Rogues flanking at range?

[ThirdWizard]

The only thing clear to me is that you get a +2 bonus when threatening an enemy that is also threatened on the opposite side by an ally.

You don't have to threaten, you just have to be making a melee attack to get the bonus.

 

[atom crash]

You have to threaten in order to be considered flanking. Same with your ally... it is pretty clear in the rules.

Actually, your ally has to threaten and be in the correct position in order for you to receive a flanking bonus. You must make a melee attack in order to receive the flanking bonus, but it has been shown that you can make a melee attack even when you do not threaten. Therefore, the rules do not specify that you must threaten in order to flank.

When two friendly combatants are in the correct position relative to an opponent (i.e. on opposite sides) can one receive a flanking bonus while the other does not? And if one receives a flanking bonus while the other does not, are both combatants considered to be flanking? In this case, is the creature considered flanked?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You have to threaten in order to be considered flanking. Same with your ally... it is pretty clear in the rules.

Given that you just told me two situations in which you do not have to threaten in order to be considered flanking, you need to stop typing anything that resembles the above statement.

It's wrong, and you just freakin' told me it's wrong.

 

[Storm Raven]

Given that you just told me two situations in which you do not have to threaten in order to be considered flanking, you need to stop typing anything that resembles the above statement.

No he didn't. He gave you two exceptions to the rule that you have to threaten to make a melee attack. He didn't say anything about whether you could be flanking in those situations. In at least one (the standard unarmed attack), he explicitly said you can make a melee attack and not flank, because you don't threaten.

 

[Zaebos]

No he didn't. He gave you two exceptions to the rule that you have to threaten to make a melee attack. He didn't say anything about whether you could be flanking in those situations. In at least one (the standard unarmed attack), he explicitly said you can make a melee attack and not flank, because you don't threaten.

Thank-you Storm, I could not have said it better.

The rules do state that you are not threatening when making a melee unarmed attack, page 137 under threatened sqaures, exception one.

Exception 2, page 121 under the whip entry also says you don't threaten squares into which you can make an attack.

Most rules have exceptions, thats just the life of D&D.

Atom, in order to make an attack into a square, you threaten that square (with the exceptions noted above).

Al is using a whip, Bob is using a sword (type up to you), and we have a creature who is not immune to flanking attacks.

A...CB

Since Al Does not threaten the square the creature is in, Bob does not get a flanking bonus to attack. Al does not meet the requirement of threatening the opponent.

Al, however does get a flanking bonus to attack with his whip since Bob meets all the requirements to give Al the flank.

But as mentioned b4, if this seems unreasonable to you, then don't allow it.

Similarly, Al is unarmed and Bob is using a sword.

ACB

Same situation, Bob does not get the flank bonus, but Al does. The rules seem clear that inorder to get a flank bonus, your ally must meet the requirements, not you.

Each exception to the rule of threaten does not invalidate the flanking rule, all it does is make clear in what types of situations you can flank. Given that the wording is clear and unabigious, a literal interpretation of the rule is all that we can go on. It does not leave much room for obscure interpretation.

These two exceptions to the rule (and there may be more), must be allowed considering the wording of the flanking rule.

Similarly a creatures that threatens a square does not mean that they can flank or likewise give a flank to someone else as in the case of smaller than small creatures. This is yet another exception to the rule.

If a creature has 0 reach, it must enter an enemy’s
square to attack that enemy, correct? If the creature enters
the enemy’s square, does it now threaten the enemy? Is it
possible for the creature to flank the enemy? If so, where
would an ally need to be positioned in order to flank the
enemy?
If you’re armed and you’re in a position to make a melee
attack against a foe, you threaten that foe (see Threatened
Squares under the Attacks of Opportunity section in Chapter 8
of the Player’s Handbook). To be armed you must wield a
weapon or have natural weaponry. If your reach is 0, you can
threaten foes in the same square with you only.
A creature with a reach of 0 cannot flank an opponent (see
Flanking in Chapter 8 of the Player’s Handbook). Such a
creature can neither gain a flanking bonus from an ally nor
grant a flanking bonus to an ally, not even when two or more of
them enter the same foe’s square and attack.

From D&D Faq Page 26

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

In at least one (the standard unarmed attack), he explicitly said you can make a melee attack and not flank, because you don't threaten.

Except, of course, that he's wrong. And, by the by, you're also wrong.

ABC

A = Me, with non-improved Unarmed Strike.
B = Enemy.
C = Charlie, my ally, who is using a 2-handed sword.

When I attack with my non-improved Unarmed Strike:

FLANKING
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.

