# Can You Flank With a Ranged Weapon?



## Olaf the Stout (Sep 14, 2006)

I'm sure this question has been answered before but I can't seem to find it.  Can you flank with a ranged weapon?  My first thought was no but I've been wrong many time before.  If you can do you have to be within a certain distance of the target to count?

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Crothian (Sep 14, 2006)

Nope


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Sep 14, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Nope




Care to elaborate or point to where it says this in the PHB.

Thanks,

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Sep 14, 2006)

becuse you dont threaten any suqares, thus you dont flank. If they do threaten, why is it not in the melee catagory of weapons? Now you can fix this if you get an elven whatchamacallit. I think they are on wizards website, and races of the wild. It turns bows into makeshift clubs or something. Or if you get armor spikes, spiked guantlits, or boot blades. Then you can flank. 

"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."


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Sep 14, 2006)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> becuse you dont threaten any suqares, thus you dont flank. If they do threaten, why is it not in the melee catagory of weapons? Now you can fix this if you get an elven whatchamacallit. I think they are on wizards website, and races of the wild. It turns bows into makeshift clubs or something. Or if you get armor spikes, spiked guantlits, or boot blades. Then you can flank.
> 
> "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."




Is someone with a arrow pointed at your back not threatening.  I'm not talking about using the bow as a club.  I'm talking about using it as a bow!

Just playing the devil's advocate at the moment.  I actually think that they shouldn't but I can see how someone would argue that they should.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Sejs (Sep 14, 2006)

Ranged weapons that are not also melee weapons (that is, not daggers, throwing axes, etc) do not threaten an area.

Thus you cannot flank with them, and you cannot take AoOs with them.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 14, 2006)

'Threaten' is a defined term; you threaten a square into which you can make a melee attack, generally.

Apart from the Peerless Archer (3E PrC from the FR Silver Marches sourcebook), it's not possible to threaten with a ranged weapon.  You also don't threaten with certain melee weapons - namely the whip and unarmed strike.

Note, however, that it is not necessary to threaten in order to gain a flanking bonus.  (The RotG article claims otherwise, but this contradicts the rules.)  It is only necessary for you to be making a melee attack; it is your _ally_ who must threaten in order to _grant_ the bonus.

So if your ally has a longsword, and you have a whip, you can gain a flanking bonus; your ally threatens, and you are making a melee attack.  When he attacks, he does not gain the bonus; he is making a melee attack, but you are not threatening (since a whip does not threaten an area).

Now if we switch the whip for a longbow, your ally still receives no bonus; he is making a melee attack, but you do not threaten an area with your longbow.  Neither, now, do you gain a bonus; your ally threatens, but you are making a ranged attack, not a melee attack.

(The Peerless Archer has the opposite problem to the whip - he can grant a flanking bonus (since he threatens) but he cannot gain one (since he can't make a melee attack).)

-Hyp.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 14, 2006)

The answer to this question is, it depends on how you read the rules.

In 3.0, you could not flank with a ranged weapon.

In 3.5, the rules text that specifically prohibited this was removed.

In 3.0, you were flanking specifically when you were making a melee attack against an opponent that was threatened by an ally.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> 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.




This is an important change in the rules because, all else being equal, it allowed you to be considered flanking outside of your own turn.  For instance, consider a feat that appeared in a recent Dragon magazine:



			
				Summary from Dragon 313 said:
			
		

> Pack Tactics: When you are flanking an opponent, your allies that are not flanking the same opponent receives a +1 bonus to their melee attacks against that opponent. Your flanking allies retain their normal +2 bonus.




In 3.0, a feat similarly worded would be almost useless.  During my attack (the only time I'm considered flanking), my allies would gain an attack bonus - which they couldn't benefit from, because, generally speaking, they can't attack during my attack.

Similarly, any ability that said "When an opponent you are flanking does X ..." would be useless - because, when the opponent does X, I'm not usually in the process of making an attack, and therefore am not flanking him, and can't benefit from the feat.

So, how did the definition of flanking change in 3.5?  The method for determing wheter or not something was flanking was rewritten as what I call the "line test."



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> 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.




Notice how, in this section, it says nothing about "in melee," "threatening," etc.

Where are those types of words mentioned?

In the previous section, which talks about when you get a flanking bonus on attack rolls:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> 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.




So, yes, you obviously only get flanking bonuses to attack rolls when making melee attacks.

The question you need to answer is, what defines flanking?  Am I flanking only when I get the bonus on my attack roll (in which case you have 3.0 problems)?  Or, are you flanking whenever you pass "the line test" (which [likely accidentally] allows ranged flanking)?

