Rogues flanking at range?

[Lord Pendragon]

I'm trying to find a plausible rules bend, something that would cost a Rogue if he/she were to pursue this tactic (so game balance is not totally thrown out of whack).

I think your best bet is to focus on the other means of gaining sneak attack: loss of dex bonus to AC. This can be accomplished in a number of ways, ranging from spells/effects such as Invisibility and Blink, to tactics such as sniping, to special abilities such as Hide-In-Plain-Sight. You can also more easily reign in these abilities if the rogue's extra sneak attacking gets out of hand, with less headaches than tweaking the flanking/threatening mechanics.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

This seems to draw a strong correlation between being able to threaten, and being able to flank.

I disagree with "strong." Moreover, the rules you quote just say that tiny things can't flank anything. The problem, of course, is that small creatures can't even flank each other - even in melee combat. I pity grig rogues (tiny fey) and their inability to sneak attack other grigs once combat has begun.

Note that the very first words are "when making a melee attack".

No. Note, instead, that the very first words are "when making a melee attack, you [get a particular named bonus given some conditions]."

It is no different than, "When affected by a Bless spell, you gain a +1 morale bonus on saves vs. fear."

If I never use my +1 morale bonus on a save vs. fear, was I still blessed? Of course.
If I never use my +2 flanking bonus on melee attacks, was I still flanking? Of course (in 3.5).

I'm not sure how you can argue that you can be making a ranged attack and be considered flanking, when the section itself begins with the stipulation that you be making a melee attack.

I'm not sure how you can argue that you were blessed, when the section itself begins with the stipulation that you must make a save vs. fear.

Again, read the description of invisibility. If I am invisible, you are denied your Dex bonus to AC. If you have Uncanny Dodge, you get to keep your Dex bonus to AC. Am I still invisible? Yes, of course.

Similarly, if I am flanking, I get a +2 flanking bonus on melee attack rolls. If I don't make a melee attack, I don't get a +2 flanking bonus. Am I still flanking? Yes, of course.

Note that the answer to the second question changed in the 3.0 -> 3.5 revision. In 3.0, the answer would instead be, "No - you are only flanking when making a melee attack."

In 3.0, the method to determine the flanking condition was as follows:

If a character is making a melee attack against an opponent, and an ally directly opposite the character is threatening the opponent, the character and the character's ally flank the opponent.

In 3.5, that text was removed, and the method to determine the flanking condition was amended to:

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.

Notice the difference?

Also note again the stipulation that a creature without Reach (and therefore that does not threaten) is also barred from flanking.

Yep, and if you think about all the tiny fey rogues in the world, that's a damn silly rule.

 

[Winterthorn]

Partyn of E: I'll think about that some... Funny how terms and definitions can make or break a game system.

-W.

 

[Seeten]

Flanking Shot: If you have an ally on an opposite corner of an opposing creature, and your missile weapon is out and visible, your target is denied his dexterity bonus for the purpose of determining sneak attacks that you may wish to launch. Note: The creature in question does not lose his dexterity bonus, only counts as losing it for the purpose of sneak attacks.

Hows this?

Edit: I'd put this in the ranged attack feat tree, after precise shot and point blank shot, with the additional requirement: Must have the sneak attack class feature

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I'm sorry Patryn, I think your argument is pure sophistry and that the rules for flanking are perfectly clear. They're borne out not only by the Flanking section itself, but by the various other rules built on the same premise. Grigs can't flank because they can't threaten. If they could flank with ranged weapons (despite not threatening), the rules wouldn't state that they can't flank.

However, that last bit of argument aside, I couldn't find any other cites in the SRD to further clarify my point, so I think it's safe to simply agree to disagree on this point.

Edit to add: Btw Patryn, I don't mean to be rude or snide when I claim your argument is sophistry. I have a lot of respect for your discourse in this forum, and am not trying to be insulting by that comment. Just wanted to clarify that, since upon rereading my post it occurred to me that the phrase might carrying a connotation I didn't mean to convey. Good discussion, and I hope to have more in the future.

 

[Winterthorn]

I think your best bet is to focus on the other means of gaining sneak attack: loss of dex bonus to AC. This can be accomplished in a number of ways, ranging from spells/effects such as Invisibility and Blink, to tactics such as sniping, to special abilities such as Hide-In-Plain-Sight. You can also more easily reign in these abilities if the rogue's extra sneak attacking gets out of hand, with less headaches than tweaking the flanking/threatening mechanics.

