Rogues flanking at range?

[Saeviomagy]

One who threatens, and one who is making a melee attack.

It's an important distinction to whip-wielding rogues.

-Hyp.

Good catch. For instance my interpretation would also mean that in the case of a whip, it would still be possible for a rogue to gain a sneak attack against an opponent while a whip-wielding ally was within 15 feet and opposite him. Although he wouldn't get the flanking bonus...

 

[ThirdWizard]

Wait, wait, thought. Take the example of Al (with a bow), Bob (with a short sword), and the poor Creature they're fighting:

A..........BC

Now, you can draw a line between Al and Bob with the creature in between assuming a non-flat world. It would not be the shortest line, but it still exists. It doesn't say you have to actually use this line as the direction of you're attack. Sooo... is A flanking C?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Good catch. For instance my interpretation would also mean that in the case of a whip, it would still be possible for a rogue to gain a sneak attack against an opponent while a whip-wielding ally was within 15 feet and opposite him. Although he wouldn't get the flanking bonus...

Hmm? Lost me - that's backwards.

If the rogue has a whip, he can get the bonus if his ally threatens, because with the whip, the rogue is making a melee attack.

If the ally has a whip, and the rogue threatens, the rogue can't gain a flanking bonus, because even though the rogue is making a melee attack, his ally is not threatening the opponent.

I'm not sure how you can justify giving the rogue a sneak attack if the ally has a whip, but not if the ally has a bow, since in neither case does the ally threaten...?

-Hyp.

 

[Zaebos]

No one reads the PH?

I find it remarkable that no one really has looked up the definitions of flanking in the glossary of the PH3.5, however, I can't say that I have read the SRD since I have read the PH 3.5 many times.

Even on the WotC Website Glossary it's pretty clear what flanking is and its intended use during the game.

Flank
To be directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another character. A flanking attacker gains a +2 flanking bonus on attack rolls against the defender. A rogue can sneak attack a defender that she is flanking.

Source: PHB
cite http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_flank&alpha=F

Range Attack
Any attack made at a distance with a ranged weapon, as opposed to a melee attack.

Source: PHB
cite http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_rangedattack&alpha=R

Threaten
To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space. A creature typically threatens all squares within its natural reach, even when it is not its turn to take an action. For a Medium or Small creature this usually includes all squares adjacent to its space. Larger creatures threaten more squares, while smaller creatures may not threaten any squares except their own.

Source: PHB
Cite http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_threaten&alpha=T

Cut and dry. You must threaten your opponent in order to flank, to threaten an opponent you must be able to attack in melee, and by definition a ranged attack is not a melee attack.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Cut and dry.

Except for your glaring mistake that you must threaten to flank.

Some are saying you need to be making a melee attack in order to gain a flanking bonus, and flanking is not a condition, but it's pretty much a concensus that you don't have to threaten to flank. Reread your own quotes.

 

[Zaebos]

no mistake... it says it right there...

YOU FLANK IF YOU THREATEN and if you attack you get a +2, you don't have to attack the flanked target, you just need to threaten it... pretty clear.

Edit: I suppose it bares mentioning (b4 my words are used against me), that you only get the +2 if you attack the flanked target. You don't have to attack the flanked target, but neither do you get a bonus to attack should you not attack it. Of course you still threaten it.

Edit: Also, you threaten a target IF you can make a melee attack against it, pretty clear that you don't have to attack it.

 

[ThirdWizard]

To be directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another character. A flanking attacker gains a +2 flanking bonus on attack rolls against the defender. A rogue can sneak attack a defender that she is flanking.

"who is being threatened by another character"

 

[Zaebos]

"who is being threatened by another character"

and...? whats the problem

I am not sure how this is soo confusing to people... it's very clear that in order to flank, two or more people need to threaten the target and that those threatening must be on opposite sides of the target.

 

[ThirdWizard]

You can gain the flanking bonus while the other person is not.

Unarmed strikes do not threaten.

Al the fighter is unarmed. Bob the rogue has a short sword. The Creature is between them.

ACB

Bob threatens, and Al does not. Al makes a melee attack against the Creature. Does he have an ally on the opposite side of C who is threatening? Yes. Is he making a melee attack? Yes. He gest a +2 bonus to the attack for flanking.

If Bob makes an attack, Al is not threatening. Therefore he does not get the flanking bonus.

See?

EDIT: If you had read the thread you would see that this has been discussed at great length. I suggest you go back and read and if you find an inconsistancy, bring that up. Otherwise, you won't get anywhere that this thread has not already gone.

 

[Zaebos]

Unarmed strikes do not threaten.

But they do threaten... I can't find a single instance that says when you are unarmed you do not threaten. In fact, multiple instances where it says that indeed an unarmed attack is a melee attack, and that fits with the threaten definition. Of course without the Improved Unarmed Strike, Al would suffer an AoO unless Creature was also considered unarmed.

BTW, I have read the thread... I am commenting on peoples ability to read too much into what is normally a literal ruling.