Can you flank with a ranged weapon?

[Lonely Tylenol]

But it does specifically say you can't flank with a ranged weapon. By including the word melee they are excluding the word range, thus eliminating ranged attacks from being able to flank.

There seems to be some difficulty with this point. It says that you may only gain the +2 flanking bonus when making melee attacks. But there is not a definite indication that "receiving the +2 flanking bonus" is identical to "flanking". This is a subtle distinction, but one that the rules seem to support. The rules say that you are flanking if and only if you are on the opposite side of an opponent that is being threatened by an ally. Since you can satisfy this condition without receiving the +2 flanking bonus, you can flank without receiving that bonus. For this reason, you can flank with a ranged weapon, which will only do you any good if you have sneak attack or something like it. Your ranged attack will not receive a +2 bonus (neither will your ally, because he is not flanking since you do not threaten the opponent), but you will be flanking nevertheless.

Again, I'm not happy that this is the way they wrote the rules, but it's the way the rules currently are.

 

[Dimwhit]

There seems to be some difficulty with this point. It says that you may only gain the +2 flanking bonus when making melee attacks. But there is not a definite indication that "receiving the +2 flanking bonus" is identical to "flanking".

How do you come to this conclusion? Where in the flanking section does is say you can 'flank' and not get the +2 bonus?

 

[beepeearr]

They differentiate between melee and unarmed attacks (not natural attacks) because unarmed attacks provoke attacks of opportunity. In addition an unarmed opponent does not threaten the squares adjacent to him. A character with improved unarmed strike makes a melee attack instead of an unarmed strike since he now counts as armed.

 

[beepeearr]

There seems to be some difficulty with this point. It says that you may only gain the +2 flanking bonus when making melee attacks. But there is not a definite indication that "receiving the +2 flanking bonus" is identical to "flanking".

Actually, as much as I disagree with it (hey, that's what house rules are for) the rules for "flanking" indicate that you must be threatening a creature to flank it, based on the fact that creatures with 0 reach cannot flank period. If creatures with 0 reach can't count as flanking when in the adjacent square then why would a ranged opponent 20 feet away count as flanking.

Personally we'll keep playing the same we've always played, but I think we'll need to go ahead and clear up the wording, in that an opponent has to be a visible threat (ie carrying a readied ranged weapon, or have already made ranged attacks) and be within 30' of the flanked creature to count as flanking.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

But it does specifically say you can't flank with a ranged weapon. By including the word melee they are excluding the word range, thus eliminating ranged attacks from being able to flank.

There seems to be some difficulty with this point. It says that you may only gain the +2 flanking bonus when making melee attacks. But there is not a definite indication that "receiving the +2 flanking bonus" is identical to "flanking". This is a subtle distinction, but one that the rules seem to support. The rules say that you are flanking if and only if you are on the opposite side of an opponent that is being threatened by an ally. Since you can satisfy this condition without receiving the +2 flanking bonus, you can flank without receiving that bonus.

Well, the PHB glossary doesn't think so: "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."

You can certainly argue that glossary entries are not final authority for rules interpretations, but given that the case for "ranged flanking" is founded on a strained interpretation of the RAW to begin with, I'd say it's worth something.

 

[atom crash]

Imagine a hypothetical rule I just made up:

"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 Saturday bonus if your attack occurs during the 24-hour period that falls between Friday and Sunday.

When in doubt about whether it is Saturday, check your calendar."

Does this mean that it’s only Saturday when I get the +2 bonus on a melee attack? Or could it conceivably be Saturday even when I don't get the bonus?

If a line test is sufficient to determine whether or not a target has cover or concealment, then why is it difficult to imagine that a line test can be sufficient to determine whether two allies are flanking an opponent?

They are all from the same section of the SRD after all.

 

[Starglim]

But don't forget the actual Flank section, which requires the attacker to be making a melee attack. Combine that with your post above, and the rogue with the bow doesn't get the sneak attack.

The actual Flank section says that someone making a melee attack gets a +2 bonus in the circumstance described. It is unclear there what the requirement is actually to flank an opponent, which is why it's necessary to go to the Glossary. (I agree that the Flank section should prevail to apply the +2 bonus only to melee attacks).

The rogue's sneak attack does not require her to qualify for a flanking bonus, only to flank her opponent. Flanking is defined as being directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another character. The person flanking need not threaten the target nor make a melee attack, since these are not part of the definition of flanking.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Actually, as much as I disagree with it (hey, that's what house rules are for) the rules for "flanking" indicate that you must be threatening a creature to flank it, based on the fact that creatures with 0 reach cannot flank period.

This is a bit like saying "An invisible creature can't provide a flanking bonus for an ally, based on the fact that creatures with eyes in the back of their head cannot be flanked".

The fact that creatures with 0 reach cannot flank tells us that creatures with 0 reach cannot flank; it doesn't tell us that creatures who don't threaten cannot flank.

Someone making a melee attack with a whip, who has an all that threatens opposite, satisfies all the conditions required for flanking, even though he doesn't threaten.

-Hyp.

 

[TheEvil]

But it does specifically say you can't flank with a ranged weapon. By including the word melee they are excluding the word range, thus eliminating ranged attacks from being able to flank. QUOTE]

There seems to be some difficulty with this point. It says that you may only gain the +2 flanking bonus when making melee attacks. But there is not a definite indication that "receiving the +2 flanking bonus" is identical to "flanking". This is a subtle distinction, but one that the rules seem to support. The rules say that you are flanking if and only if you are on the opposite side of an opponent that is being threatened by an ally. Since you can satisfy this condition without receiving the +2 flanking bonus, you can flank without receiving that bonus. For this reason, you can flank with a ranged weapon, which will only do you any good if you have sneak attack or something like it. Your ranged attack will not receive a +2 bonus (neither will your ally, because he is not flanking since you do not threaten the opponent), but you will be flanking nevertheless.

Again, I'm not happy that this is the way they wrote the rules, but it's the way the rules currently are.

Actually, looking at the Attack Modifiers table helps clarify things. 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.

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

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Well, the PHB glossary doesn't think so: "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."

You can certainly argue that glossary entries are not final authority for rules interpretations, but given that the case for "ranged flanking" is founded on a strained interpretation of the RAW to begin with, I'd say it's worth something.

The italicised text actually contradicts the primary entry, which says that in order to gain the +2 flanking bonus, you must be making a melee attack. The primary entry takes precedence, but the remainder of the glossary entry agrees with the primary entry. You will note that the definition given here of flanking is precisely, to be on the other side of a character who is threatened by another character. It does not indicate that you must threaten in order to flank, only that your flanking partner must threaten.

Also, if we go only by the glossary entry, not only are ranged flanks possible, but you would also gain the +2 flanking bonus when making them.