Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Raven Dark 05-19-06, 09:55 PM	I want to play a Human Rogue 5/Assasin 4 in my DM's 9th level game. I wanted the character to duel wield Kasuri-gamas (DMG) along with the Adaptable Flanker feat (PH 2) so he could flank almost anyone in melee all by himself. In this manner my rogue could get three sneak attacks attacks at 7d6+1 plus Strength each (+1 shocking kasuri-gamas). It would also open my Rogue up to use Death Attacks. The problem? My DM says that I can't flank someone without an ally despite the fact that my feat selection CLEARLY ALLOWS FOR IT. He doesn't even seem to care that I had to expend ALL of my feats in order to get this one trick pony to work, that I still suck in combat compared to the group's meatshields, or that my trick won't even work half the time (Improved Uncanny Dodge, undead, constructs, plant creatures, etc.). My character isn't overpowered, won't be stealing the spotlight off the other party members, AND is perfectly legal by the RAW, but my DM still says no. Can you help me convince him? He allows the Kasuri-gamas, he allows the PH II material, he allows me to play an evil Assassin, he just won't let me flank by myself. What am I to do? (and don't say "make a different character!")
Kazeofwinds 05-19-06, 10:04 PM	I wouldnt say your dm is being unreasonable about it, I defidently wouldn't let anyone flank with themself. I'd say talk to your dm and see if you can change out some of your feats, other than that, not much I can think of to do.
Shaggy_Shaggs 05-19-06, 10:12 PM	Your DM isn't being unreasonable. There are plenty of silly loopholes in the rules that clearly allow for things that either weren't intended, or just rub some folks the wrong way, and (as much as it drives me crazy shooting my own ideas down) a DM is perfectly within his rights to shut such a thing down. don't say "make a different character!" My advice to you is to create an alternative personification. :P
Vaelan 05-19-06, 10:15 PM	That is an erroneous interpretation of the feat and thus the DM is fully justified by any standard to disallow it. Here is why it is an erroneous interpretation... From the PHB glossary... 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. Two points here, one of which is relevant. The other is mostly poking fun at you for insisting upon strict adherence to the rules when you are not, in fact, following the rules. 1. The rules for flanking require two characters to threaten an opponent. You have to be on the opposite side of someone else, not yourself. 2. The flanking bonus on attack rolls and the ability to sneak attack are listed as separate benefits of flanking. Adaptable Flanker only allows you to choose a second square to effectively occupy "for the purposes of determining flanking bonuses for you and your allies". Since the glossary separates the flanking bonus and ability to sneak attack into separate, unrelated benefits and the feat only applies for the purposes of the flanking bonus, Adaptable Flanker doesn't affect one's ability to Sneak Attack at all. In short, I'd be happy with the current ruling because a strict reading of the rules would make the feat far less useful.
darkness ninja of light 05-19-06, 10:19 PM	Whoa. How in the world do you DUAL WIELD kusari-gamas? I can only see you really just using the kama part of the weapons effectively and the weighted chains just hang off of them. I would imagine that using both ends of two kusari gamas in a full attack would be very unweildy. I don't know much about the adaptable flanker feat. What, basically, does it allow you to do? I'd say just choose different feats.
Raven Dark 05-19-06, 10:25 PM	Adaptable Flanker only allows you to choose a second square to effectively occupy "for the purposes of determining flanking bonuses for you and your allies". The feat is an exception to the rule of two, as is clearly shown by the bolded text. :rolleyes: The feat allows for easier flanking. Flanking allows for Sneak Attack. How would I not get Sneak Attack damage? :confused: I don't know much about the adaptable flanker feat. What, basically, does it allow you to do? I'd say just choose different feats. The feat says that "when adjacent to a foe you can choose to count as occupying any other square you threaten for the purposes of determining flanking bonuses for you and your allies. You also occupy your current square for flanking an opponent."
Shaggy_Shaggs 05-19-06, 10:29 PM	Notice in that part you bolded there, Raven, "you and your allies", not "you or your allies" as you seem to wish it said. You still need your allies to flank and sneak attack. Deal with it.
Raven Dark 05-19-06, 10:31 PM	Notice in that part you bolded there, Raven, "you and your allies", not "you or your allies" as you seem to wish it said. You still need your allies to flank and sneak attack. Deal with it. Aren't I my own ally? I'm certainly not my own enemy. :(
Insanit 05-19-06, 10:48 PM	Aren't I my own ally? I'm certainly not my own enemy. :( allys are people on your side, not yourself to abuse such a feat to always sneak attack is broken you could tumble around your enemy to get sneak attack
claypigeons 05-19-06, 10:50 PM	Aren't I my own ally? I'm certainly not my own enemy. Flanking an enemy yourself is contradictory to both the word and the mechanic. :rolleyes:
Rentar1743 05-19-06, 10:50 PM	make a new character. Sorry couldn't resist. You state the answer yourself. It has to be a square you threaten. Without reach your stuck.
Torbida 05-19-06, 10:54 PM	The feat says that "when adjacent to a foe you can choose to count as occupying any other square you threaten for the purposes of determining flanking bonuses for you and your allies. You also occupy your current square for flanking an opponent."[/QUOTE] Um. It says square you threaten. Sorry buddy but there is no way in the Nine Hells that you threaten the square behind your opponent. You can't flank on your own. This feat seems to give you the ability to help more than one ally ta flank an opponent of medium size.
Tsuul 05-19-06, 11:06 PM	At least your DM lets you use the DMG version of the weapon. Mine forces the OA one. But I have to agree with other posters here, the feat doesn't let you become your own flanker.
dragonseth 05-19-06, 11:08 PM	It is easily possible to threaten a spot 10 feet away, maybe with a spiked chain. He's not wielding two Kusari-gamas. He's wielding it as a double-weapon from my understanding. And, he's using it for 10-foot reach. I don't feel like reading up on the Kusari-gama at the moment, so I'm assuming that's legit. So, he can easily threaten the square opposite of himself. Even so, it does defy logic that you can flank by yourself, though I suppose it all comes down to if you count yourself as an ally.
Raven Dark 05-19-06, 11:10 PM	Sorry buddy but there is no way in the Nine Hells that you threaten the square behind your opponent. It has to be a square you threaten. Without reach your stuck. The kusari-gama is a light reach weapon that threatens at both 5 and 10 feet, very much like the spiked chain. Thus, I CAN threaten the aquare oposite me if I am adjacent to my foe. Why in the Nine Hells is everyone saying I can't do this all of a sudden? Absolutely everyone elsewhere on these boards who has seen this feat says it is possible. That is where I got the idea from after all. I even explained the trick from a (flavor stand point) on my character sheet: "Over the years Aello developed her own unique fighting style—one that involved the mesmerizing spinning of her bladed chains to keep her foes off balance and open to her lethal attacks." is it so impossible to imagine such a character? Especially in a world with Dragons and Spells?
Tristan 05-19-06, 11:13 PM	*eye twitch* ok, first of all, since it is the most recent thing i read. no you are not your own ally. Im not going to justify that in a traditional since, but in a game since. You will see in abilities that aid your allies (like inspire courage) that it says "blah blah your allies" and then it says "You also get the bonus" or whatever. Now if it had that "YOu also" part in the rules for a general situation, it might work, but since abilites that are simular can have different rules, it is not so. also, how the heck can you sayI wanted the character to duel wield Kasuri-gamas (DMG) along with the Adaptable Flanker feat (PH 2) so he could flank almost anyone in melee all by himself. In this manner my rogue could get three sneak attacks attacks at 7d6+1 plus Strength each (+1 shocking kasuri-gamas). and then say your DM is being unreasonable. If this where my campaign, I wouldnt need to justify my ruleing through other stuff because I first and foremost would have said "NO" cus you are clearly doing this stupid crap to powergame. Yea, maybe if two Kusari gamas was the idea behind your character, but no, your lust for this is clearly mechanics wise. Stop trying to pimp your character. oh, and by the way, once your opponent knows your a threat or that you are there, you cant death attack him. You would at best get one death attack off against any one person.
Raven Dark 05-19-06, 11:18 PM	I first and foremost would have said "NO" cus you are clearly doing this stupid crap to powergame. Yea, maybe if two Kusari gamas was the idea behind your character, but no, your lust for this is clearly mechanics wise. Stop trying to pimp your character. I have been wanting to play a spinning chain fighter for years. Now that the rules actually allow for me to pull it off nicely, everyone bites my head off for it. oh, and by the way, once your opponent knows your a threat or that you are there, you cant death attack him. You would at best get one death attack off against any one person. I know how the Death Attack rules work.
Otto the Bugbear 05-19-06, 11:18 PM	You are "behind" an enemy. Across his square from you is one of your allies, we'll call him Tom. Next to him is another one of your allies, we'll call him Jerry. Normally, you provide a flanking bonus to Tom, but not to Jerry. This is because you are not directly across the enemy from Jerry. As your other square from which to threaten (the benefit the feat provides), you choose the one across from Jerry. Now, both Tom and Jerry gain flanking bonuses (+2 to hit) and you get the flanking bonus and the sneak attack dice. If Tom goes down, or moves away, both you and Jerry are both considered to be flanking still. This is because the "other threatened area" you chose is directly across the enemy from Jerry. See? Nice feat, good benefit, rather balanced for the cost of a feat, not overpowered. Plus, it certainly does NOT allow you to flank by yourself. Explain it the correct way to your DM. See if he'll allow the feat to actually work as written, instead of working as presented by you. Cheers Otto :)
Raven Dark 05-19-06, 11:22 PM	:headexplo :rant: :banghead: :hoppingma :tantrum:
Shaggy_Shaggs 05-19-06, 11:30 PM	Light weapon? Spinning chain fighter? That sounds a lot like the territory of the Swashbuckler/Dervish to me. Maybe you won't be as hard-hitting with each strike as a rogue/assassin, but you'll be significantly more rules-compliant, and you won't need flanking.
Otto the Bugbear 05-19-06, 11:36 PM	:confused: Is that a bad thing? It's still a good feat. X = you E = bad guy A = ally ... .ea .x. You threaten the square across from your ally. Thus you can make that your Adaptable Flanker square, and you both receive the benefits of flanking. Keep the feat. If you're planning on getting into combat anyway, it's a decent feat as long as you have allies. Though being evil may mean even your party members don't always qualify as "ally". :smirk: Cheers Otto :) edit: uhh... I was refering to Dark, not you Shaggy.
Count Arioch the 28th 05-19-06, 11:41 PM	The feat says a SECOND square. As in, not the same square you are standing in. Your DM is correct in this ruling, you need to pick two squares, not pick the same square twice.
Shaggy_Shaggs 05-19-06, 11:41 PM	Though being evil may mean even your party members don't always qualify as "ally". :smirk: Cheers Otto :) edit: uhh... I was refering to Dark, not you Shaggy. :smirk: Detect Thoughts/Evil much? :devil:
rijeagle 05-19-06, 11:47 PM	The first sentence of the feat is: When you and an ally team up against a foe, you know how to maximize the threat your ally poses to your target's defenses. * my emphasis. Ally: an associate who provides assistance; "he's a good ally in fight"; wordnet.princeton.edu You can't flank alone. Basically this feat allows you to increase your flanking size by choosing an additional square, not create artificial flanking with yourself - even though you threaten 10', that is not relevant to yourself. A: Ally E: Enemy Y: you X: your increased flanking area A1 X A2 E Y A3 What the feat does is gives Ally 3 a flank bonus, even though there are no allies in flanking position to them. Normal flanking rules apply between you and Ally 2. Ally 1 gets no flanking bonus.
Raven Dark 05-19-06, 11:49 PM	:confused: Is that a bad thing? It's still a good feat. No. It is an excellant feat irregardless of who is right here, I was jsut venting because I created this thread to get help and everyone ends up siding with my DM! The feat says a SECOND square. As in, not the same square you are standing in. Your DM is correct in this ruling, you need to pick two squares, not pick the same square twice. Huh? With a spiked chain (or similar weapon) I am considered to be both in my own square and the square opposite me (or whatever threatening square I choose) for the purposes of flanking. Maybe I am just dense, but I still don't see how my trick fails to work (short of my DM simply saying no) by the RAW.
rijeagle 05-20-06, 12:07 AM	read my post just above yours. You can't flank with yourself. An ally is a team member. We're not siding with your DM (although he is correct), we're stating the rules as RAW, you're confusing yourself with the second flanking square.
Deper 05-20-06, 12:28 AM	Huh? With a spiked chain (or similar weapon) I am considered to be both in my own square and the square opposite me (or whatever threatening square I choose) for the purposes of flanking. Actually, you threat the square, not occupy it. The feat says that you need to team up with an ally. As the Wonder Twins taught us, you cannot team up with yourself.
dragonseth 05-20-06, 12:28 AM	Argh. He is considered to be in his own square and the square opposite him on the other side of his opponent. FACT, game, set, match, he IS ON BOTH SIDES. If he and an ally are in said squares, he is flanking. FACT. Is he, himself, an ally? This is the question. This determines the validity of this tactic. By the rules, can he consider himself an ally? If yes, he wins. If not, he can't flank like this.
rijeagle 05-20-06, 12:43 AM	Argh. He is considered to be in his own square and the square opposite him on the other side of his opponent. FACT, game, set, match, he IS ON BOTH SIDES. If he and an ally are in said squares, he is flanking. FACT. Is he, himself, an ally? This is the question. This determines the validity of this tactic. By the rules, can he consider himself an ally? If yes, he wins. If not, he can't flank like this. You are not an ally of yourself, as defined by any rule in the game. Again, the first sentence of the feat states: When you and an ally team up against a foe, you know how to maximize the threat your ally poses to your target's defenses. * edit - clarifying
OamuTheMonk 05-20-06, 01:25 AM	I was jsut venting because I created this thread to get help and everyone ends up siding with my DM! When defeat comes, accept it as a signal that your plans are not sound, rebuild those plans, and set sail once more toward your coveted goal. There you go.
Raven Dark 05-20-06, 01:37 AM	You are not an ally of yourself, as defined by any rule in the game. Again, the first sentence of the feat states... First, I was joking when I mention myself as an ally. Please drop it. Second, the line of text you quoted is flavor text, not game rule text. The difference is in what comes before the term BENEFIT in the feat's text, and what comes after it. Your quote has no bearing on the mechanics of the feat whatsoever. Third, I still don't understand what is preventin me from doing this. Why would the feat even bother saying "determinging flanking bonuses for you and your allies" if I couldn't acquire them by myself? Wouldn't it just say for you allies if it worked as you all say?
bitnine 05-20-06, 01:59 AM	Third, I still don't understand what is preventin me from doing this.Really?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.To be even more clear, you are not "a character or creature friendly to you". By the by, a Huge creature with a Fine creature in its middle square would also not flank with its attacks. Hm, do you also not understand why you can't use the Aid Another action to help yourself?
Bob Loblaw 05-20-06, 02:10 AM	In order for you to gain the bonuses of the feat, all conditions must apply. Since flanking requires at least two allies, then you will need a companion. This feat is essentially the same thing as the Tactical Soldier's ability which allows pretty much the same thing. This feat is actually something that nearly every rogue should at least consider. It greatly enhances his sneak attack abilities and options.
Raven Dark 05-20-06, 02:11 AM	Really?To be even more clear, you are not "a character or creature friendly to you". By the by, a Huge creature with a Fine creature in its middle square would also not flank with its attacks. Yes, those are the rules for flanking normally. The wording of the feat changes those rules and allows me to flank by myself. I am so confused as to what you guys are getting at. You are all talking about me not being my ally (because I said that dumb thing), but for the purposes of flanking, the feat allows me to place an "imaginary flanker" opposite me should I choose. The end result is the guy is flanked and I get the bonuses (and thus sneak attack). It's not me in the square opposite of me. It's nothing. The feat just makes it act as if there was something there--for the purposes of granting flanking. That last sentence sounds really strange when I read it to myself, but hopefully it will help you understand my reasoning, and thus help you get me to understand YOUR reasoning.
bitnine 05-20-06, 02:26 AM	Yes, those are the rules for flanking normally. The wording of the feat changes those rules and allows me to flank by myself.I think that's where you're hitting your confusion. You get to "count as occupying any other square you threaten for the purposes of determining flanking bonuses for you and your allies." Count yourself as occupying any (or even every) square around your opponent all you like, you don't get to flank with yourself any more than that Huge creature does. Your imaginary flanker addition to the feat is even more removed than the flavor text. (You can count as occupying the square behind the creature for flanking bonuses for you, sure. That means if there's an ally immediately to your side you flank by virtue of occupying that square. Flanking bonus for you.)
9JACK9 05-20-06, 02:33 AM	In this manner my rogue could get three sneak attacks attacks at 7d6+1 plus Strength each (+1 shocking kasuri-gamas). It would also open my Rogue up to use Death Attacks. Boy, this thread is off to a WONDERFUL start... :rolleyes: I'm subscribing to this one, this oughta be worth a laugh or two. So, let me get this straight... you just happened to "stumble across" a feat with a handy little loophole, and proceeded to pour every single feat you had in order to take advantage of it. Not only did you create your entire character around exploiting this feat to your full advantage, you also chose (had) to snag yourself a weapon out of the "Asian Culture" section of the DMG to do it... On TOP of all of this, your DM is letting you play an evil character, and best (worst) of all, he's letting you get away with playing an Assassin. ..... ... ..... ... ... wow. What amazes me most about all of this is that you can't understand why no one is taking your side... But hey, you're asking for advice. I can't give you advice on how to tell your DM that he isn't being fair to you, because he's been Monty ****ing Haul for you up until now, in my opinion. Buy two shortswords instead of the gamas. Then switch out "Exotic Wep Proficency", with somethin' else. You can't flank without somebody there with you, anyway, so help out yourself and your teammates with the "Adaptable Flanker" feat. Oh, right, and you're wrong. You would be stealing the spotlight. What's your strength? I'm gonna go with 14. Let me see... 7*6=42. 42+3=45. 45 is your max damage, if you rolled all 6's and added three. +1 magic, plus str. 1*7=7. 7+3=10. 10 is your min damage, if you rolled all 1's and added three. 45+10=55. 55/2=27.5. Your average hit, doing sneak attack, would be 27.5. You hit three times in one round, so you say, so 27.5*3= 82.5 If you hit, with all three attacks, you would do ON AVERAGE, 82.5 damage a round. Anybody want to correct me on my math? Pretty sure I did it right. Ya, 82.5 damage a round, and you're ****ed because you want your character to be able to do that all by his lonesome. That's not overpowered or anything.
geekling 05-20-06, 02:36 AM	Why would the feat even bother saying "determinging flanking bonuses for you and your allies" if I couldn't acquire them by myself? Wouldn't it just say for you allies if it worked as you all say? Because you get that +2 flanking bonus as well as your allies. This feat just lets you flank, with an ally, in circumstances where you wouldn't have without the feat. A - ally F - foe Y - you Numbers - squares. A23 4FY 789 Without the feat you an your ally would not me flanking this foe. But with the feat you are - and both You and your ally gets that plus two flanking bonus (and yes would be legible for dealing sneak attack damage). As you can count yourself as occupying square 9, without actually moving there. It does not mean that you can flank with yourself - still need an ally involved for that.
