Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Orion Polaris 06-05-07, 01:59 PM	Say a Knight/Rogue and his Barbarian buddy have an Ogre flanked. Would the Knight/Rogue be able to sneak attack the Ogre without violating his code? I know it says that he can't get the +2 bonus from flanking, but it says nothing about getting the sneak attack damage from it. What would you guys think?
Light_Colonel 06-05-07, 02:10 PM	I know this has been brought up before and I believe the official ruling on it is that yes, he can Sneak Attack.
PenderGrass 06-05-07, 03:12 PM	The "sneak" in sneak attack is a huge misnomer. Just think of it more as a precise/deadly strike. In other words, there is nothing in a flanking sneak attack that violates the knight's code (at least, not the code as listed). :dragon: ****
Salla 06-05-07, 04:25 PM	By both the Sage and the rules itself, yes. The Knight cannot claim the +2 to hit from flanking without suffering the penalty, but he is considered to be flanking for all other purposes (including providing the bonus to his ally).
Kouk 06-05-07, 05:17 PM	I haven't played a Knight, or seen it in a game, but it didn't seem like violating that code a few times a day was that big of a deal anyway?
PenderGrass 06-05-07, 06:10 PM	By both the Sage and the rules itself, yes. The Knight cannot claim the +2 to hit from flanking without suffering the penalty, but he is considered to be flanking for all other purposes (including providing the bonus to his ally). That seems ass-backwards. So, a knight can't sell drugs to school children, but it is okay if his friends do it? If it is true that a knight isn't allowed to flank, then I would say he wouldn't just let everyone else do it either - especially if he were the one helping them do so. :dragon: ****
wrecan 06-05-07, 06:40 PM	I don't think he has a choice. By being in a flanking position, he is giving his friend the ability to gain a bonus. The only way he can avoid that is by not getting in flanking position at all. Also, I think a knight's code (unlike a paladin's) is a personal code of honor. He doesn't expect others to live up to his personal standards, as long as they aren't evil.
Salla 06-05-07, 07:35 PM	That seems ass-backwards. So, a knight can't sell drugs to school children, but it is okay if his friends do it? If it is true that a knight isn't allowed to flank, then I would say he wouldn't just let everyone else do it either - especially if he were the one helping them do so. :dragon: **** More like 'the knight can't break his rules, but they're his rules and his allies aren't held to his standards'. It's not even a case of 'so long as they aren't evil', as wrecan says, because Lawful Evil is a valid alignment for a knight.
Krusk 06-05-07, 07:50 PM	His code is sort of like "I don't drink, you can as much as you want but im not going to." type thing. Also a LE knight could verywell sell drugs to children.
Mystic Lemur 06-05-07, 11:42 PM	Also a LE knight could verywell sell drugs to children. In fact, A LE knight might prefer they buy their drugs from him as opposed to some less scrupulous dealer who might lace them with potentially deadly (at least more so) substances. Or a LE knight pimp, who protects his ho's from other ho's and from serial killers and stuff...
PenderGrass 06-06-07, 02:14 AM	I don't think he has a choice. By being in a flanking position, he is giving his friend the ability to gain a bonus. The only way he can avoid that is by not getting in flanking position at all. Also, I think a knight's code (unlike a paladin's) is a personal code of honor. He doesn't expect others to live up to his personal standards, as long as they aren't evil. As per RAW a knight could choose to not treat any fellow combatant as an ally. Thus denying any flanking bonus. According to the knight's code, "...focuses on fair play. A victory achieved through pure skill is more difficult, and hence wins more glory...." Also, "You believe the best way to face an enemy is to challenge him to an honorable duel and kill him fair and square...." Allowing others to strike your foe with trickery of flanking (something that you yourself as a knight know to be unfair) is fair? Isn't this your fight? Shouldn't you be the one wanting everyone to know that you took down the enemy in a straight fight, not by allowing the rogue pip-squeak to hit him for +4d6 each time? How much valor can you garner with that kind of disgusting and unworthy help? Why did you need that help in the first place? No no no.... Obviously, someone wrote this with only half a mind towards being logical. As it stands this kind of mentality is dog poo-poo. :dragon: ****
Kouk 06-06-07, 03:05 AM	Flanking is more that the enemy is dividing his attention among two or more targets, and can't defend quite so well. I don't think just declaring you won't help your buddy flank would work as long as the enemy perceived you as a threat and not an ally.
PenderGrass 06-06-07, 03:42 AM	Flanking is more that the enemy is dividing his attention among two or more targets, and can't defend quite so well. I don't think just declaring you won't help your buddy flank would work as long as the enemy perceived you as a threat and not an ally. According to RAW you are incorrect: 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. In other words, only friendlies/allies can flank creatures. :dragon: ****
Radijs 06-06-07, 03:54 AM	That actually strikes me as a little odd. Only friendlies can flank. If AB and C are all fighting each mother and A gets positioned between B and C. then there'd be flanking because B and C would both be trying to kill him. Meaning sharp bits from both sides.
