Can you flank with a ranged weapon?

[Dimwhit]

If those conditions were added to that sentance "(one threatening and the other making a melee attack)" then yes, you would be correct.

Are we arguing RAW or intent? Because by RAW, the rules are quite clear. Intent on the other hand, you can probably go by the FAQ or RotG. I personally play by intent, no matter what the RAW is saying.

It's paragraph structure. The second paragraph modifies (i.e. further details and explains) the first paragraph.

 

[TheEvil]

Ok, I agree with everything else you just said, but how did you get that out of the rules? In order to be in "flanking position" you need to threaten your opponent, which you do not do with a ranged weapon.

And just for my benefit, because I think I actually sorta understand the debate this time, let me set up this situation. Two people are standing on either side of a 3rd person, being in "flanking position." One of the people in flanking position is armed with a longsword (A), the other is unarmed (B) (and doesnt have Improved Unarmed Strike). Person A attacks, but doesnt recieve the flanking bonus because person B is not threatening thier opponent. Person B attacks, and DOES recieve the flanking bonus because person B IS threatening thier opponent. But I would consider both to be Flanking (rules term) thier opponent. After all, you cant Flank all by yourself, so both of you must be Flanking or no one is.

But in an case you cant Flank with a ranged weapon. You can stand in flanking position with a ranged weapon, but you cant Flank without either threatening or attacking.

Thats all assuming no special Feats or class abilities or magic or whatever that allows you to threaten with a ranged weapon.
I hope that made sense.

Not quite true, as you don't need appear to need to threaten yourself to flank. I don't consider that an unreasonable interpretation, but given the hair-spliting nature of this debate, I would avoid making the claim as it only serves to add more posts refuting it.

 

[DonTadow]

But of course, they'll point to the line test in the next paragraph and say it allows ranged flanking. What they won't see is that the line test is simply a way to determine if two players (one threatening and the other making a melee attack) are in fact flanking or not. It is not meant for any other purpose. So you are right that ranged is excluded.

Which is funny because they can not line item veto pieces of a definition.

"ooh i don't like that part.. but we'll keep this viola... i can now flank ranged".

The whole entry for flanking is the definition of flanking by d and d rules. This matter is further proven in several WOTC splat books that have prestige classes and feats that offer the ability to flank while ranged. If ranged flanking was already allowed, why would they create extra feats and prcs.

 

[TheEvil]

Some modifiers only apply to melee, some only to range, some to both. Point-Blank Shot only applies to ranged for example. What is the problem with this? A flanking bonus is only added to melee attacks. But flanking occurs when you can draw a line from one creature to another (friendly) creature and that line passes through an enemy.

I'll just reprint what I wrote earlier here as counter arguement.

Table: Attack Roll Modifiers
Attacker is . . . Melee Ranged
Dazzled –1 –1
Entangled –2(1) –2(1)
Flanking defender +2 —
Invisible +2(2) +2(2)
On higher ground +1 +0
Prone –4 —(3)
Shaken or frightened –2 –2
Squeezing through a space –4 –4
1 An entangled character also takes a –4 penalty to Dexterity, which may affect his attack roll.
2 The defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC. This bonus doesn’t apply if the target is blinded.
3 Most ranged weapons can’t be used while the attacker is prone, but you can use a crossbow or shuriken while prone at no penalty.

Under the Flanking Defender row, melee gets a +2, ranged has a dash. By comparison, On Higher Ground give +1 to melee and +0 to ranged. Prone gives -4 to melee and a dash with an exception for crossbows to ranged. Given what is explicitly said under prone and the fact the having higher ground says +0 and not dash where you can take the attack but get no bonus, I would say that the precident is that a dash indicates a non-applicable action. You can't get a ranged flank.

*added point*
Also, the glossary specifically states a flanking attacker as gaining the +2 bonus, it makes not mention of ranged or melee.

 

[Aaron L]

Totally serious. Took me a while to realize it, too.

Holeeeeeeey bananas. Thats just... kooky? Im glad they didnt differentiate between Attack with a Sword and Attack with an Axe, while they were at it

 

[Dimwhit]

Holeeeeeeey bananas. Thats just... kooky? Im glad they didnt differentiate between Attack with a Sword and Attack with an Axe, while they were at it

 

[Falkus]

We are discussing 3.5, not 3.0

The lasher is one of the few 3.0 prestige classes that translates perfectly into 3.5 without the slightest need for adjustment. And all it takes is a bit of common sense to update the whip dagger to 3.5 whip standards.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

But don't forget the actual Flank section, which requires the attacker to be making a melee attack...

...in order to receive a flanking bonus, yes. But not necessarily to flank. The glossary and the Flank section both show that you can flank without receiving the flanking bonus. This does absolutely nothing beneficial for you unless you have some ability that depends on your flanking an opponent, like sneak attack.

 

[Dimwhit]

...in order to receive a flanking bonus, yes. But not necessarily to flank. The glossary and the Flank section both show that you can flank without receiving the flanking bonus. This does absolutely nothing beneficial for you unless you have some ability that depends on your flanking an opponent, like sneak attack.

But there are almost no instances where you get a benefit of flanking (like sneak attack) when you don't also get that +2. A couple, maybe. Ranged attacks are not one of those times. That's all i'm saying.

 

[Wurm1234]

From Rules of the Game (WoTC DnD website, 'All about Sneak Attacks', 3/2/2004):

"To flank an opponent, two allies must be on opposite sides of that opponent, and they both must threaten the opponent (Chapter 8 in the Player's Handbook has some handy diagrams that explain flanking). You threaten an opponent when you can make an armed melee attack against that opponent. You're "armed" when you use a manufactured weapon, natural weapon, the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, or the monk's unarmed strike ability. You don't actually have to have a weapon that can hurt an opponent to threaten that opponent. If you and your buddy have no silver weapons but find yourselves on opposites sides of a werewolf, you still flank the werewolf (but see the final section of this article series).

You can flank with any melee weapon, including a reach weapon, but you cannot flank with a ranged weapon." (Emphasis added)

I'm not sure why there's much question about this. The rules are pretty explicit.