sneak attack with ranged attack?

[Tatsukun]

I would allow it, if the rogue in question has the rapier. He's threatening the Troll, he can make a melee attack or an attack of opportunity. Even if he doesn't attack, he's still threatening.

If the fighter on the other side stopped attacking for a round to, say, drink a potion; would you let the troll walk away without an attack of opportunity because he was no longer threatened? No, of course not. It's obvious that the Troll is still threatened, even if the fighter doesn't attack.

The same thing goes to the rogue. The troll is threatened by the rogue's rapier, regardless of whether the rogue attacks with it or not.

Now that we know the Troll is being threatened by two people on opposite sides, we know that the Troll is flanked.

Now, you can make a sneak attack against a creature if it is flat footed (the Troll is not) or flanked (the Troll is).

Ok, the Troll is flanked, and can be sneak attacked.

You can sneak attack with a spell, and you can sneak attack with ranged weapons if you are within 30'. The Rogue is within 30'.

End result - The rogue can sneak attack the Troll with his wand, as long as the Rogue also has some way of threatening the Troll (for example, a rapier).

-Tatsu

 

[Hypersmurf]

Now that we know the Troll is being threatened by two people on opposite sides, we know that the Troll is flanked.

"Threatened by two" is not the condition for flanking.

"Threatened by one, melee attack by the other" is.

If the fighter is threatening and the rogue is threatening but making a ranged attack, the condition is not fulfilled. No flanking.

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus]

I concur

 

[smetzger]

"Threatened by two" is not the condition for flanking.

"Threatened by one, melee attack by the other" is.

If the fighter is threatening and the rogue is threatening but making a ranged attack, the condition is not fulfilled. No flanking.

-Hyp.

Gotta go with Hype on this one.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

If the fighter is threatening and the rogue is threatening but making a ranged attack, the condition is not fulfilled. No flanking.

Except, of course, that the rules do not specifically state that, Hyp.

Can you find an actual core reference that *does* state that you are only considered flanking when making a melee attack?

[Note that RotG articles, like the FAQ, don't necessarily count.]

 

[Deset Gled]

Can you find an actual core reference that *does* state that you are only considered flanking when making a melee attack?

How about the SRD definition of flanking?

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.

 

[Hawk764]

if my rogue is in melee and is flanking a flankable say troll, and wants to use his wand of acid splash to do sneak attack damage to the troll, can he?

Wow, thanks for all the consideration, perhaps, to avoid arguements i will simply hit the troll with my wand of grease first making him make a balance check and then with the wand of acid splash to get the sneak attack bonus.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

How about the SRD definition of flanking?

I actually referenced that earlier, and asked if the actual text in the DMG / PHB was more specific.

The problem is that it specifies that you get a +2 flanking bonus on melee attacks when flanking.

It does not specifically define "flanking."

You can extrapolate from that to argue that "you are flanking only when you receive a flanking bonus to your attack roll." Using such a reading, the rogue does not get a Sneak Attack because he is making a ranged attack roll. Note, however, that this definition is not explicitly stated in the definition of flanking - the conditions under which you get a flanking bonus to your attack roll, however, are.

If the definition of flanking is, instead, "you are flanking whenever you threaten an opponent who is also threatened by an ally directly across from you [insert text about borders / corners]," then the rogue in this case *would* benefit from his Sneak Attack dice, sincethe requirements for a Sneak Attack are:

1a. Opponent is denied his or her or its Dexterity bonus; or,
1b. Opponent is flanked; and
2. If the attack to benefit from Sneak Attack dice is ranged, the distance to the target must be less than 30'

The situation - rogue with rapier and wand, fighter with sword, both threatening the troll on opposite sides - results in an opponent being flanked and a distance to the target of less than 30', and therfore is a Sneak Attack.

In other words, is there an official definition of flanking that mandates a melee attack, and that you are *only* flanking when making a melee attack?

 

[Nail]

In other words, is there an official definition of flanking that mandates a melee attack, and that you are *only* flanking when making a melee attack?

This is the key question.

I've looked, and see no such definition, SRD or DMG...but that doesn't mean it ain't there.......

It seems silly that there's no spot defining Flanking; rather, there's ony a spot defining what bonuses flanking gives you to a melee attack.

Interestingly, the SRD entry ends with this:

Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

Which might imply the attacker is flanking even before he or she attacks.

 

[Deset Gled]

It does not specifically define "flanking."

I think it's fairly obvioius that what I posted is the definition of flanking. If ever time something was listed, it was immediatly followed be "The definition of *** is...", it would be rather redundant.

But, I'll try again.

The glossary of the PHB states "A flanking attacker gains a +2 flanking bonus on attack rolls against the defender". If you don't get the flanking bonus, you aren't flanking (since we're being so exact, I guess I should point out that this is the contra-positive of the original statement ). This is also evident in the table "Attack roll modifiers" in the CombatII section of the SRD.