Reversefigure4 05-20-06, 02:44 AM	Why would the feat even bother saying "determinging flanking bonuses for you and your allies" if I couldn't acquire them by myself? Wouldn't it just say for you allies if it worked as you all say? Because it works on both you and your allies - as in, the both of you. Look: 000 0F0 0M0 0R0 000 Here we see a fighter and a rogue flanking a monster. The flanking bonus is granted to BOTH of them - both the rogue, and his ally(ies) the fighter. Both get the +2 bonus. If the feat text read: "this determines flanking bonuses for your allies", it would be excluding you, so you wouldn't get the +2. What it means is that that both flankers get the bonus, as is the norm for flanking. The feat simply allows you to be standing in a different square to do it in. Regardless of how many squares you threaten, you still need another party member in order to be flanking. (Edit: And yes, Raven Dark beat me to it, but I started typing before he posted. Have a double example, it's twice as good!)
danielinthewolvesden 05-20-06, 02:55 AM	You're lucky your DM is letting you run an Assassin at all. :rolleyes: No, you can't flank with yourself. Adaptable Flanker will still be cool, as it doesn't require you to be directly opposite your ally.
LostPassWordDoesNotWork 05-20-06, 03:02 AM	First it was somone wanting to use a bonus attack from cleave to do what ever he wanted. Then a idea of a whirlwind (great)cleave, KO 4 klobads, move, attack two more times, trip once, and disarm once. Now its someone point out the "lack of rules" to flank something by them selves. Lucky for us D&D is a game based on a sureal life. The rules are made to create balance, fairness and random rolling helps mimic the chaos factor. So cleaving works like cleaving, and no "feat" turns you into two people. Heck, I cannot even name a spell that creates a living, talking, fighting, casting mini-me clone. theres cloning and summoning, just not at once. Plus thats spells, feats are something you do well. Anyone that can stand in two places at once ten or more feet apart please raise your hand now. Anyone that raised their hand can become better at their ability and learn a "feat" to improve on it. RP view: You cannot flank by your self. PHB/DMG: You cannot flank by your self. PHBII book that is broken and needs a errate made up: Its possible. Broads argee on: You cannot flank by your self. DM argees on: You cannot use the feat to flank by your self. Munchkin player argees on: you can flank by your self, becuse the feat does not say you cannot. Your wrong for dumping roleplaying for rollplaying, for misreading the intention of a feat, pestering the guy that can change any rule to help balance and play his campaign to let you change how the game mechanics work. ..And becuse you are still arguing over it. :P I think the other posts here and more then once plainly pointed out how you are wrong. So heres some advice 1: Stop posting about this. 2: Point your DM to this thread. 3: Maybe ask to trade in your feat if you do not like it. 4: Stop playing with that DM. 5: Make a new character. Advice for your DM: 1: Don't allow it, and good job on saying no so far. 2: Let him have it, then kill him using a few zombie-nazi-pirate-ninja-mindflayer-halfdemons that ride a cybernetic-halfdragon-Halfcelestial-dinosaurs. Oh and each one has +8d6 sneak attack, two Flaming Frost Shock +5 Kasuri-gamas, and use the feat the way he wants so badly on him. 3: Point out my #2 advice has no rules saying you cannot do that. 4: Boot/ban him if he keeps bugging you. With as much arguing Raven Dark has done here I can only imagine what the DM has to put up with.
Raven Dark 05-20-06, 04:36 AM	Okay, I think I get it now. I still think it is a debatable topic (after all, I was like the 500th person on these forums who interpreted the feat this way), but at least I see what all of you mean now. So, um...uh...thanks...for having to put up with me. :embarrass I think I will follow the DM's ruling (really what choice do I have?) but otherwise keep the character the same. Duel reach weapons and the feats still make for some killer flanking maneuvers--even if I can't do it all by myself. :cool:
Evil DM Mk3 05-20-06, 04:59 AM	I think I will follow the DM's ruling (really what choice do I have?) but otherwise keep the character the same. Duel reach weapons and the feats still make for some killer flanking maneuvers--even if I can't do it all by myself. :cool: Here is some advice for using the feat well, seeing as you have gone out graciously rather than with a rant and flame like most. The vast majourity of people who try and flank try it like this... Monster comes this way \/ PC BB PC /\ PCs come this way. This is because it is normaly very hard, taking up at least an extra round, to flank liek this, as well as killing the fighter types charge (the second guy is almost allways a rouge who is willing to spend an extra movement round to get the better attacks). PCBBPC But your feat weapon combo alows a hybrid solution, the fighter can charce as normal and you can move to teh side, typicaly getting a full attack in on a round where the traditional flank would make you have to, at BEST charge. Like so. BBPC PC A much faster flank for all concerned. I love this feat and allready have a pair of evils lined up to use it...
Otto the Bugbear 05-20-06, 07:54 AM	Second, the line of text you quoted is flavor text, not game rule text. The difference is in what comes before the term BENEFIT in the feat's text, and what comes after it. Your quote has no bearing on the mechanics of the feat whatsoever. NEVER fall into this trap. Why? It's not the first time feats have been presented in this way. The text before the Benefit: section does apply. First, it's text in the rule book. Saying, "I'll ignore some parts of the text," just screams cheater! to me. That's because the end of that sentence is usually "to gain undue advantage while ignoring the hinderances." Your way of looking at it...(i.e. ignoring the so-called "flavor text". Complete Warrior Power Critical [general] Benefit: When using the weapon you selected, you gain +4 bonus on the roll to confirm a threat. WTF is that talking about? "Weapon you selected"? When did I have to select a weapon? Oh, wait! I select it when a threat occurs, right? Um, no. That part at the beginning -- "Choose one weapon, such as a longsword or greataxe." -- means something. This isn't the only example. Just the first one I found. Cheers Otto :)
darkness ninja of light 05-20-06, 08:59 AM	Hmm...that's interesting. Is it even possible to threaten a square that has cover in relation to you? I know you can't threaten a square with total cover between you and it, but if enemy1 is directly between you and enemy2, do you still really threaten enemy2? And I still don't understand dual wielding kusari gamas! Raven Dark seems to be using the plural so unless I missed something there are actually two kusari gamas rather than one being used as a double weapon. How do you dual wield a double weapon? Imagine dual wielding quarterstaffs or spiked chains or two-bladed swords, or...swordchucks!
Fend 05-20-06, 09:10 AM	Im glad you got it in the end. but if i was your Dm. I would have Said you were power Gameing... Here is an example of a Power Gamer in my group: Flavor : Wants to play an Short Old Man with a Blindfold and a Longstaff Tho it wouldnt be aslong as a longstaff it would be significantly smaller to suit his size. Aswell as this he would be crazy and Rant and love s*x and pretty much be the dude from wiked city. The Mechanics : 4 foot Tall just above small with a full sized but small looking longstaff - isnt Really blind - has a Blindfold of True Darkness to give him better vision than the other party members. and the kicker. hes not old. Or Crazy. he has a wisdom and intelegence score of 10. Strength 22. High Con. High Dex. Charisma 11. And he doesnt even count as Middle aged yet. He just has Bad SkinDamage... =sigh= I hate players who whoar Mechanic loop holes and get angry... dnd Is made from Contributions of sources from MANY MANY players... and Creators. It is impossible to compare every possible FeaT combination, skill, Class exploit, race Explot from all the books and find every last one. but its the explicit Time spent by players looking thru all these books who find the best possible combinations to survive / Finish combats quickly / and Stay in character while still being kick ass... unfortunantly. the Monsters havent been created in the Same way. And without jacking them up to whoar out equal quantitys of Exp and treasure... well... you just end up with unfairly strong players who really seek more to unravel the hard work of your devoted Dm's... :( DM's who spend LONG hours Prepareing to make you have amazing adventures.And players dont seem to get that the DM is doing alot of Work to Preserve their Campaign integrity when they make "DM calls" on your selections... things in recent history that have made me flip out have been - a players VOP giving a future character Idea (even tho it had flavor) an AC of 31...
Kresalak 05-20-06, 11:55 AM	Wait. He's a "Powergaming *****" because he interpreted a feat wrong? Wow. Now someone just claim he cannot roleplay because of this, and we'll be all set. By the way, I suggest removing your misspelled attempt to say *****, since it's against the Code of Conduct.
Deper 05-20-06, 12:33 PM	The feat is very clear in what it says, Raven. There is no room for debate. If the line in question is "determinging flanking bonuses for you and your allies", it makes it clear that getting flanking bonuses still require your allies. If you can get the bonus without allies (your proposed emphasis on "you", the sentence falls apart because it still says "and your allies". Does that mean that, as long as you have the feat your allies are able to flank by themselves as well? It does say "and your allies" after all, and your reading would imply that it applys equally to them. There are no feats that allow a character to gain a really nice bonus and confer the entire benefit of that feat to their allies (who not only don't have the feat, but aren't likely to have any of the other pre-requisites). The idea that the feat could ever allow you to flank by yourself comes from purposefully misreading it. Your suggestion could make sense, so long as you completely ignore the implications that you having the feat allow every else to use it just as easily as you do, regardless of where they are. So you can read the feat properly and come up with a nice ability that makes sense, or you can try to tweak its grammatical structure in ways it just won't bend in order to make it accomplish what you want it to do. Your DM is being very reasonable. He's just not allowing selective reading to dictate how things work.
Vaelan 05-20-06, 12:39 PM	The feat allows for easier flanking. Flanking allows for Sneak Attack. How would I not get Sneak Attack damage? Read the feat again. It doesn't allow you to flank more easily, it allows you to treat yourself as though you were in multiple squares for the purposes of determining flanking bonuses. The Flanking bonus is +2 to hit with melee attacks. The ability to sneak attack is wholly independant of this bonus. You can have the bonus without being able to Sneak Attack (such as in the case of flanking someone with Fortification armor) and you can Sneak Attack without getting the bonus (such as in the case of a feat from Complete Warrior called Eyes in the Back of Your Head). You do not get to Sneak Attack because you get the bonus, they are separate benefits. The benefits are separate and Adaptable Flanker clearly only applies to determining one benefit. As such, Adaptable Flanker does not help you Sneak Attack by the strictest reading of the rules. Yes, those are the rules for flanking normally. The wording of the feat changes those rules and allows me to flank by myself. No, it doesn't. There is not a single statement in the feat that even remotely implies that it bypasses the restriction in question.
feartheinvinceblehamster 05-20-06, 12:49 PM	It is possible to dual-wield a double weapon, it just requires a lenient DM. EWP(weapon)+monkey grip+multiweapon fighting= dual wield double weapons. I don't know about this raven, even though it says that, I wouldn't allow that feat without extreme testing.
Derrhyn 05-20-06, 12:58 PM	Okay, I think I get it now. I still think it is a debatable topic (after all, I was like the 500th person on these forums who interpreted the feat this way), but at least I see what all of you mean now. So, um...uh...thanks...for having to put up with me. :embarrass I think I will follow the DM's ruling (really what choice do I have?) but otherwise keep the character the same. Duel reach weapons and the feats still make for some killer flanking maneuvers--even if I can't do it all by myself. :cool: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :cheer: And no, I'm not sarcastic. Admitting mistakes at this board is such a rare event that I think it deservs some recognition. Respect to you man :bow: :bow: Derrhyn
rijeagle 05-20-06, 01:00 PM	Second, the line of text you quoted is flavor text, not game rule text. The difference is in what comes before the term BENEFIT in the feat's text, and what comes after it. Your quote has no bearing on the mechanics of the feat whatsoever. Anyone caught breaking these rules shall be fired: Rules: Do not steal Do not damage property Do not use racist language So, your saying that, because Anyone caught breaking these rules shall be fired: is before "Rules" you can ignore it, and use the excuse, "where does it say I will get fired, it's not in the rules" Flavor text, as you call it, is important. Selective reading is useless, and solves nothing. Why would the feat even bother saying "determinging flanking bonuses for you and your allies" if I couldn't acquire them by myself? Wouldn't it just say for you allies if it worked as you all say? You keep stressing YOU yet ignore the following AND YOUR ALLIES. You and your allies is the complete thought, not just you or and your allies. There is an and there, not an or. Please, learn to read in complete thoughts, and not what you want to see. Me is not the same as me and an ally I (and obviously everyone else) don't read anywhere in there where it says you can flank a creature with yourself. It says you and your allies. The feat allows you to increase the flanking area for your allies opposite the enemy, allowing more allies to get the flanking bonus than the normal flanking rules allow. This is what the feat is all about. So basically instead of only 1 ally and yourself getting the flank bonus, you and TWO allies would get the flanking bonus. * edit - cheers! I missed your mea culpa. glad you understand!! :D
9JACK9 05-20-06, 01:20 PM	Now someone just claim he cannot roleplay because of this, and we'll be all set. He's playing an evil assassin. What's there to roleplay? Seriously, let's not kid ourselves. It's really not that much of a challange to play one. But as far as the "Debateable Topic" goes, ya, you're right, the way the feat was written left MORE than enough room for arguements. Anyway, if at all anything, your character will learn about something interesting called "Teamwork", which should provide lots of avenues for something called "Roleplaying", something you may (or may not) do in your game. Either way, have fun. I would still go with Shortswords, though... but that's just me.
Kresalak 05-20-06, 01:42 PM	Anyway, if at all anything, your character will learn about something interesting called "Teamwork", which should provide lots of avenues for something called "Roleplaying", something you may (or may not) do in your game. Yup, I think we have our instance of the Stormwind Fallacy. This thread is complete.
Millennium 05-20-06, 01:47 PM	There's another reason that this doesn't work. Kusari-gama, like all chain weapons, are two-handed, so you cannot dual-wield them unless you have at least four arms. As with all chain weapons, kusari-gama can be used as either reach weapons or double weapons, and thus you could theoretically apply TWF to a single kusari-gama, but there's another problem: chain weapons can't be both reach weapons and double weapons at the same time. To use a kusari-gama as a double weapon, you give up its reach until you cease to use it as such. Thus, the tactic still doesn't work.
Vexsom 05-20-06, 01:56 PM	tried tumbling around the enemy yet? sure its a moderate sized check, but it is still legal to tumbled around the enemy and then attack from behind.
9JACK9 05-20-06, 02:09 PM	Yup, I think we have our instance of the Stormwind Fallacy. This thread is complete. I do what I can. *salute*
Raven Dark 05-20-06, 02:57 PM	There's another reason that this doesn't work. Kusari-gama, like all chain weapons, are two-handed, so you cannot dual-wield them unless you have at least four arms. As with all chain weapons, kusari-gama can be used as either reach weapons or double weapons, and thus you could theoretically apply TWF to a single kusari-gama, but there's another problem: chain weapons can't be both reach weapons and double weapons at the same time. To use a kusari-gama as a double weapon, you give up its reach until you cease to use it as such. Thus, the tactic still doesn't work. It is possible to dual-wield a double weapon, it just requires a lenient DM. EWP(weapon)+monkey grip+multiweapon fighting= dual wield double weapons. I keep seeing people say things like this. What the hell are you all talking about? :confused: Do you not own the core rule books? Do you not read my posts? The Kasuri-gama fromt he Dungeon Master's Guide is a light weapon with reach. It most certainly is NOT a double weapon and cannot be used as one in any way shape or form. I can not only duel-wield two of them without excess feats (I only need Exotic Weapon Proficiency and Two-Weapon Fighting), I can duel-wield them with little penalty involved. Did you pull those chain rules out of your pants? Maybe you are confused because of a DM's houserule? Read the feat again. It doesn't allow you to flank more easily, it allows you to treat yourself as though you were in multiple squares for the purposes of determining flanking bonuses. The Flanking bonus is +2 to hit with melee attacks. The ability to sneak attack is wholly independant of this bonus. You can have the bonus without being able to Sneak Attack (such as in the case of flanking someone with Fortification armor) and you can Sneak Attack without getting the bonus (such as in the case of a feat from Complete Warrior called Eyes in the Back of Your Head). You do not get to Sneak Attack because you get the bonus, they are separate benefits. The benefits are separate and Adaptable Flanker clearly only applies to determining one benefit. As such, Adaptable Flanker does not help you Sneak Attack by the strictest reading of the rules. You guys have me seriously convinced that the feat may not allow flanking by oneself, but the idea that it doesn't help with sneak attacks at all is just wrong. The feat allows you to flank more easily. When you are flanking you get sneak attack damage. It is a simple concept.
ProfWhy 05-20-06, 04:22 PM	Kusari-gama is a traditional Japanese weapon that consists of kama (Japanese for sickle) on a metal chain with a heavy iron weight at the end. Attacking with the weapon usually entailed swinging the weighted chain in a large circle over one's head, and then whipping it forward to entangle an opponent's spear, sword, or other weapon, or immobilizing his arms or legs. This allows the kusari-gama user to easily rush forward and strike with the sickle. A kusari-gama wielder might also strike with the spinning weighted end of the chain directly, causing serious or deadly injury to his opponent while still outside the range of the opponent's sword or spear. (quote about the kusari-gami from Wikipedia.org (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kusarigama) ) After reading about the usage of the weapon, I don't see how your DM allowed the dual-wielding of two of them at the same time, unless he had no clue about how they were supposed to be used... Seems like a two-handed light melee weapon to me, with the sickle portion in one hand and the chain in the other, but that's just my opinion, I suppose... ;)
Count Arioch the 28th 05-20-06, 04:46 PM	Kreselak: what is the Stormwind fallacy? I haven't heard of that. Vaelan: If you are flanking, you sneak attack. The two are VERY much interdependant. If the feat allows you to flank, then you sneak attack. That's all there is to it. A strict reading of the rules shows that you are wrong.
Raven Dark 05-20-06, 04:50 PM	(quote about the kusari-gami from Wikipedia.org (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kusarigama) ) After reading about the usage of the weapon, I don't see how your DM allowed the dual-wielding of two of them at the same time, unless he had no clue about how they were supposed to be used... Seems like a two-handed light melee weapon to me, with the sickle portion in one hand and the chain in the other, but that's just my opinion, I suppose... ;) There is no such things as a light two-handed weapon. That's like saying "the small giant." I assume you mean it should be a double weapon (which makes the off-hand portion a light weapon for the purposes of Two-weapon fighting penalties. Although, the DMG may have it wrong, the RAW states that it can be duel-wielded easily. That is why it is so cool, it is the only light weapon with reach in the existence of the rules (as far as I know). As written, it is NOT a double weapon and cannot be duel-wielded by itself. For that, you need a pair of Kasuri-gamas.
Zendu 05-20-06, 05:45 PM	This just in from the reality plane: Newer books have newer rules! Anything that the phb 2 says overwrites the phb 1! By your retarted logic we should all still be using thac0. If you dont like the feat, ban it, dont say it doesnt exist.