I agree that, in all likelyhood, the designers wanted flanking to be a close-combat-only thing.  However, try as hard as I can, I can't think of any rules language that specifically limits it to that without, simultaneously, resulting in other undesirable issues.

For instance, f you limit it to "when you are in melee with an opponent," then it means a rogue, with his monk friend appropriately placed, hitting a bar patron in bar brawl can't sneak attack his opponent with a punch - unless his opponent pulls a knife, in which case, the rogue can kidney-punch him.

EDIT:  Hyp also brings up an important point.  The only person who needs to threaten anyone in order to grant a flanking bonus is your friend - not you.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 14, 2006)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> In 3.0, a feat similarly worded would be almost useless.




Out of curiosity... what do you feel "Your flanking allies retain their normal +2 bonus" does, if your 'flanking allies' are using ranged weapons?

Do my friends in the living room gain a +1 bonus to attack the opponent in the living room, if I'm asleep in the bedroom, my friend Bob's in the kitchen, and a line drawn between Bob and my centres passes through opposite borders of the opponent's square?

-Hyp.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 14, 2006)

Another quick aside, regarding the "Line Test":

Consider the following situation:

D=Dragon (Q=Dragon's center)
X=Hobgoblin
F=Fighter

DDDXF
DQD
DDD

Here, we have a huge dragon - with claws - in melee with a hobgoblin, who is in melee with a longsword-wielding fighter.

Now, according to the line test, we draw a line from the center of Q to the center of F.  If it passes through opposite sides of the hobbo, the dragon and the fighter are flanking.

You'll notice that, in this case, it doesn't - the line passes through the bottom of X and the right side of X.  Thus, the dragon and the fighter aren't flanking the hobbo, unless the dragon steps one square north.

Odd, eh?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 14, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity... what do you feel "Your flanking allies retain their normal +2 bonus" does, if your 'flanking allies' are using ranged weapons?




They retain their normal +2 bonus which is a bonus that applies only to melee attacks.



> Do my friends in the living room gain a +1 bonus to attack the opponent in the living room, if I'm asleep in the bedroom, my friend Bob's in the kitchen, and a line drawn between Bob and my centres passes through opposite borders of the opponent's square?




Yes.  It's strange, but ...

FHR

Similarly, if your (F) invisible, silenced rogue friend (R) wanders by in the middle of fight with a hobgoblin (H), and pauses, briefly, in the above situation, you're suddenly better at fighting the hobgoblin, who doesn't even know the rogue is there.

Flanking's just weird, mang.  

EDIT: It's like, we all kind of have in our head the idea of what flanking should be, but the rules just aren't there to describe it.  So, we assume it works like we think it should, even if the rules don't specifically support that view.


----------



## GorTeX (Sep 14, 2006)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Another quick aside, regarding the "Line Test":
> 
> 
> 
> ...




except for this:







> Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 14, 2006)

... Should have kept reading, I guess ... 

That's how you can tell it's been awhile since I've discussed this one.

Okay, for another odd example:

This is a standard 5' square.

-----
|XYZ|
|.....|
|.....|
-----

X and Z are really small rogues - probably pixies or grigs or something.  Y is the really small business man they're robbing.  Now that combat has started, X and Z, unfortunately for them, can't sneak attack Y because:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent.


----------



## Drowbane (Sep 14, 2006)

"Combat - Can You Flank With a Ranged Weapon?"

Sure, but you are going to look awefully silly swinging your longbow in melee...


----------



## Tyrrell (Sep 14, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Apart from the Peerless Archer (3E PrC from the FR Silver Marches sourcebook), it's not possible to threaten with a ranged weapon.  You also don't threaten with certain melee weapons - namely the whip and unarmed strike.
> -Hyp.



There is also the Arrowmind ranger spell in the spell compendium (My ranger has been using this one like crazy)


----------



## DungeonMaester (Sep 14, 2006)

Mechanic rules are compltly incomplte. 

That said, The only reason one can not flank with a ranged weapon is becuase it is assumed that you only have a ranged attack on your turn, and unprepared for flanking and AoO. So the common sence rule is that range attack who take a ready action may take AoO and Flanking when presented with the chance.  Its a effective rule unless there is some actually reason why a ranged attack wouln't get the bonus.

Sorry for any typos in advance.

---Rusty


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 14, 2006)

Tyrrell said:
			
		

> There is also the Arrowmind ranger spell in the spell compendium (My ranger has been using this one like crazy)




Ooh, true - I'm still finding things in Spell Compendium 

-Hyp.