PenderGrass 06-06-07, 03:57 AM	That actually strikes me as a little odd. Only friendlies can flank. If AB and C are all fighting each other and A gets positioned between B and C. then there'd be flanking because B and C would both be trying to kill him. Meaning sharp bits from both sides. Maybe so, but coordinated sharp bits obviously equals flankers getting a better bonus than uncoordinated sharp bits. No coordination, no bonuses. :dragon: ****
runestar 06-06-07, 04:13 AM	Technically, yes, the knight is supposed to "fight fair". But the class also has rules delineating the extent to which this should go. Would you fight with only 1 hand if your foe was doing the same? You might, but there is nothing which stipulates that you must, and thus, you would not be penalized for doing so, even if it was not seen as "fighting fair" in the eyes of some.:) A knight does not gain a bonus on attack rolls when flanking. You still confer the benefit of a flanking position to your ally, but you forgo your own +2 bonus on attack rolls. You can choose to keep the +2 bonus, but doing so violates your code of honor (see below). The knight's code is very specific about what you can and cannot do. Nowhere does it state in the knight class entry that you cannot flank, just that you do not receive the normal bonuses for doing so. And you may still help your ally to flank. You can argue that it is not "fighting fair" in your book, but who really cares? We should be going by wotc's definition.:) As such, it seems fairly clear-cut. You can still be treated as flanking, and thus deal sneak attack damage in combat (which does not carry the sneaky, underhanded "backstab" connotation thieves from 2ed had).
PenderGrass 06-06-07, 01:27 PM	As such, it seems fairly clear-cut. I never said it wasn't clear-cut. You can still be treated as flanking, and thus deal sneak attack damage in combat (which does not carry the sneaky, underhanded "backstab" connotation thieves from 2ed had). And this is where your clear-cut rule fails to convince that any sort of logic was used. If sneak attack is not an under-handed action (which I agree it has been modified to not always fit that description), then the knight should be free to utilize it. Especially, if he is capable of it. As you said why would you fight with one hand tied behind your back? The only reason why - is because the book tells you so. There is no logic behind it. There is no reasoning. It is all just a soup sandwich. Use it, if you must, but I highly recommend modifying it to make more sense (and that is D&D sense, not real-world sense). :dragon: ****
wrecan 06-06-07, 02:21 PM	As per RAW a knight could choose to not treat any fellow combatant as an ally. That's not the standard as set forth in the rules you cited. If the knight is "friendly" to the flanker, the flanker gets the bonus. "Friendly" is defined in the Diplomacy skill as "Wishes you well/Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate" I do not believe a Knight can choose to stop wishing the flanker well, unless he were charmed. The Knight can voluntarily relinquish the bonus. But unless he engages in some sort of autohypnosis to stop being friendly to his ally, his ally gets the bonus. Allowing others to strike your foe with trickery of flanking (something that you yourself as a knight know to be unfair) is fair? He is not bound to ensure his allies act fairly, only that he acts fairly. Isn't this your fight? Shouldn't you be the one wanting everyone to know that you took down the enemy in a straight fight, not by allowing the rogue pip-squeak to hit him for +4d6 each time? No. This isn't about "everybody knowing" how you fought. A knight doesn't act for the glory. He acts fairly because he chooses to do so. Obviously, someone wrote this with only half a mind towards being logical. This isn't a cognizable argument. As it stands this kind of mentality is dog poo-poo. Nor is this.
