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: 1847489" data-attributes="member: 17286">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.   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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  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.  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?  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?  How can I accept your point, when it's what I've said from the start. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> 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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification