Can you flank with a ranged weapon?

[Peter Gibbons]

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.

No, it doesn't. To contradict the primary entry, the glossary entry would have to explicitly allow ranged flanking...which it does not. You're assuming your conclusion, here.

Remember your own argument. You acknowledged that the rules clearly limit the flanking bonus to attackers making melee attacks. Then you suggested that because you can flank without receiving that bonus, you must be able to flank with a ranged weapon. There is no definite indication, you argued, that receiving the flanking bonus is equivalent to flanking.

Then someone (me) points out to you that there is, in fact, such an indication--in the glossary. And suddenly, your argument mutates and becomes: "Ah, yes...but because the glossary doesn't reproduce all of the rules for flanking, it actually supports my position!"

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.

Directly on the other side of him, actually. That undermines your argument (though it is technically incorrect, since you can threaten with a reach weapon).

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.

Why in the world would we go only by the glossary entry?

Listen, if you're going to insist on misinterpreting the rules, there's really no point having this debate. All available evidence points to ranged flanking being against the rules, for all that a strained reading of a single sentence, taken out of context, might permit the possibility.

 

[Dimwhit]

Yeah, I really haven't seen any argument correctly citing anything in the RAW that allows for ranged flanks. I think this has been resolved. Unless someone can pull out a direct quote from anywhere in the RAW that states or even implies that it's possible.

 

[DamionW]

Actually, the only thing that is written explicitly is what melee does. Nothing whatsoever is said about range, but lets take a look at all the available data with comentary:


Nothing much to say here that hasn't already been said, but I will point out that it only explicitly talks about melee attacks in the section.

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.

The glossary indicates first what consititutes a flank, something the combat section should have done as well, in my opinion. It doesn't say that only melee flankers get a +2, it says flanking attackers, period. The verbage in first sentence also implies a close proximity to the defender, but that is less clear.

Lastly, all 3 examples given in the diagrams of the PHB show only melee examples. I would think that if a ranged flank were allowed, they would have given some kind of exmaple of it.

So, in total, all available flanking information talks about melee attacks. In order to infer that ranged flanking is allowed, you must follow the devilish line of reasoning that anything not expressly forbidden is allowed. That way maddness lies.

That's a good argument TheEvil. I agree with your reasoning.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

Those would be house rules, which have no bearing on this debate.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

Ooh, nice.

And there isn't even a text vs table precedence issue.

The line test would indicate that someone attacking with a bow is flanking, assuming their ally is in the right place... but the line test only applies when in doubt, and the Attack Modifiers table removes the doubt - ranged attack, no flanking.

The glossary entry also removes the other problem - a melee attack made where the ally does not threaten. It satisfies the line test (potentially allowing flanking, though without the bonus), but not the glossary note than flanking (rather than simply the flanking bonus) requires the ally to threaten. When in doubt, the line test would indicate that a melee attacker with a non-threatening ally can be flanking (with no bonus)... but the glossary entry removes doubt, and the line test is never applied.

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Nice job, TheEvil. Someone give him a gold star.

Now if we could only get him to solve the human monk & INA dilemma.

 

[Artoomis]

So, is that a wrap on this one? It seems that way to me. No ranged flank attacks, period.

 

[TheEvil]

*TheEvil feels the love*

Thanks everyone! Proper credit, my wife (ConspiracyAngel in these parts) pointed out the table entry to me.

Now to rest on my laurels...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Proper credit, my wife (ConspiracyAngel in these parts) pointed out the table entry to me.

Ah - I remember ConspiracyAngel from her composite bow thread.

Married to a Rules Lawyer - I'm jealous!

-Hyp.

 

[unleashed]

When Skip wrote the RotG article that says both must threaten, he got it wrong. Nowhere in the rules is it required that you threaten when you make your melee attack to gain a flanking bonus.

-Hyp.

I don't want to start this up again, but just want to point something out. Skip's interpretation is correct if you look at flanking in 3.5 as follows.

If you assume that the diagrams on pages 152-153 of the PHB cover all situations in which it is possible to flank in the RAW (which only makes sense...why leave out a situation and make the rule difficult) instead of assuming that they only cover a limited group of situations (and ignoring the missing +2 under the orc name in the diagram--as it says they are both flanking in the associated text). It pretty much leads to the conclusion that you must threaten the target to flank it.

It is there if you take the diagrams (as the primary example of flanking itself) and text (which explains how to work out if two characters are actually in a position to flank, and what bonus they receive when they attack a target they flank) as a whole and don't try to read between the lines of the text alone looking for exceptions. Although I do agree the text could have been written better (as it was in the RotG articles).