sneak attack with ranged attack?

[Nail]

Let me start out by saying: I'm not being obtuse. I'm just reading the text here, and interpreting it. I'd be happy to accept either version, backed up with fact and text.

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....

Not at all. Let's read it again: "A flanking attacker" comes before "a +2 flanking bonus". The bonus is what a flanking attacker gets; but that bonus does not define what flanking is.

IOW: you don't need to take that +2 flanking bonus by making a melee attack in order to be considered flanking.

The melee bonus is an outcome, not a cause.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Still not there yet...

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.

Here's an example of what I mean.

Staggered: A character whose nonlethal damage exactly equals his current hit points is staggered. A staggered character may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can she take full-round actions).
A character whose current hit points exceed his nonlethal damage is no longer staggered; a character whose nonlethal damage exceeds his hit points becomes unconscious.

Stable: A character who was dying but who has stopped losing hit points and still has negative hit points is stable. The character is no longer dying, but is still unconscious. If the character has become stable because of aid from another character (such as a Heal check or magical healing), then the character no longer loses hit points. He has a 10% chance each hour of becoming conscious and disabled (even though his hit points are still negative).

If the character became stable on his own and hasn’t had help, he is still at risk of losing hit points. Each hour, he has a 10% chance of becoming conscious and disabled. Otherwise he loses 1 hit point.

Incorporeal: Having no physical body. Incorporeal creatures are immune to all nonmagical attack forms. They can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, +1 or better magic weapons, spells, spell-like effects, or supernatural effects.

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.

Notice the important difference in these definitions?

To summarize:

A staggered character is defined as A. A staggered character has effects X, Y, and Z.

A stable character is defined as B. A stable character has effects X', Y', and Z'.

An incorporeal character is defined as C. An incorporeal character has effect X", Y", and Z".

A flanking character has effect X'".

EDIT: To add, based on the framework of your argument - that receiving a +2 flanking bonus on melee attacks defines the flanking state - then someone who is the target of a slow spell would also be staggered:

A slowed creature can take only a single move action or standard action each turn, but not both (nor may it take full-round actions).

 

[Nail]

Yup.

 

[Deset Gled]

Here's an example of what I mean.

I can understand this to a certain extent. No, flanking isn't the best written definition. But I still think it's good enough.

To summarize:

A staggered character is defined as A. A staggered character has effects X, Y, and Z.

A stable character is defined as B. A stable character has effects X', Y', and Z'.

An incorporeal character is defined as C. An incorporeal character has effect X", Y", and Z".

A flanking character has effect X'".

This is absolutely correct. Now, you have to consider the contra-positive of all those statements:

If a character does not have effect X (or Y or Z), then it is not staggered, etc etc etc.

In this case, the effect of flanking is a +2 flanking bonus. If the character does not have a +2 flanking bonus, then they are not be flanking.

And, since you only get the +2 flanking bonus when making a melee attack, then when you are not making a melee attack, you are not flanking.

EDIT: To add, based on the framework of your argument - that receiving a +2 flanking bonus on melee attacks defines the flanking state - then someone who is the target of a slow spell would also be staggered:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SRD, Slow spell description

A slowed creature can take only a single move action or standard action each turn, but not both (nor may it take full-round actions).

No, my arguement is:

A slowed creature can take only a standard action. If a character can take more than a standard action in a turn, then they are not slowed.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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],"...

Again, I ask - what makes you think this constitutes flanking?

Just like the "making a melee attack" clause, this clause only appears when describing when the bonus applies.

Let me quote it one more time.

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.

When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

When do I get the bonus? When a/ I'm making a melee attack, and b/ my opponent is threatened by an ally opposite.

When do two characters flank an opponent in the middle? When I can draw a line between them that passes through opposite sides.

"Making a melee attack" and "ally threatens" are part of the same condition. If "Ally threatens" is a requirement for flanking, so is the melee attack.

If "Making a melee attack" is not a requirement, then neither is the threatening. All that is required is the line between the two allies, whether or not they threaten the opponent.

Patryn, I still don't understand how you can separate the two, claiming that the melee attack only affects the bonus, but the threatening affects the whole flanking condition?

-Hyp.

 

[glass]

My understanding is; if someone is standing the opposite side of a foe from you and threatens, you get the bonus. If your threaten, he gets the bonus. You do not both have to threaten.

I'd have to check the precise wording to be sure, but my take at the moment is that the rogue can sneak attack with the wand.

Ah, it does specifically mention melee attack rolls. I stand corrected.

Hyp (as usual) has it right. RigaMortus et al were giving the right answer for the wrong reasons and I was talking gibberish.


glass.

