Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Gryphon" data-source="post: 1846067" data-attributes="member: 17286">Looks like we might have to agree to disagree, but I'll also try again <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> 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.</blockquote>

Verification