# Can you flank with a ranged weapon?



## TheEvil (Sep 23, 2005)

Simple question:  Without feats, spells, or class abilities, can you flank with a ranged weapon?

Unlike some of my previous polls, feel free to argue as much as you like.  Just keep it civil, and no patryning others.


----------



## atom crash (Sep 23, 2005)

It seems appropriate to link to the discussion that spawned this poll.


----------



## Krelios (Sep 23, 2005)

This isn't really a subject for debate or opinion...


			
				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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...



You cannot flank with a ranged weapon.


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 23, 2005)

Krelios said:
			
		

> This isn't really a subject for debate or opinion...
> You cannot flank with a ranged weapon.




Whereas I don't disagree with you, I like to put up the polls to get some perspective on the debates which usually become endurance contests.


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 23, 2005)

For the record, you will notice the cited text doesn't actually SAY that the attacker has to threaten.  I think the confusion for some people comes from not linking the two paragraphs as the transitive sentence seems to indicate.  Only by reading the second paragraph in isolation do I see any room for debate.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 23, 2005)

Krelios said:
			
		

> This isn't really a subject for debate or opinion...
> You cannot flank with a ranged weapon.



 The funny part of your comment is -- that's your opinion.  This actually is a subject for debate *and* opinion, as you've just proven.


----------



## atom crash (Sep 23, 2005)

The rules are crystal clear on when you receive a flanking bonus. That is not under debate. What is left murky by the rules are the conditions under which flanking occurs. Are you only flanking when you receive a flanking bonus, or can you be considered flanking when you do not receive a flanking bonus but satisfy the line test?

If you believe that flanking only occurs when you receive a flanking bonus, that creates a bit of wonkiness, such that formians become impossible to flank rather than merely difficult. 

If you believe that flanking occurs when you satisfy the line test, that leads to some wonkiness such that you can flank with a ranged weapon.

Edit: It occurs to me that probably a third of my total posts at this site are concerning this topic.


----------



## runtime (Sep 23, 2005)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> For the record, you will notice the cited text doesn't actually SAY that the attacker has to threaten.  I think the confusion for some people comes from not linking the two paragraphs as the transitive sentence seems to indicate.  Only by reading the second paragraph in isolation do I see any room for debate.




The attacker must threaten the defender. How else can the attacker make a *melee* attack against the defender?


----------



## atom crash (Sep 23, 2005)

> The attacker must threaten the defender. How else can the attacker make a *melee* attack against the defender?




unarmed strike


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 23, 2005)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> For the record, you will notice the cited text doesn't actually SAY that the attacker has to threaten.  I think the confusion for some people comes from not linking the two paragraphs as the transitive sentence seems to indicate.  Only by reading the second paragraph in isolation do I see any room for debate.




Right, but it does say the attacker must make a melee attack, so an unarmed attack would get the +2 flanking bonus.  

As for ranged weapons, the "When in doubt..." sentence is clearly intended to help out in explaning when the first sentence applies and when it does not, and so applies to making melee attacks only.

I do admit that the second sentence, when taken entirely on it's own, would not prohibit a ranged flanking attack.  Of course, it does not stand on it's own but must be taken in the context of an explantory remark on the first sentence.


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 23, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> If you believe that flanking only occurs when you receive a flanking bonus, that creates a bit of wonkiness, such that formians become impossible to flank rather than merely difficult.




I keep seeing this and I really don't follow how it is the case, so let put forth an example.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the formian queen within 50 miles only has two formians left.  These two formians (A and B) encounter 3 adventurers (1, 2 and 3).  During the fight, the two formians flank Adventurer #1.  Adventurer #2 moves to stand opposite Adventurer #1 with Formian A between them.  Adventurer #3 moves to stand opposite Adventurer #1 with Formian B between them.  To illustrate:  2A1B3

Why aren't they flanked if you can only flank with a melee weapon?


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 23, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Right, but it does say the attacker must make a melee attack, so an unarmed attack would get the +2 flanking bonus.
> 
> As for ranged weapons, the "When in doubt..." sentence is clearly intended to help out in explaning when the first sentence applies and when it does not, and so applies to making melee attacks only.
> 
> I do admit that the second sentence, when taken entirely on it's own, would not prohibit a ranged flanking attack.  Of course, it does not stand on it's own but must be taken in the context of an explantory remark on the first sentence.




Couldn't agree with you more, simply trying to point out where people are ignoring the other sides argument.  No debate happens if you don't address what the other person is saying.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 23, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> What is left murky by the rules are the conditions under which flanking occurs. Are you only flanking when you receive a flanking bonus, or can you be considered flanking when you do not receive a flanking bonus but satisfy the line test?



 Can it be both?  In that case, it eliminates all the wonkiness, doesn't it?


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 23, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Can it be both?  In that case, it eliminates all the wonkiness, doesn't it?





Um... no.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 23, 2005)

Flanking, the D20 term.... and flanking, the English term.

Per SRD above:
  Attacker must move opposite an ally, flanking them.
  Attacker gains Flanking only when making melee attack.
  Ally provides Flanking only when threatening opponent.. which is only done with melee weapons.

In order to gain Flanking, all three statements need to be true. Two of those statements specifically exclude ranged weapons.

*Without feats, spells, or class abilities, can you Flank with a ranged weapon?*
THe D20 term? nope. The English term? yup.
I have no idea where the confusion is coming from...

 And to continue the discussion on Formian's ... but thats not what the poll is about.   

*TheEvil* Formians simply add one more check to see if flanking = Flanking.
 That check is "Is any Formian that is in the encounter not Flanked"  If the answer is no, then the attacking flankers gain Flanking bonuses.
 The difficult part is that these checks need to be made for each attack...


Simple, ne' pas?


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 23, 2005)

The problem is, I keep seeing the claim that formians become unflankable if you can't flank with ranged weapons.  Repeating questions for those who hold that belief:

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the formian queen within 50 miles only has two formians left. These two formians (A and B) encounter 3 adventurers (1, 2 and 3). During the fight, the two formians flank Adventurer #1. Adventurer #2 moves to stand opposite Adventurer #1 with Formian A between them. Adventurer #3 moves to stand opposite Adventurer #1 with Formian B between them. To illustrate: 2A1B3

Why aren't they flanked if you can only flank with a melee weapon?


