[3.5] Flanking with myself

[Thurbane]

From the FAQ thread:

Q 310

Is there any way to flank with yourself (i.e. not using another creature, or Bag of Tricks etc.)? At higher levels, would Trickery Devotion allow you to do this?

A 310

Curmudgeon will tell you that you can never flank with yourself, as the glossary definition of flank says "with an ally" or something of that nature. The actual rules text for flanking (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#flanking) does not include that language, so the topic is still up for debate. There is a feat, called Adaptable Flanker, in PHB II, that could theoretically let you flank with yourself if you had the reach.
Is using the Adaptable Flanker feat + reach actually legal? Would the Knowledge Devotion feat do the trick? Is there some other way, apart from using a Bag of Tricks or other form of summoning?

Cheers - T

[Glimbur]

There's a Desert Wind maneuver that, as a Swift action, summons a fire elemental for just long enough for it to flank with you.

[Haven]

If you're a Crusader or Warblade, the Clarion Commander tactical feat lets you (and your allies) treat an opponent as flanked for 10 rounds if you make a DC 20 Intimidate check as a standard action, and then successfully hit him with a melee attack on your next turn.

[Grynning]

Is using the Adaptable Flanker feat + reach actually legal? T

To continue my answer:
This has come up many times on the RAW thread, and the answer is consistently "probably not, but maybe." Most other things in the books referring to flanking make it pretty clear that you can only flank if there's another creature to flank with, but again, the actual rules text just says "if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner." You are a character friendly to yourself, so by a very, very narrow reading of RAW, yes, you can flank with yourself with Adaptable Flanker. I don't know if the 3.5 rules compendium bothered to clarify this, I never bought it because I mostly play 4th now.

Also...I now have this song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VNx78SAq8M) stuck in my head. "Flankin with my-self, ooohhoo, flankin with myse-elf..."

[Thurbane]

Also...I now have this song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VNx78SAq8M) stuck in my head. "Flankin with my-self, ooohhoo, flankin with myse-elf..."
That's exactly the song I was thinking of when posting! :smallbiggrin:

[Grynning]

Well, at least I don't take full blame for the Billy Idol mind-virus now :smalltongue:

[Curmudgeon]

The official answer is clear, and always comes down to two things.

1) This Glossary entry (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_flank&alpha=F)
flank

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. 2) The Primary Sources rule:
Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. All part of the Player's Handbook, including the Glossary, are primary source rules for how to play the game, including the rules for flanking. Players Handbook II is a secondary source. In all conflicts the primary source wins. Adaptable Flanker doesn't let you flank by yourself because you still need another character.

[kjones]

Doesn't Island of Blades, a Diamond Mind stance, allow you to flank with yourself?

[Tavar]

It's a shadow hand stance, and it specifies you and an Ally.

[Grynning]

The official answer is clear, and always comes down to two things.

1) This Glossary entry (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_flank&alpha=F) 2) The Primary Sources rule: All part of the Player's Handbook, including the Glossary, are primary source rules for how to play the game, including the rules for flanking. Players Handbook II is a secondary source. In all conflicts the primary source wins. Adaptable Flanker doesn't let you flank by yourself because you still need another character.

The problem is that you're arguing that one definition of flanking from a primary source (the PHB glossary) supersedes a different definition from the same primary source (the PHB combat rules). The primary source is contradictory, so there can be no clear answer.

I personally agree that Adaptable Flanker should not let you flank with yourself since it's pretty clear that's not what the feat is intended to do. However, one cannot defend this as a RAW position because the RAW literally says two different things. You can't just disregard one of the definitions because it contradicts what you believe; that's a specious argument.


It's a shadow hand stance, and it specifies you and an Ally.

In 3.5, you are your own ally. Things like this are exactly the reason why 4th ed. very specifically defined "ally" to not include yourself.

[kjones]

It's a shadow hand stance, and it specifies you and an Ally.

I'd like to think that I'm my own Ally... :smalltongue:

Isn't this the same wording that borked up White Raven Tactics?

[Lycanthromancer]

Someone with ranks in Use Psionic Device and a power stone of fission.

