Can you flank with a ranged weapon?

[Artoomis]

Which would be an odd rule - it's recursive. Is Formian A flanked? Well, that depends on whether or not Formian B is flanked. Is Formian B flanked? Well, that depends on whether or not Formian A is flanked ... ...

But that indeed is the rule for formians.

 

[billd91]

For what it's worth, I think that if you can't get the flanking bonus then you shouldn't count as flanking a creature. I'm putting "can't" in emphasis to separate it from moments when you don't happen to be using the bonus because it isn't your turn to attack rather than being unable to use it because of the choice of weapon or attack you are using. I see those as different issues.
You don't happen to be using the bonus when it's someone else's turn to act, but I'd still say you were flanking, presuming you could use that bonus when your turn comes up. In the case of throwing the dagger on your second attack of the full attack action, I'd say that by using the weapon as a missile weapon, you make yourself ineligible for the flanking bonus (since it's not a melee attack, you can't get the bonus) and thus also give up any other benefit you get from flanking like sneak attack damage.

That's my take on it. I think the rules of flanking and the examples all point to flanking as a melee-only phenomenon, ranged attacks need not apply.

 

[TheEvil]

Q: Can you flank with a ranged weapon?
A: Sure, as long as you perform a melee attack with it.

Bye
Thanee

ROFL!!!!

I second the thanks for a good laugh!

 

[atom crash]

Its fixed simply by stating that the when testing if a Formian is Flanked, you must check to see if all Formian's would be Flanked if they were subject to an attack at that exact moment.

Except that there is no errata to that effect, and there has been no errata to the flanking section of the SRD, so this statement suffers from the conceit that your position is correct and all others -- as well as the Formian hive mind ability -- are somehow in error.

The wording of flanking in D&D3.0 stated explicitly that you can only flank with a melee weapon. This wording was removed in the 3.5 update.

Now, bear with me because this might be a bit of a stretch, a leap of faith, but I believe that the changes made to the flanking section of the SRD in the 3.5 revision were made intentionally and not merely a mistake.

The line test, taken to the logical extreme, on a planet (vs. an infinite plane or other 'open' geometry world), means that you can always draw a line that leads to any two pcs flanking any opponent- you may have to keep drawing the line until it has circled the planet umpteen times, but eventually you'll make your connection.

Hmm, I take it back- that's not a straight line anymore, is it?

Even if this was an honest argument, it's not an issue when you consider that a) the flanking bonus only applies to melee attacks and b) rogues can only sneak attack within 30 feet.

 

[DamionW]

I'm of a camp with Patryn's mindset, but I'm not positive the RAW support it. To me, if ally 1 is threatening one side of an opponent so that even without facing rules, his defensive actions are focused in that direction, a ranged attack from an ally across the straight line from ally 1 should be considered a flanking attack, even if it doesn't get bonuses because that is spelled out to only be for melee attacks. It just makes sense to me. Ally 1 threatens the opponent, ally 2 is flanking. Ally 1 doesn't get the bonus because ally 2 can't threaten him, and ally 2 can't get the +2 to his roll because he's not making a melee attack. However with the straight line paragraph and the common sense idea that the opponent is focusing his attention on ally 1, I say ally 2 is flanking. Again, this seems more in house rule territory and the rules interpretation realm than in straight out RAW to me.

 

[Dimwhit]

The wording of flanking in D&D3.0 stated explicitly that you can only flank with a melee weapon. This wording was removed in the 3.5 update.

No it wasn't. The flanking section was reworded, but the melee weapon part is still there. The section was reworded because 3.5 put an emphasis on grids and minis to explain the rules. That's why there is a separate paragraph in the flanking section that begins "When in doubt..." It then explains, using a grid/minis setup, how to determine if there is a flank or not. But the whole section still only applies to melee attacks, as stated at the beginning of the section in question.

 

[atom crash]

From the 3.0 SRD:
Flanking
If a character is making a melee attack against an opponent, and an ally directly opposite the character is threatening the opponent, the character and the character's ally flank the opponent. A character gains a +2 flanking bonus on the attack roll. A rogue in this position can also sneak attack the target. The ally must be on the other side of the opponent, so that the opponent is directly between the character and the ally.

Emphasis added is mine, of course.

From the 3.5 SRD:
Flanking
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.

When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

Notice that in the 3.0 version, it explicity calls out when two creatures flank a third. Notice in the 3.5 version, it removes that portion and explicitly calls out when one creature gets a flanking bonus.

No it wasn't. The flanking section was reworded, but the melee weapon part is still there. The section was reworded because 3.5 put an emphasis on grids and minis to explain the rules.

The melee part is still in there, as a definition of when you get a flanking bonus. It used to be a part of the definition of when you are considered flanking. In effect, the rule formerly stated, "This is when you are considered flanking, and this is the bonus you get." Now it says, "This is when you apply a flanking bonus, and use this line test to determine when you are considered flanking."

While the 3.0 version allowed two allies to flank an opponent, it did not handle cases in which one ally could be considered flanking while the other was not. The changes to the 3.5 version appear to address these situations.

 

[DamionW]

While the 3.0 version allowed two allies to flank an opponent, it did not handle cases in which one ally could be considered flanking while the other was not. The changes to the 3.5 version appear to address these situations.

Nice post atom crash.

 

[Dimwhit]

In effect, the rule formerly stated, "This is when you are considered flanking, and this is the bonus you get." Now it says, "This is when you apply a flanking bonus, and use this line test to determine when you are considered flanking."

Both of those say essentially the same thing. "Here is how you flank, and this is the bonus you get." They just say it in reverse order. Both rules require you and an ally to be on opposite sides of the opponent. 3.5 simply uses a grid to explain it, as there was come confusion in 3.0 as to which squares exactly had to be occupied in order to flank. The line test is there to help with it. But both rules say the same thing.

I see part of the confusion, because 3.5 only mentions that your ally has to threaten the opponent, not you. But that's not correct. It says "If a character is making a melee attack..." By default, that character must also threaten, because you can't take a melee attack if you don't threaten. So, both you and the ally need to be an opposite sides of the opponent and both must threaten. Then you get the +2 to attack.

 

[billd91]

By default, that character must also threaten, because you can't take a melee attack if you don't threaten. So, both you and the ally need to be an opposite sides of the opponent and both must threaten. Then you get the +2 to attack.

Technically, I don't believe this is true. You can make a melee attack unarmed without improved unarmed feats and not threaten. This is, I believe, one instance in which flanking is not reciprocal between flankers. You might get the flanking bonus if you attack with your fists, but your flanking partner might not flank because you are unarmed and don't threaten.