----------



## Felix (Sep 23, 2005)

What I want to know is, who's playing the rogue who wants sneak attack dice with his bow?


----------



## Krelios (Sep 23, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> The funny part of your comment is -- that's your opinion.  This actually is a subject for debate *and* opinion, as you've just proven.



No, it's not my opinion, that's a quote from the rules. There's no other interpretation other than the one given (except for an incorrect one). This is not something that requires adjudication.


----------



## ShaggySpellsword (Sep 23, 2005)

I see no murk here.

The SRD says that:

```
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is 
[B]threatened[/B] by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s 
opposite border or opposite corner.

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

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

I added the bold and copiedthe appropriate sections.  The SRD also says (in the section on attacks of opportunity that:

```
You [B]threaten[/B] all squares into which you can make a [B]melee[/B] attack.
```

RAW: Short of special feats, *you can only threaten with melee weapons*.  For a creature to be flanked, it must have characters on either side who pass the line test, both of whom must also be in a position to make a melee attack against them.  Where is the confusion?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 23, 2005)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the formian queen within 50 miles only has two formians left.  These two formians (A and B) encounter 3 adventurers (1, 2 and 3).  During the fight, the two formians flank Adventurer #1.  Adventurer #2 moves to stand opposite Adventurer #1 with Formian A between them.  Adventurer #3 moves to stand opposite Adventurer #1 with Formian B between them.  To illustrate:  2A1B3
> 
> Why aren't they flanked if you can only flank with a melee weapon?




Because the test isn't "do you have a melee weapon?"

It's, "Are you making a melee attack?"

As the non-Ranged side keeps pointing out, the first sentence says "When making a melee attack ..."

Therefore, if they are right, then you are only considered flanking - and the defender is only flanked - when you make that melee attack.

In your example, at any given time, either 1 is "making a melee attack," or 2 is "making a melee attack," or 3 is "making a melee attack."  At no point are 1 and 2 both making melee attacks.  Thus, at any given point, *either* A or B is flanked - but never both.

Therefore, A and B can never be flanked.

EDIT: For Grammah.


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 23, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Because the test isn't "do you have a melee weapon?"
> 
> It's, "Are you making a melee attack?"
> 
> ...




I don't follow.  Nothing in the text for flanking says that the defender is only flanked during the attack.  It says what the bonus is when you attack someone who is flanked.

Addendium to formian question:  What if Adventurer #1 was using two weapons, full attacks, and splits his attacks between Formian A and Formian B?


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 23, 2005)

ShaggySpellsword said:
			
		

> I see no murk here.
> 
> The SRD says that:
> 
> ...




Please never post that way again.  Ever.  It screws up the screen so that it extends beyond the bounds of the monitor.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 23, 2005)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> I don't follow.  Nothing in the text for flanking says that the defender is only flanked during the attack.  It says what the bonus is when you attack someone who is flanked.




And how do you determine whether or not someone is flanked?  And, moreover, if someone is flanked, aren't I flanking them?

The key point is that those who insist that it can only be done with melee attacks point to the very first sentence as their proof: "When making a melee attack ..."

This supporting evidence has a major problem:

It means you are only flanking during your own melee attack, because that's the only period in time to which "When making a melee attack..." can apply.


----------



## Pinotage (Sep 23, 2005)

The rules as written indicate that you can actually flank while using a ranged weapon, but then you wouldn't get the flanking bonus which you only get while making a melee attack. However, I'd never play it that way, and I've never met anybody who does. So I've skewed the poll and voted no, even though the rules probably support that you can.

Pinotage


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 23, 2005)

ShaggySpellsword said:
			
		

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




I agree.  



> RAW: Short of special feats, *you can only threaten with melee weapons*.  For a creature to be flanked, it must have characters on either side who pass the line test, both of whom must also be in a position to make a melee attack against them.  Where is the confusion?




Where, exactly, does it say that *I* - the one currently attacking - need to threaten my opponent?  I admit, the rules do say that *you* - the guy helping me get a flanking bonus - must threaten the defender *if and only if I'm worried about getting a flanking bonus.*

But, again, what does getting a particular bonus on an attack roll have to do with flanking?  Unless you want to argue that you're only flanking when you get the bonus - which was true in 3.0, and caused non-Flankable formians et al.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 23, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Because the test isn't "do you have a melee weapon?"
> 
> It's, "Are you making a melee attack?"
> 
> ...




Wrong.

Reminder: 1A2B3

Let's keep it simple, and assume 1,2, and 3 (PCs) are all using longswords (a melee weapon) on the formians (A&B).

Round 1:

PC 2 obviously threatens both A&B
PC 1 gets a flanking bonus to A
PC 3 gets a flanking bonus to B

Both A&B are flanked so long as one of the attackers does not move to somewhere else.  
Simple, eh?

BTW:  PC 2 also gets a flanking bonus to either A or B or both (with mutliple attacks)

Okay, now, what do you say I did wrong?

I see no "wonkiness" here at all.


----------



## Sledge (Sep 23, 2005)

The problem here seems to be that flanking is different from getting the bonus.  In the formian situation the ability:
"Hive Mind (Ex): All formians within 50 miles of their queen are in constant communication. If one is aware of a particular danger, they all are. If one in a group is not flatfooted, none of them are. No formian in a group is considered flanked unless all of them are."
means that the group (i.e. local only) cannot be flanked unless all individuals would fit the rules.  However we only have an explicit ruling on flanking during an attack.  Since this attack only applies to 1 opponent usually we have a situation where Formians could be read as unflankable as long as there is more than one.
On the other hand you could read flanked as any situation where an attacker could gain a flanking bonus if it was their turn to attack.  In this case a situation of 1A2B3 would mean that both A and B are flanked.  However the rules in this case are rather inexplicit.


----------



## Sledge (Sep 23, 2005)

Artoomis what you missed is that the Flanking bonus is only gained during their attack.  Not during the whole round.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 23, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Both A&B are flanked so long as one of the attackers does not move to somewhere else.
> Simple, eh?




Uh, no.  

What rule are you using to determine that they are flanked?  Lay it out for me, step by step.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 23, 2005)

Sledge said:
			
		

