Can I flank with a ranged attack?

[AuraSeer]

Re: Re: Re: I would say yes... [3.0]

It clearly states that you threaten an area into which you CAN make a melee attack. That does NOT mean you have to have a melee weapon in you hand, or does it?

Yes, it does. If you are not wielding a melee weapon, you do not threaten an area. (That is, unless you are a monk or have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.)

 

[buchw001]

Yes, it does. If you are not wielding a melee weapon, you do not threaten an area...

Can you give me a reference that backs that up?

I don't remember reading anything that said you MUST wield a melee weapon to threaten an area

 

[AuraSeer]

From the first Combat section in the SRD:

If you?re unarmed, you don?t normally threaten any squares and thus can?t make attacks of opportunity.

 

[Alchemist]

From the first Combat section in the SRD:

cf p.137 of the PHB, under the heading Threatened Squares. Same thing, just in print.

 

[buchw001]

From the first Combat section in the SRD:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you?re unarmed, you don?t normally threaten any squares and thus can?t make attacks of opportunity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O.K.

Now I see why we are disagreeing. That passage is from 3.5 SRD. I was going off 3.0 SRD and that line is not included in the discussion of Threatened Areas, AoO's, or Flanking.

That's why I typed [3.0] in the title of my original post that said yes to his question.

So I guess the answer is
3.5 - Not threatening
3.0 - Not stated specifically, but probably not threatening

 

[melkoriii]

This is a OLD topic.

WotC has said many many times that you can not Sneak Attack or Flank with a Ranged weapon.

Now that’s out of the way.

This brings me to a interesting point/realization.

I have always liked the Whip but in 3.0 they stupidly made it a Ranged weapon.

In 3.5 they fix that by making it a Melee Weapon but stupidly AGAIN made it so you do not threaten with it and draw AoO when using it in Melee.

Now I will need to look this up in the 3.5 PHB but if what Staffan says is correct, then a Rogue would get Sneak Attacks with a Whip as it’s a Melee weapon and you can make a melee attack against a foe that is being threatened by a ally thus getting Flanking.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Now I will need to look this up in the 3.5 PHB but if what Staffan says is correct, then a Rogue would get Sneak Attacks with a Whip as it’s a Melee weapon and you can make a melee attack against a foe that is being threatened by a ally thus getting Flanking.

True.

However, on your ally's turn, he would not be flanking, and thus could not Sneak Attack.

When you are making a melee attack, your opponent is threatened by an ally; when he is making a melee attack, the opponent is not threatened by an ally, since your whip doesn't threaten.

Your sneak attack damagee would also be non-lethal damage, and would suffer as normal from the ineffectuality against armor and natural armor bonuses.

-Hyp.

 

[AGGEMAM]

What Hyp said is absolute true, however I believe this will be clarified to mean that you also have to threaten the opponent in order to flank.

 

[buchw001]

This is a OLD topic.

WotC has said many many times that you can not Sneak Attack or Flank with a Ranged weapon.

Actually this is NOT entirely correct.

From the PHB [3.0] (page 47) & SRD[3.5] under Rogue description
"Ranged attacks can only count as sneak attacks if the target is within 30 feet."


For the other... I agree with what HYP said

 

[Hypersmurf]

What hyp said is absolute true, however I believe this will be clarified to mean that you also have to threaten the opponent in order to flank.

Why?

There's nothing to stop you gaining a flanking bonus with your unimproved, non-threatening unarmed strike... as long as your buddy on the other side has a longsword.

It's the way flanking has been worded since 3E, and it hasn't changed.

The only change to flanking since 3E came out has been the wholly unsupported ruling in the FAQ about blind defenders or invisible attackers... which, notably, didn't make it into 3.5 either.

As long as a/ your ally threatens, and b/ you're making a melee attack, you're good to go.

-Hyp.