----------



## Goldmoon (Sep 14, 2006)

Ok, so to make things clear: By the RAW you can flank with a ranged weapon in 3.5?
Is that right?


----------



## IcyCool (Sep 14, 2006)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> Ok, so to make things clear: By the RAW you can flank with a ranged weapon in 3.5?
> Is that right?




Maybe.


----------



## Goldmoon (Sep 14, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Maybe.




Thanks for clearing that up for me


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Sep 14, 2006)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> Ok, so to make things clear: By the RAW you can flank with a ranged weapon in 3.5?
> Is that right?




I got the impression that the answer was no (unless you are using it as a melee weapon for some strange reason).

Olaf the Stout


----------



## irdeggman (Sep 15, 2006)

Olaf the Stout said:
			
		

> I got the impression that the answer was no (unless you are using it as a melee weapon for some strange reason).
> 
> Olaf the Stout





First off what are you trying to get to?

I mean is the archer trying to get a benefit from flanking or is he trying to provide one to an ally?

The archer will get no benefit on his attack.



> 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.
> 
> 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.
> ...





Now IMO you don't normally threaten with a ranged attack therefor you ally who is in melee can't benefit since even though you are on teh oposite border you don't threaten the foe which is the other part of the conditions that must be met.



> Threatened Squares: 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). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.
> Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 15, 2006)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Now IMO you don't normally threaten with a ranged attack therefor you ally who is in melee can't benefit since even though you are on teh oposite border you don't threaten the foe which is the other part of the conditions that must be met.




Thing is, as far as I can see, there is no text to indicate that you must threaten to be considered flanking. You must be using a melee attack to get the +2 bonus for flanking, but the question becomes do you have to have the +2 bonus for flanking to be considered flanking?


----------



## Dross (Sep 15, 2006)

Olaf the Stout said:
			
		

> I got the impression that the answer was no (unless you are using it as a melee weapon for some strange reason).
> 
> Olaf the Stout




Thus the handaxe, dagger, spear which can be thrown AND used to threaten. You just need them in you hand (or equivelent) so you DO threaten.

An interesting thing to note (at least to me is)  is that you can use an arrow and javelin as an improvised mellee weapon. So as long as these are in hand you do threaten but take -4 on the attack of opportunity. (also note that is an arrow is in the bow ready for firing, it's not in "hand" for this purpose)


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Sep 15, 2006)

Tyrrell said:
			
		

> There is also the Arrowmind ranger spell in the spell compendium (My ranger has been using this one like crazy)




This is also in the Complete Adventurer under Arrow Mind.  [I don't think one word vs. two words means anything, though!]  I knew that sounded familiar, and I don't own the Spell COmpendium so I knew I'd seen it elsewhere.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 15, 2006)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> First off what are you trying to get to?




The thread that originally convinced me of this "loophole" was a player asking if his rogue, a dagger in one hand and a wand of lesser acid orb in the other (and therefore in melee), and flanking by the commonly accepted definition, got Sneak Attack damage when he fired the wand into his target.

At first, I was all, "Nah."  But then, I was all, "Waitaminute..."


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 15, 2006)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> The thread that originally convinced me of this "loophole" was a player asking if his rogue, a dagger in one hand and a wand of lesser acid orb in the other (and therefore in melee), and flanking by the commonly accepted definition...




Commonly accepted by...?  

-Hyp.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 15, 2006)

Most people in this thread.  Rogue (with dagger) (R), Hobgoblin Target (H), Fighter Ally (with longsword) (F):

RHF

It just seemed odd that he'd be flanking at the start of his turn, flanking as he considered attacking with his dagger, flanking as he threw his dagger across the room at another target, flanking as he quickdrew another dagger, flanking through the hobgoblin's turn, flanking through the fighter's full attack, but as soon as he pointed his wand - BAM! not flanking - and flanking as soon as he put it down again.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 15, 2006)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> It just seemed odd that he'd be flanking at the start of his turn, flanking as he considered attacking with his dagger, flanking as he threw his dagger across the room at another target, flanking as he quickdrew another dagger, flanking through the hobgoblin's turn, flanking through the fighter's full attack, but as soon as he pointed his wand - BAM! not flanking - and flanking as soon as he put it down again.




What about not flanking at the start of his turn, not flanking as he considered attacking with his dagger, flanking as he made a melee attack with his dagger, not-flanking-not-flanking-not-flanking until the fighter makes a melee attack?

-Hyp.


----------



## Caliban (Sep 15, 2006)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> Ok, so to make things clear: By the RAW you can flank with a ranged weapon in 3.5?
> Is that right?