Raven Dark 05-20-06, 05:55 PM	This just in from the reality plane: Newer books have newer rules! Anything that the phb 2 says overwrites the phb 1! By your retarted logic we should all still be using thac0. If you dont like the feat, ban it, dont say it doesnt exist. :confused: :confused: :confused:
ProfWhy 05-20-06, 06:06 PM	There is no such things as a light two-handed weapon. That's like saying "the small giant." I assume you mean it should be a double weapon (which makes the off-hand portion a light weapon for the purposes of Two-weapon fighting penalties. Although, the DMG may have it wrong, the RAW states that it can be duel-wielded easily. That is why it is so cool, it is the only light weapon with reach in the existence of the rules (as far as I know). As written, it is NOT a double weapon and cannot be duel-wielded by itself. For that, you need a pair of Kasuri-gamas. You obviously didn't read the Wikipedia quote (or the rest of the article at the source) regarding the historical usage of the weapon. No matter. As I said, I viewed the weapon as a light two-handed weapon, and this was based upon historical usage of the weapon. Perhaps I should've said that it could be viewed as a light weapon requiring two hands in order to utilize the reach and trip features. Better? ;) Trying to use two of these weapons at once would have been clumbsy and awkward if you view it through the prism of historical accuracy. Of course, this is a high-fantasy game, and whatever your DM rules is what goes on in your game. Once again, just my opinion.
bitnine 05-20-06, 06:11 PM	what is the Stormwind fallacy? I haven't heard of that.Basically, it is the idea that if your character is powerful, you are teh bad at roleplaying, and if you are good at roleplaying your character is the suck. You know, that the two are mutually exclusive or even conflicting.
Aldarionn 05-20-06, 06:15 PM	Look, this feat is REALLY SIMPLE! Consider the following diagram: XXX XEX XXX E is an enemy. If you occupy the blue square, and an ally occupies the green square, you are considered flanking the enemy. When you have this feat, you can choose a square you threaten to count as providing flaking for you and your allies. So if you had an ally in the orange square, you could choose to have the red square count as flanking for that ally. In addition, if that was the only ally present, you could count as being in that square, and count as flanking for yourself, and thus make sneak attacks. This feat DOES require that you have an ally present in order to pull it off. Aldarionn
DarkRhystar 05-20-06, 06:27 PM	You cannot dual-wield two Kusari Gama's as a normal medium-sized character without some twinkery. Weapon Name: Kusari Gama Weapon Proficiency: Exotic Weapon Damage: 1d6 Slashing (Blade end) / 1d4 Bludgeoning (Chain end) Critical Threat Range: 20 Critical Multiplier: x2 Weapon Size: Large Finessible: Yes May be wielded as double weapon or a reach weapon. May strike adjacent enemies with one end when used as a reach weapon. May be used to trip enemies. User gains +2 to disarm or avoid being disarmed. While you may use a single Kusari Gama as a double weapon, I do believe that unless your character may somehow dualwield large weapons, that you cannot dualwield two Kusari Gamas. You can find this information on pages 72 and 73 of the Oriental Adventures book.
Bulletproof_Condom 05-20-06, 06:29 PM	Yes, as written, Adaptable Flanker lets you flank someone by yourself if you're weilding a weapon like a spiked chain or a kusari-gama that lets you attack at reach and at melee. Yes, you get sneak attack when flanking. However, I don't think this is what they had in mind, and it is kinda broken to be able to get sneak attack damage just because you're cool. It's right up there with bag of rats. Yes, your DM is nerfing you. No, that is not unreasonable. A real simple way to negate this little combo would be to replace "any other square you threaten" with "any adjacent square". Then, you can't possibly flank someone by yourself. Of course I could be wrong. There's always a chance that they did intend for rogues with spiked chains to be able to flank people by themselves. But I doubt it.
ProfWhy 05-20-06, 06:31 PM	You cannot dual-wield two Kusari Gama's as a normal medium-sized character without some twinkery. Weapon Name: Kusari Gama Weapon Proficiency: Exotic Weapon Damage: 1d6 Slashing (Blade end) / 1d4 Bludgeoning (Chain end) Critical Threat Range: 20 Critical Multiplier: x2 Weapon Size: Large Finessible: Yes May be wielded as double weapon or a reach weapon. May strike adjacent enemies with one end when used a reach weapon. May be used to trip enemies. User gains +2 to disarm or avoid being disarmed. While you may use a single Kusari Gama as a double weapon, I do believe that unless your character may somehow dualwield large weapons, that you cannot do so. You can find this information on pages 72 and 73 of the Oriental Adventures book. Thanks for pointing out the info on the weapon... However, I think he and his DM are only using the description for the weapon found in the DMG, which doesn't provide the details you've provided, hence the confusion about the true nature of the weapon... ;)
darkness ninja of light 05-20-06, 06:32 PM	As mentioned before, Kusari gamas can't be dual wielded AND be used as double weapons. Basically, when attacking using both ends of a kusari gama, you would use one hand for throwing the chain and guiding its momentum and the other for attacking with the kama. Here is a picture of one being held properly. (http://www.bujinkanmalta.com/images/kusarigama.jpg) By dual wielding it, you are saying that you are holding the kamas in your hands and somehow managing to throw the chains too. That would be very akward. How do you hold both the chain and the kama in one hand anyways? The chain is long enough that it would drag on on the floor if you let it go.
FeceMan 05-20-06, 06:33 PM	Also note that this feat does not (necessarily) deny the enemy of his dexterity bonus. It just says that it gives the bonuses of flanking; one could say that the target does not lose his DEX bonus but the bonus to attack rolls is the only bonus of which the feat speaks. By the way, if there is an opponent directly in front of someone with a reach weapon and someone moves into a threatened square directly behind that opponent, can one still make an AoO on the second opponent or attack him at all?
Raven Dark 05-20-06, 06:36 PM	You can dual-wield two Kusari Gama's as a normal medium-sized character with no twinkery. Weapon Name: Kusari Gama Weapon Proficiency: Exotic Weapon Damage: 1d6 Slashing Critical Threat Range: 20 Critical Multiplier: x2 Weapon Type: Light Finessible: Yes (as are all light weapons) May be wielded as a reach weapon. May strike adjacent enemies. May be used to trip enemies. User gains +2 to disarm or avoid being disarmed. (but a -4 for being light) You can find this information on page 145 of the v3.5 Dungeon Master' Guide book. There, that's better! So you all are using the Oriental Adventures version. The mystery is solved then. Why would you though? Oriental Adventures is a v3.0 source whereas the new DMG is v3.5. Newer material takes precidence over the old.
darkness ninja of light 05-20-06, 06:57 PM	It seems that the confusion lies in that the DMG weapon is not a double weapon while the Oriental Adventures weapon is. Apparantly with the DMG kusari gama you are simply throwing the kama at people and using the chain as "reach", which is utterly ridiculous. There was indeed a 3.5 update to Oriental Adventures and the kusari gama was not changed at all. It is as updated as can be.
DarkRhystar 05-20-06, 07:01 PM	The DMG doesn't mention its use a double-weapon either. Chalk it up to another oversight by WotC then. The Oriental Adventures version is a more accurate portrayal of the weapon and as a DM I would overrule the DMG and all the exploits which go with it. A new house rule is born. Regardless, it is in the DMG. And among the munchkins... there was much rejoicing.
ProfWhy 05-20-06, 07:55 PM	<<deleted because I didn't want to sink to that level in my posts>>
ProfWhy 05-20-06, 08:14 PM	There, that's better! So you all are using the Oriental Adventures version. The mystery is solved then. Why would you though? Oriental Adventures is a v3.0 source whereas the new DMG is v3.5. Newer material takes precidence over the old. Okay, you want to go that route, eh? Here we go then... It states in the DMG description that it's a small sickle attached to a length of chain, and that it can strike foes 10 feet away. In order to use it from 10 feet away, logic would dictate that the chain would have to be held while throwing the sickle portion (or the sickle would have to be held while throwing the chain) in order for the reach to be accomplished. While this is occurring, the weapon has in effect become a two-handed weapon. The DMG description also states that it can be used in all respects like a spiked chain for trip attacks and disarming other foes. Once again, in order to do this, the chain has to be thrown with one hand while holding onto the other end of the chain (or the handle of the sickle), thus making the weapon a two-handed weapon while used in this fashion. Sure, you could use the sickle one-handed while attacking without utilizing the reach function, and could even wield two of them at the same time, but that begs the question of what happens to the chains while you are doing this... Are they wrapped up around you in some fashion? If so, then it'll take a round or two for you to get enough chain ready for a reach or trip attack... Are they just hanging loosely? Well, get ready for the possibility of tripping yourself... ;) In any case, your DM already ruled that you could dual-wield two kusari-gama... All we're providing to you are our opinions on the matter. Take them to heart, ignore them, do whatever you want... No biggie.. ;)
Raven Dark 05-20-06, 09:38 PM	Okay, you want to go that route, eh? Here we go then... It states in the DMG description that it's a small sickle attached to a length of chain, and that it can strike foes 10 feet away. In order to use it from 10 feet away, logic would dictate that the chain would have to be held while throwing the sickle portion (or the sickle would have to be held while throwing the chain) in order for the reach to be accomplished. While this is occurring, the weapon has in effect become a two-handed weapon. The DMG description also states that it can be used in all respects like a spiked chain for trip attacks and disarming other foes. Once again, in order to do this, the chain has to be thrown with one hand while holding onto the other end of the chain (or the handle of the sickle), thus making the weapon a two-handed weapon while used in this fashion. Sure, you could use the sickle one-handed while attacking without utilizing the reach function, and could even wield two of them at the same time, but that begs the question of what happens to the chains while you are doing this... Are they wrapped up around you in some fashion? If so, then it'll take a round or two for you to get enough chain ready for a reach or trip attack... Are they just hanging loosely? Well, get ready for the possibility of tripping yourself... ;) In any case, your DM already ruled that you could dual-wield two kusari-gama... All we're providing to you are our opinions on the matter. Take them to heart, ignore them, do whatever you want... No biggie.. ;) If you enjoy your houserules than by all means play them. I, on the other hand, play by the RAW whenever possible. The DMG says that a Kasuri-Gama is a sickle on a length of chain. So for our D&D games, that's what it is. We follow the rules for the DMG kasuri-gama as presented to us by the DMG. No one in our group owns Oriental Adventures nor would we invest in an outdated 3.0 book that doesn't even fit the style of most of our games. My DM didn't "rule" that I could duel-wield two KGs. That would imply a houserule. The book allows for it nomrally. The only thing he "ruled," was that I could use them from the DMG in the first place (since it is in a varient section of the book). And don't tell me that I couldn't duel-wield them becasue they will get entangled in a world that is populated by fighters with swords bigger than they are and dragons that breath fire. Why is nearly everybody in this whole thread coming off as such a jerk? I'm certainly no shining star in this instance, but damn, this is the most snake tongued thread I have ever participated in. :(
ProfWhy 05-20-06, 10:15 PM	If you enjoy your houserules than by all means play them. I, on the other hand, play by the RAW whenever possible. The DMG says that a Kasuri-Gama is a sickle on a length of chain. So for our D&D games, that's what it is. We follow the rules for the DMG kasuri-gama as presented to us by the DMG. No one in our group owns Oriental Adventures nor would we invest in an outdated 3.0 book that doesn't even fit the style of most of our games. My DM didn't "rule" that I could duel-wield two KGs. That would imply a houserule. The book allows for it nomrally. The only thing he "ruled," was that I could use them from the DMG in the first place (since it is in a varient section of the book). Well, Sparky, if you feel that my making interpretations based upon the description of the weapon (which are backed up by historical record and other gaming materials) is "houseruling", that's your opinion... However, since he "ruled" that you could use them in the first place, logic dictates that he also "ruled" that you could be allowed to dual-wield them (since you couldn't dual-wield something you couldn't be allowed to use in the first place!)... And don't tell me that I couldn't duel-wield them becasue they will get entangled in a world that is populated by fighters with swords bigger than they are and dragons that breath fire. Once again, I point to the DMG listing (which you say you're using for this weapon), where it says it can be used in all respects like a spiked chain. Since this is the case, then it should allow for the possibility of tripping you as well -- keep in mind that there's the possibility of being tripped while trying to trip someone using a spiked chain, so the same effect should be present here... Why is nearly everybody in this whole thread coming off as such a jerk? I'm certainly no shining star in this instance, but damn, this is the most snake tongued thread I have ever participated in. :( Okay, so we're standing by your DM's interpretation of the feat, many of us providing opinions and examples of quite a number of things pertaining to your current character build, and we're the jerks for not just giving in and trying to convince your DM that he's wrong and you're right... Great way to make points there, Skippy... Oh, and if you want to alert a WizO to my being all "mean and hostile" with my words, by all means go for it... I hope you do! Then they'll also take a look at your posts and consider the source... As for me, I'm done responding to your idiocy. Enjoy your powergaming, Bubba... ;)
ProfWhy 05-20-06, 10:37 PM	Wow, even after writing that and posting it, that seems a bit rough even for me... oof! ;) My apologies for going that far... I could just delete the post and sweep it under the rug, but I'm going to leave it there for my own embarrassment (and if a WizO decides to punish me for my statements, of course)... In any case, there's some stuff that can be taken from my post... There were (and are) plenty of people out there willing to give advice and opinions on the feat... Don't dismiss 'em out of hand, take some time to read 'em through and think about what they're saying... Sometimes a rule interpretation doesn't make a whit o' sense at one moment, but will come into sharp focus later... Just a thought...
Gideon_Gideonson 05-20-06, 11:03 PM	Come on people, give the guy a break. He accepted your ruling on the feat, and has had to put up with this entire Kusari-gama "look how its actually used" thing...when has D&D ever obeyed the laws of physics? His DM let him duel wield two Kusari-gamas...so be it. Why are we arguing over it? This thread's problem was solved in the middle of the second page...why do we prolong it with pointless argument. Personally, I don't think it would be possible to duel wield two chain weapons without tripping yourself, but if his DM allows it, its fine by me. Thats why not everyone plays in the same campaign. As for the powergaming accusation...who hasn't seen a possible combo like that and said "Wow! I wonder if that's possible?" Just tell the guy its not. Don't jump down his throat.
Elwyn_Sylveran 05-20-06, 11:36 PM	some people have said it before, i'll say it again....the feat only applies to flanking bonus . the bonus is not that you get the sneak attack, the bonus is +2 to attack rolls. in effect, the feat provides you or an ally with a flanking bonus, without anyone actually flanking, but producing the flank effect. you can't sneak attack. whether or not you can dual wield these weapons was not the point of the thread, to my knowledge.
Terraneaux 05-21-06, 01:14 AM	Well, sorry I didn't take the time to read the whole post, but if you are using these feats and weapons to count as occupying the square on the other side of the opponent, you are not counting as occupying the square that you are actually in.
Raven Dark 05-21-06, 02:39 AM	Well, sorry I didn't take the time to read the whole post, but if you are using these feats and weapons to count as occupying the square on the other side of the opponent, you are not counting as occupying the square that you are actually in. The feat specifically states that you continue to occupy your own square as well as the chosen square.
caeruleus 05-21-06, 02:49 AM	The phrase, "you and your allies" by itself does not imply that both are needed for the feat to be used. It just means that the bonus applies to both. And speaking of allies, you do count as your own ally. Look up "ally" in the Glossary of the PHB. And so, actually, I think that you can flank with yourself with this feat, if you're going by the RAW. Having said that, I also think it's a stupid idea. It can very easily be fixed, however, by adding a sentence saying, "You cannot flank an opponent by yourself." For what it's worth, for those who might be interested, Iron Heroes allows you to flank by yourself, if you occupy opposite squares around an enemy during the same round. But IH is set in a low-magic world where the PCs are physically supposed to be incredibly powerful and over-the-top.
Raven Dark 05-21-06, 03:12 AM	I love you Caeleruleus! :inlove: The phrase, "you and your allies" by itself does not imply that both are needed for the feat to be used. It just means that the bonus applies to both. And speaking of allies, you do count as your own ally. Look up "ally" in the Glossary of the PHB. And so, actually, I think that you can flank with yourself with this feat, if you're going by the RAW. Wow. Not only does someone actually agree with me (at least from a mechanical RAW standpoint) they also give some great support. Is it my birthday today? :dancin: ally: A creature friendly to you. In most cases, referances to "allies" include yourself. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! If that isn't fuel on the fire I don't know what is! :mage:
Evil DM Mk3 05-21-06, 04:19 AM	From the DMG description of the weapon under scrutiny (I have little other info so I may be way off) I expected you to hold the thing by the end of the chain and swinging it around at high speed to gain momentum before throwing it at your oponent. In such a usadge the weapons' dueal use becomes easy, although this may be a million miles from the historical practice. Second in order to try and save the ruling on the feat I will quote this for enphasis and point out that this along is enough for a DM to say "No!" justifiably. ally: A creature friendly to you. In most cases, referances to "allies" include yourself. Personaly I would allow sneak attack with this flank but not self flanking.
Archangel62 05-21-06, 05:31 AM	Something tells me that threads like this are going to become as frustrating as the 'Does monkey grip stack with powerful build' threads.
Otto the Bugbear 05-21-06, 08:28 AM	So, what's the total so far? 1. You count as your own ally in most cases(PHB glossary). 2. A reach weapon allows you to threaten the square across from a medium or smaller opponent. 3. The feat allows you to count as flanking from that square. 4. The opponent has cover from these attacks, because he's between your true square and your phantom square. 5. The intent seems to be what many people in this thread have already demonstrated with charts. 6. Concealment prevents sneak attacks from working. Though, strangely, sneak attacks doesn't mention cover (at least without checking errata/FAQ). 7. Your DM as ruled that it doesn't work. Now, #7, combined with #5, leads me to my suggestion [i]for your game. Go with the interpretation many in this thread, myself included, have suggested. This may be enough of a compromise to not ruin your character, yet your DM can feel justified in allowing it. Of course, you can still pursue it on-line to see what you can come up with. I'd be really interested to see what CustServe has to say about it. Well, the sage too, but he's rather unreliable in answering just any old email out of the blue. Oh, and different opinions aren't hostile acts. I've never felt a wee bit of hostility toward you. After all, if I let the words someone else anonymously types on a message board dictate my emotions, what does that say about me? I will present my arguements strongly. The stronger I feel my stance is, the stronger my responses may seem. Perhaps it's that resolution you're mistaking for hostilty? Well, at least from some posters. Cheers Otto :)
darkness ninja of light 05-21-06, 09:21 AM	If you enjoy your houserules than by all means play them. I, on the other hand, play by the RAW whenever possible. The DMG says that a Kasuri-Gama is a sickle on a length of chain. So for our D&D games, that's what it is. We follow the rules for the DMG kasuri-gama as presented to us by the DMG. No one in our group owns Oriental Adventures nor would we invest in an outdated 3.0 book that doesn't even fit the style of most of our games. My DM didn't "rule" that I could duel-wield two KGs. That would imply a houserule. The book allows for it nomrally. The only thing he "ruled," was that I could use them from the DMG in the first place (since it is in a varient section of the book). And don't tell me that I couldn't duel-wield them becasue they will get entangled in a world that is populated by fighters with swords bigger than they are and dragons that breath fire. Why is nearly everybody in this whole thread coming off as such a jerk? I'm certainly no shining star in this instance, but damn, this is the most snake tongued thread I have ever participated in. I think you feel everyone is coming off as a jerk because they are presenting info you do not wish to hear. As far as actual hostility goes, I don't see much of it on this thread towards you. I definately see hostility on both sides concerning screwed up rules in the book. I snapped at the DMG messing up one of my favorite ninja weapons and you've talked with a poison tongue about 3.0 books, particularly Oriental Adventures. Everyone was just explaining the feat to you. I was curious as to how you could possibly dual wield kusari-gamas. I'm also still curious about whether or not you can threaten a square that has cover in relation to you. We aren't telling you "NO YOU CAN'T USE THOSE WEAPONS YOUR DM TOLD YOU THAT YOU COULD USE!!!". We're simply wondering how it's possible given how the weapon is rightly used. I understand now that you're using it like a whip rather than a spiked chain, but that still has me wondering how that works. The chain is about 10 feet long and you're swinging both of them above your head and such. Even so, I don't think it was wrong of us to show you how the weapon really works. It's like the debate with whether or not a rapier should always use your Dex modifier. Looking at how a rapier works, you see it really isn't about Dex. (Let's not get into that).Still you can houserule it (or in this case, use the DMG variant). Saying you can dual wield them because dragons breathe fire is a bit silly though...if that were the case, the rules would consist of nothing "Magic exists. Anything can happen no matter what anyone else says. Make up your own fricken rules." I kinda felt you were joking about saying that, but there's nothing in the context that really confirmed it to me, so I'm just putting that out. Basically, dual wielding unwieldy weapons isn't particularly fantasy or magic.
