Rogues flanking at range?

[Arkhandus]

Ugh. We had this discussion weeks ago. You cannot flank with a ranged weapon. Period. I quoted the SRD several times in my response to that thread, and I'll not go to the bother of finding and posting the same quotes again.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Ugh. We had this discussion weeks ago. You cannot flank with a ranged weapon. Period. I quoted the SRD several times in my response to that thread, and I'll not go to the bother of finding and posting the same quotes again.

Ugh. We had this discussion weeks ago. You can flank with a ranged weapon. Period.* I quoted the SRD several times in my response to that thread, but being a nice guy, I'll go to the bother of finding and posting the same quotes again.

* Whether it was an intended change or not!

EDIT:

For the record, I realize that this is an awful large windmill I'm tilting at. As such, I realize that I'm not ever going to convince most people that the rules allow this. I am, however, striving to reach the point where everyone can look at the arguments, go, "Yeah, I see what he's sayin'; how funny!" and go back to treating flanking the way 3.0 did.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

I think it's very fishy that they changed the wording from 3.0 to 3.5 in a way that allows this argument to come up time & time again. I think that the current RAW allows for both interpretations, therefore I think it's a judgement call on the part of the DM. The way we have read it is, to receive flank, a buddy of yours must be on the opposite side (the whole straight-line thing) AND HE (That Buddy) MUST be threatening the enemy. It says nothing about you yourself threatening the poor sap betwixt you. If those conditions are met, then you receive the benefit of flanking. Your buddy does not, seeing as how you are not threatening. That's how we do it, like I said before, it may not be entirely CORRECT as far as RAW goes, but it works and we love it.

 

[OrChasmatron]

is there a means to flank an opponent who hasn't lost their Dexterity bonus with a ranged weapon, say for example at 60 feet, in order to satisfy the requirements for a Sneak Attack?

The whole point of the sneak attack being limited to 30' is the fact that you have to be able to see the target well enough to hit a vulnerable spot. You can't aim at a vulnerable spot that you can't see.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As such, I realize that I'm not ever going to convince most people that the rules allow this. I am, however, striving to reach the point where everyone can look at the arguments, go, "Yeah, I see what he's sayin'; how funny!" and go back to treating flanking the way 3.0 did.

I can understand that.

It's the same as my contention that, strictly as written, someone suffering from Ray of Enfeeblement can't be killed by a Shadow... or that while a Ftr10 can use a Ring of Evasion in heavy armor, a Ftr9/Rog1 can't. I might not run those rules that way... but it's what they say.

On the other hand, certain other disputed rules, I use as they're written. A Flaming Sphere doesn't damage someone except when it moves into their square... if they both just hang around doing nothing for three rounds, no more damage is taken. A lance used in one hand while mounted gets +4 on Disarm checks and 2-for-1 Power Attack. Etc.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I know Rogues can sneak attack at up to 30 feet if the second case is true, but is there a means such as through a prestige class ability, or a feat, that permits one to flank with a ranged weapon outside of melee and thus, in the case of Rogues, satisfy the requirements to execute a sneak attack?

If you're a multiclassed Rogue / Arcane caster, you can sneak attack from beyond 30 feet, but you still require the opponent to be denied his Dex bonus.

With a Spectral Hand delivering a touch spell (like Shocking Grasp, for example), you can sneak attack from Medium range (100' + 10'/level)... if he's denied Dex.

-Hyp.

 

[atom crash]

Just for the record, I agree with Patryn. Not that I think my opinion holds significant weight, but he's not the only one who holds this funny notion that in 3.0 the flanking rules said rather explicitly that you can't flank with a ranged weapon and the 3.5 revision muddied the waters. Intentional change or just some dumb random mistake? I tend to think it was intentional. After all, if I chalked it up to a dumb random mistake and kept going I might lay awake at night wondering what else in the 3.5 revision might be messed up.

So, in a nutshell, here it is:

You cannot gain a +2 flanking bonus with a ranged weapon. The rules explicitly say you only get the flanking bonus on a melee attack.

You can flank with a ranged weapon. Flanking isn't conditional on the bonus; the bonus is conditional on flanking. Flanking is conditional on your position in relation to an ally and an opponent.

 

[Deset Gled]

Everyone's favorite rejoinder is, "You're only flanking when you benefit from the +2! Therefore, you're only flanking when you make a melee attack."