> Artoomis what you missed is that the Flanking bonus is only gained during their attack.  Not during the whole round.




Exactly.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 23, 2005)

AHA!

 I see the confusion. Its a matter of State and Timing.

If Flanking only happens exaclty when a character makes a melee attack, then the forth condition can never be fulfilled.

 Of course, have this argument at my table I will will tell you that you are ... well, anyway.

 Its fixed simply by stating that the when testing if a Formian is Flanked, you must check to see if all Formian's would be Flanked if they were subject to an attack at that exact moment.

Silly argument, Flanking if for Formians!


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 23, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> It means you are only flanking during your own melee attack, because that's the only period in time to which "When making a melee attack..." can apply.




That's sort of true.  Sort of, because you are not considering the nature of D&D rounds, in which actions are done sequentially only for our sanity in running the game, they really all happen at once - sort of.

All this "sort of" stuff is what can makes things a little confusing.

Anyway, an opponent is flanked when a melee combatant is entitled to a flanking bonus on him.  The flankers are the ones on opposite sides of him.  Simple, eh?  Both flankers must be making melee attacks (or at least one must be threatening) or the opponent is not flanked.

This can create an odd situation, though.  Let's say we have

1A2

where 1 & 2 are PCs and A is the possibly flanked bad guy.  Well, if 1 is using a longsword , then so far so good.  Now let's say 2 has a dagger in each hand and two attacks (BAB 6 or more).  When he attacks with the dagger in melee he gets the +2 flanking bonus and A is clearly flanked.  Then he throws the other dagger.  He clearly does not get the +2 flanking bonus for the second attack, but is A still flanked??  If so, sneak attack damage would apply.

Okay, I admit that's getting a bit far-fetched and the simplest rule is to simply say that the Rogue flanking sneak attack damage applies only if the Rogue also gets a +2 flanking bonus on that same attack.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 23, 2005)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> ... Its fixed simply by stating that the when testing if a Formian is Flanked, you must check to see if all Formian's would be Flanked if they were subject to an attack at that exact moment...




Exactly.  It's perhaps a bit trickier than that, but this works for me.  To keep it simple, check to see if all formians have melee attackers threatening them in flanking positions.  For a more correct analysis, all must have one opponent threatening them with another in a flanking position able to take advnatage of the +2 flanking bonus (an unarmed attack qualifies, I think).


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 23, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Uh, no.
> 
> What rule are you using to determine that they are flanked?  Lay it out for me, step by step.




See above.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 23, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> where 1 & 2 are PCs and A is the possibly flanked bad guy.  Well, if 1 is using a longsword , then so far so good.  Now let's say 2 has a dagger in each hand and two attacks (BAB 6 or more).  When he attacks with the dagger in melee he gets the +2 flanking bonus and A is clearly flanked.




Agreed.  



> Then he throws the other dagger.  He clearly does not get the +2 flanking bonus for the second attack, but is A still flanked??  If so, sneak attack damage would apply.




If you ask me, yes, he is still flanked because he still passes the line test.  SA damage would apply because he's within 30'.  He doesn't get any attack roll bonus because that's limited to melee attacks.  He also provokes an AoO for making a ranged attack while threatened.



> Okay, I admit that's getting a bit far-fetched and the simplest rule is to simply say that the Rogue flanking sneak attack damage applies only if the Rogue also gets a +2 flanking bonus on that same attack.




In other words, you're back to arguing that flanking only happens when you get the bonus on your attack rolls.

That's OK - you can take that position - but keep in mind the ramifications thereof.

I've got to go, unfortunately, so I'll miss the rest of this for a while.  Happy debating, y'all!


----------



## Thanee (Sep 23, 2005)

Q: Can you flank with a ranged weapon?
A: Sure, as long as you perform a melee attack with it.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 23, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Q: Can you flank with a ranged weapon?
> A: Sure, as long as you perform a melee attack with it.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




Thanks - I needed a smile!


----------



## the Jester (Sep 23, 2005)

The line test, taken to the logical extreme, on a planet (vs. an infinite plane or other 'open' geometry world), means that you can _always_ draw a line that leads to any two pcs flanking any opponent- you may have to keep drawing the line until it has circled the planet umpteen times, but eventually you'll make your connection. 

Hmm, I take it back- that's not a straight line anymore, is it?  

Never mind.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 23, 2005)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Its fixed simply by stating that the when testing if a Formian is Flanked, you must check to see if all Formian's would be Flanked if they were subject to an attack at that exact moment.




Which would be an odd rule - it's recursive.  Is Formian A flanked?  Well, that depends on whether or not Formian B is flanked.  Is Formian B flanked?  Well, that depends on whether or not Formian A is flanked ... 

Etc.



> Silly argument, Flanking if for Formians!




And tricks are for ruleslawyers!  

In terms of "Would I ever do this in a game," the answer is, "Eh, probably not."  I might allow a rogue / anyone in a game I'm DMing to do this, but I certainly wouldn't argue this point with the DM.  That's what this board is for! 

EDIT: Durn typos.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 23, 2005)

the Jester said:
			
		

> Hmm, I take it back- that's not a straight line anymore, is it?




You got it!


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 23, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Which would be an odd rule - it's recursive.  Is Formian A flanked?  Well, that depends on whether or not Formian B is flanked.  Is Formian B flanked?  Well, that depends on whether or not Formian A is flanked ... ...




But that indeed is the rule for formians.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 23, 2005)

For what it's worth, I think that if you _can't_ get the flanking bonus then you shouldn't count as flanking a creature. I'm putting "can't" in emphasis to separate it from moments when you don't happen to be using the bonus because it isn't your turn to attack rather than being unable to use it because of the choice of weapon or attack you are using. I see those as different issues. 
You don't happen to be using the bonus when it's someone else's turn to act, but I'd still say you were flanking, presuming you could use that bonus when your turn comes up. In the case of throwing the dagger on your second attack of the full attack action, I'd say that by using the weapon as a missile weapon, you make yourself ineligible for the flanking bonus (since it's not a melee attack, you _can't_ get the bonus) and thus also give up any other benefit you get from flanking like sneak attack damage.

That's my take on it. I think the rules of flanking and the examples all point to flanking as a melee-only phenomenon, ranged attacks need not apply.


