Rogues flanking at range?

[irdeggman]

You need to check the actual rules and not the SRD. The printed text in the PHB includes several illustrations that that clearly point out (and include text) stating “When making a melee attack, a creature or character gets a +2 bonus on the attack roll if the creature is being threatened by an enemy on its opposite side or corner.” it then goes on to say “When in doubt whether two characters flank a creature. . . “

There is indeed a difference of whether or not a character flanks another or when does someone benefit from flanking.


PHB pg 137 “You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack.”

In order to sneak attack a rogue must catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively. Basically when the target is denied his Dex bonus or the rogue is flanking him.

In order to get a bonus for flanking – a character must be using a melee weapon and his opponent must be “threatened” by a foe on its opposite side. In order to “threaten” a character must be within reach to make melee attack.

Now does this mean that a rogue within 30' using a ranged weapon is flanking a foe if an ally is on the foe's opisite side and threatening him?

That is a good question and the RAW does indeed leave this up for interpretation. I would rule that in order to count as flanking both allies must be threatening the foe (which means melee weapons) - but this is an interpretation (although it does do along with RotG and Sage Advice) {which by the way I do think are really good {RotG that is and Skip's Sage Advice, Andy is no where near as good, IMO})

 

[Saeviomagy]

Patryn:

I think the key to your argument is
"Flanking is a condition"

I contend that it is not, at least not in the SRD (If someone could check out the books, that'd be nice). There is no term to describe someone who is benefiting from a +2 flanking modifier to their attack.

Being flanked, on the other hand, IS a condition, which is what you are arguing. However it's not the condition necessary to have sneak attacks allowed against you. The rogue must be flanking you, not you must be flanked.

That's the sort of level you come to when you break down the description under "flanking" to the degree that you are doing. It, in fact, makes a rogue sneak attacking someone due to him being flanked impossible.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You know, while I personally disagree with Patryn's interpretation (I consider the conditions listed under Flanking for 'you receive a +2 flanking bonus' to be the conditions for Flanking), reading it the other way does lead to an oddity with Formians, for example.

The Hive Mind ability states that when you have more than one formian in a group, none of them are considered flanked unless they all are.

Since you only receive the +2 flanking bonus when you are making a melee attack, it's only possible to flank two formians if people are making melee attacks against both of them simultaneously... and with the initiative system, that can't happen. Therefore, two formians cannot be flanked at the same time, which means as long as there is more than one formian in a group, none of them are ever considered flanked.

Patryn's interpretation, on the other hand, at least allows for the possibility - if you can draw lines between assorted allies bracketing all the formians, they can be considered flanked... and then one may receive the +2 bonus when attacking one of them.

-Hyp.

 

[Evilhalfling]

I didnt have any doubt that my ruling last game was correct when the monk would go stand behind someone while the thief used SA with his bow. The archer was considered flanking , the monk was not. Reading all these arguments just got me confused. So I quit reading the thread and turned to the PHB. It seemed realtively clear, so I was goint to return with my findings but others had already posted them. So add my vote? to the option listed below.

Just for the record, I agree with Patryn.

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.

Next session I will clarify that the thief does not get a +2 to hit, but still gets SA. This combo has actually allowed the monk to use his deflect arrows feat ..... but that is a different kettle of fish.

Side note SA in the Sig. actually worked, as even though the target was now aware of the thief a fighter moved behind the enemy.

 

[atom crash]

You need to check the actual rules and not the SRD. The printed text in the PHB includes several illustrations that that clearly point out (and include text) stating “When making a melee attack, a creature or character gets a +2 bonus on the attack roll if the creature is being threatened by an enemy on its opposite side or corner.” it then goes on to say “When in doubt whether two characters flank a creature. . . “

There is indeed a difference of whether or not a character flanks another or when does someone benefit from flanking.

It's worth noting that the text in the PHB (and repeated in the example illustrations) is the same as the SRD version, except of course where the iconic character are referenced in the pictures.

I tend to post mostly while I'm at work, where I only have access to the online SRD. I like to come home, crack open my PHB and see how the two sources differ. In the case of flanking, they don't. Except the illustration also says, "Here, Regdar and Lidda give each other flanking bonuses, while Tordek enjoys a sandwich and Jozan sips lemonade." Okay so it doesn't really say that about Tordek and Jozan, but I think it sounds better that way. Doesn't Tordek look like he enjoys the occasional sandwich?

