Rogues flanking at range?

[GimbleRaulnor]

Patryn:

I think we're on the same line then, and obviously I'm supporting the 'line only' thingy.

To explain I'll just quote the SRD again:

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.

The first thing said is that there are bonusses on a melee attack when attacking someone who's flanked. Second thing is the way to determine when someone is flanked.

So what we have is a flanking bonus (the first line), and a flanked condition (last line). Just because the first is mentioned earlier in the text, doesn't make the latter depending on it. It's not like "You're only flanked when the bonusses apply". The opposite isn't necesarely true either, as it only applies to certainmelee attacks.

So yes, I do think you can put someone in a flanked state from a distance. This means the ranged attack qualifies for sneak attack (if it's within 30 ft, jada jada..). However, the +2 bonus only applies to melee attacks.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I think we're on the same line then, and obviously I'm supporting the 'line only' thingy.

Ahah! Then we're cool.

It's just that earlier you said:

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.

So you understand my confusion. Then, yes, in the examples, the Formians are all flanked, anyone who wants to can add sneak attack dice, and anyone making a melee attack when their opposite is threatening gets +2 on their attack rolls.

Chalk up another one, eh, Atom Crash?

 

[GimbleRaulnor]

So you understand my confusion. Then, yes, in the examples, the Formians are all flanked, anyone who wants to can add sneak attack dice, and anyone making a melee attack when their opposite is threatening gets +2 on their attack rolls.

Ahh, I should've posted I changed my mind on that point

 

[sullivan]

So someone tell me how a Rogue could actually sneak attack with a ranged weapon!

I assume the conditions would be very strict like:

An invisible Rogue is standing within 30 ft of a target ready to take a shot from a Shortbow.

Are there any other conditions?

There is the Distract Assailant (Ass 1, Sor/Wiz 1) in the Complete Adventurer. The target gets a Will save, but if they fail it they are flat-footed until the beginning of the target's next turn. To boot it is a Swift spell (pretty damn sweet for a 1st level spell, perhaps too sweet ). So the caster could then take a Full Attack plugging him full of holes, or if there was a team effort others could get in on the fun.

 

[The Gryphon]

That's not the case - you can't sneak attack with a ranged attack from beyond 30 feet.

A kraken rogue, for example, could sneak attack from 60 feet away with a tentacle, since it's a melee attack, not a ranged attack.

-Hyp.

Although the kraken rogue itself is 60 feet away from the target, the melee attack itself originates from within 30 feet of the target. The attack doesn't start at the kraken rogue, it starts at the end of the tentacle (where the tentacle can actually hit you and you could grab it), otherwise itwouldbe a ranged attack as in effect the tentacle would be being fired at the target.

So again a flawed example of being able to sneak attack from beyond 30 feet, as the 30 feet limit describes where the attack itself takes place (when using a ranged weapon the attack takes place when the ranged weapon is fired/thrown as it is no longer in the attackers hands) not where the creature is

 

[Saeviomagy]

So, to put in a quick summary of point:

There are two possible ways to read the rules that determine whether or not you are flanking:

1) Melee Attack and Line Test: You are flanking if and only if you are making a melee attack against an opponent threatened by an ally while simultaneously fulfilling the line test with that ally.

2) Line Test: You are flanking any time you and an ally fulfill the line test.

Actually, there's a third possibility.

That third possibility is that the person who HELPS someone gain a flanking bonus is ALSO flanking, not just the person gaining the bonus. This is again based on the fact that "flanking" is never, ever defined, only "flanked".

In this interpretation, everything works just fine, and ranged attacks don't benefit from flanking...

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Actually, there's a third possibility.

That third possibility is that the person who HELPS someone gain a flanking bonus is ALSO flanking

And where are you pulling that out of the rules?

It certainly isn't from here:

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.

Therefore, it must be from here:

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.

If ignore the rules in the first part - as you are doing, since you are no longer enforcing the "When you make a melee attack" clause - then you have accepted my ruling that the only thing that matters is the line test. In which case, there're no rules that require melee attacks or melee range.

Thanks for finally agreeing with me, Saev.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So again a flawed example of being able to sneak attack from beyond 30 feet, as the 30 feet limit describes where the attack itself takes place (when using a ranged weapon the attack takes place when the ranged weapon is fired/thrown as it is no longer in the attackers hands) not where the creature is

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.

 

[The Gryphon]

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:

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.

It is a very valid objection as your interpretation changes the situation from only being able to flank in melee, for which the reach of 0 feet rule makes sense, to a situation which no longer makes sense as they aren't constrained by reach when using a ranged weapon.

As to whether tiny or smaller creatures could flank creatures of their size or smaller. The RAW assume a battle between at least some creatures that have space/reach of 5 ft./5 ft. or more (i.e. normal PC races). If a fight was only taking place between tiny or smaller creatures (for example 3 tiny familiars were fighting amongst themselves), I'd alter the assumed size of squares on a battle mat to suit the smaller creatures and alter the reach rules to make them proportional (their reach is equal to their space). So tiny creatures can flank tiny, diminuitive, and fine creatures, etc.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

As to whether tiny or smaller creatures could flank creatures of their size or smaller. The RAW assume a battle between at least some creatures that have space/reach of 5 ft./5 ft. or more (i.e. normal PC races).

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.