Rogues flanking at range?

[The Gryphon]

Going off of the main thrust of the objection to my explanation, what you have said above is absolutely not true.

Succinctly, "Flanking" is not a condition dependent upon combat placement alone. Rather, is a condition dependent upon combat placement and making a melee attack.

Not true, that is your interpretation of the text. Firstly please use the correct terms flanking is not a condition (check the DMG), it is a combat situation.

Of course flanking is not dependent upon combat placement alone. It is based on combat placement and being able to make a threatening melee attack (whether you make it or not).

In all of the graphic example provided on the page of the flanking action is shows which character would receive a +2 flanking bonus provided they attacked the target in question. Now obviously all of the characters which receive the +2 flanking bonus are threatening the creature in question otherwise they couldn't be providing a flanking bonus to their opposite character. Therefore by example all creatures that are flanking a creature must also threaten it. And before you say it, it doesn't matter whether the examples only show melee situations or not as they do all show flanking situations.

So, the top-left PC is not flanking unless and until he decides to make a melee attack against Formian 1. As soon as he decides to make a melee attack against Formian 1, you may check the flanking conditions to determine whether or not he is, in fact, flanking.

1) Is TopLeft engaged making a melee attack against Formian 1? Yes.
2) Is Formian 1 threatened by a friendly character opposite him, such that a line between the bases crosses opposite sides or corners of the Formian's square? Yes.
3) Therefore, is TopLeft flanking Formian 1? Yes, but ...
4) A given Formian may only be flanked when all are flanked. Is Formian 4 flanked? No, because no one is currently making a melee attack against it, therefore it fails test 1.
5) Therefore, Formian 1 is not flanked.

Therefore, using the "You are only flanking when you get a flanking bonus" ruling that those who don't like my reading are proposing, Formians are completely immune to flanking.

However, if you accept my reading, that the definition of flanking is dependent only upon combat positioning ("When in doubt ..."), then the situation you outlined above is one in which all the Formians are flanked.

Note that it is only by accepting my reading that Formians can be flanked at all.

Your analysis of my previous diagram is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. You are flanking as long as you would receive the +2 flanking bonus if you attacked the target, whether you use it or not is up to you. Now that's a fine differentiation as everyone who is flanking has the +2 flanking bonus, but if they decide not to attack a creature they flank then they obviously won't be able to use that bonus.

The same thing if I was prone. The modifiers only come into effect if they are triggered by an action which they are linked to. If I don't try to make a melee attack while I'm prone I won't use the -4 melee modifier, and if no one fires/throws a ranged weapon at me I won't use the +4 AC modifier.

Example:
__P__
__2X3
_O___
1____

Now if we work from the examples shown in the PHB characters 1-3 all have a +2 flanking bonus (1+2 vs. O, 2+3 vs. X). If 2 attacks P he can't use the +2 flanking bonus he could have used against X or O, but that doesn't mean that X or O are no longer flanked as they are still threatened. (Note: this example doesn't include formians )

Therefore formains aren't immune to flanking under my reading of the flanking rules either as as long as they are all threatened (which can only happen in melee combat in the core rules) they are all flanked.

Also note the first part of the flanking text says "When making a melee attack, ...". It doesn't say you must make a melee attack against the target to be flanking it (threatening it is enough to flank it), but what it does say is when you do make a melee attack against a creature you are flanking you gain a +2 flanking bonus.

 

[The Gryphon]

And yet in 3E, where the whip was a ranged weapon, a titan with a 45' whip could not sneak attack from 45 feet away (despite the attack 'taking place' at the end of the whip) as it was a ranged attack... but in 3.5, he can, since it's a melee attack.

-Hyp.

As you've pointed out in 3e it was a ranged weapon so that handles itself doesn't it

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Of course flanking is not dependent upon combat placement alone. It is based on combat placement and being able to make a threatening melee attack (whether you make it or not).

Says you. The rules do not say that, however.