1. Am I making a melee attack? Yes
2. Is my opponent threatened by a character or creature friendly to me? Yes
3. Is Charlie on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner? Yes
4. Am I therefore flanking? Yes
5. Do I threaten B? No
6. Is this, then, a case where I am flanking something even though I don't threaten it? Yes
7. Therefore, is Zaebos completely incorrect when he states "You have to threaten in order to be considered flanking"? Yes
8. Should he and you therefore stop saying that? Yes
9. Will he? Probably not

 

[Zaebos]

In your example, given what I have already stated, this is an EXCEPTION to the rule.

A does not threaten B, so therefore C does not get the flanking bonus.

C Threatens B, so A does get the flanking bonus.

Pretty clear.

I am not completely wrong, just stating an exception to the rule. I do not see what the problem is since we seem to be able to agree on this.

You don't need to threaten the enemy to gain the flank bonus, but your ally MUST threaten the enemy in order to gain the flank bonus.

Al and Bob are unarmed. Creature in the middle.

ACB

Al does not get a flank bonus, since Bob is not threatening the creature.

Bob does not get a flank bonus, since AL is not threatinging the creature.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

In your example, given what I have already stated, this is an EXCEPTION to the rule.

Except you are not stating an exception to an ACTUAL rule.

You made up a rule, and claimed it was actually in the RAW.

It's not. Really, it isn't. I promise you.

Therefore, you cannot base any conclusions you might wish to draw on your made-up rule.

Do you see my point?

I could just as easily state that, according to the RAW, all dwarves immediately die upon reaching 5th-level. That high-level dwarf in the module? He's an exception to the rule.

I can not, then, go making rules arguments in the rules forum based on the fact that all dwarves die upon reaching 5th-level. It's not in the rules. I made it up. Maybe I've got a good reason for making it up, but whatever that reason is, it's not a real rule. I can't tell someone on this forum that their 6th-level Dwarven Fighter is wrong.

Am I making any sense here?

 

[atom crash]

You don't need to threaten the enemy to gain the flank bonus, but your ally MUST threaten the enemy in order to gain the flank bonus.

Incorrect.

You don't need to threaten the enemy to gain the flank bonus, but your ally MUST threaten the enemy in order FOR YOU to gain the flank bonus.

Correct.

Again, the rules do not specify that YOU must threaten in order to get a flanking bonus. Yes, in many cases you must threaten a square in order to attack into it. But that is not always the case, as has been stated in this thread.

Threatening comes into play once in the section on flanking: YOUR ALLY must threaten in order for YOU to receive the bonus; conversely, YOU must threaten in order for YOUR ALLY to receive the bonus.

Thus, when two combatants are in the correct position to flank, it is possible for one person to receive a flanking bonus while the other does not. In this case, then, is the creature considered flanked? Are both combatants considered flanking?

 

[Zaebos]

Incorrect.

You don't need to threaten the enemy to gain the flank bonus, but your ally MUST threaten the enemy in order FOR YOU to gain the flank bonus.

Correct.

Again, the rules do not specify that YOU must threaten in order to get a flanking bonus. Yes, in many cases you must threaten a square in order to attack into it. But that is not always the case, as has been stated in this thread.

Threatening comes into play once in the section on flanking: YOUR ALLY must threaten in order for YOU to receive the bonus; conversely, YOU must threaten in order for YOUR ALLY to receive the bonus.

Thus, when two combatants are in the correct position to flank, it is possible for one person to receive a flanking bonus while the other does not. In this case, then, is the creature considered flanked? Are both combatants considered flanking?

Ok, so I forgot to say YOU again... my apologies. (semantics)

Edit: Flank bonus and flanking only apply during an attack, so if you are flanking during an attack, the creature is considered flanked and you are considered flanking "When making a melee attack...", Flank is not a condition, but part of the action you are taking.

Paytryn
I didn't make up a rule, it is the literal interpretation of the rule.

The exception is that (and if you read what I have cited in the past), you would see that it SPECIFICALLY says that while unarmed and using a whip YOU DO NOT THREATEN... and the rule of flanking specifically states that in order to give an ally the flank bonus, you MUST threaten the target, and that in order for you to gain the flank bonus your ally MUST threaten the target. The exceptions are SPECIFICALLY stated in the sections where it needs to be.

If you do not threaten the target, you can not give your ally the flank bonus. Right there in black and white.

"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." (PH 153)

No where does it say that you also must threaten the creature, however, in the Threatened Squares section under Attacks of Opportunity (PH 137), "You generally threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even if it is not your turn"

This means that you threaten the squares you can melee attack into. The EXCEPTIONS are noted in the whip entry "The whip is treated as a melee weapon with a 15-foot reach, though you don't threaten the area into which you can make an attack" (PH 121) and in the Threaten Squares section in Attacks of Opportunity (PH 137) "If you are unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity (but see Unarmed Attacks, Page 139)."

That last part should also read "or give a flank bonus to an ally", but that would be redundant.