Ranged Sneak Attacks

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No, FEADIN, nowhere in that text does it say that I have to threaten. You have to threaten in order to get me a bonus on my attack rolls, but that doesn't necessarily matter in this discussion.

 

[DamionW]

I think glass's interpretation makes the most sense thematically. If I'm shooting at a guy who's back to me because he's focused on melee with my friend on the either side, I should get a chance to sneak attack. I shouldn't get the +2, because it's not particularly easier to make that shot than when he's facing me, and neither should the melee attacker because the defender isn't whirling back and forth to guard himself, but I should be able to make a ranged sneak attack if I make the straight-line test. That's just my interpretation, but I can see it leading to wonky combats.

 

[just__al]

Just get the party wiz/sor to cast improved invisibility on you and be done with it.

 

[Demoquin]

This might be house rules but ....

My DM allows Rogues to SA with melee or Ranged provided with facing. So a Rogue can sneak up on a victim and take it out or fire into its back within 30'. You cant keep your eye on the rogue forever
R Rogue
O Opponent
B Buddy that threatens

R O B

ROB


R O (not facing the rogue)


Are all sneak attackable moves in his book and mine

 

[glass]

This might be house rules but ....

My DM allows Rogues to SA with melee or Ranged provided with facing. So a Rogue can sneak up on a victim and take it out or fire into its back within 30'. You cant keep your eye on the rogue forever

Combat in D&D has no facing, so introducing facing is definitely a fairly major house rule.

Does you DM use the variant rules for facing out of UA, or has he made up his own? I have been considering trying out facing rules next time I am DMing.


glass.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

You flank only when you make the melee attack. You can only flank if someone ELSE threatens, which is defined in the PHB as "to be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space."

When you're not flanking, you may be threatening, which means that another person can then flank.

The very first words in the Flanking description are "When making a melee attack."

Then again, I've never been able to see how anyone can read the rules to imply that a ranged attack can threaten or flank. It's one of those things that seems crystal clear to me, and I'd have to see it specifically called out somewhere to be convinced otherwise.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You flank only when you make the melee attack.

1. Prove this statement.

2. So, in your games, no one can flank fomorians or axiomatic creatures, eh?

True in 3.0.

Not true in 3.5.

EDIT:

Remember, "It's self-evident" means "I have no proof!"

 

[reveal]

1. Prove this statement.

2. So, in your games, no one can flank fomorians or axiomatic creatures, eh?

True in 3.0.

Not true in 3.5.

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.

Threatened Squares

You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action.

Seems pretty simple to me. I only flank a creature if A) I am making a melee attack (per the SRD) and B) My comrade is threatening the enemy, which can only be done through a melee attack (per the SRD). I don't care about formorians or any other critter. I care about the definitions of the two things I quoted above.

EDIT:

EDIT:

Remember, "It's self-evident" means "I have no proof!"

Putting a smiley after it doesn't make that statement any less patronizing.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Seems pretty simple to me. I only flank a creature if A) I am making a melee attack (per the SRD) and B) My comrade is threatening the enemy, which can only be done through a melee attack (per the SRD).

Incorrect. That statement says - and only says - that you only get a bonus to your attack roll when making a melee attack and your ally is threatening.

Unless you want to argue that this is what defines flanking, in and of itself?

I don't care about formorians or any other critter. I care about the definitions of the two things I quoted above.

But you should. You've just made them invulnerable to flanking.

EDIT:

Putting a smiley after it doesn't make that statement any less patronizing.

Patrynizing, thank you.

 

[reveal]

Incorrect. That statement says - and only says - that you only get a bonus to your attack roll when making a melee attack and your ally is threatening.

Unless you want to argue that this is what defines flanking, in and of itself?

Why? I could look it up in the FAQ or ask the Sage but it wouldn't matter. Perhaps they'll eratta it in 4.0.

The only thing I can do is point out that the illustrations in the PHB show flanking in melee positions, not ranged.

EDIT: Just to see if I could find something, I looked it up on Wizards' site.

From http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040302a

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 can flank with any melee weapon, including a reach weapon, but you cannot flank with a ranged weapon.

I'm not sure if you'll accept it since it's Skip Williams and not the "proof" you claim to look for, but there it is. It's good enough for me.