DIESCUMDIE 05-21-06, 11:40 AM	This is too late but... This feat allows you for the purpouse of determining flanking count as being in your square and one other that you threaten.(Right? Dont have the book yet) To flank by yourself the other square you would have to occupy to achieve this would be the one directly on the other side of your opponent. You cant do this because you dont threaten the square on the other side of your opponent. He is in the way and counts as cover (concealment would work the same way).(Unless you have the exotic weapon master ability). If there is a man between you and, say, a wizard, the wizard can cast spells without worrying about attacks of oppurtunity because you wont get any. (This is one easy way to deal with trippers of doom, approach using a tower sheild as cover). You dont get attacks of oppurtunity against invisable opponents, even if you know what square they are in, unless you can see them perfectly (ie you have no % miss chance).
STAT 05-21-06, 12:21 PM	I think you feel everyone is coming off as a jerk because they are presenting info you do not wish to hear. As far as actual hostility goes, I don't see much of it on this thread towards you. You know I think I might take things as being a bit hostile if on page 2 I conceded my point and then for another page and half people were still telling me how I was wrong. I agree with Gideon_Gideonson, people should have layed off when he said he was wrong, but they didn't. However, it seems like there is still some stuff to be settled here so carry on.
Sphyre 05-21-06, 12:46 PM	My suggestion is to do what I do: Whenever you use something that works RAW, or can be interpretted different ways, or can be seen as kinda cheap, consult your DM of your interest in using it before you do it. If the RAW seems more than RAI, then it's probably up to DM discretion to be houseruled. Your reach weapon sneak attack flanking, while it may work as raw, doesn't look like the purpose of this feat, does it? It looks like it makes you a better flanker - not a self flanker. In fact it might even have been called "Self Flanker" and said "this feat, combined with reach can cause you to flank opponents without an ally" As such, your DM is the final say, but at the same reason, considering the reason you took it was to self-flank, since he's houseruling it to work as INTENDED as opposed to RAW, you should get to choose something after you know how the DM's going to adjucate it. The words merely aren't specific enough to rule it out. But when you look at the rules of flanking it says you need 2 people to flank, one to threaten, and one to attack. 4. The opponent has cover from these attacks, because he's between your true square and your phantom square. Actually, the way cover is considered RAW, is not where you threaten from, but where you attack from. It's a play on words. It can be taken either way, and as such, the DM is the final say. Before you take a feat/spell/ability that can be interpretted multiple ways, talk to your DM to find out how it will be working in his/her game. RAW is not LAW. Your DM is.
darkness ninja of light 05-21-06, 01:30 PM	You know I think I might take things as being a bit hostile if on page 2 I conceded my point and then for another page and half people were still telling me how I was wrong. I agree with Gideon_Gideonson, people should have layed off when he said he was wrong, but they didn't. However, it seems like there is still some stuff to be settled here so carry on. The hostility was being noted before raven conceded. Since everyone was siding with the DM, they were "against" Raven. In all help or opinion threads there is a tendency for people to post before realizing the problem has already been solved. It's not hostility, it's just misunderstanding (and a desire to say something regardless of whether or not it's already been said).
Raven Dark 05-21-06, 01:39 PM	One of the things that bothers me is why people call my idea (of self-flanking) broken. For my rogue to pull this off effectively with duel Kusari-gamas she needs no less than 5 feats (Adaptable Flanker, Combat Reflexes, Exotic Weapon Proficiency, Two-Weapon Fighting, Vexing Flanker). Not many feat trees are nearly that big. If I play a human, I can pulll this off by 9th level if I use every single feat slot for this one trick pony, otherwise, it isn't really possible before 12th level or higher. At those levels, the ability to self flank isn't much compared to what other builds can do. In most games where a DM won't allow the DMG Kusari-gamas, you are limited to the spiked chain which you can't duel-wield--thus your damage output lags behind the fighter a whole hell of a lot more (than if you could duel-wield). Also, my DM has already made his ruling (against me) and he is going to stick to it regardless of what we determine the RAW say. I am trying to figure out the truth for the sake of my own curiosity.
caeruleus 05-21-06, 01:43 PM	I love you Caeleruleus! :inlove: I love you too, Raven, even though you spelled my name wrong. Do keep in mind, though, that I'd still support your DM in his decision.
Raven Dark 05-21-06, 02:02 PM	I love you too, Raven, even though you spelled my name wrong. Do keep in mind, though, that I'd still support your DM in his decision. Godamnit! I was paying extra painstakingly close attention to the spelling too! I am well aware of your stance on the issue, you needn't remind me. :)
Evil DM Mk3 05-21-06, 03:50 PM	One of the things that bothers me is why people call my idea (of self-flanking) broken. The reason I view it as broken is that under the way I would rule it (ie the way I would rule hte REST of it if that part was taken as read) you would get to sneak attack with every attack regardless of stealth or other rougy factors. You must admit that allowing you a damadge jump of an extra 18d6 a round (assumign 3 attacks) HAS to be broken.
kelvinaw273 05-21-06, 04:55 PM	Kusari-gama - a kama-type weapon with a chain attached to the base of the haft. Kusari-fundo - simialr, using a rope instead of a chain. Principal of use: To trip a charging attacker with the chain or rope and then close to finish them off while they are down with the kusari. The Kusari-fundo is for use against armoured people, the kusari-gama is for use against horsemen. In other words, this weapon is a one-trick pony, and it isn't to make sneak attacks. It isn't a double weapon in the conventional sense: You use the chain/rope to make an attack of opportunity as it attacks you, and then hit it on the ground with the fundo (I would rule that could be a sneak attack, myself). Problems with your concept: 1) You cannot dual-wield a kusari-gama. Trust me, I have trained in their use. The attack-of-opportunity rules for reach weapons already cover the use of this weapon in exactly the way it was meant to be used. The trip end is the long end with the reach, not the sharp end that does the damage. EDIT: I thought you were trying to dual-wield a single weapon, OMG I never realised you were trying to use two of them ...LOL ... oh boy, you really are taking the biscuit here ... OK, let me explain: To use a Kusari-gama, you hold the kusari in one hand and whirl the gama in the other to snare, then dive in with the kusari and impale the enemy while he is lying prone. With two, let me see ... you would either have two kusari's with no reach (and two chains tangling your legs up), or two gama's (and I defy you to swing two ten-foot chains around without them tangling each other). Or you could swing the gama side of one and the kusari side of the other ... but that's the same as using just one. Please, please don't tell me that you expected to swing the kuraris at then end of their chains for ten foot reach, let alone two at once ... I saw somebody try that at a ninjutsu seminar once with just one ... they had to call an ambulance LOL. 2) The statement: Originally Posted by Vaelan Adaptable Flanker only allows you to choose a second square to effectively occupy "for the purposes of determining flanking bonuses for you and your allies". Clearly shows that you are not necessarily going to be able to sneak attack somebody when you are facing them and they are engaging no other allies. 3) Your justification of using hypnotically swinging blades shows that (a) you don't understand the weapon you are using as it has only one blade that isn't swung around and (b) where is the Will save to avoid the effect? This is a mind-effecting feature, so it should have a Will save associated with it. 4) I have never seen such an obvious attempt at powergaming by twisting the rules and ignoring reality in my life (no, I tell a lie, I have, but not often). Sneak attacking somebody you are facing, who is concentrating on fighting you? Please get real. You are a rogue and an assassin, you are not and never will be a fighter and a meat-shield. Helping others by flanking their foes and sneak attacking them is what you do. Live with it.
Raven Dark 05-21-06, 05:23 PM	The reason I view it as broken is that under the way I would rule it (ie the way I would rule hte REST of it if that part was taken as read) you would get to sneak attack with every attack regardless of stealth or other rougy factors. You must admit that allowing you a damadge jump of an extra 18d6 a round (assumign 3 attacks) HAS to be broken. Yes, but the damage is terribly, terribly limited. Anybody with the Improved Uncanny Dodge class ability or Heavy Fortified armor is immune to my trick as is any creature with the Hivemind racial ability or the Construct, Elemental, Incorporeal, Ooze, Plant, or Undead creature types. Situational modifiers such as concealment or not being able to reach vital parts of the body negate it as well. Not to mention all the creatures that can't be killed by damage alone (Clerics with Delay Death, trolls with Regeneration, anything with the Curst template, etc.). That makes up roughly 1/4 of the potential opponents a charatcer can face. It is powerful to be sure, but far from broken.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 05-21-06, 06:08 PM	1) You cannot dual-wield a kusari-gama. Trust me, I have trained in their use. The attack-of-opportunity rules for reach weapons already cover the use of this weapon in exactly the way it was meant to be used. The trip end is the long end with the reach, not the sharp end that does the damage. You can in the core rules. Of all the things that he got wrong, it's amazing that so many people targeted the one thing that was legal.
kelvinaw273 05-21-06, 07:34 PM	You can in the core rules. Of all the things that he got wrong, it's amazing that so many people targeted the one thing that was legal. Actually, you should have guessed it was stretching it just from the description of the weapon, and it is a rare weapon few people would train in and realise exactly what it is for. I think the Ninja Training Manual by Dr Masaaki Hatsume has some shots of one in use (or it might be a Kusari-fundo, but very similar). Anyhows, the rules should make it clear you need both hands to use this one-trick-pony weapon, and they do not. This is where the core rules get it wrong, unfortunately. Just like a ninjato is not a short sword (and you can use a katana the same way, so proficiency in one is automatic to gain proficiency with the other), and a katana is a very different weapon to a bastard sword (have used both - will take the katana any day). That all said, the kusari-gama is actually a pretty wicked weapon when used correctly: You can trip an attacker with an AoO (ten foot reach, remember) then move five feet and full attack him while he is prone - a method some will doubtless attempt regularly. The only problem is it should take a full round for the chain to be untangled ready for use again. In other words, a great weapon for an assassin intent on nailing one target. Now the RAW gives the impression that this weapon is a ten-foot-reach kama. It isn't. Like I said in my first post, it is not a kama at the end of a chain and cannot be used as such: it is a kama with a ten-foot-chain attached for tripping. Strictly speaking it should have a seperate damage rating for the chain end, and as it is bigger than a kama (by a lot!) it should do more damage. I would say: Kusari-fundo: two handed light weapon, damage is 1d6 for kusari, 1d3 (and trip) for fundo with ten-foot reach, weight 3lbs. No two-handed damage bonus. Kusari-gama: two-handed medium weapon, damage is 1d8 crit x3 for kusari, 1d4 (and trip) for gama with ten-foot-reach, weight 6lbs. Two handed damage bonus applies with kusari after successful trip.
DarkRhystar 05-21-06, 07:35 PM	Yes, but the damage is terribly, terribly limited. Anybody with the Improved Uncanny Dodge class ability or Heavy Fortified armor is immune to my trick as is any creature with the Hivemind racial ability or the Construct, Elemental, Incorporeal, Ooze, Plant, or Undead creature types. Situational modifiers such as concealment or not being able to reach vital parts of the body negate it as well. If it's so limited then why not switch to a different style eh? One may rationalize in this manner, but I feel that to do so is a lie. The truth is that many of those are only limitations if they are encountered and you feel the benefit is great enough to out weigh the odds of encountering such enemies.. thus they are no limitations at all. If you honestly and regularly faced so many enemies of their natures, you wouldn't have even considered this strategy. If you always face enemies which are immune to magic you don't consider playing a Wizard. The very consideration of it proves that such enemies are few and far between. It is powerful to be sure, but far from broken. I disagree. I do not own the PHBII, but after looking at what has been said... it simply looks to me as though the feat were intended to provide more angles that can be used to flank with. The intention of the feat you are taking was not to allow a Rogue to turn all its attacks into Sneak Attacks. You have combined a poorly (and incorrectly imho) described weapon with a poorly written (and seemingly thoughtout) feat into an exploit. I will not argue that what you wish to do is not possible. I will argue that what you wish to do is not in the spirit of D&D nor the intention of the feat that allows you to do it, and those are what make it an exploit to be labeled as "broken."
Vaelan 05-21-06, 10:10 PM	...the idea that it doesn't help with sneak attacks at all is just wrong. The feat allows you to flank more easily. When you are flanking you get sneak attack damage. It is a simple concept. It is the correct ruling by a strict reading of the rules. The fact that you find the rules ridiculous is something for you to work out with your DM. The two are VERY much interdependant. If the feat allows you to flank, then you sneak attack. That's all there is to it. A strict reading of the rules shows that you are wrong. Here's your mistake: it doesn't allow you to flank in abnormal circumstances. It allows you to pick another square for the purposes of determinig whether or not you and your allies receive the flanking bonus. You aren't actually flanking, but you still gain the flanking bonus. Reading any of the rules on flanking will inform you that being able to sneak attack is a function of flanking, not of the +2 flanking bonus. The fact that these benefits are outlined over 50 pages away from each other in the PHB and do not reference each other in any way should make that pretty clear. It would make sense to say that the +2 bonus to hit and the ability to sneak attack both represent the defender being unable to properly defend himself, but that isn't the standard I'm judging the feat by. In my games, I would rule that the feat allows you to sneak attack. In my games, I would ban the feat for being entirely too good. Not only does it normally require ten levels in a prestige class with extremely high prerequisites to gain, but every Rogue who cares about Sneak Attack would take it. As for this point about being considered your own ally, "most purposes" is pretty vague and thus we cannot come to a solid conclusion. It is entirely a matter of DM interpretation at that point.
Varia 05-22-06, 12:19 AM	Personally I wouldnt have a major problem with allowing the +2 to hit bonus, but not the extra damage. Weapons that wrap around defenses are harder to defend against than ones that dont, and the most common form of such weapons are things on chains. You cant get the precision needed for sneak attack damage like that though so I wouldnt allow that. Thats just me though, not a RAW thing. *Hugs* Varia
Bob Loblaw 05-22-06, 12:22 AM	Yes, but the damage is terribly, terribly limited... Not to mention all the creatures that can't be killed by damage alone (Clerics with Delay Death, trolls with Regeneration, anything with the Curst template, etc.). That makes up roughly 1/4 of the potential opponents a charatcer can face. It is powerful to be sure, but far from broken. "Terribly, terribly limited" sounds like it should be less than 75% of the creatures you will fight. You know it's broken and as a DM you probably wouldn't allow it either. It's why you are fighting so hard for it. Everyone has the powergamer gene. Some just let it control them, others like to let it be a bit more subtle.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 05-22-06, 12:57 AM	Anyhows, the rules should make it clear you need both hands to use this one-trick-pony weapon, and they do not. From the DMG. Kusari-gama, blahblahblah, Light Exotic Weapon, etc. Sadly for you, the core rules explicitly state that you only need one hand to use a Kusari-gama. Is it stupid? Yes. Are you wrong by claiming that, in DnD, the Kusari-gama is a two-handed weapon? Yes.
Raven Dark 05-22-06, 01:15 AM	"Terribly, terribly limited" sounds like it should be less than 75% of the creatures you will fight. You know it's broken and as a DM you probably wouldn't allow it either. It's why you are fighting so hard for it. Everyone has the powergamer gene. Some just let it control them, others like to let it be a bit more subtle. Actually, this thread has uncovered enough RAW evidence showing that this trick works to satisfy me. Thus, if one of my players were to invest the huge amount of feats to make this trick work for them, I would most assuredly allow it.
kelvinaw273 05-22-06, 05:07 AM	Sadly for you, the core rules explicitly state that you only need one hand to use a Kusari-gama. Is it stupid? Yes. Are you wrong by claiming that, in DnD, the Kusari-gama is a two-handed weapon? Yes. No, the core rules are WRONG - or at least, very poor. Oh, I take your point about 'in DnD' and all that, but the point here is that there needs to be some errata issued. This is the problem when people start making rules up for weapons when they have no real concept of what they look like let alone how they are employed. I know, it's fantasy, we don't have to follow the real world too closely ... but if we are bringing real-world items into a fantasy world, we need to at least appreciate them for what they are designed to do and how they were meant to do it. In this case, WotC fell down on their research (sorry guys, but you did). No big deal, errors happen.
Arem_K 05-22-06, 05:07 AM	Why does everyone try to invoke real world physics into D&D weapon mechanics? The spiked chain is usually the one with people coming in from all over to discuss the historical validity and physics of the weapon. Honestly, can this be even more off base? D&D has, at best, a very loose connection to physics. I don't even have to invoke the "wizards can do magic" argument here, just look at the weapons. Look at the dire flail. I don't think it can be wielded, do you? Does that mean you replace the in game text with something you think is appropriate? If you do, that is a house rule. You have changed the rules that are written out in the books in favor of your own idea of what the game should be. The weapon system is just screwed up. All of the weapons are too light, most notably the warhammer. There should be reference made to fact that blunt weapons are more effective on armored opponents than slashing weapons. Heck, the fundamental premise of all weapons, that they do x amount of damage on a clean hit and x is not a lethal or next to lethal sum, is flawed. Thick of how the Greataxe works in real life. Now think of how many blows your party's tank can stand from such a weapon. It simply does not make sense. D&D weapons are just numbers on a table. They are named after weapons, but that does not mean that they accurately represent the weapon. There was a very good thread somewhere about how the historical rapier differs from the one presented in the DMG. You do not have to, nor should you, change every weapon each time you realize you have spotted a historical/physical inaccuracy.
kelvinaw273 05-22-06, 05:15 AM	Actually, this thread has uncovered enough RAW evidence showing that this trick works to satisfy me. Thus, if one of my players were to invest the huge amount of feats to make this trick work for them, I would most assuredly allow it. No, I would say the RAW evidence is against you. I would say the real world evidence shows you to be fundamentally wrong too. Nowhere does the RAW say that you can do this. It says you can get a flanking attack bonus when engaged in combat with allies against an enemy you wouldn't normally be able to flank. That's it. Clearly, you haven't read any of the commentators very carefully at all. If consensus is what you were looking for, the consensus is against you by a long way. That you persist in arguing your case as "it doesn't explicitly say I can't" and ignore the fact that it very clearly does not say you can, then you are suffering from a dire need of a reality check.