PenderGrass 06-06-07, 02:37 PM	That's not the standard as set forth in the rules you cited. Yes. It is. In D&D you can choose your friends. I do not believe a Knight can choose to stop wishing the flanker well, unless he were charmed. The Knight can voluntarily relinquish the bonus. But unless he engages in some sort of autohypnosis to stop being friendly to his ally, his ally gets the bonus. Believe what you want, the RAW still stands that flanking bonuses are granted based on whether you are allied with the other flanker or not. Read ally if you don't believe me. He is not bound to ensure his allies act fairly, only that he acts fairly. This logic is flawed since it is obviously not an automatic bonus, but one that the knight can freely choose to grant or not. The knight is not saying that they can't flank on their own - only that he will neither flank nor allow others to flank by his own actions. Would you allow a LG knight to hold down a woman while the others in the group rape that woman and not give that knight repercussions? Sure, the knight didn't himself rape the woman. But, by his actions he allowed it to happen. Same thing here, by his actions, he is allowing others to gain something that according to his own code he should not be participating in. A knight doesn't act for the glory. You really should read the character class. Because glory is one of the ultimate goals of a knight. :dragon: ****
wrecan 06-06-07, 04:02 PM	Yes. It is. In D&D you can choose your friends. But once chosen you can't turn it on and off like a light switch. Believe what you want, the RAW still stands that flanking bonuses are granted based on whether you are allied with the other flanker or not. No they don't. The standard is not whether it is an "ally", but, as you previously cited: "if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#flanking)..." "Friendly" is a defined term in-game and is set forth in the Skill description for Diplomacy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm). It does not require one to be an ally. In fact, if you can Intimidate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/intimidate.htm) an enemy, he is treated as if friendly to you and thus could provide you a flanking bonus (unless of course, you are a Knight). Read ally if you don't believe me. Why? The word "ally" appears nowhere in the rules on flanking. At any rate, the glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_ally&alpha=) defines "ally" as nothing more than "a creature that is friendly to you." How this helps your position, you have yet to explain. This logic is flawed since it is obviously not an automatic bonus, but one that the knight can freely choose to grant or not. No, he can't. You keep saying he can but the rules you've cited don't support that statement. If he is friendly to the flanker (meaning he wishes the flanker well), then the flanker gets the flanking bonus unless the flanker decides to forego it. (Just like the knight can forego the flanking bonus granted him by the friendly flanker.) If you are arguing that an honorable knight can suddenly and spontaneously stop wishing one of his traveling companions be well, I'd like to see your support for that. The knight is not saying that they can't flank on their own - only that he will neither flank nor allow others to flank by his own actions. It nowhere in the knight description states that a knight will not allow others to flank. (As shown below, it expressly states that he will flank others for his allies' benefit.) Would you allow a LG knight to hold down a woman while the others in the group rape that woman and not give that knight repercussions? A knight wouldn't do that for the same reason a LG wizard wouldn't do that. It has nothing to do with his Code of Conduct and everything to do with his alignment. The two encompass separate considerations. You really should read the character class. Because glory is one of the ultimate goals of a knight. No, Pendergrass. You should read the Knight Base Class (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060501a&page=2), as well as Skip Williams' comments ([url=http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20060523a) on the class, as well as the rules on flanking (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#flanking), diplomacy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm), and intimidate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/intimidate.htm). As for a Knight and glory, what does the class state? A good knight hopes that her example encourages others to lead righteous lives. A neutral knight wishes to uphold the cause of his liege (if he has one) and win glory. An evil knight seeks to win acclaim across the land and increase her own personal power. Only the neutrally aligned knight (and arguably the evil one) is described as being a glory-hound. While you cleave to your view of honor, chivalry, and pursuit of glory, you do not force your views on others. You might chide a rogue for sneaking around a battlefield, but you recognize (and perhaps even feel a bit smug about) the reality that not everyone is fit to follow the knight's path. Hmmm... so even in pursuit of glory, a knight does not require others to avoid flanking. The Code of Honor is a personal one, not a universal one. In fact, it specifically states that a knight will nto stop a rogue from sneaking about the battlefield! You believe that the best way to face an enemy is to challenge him to an honorable duel and kill him fair and square, claiming all the glory for yourself. Note it says the "best way", not the only way. Combine this with the note that even in pursuit of glory, the knight will not hold others to his standard of conduct. At any rate, the rules issue is expressly decided in the Knight Class description: A knight does not gain a bonus on attack rolls when flanking. You still confer the benefit of a flanking position to your ally, but you forgo your own +2 bonus on attack rolls. You can choose to keep the +2 bonus, but doing so violates your code of honor (see below). A knight "still confer[s] the benefit of a flanking position". It's not even stated in optional language like "A knight may confer..." He confers the benefit when he flanks. SKip Williams even states: Be ready to help rogue characters flank foes. You can't benefit from a flanking bonus without violating your code, but you can help an ally get a flanking bonus without incurring any penalties yourself. Perndergrass, you might wish to see the Knight apply his Code of Conduct universally, but the rules expressly state the opposite.
