Flanking with a ranged weapon?

[Rvdvelden]

I know where the difficulty lies here, as I have dealt with this question in a previous situation myself.

We had two rogues (well one rogue and a fighter/rogue) that wanted to get sneak attack damage from ranged attacks (a feature exclusively for rogues when they're within 30 ft. of the opponent).

The problem is that someone needs to threaten the opponent in order to get a flanking bonus. So you still need someone on the other side with a melee weapon that is in striking distance of the opponenent.

In the case of two rogues on opposite sides of an opponent and they're both using ranged attacks, there is no flanking between them and therefore no sneak attack as well. As soon as one of them comes in striking distance with a melee weapon, the other rogue gets a flanking bonus and sneak attack damage. The one holding the melee weapon doesn't, as there is no opposing ally threatening the opponent on the opposite side. If both wield melee weapons and are in striking distance and on opposite sides of the opponent, both would get the flanking bonus and therefore the sneak attack damage.

I remember a 3.0 PrC (Peerless Archer or something like that?) that made a person wielding a bow threaten all areas within 30 ft. (at 10th level from the PrC, so it would've taken a high level character to pull that off). I've askes Wizards on at least three seperate occasions why they never converted that PrC to 3.5. They never gave any answer, but I guess they realized that this was probably just too powerful to let it return.

 

[Milagroso]

I know where the difficulty lies here, as I have dealt with this question in a previous situation myself.

We had two rogues (well one rogue and a fighter/rogue) that wanted to get sneak attack damage from ranged attacks (a feature exclusively for rogues when they're within 30 ft. of the opponent).

The problem is that someone needs to threaten the opponent in order to get a flanking bonus. So you still need someone on the other side with a melee weapon that is in striking distance of the opponenent.

In the case of two rogues on opposite sides of an opponent and they're both using ranged attacks, there is no flanking between them and therefore no sneak attack as well. As soon as one of them comes in striking distance with a melee weapon, the other rogue gets a flanking bonus and sneak attack damage. The one holding the melee weapon doesn't, as there is no opposing ally threatening the opponent on the opposite side. If both wield melee weapons and are in striking distance and on opposite sides of the opponent, both would get the flanking bonus and therefore the sneak attack damage.

I remember a 3.0 PrC (Peerless Archer or something like that?) that made a person wielding a bow threaten all areas within 30 ft. (at 10th level from the PrC, so it would've taken a high level character to pull that off). I've askes Wizards on at least three seperate occasions why they never converted that PrC to 3.5. They never gave any answer, but I guess they realized that this was probably just too powerful to let it return.

Ah so, if I am reading this correctly, Rogue A with melee attacks The Opponent while Rogue B fires arrows from behind The Opponent. Rogue A does not get flanking bonus because Rogue B is not threatening the squares behind The Opponent. Rogue B does not get the bonus because he is not using a melee weapon. So, summarily, neither rogue gets sneak attack die either.

Unless I'm reading that wrong.

If not, then I have to say that I don't agree with that rule one bit. A rogue firing missiles to the back of an opponent currently engaged with an ally should be entitled to sneak attack die. If I were the opponent I would be wary of the arrows being shot at me from behind. This would cause me to glance over my shoulder more often, side step more frequently, albeit awkwardly as I can't see him. This would entitle Rogue A to his flanking bonus and Rogue B to his sneak attack. Unless I have eyes in the back of my head.

 

[Voadam]

It doesn't last for 1 round. It lasts either until the start of your next turn OR until one of your allies strikes it, whichever comes first. So, only 1 ally can get this bonus, and it's only for 1 attack (not a full attack). Still, it's a pretty nice help for the rogue.

Its been a while since I've looked up the exact text, the campaign with my ranger who has this ability has been on hiatus for a few months, and we were doing Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, so setting up sneak attacks on the undead hordes was not that relevant.

 

[jontherev]

Despite only the Ranged column bearing the footnote?

-Hyp.

Good point. I guess I missed that one.

 

[jontherev]

Same goes for critical hits. What if you make an attack roll, it is a possible crit, you roll to confirm the crit (and you do), and then when you randomly roll you end up hitting your ally in the grapple, not the target you intended?