 

[Nail]

If "Making a melee attack" is not a requirement, then neither is the threatening. All that is required is the line between the two allies, whether or not they threaten the opponent.

True enough. Why was this written so poorly???!

The first statement "When making a melee attack..." tells you what happens when:

• you make a melee attack, and
• your opponent is threatened by another, and
• that other attacker is friendly to you, and
• that other attacker is directly oppposite you.

You'll note, however, that this doesn't actually define flanking. We can infer that by seeing the bonus to attack is called a "flanking" bonus.....but we need not infer that the only way to be flanking is to have the above conditions.

In otherwords, A is necessary for B, but B is not necessary for A.

How very frustrating.

"When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked."

This second paragraph, however, does seem to define what flanking is. And it has nothing to do with being threatened.

Yoow-za.

 

[ARandomGod]

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 ...

Not taking a position in the arguement itself, I still feel the need to point out that... on a related tangent an attacker gets a bonus for being invisible, but the attacker isn't NOT invisible in cases where the attacker doesn't get that bonus. Just because someone can see invisible and therefore negates that bonus does not negate the state of invisibility that the attacker is under.

Thus illustrating that stating that if you don't get the flanking bonus you aren't flanking is a fallacious arguement.

..."When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked."

This second paragraph, however, does seem to define what flanking is. And it has nothing to do with being threatened.

Yoow-za.

Actually, I don't see this as contradicting the opinion that the ranged attacker can sneak attack... as it doesn't say anything about the parts that are under debate, it says nothing of threatening or melee attacks.

In fact, if we were to look at only this for data, we'd have to agree with:

...If "Making a melee attack" is not a requirement, then neither is the threatening. All that is required is the line between the two allies, whether or not they threaten the opponent.
...

Which is clearly an example of something NOT the case.
But clearly all this all this text byte is showing is the requirement for a line between the two...

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

This is absolutely correct. Now, you have to consider the contra-positive of all those statements:

Almost worked!

The problem is that the contra-positives cannot be used in this case, because there are cases in which you will be A, but you will not be X or Y.

For instance:

A stunned creature drops everything held, can’t take actions, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).

By the contrapositive, if you haven't dropped everything held, can take actions, have ignored the penalty to AC, or retained your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), then you aren't stunned.

Characters who aren't holding anything to begin with (and therefore cannot drop anything held) are not immune to the stunned condition - it would be silly to rule so, neh?

Also:

Deafened: A deafened character cannot hear. She takes a –4 penalty on initiative checks, automatically fails Listen checks, and has a 20% chance of spell failure when casting spells with verbal components. Characters who remain deafened for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.

I not only do not cast any spells with a verbal component after being deafened, I'm a fighter and do not cast spells at all.

Therefore, there is an effect (among other effects) of the condition that does not apply to me. Am I no longer deafened?

By identical logic, flanking (among other effects) provides a +2 flanking bonus on melee attack rolls. If I make a ranged attack, there is an effect of the condition that does not apply to me. Am I no longer flanking?

The problem is that the *effects* of a condition are not necessary and sufficient criteria to possess the condition.

When you are flanking something (a state which is woefully underdefined in the rules), you are eligible to receive a +2 flanking bonus on melee attack rolls.

You are eligible for that bonus whether or not you make a melee attack that round or *ever*.

Re: Hyp: Yep, looks like, by the rules as written, you're flanking whenver someone's on the opposite side. You wouldn't get a +2 flanking bonus on melee attack rolls if they aren't threatening (since that condition is clearly laid out), but that, by itself, cannot be taken as the requirement for the flanking condition since the requirements for the flanking condition are never spelled out.

We know the *effects* of flanking - +2 flanking bonus on melee attack rolls, rogues may sneak attack - but we do not have a concrete set of *causes*.

EDIT: Thanks, ARandomGod - that's pretty much what I've been trying to point out.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Hyp: Yep, looks like, by the rules as written, you're flanking whenver someone's on the opposite side. You wouldn't get a +2 flanking bonus on melee attack rolls if they aren't threatening (since that condition is clearly laid out), but that, by itself, cannot be taken as the requirement for the flanking condition since the requirements for the flanking condition are never spelled out.

Although we certainly know that the line between them is required.

Of course, while there's a 30 foot limit on sneak attacks, there's no concrete limit on the length of the line. My ally could be a hundred feet away, and if I can draw a line between us that passes through opposite borders of the opponent's square, we fulfil that condition.

But if you want to include 'ally threatens' in the conditions for flanking (to permit sneak attack), you can only justify it by the rules by also including 'making a melee attack', since those two conditions apply to the same thing.

'If ally threatens, then you can sneak attack with a ranged weapon' is not a justifiable position based on what's written.

-Hyp.