Salla 06-06-07, 06:22 PM	One thing that many people are missing is the difference between a fight and a duel. If the Knight and a foe single each other out, and the Knight says 'don't interfere, this is between him and me' or somesuch, that's one thing. If it's four PCs and twenty kobolds, that's an entirely different animal. That's just a battle. The knight's code was also written in such a way as to not impede team play, which is an important part of D&D. This is the important thing; it does not interfere with player and character cooperation. That's more important than 'realism', whatever that means in a purely fantasy world with only tangential-at-best relations to real world history.
wrecan 06-06-07, 07:20 PM	If you bothered to research anything, you would find ally has been spoken about several times on these boards and with the Sage. Well, the only thread I could find on topic is: When is an Ally not your ally? This thread doesn't make it situational at all. Someone friendly to you is an ally until he actively betrays you (and thus is not friendly). Of course, these people are just posters like you and I. The thread cites no rules, Sage Advice, or CustServ announcements. I found no discussion in Sage Advice Online about being able to designate who your ally is on a turn by turn basis. Moreover, your argument -- that a knight can turn on and off whom he considers an ally -- would have complicated rules issues. Scenario one: A Knight uses Call to Battle (which can only be used on an ally) on a rogue. The rogue then resists the fear effect thanks to the ability. This is only a swift action, so the Knight then attacks the blackguard they face. Having come out of his fearful condition, the rogue finds that he is on the other side of the blackguard. On his next action, he sneak attacks. Since the knight had to designate the rogue an ally as part of his swift action, can he now revoke that ally status even though it is not his turn? Scenario two: The blackguard ignores the knight (much to the knight's chagrin) and attacks the rogue. The rogue is badly hurt. On the knight's next action, he uses Shield Ally (an immediate action) to protect the rogue. Doing this requires the knight to consider the rogue an ally once again. If the rogue, on his next action, and before the knight's next turn, flanks a foe adjacent to the knight, can the knight revoke that ally status to prevent sneak attack? If he does, is the Shield Ally benefit terminated? What if the rogue is then attacked and the knight would want to absorb some of that damage if the skill is active?
Cartigan 06-06-07, 07:22 PM	That seems ass-backwards. So, a knight can't sell drugs to school children, but it is okay if his friends do it? It's more like, he isn't allowed to sell drugs to school children but it's ok to give drugs to them. The fact that "he doesn't get flanking bonus but is flanking for all other purposes" is an Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade "leap of faith" in logical sense, but we've been through this before.
runestar 06-06-07, 10:52 PM	I prefer my D&D to have a certain amount of D&D sense - if you don't, more power to you. I am all for making sense, save for when it conflicts directly with game mechanics. ;)
WizO_Cat 06-06-07, 10:55 PM	Ok, just a reminder to keep the posts on the subject matter of the thread and not other guests. Otherwise, disciplinary actions for Baiting will have to be issued to the offending parties. Thanks.
weasel0 06-07-07, 05:15 PM	Besides, that's all beside the point. I don't see why a Rogue/Knight couldn't use SA. It's merely a really well placed hit. No reason why a multiclass person couldn't use it with say a feint or if initiative has been won. I don't even see why he couldn't use it from flanking. All you lose as a Knight is the +2 bonus. You're still flanking and can utilize anything else that comes from it.
wrecan 06-07-07, 05:34 PM	Besides, that's all beside the point. I don't see why a Rogue/Knight couldn't use SA. It's merely a really well placed hit. No reason why a multiclass person couldn't use it with say a feint or if initiative has been won. I don't even see why he couldn't use it from flanking. All you lose as a Knight is the +2 bonus. You're still flanking and can utilize anything else that comes from it. Precisely.
PenderGrass 06-07-07, 05:36 PM	I don't see why a Rogue/Knight couldn't use SA. Because, according to RAW they can't. But, on the other hand, I do agree that they should be able to flank - it isn't that huge of a deal. :dragon: ****
wrecan 06-07-07, 05:41 PM	Because, according to RAW they can't. Wrong, per the Sage. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070313a) To wit: Q: Dear Sage, If a knight (Player’s Handbook II, 24) gains the sneak attack class feature by multiclassing, is there any way he can use it without breaking the knight's code? --Stormbrand A: A knight may deliver sneak attack damage when flanking an enemy without breaking the knight’s code. (Even though the knight doesn’t gain the normal bonus on attack rolls due to flanking, he’s still considered flanking for all other purposes.)
PenderGrass 06-07-07, 05:58 PM	Wrong, per the Sage. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070313a) To wit: Q: Dear Sage, If a knight (Player’s Handbook II, 24) gains the sneak attack class feature by multiclassing, is there any way he can use it without breaking the knight's code? --Stormbrand A: A knight may deliver sneak attack damage when flanking an enemy without breaking the knight’s code. (Even though the knight doesn’t gain the normal bonus on attack rolls due to flanking, he’s still considered flanking for all other purposes.) Ah. Had SA confused with Flank. Brain not on tight today. :dragon: ****
Neutronium_Dragon 06-07-07, 07:52 PM	At one point the question of using sneak attack was asked with regard to a paladin - was it dishonorable in the context of their code, or even viewed as dishonorable in general? The answer put by one of the developers at the time was: "Using sneak attack is no more dishonorable than taking Improved Critical."