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 23, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Q: Can you flank with a ranged weapon?
> A: Sure, as long as you perform a melee attack with it.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




ROFL!!!!

I second the thanks for a good laugh!


----------



## atom crash (Sep 23, 2005)

> Its fixed simply by stating that the when testing if a Formian is Flanked, you must check to see if all Formian's would be Flanked if they were subject to an attack at that exact moment.




Except that there is no errata to that effect, and there has been no errata to the flanking section of the SRD, so this statement suffers from the conceit that your position is correct and all others -- as well as the Formian hive mind ability -- are somehow in error.

The wording of flanking in D&D3.0 stated explicitly that you can only flank with a melee weapon. This wording was removed in the 3.5 update.

Now, bear with me because this might be a bit of a stretch, a leap of faith, but I believe that the changes made to the flanking section of the SRD in the 3.5 revision were made intentionally and not merely a mistake.



> The line test, taken to the logical extreme, on a planet (vs. an infinite plane or other 'open' geometry world), means that you can always draw a line that leads to any two pcs flanking any opponent- you may have to keep drawing the line until it has circled the planet umpteen times, but eventually you'll make your connection.
> 
> Hmm, I take it back- that's not a straight line anymore, is it?




Even if this was an honest argument, it's not an issue when you consider that a) the flanking bonus only applies to melee attacks and b) rogues can only sneak attack within 30 feet.


----------



## DamionW (Sep 23, 2005)

I'm of a camp with Patryn's mindset, but I'm not positive the RAW support it.  To me, if ally 1 is threatening one side of an opponent so that even without facing rules, his defensive actions are focused in that direction, a ranged attack from an ally across the straight line from ally 1 should be considered a flanking attack, even if it doesn't get bonuses because that is spelled out to only be for melee attacks.  It just makes sense to me.  Ally 1 threatens the opponent, ally 2 is flanking.  Ally 1 doesn't get the bonus because ally 2 can't threaten him, and ally 2 can't get the +2 to his roll because he's not making a melee attack.  However with the straight line paragraph and the common sense idea that the opponent is focusing his attention on ally 1, I say ally 2 is flanking.  Again, this seems more in house rule territory and the rules interpretation realm than in straight out RAW to me.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 23, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> The wording of flanking in D&D3.0 stated explicitly that you can only flank with a melee weapon. This wording was removed in the 3.5 update.




No it wasn't. The flanking section was reworded, but the melee weapon part is still there. The section was reworded because 3.5 put an emphasis on grids and minis to explain the rules. That's why there is a separate paragraph in the flanking section that begins "When in doubt..." It then explains, using a grid/minis setup, how to determine if there is a flank or not. But the whole section still only applies to melee attacks, as stated at the beginning of the section in question.


----------



## atom crash (Sep 23, 2005)

> From the 3.0 SRD:
> Flanking
> *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.* A character gains a +2 flanking bonus on the attack roll. A rogue in this position can also sneak attack the target. The ally must be on the other side of the opponent, so that the opponent is directly between the character and the ally.



Emphasis added is mine, of course.



> From the 3.5 SRD:
> 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.




Notice that in the 3.0 version, it explicity calls out when two creatures flank a third. Notice in the 3.5 version, it removes that portion and explicitly calls out when one creature gets a flanking bonus.



> No it wasn't. The flanking section was reworded, but the melee weapon part is still there. The section was reworded because 3.5 put an emphasis on grids and minis to explain the rules.



The melee part is still in there, as a definition of when you get a *flanking bonus.* It used to be a part of the definition of when you are considered flanking. In effect, the rule formerly stated, "This is when you are considered flanking, and this is the bonus you get." Now it says, "This is when you apply a flanking bonus, and use this line test to determine when you are considered flanking."

While the 3.0 version allowed two allies to flank an opponent, it did not handle cases in which one ally could be considered flanking while the other was not. The changes to the 3.5 version appear to address these situations.


----------



## DamionW (Sep 23, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> While the 3.0 version allowed two allies to flank an opponent, it did not handle cases in which one ally could be considered flanking while the other was not. The changes to the 3.5 version appear to address these situations.




Nice post atom crash.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 23, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> In effect, the rule formerly stated, "This is when you are considered flanking, and this is the bonus you get." Now it says, "This is when you apply a flanking bonus, and use this line test to determine when you are considered flanking."




Both of those say essentially the same thing. "Here is how you flank, and this is the bonus you get." They just say it in reverse order. Both rules require you and an ally to be on opposite sides of the opponent. 3.5 simply uses a grid to explain it, as there was come confusion in 3.0 as to which squares exactly had to be occupied in order to flank. The line test is there to help with it. But both rules say the same thing.

I see part of the confusion, because 3.5 only mentions that your ally has to threaten the opponent, not you. But that's not correct. It says "If a character is making a melee attack..." By default, that character must also threaten, because you can't take a melee attack if you don't threaten. So, both you and the ally need to be an opposite sides of the opponent and both must threaten. Then you get the +2 to attack.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 23, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> By default, that character must also threaten, because you can't take a melee attack if you don't threaten. So, both you and the ally need to be an opposite sides of the opponent and both must threaten. Then you get the +2 to attack.




Technically, I don't believe this is true. You can make a melee attack unarmed without improved unarmed feats and not threaten. This is, I believe, one instance in which flanking is not reciprocal between flankers. You might get the flanking bonus if you attack with your fists, but your flanking partner might not flank because you are unarmed and don't threaten.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 23, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Technically, I don't believe this is true. You can make a melee attack unarmed without improved unarmed feats and not threaten. This is, I believe, one instance in which flanking is not reciprocal between flankers. You might get the flanking bonus if you attack with your fists, but your flanking partner might not flank because you are unarmed and don't threaten.



 If you're unarmed, you don't threaten, and neither you nor your ally get the flanking bonus. Both must threaten for it to work.

EDIT: Obviously, the Improved Unarmed Strike feat causes you to threaten, in which case you and your ally get the bonus.