No, you can't.   Only according to Patryn.


----------



## irdeggman (Sep 15, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Thing is, as far as I can see, there is no text to indicate that you must threaten to be considered flanking. You must be using a melee attack to get the +2 bonus for flanking, but the question becomes do you have to have the +2 bonus for flanking to be considered flanking?




Well there is this text from Flanking (in my earlier post) that also states:



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




And combining that with the also posted defintion of threatened squares which has also been previoulsy posted and has:



> Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action.




Do you threaten a square with a ranged weapon (not using it as a melee weapon)?

If you do not - and there is no text supporting the stance that you do indeed threaten with a ranged weapon - then you can provide no benefit to your ally who is melee even if you are on the opposite side of the foe as he is.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Sep 15, 2006)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Do you threaten a square with a ranged weapon (not using it as a melee weapon)?
> 
> If you do not - and there is no text supporting the stance that you do indeed threaten with a ranged weapon - then you can provide no benefit to your ally who is melee even if you are on the opposite side of the foe as he is.




This is my understanding as well - adding the exception of the use of the spell Arrow Mind, of course.

As to Patryn's earlier example, So long as the rogue is a TWF and has a dagger in one hand and a wand in the other, why wouldn't he be in a position of flanking an enemy in a square beside him?  He obviously threatens all the sqares around him (so long as he is at least small in size and not incapacitated).  Now, if he threw that dagger and didn't quickdraw a replacement I can see why he no longer is flanking, because the wand doesn't allow him to threaten.

EDIT:

I should add that I am using the definition for flanking from the perspective of granting a bonus to another person.  So long as he threatens and another person in the right spot is making a melee attack, shouldn't he grant them a bonus?

Of course, if we flip that around and ask if the wand weilder gets the bonus, would it be correct ot conclude that: Even though the dagger in his hand gives the possibility of granting flanking bonuses to allies in the right spot (assuming he's a TWF or the dagger is in the correct hand) his use of the wand would not gain a flanking bonus because it is not a melee attack?


----------



## Presto2112 (Sep 15, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Nope




You can so flank with a bow or crossbow!

You have to step up and whack the guy with it, but it can be done!


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 15, 2006)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Most people in this thread.  Rogue (with dagger) (R), Hobgoblin Target (H), Fighter Ally (with longsword) (F):
> 
> RHF
> 
> It just seemed odd that he'd be flanking at the start of his turn, flanking as he considered attacking with his dagger, flanking as he threw his dagger across the room at another target, flanking as he quickdrew another dagger, flanking through the hobgoblin's turn, flanking through the fighter's full attack, but as soon as he pointed his wand - BAM! not flanking - and flanking as soon as he put it down again.




Said rogue would definately be flanking the entire time, as long as he was threatening with that dagger.  He fighter buddy would get the +2 to hit and everything.  However, since a wand is not a melee attack, the rogue would not benefit of flanking while using it.


----------



## atom crash (Sep 15, 2006)

> Said rogue would definately be flanking the entire time, as long as he was threatening with that dagger. He fighter buddy would get the +2 to hit and everything. However, since a wand is not a melee attack, the rogue would not benefit of flanking while using it.




True, he doesn't get a +2 bonus on attack if he makes a ranged attack, since it is not a melee attack, but does he get the other benefits of flanking? I.e. sneak attack and other abilities which might rely on flanking in order to occur. 



> Do you threaten a square with a ranged weapon (not using it as a melee weapon)?
> 
> If you do not - and there is no text supporting the stance that you do indeed threaten with a ranged weapon - then you can provide no benefit to your ally who is melee even if you are on the opposite side of the foe as he is.




In order to receive a flanking bonus, you do not need to threaten your opponent. Your ally, standing on the opposite side of your opponent from you, must threaten as you make a melee attack in order for you to receive a flanking bonus. If your ally is providing you with a flanking bonus, can you be considered flanking if you do not take that flanking bonus, because for whatever reason you do not make a melee attack on your turn -- you drink a potion, choose the total defense option, aid another, make an unarmed attack, make a ranged attack, etc.

To me, the argument hinges on the underlying assumption that there is a state of *flanking* -- which the rules apparently define according to a line test -- that is separate from the *flanking bonus*. Can you be considered flanking even if you do not take the flanking bonus you would ordinarily receive had you made a melee attack?

