Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Master_Vega 12-06-07, 01:52 PM	In a relatively new campaign, my friend is playing a rogue with the Island of Blades stance. His strategy is to stand next to my character (I'm the meatshield for once) and wait for foes to come up and attack so we can them with his stance. I know the actual definition of Adjacent, but for gaming purposes, does it mean the enemy has to be within five feet or within reach? I ask because I use a spiked chain. Thanks!
RobbyPants 12-06-07, 02:24 PM	My understanding of "adjacent" is within five feet, or in one of the adjacent squares on the grid. I'll have to see if I can find an official ruling... Edit: The closest thing I can find is in the SRD on large and larger creatures (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#tactical Movement) (emphasis mine): Large, Huge, Gargantuan, and Colossal Creatures Very large creatures take up more than 1 square. Creatures that take up more than 1 square typically have a natural reach of 10 feet or more, meaning that they can reach targets even if they aren’t in adjacent squares. Unlike when someone uses a reach weapon, a creature with greater than normal natural reach (more than 5 feet) still threatens squares adjacent to it. A creature with greater than normal natural reach usually gets an attack of opportunity against you if you approach it, because you must enter and move within the range of its reach before you can attack it. (This attack of opportunity is not provoked if you take a 5-foot step.) Large or larger creatures using reach weapons can strike up to double their natural reach but can’t strike at their natural reach or less. The first highlighted part mentions that having a reach of greater than 1 square (5 feet) allows them to strike non-adjacent creatures. The second part mentions threatening adjacent creatures when the reach extends beyond 5 feet (which isn't normal for reach weapons).
Master_Vega 12-06-07, 02:46 PM	It seems to imply that 5ft (or one square, but we use 5ft to 1inch scale and no grid) is adjacent... Alright then. Thanks for the help.
PyrosSilvercaster 12-06-07, 03:39 PM	I've always taken adjacent to mean normal threatened area, barring any reach weapons or craziness like that. So, 5 foot, square touching your square, yada yada yada...
RobbyPants 12-07-07, 11:26 AM	I've always taken adjacent to mean normal threatened area, barring any reach weapons or craziness like that. So, 5 foot, square touching your square, yada yada yada... The first section of the bolded text I highlighted ("Creatures that take up more than 1 square typically have a natural reach of 10 feet or more, meaning that they can reach targets even if they aren’t in adjacent squares.") would suggest that a 10 away is non-adjacent.
risner 12-07-07, 12:08 PM	I know the actual definition of Adjacent, but for gaming purposes, does it mean the enemy has to be within five feet or within reach? I ask because I use a spiked chain. ----- -AAA- -ACA- -AAA- ------ The A's are adjacent to the C. Wouldn't this effect the other PC if he is also adjacent?
ToastedAmphibian 12-07-07, 08:19 PM	How about the relivant DEFINITON of Adjacent from the dictionary? Its not a "Game Word" its an english word. One whos definition seems unfamiliar to the OP. So here it is: b: having a common endpoint or border so in your "Gridless" gameplay, an adjacent character would be any character that shares a "Border" or "Endpoint" with you. In a normal Grided game, adjacent would be any character whose square(s) shares a side or a corner with yours.
Master_Vega 12-08-07, 03:35 PM	How about the relivant DEFINITON of Adjacent from the dictionary? Its not a "Game Word" its an english word. One whos definition seems unfamiliar to the OP. So here it is: I do understand the definition, and have for a long time. What I was asking was this: game wise and balance wise, what does the term mean? Attack in real life means to act with an intention to harm. Attack in the game means roll a d20 + several other factors and deal damage. See what I'm getting at? so in your "Gridless" gameplay, an adjacent character would be any character that shares a "Border" or "Endpoint" with you. In a normal Grided game, adjacent would be any character whose square(s) shares a side or a corner with yours. I figured, but I had to ask if adjacent in game was literally adjacent, as opposed to within threat range or reach. Thank you, though.
