Can you flank with a ranged weapon?

[Dimwhit]

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.

If you're unarmed, you don't threaten, and neither you nor your ally get the flanking bonus. Both must threaten for it to work.

EDIT: Obviously, the Improved Unarmed Strike feat causes you to threaten, in which case you and your ally get the bonus.

There isn't, to my knowledge, a situation where one person qualifies for the flanking bonus and the other doesn't.

 

[atom crash]

If you're unarmed, you don't threaten, and neither you nor your ally get the flanking bonus. Both must threaten for it to work.

EDIT: Obviously, the Improved Unarmed Strike feat causes you to threaten, in which case you and your ally get the bonus.

There isn't, to my knowledge, a situation where one person qualifies for the flanking bonus and the other doesn't.

Again, and I can't stress this enough, this argument was true of the 3.0 version of flanking. However, this is untrue under the 3.5 rules.

According to the new improved updated revised 3.5 version of flanking, your ally must threaten in order for you to get a flanking bonus. It does not specify that you must threaten in order to get the flanking bonus. It specifies that you must make a melee attack in order to get a flanking bonus, but as has been pointed out there are cases in which you can make a melee attack without threatening your opponent. If your ally is threatening, you still get the flanking bonus.

 

[Dimwhit]

I haven't seen any instance where you can make a melee attack without threatening.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I haven't seen any instance where you can make a melee attack without threatening.

Whip: A whip deals nonlethal damage. It deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher. The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack. In addition, unlike most other weapons with reach, you can use it against foes anywhere within your reach (including adjacent foes).

I have a whip. Ten feet a way from me is a goblin. My ally is on the other side of him with a longsword.

I make a melee attack on the goblin with my whip. My ally threatens him. I get a +2 flanking bonus.

My ally makes a melee attack on the goblin with his longsword. I do not threaten the goblin. My ally does not get a +2 flanking bonus.

-Hyp.

 

[Dimwhit]

Good call, Hyp. Still supports the position (can't flank with a ranged weapon), though. (Does prove me wrong with the whole 'you can't have one person get the bonus and the other can't argument' as well. )This is a good exception. You don't threaten, but for flanking, it follows the same rules as reach weapons (or so I would assume).

But this is an exception specifically called out in the rules, so you can flank with a whip from 5-15' out because you make a melee attack with it.

 

[apesamongus]

This isn't really a subject for debate or opinion...
You cannot flank with a ranged weapon.

This assumes that "getting a +2 flanking bonus" totally identical to "flanking".

 

[unleashed]

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.

Now please don't tell me it's not official because it doesn't contain the word errata, it's an official clarification of the RAW in plain english explaining what the diagrams and text in the PHB all rolled together show without supposition about missing words or changed intent from the 3.0 flanking rules.

As someone said earlier the flanking text was likely changed because they also used diagrams to aid in the explanation in the 3.5 ruleset, just to make certain it was clear (obviously because people read things into the removal of text without considering the addition of examples this didn't work as intended, but there it is above explained completely without the diagrams).

 

[Dimwhit]

Nice quote, unleashed. As far as I can tell, and as Hyp pointed out, the Whip would be the only exception (I think) because while you don't threaten with it, it is a melee weapon and uses the melee attack action.

 

[unleashed]

Nice quote, unleashed. As far as I can tell, and as Hyp pointed out, the Whip would be the only exception (I think) because while you don't threaten with it, it is a melee weapon and uses the melee attack action.

If you note above I bolded the section that says both must threaten, so no the whip is not an exception and cannot be used to flank. It also says it must be an "armed" attack a little further down which would also preclude the whip.

 

[atom crash]

Now please don't tell me it's not official because it doesn't contain the word errata, it's an official clarification of the RAW in plain english explaining what the diagrams and text in the PHB all rolled together show without supposition about missing words or changed intent from the 3.0 flanking rules.

Rules of the Game is not an official source, and has been shown on several occasions to contradict the RAW. It is not a clarification of the rules when it contradicts the rules.

Anyway, the section you quoted above was posted about 2 months after the 3.5 revision and appears to draw its rules from the 3.0 ruleset rather than the 3.5 ruleset. Notice how he contradicts the 3.5 RAW by maintaining that both allies must threaten in order to flank, which was a hallmark of the 3.0 ruleset.

I like to refer to RotG as Skip's House Rules.