This assumption allows four properly placed allies to flank two formians, ambush drakes or axiomatic creatures. Those creatures have a special quality that says that no such creature in the group "is considered flanked unless all of them are." This implies that it is possible for them all to be considered flanked at the same time, which isn't possible if you are only flanking when you receive the flanking bonus. Why? Because the way initiative works, each character gets an attack one at a time, so the formians can never be flanked all at the same time, only as each character gets an attack, thus one at a time. In that case, the formian's hive mind special quality should state "formians cannot be flanked."


----------



## irdeggman (Sep 15, 2006)

The glossary in the PHB states:



> flank: To be directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another character. A flanking attacker gains a +2 flanking bonus on attack rolls against the defender. A rogue can sneak attack a defender that is flanking.




So a rogue (which is usually the issue here) can only get a sneak attack if he is opposite an ally who is threatening his foe.

But you only get the flanking bonus on attacks when making a melee attack (per the earlier text in the PHB).

Now I guess the question comes down to whether or not a rogue can make a ranged sneak attack when he is opposite an ally that threatens his target.

The rules don't cover this one real well. So you either can still sneak attack (but don't get the flanking bonus since it is not a melee attack) or you can't becasue in order to get "any" flanking bonus you must be making a melee attack.  IMO the RAW can be read to suport either stance.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 15, 2006)

nevermind, unnecessary


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 15, 2006)

Caliban said:
			
		

> No, you can't.   Only according to Patryn.




Heh - not just me, Caliban.  



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> What about not flanking at the start of his turn, not flanking as he considered attacking with his dagger, flanking as he made a melee attack with his dagger, not-flanking-not-flanking-not-flanking until the fighter makes a melee attack?




Ah - so you're arguing the 3.0 rules for flanking?

The issues I see with that are:

1.  The rule that makes this explicit was deleted in 3.5.  Presumably, it was deleted for a reason.

2.  That would make feats / character abilities like a random example from Dragon, in addition to Pack Fighting from earlier:



			
				Paraphrase from Dragon said:
			
		

> Backstab
> [General, Fighter] (DR340 p86)
> Combat Reflexes You may make an Attack of Opportunity against an opponent that you flank who attacks a target other than you.




and, from Races of the Wild:



			
				Wolfpack Tactical feat said:
			
		

> Distract Foe – You and an ally must have Flanked your foe for at least one round to use this ability. As a Full Round Action, make a single melee attack. If it hits, make a Bluff check with the damage as a bonus vs. your foes Sense Motive check with his/her BAB as a bonus. If you are successful, all of your allies that give you a Flanking bonus receives an Attack of Opportunity on the foe.




... nigh on completely useless.

3.  Similarly (and thanks for reminding me, atomcrash), if you cannot be considered flanking outside of the instant of your own (or your ally's) melee attack, then formians and Axiomatic creatures are actually immune to flanking, rather than just difficult to flank.



			
				atomcrash said:
			
		

> To me, the argument hinges on the underlying assumption that there is a state of flanking -- which the rules apparently define according to a line test -- that is separate from the flanking bonus.




Exactamundo - well put.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 15, 2006)

Is it me, or has the line test changed in various supplements?  I do not recall the exact pages or texts involved, but it seems that I once engaged in a discussion of whether or not someone was flanking in a fight, and there were two separate sets of criteria brought up for flanking from two different books - the characters involved met one of the definitions of flanking, but not the other.

(I mean splatbooks, of course, not different editions of the DMG or PHB - we would have caught that.)


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 15, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Is it me, or has the line test changed in various supplements?




I've not seen anything that revisits flanking.  Do you recall what book it was in?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 15, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Is it me, or has the line test changed in various supplements?  I do not recall the exact pages or texts involved, but it seems that I once engaged in a discussion of whether or not someone was flanking in a fight, and there were two separate sets of criteria brought up for flanking from two different books - the characters involved met one of the definitions of flanking, but not the other.




There was the 3E FAQ / 3.5 RotG article, where Skip introduced the 'A man can't see, he can't be flanked' argument...?



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Ah - so you're arguing the 3.0 rules for flanking?




No, but the result is the same.

We know from the text that you can't get the +2 bonus on attack rolls if you aren't making a melee attack.
We know from the glossary that a flanking creature gets a +2 bonus on attack rolls against the defender.
Since we know that a ranged attack does not get a +2 bonus on attack rolls, we know that a creature making a ranged attack is not a flanking creature.

Thus, while we can't show that you are only considered flanking while making a melee attack, we _can_ show that you are _not_ considered flanking while making a ranged attack... which is the question the thread is asking.

-Hyp.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 15, 2006)

It's been over a year, so I don't recall, but that might have been it.  Thanks, Patryn and Hyp.