Johnny_Angel 12-08-07, 03:55 PM	Actually, a gridless game wouldn't be much different from using a grid. A 1inch square still equals 5 feet, so I'd say that adjacent in a gridless game would be anyone who was within 1 inch (5ft) -the same definition as a grid based game. just my 2 cents
Mad_Jack 12-12-07, 08:32 AM	According to the text, if you and an ally are both adjacent to an opponent, then you're considered to flank it. It doesn't mention anything about threatening that opponent. Theoretically, you wouldn't even need to be able to threaten that opponent, just be standing next to them. So, spiked chain or not, you'll need to be standing right next to that opponent in order to gain the benefit of your friend's stance. This means that for you guys to get the maximum benefit from this, your buddy has to carefully pick his location.. The best possible results come out looking something like this - ---bad guy-bad guy--- ----fighter-rogue------ Since the rogue is adjacent to both opponents, and you are also adjacent to both of them, both you and the rogue are considered to be flanking both of them. Note that it's possible for three or more of your allies to get a flanking bonus on one guy, since you and your allies only need to be next to the opponent, but not each other... --------bad guy-------- fighter--rogue---fighter <--all three get the flanking bonus This is particularly nice when ganging up on one big guy like an ogre, since everybody just surrounds him and everybody gets the flanking bonus regardless of whether or not there's somebody directly across from them... ----------fighter--fighter-- --fighter--BAD GUY--------- --fighter--fighter--rogue-- *Everybody* in this situation gets the flanking bonus :cool: Evil stuff.
risner 12-12-07, 03:58 PM	Since the rogue is adjacent to both opponents, and you are also adjacent to both of them, both you and the rogue are considered to be flanking both of them. What? No. 100% wrong. PHB p153 You need to be on opposite sides, period.
Master_Vega 12-12-07, 04:31 PM	What? No. 100% wrong. PHB p153 You need to be on opposite sides, period. Island of Blades. (Tome of Battle p78) It's a stance that allows you to flank someone when you and a friend are adjacent to it, no matter how you are positioned. You might want to read my first post before posting on this thread yourself. :P
ToastedAmphibian 12-12-07, 07:22 PM	According to the text, if you and an ally are both adjacent to an opponent, then you're considered to flank it. It doesn't mention anything about threatening that opponent. Theoretically, you wouldn't even need to be able to threaten that opponent, just be standing next to them. So, spiked chain or not, you'll need to be standing right next to that opponent in order to gain the benefit of your friend's stance. This means that for you guys to get the maximum benefit from this, your buddy has to carefully pick his location.. The best possible results come out looking something like this - ---bad guy-bad guy--- ----fighter-rogue------ Since the rogue is adjacent to both opponents, and you are also adjacent to both of them, both you and the rogue are considered to be flanking both of them. Note that it's possible for three or more of your allies to get a flanking bonus on one guy, since you and your allies only need to be next to the opponent, but not each other... --------bad guy-------- fighter--rogue---fighter <--all three get the flanking bonus This is particularly nice when ganging up on one big guy like an ogre, since everybody just surrounds him and everybody gets the flanking bonus regardless of whether or not there's somebody directly across from them... ----------fighter--fighter-- --fighter--BAD GUY--------- --fighter--fighter--rogue-- *Everybody* in this situation gets the flanking bonus :cool: Evil stuff. Well, actually, "Acording to the Text" Flanking 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.
risner 12-12-07, 09:09 PM	Island of Blades. (Tome of Battle p78) It's a stance that allows you to flank someone when you and a friend are adjacent to it, no matter how you are positioned. You might want to read my first post before posting on this thread yourself. :P Granted, but his post wasn't as clear as I'd like it to have been that he was continuing to talk about Island of Blades. Getting back to the other question, both of you would still need to threaten to grant the flanking bonus, because in order to gain flanking, you must threaten opposite sides. Island of Blades allow you to gain flanking without the opposite sides requirement, but says nothing about the threatening requirement. This leaves the threatening requirement still in force.
