Can You Flank With a Ranged Weapon?

[Hypersmurf]

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.

There was the 3E FAQ / 3.5 RotG article, where Skip introduced the 'A man can't see, he can't be flanked' argument...?

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

No, but the result is the same.

We know from the text that you can't get the +2 bonus on attack rolls if you aren't making a melee attack.
We know from the glossary that a flanking creature gets a +2 bonus on attack rolls against the defender.
Since we know that a ranged attack does not get a +2 bonus on attack rolls, we know that a creature making a ranged attack is not a flanking creature.

Thus, while we can't show that you are only considered flanking while making a melee attack, we can show that you are not considered flanking while making a ranged attack... which is the question the thread is asking.

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

It's been over a year, so I don't recall, but that might have been it. Thanks, Patryn and Hyp.

 

[atom crash]

We know from the text that you can't get the +2 bonus on attack rolls if you aren't making a melee attack.
We know from the glossary that a flanking creature gets a +2 bonus on attack rolls against the defender.
Since we know that a ranged attack does not get a +2 bonus on attack rolls, we know that a creature making a ranged attack is not a flanking creature.

Hyp, usually I'd say that a person would have to be a fool to question your rules-fu, but I disagree with your logic there. Isn't that the fallacy of denying the antecedent?: If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore not Q.

(Can anyone verify? It's been years since I studied logic in college, so it might very easily be that I'm dead wrong here, and if so I apologize for doubting you.)

Obviously I agree that you only get a flanking bonus when you're a) standing in the right place, b) your ally is threatening and c) you make a melee attack. The rules clearly state so.

But I honestly do not believe that you're only considered flanking when you get the flanking bonus. This incidentally opens the door for the interpretation that it is possible to flank -- though not receive a flanking bonus -- with a ranged weapon. Or with no weapon at all. Or when you're drinking a potion.

Though I am not convinced flanking with a ranged weapon was the intent, I do believe a legitimate interpretation of the RAW allows it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Obviously I agree that you only get a flanking bonus when you're a) standing in the right place, b) your ally is threatening and c) you make a melee attack. The rules clearly state so.

But I honestly do not believe that you're only considered flanking when you get the flanking bonus. This incidentally opens the door for the interpretation that it is possible to flank -- though not receive a flanking bonus -- with a ranged weapon.

The glossary states that a flanking character gains a +2 bonus to attack rolls.

A creature making a ranged attack makes an attack roll. Can he gain a +2 bonus to that attack roll for flanking with a ranged attack?

You just stated that you agree that you only get a flanking bonus when you make a melee attack. So the creature making the ranged attack can't get the bonus, right? Since he's making an attack roll and not getting a +2 bonus to his attack roll, and since a flanking character gains a +2 bonus to attack rolls, we know that the character making the ranged attack (who isn't gaining a +2 bonus to attack rolls) is not a flanking character.

Isn't that the fallacy of denying the antecedent?: If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore not Q.

If P then Q. Not Q. Therefore not P. ... not a fallacy.

If flanking, then bonus. (Glossary)
Not bonus. (Making a ranged attack).
Therefore not flanking.

-Hyp.

 

[atom crash]

Let's look at this another way. I've pulled the following info from the WoTC online glossary:

Invisible: Visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). (Invisibility has no effect against blinded or otherwise nonsighted creatures.) An invisible creature's location cannot be pinpointed by visual means, including darkvision. It has total concealment; even if an attacker correctly guesses the invisible creature's location, the attacker has a 50% miss chance in combat.

If an invisible creature does get a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, is he still invisible? Your reasoning above suggests that if the invisible creature does not get the attack bonus for being invisible, then it is not in fact invisible.

Prone: Lying on the ground. An attacker who is prone has a -4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A defender who is prone gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a -4 penalty to AC against melee attacks. Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.

Again, if a prone character does not make a melee attack roll or get attacked by another creature, is he still prone? Or is he only prone when he takes the penalty for being prone?

Incidentally, the online glossary has the following definition of flanking, which differs slightly from the PHB glossary:

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.

While obviously that definition is not exhaustive and should not be taken as such (for example it doesn't stipulate a melee attack, which the PHB/SRD clearly does), I find it interesting that the first sentence goes further than the PHB and SRD in establishing a flanking condition rather than merely a flanking bonus. And I'm almost positive when I checked this source months ago, the online glossary had the same wording as the PHB glossary.

 

[TheEvil]

Seems worthwhile to point this out again:

Looking at the Attack Modifiers table helps clarify things. Under the Flanking Defender row, melee gets a +2, ranged has a dash. By comparison, On Higher Ground give +1 to melee and +0 to ranged. Prone gives -4 to melee and a dash with an exception for crossbows to ranged. Given what is explicitly said under prone and the fact the having higher ground says +0 and not dash where you can take the attack but get no bonus, I would say that the precident is that a dash indicates a non-applicable action. You can't get a ranged flank.

 

[TheEvil]

Hello? Is this particular arguement going to go unanswered again?

 

[irdeggman]

Hello? Is this particular arguement going to go unanswered again?

What is to argue?

The rules are very specific as to when you get a benefit from flanking and when you get to count as flanking in order to grant that benefit. The applicable text has been quoted several times so far.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hello? Is this particular arguement going to go unanswered again?

For what it's worth, I agree that it's a definite point in favour of 'No flanking during a ranged attack'

-Hyp.

 

[Knightfall]

Found this online at WotC's website...

Defender Flanked

Creatures become susceptible to sneak attacks when flanked because they must divide their attention between two or more opponents whose relative positions make it difficult to block or dodge their attacks. The situation is something like dealing with an unseen foe, but isn't quite as severe.

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.

You get a flanking bonus from any ally your foe can see (and who is in the correct position to flank). If your foe can't see you, you don't provide a flanking bonus to any ally. You literally cannot flank a blind creature; however, a blind creature loses its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against your attacks (so you can sneak attack it), and you get a +2 to attack it to boot. Creatures with the blindsight ability effectively "see" within blindsight range and can be flanked.

The improved uncanny dodge class ability can prevent a creature from being flanked (see the next section).

All About Sneak Attacks (Part Three)
By Skip Williams
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040302a