Can you flank with a ranged weapon?

[unleashed]

They show an example of a hobgoblin attacking with 10 foot reach. They don't show an example of a hobgoblin attacking with 5 foot reach, or an orc attacking with 10 foot reach. The examples are not exhaustive.

But what we do have is an example of a creature flanking by making a melee attack with a reach weapon when his ally threatens (hobgoblin gets a +2 bonus). This example does just fine for illustrating how the hobgoblin can gain a bonus by attacking with a whip when the orc threatens.

We also have an example of someone not getting a flanking bonus because their ally (Tordek) is stunned and does not threaten. This example does just fine for illustrating how the orc would not get a flanking bonus if the hobgoblin is armed with a whip, since the hobgoblin does not threaten.

The fact that the attackers do threaten in all the examples is incidental. There's no example showing someone flanking with a whip, and there's no example showing a bugbear flanking; nevertheless, someone with a whip can flank, and a bugbear can flank. The diagrams are illustrative, not exhaustive.

-Hyp.

The examples are not exhaustive for every creature ever imagined, but they are exhaustive of the situations that are allowed to take place during flanking. It doesn't matter what creature is weilding what weapon...if we swap the orc with the hobgoblin does it change the situation shown in the example, no of course it doesn't. There is still a creature with a 10 ft reach weapon which is threatening, and a creature with a 5 ft weapon which is threatening...the name of each creature is irrelevant...for all I care swap orc with a bugbear or goblin, it doesn't matter unless the new creature has a 0 reach and therefore can't flank.

The example with Tordek shows nothing of the kind, it just clearly shows that Mialee cannot flank because the creature opposite does not threaten.

And I say it's not incidental that all of the examples showing flanking show both creatures threatening if they are flanking, and there are no situations shown with one creature receiving a flanking bonus, while the creature opposite doesn't. The diagrams are exhaustive if you don't suppose there are nonspecific situations missing, and the creatures supplied in the example don't matter and could easily be exchanged with a similar creature.

 

[unleashed]

The table evidence only tells us that when you are making a ranged attack, you are not flanking. It tells us that when you are making a melee attack, it's possible to be flanking.

It doesn't give us any information about when you aren't attacking, so the table evidence doesn't actually help with the formian problem.

-Hyp.

Well the diagrams actually tell us when you are threatening with a melee weapon and the creature opposite does the same you are flanking. What it doesn't tell us is that if you don't threaten with a weapon, but the creature opposite does that you are flanking.

Well the table actually does provide information about when you aren't attacking, as in all of the situations shown all creatures receive the +2 flanking bonus even though they all can't possibly be attacking at the same moment. The Flanking, Large Creatures diagrams doesn't even mention the flanking bonus, it just says Tordek and Redgar are flanking, as are Tordek and Lidda. The +2 flanking bonus is only relevant at the moment of attack, thus they point it out in specifically that way in the text...this doesn't mean though that you are only flanking at that precise moment.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And I say it's not incidental that all of the examples showing flanking show both creatures threatening if they are flanking, and there are no situations shown with one creature receiving a flanking bonus, while the creature opposite doesn't.

But you're still making up a rule that doesn't exist, based on the diagrams.

Your "None of the diagrams show someone using a whip" is just as incidental as my "None of the diagrams show a bugbear".

If someone is making a melee attack and his ally is threatening from the correct position, all of the requirements are satisfied.

All of the diagrams happen to have an attack who threatens, just as all of the diagrams happen to have an attacker who isn't a bugbear, but neither of those things (attacker threatening, attacker not-a-bugbear) are required by the flanking rules, so changing them doesn't change the result.

It will change the result when their ally goes to attack if they're using a whip, but I'm not looking at the "Ally has a whip" situation, I'm looking at the "Attacker has a whip" situation, which is perfectly valid by the flanking rules.

-Hyp.

 

[Dimwhit]

Are you guys arguing over whether you can flank with a whip? Just curious. If so, my vote is that you can. I agree, personally, that you need both characters involved to be threatening and/or making a melee attack. However, I think the text of the whip description clearly outlines it as on exception to the norm, that being you can make a melee attack with the whip and thereby gain benefits from flanking. Now whether the guy with the whip can give that benefit to his ally on the other side--I'm not so sure. I would thing not, since while whips are melee weapons, I still don't think they threaten.

I'm not sure my post made any sense...

 

[Hypersmurf]

I agree, personally, that you need both characters involved to be threatening and/or making a melee attack.

Almost. One needs to be making a melee attack, the other needs to be threatening.