Master_Vega 12-12-07, 10:03 PM	Actually, it does cover that. Unfortunately, I can't post the exact text here because I don't think it's OGL, but rest assured it simply says that if you and an ally are adjacent to the same foe, you flank it. It says nothing about threatening the target.
risner 12-12-07, 11:23 PM	Actually, it does cover that. Unfortunately, I can't post the exact text here because I don't think it's OGL, but rest assured it simply says that if you and an ally are adjacent to the same foe, you flank it. It says nothing about threatening the target. I read it before I posted the last time. It doesn't say anything like what you suggest. It says you gain the benefit of flanking. You can't flank or contribute to a flank if you don't threaten. So even tho you can gain flanking without being opposite, you can not do so if your friend doesn't threaten. The same for your friend, if you don't threaten he can't gain flanking.
Mad_Jack 12-13-07, 08:32 AM	Risner, the text of the feat as it's written simply states that the person with the feat and his ally both need to be adjacent to the creature to gain the benefit of flanking it. (The semantics of the actual text also simply indicate that you get the "benefit" of flanking it, which is a +2 flanking bonus...It doesn't indicate that you *are* flanking it. Just like the swordsage's 1st level discipline focus - he doesn't actually gain the weapon focus feat for half a dozen weapons, he merely get's the +1 to hit "benefit" of that feat when using those weapons.) By both of you being adjacent to the same person, you trigger the condition under which you get the bonus. The text of the feat doesn't actually state that you need to be able to meet normal flanking conditions. Obviously you and I, being intelligent rational people, wouldn't attempt to get a flanking bonus past the DM by claiming that the tied-up prisoner that our opponent let go of when we attacked him is going to be our flanking buddy, or drop someone's corpse next to the bad guy and say, "Hey, look, I'm flanking!", but our point is that, *in the text of the feat as it's written* it doesn't actually *say* that you need to meet any requirements other than to have two people standing next to the same opponent. Common sense and a good grasp of the game mechanics of D&D would indicate that, yes, you do need to actually threaten the opponent, but any rules lawyer worth his fees (lol) can look at the feat as it's written and say "show me where it actually *says* that"... I'm guessing that the authors of the book decided to trust us, the players, to be smart enough to understand that the basic rules for flanking are implied in the situation under which this feat alters them, and thus simply didn't bother to use a whole extra page in the book to copy them all out. However, I love word games and rhetoric, and can twist pretty much anything anybody says into a knot, so when I scanned the text of the feat in preparation for answering the original poster's question, I just happened to notice that the text of the feat didn't specifically mention the necessity of threatening the opponent (a relevant concern, given that a spiked chain has reach and need not be adjacent to an opponent to threaten them), and simply mentioned that fact in my post. A great part of the reason I brought it up was to point out that the triggering condition for the bonus is whether or not you're adjacent, rather than whether or not you threaten them. The specific situation that sprang to mind was that, if you play the feat by the exact letter of the text, an unarmed wizard in the middle of casting a harmless spell, someone caught in a Hold Person spell, or a tiny creature that can't attack out of it's own square (none of whom normally threaten anyone) would all still trigger the condition for which the feat gives a flanking bonus. Heck, by the exact text, you could get a flanking bonus from your familiar who's asleep in the saddlebags on your pack horse, if the horse is in the right square. Would I ever try it, or allow somebody else to try to convince me it's a legitimate tactic? Hell, no. I'd smack em upside the head for even thinking it. It would seem that the authors need to amend the text of the feat in the errata for the book to better specify the exact necessary conditions for gaining the bonus... (Just as a general observation, I would also say that there are quite a few things in ToB that the authors could have explained a bit more precisely...)
risner 12-13-07, 12:01 PM	Risner, the text of the feat as it's written simply states that the person with the feat and his ally both need to be adjacent to the creature to gain the benefit of flanking it. Exactly, and to gain the benefits of flanking, both need to threaten. Nothing in Island of Blades even hints at removing this requirement. As is true for all rules, there needs to be an explicit text to address threatening if you are to interpret threatening isn't required. (In other words, to remove the requirement to threaten the Island of Blades would need to be be written differently.)