----------



## atom crash (Sep 15, 2006)

> We know from the text that you can't get the +2 bonus on attack rolls if you aren't making a melee attack.
> We know from the glossary that a flanking creature gets a +2 bonus on attack rolls against the defender.
> Since we know that a ranged attack does not get a +2 bonus on attack rolls, we know that a creature making a ranged attack is not a flanking creature.




Hyp, usually I'd say that a person would have to be a fool to question your rules-fu, but I disagree with your logic there. Isn't that the fallacy of denying the antecedent?: If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore not Q. 

(Can anyone verify? It's been years since I studied logic in college, so it might very easily be that I'm dead wrong here, and if so I apologize for doubting you.)

Obviously I agree that you only get a flanking bonus when you're a) standing in the right place, b) your ally is threatening and c) you make a melee attack. The rules clearly state so.

But I honestly do not believe that you're only considered flanking when you get the flanking bonus. This incidentally opens the door for the interpretation that it is possible to *flank* -- though not receive a *flanking bonus* -- with a ranged weapon. Or with no weapon at all. Or when you're drinking a potion.

Though I am not convinced flanking with a ranged weapon was the _intent_, I do believe a legitimate interpretation of the RAW allows it.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 15, 2006)

atom crash said:
			
		

> Obviously I agree that you only get a flanking bonus when you're a) standing in the right place, b) your ally is threatening and c) you make a melee attack. The rules clearly state so.
> 
> But I honestly do not believe that you're only considered flanking when you get the flanking bonus. This incidentally opens the door for the interpretation that it is possible to *flank* -- though not receive a *flanking bonus* -- with a ranged weapon.




The glossary states that a flanking character gains a +2 bonus to attack rolls.

A creature making a ranged attack makes an attack roll.  Can he gain a +2 bonus to that attack roll for flanking with a ranged attack?

You just stated that you agree that you only get a flanking bonus when you make a melee attack.  So the creature making the ranged attack can't get the bonus, right?  Since he's making an attack roll and not getting a +2 bonus to his attack roll, and since a flanking character gains a +2 bonus to attack rolls, we know that the character making the ranged attack (who isn't gaining a +2 bonus to attack rolls) is not a flanking character.



> Isn't that the fallacy of denying the antecedent?: If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore not Q.




If P then Q.  Not Q.  Therefore not P.  ... not a fallacy.

If flanking, then bonus.  (Glossary)
Not bonus. (Making a ranged attack).
Therefore not flanking.

-Hyp.


----------



## atom crash (Sep 15, 2006)

Let's look at this another way. I've pulled the following info from the WoTC online glossary:



> *Invisible:* Visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). (Invisibility has no effect against blinded or otherwise nonsighted creatures.) An invisible creature's location cannot be pinpointed by visual means, including darkvision. It has total concealment; even if an attacker correctly guesses the invisible creature's location, the attacker has a 50% miss chance in combat.




If an invisible creature does get a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, is he still invisible? Your reasoning above suggests that if the invisible creature does not get the attack bonus for being invisible, then it is not in fact invisible.



> *Prone:* Lying on the ground. An attacker who is prone has a -4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A defender who is prone gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a -4 penalty to AC against melee attacks. Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.




Again, if a prone character does not make a melee attack roll or get attacked by another creature, is he still prone? Or is he only prone when he takes the penalty for being prone?

Incidentally, the online glossary has the following definition of flanking, which differs slightly from the PHB glossary:



> *Flank:* To be directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another character. A flanking attacker gains a +2 flanking bonus on attack rolls against the defender. A rogue can sneak attack a defender that she is flanking.




While obviously that definition is not exhaustive and should not be taken as such (for example it doesn't stipulate a melee attack, which the PHB/SRD clearly does), I find it interesting that the first sentence goes further than the PHB and SRD in establishing a flanking _condition_ rather than merely a flanking _bonus_. And I'm almost positive when I checked this source months ago, the online glossary had the same wording as the PHB glossary.


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 16, 2006)

Seems worthwhile to point this out again:

Looking at the Attack Modifiers table helps clarify things. Under the Flanking Defender row, melee gets a +2, ranged has a dash. By comparison, On Higher Ground give +1 to melee and +0 to ranged. Prone gives -4 to melee and a dash with an exception for crossbows to ranged. Given what is explicitly said under prone and the fact the having higher ground says +0 and not dash where you can take the attack but get no bonus, I would say that the precident is that a dash indicates a non-applicable action. You can't get a ranged flank.


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 17, 2006)

Hello?  Is this particular arguement going to go unanswered again?


----------



## irdeggman (Sep 18, 2006)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Hello?  Is this particular arguement going to go unanswered again?