There isn't, to my knowledge, a situation where one person qualifies for the flanking bonus and the other doesn't.


----------



## atom crash (Sep 23, 2005)

> If you're unarmed, you don't threaten, and neither you nor your ally get the flanking bonus. Both must threaten for it to work.
> 
> EDIT: Obviously, the Improved Unarmed Strike feat causes you to threaten, in which case you and your ally get the bonus.
> 
> There isn't, to my knowledge, a situation where one person qualifies for the flanking bonus and the other doesn't.




Again, and I can't stress this enough, this argument was true of the 3.0 version of flanking. However, this is untrue under the 3.5 rules.

According to the new improved updated revised 3.5 version of flanking, *your ally* must threaten in order for *you* to get a flanking bonus. It does not specify that you must threaten in order to get the flanking bonus. It specifies that you must make a melee attack in order to get a flanking bonus, but as has been pointed out there are cases in which you can make a melee attack without threatening your opponent. If your ally is threatening, you still get the flanking bonus.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 23, 2005)

I haven't seen any instance where you can make a melee attack without threatening.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 23, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> I haven't seen any instance where you can make a melee attack without threatening.




_*Whip:* A whip deals nonlethal damage. It deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher. *The whip is treated as a melee weapon* with 15-foot reach, though *you don’t threaten* the area into which you can make an attack. In addition, unlike most other weapons with reach, you can use it against foes anywhere within your reach (including adjacent foes)._

I have a whip.  Ten feet a way from me is a goblin.  My ally is on the other side of him with a longsword.

I make a melee attack on the goblin with my whip.  My ally threatens him.  I get a +2 flanking bonus.

My ally makes a melee attack on the goblin with his longsword.  I do not threaten the goblin.  My ally does not get a +2 flanking bonus.

-Hyp.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 23, 2005)

Good call, Hyp.   Still supports the position (can't flank with a ranged weapon), though. (Does prove me wrong with the whole 'you can't have one person get the bonus and the other can't argument' as well.  )This is a good exception. You don't threaten, but for flanking, it follows the same rules as reach weapons (or so I would assume).

But this is an exception specifically called out in the rules, so you can flank with a whip from 5-15' out because you make a melee attack with it.


----------



## apesamongus (Sep 23, 2005)

Krelios said:
			
		

> This isn't really a subject for debate or opinion...
> You cannot flank with a ranged weapon.



This assumes that "getting a +2 flanking bonus" totally identical to "flanking".


----------



## unleashed (Sep 23, 2005)

Rules of the Game -- All About Sneak Attacks (Part Three) said:
			
		

> To flank an opponent, two allies must be on opposite sides of that opponent, and they *both must threaten* the opponent (Chapter 8 in the Player's Handbook has some handy diagrams that explain flanking). You threaten an opponent when you can make an armed melee attack against that opponent. You're "armed" when you use a manufactured weapon, natural weapon, the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, or the monk's unarmed strike ability. You don't actually have to have a weapon that can hurt an opponent to threaten that opponent. If you and your buddy have no silver weapons but find yourselves on opposites sides of a werewolf, you still flank the werewolf (but see the final section of this article series).
> 
> You can flank with any melee weapon, including a reach weapon, but you *cannot flank with a ranged weapon*.




Now please don't tell me it's not official because it doesn't contain the word _errata_, it's an official _clarification_ of the RAW in plain english explaining what the diagrams and text in the PHB _all rolled together_ show without supposition about missing words or changed intent from the 3.0 flanking rules.

As someone said earlier the flanking text was likely changed because they also used diagrams to aid in the explanation in the 3.5 ruleset, just to make certain it was clear (obviously because people read things into the removal of text without considering the addition of examples this didn't work as intended, but there it is above explained completely without the diagrams).


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 24, 2005)

Nice quote, unleashed. As far as I can tell, and as Hyp pointed out, the Whip would be the only exception (I think) because while you don't threaten with it, it is a melee weapon and uses the melee attack action.


----------



## unleashed (Sep 24, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Nice quote, unleashed. As far as I can tell, and as Hyp pointed out, the Whip would be the only exception (I think) because while you don't threaten with it, it is a melee weapon and uses the melee attack action.




If you note above I bolded the section that says *both must threaten*, so no the whip is not an exception and cannot be used to flank. It also says it must be an "armed" attack a little further down which would also preclude the whip.


----------



## atom crash (Sep 24, 2005)

> Now please don't tell me it's not official because it doesn't contain the word errata, it's an official clarification of the RAW in plain english explaining what the diagrams and text in the PHB all rolled together show without supposition about missing words or changed intent from the 3.0 flanking rules.




Rules of the Game is not an _official_ source, and has been shown on several occasions to contradict the RAW. It is not a clarification of the rules when it contradicts the rules. 

Anyway, the section you quoted above was posted about 2 months after the 3.5 revision and appears to draw its rules from the 3.0 ruleset rather than the 3.5 ruleset. Notice how he contradicts the 3.5 RAW by maintaining that both allies must threaten in order to flank, which was a hallmark of the 3.0 ruleset.

I like to refer to RotG as _Skip's House Rules_.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 24, 2005)

EDIT: In reply to unleashed two posts up.

You're probably right. The problem is, in the case of the whip, something has to break. Either the 'both must threaten' or the 'any melee weapon.' The whip seems to be the only thing that fits one of those and not the other. The way it is worded, I would be inclined to allow it as an exception, since it seems to be written as such, but that could very well be a house rule and not RAW.


----------



## unleashed (Sep 24, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> Rules of the Game is not an _official_ source, and has been shown on several occasions to contradict the RAW. It is not a clarification of the rules when it contradicts the rules.
> 
> Anyway, the section you quoted above was posted about 2 months after the 3.5 revision and appears to draw its rules from the 3.0 ruleset rather than the 3.5 ruleset. Notice how he contradicts the 3.5 RAW by maintaining that both allies must threaten in order to flank, which was a hallmark of the 3.0 ruleset.
> 
> I like to refer to RotG as _Skip's House Rules_.




It doesn't contradict the rules at all when you look at the diagrams and the text _together_, and as they support the 3.0 rules I don't see a problem. Anyway...if it was posted 2 months after the release of the 3.5 ruleset, which was being written up to 1 year before release I don't see why it wouldn't be based on the 3.5 ruleset. Obviously they thought it needed clarification after seeing threads like this.


