Can You Flank With a Ranged Weapon?

[TheEvil]

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.

This is just the second time I have brought this up on a thread regarding ranged flank, and in the other case as well, those saying the rules were vague suddenly stopped posting on the thread. It is disappointing, I guess. If they actually have a counter I would like to hear it, if they don't, then they really ought to admit it. Particularly as strongly as they argued.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Found this online at WotC's website...

Yes, but given all the things he pulls out of thin air in that article, it's not that useful...

('Both must threaten'? Hmm? 'Any ally your foe can see'? Where'd that come from?)

-Hyp.

 

[Knightfall]

Yes, but given all the things he pulls out of thin air in that article, it's not that useful...

('Both must threaten'? Hmm? 'Any ally your foe can see'? Where'd that come from?)

-Hyp.

Well, I guess it depends whether or not a particular DM views Rules of the Game articles as "rules canon", or not. Me, I tend to use such articles to settle rule disputes between myself and the players.

Plus, who knows how many unwritten "rules" are implied in the text of the PHB. The rules aren't finite or written in stone, IMO, and if a DM wants to allow flanking with a ranged weapon then that's their choice, as we all well know.

It simply becomes a house rule.

The part about your foe needing to see you in order for you to flank them did make me "raise an eyebrow" but I'm not going to argue with Mr Williams. He was the Sage for many years, after all.

Cheers!

KF72

 

[Hypersmurf]

The part about your foe needing to see you in order for you to flank them did make me "raise an eyebrow" but I'm not going to argue with Mr Williams. He was the Sage for many years, after all.

It was during his time as Sage that this first came up - he included it in the 3E Main FAQ, and it made us go "Huh?" then, too.

Then 3.5 came out, and lo, not a single mention in the rules of needing to be visible to aid in flanking.

And then Skip writes an article, and inserts the concept back in.

It feels almost like he uses it as a house rule in his own game, and then forgets that it's not actually in the rules when he writes his answers...

-Hyp.

 

[Knightfall]

It was during his time as Sage that this first came up - he included it in the 3E Main FAQ, and it made us go "Huh?" then, too.

Then 3.5 came out, and lo, not a single mention in the rules of needing to be visible to aid in flanking.

And then Skip writes an article, and inserts the concept back in.

It feels almost like he uses it as a house rule in his own game, and then forgets that it's not actually in the rules when he writes his answers...

-Hyp.

I could see how that's possible, but what are you going to do? If that's how he sees it and no one at WotC wants to correct him then I guess it's canon in his mind. The question is, I guess, is it in the FAQ for v.3.5? If not then it's likely his view of the rule and not WotC's.

The truth is that anyone can interpret a rule differently. In my current campaign I was allowing the PCs (and NPCs) to flank with a ranged weapon. However, this thread has taught me that characters shouldn't be allowed to do that, so now I'm going to rule we've been doing it wrong.

The thing is, I'm using Skip's article to point out my error, and that means the article has become "canon" in my campaign. I don't have a problem with it, because I like the idea that flanking is based on the opponents need to see those flanking him, and the optional rule that characters can ignore flankers and, thus, not be flanked (part 4).

Anyway, obviously it's a difficult issue to resolve, like I said, because different groups will interpret the "wording" of the rules differently.

 

[Knightfall]

Here's that section from Part Four...

A Totally Unofficial Rule for Dealing with Foes Trying to Flank You

Jonathan Tweet (co-designer of the D&D 3rd edition game) and I have had many opportunities to ponder the tactical aspects of flanking and what you might be able to do about it if you find yourself flanked. After one extended discussion not long ago, Jonathan proposed the basics of the following rule, and I present it here, with some tweaks:

You can disregard attacks from an opponent flanking you. When you do, that opponent doesn't get the +2 flanking bonus when attacking you and that opponent does not provide a flanking bonus to any of its allies. Ignoring a flanker, however, provokes an attack of opportunity from that flanker, and you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against that flanker. You do, however, continue to threaten that flanker.

If the flanker is out of attacks of opportunity, you can ignore the flanker (and deny the flanking bonus) with impunity.

If you can't see (or locate) the flanker, you disregard the flanker by default, and you provoke the attack of opportunity.

You must make the decision to disregard a flanker as soon as the foe moves into a flanking position. You can change your decision as a free action on your turn. (You still must disregard a flanker you can't see.)

Designer's Notes: This rule gives certain creatures the option to ignore flankers when they don't pose any real danger to them. Lycanthropes facing foes that aren't armed with silver weapons, as well as characters with very high Armor Classes facing much weaker foes, can soften the effects of being surrounded. Many other creatures can use the rule to limit sneak attacks against them, but at the risk of extra attacks of opportunity from other foes. This rule also means that you often cannot provide a flanking bonus to your allies if you're out of attacks of opportunity (though foes may have a hard time determining exactly when that situation occurs).

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Personally, I see Skip Williams' houserule as a difference of personal taste versus RAW. RAW clearly says that melee attack and threatening is what's needed. However ...

Until an attack is made, my personal taste indicates that visible is logically necessary. Why should I "be distracted" [the whole reason for the flanking bonus anyway] if I don't know I should be distracted?

The problem with this line of logic is at least two-fold, and I am sure my fellow ENWorlders can add more to this. First, once the invisible guy attacks the victim, if they can remain invisible you better believe that the now flanked guy should be considered flanked because he's going to be wondering where that invisible strike came from! So, I can then see the longic for an invisible guy to activate the flanking condition once they have attacked. The other problem is that now it creates multiple scenarios of complexity that I'd rather not deal with at the table. I don't require obscenely simple rules, but I want the rules to implement in a simple manner. Setting conditions on flanking is already complex. Adding another layer of complexity by speaking of possible invisibility is more than I desire to go.

But again, there we see it is a conflict between personal taste and RAW. RAW clearly allows invisible guys to flank.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The question is, I guess, is it in the FAQ for v.3.5?

No.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

First, once the invisible guy attacks the victim, if they can remain invisible you better believe that the now flanked guy should be considered flanked because he's going to be wondering where that invisible strike came from! So, I can then see the longic for an invisible guy to activate the flanking condition once they have attacked.

At that point, of course, the invisible guy can walk away... but unless the previously-flanked guy knows he's not there any more, he's still going to be wondering...

Like you say, the complexity gets worse and worse

-Hyp.

 

[Knightfall]

No.

-Hyp.

There you have it then.

Thanks Hyp.