What is to argue?

The rules are very specific as to when you get a benefit from flanking and when you get to count as flanking in order to grant that benefit.  The applicable text has been quoted several times so far.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 18, 2006)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Hello?  Is this particular arguement going to go unanswered again?




For what it's worth, I agree that it's a definite point in favour of 'No flanking during a ranged attack' 

-Hyp.


----------



## Knightfall (Sep 18, 2006)

Found this online at WotC's website...



> *Defender Flanked*
> 
> Creatures become susceptible to sneak attacks when flanked because they must divide their attention between two or more opponents whose relative positions make it difficult to block or dodge their attacks. The situation is something like dealing with an unseen foe, but isn't quite as severe.
> 
> ...



*All About Sneak Attacks (Part Three)*
_By Skip Williams_
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040302a


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 18, 2006)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> What is to argue?
> 
> The rules are very specific as to when you get a benefit from flanking and when you get to count as flanking in order to grant that benefit.  The applicable text has been quoted several times so far.




This is just the second time I have brought this up on a thread regarding ranged flank, and in the other case as well, those saying the rules were vague suddenly stopped posting on the thread.  It is disappointing, I guess.  If they actually have a counter I would like to hear it, if they don't, then they really ought to admit it.  Particularly as strongly as they argued.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 18, 2006)

Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> Found this online at WotC's website...




Yes, but given all the things he pulls out of thin air in that article, it's not that useful...

('Both must threaten'?  Hmm?  'Any ally your foe can see'?  Where'd that come from?)

-Hyp.


----------



## Knightfall (Sep 18, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Yes, but given all the things he pulls out of thin air in that article, it's not that useful...
> 
> ('Both must threaten'?  Hmm?  'Any ally your foe can see'?  Where'd that come from?)
> 
> -Hyp.




Well, I guess it depends whether or not a particular DM views Rules of the Game articles as "rules canon", or not. Me, I tend to use such articles to settle rule disputes between myself and the players.

Plus, who knows how many unwritten "rules" are implied in the text of the PHB. The rules aren't finite or written in stone, IMO, and if a DM wants to allow flanking with a ranged weapon then that's their choice, as we all well know. 

It simply becomes a house rule.

The part about your foe needing to see you in order for you to flank them did make me "raise an eyebrow" but I'm not going to argue with Mr Williams. He was the Sage for many years, after all.

Cheers!

KF72


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 18, 2006)

Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> The part about your foe needing to see you in order for you to flank them did make me "raise an eyebrow" but I'm not going to argue with Mr Williams. He was the Sage for many years, after all.




It was during his time as Sage that this first came up - he included it in the 3E Main FAQ, and it made us go "Huh?" then, too.

Then 3.5 came out, and lo, not a single mention in the rules of needing to be visible to aid in flanking.

And then Skip writes an article, and inserts the concept back in.

It feels almost like he uses it as a house rule in his own game, and then forgets that it's not actually in the rules when he writes his answers...

-Hyp.


----------



## Knightfall (Sep 18, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It was during his time as Sage that this first came up - he included it in the 3E Main FAQ, and it made us go "Huh?" then, too.
> 
> Then 3.5 came out, and lo, not a single mention in the rules of needing to be visible to aid in flanking.
> 
> ...



I could see how that's possible, but what are you going to do? If that's how he sees it and no one at WotC wants to correct him then I guess it's canon in his mind. The question is, I guess, is it in the FAQ for v.3.5? If not then it's likely his view of the rule and not WotC's.

The truth is that anyone can interpret a rule differently. In my current campaign I was allowing the PCs (and NPCs) to flank with a ranged weapon. However, this thread has taught me that characters shouldn't be allowed to do that, so now I'm going to rule we've been doing it wrong.

The thing is, I'm using Skip's article to point out my error, and that means the article has become "canon" in my campaign. I don't have a problem with it, because I like the idea that flanking is based on the opponents need to see those flanking him, and the optional rule that characters can ignore flankers and, thus, not be flanked (part 4).

Anyway, obviously it's a difficult issue to resolve, like I said, because different groups will interpret the "wording" of the rules differently.


----------



## Knightfall (Sep 18, 2006)

Here's that section from Part Four...



> *A Totally Unofficial Rule for Dealing with Foes Trying to Flank You*
> 
> _Jonathan Tweet_ (co-designer of the D&D 3rd edition game) and I have had many opportunities to ponder the tactical aspects of flanking and what you might be able to do about it if you find yourself flanked. After one extended discussion not long ago, Jonathan proposed the basics of the following rule, and I present it here, with some tweaks:
> 
> ...


