Rogues flanking at range?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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.

Additionally, D is a Diminutive Rogue armed with a Diminutive short sword, M is a Diminutive ally (also armed with a Diminutive short sword) and X is a Diminutive target.

-----
-----
-DXM-
-----
-----

They're really, really small, so they can pack 5x5 in a given 5' square. Therefore, all that action is happening within the same 5' square. Reach is now no longer an issue.

Does D flank X?

Nope, because:

Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent.

In other words, the "tiny creatures" ruling - on account of the way threatened squares and reach works - neither supports nor detracts from my particular ruling. Creatures with a reach of 0 can't flank an opponent, ever, regardless of whether or not they are using melee or ranged weapons, and regardless of the size of their target. Heck, diminutive creatures can't even flank Fine creatures, which are even smaller than them.

This is not a valid objection, in other words.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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).

Attacking one of two people threatening you does not provoke an 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.

Likewise, there's no threatening with an unarmed strike without being a monk or taking the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, so you can't flank when making an unarmed strike.

Right?

 

[Lasher Dragon]

<golf clap>

 

[GimbleRaulnor]

Attacking one of two people threatening you does not provoke an AoO.

Ahh, I didn't mean 'just' attacking, but 'totally focussing on one of them'. In the flanking rules it's assumed you try to defend against both flankers equally, and there are no rules for ignoring one of the flankers, but I'd say doing so would provoke and AOO. A houserule ;-)

Likewise, there's no threatening with an unarmed strike without being a monk or taking the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, so you can't flank when making an unarmed strike.

Right?

Completely right

 

[Storm Raven]

Likewise, there's no threatening with an unarmed strike without being a monk or taking the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, so you can't flank when making an unarmed strike.

Correct.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Likewise, there's no threatening with an unarmed strike without being a monk or taking the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, so you can't flank when making an unarmed strike.

Right?

Completely right

Correct.

*BZZZZZZZ*

Sorry, folks, but thanks for playing the "Let Patryn Trick You" game.

All joking aside, in the flanking rules, it mentions threatening twice. Specifically:

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.

...

Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

So, whenever *I* make a melee attack, the only person who needs to threaten the opponent in order to provide a "flanking bonus" is you.

This is true regardless of whether or not you accept the ranged flanking reading of the rules.

In other words, when we are on opposite sides of an opponent, and I'm attacking with my non-improved unarmed strike and you're attacking with a short sword, I get a flanking bonus because you threaten the opponent. You don't, because I don't threaten.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

<gives the bloated equine corpse another good kick>

Yeah, what Patryn said!!!

hehehe

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

In other words, when we are on opposite sides of an opponent, and I'm attacking with my non-improved unarmed strike and you're attacking with a short sword, I get a flanking bonus because you threaten the opponent. You don't, because I don't threaten.

Now here's a related question.

Let's say that you're a rogue, and are still using that short sword. If you attack the guy between us, would you get a Sneak Attack?

Keep in mind that we both pass the line test for flanking, but I don't threaten our mutual foe.

 

[Storm Raven]

Now here's a related question.

Let's say that you're a rogue, and are still using that short sword. If you attack the guy between us, would you get a Sneak Attack?

Keep in mind that we both pass the line test for flanking, but I don't threaten our mutual foe.

No. To be flanking an opponent, you must be attacking an enemy who is threatened by an ally. It is perfectly possible for one ally to be flanking and the other to not. All sophistry aside concerning the "line test" and so on, to flank an opponent, you must attack an enemy who is currently threatened by an ally with your own melee attack.

 

[Storm Raven]

*BZZZZZZZ*

Sorry, folks, but thanks for playing the "Let Patryn Trick You" game.

Actually, it was the "Let Patryn fail to define the situation fully" game.

You cannot have two individuals without improved unarmed strike act together to flank an opponent, which is how I interpreted your example.