Can you flank with a ranged weapon?

[DamionW]

At the top of the room, we have a dwarven rogue and a human ranger standing on opposite sides of an orc. Both have shortswords. When the dwarf attacks, he gets a +2 flanking bonus and can sneak attack.

In the middle of the room, we have a gnomish rogue with a shortsword attacking an orc. His buddy the elven rogue is some distance away with a bow, but they satisfy the line test. Neither of them gain a +2 flanking bonus - the elf is not making a melee attack, and the gnome has no ally who threatens. Can either of them sneak attack?

At the bottom of the room, we have a halfling rogue with a shortsword attacking a third orc. The ranger's animal companion, a dog, is in the corridor outside, on the other side of a wall. The halfling and the dog satisfy the line test. The halfling gains no +2 flanking bonus. Can he sneak attack?

Let's say a Wall of Force separates the ranger from the orc at the top, but the orc doesn't know it. The ranger no longer threatens the orc, so the dwarf gets no +2 flanking bonus. Can he still sneak attack? Does the answer change if the orc knows the Wall of Force is there?

-Hyp.

Nice examples Hyp. I now see why it's almost moot to rule that even if the straight line criteria could interpretively be sufficient to declare flanking, it would, for simplicities sake, be smart to limit it to melee. I think the examples do show that the situation can be much more complex than some are willing to dismiss it as.

 

[TheEvil]

Funny, but I've been DMing 3rd since it first came out, and I never realized I was handling flanking wrong, I've moved a few times and gamed for quite a few different groups because of it, and none of them have ever called me on it. I've always allowed ranged attacks to benefit from flanking, it just seemed like common sense. I always thought crossfire from multiple attackers should be just as difficult to defend against as attacks from multiple melee attackers. If nothing else you would think a "flanking" ranged attack against an opponent engaged in melee would be difficult enough to defend against, that the ranged attack would gain the bonus. Think I'll stick to the way we've been doing it. It may not follow the rules, but I still think it makes more sense.

Give it a try sometime, have two friends stand ten feet apart from you on either side, and have them start throwing rocks at you, then have them stand directly in front of you and see which one results in you being hit more.

The funny thing is, it really isn't that big a deal. I think it is more to the benifit of players that ranged flanking doesn't work. A GM has far more at his disposal to set it up then the players do.

 

[TheEvil]

*snip*
So - the gnome can sneak attack when he flanks an opponent. Since your answer is that he does not flank the orc (when his ally, the elf with a bow, is directly opposite him but fifteen feet away), what criteria are you using to determine that he is not flanking?

-Hyp.

The gnome doesn't get a sneak attack because he is attacking a foe that is not threatened by an ally from the opposite side. The elf doesn't get a sneak attack because he isn't using a melee weapon and his foe isn't flat-footed.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The gnome doesn't get a sneak attack because he is attacking a foe that is not threatened by an ally from the opposite side.

Then you are ruling that the conditions for 'flanking' and the conditions for 'gains a +2 flanking bonus' are the same, right?

1. Creature threatens.
2. Creature is friendly.
3. Opposite side.
4. You're making a melee attack.

Earlier, you seemed to be distinguishing between the two.

-Hyp.

 

[TheEvil]

Then you are ruling that the conditions for 'flanking' and the conditions for 'gains a +2 flanking bonus' are the same, right?

1. Creature threatens.
2. Creature is friendly.
3. Opposite side.
4. You're making a melee attack.

Earlier, you seemed to be distinguishing between the two.

-Hyp.

That would be correct. I see paragraph 2 as a clearly linked to the first paragraph, meant to clarify positioning, not as a separate way to establish a flank.

I have pointed out in other posts what the other side was arguing when I thought someone didn't understand. Can't stand someone who I agree with making a bad argument. I also do not care for debates where people don't actually address what is said by the other side.

 

[Starglim]

It does indeed. (Well, almost. It makes it plain that you cannot receive a flanking bonus using a ranged weapon. It makes it plain that you cannot provide one to your ally unless you threaten. There exist published examples - the Peerless Archer from the Silver Marches sourcebook, for example - of characters who can threaten with a ranged weapon. These characters cannot receive a flanking bonus - since they cannot make a melee attack with a bow - but they can provide one to an ally, since they threaten.)

Good point, I would have expected such a situation somewhere.

In most of the examples above, the rogues do not get a flanking bonus. Can they sneak attack?



The statement you quoted doesn't address flanking with a ranged attack; it addresses gaining a flanking bonus with a ranged attack.

Whether or not the two are the same is the debate that this thread revolves around.



So - the gnome can sneak attack when he flanks an opponent. Since your answer is that he does not flank the orc (when his ally, the elf with a bow, is directly opposite him but fifteen feet away), what criteria are you using to determine that he is not flanking?

-Hyp.

I took a look at sneak attack, and at the ever-handy Glossary.

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.

"When the rogue flanks her target" is possibly a higher test than some of the preceding posts imply. Let's see what "flanks" means.

flank: To be directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another character. A flanking attacker gains a +2 flanking bonus on attack rolls against the defender. A rogue can sneak attack a defender that she is flanking.

The first sentence defines what it means for a character to flank an opponent. It is the character who gets the bonus/sneak attack who flanks (which makes sense when I think about it) and it requires the attacker to flank, not the target to be flanked. The second and third sentences are the two separate consequences of flanking - neither depends on the other, nor does the condition of flanking depend on making any attacks.

The line test merely clarifies what "directly on the other side" means in this context.

I think this supports the bow-armed rogue strongly. In the example, I'd now consider that the elf can sneak attack, the gnome and halfling cannot.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I was going to suggest checking the glossary... By any chance, is there a seperate entry in the glossary which defines "flanking bonus"?

 

[Pinotage]

I was going to suggest checking the glossary... By any chance, is there a seperate entry in the glossary which defines "flanking bonus"?

This is what the online glossary defines as 'flank':

flank

To be directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another character. A flanking attacker gains a +2 flanking bonus on attack rolls against the defender. A rogue can sneak attack a defender that she is flanking.

Pinotage

 

[Dimwhit]

Good point, I would have expected such a situation somewhere.

I took a look at sneak attack, and at the ever-handy Glossary.


"When the rogue flanks her target" is possibly a higher test than some of the preceding posts imply. Let's see what "flanks" means.

The first sentence defines what it means for a character to flank an opponent. It is the character who gets the bonus/sneak attack who flanks (which makes sense when I think about it) and it requires the attacker to flank, not the target to be flanked. The second and third sentences are the two separate consequences of flanking - neither depends on the other, nor does the condition of flanking depend on making any attacks.

The line test merely clarifies what "directly on the other side" means in this context.

I think this supports the bow-armed rogue strongly. In the example, I'd now consider that the elf can sneak attack, the gnome and halfling cannot.

But don't forget the actual Flank section, which requires the attacker to be making a melee attack. Combine that with your post above, and the rogue with the bow doesn't get the sneak attack.

 

[apesamongus]

I was going to suggest checking the glossary... By any chance, is there a seperate entry in the glossary which defines "flanking bonus"?

Is there a separate entry which defines "sacred bonus" or "enhancement bonus" or any other bonus type? They had to give the bonus a type, otherwise, you'd be able to get multiple, stacking bonuses from flanking when fighting a multi-square creature.