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Sep 18, 2006)

Personally, I see Skip Williams' houserule as a difference of personal taste versus RAW.  RAW clearly says that melee attack and threatening is what's needed.  However ...

Until an attack is made, my personal taste indicates that visible is logically necessary.  Why should I "be distracted" [the whole reason for the flanking bonus anyway] if I don't know I should be distracted?

The problem with this line of logic is at least two-fold, and I am sure my fellow ENWorlders can add more to this.  First, once the invisible guy attacks the victim, if they can remain invisible you better believe that the now flanked guy should be considered flanked because he's going to be wondering where that invisible strike came from!  So, I can then see the longic for an invisible guy to activate the flanking condition once they have attacked.  The other problem is that now it creates multiple scenarios of complexity that I'd rather not deal with at the table.  I don't require obscenely simple rules, but I want the rules to implement in a simple manner.  Setting conditions on flanking is already complex.  Adding another layer of complexity by speaking of possible invisibility is more than I desire to go.

But again, there we see it is a conflict between personal taste and RAW.  RAW clearly allows invisible guys to flank.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 18, 2006)

Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> The question is, I guess, is it in the FAQ for v.3.5?




No.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 18, 2006)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> First, once the invisible guy attacks the victim, if they can remain invisible you better believe that the now flanked guy should be considered flanked because he's going to be wondering where that invisible strike came from!  So, I can then see the longic for an invisible guy to activate the flanking condition once they have attacked.




At that point, of course, the invisible guy can walk away... but unless the previously-flanked guy knows he's not there any more, he's still going to be wondering...

Like you say, the complexity gets worse and worse 

-Hyp.


----------



## Knightfall (Sep 18, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> -Hyp.



There you have it then.

Thanks Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 18, 2006)

The other oddity that Skip's "blind man can't be flanked" rule leads to - assuming one considers a blind character with Uncanny Dodge to retain his Dex bonus - is the 'blinking barbarian' phenomenon, where even a pair of rogues four levels higher than a barbarian can't sneak attack him while his eyes are shut...

-Hyp.


----------



## Knightfall (Sep 18, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The other oddity that Skip's "blind man can't be flanked" rule leads to - assuming one considers a blind character with Uncanny Dodge to retain his Dex bonus - is the 'blinking barbarian' phenomenon, where even a pair of rogues four levels higher than a barbarian can't sneak attack him while his eyes are shut...
> 
> -Hyp.



And if said barbarain has Blind-Fight then...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 18, 2006)

Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> And if said barbarain has Blind-Fight then...




He doesn't really need it that much.

Y'see, on his turn, he opens his eyes, makes a full attack at no penalty, then closes his eyes again.

The rogues are reduced to either making full attacks with no sneak attack damage, or Readying a single attack for when he opens his eyes, so they can sneak attack with a flanking bonus.

And there's still the problem that the barbarian might take a 5' step before opening his eyes, which will foil one of the two rogues from getting a flanking sneak attack with a readied action...

-Hyp.


----------



## Legildur (Sep 18, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And there's still the problem that the barbarian might take a 5' step before opening his eyes,...



From the SRD:



> *5-foot step:* You can only take a 5-foot step if your movement isn’t hampered by difficult terrain or darkness.





> *Blinded:* The character cannot see. He takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), moves at half speed, and takes a -4 penalty on Search checks and on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks.





> *Vision and Light:* In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded.



Does closing your eyes render you 'blind'?  If so, is 'blinded' equivalent to being in 'darkness'?  If so, then would being 'blinded' mean that you cannot take a 5-foot step?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 18, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> If so, then would being 'blinded' mean that you cannot take a 5-foot step?




Ah - good catch.  So he can restrict them to a single sneak attack each, but not to one between the two of them.

The Blindfight feat doesn't help there, either - while it will mean that you're limited to 3/4 speed instead of half, your movement is still hampered (though to a lesser degree) by poor visibility, and so the 5 foot step is still prohibited.

-Hyp.


----------



## Legildur (Sep 18, 2006)

Well, with a very strict interpretation, darkness=blindness, but blindness<>darkness. So maybe you still can


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 18, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Well, with a very strict interpretation, darkness=blindness, but blindness<>darkness. So maybe you still can




But if you're being that strict, then Uncanny Dodge won't prevent you losing your Dex bonus while blind.  (It did in 3E, but in 3.5 there's a crucial statement missing.)

-Hyp.


----------



## Legildur (Sep 18, 2006)

Hey, I don't write the rules     If a statement is missing, then a statement is missing.....


----------

