Ranged Sneak Attacks

[Quickbeam]

Despite having played D&D for years now, one of my gaming groups recently encountered a situation we've never attempted to adjudicate before.

The rules clearly state that rogues can gain the benefit of their sneak attack ability with ranged weapons used within 30' of their target (assuming the target is subject to critical hits). Our take on this has always been that this presumes the rogue is acting first in a combat scenario when his/her foes are caught flat-footed, or that the target is otherwise being denied its dexterity. The question was raised, though, can a rogue with feats such as point blank shot and precise shot be considered flanking a foe if they are using a ranged weapon and not positioned within an adjacent square? Furthermore, is a rogue able to gain the benefit of his/her sneak attack if a ranged attack is directed at an opponent two other characters are flanking?

We've always ruled that the answer to #1 is no, and that the answer to #2 is yes, but never really bothered giving either situation much thought until this week. Now we're wondering how beneficial sneak attack is to a rogue that generally specializes in ranged combat. Thanks in advance for your input and experiences.

 

[reveal]

The question was raised, though, can a rogue with feats such as point blank shot and precise shot be considered flanking a foe if they are using a ranged weapon and not positioned within an adjacent square?

You cannot flank with a ranged weapon, period.

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.

Emphasis added.

Furthermore, is a rogue able to gain the benefit of his/her sneak attack if a ranged attack is directed at an opponent two other characters are flanking?

No. The rogue must be doing the flanking. The opponent in question is not being denied their dex bonus because they are being flanked.

 

[William_2]

I don’t think you’ll see much argument on the second question: I think everyone agrees that an individual is never “flanked” as a general state – each individual attacker is “flanking” when they meet the requirements.

I agree completely with the first answer, that the rules do not permit flanking with a ranged weapon, because they do not allow threatening with a ranged weapon. However, I have seen it argued here at length before, and there were some interesting points.

 

[Quickbeam]

Well, I'm glad to see that we've been 50% correct on these two topics thus far .

We were reasonably certain that the answer to #1 was no, and sort of house-ruled #2 to be yes. Starting Friday night, the error of our ways will likely be corrected. It's amazing how some rules (AoO) have tremendous amounts of attention paid to them in a given group, while others (such as these) are just taken for granted. I feel better noting that most rogues played in our group have appropriately closed into melee for use of their sneak attack ability, but it's good to know the official ruling for ranged purposes.

 

[glass]

I don’t thin you’ll see much argument on the second question: I think everyone agrees that an individual is never “flanked” as a general state – each individual attacker is “flanking” when they meet the requirements.

This is correct.

I agree completely with the first answer, that the rules do not permit flanking with a ranged weapon, because they do not allow threatening with a ranged weapon. However, I have seen it argued here at length before, and there were some interesting points.

This, however, is less certain. It is the subject of a long running difference of opionion on these boards.

While you have to threaten to provide the bonuses to a flanker, you do not need to threaten to receive the bonuses. You do not get the +2 bonus to hit because it specifies that that only applies to a melee attack, but the sneak attack damage has no such specification.

IMO, therefore, you can flank at range and get sneak attack damage as long as an ally on the oposite side of the target threatens.


glass.

 

[William_2]

There we go. As I said, there seem to be interesting points on both sides of this particular question. Personally, my feeling is that the intent of the rules is fully expressed in “When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus…”, and that that sentence would include “or ranged” if that were intended. I can see both sides of the issue, however, and it is what the rules actually are, rather than the imagined intent, that counts for the purpose of answering the question.
This is one of those things that a DM should, in my view, decide in advance of players picking their character class, as it is a pretty substantial bonus for characters with Rogue levels.

 

[glass]

There we go. As I said, there seem to be interesting points on both sides of this particular question. Personally, my feeling is that the intent of the rules is fully expressed in “When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus…”, and that that sentence would include “or ranged” if that were intended.

If it said 'or ranged' there, then you would get the +2 to hit at range (which you currently do not), as well as the sneak attack damage.

I can see both sides of the issue, however, and it is what the rules actually are, rather than the imagined intent, that counts for the purpose of answering the question.

I have no idea whether being able to pull off ranged sneak attacks was an intended effect of the RAW, or an accidental side effect. But, as you rightly point out, that doesn't change the rules either way.

This is one of those things that a DM should, in my view, decide in advance of players picking their character class, as it is a pretty substantial bonus for characters with Rogue levels.

That is always good advice.

 

[FEADIN]

FLANKING
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.
When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent.

You have to threaten to flank and to get the +2, you must use a melee weapon to threaten so.....

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Yeah - there was a change in the way the flanking rules were written in between 3.0 and 3.5.

In 3.0, you were flanking if and only if you were making a melee attack, and at no other point in the round. Specifically:

If a character is making a melee attack against an opponent, and an ally directly opposite the character is threatening the opponent, the character and the character's ally flank the opponent.

In 3.5, they removed that sentence and replaced it with:

When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

You'll note it doesn't say anything about "melee" or "threatening" in that block of text.

Accordingly, there are two ways of interpreting the new flanking rules.

1) You are flanking if and only if you are currently receiving the flanking bonus on your attack.

2) You are flanking whenever you successfully pass the "line test" (the rules text I quoted above)

There are problems with both interpretations.

The first interpretation absolutely does not allow ranged flanking. It does, however, run into problems in other areas:

Hive Mind (Ex): All formians within 50 miles of their queen are in constant communication. If one is aware of a particular danger, they all are. If one in a group is not flatfooted, none of them are. No formian in a group is considered flanked unless all of them are.

If I'm only flanking something during the attack I make while in an appropriate position, then I am the only one flanking anything at any given moment in combat. It is not possible - due to the way in which D&D combat works - for more than one creature to be attacking at a time. Therefore, at most one creature can be flanked in any instant, and formians become not "tough to flank" but "impossible to flank." This is a problem which is inherited from the 3.0 rules text on flanking.

The second reading - that the line test is all that matters - does not have the issue above. It does, however, allow ranged flanking, something many people don't like.

I personally believe that the designers really wanted to fix the "Formian Problem" when they rewrote the 3.0 flanking rules. Unfortunately, I think they allowed in the "Ranged Flanking Problem" when they did so.

Even understanding the loophole they created, and the manner in which it was created, I'd be hard-pressed to rewrite the flanking rules to accomplish three goals:

1. Limit it to hand-to-hand combat only
2. Allow it to take place outside of your own turn
3. Allow it to happen in "non-RAW melee" cases

The trick with #3 is this: the RAW define "melee" as a situation in which either one of two opponents threatens the other. In other words, if I've got a sword, and you don't, and we're fighting, we're in melee. If neither of us have swords (and neither of us has Improved Unarmed Strike), then neither threatens the other, and we aren't in melee - even if we're still fighting each other.

We want the flanking rules to apply in such cases - which I like to call the "Barfight Scenario": in a standard barfight, no one's got IUS, so no one threatens, so no one's in melee as the rules define it, but we still want someone to be able to sucker punch (i.e., sneak attack) their opponent when they sneak in behind him (in a flanking position, i.e., pass the line test).

So, there you go.

Pick which interpretation you like, and stick with it. Let your players know which you're going with.

 

[glass]

You have to threaten to flank and to get the +2, you must use a melee weapon to threaten so.....

It doesn't say either of those things.

It says you have to make a melee attack to get the plus two, and it says you have to threaten to help provide that bonus.

Since a sneak attacking rogue with a bow is trying to do neither of those things, but can still draw a line from his base to an ally's through the target, he's good to go.


glass.