----------



## unleashed (Sep 24, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> EDIT: In reply to unleashed two posts up.
> 
> You're probably right. The problem is, in the case of the whip, something has to break. Either the 'both must threaten' or the 'any melee weapon.' The whip seems to be the only thing that fits one of those and not the other. The way it is worded, I would be inclined to allow it as an exception, since it seems to be written as such, but that could very well be a house rule and not RAW.




Well it doesn't say any melee weapon in the text I quoted, it says an *armed melee attack*, and an armed attack must be _able_ to cause lethal damage which the whip doesn't.

Edit: Well I think that's enough from me, go ahead with your discussion.


----------



## atom crash (Sep 24, 2005)

> It doesn't contradict the rules at all when you look at the diagrams and the text together, and as they support the 3.0 rules I don't see a problem.




I have to disagree; it does contradict the rules. This spotty ruling states that both allies must threaten in order to flank, while the actual rules state that your opponent must threaten.

A "rules clarification" -- such as the official FAQ -- applies the RAW to certain situations. A "rules clarification" by definition cannot change a rule, it can only clarify. Only the official errata can change a rule. 

When a "clarification" contradicts the RAW by offering an alternate version of the rule, I'd say it's no longer a reliable "clarification."

I gotta go watch Firefly and play some Twilight Imperium, so have a great weekend.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 24, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> I have to disagree; it does contradict the rules. This spotty ruling states that both allies must threaten in order to flank, while the actual rules state that your opponent must threaten.




No, you must both threaten. You threaten when you make a melee attack. The only possible exception is the Whip, which is specifically called out as an exception to the melee attack that doesn't threaten. Otherwise, you MUST be threatening by virtue of having to make a melee attack. Maybe there is another specific exception out there besides the whip, but ranged attacks are *not* one of those exceptions (which is what this original debate was all about).


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 24, 2005)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> The rules as written indicate that you can actually flank while using a ranged weapon, but then you wouldn't get the flanking bonus which you only get while making a melee attack. However, I'd never play it that way, and I've never met anybody who does. So I've skewed the poll and voted no, even though the rules probably support that you can.
> 
> Pinotage




Ditto.  Except I sadly voted yes, because while you shouldn't be able to, the rules say you can.  But how else are we to flank those damn formians?  Damn them!  Damn them to Acheron!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 24, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> Even if this was an honest argument, it's not an issue when you consider that a) the flanking bonus only applies to melee attacks and b) rogues can only sneak attack within 30 feet.




Well, what if it were a very small planet?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 24, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Nice quote, unleashed. As far as I can tell, and as Hyp pointed out, the Whip would be the only exception (I think) because while you don't threaten with it, it is a melee weapon and uses the melee attack action.




You're missing the point... using a whip to gain a flanking bonus is not an exception.

The rule is that you must make a melee attack, and your ally must threaten.

The rule is not that you must threaten and make a melee attack, and your ally must threaten, with the exception of attacking with a whip.

It's like if there's a rule that the only fruit I'm allowed to eat is citrus.  Someone comes along and says "Well, citrus fruits are orange, so that means the rule is that he's only allowed to eat orange citrus fruits."

That covers oranges, mandarins, tangelos, grapefruits... but then I say "What about lemons?"

"They're not orange," they reply, "so they're an exception.  You're allowed them, even though they break the rule."

But the orange rule never existed.  It was a misconception on the part of this person.

Likewise, "Both you and your ally must threaten" is not a requirement for the flanking bonus, so the whip is not an exception to that requirement.  The requirement is _melee attack_, and ally threatens.

When Skip wrote the RotG article that says both must threaten, he got it wrong.  Nowhere in the rules is it required that you threaten when you make your melee attack to gain a flanking bonus.

-Hyp.


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 24, 2005)

Sledge said:
			
		

> Artoomis what you missed is that the Flanking bonus is only gained during their attack.  Not during the whole round.




Show me where it says that.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 24, 2005)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Show me where it says that.




It's fairly explicit.

"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 do you get a +2 Flanking bonus?

1. Is your opponent threatened by a character or creature?
If yes,
2. Is that character or creature friendly to you?
If yes,
3. Is that character or creature friendly to you on the opponent's opposite border or opposite corner?
If yes,
4. Are you making a melee attack?
If yes, you get a +2 Flanking bonus.

If you are not making a melee attack, condition 4 is not true, and you don't get a +2 Flanking bonus.

For the entirety of the round except for the part where you are making a melee attack, condition 4 is not true.

So, the 'where it says that' is in the Flanking section of the Combat chapter in the PHB.

-Hyp.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Sep 24, 2005)

This explains why i've never seen a ranged flaking SA build...


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 24, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It's fairly explicit.
> 
> "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."
> 
> ...




Though your words oft hold wisdom, I must respectfully disagree with you.  That is simply when you get the bonus for flanking.  It no more says that you are only flanking when you attack then the second paragraph says you only flank in melee.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 24, 2005)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Though your words oft hold wisdom, I must respectfully disagree with you.  That is simply when you get the bonus for flanking.  It no more says that you are only flanking when you attack then the second paragraph says you only flank in melee.



 But Hypersmurf answered your question--take a look:



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> Artoomis what you missed is that the Flanking bonus is only gained during their attack. Not during the whole round.






			
				TheEvil said:
			
		

> Show me where it says that.




So really, you may have just asked the wrong question there


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 24, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> So really, you may have just asked the wrong question there




 

Okay, let me try that question again:

Where is it written that you are only flanking during your attack?

(what I get for contradicting Hypersmurf...)


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 24, 2005)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Where is it written that you are only flanking during your attack?




And that's what the whole thread is about.

Does flanking always provide a +2 bonus?