Yes, if you actually hit the AC of your comrade. Crits are a random act of unkindness, not something you do on purpose. Even if you are trying to dish out non-lethal damage, in general, you are always trying your best to deal your opponent the most damage possible. I mean, you're fighting for your life right? Sometimes you are successful in striking a vital...other times not. I realize this is not really spelled out in the rules, but rather it's my own interpretation. My opinion is that rogue's don't have a choice of whether or not to use sneak attack...it either applies based upon the rules or not. Having said all of this, I don't think in the 7 years that I've been playing 3.0/3.5, this rule has ever come up. Most of the time, players use the aid another action to help get the ally free, or else just wait until he's freed himself. Also, as I said earlier, grappling becomes a non-issue by around 10th level anyway due to the must-have ring of FoM.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As soon as one of them comes in striking distance with a melee weapon, the other rogue gets a flanking bonus and sneak attack damage.

He certainly doesn't get the +2 bonus with a ranged weapon based on the PHB text:
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.

I remember a 3.0 PrC (Peerless Archer or something like that?) that made a person wielding a bow threaten all areas within 30 ft.

He threatened 10 feet, and only 10 feet, as if wielding a reach weapon like a longspear. He didn't threaten adjacent squares, and he didn't threaten any further than 10 feet.

Also note that while the Peerless Archer could grant a flanking bonus with his bow (since he could be the ally threatening the opponent), he could not gain a flanking bonus with his bow (since his attacks were still ranged attacks, not melee attacks).

He was the opposite, in effect, of a character with a 3.5 whip, who can gain a flanking bonus with his whip (since he can make a melee attack), but who cannot grant a flanking bonus with his whip (since he threatens no squares).

-Hyp.

 

[azhrei_fje]

Even if you are trying to dish out non-lethal damage, in general, you are always trying your best to deal your opponent the most damage possible. I mean, you're fighting for your life right?

Well, not really. That's what non-lethal damage is all about, after all. But I'm more interested in the original question.

My opinion is that rogue's don't have a choice of whether or not to use sneak attack...it either applies based upon the rules or not.

Hmm. I found this:

If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

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.

The emphasized parts imply that it must be an opponent, and it must be her target. So an attack based on some random factor would not qualify. Hence, no SA damage to an ally in a grapple. (Interesting.)

I have a barbarian in the party who will grapple a bad guy and let the rogue slice'im and dice'im with sneak attack damage. Or at least, that's what they want to do.

Also, as I said earlier, grappling becomes a non-issue by around 10th level anyway due to the must-have ring of FoM.

They are playing in a low magic campaign; no ring of freedom of movement is available.

 

[Rvdvelden]

He certainly doesn't get the +2 bonus with a ranged weapon based on the PHB text:
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.

While I concur that by RAW you seem to be right, the following leads me to believe in the situation I described (with one melee attacker and a rogue with a ranged weapon within 30 ft. on the opposite side of the opponent):

(From SRD, sneak attack class feature for the rogue; bold added):

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. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.
Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

While technically these sentences are unrelated, it gives me the distinct feeling that the second bold sentence was intended to give rogues a use of their sneak attack ability with a ranged weapon if they want to take a calculated risk of coming into close range of the enemy.

Seeing as sneak attack is already nerfed by oozes, undeads etc. ánd it would take some amount of coordinated attack to pull this off ánd enemies can easily circumvent the situation with a good 5 ft. adjustment, I think it's very reasonable to allow flanking and sneak attack for the bowwielding rogue in this particular situaton.

 

[Hypersmurf]

While technically these sentences are unrelated, it gives me the distinct feeling that the second bold sentence was intended to give rogues a use of their sneak attack ability with a ranged weapon if they want to take a calculated risk of coming into close range of the enemy.

The second bold sentence is intended to give rogues a use of their sneak attack ability with a ranged weapon if they want to take a calculated risk of coming into close range of the enemy. Within 30 feet.

And it applies if the opponent is denied Dex bonus, or if the rogue flanks... but since flanking requires that you be making a melee attack, that means that the use of their sneak attack ability with a ranged weapon if they want to take a calculated risk of coming into close range of the enemy really only applies if the opponent is denied Dex bonus.

-Hyp.

 

[Rvdvelden]

I can follow your reasoning and it makes perfect sense from a RAW point of view, but I can't understand why sneak attack is so restricted. Would it be overpowered if a rogue would get to add sneak attack damage in the example I mentioned above?