Can You Flank With a Ranged Weapon?

[irdeggman]

Thing is, as far as I can see, there is no text to indicate that you must threaten to be considered flanking. You must be using a melee attack to get the +2 bonus for flanking, but the question becomes do you have to have the +2 bonus for flanking to be considered flanking?

Well there is this text from Flanking (in my earlier post) that also states:

Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

And combining that with the also posted defintion of threatened squares which has also been previoulsy posted and has:

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action.

Do you threaten a square with a ranged weapon (not using it as a melee weapon)?

If you do not - and there is no text supporting the stance that you do indeed threaten with a ranged weapon - then you can provide no benefit to your ally who is melee even if you are on the opposite side of the foe as he is.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Do you threaten a square with a ranged weapon (not using it as a melee weapon)?

If you do not - and there is no text supporting the stance that you do indeed threaten with a ranged weapon - then you can provide no benefit to your ally who is melee even if you are on the opposite side of the foe as he is.

This is my understanding as well - adding the exception of the use of the spell Arrow Mind, of course.

As to Patryn's earlier example, So long as the rogue is a TWF and has a dagger in one hand and a wand in the other, why wouldn't he be in a position of flanking an enemy in a square beside him? He obviously threatens all the sqares around him (so long as he is at least small in size and not incapacitated). Now, if he threw that dagger and didn't quickdraw a replacement I can see why he no longer is flanking, because the wand doesn't allow him to threaten.

EDIT:

I should add that I am using the definition for flanking from the perspective of granting a bonus to another person. So long as he threatens and another person in the right spot is making a melee attack, shouldn't he grant them a bonus?

Of course, if we flip that around and ask if the wand weilder gets the bonus, would it be correct ot conclude that: Even though the dagger in his hand gives the possibility of granting flanking bonuses to allies in the right spot (assuming he's a TWF or the dagger is in the correct hand) his use of the wand would not gain a flanking bonus because it is not a melee attack?

 

[Presto2112]

Nope

You can so flank with a bow or crossbow!

You have to step up and whack the guy with it, but it can be done!

 

[TheEvil]

Most people in this thread. Rogue (with dagger) (R), Hobgoblin Target (H), Fighter Ally (with longsword) (F):

RHF

It just seemed odd that he'd be flanking at the start of his turn, flanking as he considered attacking with his dagger, flanking as he threw his dagger across the room at another target, flanking as he quickdrew another dagger, flanking through the hobgoblin's turn, flanking through the fighter's full attack, but as soon as he pointed his wand - BAM! not flanking - and flanking as soon as he put it down again.

Said rogue would definately be flanking the entire time, as long as he was threatening with that dagger. He fighter buddy would get the +2 to hit and everything. However, since a wand is not a melee attack, the rogue would not benefit of flanking while using it.

 

[atom crash]

Said rogue would definately be flanking the entire time, as long as he was threatening with that dagger. He fighter buddy would get the +2 to hit and everything. However, since a wand is not a melee attack, the rogue would not benefit of flanking while using it.

True, he doesn't get a +2 bonus on attack if he makes a ranged attack, since it is not a melee attack, but does he get the other benefits of flanking? I.e. sneak attack and other abilities which might rely on flanking in order to occur.

Do you threaten a square with a ranged weapon (not using it as a melee weapon)?

If you do not - and there is no text supporting the stance that you do indeed threaten with a ranged weapon - then you can provide no benefit to your ally who is melee even if you are on the opposite side of the foe as he is.

In order to receive a flanking bonus, you do not need to threaten your opponent. Your ally, standing on the opposite side of your opponent from you, must threaten as you make a melee attack in order for you to receive a flanking bonus. If your ally is providing you with a flanking bonus, can you be considered flanking if you do not take that flanking bonus, because for whatever reason you do not make a melee attack on your turn -- you drink a potion, choose the total defense option, aid another, make an unarmed attack, make a ranged attack, etc.

To me, the argument hinges on the underlying assumption that there is a state of flanking -- which the rules apparently define according to a line test -- that is separate from the flanking bonus. Can you be considered flanking even if you do not take the flanking bonus you would ordinarily receive had you made a melee attack?

This assumption allows four properly placed allies to flank two formians, ambush drakes or axiomatic creatures. Those creatures have a special quality that says that no such creature in the group "is considered flanked unless all of them are." This implies that it is possible for them all to be considered flanked at the same time, which isn't possible if you are only flanking when you receive the flanking bonus. Why? Because the way initiative works, each character gets an attack one at a time, so the formians can never be flanked all at the same time, only as each character gets an attack, thus one at a time. In that case, the formian's hive mind special quality should state "formians cannot be flanked."

 

[irdeggman]

The glossary in the PHB states:

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 is flanking.

So a rogue (which is usually the issue here) can only get a sneak attack if he is opposite an ally who is threatening his foe.

But you only get the flanking bonus on attacks when making a melee attack (per the earlier text in the PHB).

Now I guess the question comes down to whether or not a rogue can make a ranged sneak attack when he is opposite an ally that threatens his target.

The rules don't cover this one real well. So you either can still sneak attack (but don't get the flanking bonus since it is not a melee attack) or you can't becasue in order to get "any" flanking bonus you must be making a melee attack. IMO the RAW can be read to suport either stance.

 

[ThirdWizard]

nevermind, unnecessary

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No, you can't. Only according to Patryn.

Heh - not just me, Caliban.

What about not flanking at the start of his turn, not flanking as he considered attacking with his dagger, flanking as he made a melee attack with his dagger, not-flanking-not-flanking-not-flanking until the fighter makes a melee attack?

Ah - so you're arguing the 3.0 rules for flanking?

The issues I see with that are:

1. The rule that makes this explicit was deleted in 3.5. Presumably, it was deleted for a reason.

2. That would make feats / character abilities like a random example from Dragon, in addition to Pack Fighting from earlier:

Backstab
[General, Fighter] (DR340 p86)
Combat Reflexes You may make an Attack of Opportunity against an opponent that you flank who attacks a target other than you.

and, from Races of the Wild:

Distract Foe – You and an ally must have Flanked your foe for at least one round to use this ability. As a Full Round Action, make a single melee attack. If it hits, make a Bluff check with the damage as a bonus vs. your foes Sense Motive check with his/her BAB as a bonus. If you are successful, all of your allies that give you a Flanking bonus receives an Attack of Opportunity on the foe.

... nigh on completely useless.

3. Similarly (and thanks for reminding me, atomcrash), if you cannot be considered flanking outside of the instant of your own (or your ally's) melee attack, then formians and Axiomatic creatures are actually immune to flanking, rather than just difficult to flank.

To me, the argument hinges on the underlying assumption that there is a state of flanking -- which the rules apparently define according to a line test -- that is separate from the flanking bonus.

Exactamundo - well put.

 

[moritheil]

Is it me, or has the line test changed in various supplements? I do not recall the exact pages or texts involved, but it seems that I once engaged in a discussion of whether or not someone was flanking in a fight, and there were two separate sets of criteria brought up for flanking from two different books - the characters involved met one of the definitions of flanking, but not the other.

(I mean splatbooks, of course, not different editions of the DMG or PHB - we would have caught that.)

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Is it me, or has the line test changed in various supplements?

I've not seen anything that revisits flanking. Do you recall what book it was in?