Rogues flanking at range?

[Zaebos]

Ok, now you got me running around in circles....

According to the flanking section on page 153

"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your oppent is threatend by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponents opposite border or opposite corner"

To threaten a creature you must be able to melee attack it, so ranged attacks can not threaten.

"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."

A.CB

So now if Al has a pole arm, as in my previous example, and stays 10' away, he will give the flank bonus to Bob. If Bob is able to make a melee attack, then he would give Al the flank bonus in return.

I must amend my statements before, I had forgotten about ranged weapons not threatening.

But if say Al was using a ranged weapon and stood say 30' away and Bob was on one side of the Creature...
A......CB
Al would not get the flank bonus since he can not make a melee attack as stated in the first line of the PHB under flanking. Neither would Bob since Al can not threaten with a ranged weapon.

My goofs b4, sorry.

 

[Zaebos]

Eureka... I found it...
I again must amend another statement...
Page 137 confirms the threaten and unarmed attacks.

"If you are unarmed you don't normally threaten any squares..."

I figured it was around, but I couldn't find it for a while. Of course if you are 'armed' unarmed attacking, this is moot.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I must amend my statements before...

Particularly the "I am not sure how this is soo confusing to people" one?

-Hyp.

 

[ThirdWizard]

And the next part is where the differences lie.

Camp A says: You only flank if you're getting the flanking bonus. Which means you are only flanking on your own turn if you make a melee attack. This leads to the formian/axiomatic annoyance.

Camp B says: You are flanking so long as you meet the requirements. You do have to make a melee attack to get the +2 bonus to attack, but flanking isn't just the bonus you're getting; its the act of standing in a certain pattern. Bless gives you +1 to attack, but you're still blessed if you arn't making an attack, so to speak. This solves the formian problem, but creates the "round the world" loophole which has been discussed.

This is all because they changed the wording from 3E when they switched to 3.5. It used to be that you had to threaten, but they removed that wording.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This is all because they changed the wording from 3E when they switched to 3.5. It used to be that you had to threaten, but they removed that wording.

No, it didn't.

But the wording did change.

From the 3E SRD:
Flanking
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. A character gains a +2 flanking bonus on the attack roll. A rogue in this position can also sneak attack the target. The ally must be on the other side of the opponent, so that the opponent is directly between the character and the ally.

In 3E, it's very clear - melee attack plus threatening ally = flank (which still leads to the Formian dilemma, but it's unambiguous). Rather than the confusing "melee attack plus threatening ally = flanking bonus" of 3.5.

3E didn't require the attacker to threaten either, just the ally. The attacker merely has to be making a melee attack.

-Hyp.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

Just to be inane and throw my 2 cents in..... (please note that this post is MY OPINION and it is how I and many others in my area interpret the rules. Right or wrong, this is how we play and we [total of around 20 people, both DMs and players] have had no problems with game balance and no problems with rogues stealing the spotlight.)

A.........BC

A = rogue w/bow within 30 feet of B
B = bad guy
C = ally of A wielding some sort of melee weapon

A is flanking B, however A does not receive a +2 bonus to hit because A is not using a melee weapon. A is still technically flanking B by the RAW however, because B is threatened by C, who is using a melee weapon. C is neither flanking B NOR does C receive a +2 bonus, because A is not threatening B.

 

[ThirdWizard]

No, it didn't.

But the wording did change.

From the 3E SRD:
Flanking
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. A character gains a +2 flanking bonus on the attack roll. A rogue in this position can also sneak attack the target. The ally must be on the other side of the opponent, so that the opponent is directly between the character and the ally.

In 3E, it's very clear - melee attack plus threatening ally = flank (which still leads to the Formian dilemma, but it's unambiguous). Rather than the confusing "melee attack plus threatening ally = flanking bonus" of 3.5.

3E didn't require the attacker to threaten either, just the ally. The attacker merely has to be making a melee attack.

-Hyp.

Darn... its times like this I wish I hadn't given away my 3E books so I could reference them. Gotta work off memory when it comes to that, and my memory ain't too hot. And its late. I just want a download to be released so I can go to sleep. Darn my OCD in getting this series as soon as it comes out!

EDIT:
Wait, does this mean that it was possible to get a flanking bonus attacking unarmed in 3E too? You're making a melee attack, your ally is threatening, you're both flanking (only on your turn it seems - on his turn neither of you are flanking...).

I ask because that's been postulated as the reason why they changed it, but if its been like that the whole time, then that wouldn't be a reason.

 

[Zaebos]

I got confused, but that was because I was trying to see into others logic. It is clear again and it is the way I have understood it as b4.

Flanking still has the word threaten in it.

Flanking
"When making a melee attack (against an opponent), you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatend by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponents opposite border or opposite corner."PHB 153

It does not say that a requirement is that your ally attacks it. Just that your ally must threaten it.

Threaten
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally , that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally)."PHB 137

You still get a +2 bonus to attack a flanked creature, even if you choose not to attack that creature.

Any square you can melee attack is a threatend square. By this, the fact that under the flanking rule it says that "When making a melee attack...", it would be redundant to have the word threaten in since you already threaten the square into which you can make a melee attack as stated under the threaten rule.

So in order to get a flanking bonus, you must satisfy 3 things.
1) Your opponent is being threatend by an ally
2) By default, you threaten your ally (by making a melee attack against it)
3) Your ally is on an opposite border or opposite corner of your opponent or can reach your opponents opposite border or opposite corner (as the diagram shows on page 153).

 

[ThirdWizard]

Hmmm... I'll ask you a question...

Can you be considered flanking when it isn't your turn?

Hint: Answer "no" and we're good, you use Hyper's interprietation. Answer "yes" and this could go on a while.

(Although I might go to sleep soon... they don't seem to be releasing my show tonight... )

 

[Zaebos]

Since you can only flank as part of an attack action (edit: or full attack action), the answer is no you do not 'flank' when it's not your turn.

But you do threaten squares when it is not your turn. Should a creature do something to provoke an AoO, then you get to flank again since basically you are taking an attack action even when it is not your 'turn'.

(sorry to hear about your show)