The first paragraph only holds at the exact instant you are making a melee attack. If you can find rules text to the contrary, I'd be real happy to see them.

You won't find them, however, because the first paragraph starts out with, "When making a melee attack ..."

Note, as I said before, it does not say, "When in position to make a melee attack," or "When you could make a melee attack," or even, "When you threaten an opponent." It is therefore limited to exactly and only the moment in which I am making a melee attack - not you, not Bob, not anyone else, but me.

The second paragraph, which is what might allow flanking during the period in which you are not actually making a melee attack, does not mention any of the following: attack, melee, threaten, or range.

Therefore, if you wish to say that it is possible to be in the flanking "combat situation" (and, seriously, let's call a spade a spade, flanking is a condition) when you are not at that exact moment making a melee attack, then you are ruling that the first paragraph (beginning with "When making a melee attack ...") is not the necessary and sufficient condition to determine flanking.

Therefore, the second paragraph - the Line Test - is the necessary and sufficient condition to determine flanking. And that Test says nothing about range, melee, or threatening.

Therefore, if you want to be able to flank during the period in which you are not making a melee attack, you must also allow flanking at range - whether or not you like it. Otherwise, you're making up house rules.

In all of the graphic example provided on the page of the flanking action is shows which character would receive a +2 flanking bonus provided they attacked the target in question.

Need I remind you that these illustrated examples, by their very nature, are not exhaustive? After all (going off of the 3.0 PHB, here), I've got a picture of Tordek surrounded by some rats. There aren't any pictures of giants, or reach weapons, or giants with reach weapons, or giants with bows. Should we then assume that, in 3.0 at least, one could not flank with a reach weapon? Or when you were not a rat fighting Tordek? I should think not!

Therefore by example all creatures that are flanking a creature must also threaten it. And before you say it, it doesn't matter whether the examples only show melee situations or not as they do all show flanking situations.

Except, of course, that you're wrong. It is not necessary for me to threaten a creature in order to flank it - even a strict melee-only reading of the Flanking rules doesn't require that. Rather, it requires that, if I want a flanking bonus on a melee attack roll (which, above, you claim is not a requirement to be flanking in and of itself), then you must threaten my opponent and be opposite me (thus fulfilling the line test).

In other words, I can flank and gain a flanking bonus on my attack roll when I attack with a non-improved unarmed strike. When you attack, you don't get a bonus on your attack roll, because I don't threaten.

But that's OK, because according to my ruling and now yours (the bonus is no longer necessary and sufficient conditions), you're still flanking the target - whether or not you get the bonus is immaterial.

Your analysis of my previous diagram is irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

Well, thank you for that daring insight! Care to provide some actual reasoning behind your (see below) unsupported position, or are you just gonna call me dumb names?

You are flanking as long as you would receive the +2 flanking bonus if you attacked the target, whether you use it or not is up to you.

Which, of course, is a position unsupported by the rules. Unless you'd care to provide the text that you're citing for this ruling?

Now that's a fine differentiation as everyone who is flanking has the +2 flanking bonus, but if they decide not to attack a creature they flank then they obviously won't be able to use that bonus.

Again, all you're saying here is that I can be considered flanking even when I don't get / use the +2 flanking bonus.

That's my position, you just haven't realized it yet.

The rules you seem to be using specifiy that you only get your +2 bonus at the exact moment you are making a melee attack (etc.). If you've thrown out the requirement that you be actually making a melee attack, then there is no text in the rules that requires me to be in melee range of my opponent.

Seriously. I challenge you to find it.

Therefore formains aren't immune to flanking under my reading of the flanking rules either as as long as they are all threatened (which can only happen in melee combat in the core rules) they are all flanked.

Again, your use of "threatened" here is incorrect and is, I believe, interfering with your ability to actually read the rules.

Also note the first part of the flanking text says "When making a melee attack, ...". It doesn't say you must make a melee attack against the target to be flanking it (threatening it is enough to flank it),

Again with the threatening! Threatening doesn't ever enter the equation for me - it only enters the occasion for you.