Now whether the guy with the whip can give that benefit to his ally on the other side--I'm not so sure. I would thing not, since while whips are melee weapons, I still don't think they threaten.

They don't, and it's unambiguous - for you to gain a bonus, your ally must threaten. Since whips don't, if your ally only has a whip (and doesn't threaten with anything else), you don't get a bonus.

-Hyp.

 

[unleashed]

But you're still making up a rule that doesn't exist, based on the diagrams.

Your "None of the diagrams show someone using a whip" is just as incidental as my "None of the diagrams show a bugbear".

If someone is making a melee attack and his ally is threatening from the correct position, all of the requirements are satisfied.

All of the diagrams happen to have an attack who threatens, just as all of the diagrams happen to have an attacker who isn't a bugbear, but neither of those things (attacker threatening, attacker not-a-bugbear) are required by the flanking rules, so changing them doesn't change the result.

It will change the result when their ally goes to attack if they're using a whip, but I'm not looking at the "Ally has a whip" situation, I'm looking at the "Attacker has a whip" situation, which is perfectly valid by the flanking rules.

-Hyp.

I'm not making up a rule at all, I'm assuming the diagrams cover all rule interpretations related to flanking, the first diagram is called Flanking after all, not 'Some Examples of Flanking', with the other two diagrams showing how the exceptions work and the first and third show how to apply the line test. If that is so then why isn't there an example of a non-threatening character receiving a flanking bonus...because it can't happen. You on the other hand are assuming from the text alone that you can use a non-threatening weapon to gain a flanking bonus, unsupported by any other data.

I've never specifically mentioned a whip. All of my suppositions rest on the fact that there are no generic examples of any use of a non-threatening weapon. So please stop falling back to specifics to defend your position when they're not relevant. Like I said it wouldn't matter if the hobgoblin was a bugbear, the situation is still the same, it's still weilding a 10 ft. reach weapon that is threatening. Note that all of the examples in the PHB are generic, not one mentions a specific reach weapon, or any other specific melee weapon...so why isn't there an example of a non-threatening attack receiving a flanking bonus if it is possible?

Just to push my point a little further, the 3.5 update document mentions nothing about a change in how flanking works...the 3.5 diagrams, supported by the text shows exactly that, so why assume that a change was made when it wasn't mentioned.

As for the Formians there is a simple test as to whether they are all flanked or not...when a character makes an attack, if all other friendly creatures which are in a position to flank at that exact moment were also to attack would they all be flanking...yes, then the formians are flanked...no, then they're not flanked. It's the only way it could work as the D&D combat system is a sequential system trying to simulate a concurrent set of actions.

 

[Dimwhit]

Almost. One needs to be making a melee attack, the other needs to be threatening.



They don't, and it's unambiguous - for you to gain a bonus, your ally must threaten. Since whips don't, if your ally only has a whip (and doesn't threaten with anything else), you don't get a bonus.

-Hyp.

i'm actually with you on this one.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm not making up a rule at all, I'm assuming the diagrams cover all rule interpretations related to flanking, the first diagram is called Flanking after all, not 'Some Examples of Flanking', with the other two diagrams showing how the exceptions work and the first and third show how to apply the line test. If that is so then why isn't there an example of a non-threatening character receiving a flanking bonus...because it can't happen.

So on p147, the diagram called 'Moving Around Corners' (not 'Some Examples of Moving Around Corners') shows how Medium creatures require one square of movement to move around a corner, but Large creatures require 2. I presume that the reason there is not example of a Huge creature moving around a corner is because it can't happen, right?

-Hyp.

 

[TheEvil]

To the newest Yes vote: Care to explain your reasoning?

 

[unleashed]

So on p147, the diagram called 'Moving Around Corners' (not 'Some Examples of Moving Around Corners') shows how Medium creatures require one square of movement to move around a corner, but Large creatures require 2. I presume that the reason there is not example of a Huge creature moving around a corner is because it can't happen, right?

-Hyp.

Not at all, in that diagram they've shown a progression which you can expand upon to allow larger creatures to move around a corner (that they must move their base width past the corner completely before they change direction), so it's not the same type of example at all. Also that would have taken a lot of extra room to show, unlike putting two creatures into any of three flanking diagrams to show one gaining a flanking bonus while the other doesn't.

You still haven't answered why that particular example is missing from all the flanking diagrams even though I've asked it several times...likely because it fails to support your position...but I no longer care as it seems we're going to have to agree to disagree...that's it from me.