Ranged Sneak Attacks

[TheEvil]

It occurs to me that the real argument here is whether or not you can flank at range. The whole sneak attack thing is a red hering. (A little slow on the uptake today...)

Back to the flanking rules, wouldn't the transitive sentence "When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle..." indicate that the second paragraph is supplimental to the first paragraph and not meant to be taken on it's own?

 

[Artoomis]

Hey, folks! I am thinking of starting a poll on this topic to see what the general consensus is. Since I always seem to catch feces about my wording for polls, I figured it couldn't hurt to get some input on how to phrase the question for this one.

I suggest a multi-pick poll with the following question:

Can a Rogue get a sneak attack beonus for flanking with a ranged attack? Please pick one of the first two choices and as many of the others as fit.

1. Yes, per the rules as written.
2. No, per the rues as written.
3. I chose Yes, but I think it's not what was intended and won't allow it.

And maybe some other choices, too.

 

[TheEvil]

I suggest a multi-pick poll with the following question:

Can a Rogue get a sneak attack beonus for flanking with a ranged attack? Please pick one of the first two choices and as many of the others as fit.

1. Yes, per the rules as written.
2. No, per the rues as written.
3. I chose Yes, but I think it's not what was intended and won't allow it.

And maybe some other choices, too.

Too late, I am afraid, thanks though. I also realized that the sneak attack portion wasn't the important part and dropped it from the poll.

 

[atom crash]

In a nutshell, the rules specifically state that you get a flanking bonus when you satisfy these conditions: you make a melee attack, and an ally on the opposite side of your target is threatening that target. It defines flanking via the line test.

Because of the wording of the formian's hivemind, the axiomatic creature's linked minds and the ambush drake's similar special quality, it is implied that the flanking bonus and being flanked are two separate -- though obviously connected -- concepts. That is, a creature can be flanked -- or a character can flank -- in certain situations in which no one receives a flanking bonus.

Otherwise, the end result of these special qualities would be that the creatures cannot be flanked, because at no point can any two characters receive a flanking bonus. In that case, the special qualities would more aptly read "This creature cannot be flanked" rather than "No creature in a group is considered flanked unless all of them are," which obviously denotes that there is a situation in which all creatures in the group can be considered flanked at the same time.

 

[Murrdox]

Okay I see where you are going with it now.

However let's take the two clauses of the rules...

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.

and

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.

Part 1 defines the rule. Part 2 attempts to further clarify Part 1, with the words "when in doubt".

You are interpreting that an opponent is flanked if 1 OR 2 = true.

You cannot look at Part 2 as a rule in and of itself. Therefor, I say that if 1 AND 2 = True. In fact I'd say that what the rule is saying is that...

If Rule 1 = True then opponent is flanked.
If Rule 2 = True then Rule 1 MAY also be true.

Thus, Rule 2 exists only to help us determine the truth of Rule 1 if we are having problems. The requirements and restrictions of Rule 1 still apply.

With this interpretation I believe that you CANNOT flank while ranged. Your Formorian situation oddity may still apply if you look at the rules only as written. This is because the Formorian phrase "invents" a "flanked" status for an opponent that is never adequately explained. It is mentioned in Rule 2, but Rule 2 is already contingent upon the status of Rule 1.

Since this "flanked" status is not adequately explained, it seems to me that we can either say that no such status exists, and the Formorian rule essentially says "no formorian can be flanked" or that a "flanked" status exists, and is "insinuated" by a combination of Rule 1 AND Rule 2.

 

[Dimwhit]

I think it's interesting that the some people are on each of the opposing sides as with the Monk/INA debate.

I, naturally, am with the group going with the RAW. No flanking with ranged.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Part 1 defines the rule. Part 2 attempts to further clarify Part 1, with the words "when in doubt".

You are interpreting that an opponent is flanked if 1 OR 2 = true.

Er, no. I am saying that for 1 to happen at all, 2 must first be true - in other words, even testing 1 is dependent upon successfully passing 2 first. It's just that, most of the time, the test for 2 is so trivially easy that you don't even need to consider it. When it isn't blindingly obvious ("When in doubt"), you perform the line test.

The line test neither requires nor suggests melee in any form.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I, naturally, am with the group going with the RAW. No flanking with ranged.

Which is funny, because, naturally, I am with the group going with the RAW, rather than what the RAW used to say. Flanking with ranged is an oddity, but allowed.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I think it's interesting that the some people are on each of the opposing sides as with the Monk/INA debate.

I, naturally, am with the group going with the RAW. No flanking with ranged.

Unfortunately, your rather strong assertion is wrong there. I say that monks cannot qualify for INA but also that one cannot flank at range

 

[Dimwhit]

Patryn, the sentence with the line test is clarifying the sentence tha begins immediately before. You can say it doesn't all you want, but by ALL rules of English and paragraph structure, you are wrong.