And "When making a melee attack" doesn't mean you must make a melee attack?

:boggle: That makes no sense. Sorry.

Look, either you are flanking when you follow the rules in both the first and second paragraphs, or you are flanking when you follow the rules in just the second paragraph.

Those are your two choices.

 

[The Gryphon]

Does it actually say that anywhere? If, in fact, it meant that, wouldn't it instead say "A creature with a reach of 0' cannot flank a creature with a reach of 5' or greater?"

No, it doesn't say that, and while you might decide to conjure up some Designer Intent - "They really meant X, see these rules?" - I can just as easily conjure up some additional Designer Intent - "They really meant to expand Flanking to ranged attacks in the 3.5 revision; see the new definition of flanking?"

And, notice that in order to remove a rather stupid ruling - that particularly small creatures cannot flank at all - you need to get rather heavily into house rules territory.

Why would it need to, flanking is listed in the PHB. As for designer intent it's pretty obvious. Does any PC race in the PHB have space/reach of anything other that 5 feet...no. How big is a square according to the rules...5 feet.

The problem with your blanket statement is that a fine or diminuitive creature can flank a tiny creature, doesn't seem right does it . To make a complete conditional line for that situation it would be very long and wouldn't come up often enough IMO to waste the space on. Which is likely why the 3.0 to 3.5 flanking listing was shortened as it was a superfluous line, based mostly on common sense, for anyone not trying to contort the flanking rules to their own ends .

Also, using your own reasoning, if ranged combat was part of flanking in the core rules they would have said "a creature with a reach of 0 feet cannot flank in melee combat, but can flank in ranged combat" as reach never effects ranged combat.

I imagine they thought it would be intuitive, and that people wouldn't try and bend the rules to suit their own interpretation. Honestly how often are you going to have tiny or smaller creatures fighting creatures of their own size or smaller...pretty much never as a PC from the core rules will be small or medium.

I'm not removing a stupid ruling, I'm modifying it as required for the situation (i.e. all creatures fighting only require a space of 2 1/2 feet so I can effectively treat them as if they were small creatures; if it's a tiny and a diminuitive then I can treat the tiny as a small and the diminuitive as having 0 reach).

If that goes heavily into house rules territory then I don't know where your interpretation goes

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The problem with your blanket statement is that a fine or diminuitive creature can flank a tiny creature, doesn't seem right does it .

You mean, just like a Medium creature or two can flank a Colossal creature?

Oh, the horrors!

Tongue firmly in cheek,

 

[The Gryphon]

Says you. The rules do not say that, however.

The first paragraph only holds at the exact instant you are making a melee attack. If you can find rules text to the contrary, I'd be real happy to see them.

You won't find them, however, because the first paragraph starts out with, "When making a melee attack ..."

Note, as I said before, it does not say, "When in position to make a melee attack," or "When you could make a melee attack," or even, "When you threaten an opponent." It is therefore limited to exactly and only the moment in which I am making a melee attack - not you, not Bob, not anyone else, but me.

What the first line does is showthe bonus (When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus), andthe requirements (if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent's opposite border or opposite corner) for flanking which must still be active when you make an attack.

Of couse it doesn't say when in position to, or whatever else as the bonus can only be used when a flanking character attacks the defending character. Nowhere does it say the opponent is not flanked before or after the attack, it just exhibits when the bonus is used and what is required to receive the bonus.

Note it also says in the requirements that the threatening character must be on the opponents opposite border or corner to you, which says very clearly that both characters must be in melee combat as they must be on the opposite border or corner.

Therefore, the second paragraph - the Line Test - is the necessary and sufficient condition to determine flanking. And that Test says nothing about range, melee, or threatening.

Therefore, if you want to be able to flank during the period in which you are not making a melee attack, you must also allow flanking at range - whether or not you like it. Otherwise, you're making up house rules.