It's also worth noting that the example illustrations in the PHB are not all-inclusive in any other section, so I believe that they are also not all-inclusive in the flanking section either. Check out the one example for Attacks of Opportunity (p. 138), which covers movement, casting a spell and drinking a potion. These are the most common examples of actions provoking AoO, just as the illustrations cover the most common examples of flanking. Okay, maybe that's a stretch, but my point is that just because it's not illustrated doesn't mean it's not possible.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You know, while I personally disagree with Patryn's interpretation (I consider the conditions listed under Flanking for 'you receive a +2 flanking bonus' to be the conditions for Flanking), reading it the other way does lead to an oddity with Formians, for example.

I knew there was another example I was forgetting. Thanks for reminding me, Hyp.

 

[The Gryphon]

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.

You can't sneak attack from beyond 30 feet within the standard rules, and that's not what you're showing.

What you're showing is that a spell effect that allows you to make melee touch attacks at range from yourself can originate beyond the 30 feet limit, but the attack with which the sneak attack itself is made is still originating within 30 feet of the target no matter where the spell for the spectral hand is cast.

 

[The Gryphon]

You know, while I personally disagree with Patryn's interpretation (I consider the conditions listed under Flanking for 'you receive a +2 flanking bonus' to be the conditions for Flanking), reading it the other way does lead to an oddity with Formians, for example.

The Hive Mind ability states that when you have more than one formian in a group, none of them are considered flanked unless they all are.

Since you only receive the +2 flanking bonus when you are making a melee attack, it's only possible to flank two formians if people are making melee attacks against both of them simultaneously... and with the initiative system, that can't happen. Therefore, two formians cannot be flanked at the same time, which means as long as there is more than one formian in a group, none of them are ever considered flanked.

Patryn's interpretation, on the other hand, at least allows for the possibility - if you can draw lines between assorted allies bracketing all the formians, they can be considered flanked... and then one may receive the +2 bonus when attacking one of them.

-Hyp.

I also disagree with Patryn's interpretation, but as we've argued before (over the exact same interpretations) the +2 flanking bonus seems to be a sticking point with you.

It's just like having a situational modifier for being on higher ground, whether you enact an action which requires the use the modifier or not you're still on higher ground. So whether you need to use the modifier or not you still flank the target.

Patryn's interpretation, no more allows for the possibility than this. If all defending creatures are threatened and you can draw lines between assorted allies which threaten each formian, they can be considered flanked.

Example: Xs are PCs, # are Formains.

X1X
234
X5X

Assuming all Xs threaten in melee combat, all of the formains are flanked, then as each PC attacks they can gain the +2 flanking bonus against any Formian they flank. If any of the Formians move they cannot be flanked as no PC can move to a position which would allow all Formians to be flanked once again. If one of the PCs had a whip or was using an unarmed strike the Formians would also not be flanked as these weapons don't threaten any area into which it can make an attack and actually provoke an attack of opportunity.

Patryn's interpretation won't work if both PCs on the same side in the above diagram don't threaten their respective Formians (obviously neither will mine), but his interpretation does in general make it easier to flank (as both friendly creatures don't need to be considered to be flanking the same creature) which IMO is not a good situation.

A correction to the flanking description should probably be something like this "When making a melee attack, with an attack that doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity OR/AND which threatens the opponent, you get a ...". The second option feels best to me due to the fact that to be flanked the target must feel threatened enough to split its attention between multiple foes and leave itself more open to attack.

Also as has been said earlier in the thread. If you could flank in any situation other than by threatening a creature in melee combat (you'd think they would have provided one picture of a ranged example if it was possible - saying that the ranged attacker was flanking, but the melee attacker wasn't as the ranged attacker didn't threaten the target), why would creatures with a reach of 0 feet be unable to flank a target (this to me indicates the correction(s) I've made above)?

Example: T is Tiny rogue armed with a bow, M is medium ally, X is PC.

T XM

According to Patryn's interpretation T (being 20 feet away) could normally sneak attack X, but because T is tiny it can't flank an opponent and therefore can't sneak attack. If T were medium though it could sneak attack as it can flank.

Now it's fair enough if the tiny creature can't flank as it provokes an AOO or doesn't threaten in melee, but if it can't do it at range when it's at no disadvantage that's a really big flaw in Patryn's interpretation of the RAW.

 

[GimbleRaulnor]

IMO the reason why flanking gives any bonuses, is because the person being flanked cannot effectively defend itself against attackers from two sides. If he turns to one of the attackers, the other has an open space for an attack (AOO).

This has a direct connection to AOO's, and thus threatranges. And since there's no threatening with ranged weapons, there's no flanking with ranged weapons either.

At least, that's my interpretation of the flanking rules =)

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Patryn's interpretation, no more allows for the possibility than this. If all defending creatures are threatened and you can draw lines between assorted allies which threaten each formian, they can be considered flanked.

Example: Xs are PCs, # are Formains.

X1X
234
X5X

Assuming all Xs threaten in melee combat, all of the formains are flanked,

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.

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.