Jaerys 05-22-06, 05:38 AM	Actually, this thread has uncovered enough RAW evidence showing that this trick works to satisfy me. Thus, if one of my players were to invest the huge amount of feats to make this trick work for them, I would most assuredly allow it. It's fine if you want to run it your way when you DM, but don't try to claim the 'more RaW' high ground. I know this has been beaten like a dead horse but I do have some new information to point out. After that I promise to let people decide what they want. The word "usually" in the cited definition of ally means you may or may not be an ally of yourself for a given rule. Logically this is the equivalent of saying P is either True or False. As such neither side can use the definition of ally in a proof of their interpretation unless they can show that their proof works for both values of P or else the arguement is unsound. Here's what we're left with: 1. The Adaptive Flanker feat - "When you are adjacent to the chosen target, you can choose to count as occupying any other square you threaten for purpose of determining flanking bonuses for you and your allies. You also occupy your current square for flanking an opponent." Whether the text reads "for you and your allies [excluding yourself]." or "for you and your allies [including yourself]" is being contested. Strangely the RaW of whether when you choose the square you count as for flanking bonuses can be changed during the round is not. Odder still the most important part to this debate - whether the square selected is used to determine flanking bonus has not been disputed and seems crystal clear. 2. From the PHB Glossary : 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. A rogue can sneak attack a defender that she is flanking. Not the best worded definition of flank, but one that must at least be considered. No mention of ally here. Very clearly illustrates that at least two creatures are required to flank and flanking provides a flanking bonus. If you had an ability which specifically overrode this definition then I suppose that it'd trump it. Does Adaptive Flanker? Not the way you think. The feat lets you count as occupying an extra square for determining flanking bonuses. What's the difference between flanking bonus and flanking? Not much usually, but it's all the difference for Rogues. Some feats/abilites like eyes in the Back of Your Head prevent flanking bonuses, but not flanking so rogues still get sneak attack damage in. Others like uncanny dodge can prevent flanking. Since flanking bonuses are gained by flanking a target these abilities generally prevent the flanking bonus as well. Can you be in a situation where you get a flanking bonus without flanking? Yes. The feat Adaptive Flanker lets you choose a square you threaten to count as being occupied by you for determining flanking bonuses. It never says this square can be used to determine flanking. So already solo flank/sneak attack is out. Can you get a flanking bonus with yourself with this feat? I doubt I can convince you, but no. It says you count as occupying the square for determining flanking bonuses. Let's say we count you as being directly on the other side of an enemy who is being threatened by you. You are not another creature than yourself so you do not satisfy that requirement to get a flanking bonus. In conclusion the feat is badly written, but really the only point that has can't be strictly defined by RaW is if you can choose new squares to occupy as the round progresses and thus be something of a flanking hub. (It's a swift action to desiginate the target creature but you can determine a square "when you are adjacent to the chosen target"). Now that I've said my peace I promise to not beat the dead horse anymore.
DIESCUMDIE 05-22-06, 05:53 AM	You asked a question; consensus is, no, you cant flank yourself. (To my mind not actually threatening the square due to the enemy in the way is quite simple) Kusarigami is not in the players handbook. It is for the dm to introduce if he wants to creat oriental flavour. Why are you still repeating yourself? :confused: Seems alot like baiting...
darkness ninja of light 05-22-06, 08:25 AM	Sadly for you, the core rules explicitly state that you only need one hand to use a Kusari-gama. Is it stupid? Yes. Are you wrong by claiming that, in DnD, the Kusari-gama is a two-handed weapon? Yes. Why does everyone try to invoke real world physics into D&D weapon mechanics? The spiked chain is usually the one with people coming in from all over to discuss the historical validity and physics of the weapon. Honestly, can this be even more off base? D&D has, at best, a very loose connection to physics. I don't even have to invoke the "wizards can do magic" argument here, just look at the weapons. Look at the dire flail. I don't think it can be wielded, do you? Does that mean you replace the in game text with something you think is appropriate? If you do, that is a house rule. You have changed the rules that are written out in the books in favor of your own idea of what the game should be. The weapon system is just screwed up. All of the weapons are too light, most notably the warhammer. There should be reference made to fact that blunt weapons are more effective on armored opponents than slashing weapons. Heck, the fundamental premise of all weapons, that they do x amount of damage on a clean hit and x is not a lethal or next to lethal sum, is flawed. Thick of how the Greataxe works in real life. Now think of how many blows your party's tank can stand from such a weapon. It simply does not make sense. We AREN'T saying that it's illegal in D&D to use the DMG kusari gama in one hand! The fact is that in Oriental Adventures a more accurate version of the kusari gama is given. In the DMG, an inaccurate, borderline broken one is given (Spiked chain is considered one of the most powerful weapons, isn't it? DMG kusari gamas do all that and more if two can be used at once). The DMG is not the primary source one would go to for Asian weapons, so I doubt the writers really took the time to look up kusari gamas before putting them in their variant rules. Frankly, considering that Oriental Adventures has indeed been updated, I don't believe that version of the kusari gama is automatically "replaced" by the DMG version. All we're asking for is some errata now! We aren't talking about damage and hp here either. Those rules are simplified so we don't get a headache every time we battle. We're talking about how a VARIANT weapon in the DUNGEON MASTER'S GUIDE should be changed so that it can't be used in one hand, otherwise bad things start to happen. One handed, light weapon, with reach and trip? Yeah, that's kinda messed up. Edit: Also, in regards to flanking (since the OP has once again turned sides) From the PHB glossary: 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. If the "Ally" glossary definition apparantly helps the case, then this should hurt it. It also seems that sneak attack for a rogue is indeed counted among flanking bonuses.
Traevanon 05-22-06, 08:54 AM	It sounds like the spinning, whirling blade thing you want to do falls under some version of Improved Feint anyhow rather than Adaptable Flanker. You spin so fast that your opponent cannot tell where the attacks are coming from... sounds like a feint to me.
magusofatlan 05-22-06, 09:20 AM	I'm taking this feat right now myself with my Half-Ogre, but I'm specifically asking the GM that we clarify the rule for our campaign so that a single combatant cannot flank by themselves with the feat. I want to do sneak attack damage myself - and allow a rogue in our party to do so as well, plus give the flanking bonus to attack - but I'm not willing to powermonger to do so all the time (barring large opponents or rare opponents with certain feats). If a feat allows you to do a lot more damage on the majority of attacks all by yourself then it doesn't balance with other feats.
OravennasBrother 05-22-06, 10:15 AM	The kusari-gama is a light reach weapon that threatens at both 5 and 10 feet, very much like the spiked chain. Thus, I CAN threaten the aquare oposite me if I am adjacent to my foe. The square opposite your foe, if you are adjacent and the enemy is medium size, has cover relative to your square, in the form of said enemy. Thus as I understand RAW, you cannot threaten that square. Since that is THE square which you would need to htreaten to "Flank" by yourself, your feat tree does not work as you hope. HOWEVER it is still a powerfull feat as it allows you and a friend who don.t quite flank an enemy to both gain flanking bonuses. Consider --X Y E --A Y=You E=Enemy A=Ally X=Square you threaten. In the above case your X square allows flanking when you otherwise could not. As a closing note - one trick ponies are not much fun to play, so I would not play such a character.
Traevanon 05-22-06, 10:59 AM	As a swift action, you designate a single opponent as the target of this feat. 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. Just so that the information is correct your 5 feat tree would allow you by 9th level to... 1) Take several attacks of opportunity per round 2) Make more attacks than normally allowed 3) Wield a weapon with bonuses to trip, disarm and spiked chain type reach 4) Gain +4 to hit while flanking instead of +2 5) Gain flanking bonuses from a designated position within your reach and still gain flanking normally from your own space, while adjacent to the target of the feat. ------------------- And in other news here are some other tricks unreasonable players might try based on this feat. 1) Stand adjacent to an opponent (keep a rat in a bag and pull it out in time of need, poke it every once in a while so it stays angry). 2) Target the opponent as the target of your Adaptable Flanker feat. 3) Designate a square 10 feet away in the other direction, behind a or next to a completely different enemy as your Alternate Flanking target. 4) Gain flanking bonuses in relation to the other creature that you arent even adjacent to. From 10' range XXX*X eRXEX XXXBX or stretching it to its maximum 15' range (for medium characters) eXXXXX XRXXXX XXX*XX XXXXEX XXXXXB e = Opponent, and target of Adaptive Flanker R = Rogue, and owner of the Adaptive Flanker feat E = Enemy B = Ally #2, the person to flank with * = designated square for the rogue to gain flanking bonuses from
CriminalTruth 05-22-06, 12:38 PM	raven dark asked about this trick on the Opt boards awhile back.. ( i just read them and came upon this) .. and everyone there pretty much told him the same thing everyone here is saying...( with the exception of maybe ONE person..)...anywayz my two cents He doesn't even seem to care that I had to expend ALL of my feats in order to get this one trick pony to work, that I still suck in combat compared to the group's meatshields, or that my trick won't even work half the time (Improved Uncanny Dodge, undead, constructs, plant creatures, etc.). If you want to sneak attack that badly.... just take max ranks in bluff and FIENT... what do you know? it even gets around uncanny dodge.. and gets rid of the dex bonus for your ops... here.. watch... "move into position- standard action = Fient" Next move " attack" Move action " fient ".. look.. i sneak attack every round.... ( most monsters dont have sense motive. ) wow... i won d&d using core... <3 everyone give me high fives LOL....
Otto the Bugbear 05-22-06, 01:01 PM	Jaerys has the best explanation why it doesn't work so far. darkness ninja of light expounded on it with this quote: From the PHB glossary: Quote: 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. If the "Ally" glossary definition apparantly helps the case, then this should hurt it. It also seems that sneak attack for a rogue is indeed counted among flanking bonuses. Let's also consider how D&D considers bonuses. In the case in question, flanking provides a named bonus. The specifically a +2 flanking bonus. Now, is sneak attack a bonus? Or is sneak attack merely the result of flanking (see above definition) with another character, independent of recieving the bonus or not? Seems to me that a bonus is a bonus and sneak attack has never been described as a bonus. In short, flanking provides a +2 flanking bonus. You can get the bonus without getting sneak attack, you can sneak attack without the bonus. Seems pretty cut and dry, having one doesn't necessarily mean you get to have the other. Couple that with the flanking definition and voila, you need another character to get the flanking bonus (thus the sneak attack for using Adaptive Flanker). Cheers Otto :)
Androcus Divinicus 05-22-06, 01:46 PM	No, the core rules are WRONG - or at least, very poor. Oh, I take your point about 'in DnD' and all that, but the point here is that there needs to be some errata issued. This is the problem when people start making rules up for weapons when they have no real concept of what they look like let alone how they are employed. I know, it's fantasy, we don't have to follow the real world too closely ... but if we are bringing real-world items into a fantasy world, we need to at least appreciate them for what they are designed to do and how they were meant to do it. In this case, WotC fell down on their research (sorry guys, but you did). No big deal, errors happen. ... well, if that's the case, let's not even get started about the firearms rules in d20 Modern (and let's not ... because I *do* often enough that people on these boards are probably getting sick of it) ... but let me leave it at this: If they can't correctly deal with weapons that the whole world uses currently, why would they be able to correctly deal with weapons that a specific culture used historically? /bitter. Sorry. Regards, Justin.
ProfWhy 05-22-06, 01:49 PM	raven dark asked about this trick on the Opt boards awhile back.. ( i just read them and came upon this) .. and everyone there pretty much told him the same thing everyone here is saying...( with the exception of maybe ONE person..)... Hmmm... He didn't get the answer he liked in this thread, so he went to the Opt board to try to get the answer he wanted over there... and when caught in his game over there, he claimed to be a rules lawyer who only wanted to know if the rule worked the way he thought it did (which seems to be quite different than the reasonings he gave in his OP in this thread)... Wow... to paraphrase Jaws, "just when you thought it was safe to go back into the thread..." LOL
Raven Dark 05-22-06, 02:42 PM	From the PHB glossary: 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. If the "Ally" glossary definition apparantly helps the case, then this should hurt it. It also seems that sneak attack for a rogue is indeed counted among flanking bonuses. The "You can't be your own ally" argument has been debunked as the glossary agrees with me on the matter. The aregument shown above is the only one you have left as a good defense to your case (and make no mistake it is a really, really good solid defense). For the time being I'm going to drop the "self-flanking" argument--heck, I'll even agree with your interpretation. But, really, if the sage and/or customer service sends back my E-mails back and they agree with me on the matter--than I will be back to say as much. If they agree with you (which I imagine to be fairly likely) than I will apologize to all of you for having dragged it on. However, for those of you who say you get the flanking bonus, but not the sneak attack damage: That doesn't make any sense at all. You are getting the flanking bonus because you are flanking. The feat allows you to flank in a different manner than you are all accustomed to (and maybe that is whay you can't seem to wrap your brain around it), but you ARE flanking and you DO get the sneak attack damage. Even my DM agrees that I would get sneak attack damage if I have an ally to flank with me (even if I have to use adaptable flanker to get it). He thinks it's stupid that you all seem to think otherwise. I don't think it's stupid of you, I can clearly see why you hold such an interpretation. I still think it is the wrong one though. Hopefully my E-mails to Customer Service/The Sage will clear this issue up as well, but if not, I can send those questions in too. 3) Designate a square 10 feet away in the other direction, behind a or next to a completely different enemy as your Alternate Flanking target. Although completely valid by the RAW, this one does strike me as abusive and against the intent of the feat. I'll have to ask my DM for his opinion on the matter.
Boshi 05-22-06, 02:45 PM	First off, as many people have said self-flanking is insanely broken. It would let you sneak attack no matter what, which goes against the whole purpose of the ability (also if your original idea was right you could to it with spiked chain and just three feats). Give it up already. As far as dual-wielding kusari-gamas, by the 3.5 DMG there's nothing even remotely munchkiny about what he is doing. Basically by the 3.5 DMG rules, the kusari-gama functions as a kind of scaled down spiked chain (can be used one-handed, smaller damage dice). There is nothing in the 3.5 edition DMG rules that indicates that it is either a two-handed or a double weapon and if it was it would be a completely pointless weapon mechanically (exactly like a spiked chain with gimpier damage). Since it's used one handed it doesn't get the +4 bonus to being two-handed that a spiked chain gets to trips and disarms and whatnot, so it's not an especially powerful weapon. It the way the DMG presents a kusar-gama historically accurate or realistic in any way? Hell no. Is it over-powered or broken? Nope, or at least no worse than a spiked chain.
Boshi 05-22-06, 02:52 PM	From the PHB glossary: Flank: To be directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another character. You are not "another character" :) Even my DM agrees that I would get sneak attack damage if I have an ally to flank with me Your DM seems to be a stand-up guy, he nixed the broken stuff and has allowed all of the stuff that made sense. Stick with him. The whole point of those feats it to increase the power of your flanking being able to get sneak attacks more easily (depending on where your allies are) only makes sense.
Turin 05-22-06, 03:00 PM	However, for those of you who say you get the flanking bonus, but not the sneak attack damage: That doesn't make any sense at all. You are getting the flanking bonus because you are flanking. The feat allows you to flank in a different manner than you are all accustomed to (and maybe that is whay you can't seem to wrap your brain around it), but you ARE flanking and you DO get the sneak attack damage. Even my DM agrees that I would get sneak attack damage if I have an ally to flank with me (even if I have to use adaptable flanker to get it). He thinks it's stupid that you all seem to think otherwise.Where did anyone say that? The only time anyone's said you shouldn't be getting your sneak attack bonus damage is if you're trying to self-flank. Obviously if you're treated as flanking under any circumstances (against a vulnerable opponent) you should be allowed to apply your sneak attack damage. (Yes, yes, there was a bozo a few posts back who was trying to argue that your choice of fantasy weapon should disallow sneak attacks all together, but who cares what he thinks?)
Evil DM Mk3 05-22-06, 03:05 PM	Where did anyone say that? The only time anyone's said you shouldn't be getting your sneak attack bonus damage is if you're trying to self-flank. Obviously if you're treated as flanking under any circumstances (against a vulnerable opponent) you should be allowed to apply your sneak attack damage. There was one person quite early on who argued that the +2 was the flanking bonus (as mentioned in the feat) and the ability to sneak attack was not the flanking bonus. Wierd logic but it was there.
Turin 05-22-06, 04:06 PM	There was one person quite early on who argued that the +2 was the flanking bonus (as mentioned in the feat) and the ability to sneak attack was not the flanking bonus. Wierd logic but it was there. Mea culpa... I went back and re-read some of the early posts and you're right, it was there (although why the OP is still complaining about it is beyond me). But by a strict reading of the literal text of the feat, the logic doesn't seem that weird. But that seems like it's an overly literalist interpretation of the (poorly-worded) feat. Which is saying something, because I'm usually fairly literalist in my interpretations.
bitnine 05-22-06, 04:38 PM	But by a strict reading of the literal text of the feat, the logic doesn't seem that weird. But that seems like it's an overly literalist interpretation of the (poorly-worded) feat.Yeah, you go with a strict RAW reading and you'll notice that you get a flanking bonus, not the benefits of flanking. I certainly wouldn't apply it that way, but it's a built-in way to chide anyone using a hyperliteral reading to try to stretch out some other benefits. However, I don't think that there's anything hyperliteral about the self-flanking idea. Reasoning such as, "There are times when I count as an ally with regard to myself, therefore I count as 'another creature' as per the flanking text," is anything but. I wonder - is anyone currently asserting that, as in my previous example, that the Huge creature would flank the Fine creature in its middle square?
Turin 05-22-06, 04:52 PM	However, I don't think that there's anything hyperliteral about the self-flanking idea. Reasoning such as, "There are times when I count as an ally with regard to myself, therefore I count as 'another creature' as per the flanking text," is anything but.Agreed!
