sneak attack with ranged attack?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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

Yep.

Of course, while there's a 30 foot limit on sneak attacks, there's no concrete limit on the length of the line.

It's a puzzler, ain't it?

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.

Actually, the exact text of the rules is:

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.

So, what exactly is a flanking bonus? The only literal flanking bonus mentioned in the text is the one that applies to melee attacks.

Of course, that makes the second statements redundant, since you only get the bonus on melee attacks "if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner."

The only way in which the second statement is not redundant is, when it mentions "a flanking bonus," if it refers to "any and all positive ramifications of flanking," which would include the possibility of Sneak Attacks.

Thus, in order to be in the flanking condition, the only thing that needs to happen is that a line must be drawn through the opponent to an ally on the other side. The length of the line is irrelevant.

If you want to benefit from flanking, the fellow on the other side must be threatening the opponent - though you need not be threatening the opponent.

Furthermore, if you want a +2 flanking bonus on your attack roll, you need to make a melee attack.

The other alternative is that the second statement is merely redundant for the sake of redundancy, and we are back where we started, with the rogue being able to Sneak Attack with his crossbow because his target is 20' away, and his ally is 100' away in the same direction.

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

See above.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The only way in which the second statement is not redundant is, when it mentions "a flanking bonus," if it refers to "any and all positive ramifications of flanking," which would include the possibility of Sneak Attacks.

If that were the case, they wouldn't use the exact phrase ('flanking bonus') that they used above (+2 'flanking bonus').

Yes, it's a redundant statement.

It was worded more clearly in 3E: "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."

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

If that were the case, they wouldn't use the exact phrase ('flanking bonus') that they used above (+2 'flanking bonus').

Yes, it's a redundant statement.

I'm skeptical on the first point - that might be giving the writers of the SRD too much credit.

That being said, then, we're back to: "The other alternative is that the second statement is merely redundant for the sake of redundancy, and we are back where we started, with the rogue being able to Sneak Attack with his crossbow because his target is 20' away, and his ally is 100' away in the same direction."

It was worded more clearly in 3E: "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."

So then the question becomes: accidental misstep, or deliberate change?

 

[Hypersmurf]

So then the question becomes: accidental misstep, or deliberate change?

I'm inclined to think it's simply mushy writing... that the +2 flanking bonus is never separated from the flanking condition. You get the 'flanking bonus' because you're flanking, not because you're flanking and...

-Hyp.

 

[Nail]

I'm inclined to think it's simply mushy writing... .

On that, we all can agree.