[Tavar]

Yes, though in this case it's a bit clearer. White raven tactics says you can give an ally an extra turn(effectively). Island of Blades, however says "both you and an ally are adjacent", so there must be at least 2 people involved. Well, I guess if you're that race that has 2 bodies there could be an argument, but otherwise it's pretty clear cut.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Yes, though in this case it's a bit clearer. White raven tactics says you can give an ally an extra turn(effectively). Island of Blades, however says "both you and an ally are adjacent", so there must be at least 2 people involved. Well, I guess if you're that race that has 2 bodies there could be an argument, but otherwise it's pretty clear cut.The Dvati make that argument a necessity.

[Tavar]

The Dvati make that argument a necessity.

Exactly what I was thinking about. Couldn't remember the exact name.

[Curmudgeon]

The problem is that you're arguing that one definition of flanking from a primary source (the PHB glossary) supersedes a different definition from the same primary source (the PHB combat rules). There's no "superseding", merely a clarification.
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.
flank

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. As it's extremely difficult for one character to be on opposite sides of an enemy simultaneously, the main text talking about flanking doesn't go into that situation. But the Glossary entry does clarify that they mean two different characters for flanking to apply.

[Lycanthromancer]

There's no "superseding", merely a clarification. As it's extremely difficult for one character to be on opposite sides of an enemy simultaneously, the main text talking about flanking doesn't go into that situation. But the Glossary entry does clarify that they mean two different characters for flanking to apply.

A Huge creature could do it, if it was sharing the other creature's space.

[Grynning]

The combat rules are the first place the term "flanking" is defined. The glossary definition is a shorter summation of that definition. Your entire argument hinges on the use of the word "another" in the glossary definition; since the combat rules do NOT specify "another" character or creature friendly to you, if you take the glossary definition as correct, you are saying the combat rules are wrong.

If there was actual Errata that was a clarification or substitution for the combat rules text that specified it had to be "another" creature to flank with, you would be correct. The glossary is not errata.

Anyways, I know you've been round and round this topic before, and seeing as how these are rules for a "let's pretend" game, it's difficult to settle the argument with philosophical logic.

[Curmudgeon]

A Huge creature could do it, if it was sharing the other creature's space.
And hence the clarification, probably just for that sort of situation.

[Thurbane]

There's no "superseding", merely a clarification. As it's extremely difficult for one character to be on opposite sides of an enemy simultaneously, the main text talking about flanking doesn't go into that situation. But the Glossary entry does clarify that they mean two different characters for flanking to apply.
So how does that interract with the Davrti, or the Trickery Devotion feat?

[Draz74]

If you're a Crusader or Warblade, the Clarion Commander tactical feat lets you (and your allies) treat an opponent as flanked for 10 rounds if you make a DC 20 Intimidate check as a standard action, and then successfully hit him with a melee attack on your next turn.

This kind of settles part of the issue, I should think. Yes, you can flank without another creature in some circumstances.

[Curmudgeon]

The combat rules are the first place the term "flanking" is defined. The glossary definition is a shorter summation of that definition. ... if you take the glossary definition as correct, you are saying the combat rules are wrong.
Not true at all. I'm saying they wrote the same things with slightly different language in those two places. They didn't even consider that the language they used in one place could be ambiguous, because there are no PC options in the Player's Handbook to allow a character to be on opposite sides of an enemy simultaneously. You're taking an ambiguity in one place to be a difference when one doesn't actually exist.

Oh, and the first definition of the term might be an issue in other contexts, but in D&D, because of the way WotC has defined their Primary Sources rule it makes no matter.

So how does that interract with the Davrti, or the Trickery Devotion feat?
That's going to be a DM's judgment call.
A dvati character is actually two separate dvati twins who share a soul. These two creatures move and act separately but have a number of restrictions based on their connection.
...
The twins do not progress at a different rate, nor do they split XP between them. Rather, each has an identical XP total. When dividing XP among characters, a dvati counts as one PC. If they have to progress as one creature, and cast spells as one creature, it makes sense that they would flank as one creature -- so the pair would need help from another creature. Their specific rules keep them from being able to flank together. Or at least that's my take; ask your DM.

As far as the Travel Devotion simulacrum, at 15th level it's "real" enough to operate as a character. This seems to me not much different from using Dominate Person to control someone to help you flank a target.

[Cieyrin]

That's going to be a DM's judgment call. If they have to progress as one creature, and cast spells as one creature, it makes sense that they would flank as one creature -- so the pair would need help from another creature. Their specific rules keep them from being able to flank together. Or at least that's my take; ask your DM.