Master_Vega 12-13-07, 12:28 PM	Exactly, and to gain the benefits of flanking, both need to threaten. Nothing in Island of Blades even hints at removing this requirement. As is true for all rules, there needs to be an explicit text to address threatening if you are to interpret threatening isn't required. (In other words, to remove the requirement to threaten the Island of Blades would need to be be written differently.) Alright, if you're going to ignore the fact that it says you simply need to be adjacent, why not ignore the combined statement that you simply need to have an ally who is also adjacent to the same foe to flank? It doesn't directly say you don't have to follow all of the normal rules for flanking after all. If what you say is true, than all this stance does is make things harder for the flanking party; why would anyone ever take it? It simply states the new conditions you must follow, and assumes you will follow them and ignore the original rules (some maneuvers actually state "As trip" or "As -insert relevant term-" to acknowledge that you actually have to follow prior rules, but for those that don't, it means listen to the maneuver/stance and only that.) Now I'm in full agreement with with Mad_Jack here, that it's rather silly to do all the things he mentioned and expect to flank, but actually read the stance again. Maneuvers and stances change the rules as long a they are in play, and the rules change to the text below whatever maneuver/stance you're using. It IS, however, a very logical house rule that the character must actually threaten the foe(s) to be flanked. I would implement that house rule, as I find it silly that a tied up prisoner could actually help a swordsage flank someone (though if they explained it well/creatively enough I might let it happen. The stance IS all about fighting in a tricky way to confuse/frustrate your foes. Granted I'd make it very clear to the player that the tied-up-prisoner would likely become his enemies' the target the following round). On a random note, with this stance it is possible to flank and be flanked at the same time; neat huh?
Knightblde 12-13-07, 01:26 PM	Exactly, and to gain the benefits of flanking, both need to threaten. Nothing in Island of Blades even hints at removing this requirement. As is true for all rules, there needs to be an explicit text to address threatening if you are to interpret threatening isn't required. (In other words, to remove the requirement to threaten the Island of Blades would need to be be written differently.) I don't agree with this at all. Just as written, it appears that IoB states you get a flanking bonus if you have an adjacent friend. If there are conditions that have to be met, the rule states those conditions. It is very important to separate 'Flanking' from 'Flanking Bonus.' For the most part it doesn't matter, but in this case it does. Usually you can only gain a Flanking Bonus from Flanking, but this gives us another way to do so. A flanking bonus, is a type of bonus that stacks with all other bonuses. In most cases you get it for flanking. In this case you don't. It just so happens that they are the same type of bonus so it does not stack if you are also actually flanking the target. If you change the name to a 'tactical bonus' it doesn't seem so confusing. That said, I think it is a mistake. I also agree with the outcome of Risner's thought that you must threaten for this to take effect. This seems like common sense and an application of previous rules. It is most likely, as stated before, that the designers expected us to feel that threatening is required.
risner 12-13-07, 07:24 PM	I don't agree with this at all. Just as written, it appears that IoB states you get a flanking bonus if you have an adjacent friend. If there are conditions that have to be met, the rule states those conditions. This is the same tired old argument. The absence of a restriction doesn't mean there are no restrictions. Extra Spell doesn't allow you to obtain any spell from any spell list despite not having "from any spell list" included in the feat description. This ability does not say "you do not need to threaten to gain flanking in this manner" and without that explicitly written you still need to threated by RAW.
Knightblde 12-14-07, 10:45 AM	This is the same tired old argument. The absence of a restriction doesn't mean there are no restrictions. This is the same tired old argument. Just because you think you know more about all the rules than everyone else, doesn't mean we are all stupid. And also, when you leave out the rest of the quote and ignore it altogether, it makes proving a point easier. You may not agree with my argument, but it does not mean it was not well thought out or presented. ------------------------------------------------ First of all, your not 'gaining flanking' which is what I was pointing out. You are gaining a flanking bonus. Again, they only call it a flanking bonus so it doesn't stack with flanking, which also gives you a flanking bonus. While looking deeper into this, I noticed a line in the Rules compendium, that is also in the SRD, which makes Risner correct, and which my previous arguement partially supports. Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus. This happens to be under flanking, but asthe IoB also calls it a flanking bonus, the same rule would apply. I was not aware that it was worded in this manner under the flanking rules. I had thought it would have just said "Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get flanking" but it does not. It clearly notes that you can't get a 'flanking bonus' without threatening. As stated before, I still come to the same conclusin as Risner, but this time I have a way to back it up.