The line test is a subsequent test to those listed in paragraph one, for creatures with reach who are in melee combat, but are not in base to base contact with the target, and is not a sufficient condition by itself. Of course it doesn't say anything about threatening or anything else because that has been covered in paragraph one, and is a subsequent test to that paragraph not the primary test. Therefore the house rules are yours.

Need I remind you that these illustrated examples, by their very nature, are not exhaustive?

I never said the examples were exhaustive, I said that they are all example of flanking. If they were exhaustive they'd need their own library of books.

Except, of course, that you're wrong. It is not necessary for me to threaten a creature in order to flank it - even a strict melee-only reading of the Flanking rules doesn't require that. Rather, it requires that, if I want a flanking bonus on a melee attack roll (which, above, you claim is not a requirement to be flanking in and of itself), then you must threaten my opponent and be opposite me (thus fulfilling the line test).

In other words, I can flank and gain a flanking bonus on my attack roll when I attack with a non-improved unarmed strike. When you attack, you don't get a bonus on your attack roll, because I don't threaten.

But that's OK, because according to my ruling and now yours (the bonus is no longer necessary and sufficient conditions), you're still flanking the target - whether or not you get the bonus is immaterial.

You've even managed to twist my statement. The bonus has never been the condition, the requirements listed after the bonus are the conditions of flanking. The bonus is what you get when you attack a target you flank.

The creature your unarmed character is attacking isn't actually flanked. While the unarmed character with your reasoning gains a flanking bonus because the other character threatens the target (I wouldn't allow it) the reverse isn't true so the creature isn't flanked.

Thanks for that, as I've just noticed a huge hole in your interpretation. Assuming the formians again, your system could never flank them unless all your attackers were in melee combat and armed as if two characters are on opposite sides of a formain and at least one is unarmed, as soon as the character opposite the unarmed (non-threatening character) attacks the formians are no longer flanked (as the character opposite him doesn't threaten the target which is a prerequisite of flanking).

Well, thank you for that daring insight! Care to provide some actual reasoning behind your (see below) unsupported position, or are you just gonna call me dumb names?

I gave you a lot of very good reasons, your interpretation just won't allow you to see them.

Again, all you're saying here is that I can be considered flanking even when I don't get / use the +2 flanking bonus.

That's my position, you just haven't realized it yet.

No my position is that you can be flanking while in melee combat, when it is not your turn to attack as long as the requirements are met. That means that a character opposite you must be threatening the target, and you must be in the process of a melee attack. By process I mean you are holding a weapon which is capable of a melee attack and you are using it in that way, i.e. your not just holding your sword in your off hand while you cast stoneskin on your turn for example.

The rules you seem to be using specifiy that you only get your +2 bonus at the exact moment you are making a melee attack (etc.). If you've thrown out the requirement that you be actually making a melee attack, then there is no text in the rules that requires me to be in melee range of my opponent.

Of course the bonus only exists at the moment you make the attack as it is useless otherwise. I have a +2 flanking bonus to attack X creature, since I'm attacking Y creature this round that does me no good does it. Apart from the fact you need to be on the opposite border or corner of your target to be flanking (reading the word border as being able to touch something the other character has, even a reach weapon), no there's no reason you need to be in melee combat.

Again with the threatening! Threatening doesn't ever enter the equation for me - it only enters the occasion for you.

It should enter the equation as the character opposite the attacker must be threatening the target for you to flank it, and IMO unless you both flank the target it isn't flanked (as it isn't flanked all of the time on the attackers actions).

Glossary definition of Flank (first line): To be directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another character.

And "When making a melee attack" doesn't mean you must make a melee attack?

:boggle: That makes no sense. Sorry.

No that's slightly out of context (sorry if it was my mistake). When you make a melee attack means just that, if I choose not to make a melee attack I don't get the bonus...pretty clear isn't it. Nowhere does it say I must make a melee attack to flank in all of the flanking text, you're just assuming from the text "When making a melee attack" that's how it works. What it does say is when I do make a melee attack while flanking I'll get a little bonus for my tactical savvy.