I think it was the sniping part that the player was most interested in. He wanted to be able to get some advantage from a rooftop while his allies were already engaged with the enemy down on the street below... Move on roof, then shoot, then move again then shoot, and so on...

-W.

 

[azmodean]

Sure, I'd allow Exotic weapon proficiency (longbow), it'd be fun

 

[Winterthorn]

Flanking Shot: If you have an ally on an opposite corner of an opposing creature, and your missile weapon is out and visible, your target is denied his dexterity bonus for the purpose of determining sneak attacks that you may wish to launch. Note: The creature in question does not lose his dexterity bonus, only counts as losing it for the purpose of sneak attacks.

Hows this?

Edit: I'd put this in the ranged attack feat tree, after precise shot and point blank shot, with the additional requirement: Must have the sneak attack class feature

Okay! I'll keep your suggestion handy. Thankyou

-W, still thinking...

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Edit to add: Btw Patryn, I don't mean to be rude or snide when I claim your argument is sophistry. I have a lot of respect for your discourse in this forum, and am not trying to be insulting by that comment. Just wanted to clarify that, since upon rereading my post it occurred to me that the phrase might carrying a connotation I didn't mean to convey. Good discussion, and I hope to have more in the future.

Not a problem!

I agree that the rules originally meant to say that flanking is a melee-combat-only kind of situation. Heck, like I said, they expressly said so in 3.0.

Unfortunately, they took out the text that expressly limits it to melee when they moved to 3.5.

There are two possible reasons for this:

1. Accident - Oops!
2. Deliberate action

In the case of #1, you'd think that, at some point, there would have been an erratta to the effect of, "Add the following sentence to the definition of Flanking: etc." There isn't.

In the case of #2, there's two reasons that I can see them doing this:

A. Unarmed bar fights by non-IUS / non-Monk characters and NPCs are a staple of D&D. Thus, by changing the definition of flanking such that the bonus to attack rolls is the only part of flanking dependent on 1) melee attacks and 2) your ally threatening, you can have a rogue to smash a bottle over someone's head in a sneak attack to knock them out. In other words, the rogue is flanking when he attacks, even though his ally (without IUS) doesn't threaten the target. The rogue doesn't get a bonus, but he can still apply his sneak attack dice.

B. They wanted to open up the flanking condition (though not the bonus on attack rolls) to include the rogue or other flanker "shooting the opponent in the back" while the target was busily engaged with someone else.

I think it is *most* likely that they intended #2A and, unfortunately, #2B came along for the ride.

I think it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they also intended #2B.

Given that I don't have a mystic mindlink to the original [re]designer's intent, I can only read what they put in front of me. What they put in front of me allows for both A and B.

Someone else, in a previous thread, brought up the fact that current RotG and FAQ answers have lent support to the melee-only position.

As I brought up in response, the RotG articles are, at best, shakey when it comes to actually getting the rules correct (and they seem to be getting worse) and the FAQ, more often than not, answers 3.5 questions with 3.0 answers - and I don't dispute what 3.0 says about flanking, but 3.5 changed the rules. Thus, any FAQ answer that relies upon the fact that flanking is strictly melee-only by the RAW is on similar ground to an FAQ answer that relies upon the fact that only humans can be paladins: It was demonstrably true and explicitly stated in the RAW in a previous edition of the game, but the rules have changed since then.

 

[Deset Gled]

And how is flanking determined?

When "an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers ... passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners ... )."

There is nothing in the newly-revised 3.5 definition of flanking that requires that you be making a melee attack - or even be threatening. Note, once again, that this is a change from the 3.0 definition of flanking, which specifically that you be making a melee attack.

I disagree with this. My reasoning is quite simple: The test "an imaginary line..." is preceded by "When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent". Since the flanking section states right before this that flanking applies "when making a melee attack", and in this case (ranged attack) there is no melee attack, there is no doubt that the characters in question are not flanking. Hence the imaginary line test is not valid.

You are correct in pointing out that fact that the flanking rules are horrible. The text is sloppy, the mechanics don't match up with the real life situation (divided attention between opponents), etc etc etc.