them.

Someone earlier noted that the Glossary definition of flank does suggest that the ally must threaten. (But it still doesn't require the attacker to threaten )

Awwww... Gonna take your ball and go home, huh?

[moderator] Don't do that. [/moderator]

-Hyp.

 

[The Gryphon]

Yes, in 3.0 it was pretty clear that you were only flanking when you attacked. However, this makes it impossible in 3.0 to ever flank a formian (no two people can attack at the same time, so all formians in combat can never be flanked simultaneously).

Flanking itself has nothing specific to do with attacking, flanking is two friendly characters on opposite sides of a creature both of which are threatening that creature.

Incorrect. The 3.0 version specifically calls out that you are flanking *only* when making a melee attack.

The 3.5 version specifically calls out that you only get a +2 bonus on your attack roll when making a melee attack.

Notice the subtle, yet important, difference?

Yes the subtle yet important difference is that the second sentence in the 3.0 version of flanking was added directly to the first sentence of the 3.0 version of flanking, when it was revised to 3.5 as the first sentence.

And nowhere in the 3.5 rules does it say you need to make a melee attack in order to flank.

It does, however, say that if you are making a melee attack while flanking, you get a bonus on your attack roll.

Again, notice the difference between the two rulesets?

Ah, the it doesn't say that defence. It also doesn't specifically say you can flank outside of melee combat, or you can't flank while casting a ranged spell, or that you can't flank just by being there within sight of the creature.

Perhaps it does not mention or show examples of flanking other than in melee combat because perhaps you can only flank in melee combat. Call it a stretch, call it a flight of fancy if you wish, but it is possible.

Not true. One or the other must threaten the target to grant a flanking bonus - and the only "flanking bonus" defined is a +2 on melee attack rolls.

Nowhere do the 3.5 rules state that you must threaten someone in order to flank them.

Note that in both cases - 3.0 and 3.5 - it is completely impossible for two grigs (a type of tiny fey) to flank a third under any circumstances.

To quote the glossary definition of flank again: 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. A rogue can sneak attack a defender that she is flanking.

Lets analyze this. To be directly other the other side of a character, now if I said I was directly on the other side of the door from you I'd be standing right on the other side of the door correct, not 30 feet up the corridor or on the opposite side of the room from the door? Therefore stands to reason I'd use the term exactly the same in this circumstance.

Note the text doesn't say directly in line, but directly on the other side. The text explaining how to assess if you are directly on the other side is the second paragraph of the flanking text (page 152 PHB), which in 3.0 was just stated as on the opposite side.

Nowhere in the flanking text I listed for the 3.0 version, which was all of it, did it exclude a creature with 0 reach from flanking a target. Just one question which I mentioned before. If flanking with bows was allowed why would a creature with 0 reach be penalised?

There is no problem with my line of reasoning, as your rebuttal is flawed.

If a character is flanking, then they are flanking, and if that character does decide to make a melee attack then they get a +2 flanking bonus as a modifier to their attack roll. This is exactly the same with being prone. I've never said you were only prone when you receive the -4 penalty, what I have said is that if you attack a creature while prone, you receive a -4 penalty, which is, again, a situational modifier.

The two logic flows are in parallel.

If prone, then -4 on melee attacks, even if you don't make any melee attacks.
If flanking, then +2 on melee attacks, even if you don't make any melee attacks.

In neither case is the status - flanking or prone - dependent upon the attack roll modifiers.

You are prone when you are knocked onto the ground (or drop willingly).
You are flanking when a line ... etc. - excepting that you are are a creature with reach 0, since they are specifically excluded from flanking (even against other reach 0 creatures, in both 3.0 and 3.5)).

Exactly what I said. You keep telling me I'm saying that you can only be in the situation if you have the modifier...while what I've said time and time again is that you can be in the situation and the modifier only applies if you try to execute an action that the modifier is apropriate for.

See the subtle difference in the statements?

Exactly. Specifically, the bonus only applies against a creature YOU attack in melee.

Thus, you can flank without gaining the +2 flanking bonus, and my point is accepted by you.

How can I accept your point, when it's what I've said from the start.

Awwww... Gonna take your ball and go home, huh?

Never my ball if in the first place, I was just kicking it around a bit. I said I wasn't going to make another post because I didn't think I could make a more compelling arguement, obviously now I think that's untrue

Now to leave you with a final thought, and please take a moment to think about this before dismissing it. Look at table 8-5: Attack Roll Modifiers (page 151 PHB or just Attack Roll Modifiers in the combatII SRD document), notice the Flanking Defender modifier for ranged is -- which means the option cannot be attempted. Note that the only other option with a -- is the Prone ranged modifier, which has a conditional attached that allows specific ranged weapons.

Maybe this last thing will convince everyone? Personally I wish I'd see it earlier, as it would have made for a much shorter series of posts

 

[Hypersmurf]

Flanking itself has nothing specific to do with attacking, flanking is two friendly characters on opposite sides of a creature both of which are threatening that creature.

No, only the ally needs to threaten. You can gain the flanking bonus with an unarmed strike or a whip, for example, since they are melee attacks... even though you don't threaten.

Nowhere is there a requirement for the attacker to threaten. Only the ally.

-Hyp.