If you look later on at Echo Attack and Pair Link, they specifically talk about the Dvati twins flanking a target to use said abilities. These abilities would be useless if they could not flank the target between the twins.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

The spell Phantom Menace Threat from the same book that Hexblades are from.

[Crafty Cultist]

The wu-jen spell body outside body lets you create copies with 1/4 your hit points and no spellcasting ability. And if you have sneak attack, so do they:smallbiggrin:

[daggaz]

You all gotta be kidding, right? It is quite clear that when it says "a character or creature friendly to you". Both the subjects are treated by the adjective, friendly. You cant, by definition, be friendly to yourself, as the term refers to diplomatic relations between two subjects. Ergo, the combat rules do NOT in any way seem to allow self-flanking. The glossary language just nails this whole argument shut.

Taking it a step further, you can put on your DM hat and think about the fluff of it (which believe it or not does have an influence on the crunch.)

Flanking works because a combatant is actively threatened from both sides; despite the lack of facing in 3.5, they still have trouble looking both ways, hence the bonus. Reach means you can attack squares further away, but you are still attacking from your square. So even tho it seems like you could nail that giant in the back with a polearm, you really cant, as the attack comes from the front and has to go thru his stomach first. Add in to this the impossibility of simultaneously striking at two different sides of an opponent with the same weapon (reach weapons are all 2handed), and it starts to seem rediculous getting a bonus simply because you "threaten" so many squares. Either you are attacking in one place, or the other.. there is no reason for the enemy to split his attention, he only has to watch you. No bonus.

That said, if I had a player who could somehow 1hand a spiked chain or similiar "flexible," non-linear weapon with enough reach, while offhanding a dagger or shortsword or the like, and used two weapon fighting.. then I would allow flanking by one person. You could make the different attacks simultaneously.

Taking it one final step further... if anybody really wanted to get rules-lawyery enough to argue this for more than five seconds, especially mid-game, I would throw my DMG at them.

[Jergmo]

You can flank by yourself when Combat Facing is implemented.

[The Demented One]

If homebrew's on the table, I'm pretty sure I once did a prestige class with an afterimage-dash type ability that'd let you flank with yourself. Somewhere in my sig.

[Rixx]

I suppose you could flank with yourself if you're willing to abandon all pretense of DnD having a rules system meant to emulate tactical combat within the context of a fantasy world.

[Reaper_Monkey]

Taking it a step further, you can put on your DM hat and think about the fluff of it (which believe it or not does have an influence on the crunch.)


When you are adjacent to the chosen target, you can choose to count as occupying any other square you threaten for purposes of determining flanking bonuses for you and your allies (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Adaptable_Flanker)

This suggests to me that what you are actually doing is leaning and stepping slightly whilst attacking, and striking with your weapon in arcs and wide blows as so to make the effective area where attacks are originating from larger. This works because your so close to them that you can move very slightly and create a much larger arc of effect.

When this comes to using reach weapons to flank with yourself you have to realise that you still need to threaten the square adjacent to yourself and 10ft away with the weapon, which excludes most reach weapons there and then.
Its pretty much whip and spiked chain, and in these cases its easy to see how you can swing the tip to strike from "behind" whilst side stepping and attacking with wide arcs, this allowing you maximise the potential for attack to almost any location. Thus producing the same effect as flanking.

Of cause this is just fluff, and you have to be thinking of oriental films which pull off insane feats during combat as that's where you're most likely to see this sort of thing. But I don't think its too broken to allow heroes to do this in general, more so when they need a very particular weapon and have invested in feats, and can only do it to one person a round and even then only when they are adjacent to them.

[PhoenixRivers]

Non-core books can take Primary Source from the PHb.

For example, Raptor Arrows (MIC) explicitly state that they do not destroy when they hit.

PHb states that arrows that hit their target are destroyed.

For Raptor Arrows, primary source is their entry.

For flanking? The main combat log in the PHb is primary source.

Glossary definitions are general overviews. These should not be considered primary source over any actual rules text. They are incomplete entries.

[The Gilded Duke]

In a game I'm running the swordsage just picked up a clawfoot mount. With that and island of blades, he flanks any adjacent enemy through the use of his mount.

Might also be able to use it with a familiar, or with a symbiont. Symbiont would have the advantage of being harder to target.