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 05-22-06, 05:30 PM	No, the core rules are WRONG - or at least, very poor. Oh, I take your point about 'in DnD' and all that, but the point here is that there needs to be some errata issued. Unless they contradict themselves, the core rules cannot, by definition, be wrong. They can be stupid, but they can't be wrong. Since we're arguing by the RAW, your points are not relevant to the discussion at hand.
evilviper77 05-22-06, 06:21 PM	First, I was joking when I mention myself as an ally. Please drop it. Second, the line of text you quoted is flavor text, not game rule text. The difference is in what comes before the term BENEFIT in the feat's text, and what comes after it. Your quote has no bearing on the mechanics of the feat whatsoever. Third, I still don't understand what is preventin me from doing this. Why would the feat even bother saying "determinging flanking bonuses for you and your allies" if I couldn't acquire them by myself? Wouldn't it just say for you allies if it worked as you all say? i'm not certain if anyone has answered this for you or not because i don't want to look through all the pages but let me tell you my take on it. As read from what all of you have posted here i would say it says YOU because you also get the flanking bonuses if flanking with another ALLY (not yourself) even if you aren't directly across from each other. Let me visually explain. x= you, y= ally and O = creature, s= sqaure you choose to help flank with s O x Y so while you aren't really at s, you use the feat to give flanking bonuses to you AND your ally, but once again you cannot flank with yourself. Vetoed. Out of the question. sorry.
ProfWhy 05-22-06, 07:51 PM	Even my DM agrees that I would get sneak attack damage if I have an ally to flank with me (even if I have to use adaptable flanker to get it). He thinks it's stupid that you all seem to think otherwise. Amazing.. I've seen people state that it's possible to get the flanking bonus but be unable to sneak attack, and that it's also possible to get a sneak attack without having the benefit of a flanking bonus... Haven't seen anyone make the statement you're posting there, however... Perhaps your DM could read this thread and post on here after reading our opinions and explanations... Or maybe you don't want him to read the thread, having possibly just told him what you want him to know about the things that've been said (or have been misinterpreted by you as having been said)... Of course, I won't hold my breath for your DM to do that, since I doubt you'd suggest his reading this thread... LOL
Raven Dark 05-22-06, 08:28 PM	I could have sworn there were no less than 4 people saying I couldn't get sneak attack when using Adaptable Flanker to flank. Maybe I misread their respective posts. :embarrass
Hidden 05-22-06, 08:30 PM	I don't have time to read through the whole thing, so I hope someone has already pointed this out, if not; Pg. 155 of the PHB (think 'Feint') lets you pretty much do what you want without wasting a feat. Just max out your Bluff. Remeber; to do things the right way, do them the Core way. ;p
ProfWhy 05-22-06, 09:08 PM	I could have sworn there were no less than 4 people saying I couldn't get sneak attack when using Adaptable Flanker to flank. Maybe I misread their respective posts. :embarrass After rereading the entire thread, I'll give you your props on that and that there were people advocating that you can't get a sneak attack just because Adaptable Flanker gives you the flanking bonus for squares you threaten... HOWEVER... I also see that they were putting forth their opinions that the flanking bonus given by Adaptable Flanker is separate from the rogue's sneak attack ability and shouldn't be considered part of any "bonus" in this regard... Personally, I can see both sides on this matter, since it's a tricky situation to wade through... If I were to run across it in my games (and I'm sure I will soon!), I'd rule that a player could use the sneak attack function on those squares being threatened by the feat, as long as the enemy's attention is directed toward the flanking allies... ;) ...but that's just my opinion, take it or leave it... ;)
ski309 05-22-06, 11:31 PM	I don't see why you wouldn't be able to get sneak attack damage using adaptable flanker. The only problem I saw was how you were trying to be your own flanker (the rules clearly state that a flank involves two people). The awesome thing about your setup tho, is with that reach weapon you could gain flanking with an ally that's standing right next to you: 123 4E6 7YA #=grid number E=enemy Y=you A=ally with your reach weapon you could count 1 as your extra threatened space and therefore would be flanking with your ally.
Kalrin 05-22-06, 11:58 PM	You know... I'm probably going to get myself flamed for this but... The text of this feat was posted some pages back, so I'm going to assume everyone answering this thread has read it. The process of the feat works as follows: 1) As a Swift Action I target a single opponent. 2) When I am adjacent to my target I choose a square that I threaten. 3) Now for the purposes of flanking bonuses with regards to myself and my allies, I am considered to occupy that square. 4) I also occupy my current square for flanking an opponent. Now I don't think anyone is arguing anything about steps 1,2 or 4. But I do feel the need to draw attention to the words "Myself and my allies" (or you and your allies as in the text of the feat). Here we have an inclusive And statement. That is, we have a group of people which is defined to be myself and my allies. hence I am a member of this group, and so for the purposes of flanking bonuses for myself I occupy that square. Also, by 4) I occupy my current square for flanking an opponent. Thus if I threaten a square behind my opponent as in the figure below: M: my actual location m: the location I choose because of the feat E: the Target of the feat 0 0 0 m T M 0 0 0 The problem with using an exclusive and is that the group of people then mentioned is empty because as other people have pointed out: I am not my own ally. the essential problem is that people have been requiring an ally to be adjacent to the target. That is not required, in fact I myself do not have to be adjacent to the target of this feat to invoke it! I do have to be adjacent to the target to select a square though (and note, once again, no allies need to be present). Some Consequences and notes regarding this feat: A) This feat doesn't actually flank someone. As pointed out earlier the feat grants "flanking bonuses". It doesn't actually flank someone. This is further underscored by the last sentance of the feat which references flanking, not flanking bonuses. B) The Bonuses Granted don't need to be directed towards the target of the feat. The reason for this is simply that the feat doesn't require those bonuses to apply to the target only, just that for the purposes of those bonuses you occupy the specified square. So the gist of this is: You don't need allies to use this feat, but you can't use it to deal sneak attack damage because it doesn't actually cause you to flank someone. A last note: This feat needs to be reworded/reworked. It's poorly worded and allows for wierd things to happen (see consequence B). edited to fix my own poor wording (it might still be bad :)). Also edited to fix a reading problem on my part.
Raven Dark 05-23-06, 02:40 AM	C) You usually don't threaten a square on the opposite side of an enemy. The reason for this follows this logic: If you use a reach weapon to threaten that square, since it's greater then 5 feet distance you use the ranged cover rules to determine if it has cover. Since your opponent is directly in front of you, that square does have cover. Since it has cover, you can't make attacks of opportunity into it. Since you can't make attacks of opportunity into it, you can't attack into that square when it's not your turn (which is what you need to be able to do to threaten that square). The underlined portion doesn't make any sense to me. Why would I not threaten the square simply because of cover? Cover makes it harder to hit something, it neither prevents attacks (unless it is full cover) nor prevents me from "threatening" a space. Am I missing something? :confused: Even if you are right, there are feats that allow me to completely negate cover in melee combat.
kelvinaw273 05-23-06, 05:15 AM	The underlined portion doesn't make any sense to me. Why would I not threaten the square simply because of cover? Cover makes it harder to hit something, it neither prevents attacks (unless it is full cover) nor prevents me from "threatening" a space. Am I missing something? :confused: Even if you are right, there are feats that allow me to completely negate cover in melee combat. This is becaue the fore-part of your brain has been instructed by the hind part to filter out anything that says you might not be able to deliver a sneak attack every attack with your feat tree. EVERY poster with the exception of yourself has said "no" to this. Everyone has backed it up with both RAW and Common Sense. They have clearly pointed out that: 1) Flanking bonuses that may be conferred by this feat are not the same as sneak attacks in this particular reference, though most would rule that they are in most circumstances. 2) You cannot be your own ally. Further, the Common Sense arguments are: 3) You cannot threaten an enemy from the square opposite yourself while adjacent to that enemy, because that square has cover (from the enemy); in other words, how can your weapon REACH that squar to threaten from it if it cannot get there because of an intervening object? This assumes that in order to gain this flanking bonus, you are able to reach out of your square to strike from an adjacent one, and kind of reach around the foes defences. 4) It's broken for a rogue to sneak attack with every attack an enemy that he is fighting face to face. 5) Kusari-gama's are incorrectly described in the DMG (thank you somebody for finding the correct description in the updated Oriental Advenures which should trump this for those that want RAW) and can't be dual wielded in any event. This is therefore the only reason I can think of as to why you do not, after five pages, understand why you can't do it or at least why your DM is not being unreasonable in telling you you cannot do it. Hopefully my E-mails to Customer Service/The Sage will clear this issue up as well, but if not, I can send those questions in too. I have to award you full marks for detirmination here, you really stick to your guns in the face of adversity. The optimization board said you couldn't do it, everyone here says you cannot do it, so now you go right to the source. Will you post up whatever e-mail you recieve IN FULL please? To all those other posters who have pointed out that use of the Feint can allow Raven Dark a neak attack every round, you are missing the point: Raven Dark does not want one paltry sneak attack every round, he wants to full-attack in a round and have every one of them a sneak attack. Anyone else see what's wrong with this?
Merestil Haye 05-23-06, 07:28 AM	C) You usually don't threaten a square on the opposite side of an enemy. The reason for this follows this logic: If you use a reach weapon to threaten that square, since it's greater then 5 feet distance you use the ranged cover rules to determine if it has cover. Since your opponent is directly in front of you, that square does have cover. Since it has cover, you can't make attacks of opportunity into it. Since you can't make attacks of opportunity into it, you can't attack into that square when it's not your turn (which is what you need to be able to do to threaten that square).This turns out to have a little problem in it, which I discovered when looking up the rule in order to explain why you were right. While you do indeed use the rangd weapon rules for determining cover because you are not adjacent to that square, and while the interposition of the enemy creature does grant cover, soft cover (indeed, anything less than total cover) does not stop you threatening the area. You cannot take AoOs against foes with cover, but that does not mean you do not threaten. You can still attack someone around a corner from you on your turn so you must still threaten around a corner. The rules just say that the obstacle providing cover reduces their vulnerability to the point where you cannot take an AoO. Thus the reason why I initially thought his trick did not work is wrong. That does not mean I think it does work. Flanking relies on the physical pressence of two attackers to distract the opponent. The Rules of the Game article on flanking points out that if two creatures are attacking an opponent, and one is invisible to the opponent, the visible creature gets no benefit from flanking. I'd rule this is the case here. If the creature is flanked only by virtue of an attacker with Adaptable Flanker who both threatens the attacker and the square necessary to flank, then the opponent is not considered flanked because the second attacker is imperceptible. Incidentally, to anyone who would allow this trick, consider that there are other ways of getting 10' reach and still threatening adjacent squares. Reach weapon plus armour spikes and Large creatures come to mind straight away. A human Rogue 13 with this feat, items allowing him to become Large, and two normal weapons could then self-flank the OP to death quite easily.
darkness ninja of light 05-23-06, 07:44 AM	Unless they contradict themselves, the core rules cannot, by definition, be wrong. They can be stupid, but they can't be wrong. Since we're arguing by the RAW, your points are not relevant to the discussion at hand. Uhh...so you're saying that you're right and we're wrong and that the entire PHB, DMG, and MM are flawlessly perfect until Wizard's comes out and says that they actually made a (*GASP!*) mistake? Sometimes rules are a certain way in D&D for reasons of balance. However, if fluff is wrong, and the rules are presented in an imbalancing or unintentional way according to the fluff, then it is quite reasonable for us to believe that it was a mistake. That's how errata and rules complications are found in the first place. The kusari-gama as given is an INCREDIBLY powerful whip (except it works against any opponent regardless of armor, threatens any area within 10 feet, has a larger damage die, does lethal damage, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity as a ranged weapon, all in exchange for 5ft of range) and is pretty much on par with the spiked chain when used dually, I don't really think it's wrong of us to ask for accuracy in exchange for a two handed weapon.
Raven Dark 05-23-06, 10:46 AM	While you do indeed use the rangd weapon rules for determining cover because you are not adjacent to that square, and while the interposition of the enemy creature does grant cover, soft cover (indeed, anything less than total cover) does not stop you threatening the area. Just as I thought. You cannot take AoOs against foes with cover, but that does not mean you do not threaten...The rules just say that the obstacle providing cover reduces their vulnerability to the point where you cannot take an AoO. Where does it say this? I looked up the AoO rules after this was mentioned earlier and I found no mention of cover effecting the ability to take an AoO. Perhaps I was looking in the wrong place? EDIT: I found the AoO prevention text under the rules for cover.
geekling 05-23-06, 10:53 AM	Where does it say this? I looked up the AoO rules after this was mentioned earlier and I found no mention of cover effecting the ability to take an AoO. Perhaps I was looking in the wrong place? It's under the cover and concealment section. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover) Cover and Attacks of Opportunity You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.
Raven Dark 05-23-06, 11:50 AM	Not that it matters anyway. I still threaten the square in question, so that particular argument against my trick doesn't hold up.
flashlightbrown 05-23-06, 12:59 PM	I dont have the PHII and I havent read the actual feat but I was wondering since you arent your own ally, what if you were riding a mount who could attack (lets say a halfling paladin or druid with a riding dog). If you were riding the animal could you get the flank bonus?
Kalrin 05-23-06, 01:49 PM	I actually looked up what it means to threaten a square. The requirement is that you must be able to launch a melee attack into that square even when it's not your turn http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm Since you can't make an attack of opportunity into a square which has cover, you can't make attacks 'even when it's ont your turn'. Thus you don't threaten a square which has cover. Of course if you can negate cover for melee attacks, this would remove the entire problem.
xxxsammaelxxx 05-23-06, 01:51 PM	If you were riding the animal could you get the flank bonus? Now this is a clever and effective use of the feat .... May be time to dust off my ol' Kobold Dire Weasel Riding Rogue Assuming of course, you take the feats to get around the cover issue.
OravennasBrother 05-23-06, 02:40 PM	I actually looked up what it means to threaten a square. Of course if you can negate cover for melee attacks, this would remove the entire problem. Actually the problem is that the Feat in question, Adaptable Flanker, was either written with the intent that it could be used to create a solitary flanking scenario or it was not written with that intent. Since the spirit of D&D is one of cooperative effort by heroes, as implied by the ideal party composition 1 Rogue, 1 Wizard, 1 Cleic, and 1 Fighter and by the multiple references in CR to having challenges based o a party of 4 PC's, it would be a justifiable conclusion that the Feat Adaptable Flanker was NOT written with the intent that it would be used to generate solitary flanking. Thus even if someone can provide a set of evidence which seems to support the claim that as written AF allows solitary flanking, I wold not allow it to work in that manner. What would hapen if the DM used this feat for say a Roper with rogue levels? Oops the PArty wizard is dead on the surprise Round, the Cleric on round One before he gets a chance to act, and the fighter declines to remain in a SA zone. This leaves only a Rogue with weak Forittude saves against the Roper's strength draining ability. Just say NO to Abuses like that.
evilviper77 05-23-06, 03:41 PM	how in the world did this thread get to 5 pages? This is crazy, the simple answer is no you can't flank with yourself and sneak attack on every hit with your feat. If you want an easy way to get lots of sneak attacks every round get the party wizard to put greater invisibility on you. Problem solved.
STAT 05-23-06, 03:52 PM	I actually looked up what it means to threaten a square. The requirement is that you must be able to launch a melee attack into that square even when it's not your turn http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm Since you can't make an attack of opportunity into a square which has cover, you can't make attacks 'even when it's ont your turn'. Thus you don't threaten a square which has cover. Of course if you can negate cover for melee attacks, this would remove the entire problem. I believe the text your talking about (ie what you linked to) only means that you threaten the square even when it's not your turn. I don't think it affects this debate one way or the other. *edit* To clarify, what the text is saying is that when it stops being your turn you don't stop threatening the square, which is kind of the basis of all AoO.
Kalrin 05-23-06, 04:40 PM	OravennasBrother: I see what you're getting at. However, we can't read the authors intent. Also, a DM is free to rule however he wants. My posts attempt to be a reading of the text with the words with which it was written. Therefore, sadly (or not however you care to look at it) I'm looking at the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. I do hope they errata this feat though. It does need to be looked at again. Also, again note that the feat doesn't provide flanking, just the bonuses associated with it (of which Sneak Attack is not one). STAT: That is definitly one reading of the text, and I can see where you're coming from. I think I prefer your reading (simply because it requires less rules mongering).
Raven Dark 05-23-06, 04:41 PM	What the text is saying is that when it stops being your turn you don't stop threatening the square, which is kind of the basis of all AoO. Exactly.
kelvinaw273 05-23-06, 05:02 PM	how in the world did this thread get to 5 pages? This is crazy, the simple answer is no you can't flank with yourself and sneak attack on every hit with your feat. If you want an easy way to get lots of sneak attacks every round get the party wizard to put greater invisibility on you. Problem solved. It has grown to six pages of people telling the OP he is wrong, that his DM is right and that he cannot face a character alone in toe-to-toe combat with his (incorrectly described and used) reach weapon and still sneak attack them with every attack. Nothing in the rules explicitly says that he cannot do this with the feats he has chosen, but a lot is implied and even stated clearly that indicates that he cannot. But because nobody has yet found the ruling: Adaptive Flanking does NOT, repeat NOT allow you to sneak attack with every attack a foe when facing them alone, with them aware of you, with your dual-wielded kusari-gamas, he does not accept that this is so. Sad, isn't it?
Raven Dark 05-23-06, 05:14 PM	Adaptive Flanking does NOT, repeat NOT allow you to sneak attack with every attack a foe when facing them alone, with them aware of you, with your dual-wielded kusari-gamas, he does not accept that this is so. Sad, isn't it? Would you allow adaptive flanking to grant sneak attack when there IS an ally (that is not yourself) nearby? I would like to know what you think on the matter. As for what I accept...what I accept, is that there is still some wiggle room for interpreation. So far I (with the help of a few others) have defeated every single argument thrown against my trick save one (see my last few posts above to see what I mean). Unfortunately for me, that last one is one solid doozy. Oh well, it's a fun debate nevertheless. :D
Elraequielle 05-23-06, 06:18 PM	The kusari-gama is a light reach weapon that threatens at both 5 and 10 feet, very much like the spiked chain. Thus, I CAN threaten the aquare oposite me if I am adjacent to my foe. To flank something, it must be threatened from directly opposite sides. The Adaptable Flanker feat specifies that you are able to choose to count “as occupying any other square you threaten for purposes of determining flanking bonuses for you and your allies.” Therefore, in order to “occupy” another square besides your own, you must threaten that square. According to the definition of ‘threaten’ in the Players’ Handbook, in order to threaten a square, you must not only be able to make melee attacks into that square, but also “be able to make an attack of opportunity against an opponent within”. According to the rules for attacks of opportunity, you can only make them so long as the creature in the square into which you are making the attack of opportunity does not have one-half or better cover. If a square does have one-half or better cover, you cannot make attacks of opportunity into it. Given this, you cannot use the Adaptable Flanker feat to give yourself a flanking bonus because the square behind the creature you are attacking has half-cover from the creature itself, thus forbidding you from making attacks of opportunity into that square, and therefore preventing you from threatening that square, and thus making you unable to count as “occupying” that square as per the requirements listed under the Adaptable Flanker feat (must be a square that you threaten). However, you would, theoretically, be able to employ this feat in this manner against creatures smaller than you since they do not give the square behind them half cover and therefore you would be allowed to make attacks of opportunity into that square and thus threaten it, thereby allowing you to effectively use the Adaptable Flanker feat and give yourself a flanking bonus. Of course, technically, since flanking requires, again by its definition, two people, I suppose that this would, arguably, not work either. Besides, even if the rules didn't exclude the possibility (and they do), it is an unfair concept. The beauty of power-gaming is that it is all 'within the rules', just using the existing rules in an unfair manner.