Look, either you are flanking when you follow the rules in both the first and second paragraphs, or you are flanking when you follow the rules in just the second paragraph.

Those are your two choices.

I choose both paragraphs. You're the only one who thinks the latter half of the first paragraph means nothing about the requirements for flanking and is only linked to gaining the flanking bonus.

At least this is increasing my post count, fun isn't it.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So, to summarize your point in as few words as possible, you define the flanking condition as, "You are flanking when:

your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.

"

Is that a fair statement?

 

[Philip]

Can't believe I missed this thread.

Woohoo! Thank you Patryn, from now on my Rogues don't need Ring's of Blinking, Invisibility or whatever, they just need enough friends!

Since with enough friends there is always someone in the world to which you can 'trace an imaginary line that passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space'. So from now on my opponents are always flanked (unless they be formians), and even with ranged weapons! And my rogues can sneak attack forevermore!

There is no mention of line of sight, line of effect or anything similar in the flanking description, right? No limit to the distance of the imaginary line, right?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

There is no mention of line of sight, line of effect or anything similar in the flanking description, right? No limit to the distance of the imaginary line, right?

Nope.

However, there is a 30' range limit on ranged sneak attacks. So, there's still a hard limit to the benefits of flanking - even at range.

EDIT:

And if you think this is weird, consider the fact that (even under a strict melee-only reading) two Improved Invisible assailants can both flank a target, even if the target and the other assailant are unaware of the attacker's position.

 

[Arkhandus]

.....I can't believe this thread is still going. Patryn, you cannot flank with a ranged weapon. I can't believe you came up with some convoluted way of misinterpreting the rules when I posted the SRD quotes verbatim. Now I'll just waste my time posting them again.

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.

Emphases above are mine. See how the very first line states right off that it only applies with melee attacks? The middle paragraph about drawing the imaginary line doesn't matter for ranged flanking, because you cannot flank with a ranged weapon, because you only get the flanking bonus in melee. That paragraph does not say anything that infers you should ignore the first sentence, it is only clarification on the first point, which already specifies that you only get flanking with melee attacks. The first sentence takes precedence, because no later sentences say that they are exceptions, so they must follow the precedence set by the first sentence in the Flanking description. Flanking is only a Combat Modifier, as listed in the SRD, not a status nor a condition.

Now, before you object by saying that you don't have to be the one flanking in melee, first let me refer you to another part of the SRD, the Conditions summary. You'll see that neither the SRD, nor the DMG, nor the PH ever mentioned "flanked" as a condition. It's not a condition. You can flank an enemy in melee, but they are not considered to be "flanked", because "flanked" is not a condition. Flat-footed is a condition. Flanked is not. When you are being flanked, it just means that an enemy is flanking you, not that you are under the condition of being "flanked". Again, absolutely nothing in the Core Rules ever infers that you can flank with a ranged weapon.

Fascinated: A fascinated creature is entranced by a supernatural or spell effect. The creature stands or sits quietly, taking no actions other than to pay attention to the fascinating effect, for as long as the effect lasts. It takes a –4 penalty on skill checks made as reactions, such as Listen and Spot checks. Any potential threat, such as a hostile creature approaching, allows the fascinated creature a new saving throw against the fascinating effect. Any obvious threat, such as someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon at the fascinated creature, automatically breaks the effect. A fascinated creature’s ally may shake it free of the spell as a standard action.

Fatigued: A fatigued character can neither run nor charge and takes a –2 penalty to Strength and Dexterity. Doing anything that would normally cause fatigue causes the fatigued character to become exhausted. After 8 hours of complete rest, fatigued characters are no longer fatigued.

Flat-Footed: A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, not yet reacting normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.

Frightened: A frightened creature flees from the source of its fear as best it can. If unable to flee, it may fight. A frightened creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. A frightened creature can use special abilities, including spells, to flee; indeed, the creature must use such means if they are the only way to escape.
Frightened is like shaken, except that the creature must flee if possible. Panicked is a more extreme state of fear.