Rogues flanking at range?

[ThirdWizard]

An unarmed character can’t take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).

But, that's not important.

What is important is that nowhere does it state that you have to threaten, only that your ally must threaten. It doesn't even imply that you have to threaten anywhere.

 

[Zaebos]

Nor does it need to, since the only way you can get a melee attack on a creature is by threatening it and if you threaten a creature you can melee attack it.

Should an ally not be able to melee attack a creature for some reason (say by being knocked out), then you do not get the flank bonus.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Right.

Which doesn't contradict my interprietation at all. Your ally must threaten the enemy for you to be considered flanking. You must make a melee attack to get the +2 flanking bonus. All this has been covered.

 

[Zaebos]

Correct...

Except that you said

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?

Since Al is ranged attacking, he is not threatening, and thus not flanking.

If you take an example of Al with a polearm, Bob with a sword and Creature, all in a nice little line like so:

ABC

There again the answer is no. Al and Bob arn't flanking Creature, since to flank, Al must be on the other side of Creature.

With the same people and weapons as above, should the situation be like so...
A.CB

Then both Al and Bob are flanking...

But if Al were to close like so:

ACB

Al would not be be threatening Creature since reach weapons can not attack at a 5' range and thus Bob could not gain the bonus of flank since Al can not make a melee attack.

Should people just read the literal meaning of it, much of this debate could have been avoided.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Ah, don't look at that quote as my interprietation of how flanking works. In that instance I was asking if Patryn's interprietation had that loophole.

My interprietation is that given the same group, and with A wielding a bow:

A......CB

A is flanking, because there is an ally opposite him who is threatening C, and B is not flanking because there is not an ally opposite him who is threatening C.

Since Al is ranged attacking, he is not threatening, and thus not flanking.

Can you at least try and give a quote that proves that you can't flank unless you're threatening? I'm getting my post count up, which is nice, but we're just going in circles here.

 

[Zaebos]

I thought I did on my first post in this thread...

"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."

This means you have to be DIRECTLY on the other side of someone who is being threatend by another. It does not say that you can be at range (and I am pretty sure that if you could it would say it), rather DIRECTLY beside the target.

Now if the bowman were to close the distance and suffer the AoO, according to strict interpretation of the rules, you could get the bonus to flank, even if the melee attacker does not.

 

[Shellman]

So take this situation and tell me your interpretation,

Bob has a melee weapon with a reach of 10 ft and threatens the Bad Guy, but he is not in base to base contact with the Bad Guy.

Al (Bob's buddy) is directly opposite Bob on the other side of the Bad Guy (flanking). Al is in base to base contact with the Bad Guy and has a melee weapon.

If you were to draw that imaginary line from Bob to Al, that line would bisect the Bad Guy's space.

Does Bob get the flanking bonus to attack the Bad Guy even if he is not in base to base contact, but still threatens with a reach weapon? I say yes.

What if Al does not attack but remains within threat range of his own melee weapon to the Bad Guy? I say yes.

Does Al get the flanking bonus with Bob flanking but not in base to base contact. I say yes.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Now if the bowman were to close the distance and suffer the AoO, according to strict interpretation of the rules, you could get the bonus to flank, even if the melee attacker does not.

To me, directly means the line test. If it didn't mean the line test, then the illustrative example on page 153 of the PHB dealing with polearms would not be correct. The hobgoblin and orc are, in fact, flanking, and are not on opposite squares of the oppoenent.

Now instead of the hobgoblin wielding a polearm, give him a bow.

 

[Zaebos]

So take this situation and tell me your interpretation,

Bob has a melee weapon with a reach of 10 ft and threatens the Bad Guy, but he is not in base to base contact with the Bad Guy.

Al (Bob's buddy) is directly opposite Bob on the other side of the Bad Guy (flanking). Al is in base to base contact with the Bad Guy and has a melee weapon.

If you were to draw that imaginary line from Bob to Al, that line would bisect the Bad Guy's space.

Does Bob get the flanking bonus to attack the Bad Guy even if he is not in base to base contact, but still threatens with a reach weapon? I say yes.

What if Al does not attack but remains within threat range of his own melee weapon to the Bad Guy? I say yes.

Does Al get the flanking bonus with Bob flanking but not in base to base contact. I say yes.

I would say that since Bob is not directly beside his attacker, Al would not get the flank bonus, but Bob would since Al is directly beside the attacker.

 

[ThirdWizard]

For clarity here's the diagram.

O=Orc
T=Tordek
H=Hobgoblin
.. = 5' square

.....TO
H