The proble, of course, is that this is not true across the rest of the ruleset, where you can possess a given condition - invisibility, bless, prone, etc. - and not get all the benefits and penalties of that state.

*snip*

You are correct. This was, in fact, going to be my response. However, your arguement about why it doesn't work does not convince me. The problem is a difference of definition.

Your arguement is that a condition can exist without a character receiving all consequences of the condition. I agree with this statement. The problem is that (IMO), the +2 is not a consequence of flanking, it is the definition of flanking. There is a subtle but profound difference.

To be more specific, I believe the definition of flanking to be the sentence "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." The sentences that you refer to as a definition are "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." The reason that I do not agree that the second quote is a definition is because of the clause "When in doubt" and because it directly follows the sentence I claim is the definition. In my definitive sentence, the only room for doubt is in what constitutes being "on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner," which is exactly what the "when in doubt" sentence clarifies (I suppose there's also a question as to what constitutes "friendly", but that's not an area I feel is relevant). You seem to be reading the clause "when in doubt" to mean whenever somebody asks a question about whether or not they are flanking. I believe this to be problematic, because it means that the clause "when in doubt" is effectively meaningless.

Unfortunately, due to the problem of poor definition, the above paragraph and discussion of the true definition of flanking will boil down to designer intent, which we can never get a definitive answer on. Accordingly, I am happy to agree to disagree with you on the matter.

On a slightly different (but related) topic, isn't it about time in this thread to bring up the question of balance? I believe that allowing characters to flank with ranged weapons is very unbalanced. Allowing a rogue to get a full attack worth of sneak attacks with no cost to themselves seems very unbalanced to me.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The reason that I do not agree that the second quote is a definition is because of the clause "When in doubt" and because it directly follows the sentence I claim is the definition.

Actually, it's in the next paragraph. To my mind, that's enough separation to make it a distinct thought.

However, I understand where you're coming from.

In my definitive sentence, the only room for doubt is in what constitutes being "on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner," which is exactly what the "when in doubt" sentence clarifies

My reading, however, is that in the base scenario (one 5'x5' creature in melee with a 5'x5' creature with a 5'x5' ally directly opposite, also in melee) is so obviously a flanking situation that the imaginary line test would not need to be invoked.

Therefore, the imaginary line test is meant to apply to situations where that is not the case - either the opponent or the attackers are not 5'x5', the orientation is slightly off, or the distance is greater than base-touching. This distance can be caused by anything that increases the distance between two characters: natural reach, weapon reach, or ranged weapons, for example.

(I suppose there's also a question as to what constitutes "friendly",

Heh, heh, heh. Amen to that!

I believe this to be problematic, because it means that the clause "when in doubt" is effectively meaningless.

Or, as above, the base case is obvious and doesn't need to be tested. Anything else *might* need to be tested.

On a slightly different (but related) topic, isn't it about time in this thread to bring up the question of balance? I believe that allowing characters to flank with ranged weapons is very unbalanced. Allowing a rogue to get a full attack worth of sneak attacks with no cost to themselves seems very unbalanced to me.

That's a good question.

The reasons I don't believe it would be particularly unbalanced are as follows:

1. The "flanking possible squares" are rather limited. You still have to be directly opposite an ally, which basically limits your firing positions to straight lines.

2. Ranged sneak attacks still have a 30' limit to them, which places them well within move-attack and / or charge range of most creatures - and sometimes within a creature's base reach!

So, while it does make certain kinds of sneak attacks easier to pull off, I don't believe it would be overwhelmingly powerful to the extent that it would be game-breaking.

The *real* problem with the flanking rules, though, is the fact that particularly small creatures can't flank anything, at all, ever, whether you allow ranged flanking or not. What kind of sense does that make? Pixies and Petals unite!

 

[Nareau]

It's the same as my contention that, strictly as written, someone suffering from Ray of Enfeeblement can't be killed by a Shadow... or that while a Ftr10 can use a Ring of Evasion in heavy armor, a Ftr9/Rog1 can't. I might not run those rules that way... but it's what they say.

Hyp, I'm always amazed at your ability to see the rules more clearly than anyone else. And I'm fascinated by the above. So in the interest of not hijacking this thread, I've started a new one. Would you mind visiting that thread, and explaining these weird permutations?

Spider