[Zanticor]

I once turned my players rogue into a rukarazyll from MM2 and ruled he could tumble onto someone and then flank him on his own. Of course looking like this:
http://www.iwozhere.com/SRD/images/88268_620_153.jpg
creates some rather non-standard options, so it might not be the best way to go for everyone.

Zanticor

[Person_Man]

My reading of the rules is that you need an ally to flank with.

I'd also say that it's not particularly hard to qualify for Sneak Attack:


Ways to Qualify for Sneak Attack:

1) Ambush: If you ambush your enemy, you get a free Surprise Round against them. A Flat Footed enemy loses their Dex bonus until they act. Remember the the Surprise Round is only a Standard Action. So you'll need Greater Manyshot (www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Greater_Manyshot_(Feat)) or Pounce (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103358) (remember that you can still Charge (www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Charge) if your actions are limited) to get a full attack.

2) Win Initiative: If you win Initiative, you enemy is still Flat Footed, and still denied their Dex bonus.

3) Flanking: Have someone summon a lot of weak creatures. Here's a good list (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5876523&postcount=16) of magic items to do just that.

4) More Flanking: Invest in Handle Animal. Buy a lot of dogs. They're cheap and easy to train.

5) Still More Flanking: Invest in Tumble, get behind your enemies, have your party's meatshield fight in front of them.

6) Yet More Flanking: Adaptable Flanker feat (PHBII) allows you to flank from any square. Combine with a reach weapon, and now you can stand next to or even behind a friend and still flank an enemy.

7) Tome of Battle Flanking: Island of Blades, a Shadow Hand stance allows you to flank from any square as long as you and an ally are both adjacent to the enemy. You can get this from a one level dip into Swordsage, or by taking the Martial Study -> Martial Stance feats.

8) Dear Gods, How Much Flanking Do We Need?: Obtain Familiar + Improved Familiar, if you can cast arcane spells. Now you have a full time friend to Flank with, and he can Share Spells with you (like Alter Self and Greater Invisibility).

9) Armor Lock: 1st level spell from Complete Scoundrel that works on enemies wearing armor. Buy a wand.

10) Greater Invisibility: Once your party hits level 7ish, there's really no reason someone in your group shouldn't cast this on you at the start of every combat.

11) Ring of Blinking: If you're party members are jerks and refuse to cast Greater Invisibility on you, use this item instead. Pick up the Pierce Magical Concealment feat (Complete Arcane) to ignore your 20% miss chance.

12) Skill Tricks: Again, check out the Complete Scoundrel. Skill Tricks can be very useful (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88633).

13) Fear: If your enemy is Cowering, he loses his Dex bonus. There are a large variety of ways to get and use Fear effects, and a variety of ways to corner or immobilize him.

14) Stun: If your enemy is stunned, he loses his Dex bonus. Work with the Monk in your party, or ask the caster to use spells with this effect.

15) Blind: If your enemy is blind, he loses his Dex bonus. There are spells and alchemical items that do this.

16) Helpless: There are a variety of spells and a few effects that render your foe paralyzed or otherwise helpless. A Rogue's Coup de Grace almost never fails.

17) Hide in Plain Site: There are many ways to get this. My favorite is a dip into Warlock let's you Hide in Plain Site (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57352) every round as a Swift action. This means that any enemy who fails their Spot check is denied their Dex bonus against your next attack. Not efficient if you want to make full attacks, but helpful nonetheless.

18) Grappling: An opponent who is grappled loses their Dex bonus to everyone except the grappler, another way to tag team with your party members. Or invest in Handle animal and buy mules, which are a cheap and effective Grapple partner.

19) Net, Razor Net, Lasso: Each of these is a touch attack that imposes a -4 penalty on Dex. Penalties from different sources stack. Enemies with 0 Dex count as being paralyzed. I wouldn't even bother with taking the Exotic Weapon feats, because touch attacks are easy, so the -4 penalty to hit is palatable. Though I would definitely invest in Spell Storing weapons, and find spells that deal Dex damage/penalties. Here's a list (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6342523&postcount=23) of ways to deal Dex damage.

20) Feint: This is a retarded waste of an action in most cases. But it works well at low levels if you're not using TWF, and if you're an Invisible Blade with the Surprising Riposte feat (Drow of the Underdark), it works for a full attack.