OravennasBrother 05-23-06, 06:32 PM	OravennasBrother: I see what you're getting at. However, we can't read the authors intent. Definitely true, however my question is what DM would allow such an abuse IN play? NO, really, the entire question seems abusive to me. The OP wants to stack a pack of feats to create a situation which is not in the spirit of a group dynamic. The OP seemingly wants to get the advantage of a team play, flanking SA dice, through his solitary efforts. And the OP is so insistent that he/she is unwilling, according to the original post, to consider playing a different, presumably less abusive, character. Does that seem to be the case to you?
STAT 05-23-06, 06:49 PM	To flank something, it must be threatened from directly opposite sides. The Adaptable Flanker feat specifies that you are able to choose to count “as occupying any other square you threaten for purposes of determining flanking bonuses for you and your allies.” Therefore, in order to “occupy” another square besides your own, you must threaten that square. According to the definition of ‘threaten’ in the Players’ Handbook, in order to threaten a square, you must not only be able to make melee attacks into that square, but also “be able to make an attack of opportunity against an opponent within”. According to the rules for attacks of opportunity, you can only make them so long as the creature in the square into which you are making the attack of opportunity does not have one-half or better cover. If a square does have one-half or better cover, you cannot make attacks of opportunity into it. Given this, you cannot use the Adaptable Flanker feat to give yourself a flanking bonus because the square behind the creature you are attacking has half-cover from the creature itself, thus forbidding you from making attacks of opportunity into that square, and therefore preventing you from threatening that square, and thus making you unable to count as “occupying” that square as per the requirements listed under the Adaptable Flanker feat (must be a square that you threaten). *Bolding mine One question, where does it say that part that I bolded? I'm looking at the SRD and the player's handbook and for the life of me I can't find any phrase that says that. All I can find is that you need to be able to make a melee attack into a square to threaten it and nothing about having to be able to make AoO's. As far as I can read it doesn't seem like there is anything precluding you from threatening a square but at the same time being unable to make an AoO. In other words, I don't see a phrase that makes threatening a square dependant on being able to make an AoO. I interpret, from what I have read, that making an AoO is dependant on threatening a square and not the other way around. *edit* As an aside, even on the off chance that you can flank by yourself I'm sure Wizards will errata it away or something to that effect. I honestly just don't think it ever crossed their minds that someone might try to use the feat to flank by themselves.
ProfWhy 05-23-06, 09:34 PM	*Bolding mine One question, where does it say that part that I bolded? I'm looking at the SRD and the player's handbook and for the life of me I can't find any phrase that says that. All I can find is that you need to be able to make a melee attack into a square to threaten it and nothing about having to be able to make AoO's. As far as I can read it doesn't seem like there is anything precluding you from threatening a square but at the same time being unable to make an AoO. In other words, I don't see a phrase that makes threatening a square dependant on being able to make an AoO. I interpret from what I have read that making an AoO is dependant on threatening a square and not the other way around. *edit* As an aside, even on the off chance that you can flank by yourself I'm sure Wizards will errata it away or something to that effect. I honestly just don't think it ever crossed their minds that someone might try to use the feat to flank by themselves. About the only thing I saw that would be close to that would be for there to be an AoO against certain actions within threatened squares (such as casting a spell or making a heal check)... Couldn't find anything specifically written in there as he's got it quoted, but I could've missed it in my re-re-re-rereadings of the book... ;)
Raven Dark 05-23-06, 10:15 PM	Even on the off chance that you can flank by yourself I'm sure Wizards will errata it away or something to that effect. On the off chance that I am right...one can only hope that it would be errata'd away.
Vaelan 05-23-06, 10:49 PM	So far I (with the help of a few others) have defeated every single argument thrown against my trick save one (see my last few posts above to see what I mean). Actually, all you've managed to do is arbitrarily dismiss valid points while getting hung up on misinterpretations. I'll post my point again since not only have you failed to address it on a reasonable level, but one of your posts mentioned that you lost track if it entirely. There are two benefits of flanking. 1. A +2 flanking bonus on melee attack rolls. 2. The ability to deliver sneak attacks. At this time I would like to note that the second benefit is independant of the first. The rules clearly state that a Rogue can sneak attack "when the rogue flanks her target", not "when the rogue gains a flanking bonus to hit against her target". Adaptable Flanker states that it works "for the purposes of determining flanking bonuses for you and your allies". The term "for the purposes of" is used quite often within the rules. It indicates which rules a feat or ability bypasses or alters and which it has nothing to do with. The feat, as written, only affects the rules for "determining flanking bonuses". This is clear and irrefutable. The term "bonus" is defined quite clearly in the PHB glossary. It points out, among other things, that bonuses are often given types. "Flanking" is a type of bonus. The +2 flanking bonus to hit with melee attacks is a flanking bonus, and thus the feat applies to determining whether or not you get it. The second benefit of flanking, which is the ability to sneak attack, is not a bonus. As such, the possibility of the feat helping you sneak attack is patently ridiculous on the grounds that it explicitly states that it only affects the rules for determining bonuses. Incidentally, if anyone wants to claim that it is a bonus on the grounds that Sneak Attack dice are a bonus to damage, which does not logically follow, I have considered that as well. Sneak Attack is a nameless bonus to damage and not a flanking bonus to damage and thus the feat does not affect the rules for determining whether or not it applies. As for this crap about threatening squares, it is a misinterpretation. Here is the quote, from page 137 of the PHB. Threatened squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. The line means that you threaten the squares when it is not your action, not that you don't threaten squares into which you can make a melee attack even when it is not your action. The rules often require one to pay attention to sentence structure.
Kalrin 05-24-06, 12:25 AM	As for this crap about threatening squares, it is a misinterpretation. Here is the quote, from page 137 of the PHB. The line means that you threaten the squares when it is not your action, not that you don't threaten squares into which you can make a melee attack even when it is not your action. The rules often require one to pay attention to sentence structure. I'm sorry for the confusion caused by my misreading. If you like I'll go back and correct the original post. I also hope you have more patience with me in the future.
kelvinaw273 05-24-06, 01:22 AM	Would you allow adaptive flanking to grant sneak attack when there IS an ally (that is not yourself) nearby? I would like to know what you think on the matter. As for what I accept...what I accept, is that there is still some wiggle room for interpreation. So far I (with the help of a few others) have defeated every single argument thrown against my trick save one (see my last few posts above to see what I mean). Unfortunately for me, that last one is one solid doozy. Oh well, it's a fun debate nevertheless. :D To answer the first part of your question: Yes, if you and an ally were fighting an opponent I would happily allow one of you (the one the opponent was not concentrating on - ie attacking directly with their most recent attack) to get both flanking bonus and sneak attack damage on hitting. The other merely gets flanking bonus to hit. Of course any sane, intelligent foe is going to concentrate everything on the sneak-attacker as soon as they work out they can sneak-attack, so you'll likely only get one round of sneak-attacks worth in, but that is still a lot of damage. And of course your feats will allow you to do this without physically moving behind the foe, which is as it should be. As for the Kusari-gamas, I have already said what I think of the DMG description - well no, if I said that I would get banned from the boards, but I have made my thoughts on the subject clear enough ... :D Wiggle room? I'd say that statement describes you as the wildest optimist I have ever met drowning and clutching at straws with the comment "There might be enough here to make a life-jacket or a raft, you know." There are 160 posts here, and all save the ones you posted (yes OK, there are a lot of repeat posters) are in agreement with your DM in dissallowing you this trick. You may not agree with their justifications, but they all boil down to a firm "No, your DM was not being unreasonable, you are." Had a reply from the sage yet? Fun, yes I suppose it's become a kind of fascinating study as to how much it would take to convince you that your interpretation was incorrect ... currently I am putting odds on 'death before recanting' LOL
Always-Late 05-24-06, 01:37 AM	Spell: UBERHASTE. You and your allies within a hundred feet get their base land speed increased by a factor of ten. But it does nothing unless you have allies, of course.
ProfWhy 05-24-06, 01:49 AM	Had a reply from the sage yet? I'd rate the chances of us hearing a reply posted from the sage on here is about the same as his DM actually coming into this thread, reading the responses in here, and telling us whether or not the thread was correctly portrayed to him by Raven Dark... Odds: Slim and None... LOL
DIESCUMDIE 05-24-06, 07:50 AM	If you really want to sneak attack and make a full attack at the same time just use either; a ring of blinking, a sword of blinking, a wand of greater invis if your umd is high enough, be a pixie (who have continuous greater invis), use a spell storing ring of greater invis, use arcane strike which after level 8 is pretty much analogious coupled with either a warmage or a battle sorceror for a melee build, or the invisable blade prestige class to get feint as a free action.
Nobody_ 05-24-06, 09:22 AM	Who cares about whether you threaten with yourself? I think, that the crime here is not an abstract interpretation of the rules, but lies instead in other area's. 1) Anytime you have an interpretation of the rules, or a powerful loophole that you want to use, it is your responsibility to go to the DM and clear it before-hand. Not five seconds before-hand either. It sounds to me, that you created this beautiful character concept without telling the DM anything about it, and then tried to surprise the DM afterwards. Thats just not fair to the DM, and you deserve what you get. 2) You fail to accept that the DM is the unquestioned master of the D&D world. Rule 0. The DM retains the right to make any changes to the RAW that they see fit. Personally, I print out house rules which includes a rule that states that once I declare something an official DM descision (I have to say as much at the time) it is forevermore closed for discussion unless I say otherwise. You need to accept the fact that the DM gets the last word here. Not the RAW, and certainly not you. Live with it. 3) You are beating a dead horse. No matter how many times you crack that whip, that horse is not gonna move any more. Accept it and move on. I am sure that your failure to apply point 1 is a strong contributor to why you are unwilling to accept the inevitable, but that does not change the fact that no amount of complaining is going to get you what you want right now. Believe me, I as a player, and frequenter of the CO boards, have on many ocasions, taken the box, and turned it into that tactical nuclear warhead which I then prepared to launch at Vangaurd. However, in every case, I have gone to my DM BEFORE pressing that button, and said: "Hey, look at this. This is insane, and, by the RAW, legal. BUT, if you dare let me use this, then I will lose a lot of respect for you as a DM, because it is completely unbalancing and unfair to everybody but me." And it's really hard sometimes. You have a beautiful loophole in the rules, but you go to your DM anyway and assure that you never use it (and sometimes, ensure that you can). But you need to make the realization that D&D is a group game. It consists of more than one person, and you need to be considerate of others as well, and the DM's job is to ensure that you are. So here you are. It is your own fault for being an ungracious player that you have wasted several feats and a character concept on a strategy that will not work. -Nobody
Androcus Divinicus 05-24-06, 10:46 AM	At this time I would like to note that the second benefit is independant of the first. The rules clearly state that a Rogue can sneak attack "when the rogue flanks her target", not "when the rogue gains a flanking bonus to hit against her target". This is an awesome argument. It handles the whole situation quite nicely to my way of thinking. If only the OP would acknowledge it so we could stop all this silliness. Regards, Justin.
Raven Dark 05-24-06, 11:30 AM	This is an awesome argument. It handles the whole situation quite nicely to my way of thinking. If only the OP would acknowledge it so we could stop all this silliness. Regards, Justin. I will lilkely never acknowledge that argument as it is nonsensical and ridiculous. Many here agree with me on this at least.
bitnine 05-24-06, 11:34 AM	I will lilkely never acknowledge that argument as it is nonsensical and ridiculous. Many here agree with me on this at least.Hm, you find it nonsensical? I'm curious. Does that mean that you fail to understand what he's saying?
Felyndaer 05-24-06, 12:12 PM	Just accept it that you're wrong. You have been proven again and again to not know the rules. Give it up, make a new character, and stop attempting to guard your crappy nonsensical arguement.
STAT 05-24-06, 12:38 PM	You know having spent sometime thinking about this I think that, in a ingame sort of way, I could see being able to flank by yourself. For the sake of the arguement let's say you're wielding 1 kusari-gama with both your hands as a reach weapon and ignore this dual wielding crap. Now as I understand it, a kusari-gama is a blade type weapon attached to a chain correct? If so then I think it's entirely possible that you could toss the end with the blade at your enemy and then threaten them on the other side by yanking it and having the blade come flying back at the opponent. I think this would approximate the opponent being threatened on both sides. Regardless of whether this is how you fight with the weapon in real life or not, I think it's a fairly reasonable explination for a fantasy game if perhaps on the cartoonish/anime side of things.
Otto the Bugbear 05-24-06, 12:52 PM	Hm, you find it nonsensical? I'm curious. Does that mean that you fail to understand what he's saying? I'd vote that he either fails to understand what's being said or he's one of those internet posters who can never admit to being wrong or he hasn't actually read and reasoned through the responses. Replace the word 'or' with 'and' as necessary. The questions that need to be answered: What is the definition of a bonus in D&D? Do these bonuses have types associated with them? A: yes Does the adjective associated with the bonus determine its type? A: yes If the word 'enhancement', or 'morale', or 'inherent' appears between the numerical quantity (i.e. +2) and the word 'bonus', does it make that bonus a typed bonus? A: yes For example, It's quite clear that a +2 morale bonus to hit is a morale bonus. Is this true when you replace the word 'morale' with the word 'flanking'? A: yes Does the definition of flanking state "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"? Does it actually say "by another character"? A: yes Does it actually give a named bonus? A: yes I fail to see the problem. Your trick doesn't work Raven. It never has. The feat is worded just fine. It will allow you to sneak attack a foe by yourself if you ignore the rules for flanking and the rules for bonuses. Cheers Otto :)
WhiteRaven810 05-24-06, 01:00 PM	I support you Dark Raven, you dark deity of slaughter and chaos you. I won't own the Player's Handbook II until (hopefully) friday, so I do speak with ignorance, but why take a feat that allows you to Flank all on your lonesome, if you need somebody else to pull it off? Kinda self defeating isn't it?
Otto the Bugbear 05-24-06, 01:02 PM	I support you Dark Raven, you dark deity of slaughter and chaos you. I won't own the Player's Handbook II until (hopefully) friday, so I do speak with ignorance, but why take a feat that allows you to Flank all on your lonesome, if you need somebody else to pull it off? Kinda self defeating isn't it? Because the feat doesn't allow you to flank all on your lonesome. The feat has already been posted. Go read it. It allows a very specific thing. Cheers Otto :)
DarkRhystar 05-24-06, 01:14 PM	I'd vote that he either fails to understand what's being said or he's one of those internet posters who can never admit to being wrong or he hasn't actually read and reasoned through the responses. My bet is on a failed listen check. :D
kelvinaw273 05-24-06, 01:15 PM	You know having spent sometime thinking about this I think that, in a ingame sort of way, I could see being able to flank by yourself. For the sake of the arguement let's say you're wielding 1 kusari-gama with both your hands as a reach weapon and ignore this dual wielding crap. Now as I understand it, a kusari-gama is a blade type weapon attached to a chain correct? If so then I think it's entirely possible that you could toss the end with the blade at your enemy and then threaten them on the other side by yanking it and having the blade come flying back at the opponent. I think this would approximate the opponent being threatened on both sides. Regardless of whether this is how you fight with the weapon in real life or not, I think it's a fairly reasonable explination for a fantasy game if perhaps on the cartoonish/anime side of things. Yeah ... that's what the guy who hospitalised himself at a Ninjutsu seminar thought too. He was wrong. As a Dm I might allow this to work (with about a -4 penalty on the to-hit roll, as the weapon is no way designed to work like that, injure yourself on a natural 1) ... once, on a successful Bluff check. After it's been done once, the victim just has to interfere with the chain as it goes past and your trick WILL fail. In other words, it still can't deliver the "sneak attack with EVERY attack on a full attack with no feints required" that Dark Raven wants. The problem (as others have discovered) is that the Kusari end is not aerodynamic - it tends to flip blade-back when cast, rather than blade front which this trick would require. See my explanation on the use of the Kusari-gama and the Kusari-fundo above and below ... use it like this and you have a killer-combo, trust me, and it is as bad as a spiked chain if not worse: trip with the chain/gama as an AoO followed by a two-handed full attack with the kusari's business end with the opponant prone, and with him tangled in the chain you can maintain a grapple AND strike (Dex AC bonus should be denied, giving you sneak attack bonus as long as he can't break the grapple). With weapons like that you don't NEED to invoke multiple sneak attacks in a round with Adaptive Flanking as Raven Dark has tried to do. Exotic Weapon Profficiency (Kusari-gama) and Improved Initiative (to help you get in before he can break the grapple) is enough. Your only disadvantage is disengaging the chain after you have killed the guy ... or facing an enemy who refuses to attack you in the open.
Deper 05-24-06, 01:16 PM	I support you Dark Raven, you dark deity of slaughter and chaos you. I won't own the Player's Handbook II until (hopefully) friday, so I do speak with ignorance, but why take a feat that allows you to Flank all on your lonesome, if you need somebody else to pull it off? Kinda self defeating isn't it? Because the feat allows you to "change" the formation necessary for flanking. You don't have to be directly across from an ally in order to use it, but the square you threaten must be.
kelvinaw273 05-24-06, 01:46 PM	I support you Dark Raven, you dark deity of slaughter and chaos you. I won't own the Player's Handbook II until (hopefully) friday, so I do speak with ignorance, but why take a feat that allows you to Flank all on your lonesome, if you need somebody else to pull it off? Kinda self defeating isn't it? But the feat does not allow him to flank on his own. It allows him to flank a foe as follows: AOOROOA OEOOOEO XOTOTOX Where O=empty square, A=Ally, E=Enemy, X=squares with cover from the Uber-flanker, R=Raven Dark's Uber-flanker and T=squares he threatens with a 10-foot reach. This allows him to threaten, flank and sneak attack either or even both of the enemies in support of his allies and provide them with a flanking bonus to hit (and sneak attacks if they have the ability). This is what the feat was designed for. What Raven Dark wants to do is (1) dual wield a weapon with a ten-foot chain length and (2) use it to sneak attack a foe he is facing alone. The feat description does not say it allows lone sneak attacks against somebody you are flanking, it states that you can select a square you thtreaten as a vantage point to "threaten" from instead of the square you occupy for the purposes of flanking with your allies. Raven Dark feels that he counts as his own ally, and is beside himself that nobody else agrees. If he does, he an sneak attack an enemy he faces with every single attack, regardless of the fact that they are fully aware of him, not actually flanked and not denied their dex AC bonus. If he does not count as his own ally he still gets the advantages of the feat in the above example, he just can't take on somebody by himself and make a full attack with each attack being a sneak attack. Most are agreed that even if an absolutely literal interpretation of the rules technically allowed this, they would never allow it. Hence the feat is called "Adaptive Flanker" not "Lone Flanker".
bitnine 05-24-06, 01:49 PM	Does it actually say "by another character"? A: yesBut the term ally applies to yourself in certain situations, therefore you can count as "another character" here. Wait... Actually, that seems to skip a step or three. Was there a part of that argument that I missed?