```
--------
  |......|
  |.[color=red]h[/color][color=yellow]o[/color][color=white]@[/color]..[color=brown]+[/color]#
  |......|#
  |.[color=brown]G[/color][color=yellow]o[/color]..[color=green]@[/color]|#
  |......|#
  |......|#
  |.[color=green]h[/color][color=yellow]o[/color]...|[color=white]d[/color]#
  |......| ##
  |......|  ####
  |......|
  --------
```

At the top of the room, we have a dwarven rogue and a human ranger standing on opposite sides of an orc.  Both have shortswords.  When the dwarf attacks, he gets a +2 flanking bonus and can sneak attack.

In the middle of the room, we have a gnomish rogue with a shortsword attacking an orc.  His buddy the elven rogue is some distance away with a bow, but they satisfy the line test.  Neither of them gain a +2 flanking bonus - the elf is not making a melee attack, and the gnome has no ally who threatens.  Can either of them sneak attack?

At the bottom of the room, we have a halfling rogue with a shortsword attacking a third orc.  The ranger's animal companion, a dog, is in the corridor outside, on the other side of a wall.  The halfling and the dog satisfy the line test.  The halfling gains no +2 flanking bonus.  Can he sneak attack?

Let's say a Wall of Force separates the ranger from the orc at the top, but the orc doesn't know it.  The ranger no longer threatens the orc, so the dwarf gets no +2 flanking bonus.  Can he still sneak attack?  Does the answer change if the orc knows the Wall of Force is there?

-Hyp.


----------



## Starglim (Sep 24, 2005)

Krelios' quote makes it quite plain that you can neither receive a flanking bonus nor provide one to your ally using a ranged weapon.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 24, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> You're missing the point... using a whip to gain a flanking bonus is not an exception.
> 
> The rule is that you must make a melee attack, and your ally must threaten.




I thought the main point of this thread was that you couldn't threat with a ranged weapon. I'm cool with your rule here. Sounds like we agree that you can't flanked with a ranged attack.


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 24, 2005)

To Starglim: You would be astounded by what isn't considered obvious.

To Hypersmurf:  No.  No. No.  Doubt it.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 24, 2005)

Starglim said:
			
		

> Krelios' quote makes it quite plain that you can neither receive a flanking bonus nor provide one to your ally using a ranged weapon.




It does indeed.  (Well, almost.  It makes it plain that you cannot receive a flanking bonus using a ranged weapon.  It makes it plain that you cannot provide one to your ally unless you threaten.  There exist published examples - the Peerless Archer from the Silver Marches sourcebook, for example - of characters who can threaten with a ranged weapon.  These characters cannot receive a flanking bonus - since they cannot make a melee attack with a bow - but they _can_ provide one to an ally, since they threaten.)

In most of the examples above, the rogues do not get a flanking bonus.  Can they sneak attack?



			
				Dimwhit said:
			
		

> I thought the main point of this thread was that you couldn't threat with a ranged weapon. I'm cool with your rule here. Sounds like we agree that you can't flanked with a ranged attack.




The statement you quoted doesn't address flanking with a ranged attack; it addresses gaining a flanking bonus with a ranged attack.

Whether or not the two are the same is the debate that this thread revolves around.



			
				TheEvil said:
			
		

> To Hypersmurf: No. No. No. Doubt it.




So - the gnome can sneak attack when he flanks an opponent.  Since your answer is that he does not flank the orc (when his ally, the elf with a bow, is directly opposite him but fifteen feet away), what criteria are you using to determine that he is not flanking?

-Hyp.


----------



## beepeearr (Sep 24, 2005)

Funny, but I've been DMing 3rd since it first came out, and I never realized I was handling flanking wrong, I've moved a few times and gamed for quite a few different groups because of it, and none of them have ever called me on it.  I've always allowed ranged attacks to benefit from flanking, it just seemed like common sense.  I always thought crossfire from multiple attackers should be just as difficult to defend against as attacks from multiple melee attackers.  If nothing else you would think a "flanking" ranged attack against an opponent engaged in melee would be difficult enough to defend against, that the ranged attack would gain the bonus.  Think I'll stick to the way we've been doing it.  It may not follow the rules, but I still think it makes more sense.  

Give it a try sometime, have two friends stand ten feet apart from you on either side, and have them start throwing rocks at you, then have them stand directly in front of you and see which one results in you being hit more.


----------



## DamionW (Sep 24, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> At the top of the room, we have a dwarven rogue and a human ranger standing on opposite sides of an orc.  Both have shortswords.  When the dwarf attacks, he gets a +2 flanking bonus and can sneak attack.
> 
> In the middle of the room, we have a gnomish rogue with a shortsword attacking an orc.  His buddy the elven rogue is some distance away with a bow, but they satisfy the line test.  Neither of them gain a +2 flanking bonus - the elf is not making a melee attack, and the gnome has no ally who threatens.  Can either of them sneak attack?
> 
> ...




Nice examples Hyp.  I now see why it's almost moot to rule that even if the straight line criteria could interpretively be sufficient to declare flanking, it would, for simplicities sake, be smart to limit it to melee.  I think the examples do show that the situation can be much more complex than some are willing to dismiss it as.


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 24, 2005)

beepeearr said:
			
		

> Funny, but I've been DMing 3rd since it first came out, and I never realized I was handling flanking wrong, I've moved a few times and gamed for quite a few different groups because of it, and none of them have ever called me on it.  I've always allowed ranged attacks to benefit from flanking, it just seemed like common sense.  I always thought crossfire from multiple attackers should be just as difficult to defend against as attacks from multiple melee attackers.  If nothing else you would think a "flanking" ranged attack against an opponent engaged in melee would be difficult enough to defend against, that the ranged attack would gain the bonus.  Think I'll stick to the way we've been doing it.  It may not follow the rules, but I still think it makes more sense.
> 
> Give it a try sometime, have two friends stand ten feet apart from you on either side, and have them start throwing rocks at you, then have them stand directly in front of you and see which one results in you being hit more.




The funny thing is, it really isn't that big a deal.  I think it is more to the benifit of players that ranged flanking doesn't work.  A GM has far more at his disposal to set it up then the players do.


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 24, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *snip*
> So - the gnome can sneak attack when he flanks an opponent.  Since your answer is that he does not flank the orc (when his ally, the elf with a bow, is directly opposite him but fifteen feet away), what criteria are you using to determine that he is not flanking?
> 
> -Hyp.




The gnome doesn't get a sneak attack because he is attacking a foe that is not threatened by an ally from the opposite side.  The elf doesn't get a sneak attack because he isn't using a melee weapon and his foe isn't flat-footed.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 24, 2005)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> The gnome doesn't get a sneak attack because he is attacking a foe that is not threatened by an ally from the opposite side.




Then you are ruling that the conditions for 'flanking' and the conditions for 'gains a +2 flanking bonus' are the same, right?

1. Creature threatens.
2. Creature is friendly.
3. Opposite side.
4. You're making a melee attack.

Earlier, you seemed to be distinguishing between the two.