21) Telling Blow (PHBII): When you crit, you also deal Sneak Attack. I'm not a fan of this method. It doesn't double your Sneak Attack if you flank and crit, WotC has made it clear that it just let's you qualify. So at best 30% of your attacks get Sneak Attack. There are many better uses for your feats, IMO.

22) More Tome of Battle Craziness: There are a bunch of manuevers which render your enemy Flat Footed or otherwise deny them their Dex bonus, especially in the Tiger Claw and Shadow Hand disciplines. You can also get 2d6 Sneak Attack via the Assassin's Stance, which still qualifies you for the best Sneak Attack feats (Staggering Strike, Craven, etc). So in many ways a Swordsage is a better Sneak Attacker then the Rogue. (Or you can go Rogue 1/Swordsage X or Swordsage X/Nightsong Enforcer 1 so that you can use other stances).

And as a side note, I let any of my players swap out Sneak Attack for Backstab (homebrew rule based on 2nd ed). Same bonus damage, except that it is only triggered by Flanking, but nothing is immune to it.

[Fax Celestis]

...actually, Rules Compendium is primary source for flanking, guys:


Flanking
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by an ally on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.
Only a creature that threatens your foe can help you gain a flanking bonus.

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

...and we all know that you are your own ally, otherwise a bard wouldn't get affected by his own song and White Raven Tactics wouldn't have needed a specific "allied creature other than yourself" Sage errata'd exemption.

[Brendan]

Some especially nimble class, like a rogue or monk, with lots of enlarge person could theoretically bend over the enemy, and attack from both sides with kicks and punches. AoO, though. Or, a dragon or other long necked creature could move the head to one side and the body to the other. Dangerous risk of decapitation.

[Burley]

Um, why not just Adaptable Flanker and a spiked chain?
Yes. You can attack from your square while still threatening on the other side. Is not win? Is.

[Curmudgeon]

Non-core books can take Primary Source from the PHb.

For example, Raptor Arrows (MIC) explicitly state that they do not destroy when they hit.

PHb states that arrows that hit their target are destroyed.
That's not right. The Primary Source for the rules about how most parts of the game works remains the Player's Handbook. But there are plenty of exceptions:
IT’S REALLY AN EXCEPTION
One of the bits of game designer jargon that we’re fond of is the notion of “exception-based rule sets.” Here’s a basic definition: An exception-based rule set has simple, straightforward rules, but a whole bunch of cool exceptions that are under at least a degree of player control. So the primary source remains the PH. Raptor Arrows provide a specific exception to that rule.

If Adaptable Flanker had said that it allowed you to flank by yourself, that would be an exception to the PH rule; after all, feats exist to provide exceptions to the usual rules. But it does not say that. It says you can also pick another square for the purpose of flanking. Which leads to a possible disagreement about the rules when you pick squares on opposite sides of an enemy. And we defer to the Player's Handbook on this matter to resolve such disagreements.

4th Edition has its own "Adaptable Flanker"; it's a Rogue level 2 utility exploit, which requires "You and an ally must be adjacent to the same enemy." In 4E you don't count as your own ally, so there was no need for a Glossary-type clarification. The D&D game designers had a stated goal of trying to make the 3.5->4 transition easy. So even though basic moves are stated as "6 squares", that's still the same as 30'. And Adaptable Flanker works the same way in both editions, too.

[Volos]

Using improved feint is easier then trying to flank by yourself. Only having to beat a target's flat-footed AC is usually just as good, if not better, then flanking. Even better a rouge could start improved feint-ing by first level (if human), applying sneak attack damage every round of combat.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Using improved feint is easier then trying to flank by yourself. Only having to beat a target's flat-footed AC is usually just as good, if not better, then flanking. Even better a rouge could start improved feint-ing by first level (if human), applying sneak attack damage every round of combat.Except Feinting requires a move action, meaning no full-attack.

[Fax Celestis]

That's not right. The Primary Source for the rules about how most parts of the game works remains the Player's Handbook. But there are plenty of exceptions: So the primary source remains the PH. INCORRECT. The Rules Compendium, by definition, is designed to replicate, clarify, and in some instances replace the PHB/DMG as primary source material to fix bits of the system that don't work.

