who all is immune to flanking?

[Marimmar]

I really cannot believe what Hyp and Patryn are doing here. This is deliberately misinterpreting a rule to an extend that it doesn't make sense anymore, or worse allows for abuse.

Two archers each 30' apart, facing each other with a target between them do not flank a target exactly in the middle between them because:

1) Sentence 1 of the Flanking entry in the SRD gives the definition for Flanking rule. Sentence 2 and 3 are an explanation to sentence 1 not a definition. This is analogue to the other rules in the game, thus IMHO switching the definition with the explanation is not viable. This is even further confirmed by the fact that sentence 2-3 are separated from sentence 1 and the beginning of sentence 2, 'When in doubt...'

2) You cannot differentiate between Flanking and a Flanking Bonus because Flanking is just a Combat Modifier not a Condition, otherwise you would find an entry in the Conditions section of the SRD. Thus we find that it is just a modifier for melee attackers as per the table, just like being on high ground.

So no flanking for ranged attackers.

A question: Can reach weapon wielding companions set up a flanking position? IIRC according to the PHB examples it would be possible, according to the letter of the SRD Flanking rule it seems that you have to be touching your enemy's base to offer a flanking bonus to your friend.

~Marimmar

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Actually, no, Marimmar.

I'm not deliberately misinterpreting anything.

What I *am* doing is pointing out the fact that the 3.5 flanking rules were *revised*.

That means someone, somewhere, changed them deliberately to the current text.

In doing so, they left open the possibility of my interpretation.

In such a case, there are two possibilities:

1. It was a mistake; therefore, the rules on flanking need to be errated.
2. It was deliberate; therefore, everyone else needs to accept that the "melee attack only" no longer applies.

 

[Storm Raven]

1. It was a mistake; therefore, the rules on flanking need to be errated.

I'd gop with this, but with the caveat that if you read the rules sensibly, you don't need errata, just someone who isn't obfuscating the obvious like you seem wont to do.

 

[atom crash]

If you assume that since flanking was revised in v3.5 and hasn't been corrected in an errata file, then it must be a mistake, then perhaps Patryn is making things overly complicated.

However, if you prefer to assume that since flanking was revised in v3.5 and hasn't been corrected, then it must be deliberate, then his interpretation makes sense.

I prefer to assume that changes made in v3.5 were deliberate. Otherwise, what was the point of the v3.5 revision?

We don't assume that since the duration of invisibility was changed from 1 hour/level to 1 min./level -- a rather drastic change -- and hasn't been corrected, then it must be a mistake. So why should we make the same assumption with flanking?

FWIW, the most recent PHB 3.5 Errata file was updated 9/7/2004, more than a year since the release of the PHB 3.5.

 

[Hypersmurf]

2) You cannot differentiate between Flanking and a Flanking Bonus because Flanking is just a Combat Modifier not a Condition, otherwise you would find an entry in the Conditions section of the SRD. Thus we find that it is just a modifier for melee attackers as per the table, just like being on high ground.

I agree with this. But it does mean that as soon as you have two formians in a group, you can never flank them, since you are only flanking while making a melee attack according to this reading.

-Hyp.

 

[Marimmar@Home]

True Hyp, but I prefer to think that the wording of the Formian Hive Mind entry is inprecise since it uses flanking as if it was a condition. Even under 3.0 rules you were only flanking at the exact moment you conduct your attack so they were never 'flankable' in the first place.

But that's beside the point, I was just a bit annoyed about the archer example and the differentiation of flanking and flanking bonus and wanted to vent a bit steam since it struck me as extremely far fetched.

As for the rephrasing of the Flanking entry. I have to admit that the 3.0 wording was potentially less maliciously interpretable.

~Marimmar

 

[Judas]

So let me see if I have this straight.

I have a Fighter in melee combat with an Gnoll. My Rogue is 30 behind the gnoll, and gets ready to shoot the Gnoll with his bow. The line drawn between the center of the Fighter and the Rogue cross opposite sides of the Gnoll's square, thereby determining the Gnoll is "Flanked". The Fighter does not get the +2 Flank bonus to hit because his ally, the Rogue, is not directly opposite the Gnoll. The Rogue also does not get the +2 Flank bonus to hit, since he is not attacking with a melee weapon, even though his ally the Fighter is directly opposite and using a meele wepaon to threaten the Gnoll. The Rogue however does get to apply his SA damage to the arrow because he is Flanking and within 30 feet.

Is this the point you are trying to make?

The Rogue not only does NOT get the +2 Flank bonus, he gets -4 penalty because he's shooting at an opponent that is engaged in melee combat with an ally. -3 penalty if the Rogue has point blank shot, and no penalty if he has precise shot.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

An important point needs to be addressed, since Gryph's argument lies in large part on the following text (since it is a modifier to the SRD's answer to the question "when are you 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.

Great.

So, do you then change this ruling as soon as someone picks up a longspear?

Or how about a giant? They have reach, as well.

So, if "directly across" means touching bases, as you say it must, then the above characters cannot flank under most circumstances. The diagrams in the PHB would argue otherwise, since they explicitly show someone flanking with a longspear who is not base-to-base with his target.

Therefore, "base-to-base" cannot be the only acceptable definition of "directly between."