Can you flank with a ranged weapon?

[Dimwhit]

EDIT: In reply to unleashed two posts up.

You're probably right. The problem is, in the case of the whip, something has to break. Either the 'both must threaten' or the 'any melee weapon.' The whip seems to be the only thing that fits one of those and not the other. The way it is worded, I would be inclined to allow it as an exception, since it seems to be written as such, but that could very well be a house rule and not RAW.

 

[unleashed]

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.

It doesn't contradict the rules at all when you look at the diagrams and the text together, and as they support the 3.0 rules I don't see a problem. Anyway...if it was posted 2 months after the release of the 3.5 ruleset, which was being written up to 1 year before release I don't see why it wouldn't be based on the 3.5 ruleset. Obviously they thought it needed clarification after seeing threads like this.

 

[unleashed]

EDIT: In reply to unleashed two posts up.

You're probably right. The problem is, in the case of the whip, something has to break. Either the 'both must threaten' or the 'any melee weapon.' The whip seems to be the only thing that fits one of those and not the other. The way it is worded, I would be inclined to allow it as an exception, since it seems to be written as such, but that could very well be a house rule and not RAW.

Well it doesn't say any melee weapon in the text I quoted, it says an armed melee attack, and an armed attack must be able to cause lethal damage which the whip doesn't.

Edit: Well I think that's enough from me, go ahead with your discussion.

 

[atom crash]

It doesn't contradict the rules at all when you look at the diagrams and the text together, and as they support the 3.0 rules I don't see a problem.

I have to disagree; it does contradict the rules. This spotty ruling states that both allies must threaten in order to flank, while the actual rules state that your opponent must threaten.

A "rules clarification" -- such as the official FAQ -- applies the RAW to certain situations. A "rules clarification" by definition cannot change a rule, it can only clarify. Only the official errata can change a rule.

When a "clarification" contradicts the RAW by offering an alternate version of the rule, I'd say it's no longer a reliable "clarification."

I gotta go watch Firefly and play some Twilight Imperium, so have a great weekend.

 

[Dimwhit]

I have to disagree; it does contradict the rules. This spotty ruling states that both allies must threaten in order to flank, while the actual rules state that your opponent must threaten.

No, you must both threaten. You threaten when you make a melee attack. The only possible exception is the Whip, which is specifically called out as an exception to the melee attack that doesn't threaten. Otherwise, you MUST be threatening by virtue of having to make a melee attack. Maybe there is another specific exception out there besides the whip, but ranged attacks are not one of those exceptions (which is what this original debate was all about).

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

The rules as written indicate that you can actually flank while using a ranged weapon, but then you wouldn't get the flanking bonus which you only get while making a melee attack. However, I'd never play it that way, and I've never met anybody who does. So I've skewed the poll and voted no, even though the rules probably support that you can.

Pinotage

Ditto. Except I sadly voted yes, because while you shouldn't be able to, the rules say you can. But how else are we to flank those damn formians? Damn them! Damn them to Acheron!

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

Well, what if it were a very small planet?

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

You're missing the point... using a whip to gain a flanking bonus is not an exception.

The rule is that you must make a melee attack, and your ally must threaten.

The rule is not that you must threaten and make a melee attack, and your ally must threaten, with the exception of attacking with a whip.

It's like if there's a rule that the only fruit I'm allowed to eat is citrus. Someone comes along and says "Well, citrus fruits are orange, so that means the rule is that he's only allowed to eat orange citrus fruits."

That covers oranges, mandarins, tangelos, grapefruits... but then I say "What about lemons?"

"They're not orange," they reply, "so they're an exception. You're allowed them, even though they break the rule."

But the orange rule never existed. It was a misconception on the part of this person.

Likewise, "Both you and your ally must threaten" is not a requirement for the flanking bonus, so the whip is not an exception to that requirement. The requirement is melee attack, and ally threatens.

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.

 

[TheEvil]

Artoomis what you missed is that the Flanking bonus is only gained during their attack. Not during the whole round.

Show me where it says that.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Show me where it says that.

It's fairly explicit.

"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 do you get a +2 Flanking bonus?

1. Is your opponent threatened by a character or creature?
If yes,
2. Is that character or creature friendly to you?
If yes,
3. Is that character or creature friendly to you on the opponent's opposite border or opposite corner?
If yes,
4. Are you making a melee attack?
If yes, you get a +2 Flanking bonus.

If you are not making a melee attack, condition 4 is not true, and you don't get a +2 Flanking bonus.

For the entirety of the round except for the part where you are making a melee attack, condition 4 is not true.

So, the 'where it says that' is in the Flanking section of the Combat chapter in the PHB.

-Hyp.