Kalrin 05-24-06, 01:55 PM	Correction: The Feat doesn't allow you to flank. It allows you to gain the bonuses from flanking. Sneak Attack is not a bonus of flanking because the bonuses for flanking are: Link: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#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. Note that no mention of gaining Sneak Attack is mentioned here. Therefore Sneak Attack is not a bonus granted by flanking.
Raven Dark 05-24-06, 03:22 PM	Everyone seems to wonder what is going on in my head. Allow me to help. This thread as I've seen it so far... My Initial Idea A rogue with a spiked chain and the Adaptable Flanker feat could not only get a +4 flanking bonus to hit, but could also get sneak attack damage and the ability to flank a foe all by himself (by using reach and the feat to choose to also occupy the threatened square opposite him for the purposes of flanking). Arguments Against Self Flanking - The Adaptable Flanker feat clearly states you and your allies--implying that you can't do it alone. This argument debunked by the PH Glossary which acknowledges that you can indeed be your own ally. - Flanking requires you to have a character/creature friendly to you. This argument debunked because you are always considered friendly to yourself. - You cannot threaten the square opposite your foe with a reach weapon because your foe provides cover to that square. Cover prevents AoOs. AoOs are required to threaten a square. Ergo, you cannot choose that square for the purposes of flanking because you do not threaten it to begin with. This argument doesn't have to be debunked because it is based off of a misreading of the rules text. It is wrong to begin with. The text (for AoOs) is clearly written to mean that you can take AoOs when it is not your turn. Not that you have to be able to take AoOs outside your initiative order in order to be able to threaten. Even with the other interpretation of the text, it only takes one more feat to work around it (Precise Swing from Eberron which allows you to ignore cover in melee). - The "flank" entry in the PH glossary states that you must have another character to flank with. This is the primary text prohibiting my stunt. It is what I have continually referred to as "the solid evidence" against my claim. I cannot beat this just yet, so I wrote customer service/the sage and am awaiting their official response on the matter. The thread went on to debate how Kusari-gamas are used both in game and out of game. This merely deteriorated into useless arguments because everyone was talking about something different--how it is used in real life, how it is used in the game, which one should be used in the game (DMG version or OA version?) and why (the DMG is the newest version but the OA one is more accurate to the real thing). Nobody was even on the same page on the matter. These arguments are wholly off-topic and I ask for them to stop (make a new thread for them). Somebody Else's Idea The next thing to spring up in the thread was the argument that Adaptable Flanker gives flanking bonuses, but not the flanking condition--thus prohibiting Sneak Attack damage. (This is the argument that I more or less ignore because I think the idea is absurd.) Arguments Against Prohibiting Sneak Attacks No real solid evidence just yet, just people's interpretations of the intent of the rules. After all, what is the point of the feat in the first place if you can't help to get sneak atacks with it? The feat was clearly designed to make life easier for the Rogue-types in the party. As far as I can tell, the people in this thread are evenly divided on this particular issue. And I think that is where we left off. Am I following the thread accurately so far?
bitnine 05-24-06, 04:04 PM	A rogue with a spiked chain and the Adaptable Flanker feat could not only get a +4 flanking bonus to hit, but could also get sneak attack damage and the ability to flank a foe all by himself (by using reach and the feat to choose to also occupy the threatened square opposite him for the purposes of flanking).Well, if that was your position you can add to the 'against' list that getting a +2 bonus of the same type twice doesn't bump you up to +4.
Stev Beren 05-24-06, 04:22 PM	Everyone seems to wonder what is going on in my head. Allow me to help. This thread as I've seen it so far... My Initial Idea A rogue with a spiked chain and the Adaptable Flanker feat could not only get a +4 flanking bonus to hit, but could also get sneak attack damage and the ability to flank a foe all by himself (by using reach and the feat to choose to also occupy the threatened square opposite him for the purposes of flanking). Arguments Against Self Flanking - The Adaptable Flanker feat clearly states you and your allies--implying that you can't do it alone. This argument debunked by the PH Glossary which acknowledges that you can indeed be your own ally. - Flanking requires you to have a character/creature friendly to you. This argument debunked because you are always considered friendly to yourself. - You cannot threaten the square opposite your foe with a reach weapon because your foe provides cover to that square. Cover prevents AoOs. AoOs are required to threaten a square. Ergo, you cannot choose that square for the purposes of flanking because you do not threaten it to begin with. This argument doesn't have to be debunked because it is based off of a misreading of the rules text. It is wrong to begin with. The text (for AoOs) is clearly written to mean that you can take AoOs when it is not your turn. Not that you have to be able to take AoOs outside your initiative order in order to be able to threaten. Even with the other interpretation of the text, it only takes one more feat to work around it (Precise Swing from Eberron which allows you to ignore cover in melee). - The "flank" entry in the PH glossary states that you must have another character to flank with. This is the primary text prohibiting my stunt. It is what I have continually referred to as "the solid evidence" against my claim. I cannot beat this just yet, so I wrote customer service/the sage and am awaiting their official response on the matter. The thread went on to debate how Kusari-gamas are used both in game and out of game. This merely deteriorated into useless arguments because everyone was talking about something different--how it is used in real life, how it is used in the game, which one should be used in the game (DMG version or OA version?) and why (the DMG is the newest version but the OA one is more accurate to the real thing). Nobody was even on the same page on the matter. These arguments are wholly off-topic and I ask for them to stop (make a new thread for them). Somebody Else's Idea The next thing to spring up in the thread was the argument that Adaptable Flanker gives flanking bonuses, but not the flanking condition--thus prohibiting Sneak Attack damage. (This is the argument that I more or less ignore because I think the idea is absurd.) Arguments Against Prohibiting Sneak Attacks No real solid evidence just yet, just people's interpretations of the intent of the rules. After all, what is the point of the feat in the first place if you can't help to get sneak atacks with it? The feat was clearly designed to make life easier for the Rogue-types in the party. As far as I can tell, the people in this thread are evenly divided on this particular issue. And I think that is where we left off. Am I following the thread accurately so far? Even desiring the thing, and tryign to twist things to make it work indicates at least a bit of a twinkish state of mind. . . ' YOu HAVE to know that even if, which I don't conceed, you are following the letter of the rules, you are throwing the spirit of the rules under a bus.]
Twisted Puppy 05-24-06, 04:28 PM	Arguments Against Prohibiting Sneak Attacks No real solid evidence just yet, just people's interpretations of the intent of the rules. After all, what is the point of the feat in the first place if you can't help to get sneak atacks with it? The feat was clearly designed to make life easier for the Rogue-types in the party. As far as I can tell, the people in this thread are evenly divided on this particular issue. How is this a problem? Given that the only argument allowing it is YOUR interpretation of the rules. I have yet to see ANYONE agree you can flank by yourself. The adaptable flanker feat DOES make it easier for rogues to flank. They no longer have to be directly opposite an ally to gain their sneak attack bonuses. It makes it easier for your allies to gain flanking bonuses, and gives everyone opportunities for full attacks with flanking bonuses after a 5 foot step, rather than having to make a move action to reach flanking position and risking attacks of opportunity. The solution to your problem is simple: have one of the other party members help you. You know, cooperate, combine your talents so the party is far tougher than the sum of the individual parts. Of course, from the tone of your posts : my character, my character, my character, me, me, me, I want, I want, I want - you aren't interested in having other characters help you out. The fact that you came up with (flawed) justification to allow to flank without help reinforces that impression.
kelvinaw273 05-24-06, 04:35 PM	Everyone seems to wonder what is going on in my head. Allow me to help. This thread as I've seen it so far... My Initial Idea A rogue with a spiked chain and the Adaptable Flanker feat could not only get a +4 flanking bonus to hit, but could also get sneak attack damage and the ability to flank a foe all by himself (by using reach and the feat to choose to also occupy the threatened square opposite him for the purposes of flanking). Arguments Against Self Flanking - The Adaptable Flanker feat clearly states you and your allies--implying that you can't do it alone. This argument debunked by the PH Glossary which acknowledges that you can indeed be your own ally. Page reference? I can't find this in my PHB at all. - Flanking requires you to have a character/creature friendly to you. This argument debunked because you are always considered friendly to yourself. By that definition you should be able to flank without this feat. After all, you are always ypour own ally and friendly to yourself, right? - You cannot threaten the square opposite your foe with a reach weapon because your foe provides cover to that square. Cover prevents AoOs. AoOs are required to threaten a square. Ergo, you cannot choose that square for the purposes of flanking because you do not threaten it to begin with. This argument doesn't have to be debunked because it is based off of a misreading of the rules text. It is wrong to begin with. The text (for AoOs) is clearly written to mean that you can take AoOs when it is not your turn. Not that you have to be able to take AoOs outside your initiative order in order to be able to threaten. Even with the other interpretation of the text, it only takes one more feat to work around it (Precise Swing from Eberron which allows you to ignore cover in melee). Very true, this one is out. - The "flank" entry in the PH glossary states that you must have another character to flank with. This is the primary text prohibiting my stunt. It is what I have continually referred to as "the solid evidence" against my claim. I cannot beat this just yet, so I wrote customer service/the sage and am awaiting their official response on the matter. Actually there is another reference from the PHB that precludes your stunt. It is the most basic one that nobody has yet referred to - the rogue entry on Sneak Attack: Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponant when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage. That's it folks. The prime conditions of Sneak Attack. The rest are clarifications based upon the then-existing conditions under which sneak attacking might hold true, in which flanking is listed as one. Now flanking is listed as one circumstance because somebody who is attacked from opposite sides cannot defend one of them effectively. Using your feat, your character is only on one side of the foe, and they can block your attacks 'at the source' and see what you are doing therefore they can defend themselves adequately - your trick will not work. Period. The thread went on to debate how Kusari-gamas are used both in game and out of game. This merely deteriorated into useless arguments because everyone was talking about something different--how it is used in real life, how it is used in the game, which one should be used in the game (DMG version or OA version?) and why (the DMG is the newest version but the OA one is more accurate to the real thing). Nobody was even on the same page on the matter. These arguments are wholly off-topic and I ask for them to stop (make a new thread for them). Why? I think it is highly relevent that the DMG loused up so badly on a weapon description. Especially as you are exploiting that error to an apparently ridiculous degree.While many agreed that we should argue by RAW, others also agreed that my description of the use of the kusari-gama was the correct one. Why you don't want to know I cannot understand, as it could actually achieve your goal of multiple sneak attacks without burning so many feats. It may not agree with you, but it answers the question of: Is my DM being unreasonable. As such it is relevant. Somebody Else's Idea The next thing to spring up in the thread was the argument that Adaptable Flanker gives flanking bonuses, but not the flanking condition--thus prohibiting Sneak Attack damage. (This is the argument that I more or less ignore because I think the idea is absurd.) No it isn't. I refer you to the first paragraph of the section on Sneak Attack in the PHB. It clearly states that the ONLY condition for sneak attack is that the opponant cannot effectively defend themselves. If (in the DMs opinion) this trick does not prevent them from defending themselves against you, your trick will not work. The vast majority of posters here agree that this is the case. Flanking exists as a condition only so long as the person cannot defend against at least one flanker effectively, then that flanker can sneak attack. Flanking as described in the PHB always leaves you unable to defend yourself against one of the flankers. As in this case you are the ONLY flanker, they can defend themselves adequately. Arguments Against Prohibiting Sneak Attacks No real solid evidence just yet, just people's interpretations of the intent of the rules. After all, what is the point of the feat in the first place if you can't help to get sneak atacks with it? The feat was clearly designed to make life easier for the Rogue-types in the party. As far as I can tell, the people in this thread are evenly divided on this particular issue. Indeed it does do this, and you gain greatly in your ability to flank. The only bone of contention is that you think it allows you to effectively be in two places at once, and nobody else agrees. And I think that is where we left off. Am I following the thread accurately so far? In your own way. Of course, you fail to mention that nobody agrees with your interpretation and just about everybody thinks that even if the RAW allows it then the there is a large oversite in the rules, and those with real-world weapons knowledge agree that the kusari-gama is incorrectly described in the DMG and cannot be used this way (hardly irrelevent in a question which relies on the interpretation of the rules to answer). I have quoted Sneak Attack above so that you can see the ACTUAL conditions of sneak attack, not the implied conditions of flanking or being flat-footed, but the TRUE conditions: Having a foe unable to defend themselves properly, and being able to pick a vital spot to strike. If you attack from in front of your foe, THEY can defend themselves effectively, therefore no sneak attack; if you are somehow able to use this feat to curl your chains around the person to strike at their back, YOU cannot see where you are striking to pick a vital spot, therefore no sneak attack. Either way, no sneak attack.
STAT 05-24-06, 04:43 PM	Page reference? I can't find this in my PHB at all. Page 304 under the definition of Ally. It states that "In most cases, references to "allies" include yourself." That's the relevant text he is refering to. *edit* Forgot to mention that it's from the PHB.
OravennasBrother 05-24-06, 04:50 PM	As I understand the thread, the OP wanted to use Adaptable Flanker to generate Sneak Attack Dice against an opponent, through flanking, when alone against an anemy. His DM had told him no, and he did not want to accept that ruling. MY responce is no, you cannot "flank" an opponent when you are alone no matter what oddball conglomeration of Feats you have assembled. DEAL. Yes you can use adapable flanker to get SA dice when you have an ally, other than yourself, present. That is a reasonable (in my opinion) interpretation of the feat. However, and this is a big however, you would never have this be an issue in my games as I am very restrictive about anythign which is non-Core. Does that clarify MY thoughts on the matter? Note that i specifically added the Clause "other than yourself" to avoid any possible confusion of someone claiming "see, I can flank by myself because I am my own ally." Because the answer to that is still no.
kelvinaw273 05-24-06, 05:29 PM	Page 304 under the definition of Ally. It states that "In most cases, references to "allies" include yourself." That's the relevant text he is refering to. *edit* Forgot to mention that it's from the PHB. Thanks, I missed that. In other words not in all cases and not in specific reference to flanking. This won't deter him. He will settle for nothing short of an absolute declaration in the rules that he cannot do this under any circumstances. Maybe not even then.
Raven Dark 05-24-06, 05:30 PM	As I understand the thread, the OP wanted to use Adaptable Flanker to generate Sneak Attack Dice against an opponent, through flanking, when alone against an anemy. It wasn't something I wanted, so much as it was my interpretation of the rules. His DM had told him no, and he did not want to accept that ruling. This is blatently false. I accepted his ruling without so much as a quip (his logic was quite sound). I only continued the thread out of curiosity--to find out what RAW had to say on the matter. MY responce is no, you cannot "flank" an opponent when you are alone no matter what oddball conglomeration of Feats you have assembled. DEAL. Funny. We share the same stance. I hate it that nobody here seems to be perceptive enough to know that. I agreed with the lot of you a long time ago on the self-flanking issue--ever since you proved my interpretation wrong by the RAW. The only hope left at all for my interpretation of Self-Flanking is the E-mails I sent off to the official game designers. Yes you can use adapable flanker to get SA dice when you have an ally, other than yourself, present. That is a reasonable (in my opinion) interpretation of the feat. I share that stance as well--it was never any different.
OravennasBrother 05-24-06, 05:45 PM	I want to play a Human Rogue 5/Assasin 4 in my DM's 9th level game. I wanted the character to duel wield Kasuri-gamas (DMG) along with the Adaptable Flanker feat (PH 2) so he could flank almost anyone in melee all by himself. In this manner my rogue could get three sneak attacks attacks at 7d6+1 plus Strength each (+1 shocking kasuri-gamas). It would also open my Rogue up to use Death Attacks. The problem? My DM says that I can't flank someone without an ally despite the fact that my feat selection CLEARLY ALLOWS FOR IT. Can you help me convince him? Now see, this is where I get lost. "I want" and "My DM says that I can't flank without an ally" left ME with the impression, particularly coupled with the thread title "Help my dm is being unreasonable" that in fact the OP DID want to get solitary flanking as was his claimed due by RAW. :embarrass Oh well better go back to my reading comprehension class.
darkness ninja of light 05-24-06, 06:13 PM	This is blatently false. I accepted his ruling without so much as a quip (his logic was quite sound). I only continued the thread out of curiosity--to find out what RAW had to say on the matter. Rereading the first post and the title of the thread, I really don't think that was the case. I suppose this is the same as those "sister" Xendrick threads though. Say what you mean right from the start and stick with it. Your disclaimer doesn't help either. "Don't take me seriously! Everything I say is me just messing with you." is similar to saying "Everything I say is false." You can say "Oh, but I'm telling the truth now", but we still have no idea whether you're telling truth or fiction. As far as I can tell, when you get a negative reaction to something you say, you pass it off as something you weren't being serious about, such as being a "self-ally" (which later was brought back as a valid argument). If you do change your overall tone (in this case, from "My DM is unreasonable! Please help me convince him!" to "My DM is totally logical but I was just curious for my own sake...") then you probably should be aware that no one is going to know this, and thus will logically continue to address you according to your initial views. They aren't spewing falsehoods, you are. Edit: Just so this post isn't completely bashing you, I'm gonna say that I believe the intention of the Adaptable Flanker feat indeed would allow rogues to Sneak attack (of course, assuming that they have a non-self ally on the other side of the enemy). The other side still has a pretty valid argument against it though. I'm curious to know the truth.
Raven Dark 05-24-06, 08:30 PM	...Say what you mean right from the start and stick with it... Dear Everybody, If I make a post titled "I found a way for Self Flanking!" than nobody responds to it. However, if I say something catchy like "HELP! My DM is Being Unreasonable!" and make up some crackpot story than people are quick to look, quick to respond, and quick to voice their opinions. That is just the way these boards work. It is an observation I made a long time ago and it is something that I have used to my advantage for years to get responses from people. People do it all the time around here. So yes, some of what I write is a lie. But I don't write posts to cause trouble. More often than not I write posts to bring to light pertinent issues (the new Polymorph rules), ask a perfectly valid question (such as can you Self Flank by doing this?), or to do research (how many of you only use the core rules?)--posts which would all be largely ignored otherwise. Do you really think the thread would have made 150+ replies if I had told the truth from the start? Let me answer that one for you. No, it really wouldn't. I tried. You could probably find the old threads if you wanted. Let's face it--threads about alignment, DM/Player abuse, paladins, and undead, are popular around here. That's the sad truth of it. Take it for what you will. Sincerely (at the moment), Raven Dark
kelvinaw273 05-24-06, 08:46 PM	Sooo ... we shouldl ignore everything you post from now on, because you might be lying. OK. Sounds good to me.
Raven Dark 05-24-06, 08:51 PM	Sooo ... we shouldl ignore everything you post from now on, because you might be lying. OK. Sounds good to me. I don't post anything without a good reason for it. If you want to put me on your ignore list anyways, I won't miss you. :cool:
WizO_Cat 05-24-06, 11:18 PM	Ok, since this thread is basically based on trolling (which is against the Code of Conduct), you know what's going to come next ...