Master_Vega 12-14-07, 12:26 PM	This is the same tired old argument. The absence of a restriction doesn't mean there are no restrictions. Extra Spell doesn't allow you to obtain any spell from any spell list despite not having "from any spell list" included in the feat description. This ability does not say "you do not need to threaten to gain flanking in this manner" and without that explicitly written you still need to threated by RAW. That's not really the same thing. "From any spell list" doesn't exactly say "any spell from any spell list", where this stance says "You gain the flanking benefit when you and an ally are adjacent" -not a direct quote. I'll use my argument once more, since you keep recycling yours: apparently using this logic Island of Blades simply makes flanking more difficult for the user and any ally he might be flanking with. After all it only says he and his ally must actually be adjacent to the target; it says NOTHING about not having to be on either side. Here's the wording (if a Mod/admin wants me to get rid of them, I have no problem doing so) : "If both you and an ally are adjacent to the same creature, the two of you gain the benefit for flanking that opponent." Then again, it doesn't say anything about not gaining the flanking benefit otherwise, so I suppose the stance would do nothing. What a stance! We know that's not what the designers meant because that would be a waste, so we get to assume that they meant you can flank your opponent -regardless of your own and your ally's position- so long as you are adjacent. Once more I agree that it's silly to have a non-threatening character help flank, but unless you want to invalidate the entire stance you can't use the argument you have been using.
risner 12-14-07, 03:34 PM	Once more I agree that it's silly to have a non-threatening character help flank, but unless you want to invalidate the entire stance you can't use the argument you have been using. Nothing I have said invalidates the stance. The Stance allows you to flank without being opposite sides of a monster, that is all. You still need to threaten, since the stance doesn't say you or your ally no longer need to threaten. You can not gain or give a flanking bonus, regardless of the source, without threatening and since the stance doesn't mention anything about threatening, you still need to threaten the opponent to participate. You come here, ask for the rules, then get them and argue with the messenger when you should be house ruling it anyway you like and go on about your business. I don't care how you play it, I just don't like people saying it works differently than the RAW says it works.
Master_Vega 12-14-07, 04:40 PM	Did I insult you? I seriously didn't mean to offend you if I have. In addition, I didn't ask how flanking works; I asked what "Adjacent" means as far as the game/stance goes. That question has already been answered, and now we have started a slightly off-topic rules debate for a scenario I didn't bring up. :P I don't particularly call arguing with you "shooting the messenger", mainly because you're answering a question I never asked. Still, if you don't wish to continue this debate we can go our separate ways.
risner 12-17-07, 09:09 AM	Did I insult you? I am not insulted. This new debate centers around two interpretations of the Island of Blades ability. Interpretation #1: You can now flank without being opposite sides, you still need to obey all other requirements for flanking to gain flanking. Most likely scenario, requires no "added words." (Similar to the position that Polymorph doesn't allow a Medium to become a Huge since that is 2 steps and Alter Self allows only 1 step.) Interpretation #2: You can flank without being opposite and you don't require a weapon to threaten. Very unlikely scenario, requires added words of "and you don't require any of the remaining requirements for flanking." Could also work by rewriting the feat to say "get a +2 bonus on attacks that doesn't stack with flanking bonuses." (Similar to the position that Polymorph allows Colossal sized forms by Medium creatures, because it only says you can't assume forms smaller than Tiny and since it doesn't limit larger forms you can be Colossal.) #1 is the simplest (Occam's razor) plus despite it not generally mattering for a RAW game, it is likely the one intended by RAI.