Ranged sneak attacks - what's your experience?

[Legildur]

There is an argument to the contrary, that separates the +2 flanking bonus (which explicitly requires a melee attack) from the condition of flanking. According to this argument, one's position can mean one is flanking (and thus eligible for sneak attack), while not gaining the +2 bonus on attack rolls (since a ranged attack does not qualify).

-Hyp.

Mmmm. It's late over here. I'll have to think about that one before I dismiss it out of hand

 

[Shadeus]

I can't believe I forgot the ring of blinking. I should turn in my power gamers license.

Wow, I didn't really think this would be so rough. Although, I don't think I can convince my DM to go for the ranged flanking thing...it defies common sense for me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Said argument probably ignores the word from the horse's mouth on the specific definition of flanking as it pertains to sneak attacks...

Which introduces several ideas not found in the rules.

To flank an opponent, two allies must be on opposite sides of that opponent, and they both must threaten the opponent.

Strictly, only the ally must threaten the opponent. To gain the bonus, you need not threaten; you need only be making a melee attack.

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.

This appears nowhere in the rules.

It's not helpful using RotG to explain the rules when it introduces its own new ideas and presents them as being how the rules work.

-Hyp.