[Curmudgeon]

The Rules Compendium, by definition, is designed to replicate, clarify, and in some instances replace the PHB/DMG as primary source material to fix bits of the system that don't work.
And yet it hasn't changed the rule at all. Rules Compendium does not address the issue of whether you can flank by yourself. The Primary Sources rule still directs us to the Player's Handbook when there's a possible disagreement, even with RC. And the PH does answer the issue.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Fax believes that the RC is the primary source. The RC states that flanking must be done with an ally.
Curmudgeon believes that the PHB is the primary source. Curmudgeon also believes that the PHB states that flanking must be done with an ally.

Is this really worth arguing over?

EDIT: D'oh, misread "ally". Forgive mah nubiness.

[Fax Celestis]

Fax believes that the RC is the primary source. The RC states that flanking must be done with an ally.
Curmudgeon believes that the PHB is the primary source. Curmudgeon also believes that the PHB states that flanking must be done with an ally.

Is this really worth arguing over?

And as we all know, you are your own ally. Curmudgeon believes otherwise.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Fax believes that the RC is the primary source. The RC states that flanking must be done with an ally.
Curmudgeon believes that the PHB is the primary source. Curmudgeon also believes that the PHB states that flanking must be done with an ally.

Is this really worth arguing over?The PHB specifically makes you need another creature to function as your ally, the RC just needs "an ally". So under the RC rules you can flank with yourself, under the PHB rules you can't.

[Noble Savant]

I would rule that you don't count as friendly towards yourself. Characters are quite clearly fanatic with regards to themselves. Thus you cannot flank with yourself. Or with any fanatic mindslaves for that matter.

I maintain that this is as fair a reading of the rules as any other readings we accept.

[Firefingers]

Wouldnt the 2nd half of the RC quote be the most appropriate to the situations we are discussing?

Flanking
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by an ally on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.
Only a creature that threatens your foe can help you gain a flanking bonus.

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

Its obviously impossible for an imaginary line from the center of your own square to the center of your own square to actually pass through opposite borders of the opponents square as its a line of zero length. As the 2nd paragraph is written specifically as a catch all statement and example for circumstances where there is questions about if a person is flanked wouldnt this discussion directly apply that ruling as RAW? Thus meaning it is impossible to flank someone solo as there is only 1 center to your square (adaptable flanker would merely allow you to treat a different square as your "center" with regards to drawing the lines)

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Wouldnt the 2nd half of the RC quote be the most appropriate to the situations we are discussing?

Flanking
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by an ally on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.
Only a creature that threatens your foe can help you gain a flanking bonus.

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

Its obviously impossible for an imaginary line from the center of your own square to the center of your own square to actually pass through opposite borders of the opponents square as its a line of zero length. As the 2nd paragraph is written specifically as a catch all statement and example for circumstances where there is questions about if a person is flanked wouldnt this discussion directly apply that ruling as RAW? Thus meaning it is impossible to flank someone solo as there is only 1 center to your square (adaptable flanker would merely allow you to treat a different square as your "center" with regards to drawing the lines)Actually, adaptable Flanker lets you threaten from 2 separate squares. So a line drawn between those 2 can pass through your opponent's square.

[Indon]

Actually, adaptable Flanker lets you threaten from 2 separate squares. So a line drawn between those 2 can pass through your opponent's square.

But it does mean you can't flank just from being OMGWTFBig and standing on top of your would-be target.

[Curmudgeon]

And as we all know, you are your own ally. Curmudgeon believes otherwise.
Not true at all, for 3.5. I just think that's irrelevant unless you (as you own ally) also happen to be two separate characters.
When in doubt about whether two allies flank an opponent, trace an imaginary line between the centers of the allies’ spaces. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space, including corners of those borders, then the opponent is flanked. RC doesn't say you can flank by yourself, as your own ally. It says flanking requires two allies. As I said before, RC hasn't changed the rules at all.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

And as we all know, you are your own ally. Curmudgeon believes otherwise.

Sometimes, you are also your own enemy.

[Darrin]

Not true at all, for 3.5. I just think that's irrelevant unless you (as you own ally) also happen to be two separate characters. RC doesn't say you can flank by yourself, as your own ally. It says flanking requires two allies. As I said before, RC hasn't changed the rules at all.

Isn't it somewhat helpful, then, that Adaptive Flanker, an exception to the normal rules, allows you to count as two allies. The whole "do you count as your own ally" argument doesn't even enter the picture, because the feat even specifies who gains the benefit of this extra flanker:
"you and your allies". Does this somehow create two physical copies of the same person? No, but the feat specifies the specific circumstances where you may consider yourself as two separate attackers: "for the purposes of determining flanking bonuses".

I understand the RAW argument for the PHB and the RC. I can also see that Adaptive Flanker creates an exception to the existing rules which is the equivalent of additional flanker, and it specifies who exactly may benefit from that effect.

...and I can also see that this is probably my own version of RAI, and I should be loudly shouted down on this point rather shortly.

[Curmudgeon]

the feat even specifies who gains the benefit of this extra flanker:
"you and your allies". Does this somehow create two physical copies of the same person? No, but the feat specifies the specific circumstances where you may consider yourself as two separate attackers: "for the purposes of determining flanking bonuses".
You're chopping the feat into small phrases and injecting your own words, which are substantially different from the actual feat text.
When you are adjacent to the chosen target, you can choose to count as occupying any other square you threaten for purposes of determining flanking bonuses for you and your allies. You also occupy your current square for flanking an opponent. The feat does not let you qualify as "two separate attackers". It lets you count as occupying two separate squares only.
...and I can also see that this is probably my own version of RAI, and I should be loudly shouted down on this point rather shortly. I don't think any reference to rule intentions is going to help here. Consider yourself shouted down, if that's what you were going for. :smallconfused:

[Darrin]

The feat does not let you qualify as "two separate attackers". It lets you count as occupying two separate squares only.


Ok, it lets you count as occupying two separate squares for the purposes of determining flanking bonuses. It then specifies who benefits from those bonuses: you and your allies. If, as you contend, the feat does not allow you to flank with yourself, then why does the feat text specify that you are a beneficiary of this extra sqaure? If the intention was to only allow your allies (and not you) as a beneficiary, then why was "you" included in the wording? If the "you" part of "you and your allies" is not part of the intended benefits of providing a flanking bonus, then what is the purpose of mentioning "you"?


I don't think any reference to rule intentions is going to help here. Consider yourself shouted down, if that's what you were going for. :smallconfused:

You're doing fine. Keep shouting. =)

[Theodoriph]

Ok, it lets you count as occupying two separate squares for the purposes of determining flanking bonuses. It then specifies who benefits from those bonuses: you and your allies. If, as you contend, the feat does not allow you to flank with yourself, then why does the feat text specify that you are a beneficiary of this extra sqaure? If the intention was to only allow your allies (and not you) as a beneficiary, then why was "you" included in the wording? If the "you" part of "you and your allies" is not part of the intended benefits of providing a flanking bonus, then what is the purpose of mentioning "you"?



You're doing fine. Keep shouting. =)



Because you may not be flanking the creature, but the other square you're threatening is "flanking" the creature and is opposite another friendly entity.

Thus you get the flanking bonus as if you were flanking the creature.


"When you are adjacent to the chosen target, you can choose to count as occupying any other square you threaten for purposes of determining flanking bonuses for you and your allies. You also occupy your current square for flanking an opponent."

e.g.
. X
ABC

You're X. Your party member is A. You use your ability to threaten C for the purposes of determining flanking bonuses for you and your allies. A gets a flanking bonus. C doesn't really exist. X wouldn't normally get a flanking bonus, but the feat allows X to determine flanking based on C, so X benefits from the flank between C and A.

If it just said only your allies benefited, X wouldn't get a flanking bonus...and since C doesn't exist....well...that would then suck :P


In short, the wording "you and your allies" is required so that you can also benefit from flanking, even when you wouldn't normally be flanking.

[Curmudgeon]

It then specifies who benefits from those bonuses: you and your allies. If, as you contend, the feat does not allow you to flank with yourself, then why does the feat text specify that you are a beneficiary of this extra sqaure?
It allows you to flank with multiple other allied characters, of course.

-y-
YEA
-B-

If you're Y in the diagram, E is an enemy, and A and B are allies, then you and your allies can receive flanking bonuses both from your regular position Y and your Adaptable Flanker position y.

[Sophismata]

Clarion Commander lets you flank by yourself regardless, and is probably a better answer to the OP's dilemma.

Also, I found the Rules Compendium to be disappointing in many ways, particularly with its interpretation of the grappling rules (which it screwed up more). But that's neither here nor there.