-Hyp.


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 24, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Then you are ruling that the conditions for 'flanking' and the conditions for 'gains a +2 flanking bonus' are the same, right?
> 
> 1. Creature threatens.
> 2. Creature is friendly.
> ...




That would be correct.  I see paragraph 2 as a clearly linked to the first paragraph, meant to clarify positioning, not as a separate way to establish a flank. 

I have pointed out in other posts what the other side was arguing when I thought someone didn't understand.  Can't stand someone who I agree with making a bad argument.  I also do not care for debates where people don't actually address what is said by the other side.


----------



## Starglim (Sep 24, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It does indeed.  (Well, almost.  It makes it plain that you cannot receive a flanking bonus using a ranged weapon.  It makes it plain that you cannot provide one to your ally unless you threaten.  There exist published examples - the Peerless Archer from the Silver Marches sourcebook, for example - of characters who can threaten with a ranged weapon.  These characters cannot receive a flanking bonus - since they cannot make a melee attack with a bow - but they _can_ provide one to an ally, since they threaten.)




Good point, I would have expected such a situation somewhere.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> In most of the examples above, the rogues do not get a flanking bonus.  Can they sneak attack?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I took a look at sneak attack, and at the ever-handy Glossary.



			
				SRD ClassesII said:
			
		

> The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.




"When the rogue flanks her target" is possibly a higher test than some of the preceding posts imply. Let's see what "flanks" means.



			
				PHB Glossary said:
			
		

> *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.




The first sentence defines what it means for a character to flank an opponent. It is the character who gets the bonus/sneak attack who flanks (which makes sense when I think about it) and it requires the attacker to flank, not the target to be flanked. The second and third sentences are the two separate consequences of flanking - neither depends on the other, nor does the condition of flanking depend on making any attacks.

The line test merely clarifies what "directly on the other side" means in this context.

I think this supports the bow-armed rogue strongly. In the example, I'd now consider that the elf can sneak attack, the gnome and halfling cannot.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 24, 2005)

I was going to suggest checking the glossary...  By any chance, is there a seperate entry in the glossary which defines "flanking bonus"?


----------



## Pinotage (Sep 24, 2005)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I was going to suggest checking the glossary...  By any chance, is there a seperate entry in the glossary which defines "flanking bonus"?




This is what the online glossary defines as 'flank':



			
				Online D&D Glossary said:
			
		

> 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.




Pinotage


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 24, 2005)

Starglim said:
			
		

> Good point, I would have expected such a situation somewhere.
> 
> I took a look at sneak attack, and at the ever-handy Glossary.
> 
> ...




But don't forget the actual Flank section, which requires the attacker to be making a melee attack. Combine that with your post above, and the rogue with the bow doesn't get the sneak attack.


----------



## apesamongus (Sep 24, 2005)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I was going to suggest checking the glossary...  By any chance, is there a seperate entry in the glossary which defines "flanking bonus"?



Is there a separate entry which defines "sacred bonus" or "enhancement bonus" or any other bonus type?  They had to give the bonus a type, otherwise, you'd be able to get multiple, stacking bonuses from flanking when fighting a multi-square creature.


----------



## atom crash (Sep 24, 2005)

The flanking section requires the attacker to be making a melee attack in order to receive the "flanking bonus." This distinction is important.

The flanking section does not say "you must make a melee attack in order to flank." It says "you must make a melee attack in order to receive a flanking bonus."

To bring up an example that has been used in the past, a prone target takes a -4 penalty on melee attacks and cannot use a ranged weapon except for a crossbow. If the prone character does not make a melee attack, thus not taking the -4 penalty, does he cease to be prone? Or is he still prone whether or not he makes a melee attack and therefore actually uses the penalty?


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 24, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> The flanking section requires the attacker to be making a melee attack in order to receive the "flanking bonus." This distinction is important.
> 
> The flanking section does not say "you must make a melee attack in order to flank." It says "you must make a melee attack in order to receive a flanking bonus."
> 
> To bring up an example that has been used in the past, a prone target takes a -4 penalty on melee attacks and cannot use a ranged weapon except for a crossbow. If the prone character does not make a melee attack, thus not taking the -4 penalty, does he cease to be prone? Or is he still prone whether or not he makes a melee attack and therefore actually uses the penalty?



 No offense, but that's not at all a good example. A character is prone until he takes a move action to stand up.

The entire section on flanking ONLY mentions melee attacks. The flanking bonus is the benefit (or one of them) to flanking. With a couple notable exceptions, you always get the bonus when you flank. But no where in the flanking section does it allow for a ranged attack. Only melee.


----------



## atom crash (Sep 24, 2005)

> No offense, but that's not at all a good example. A character is prone until he takes a move action to stand up.




It's a good example for exactly that reason. A character can be prone yet not receive any of the mechanical penalites for being prone. A sleeping character is asleep until he wakes up, whether or not he receives any penalties for being asleep. If he isn't forced to make a Listen check, thus receiving a -10 penalty for being alseep, that doesn't mean he is no longer asleep.

A character is flanking until he moves  -- or others move around him -- in such a way that he no longer satisfies the line test. Even if he doesn't make a melee attack and thus receive the flanking bonus, he's flanking. The fact that he doesn't receive a flanking bonus doesn't mean he's no longer flanking; it just means he's not getting the bonus.


----------



## Falkus (Sep 24, 2005)

> Well it doesn't say any melee weapon in the text I quoted, it says an armed melee attack, and an armed attack must be able to cause lethal damage which the whip doesn't.




Lasher, whip-dagger.



> It doesn't contradict the rules at all when you look at the diagrams and the text together, and as they support the 3.0 rules I don't see a problem. Anyway...if it was posted 2 months after the release of the 3.5 ruleset, which was being written up to 1 year before release I don't see why it wouldn't be based on the 3.5 ruleset. Obviously they thought it needed clarification after seeing threads like this




It does contradict the rules, and I will refuse to listen to the idiot who writes that article who apparantly doesn't own a copy of the Player's Handbook. It is clearly stated that you don't have to threaten to gain a flanking bonus, only the guy opposite you has to threaten, which is why my lasher can get a +2 bonus and sneak attack. Pure and simple, anything that says otherwise is a contradiction of the rules, and can safely be ignored.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 24, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> No offense, but that's not at all a good example. A character is prone until he takes a move action to stand up.
> 
> The entire section on flanking ONLY mentions melee attacks. The flanking bonus is the benefit (or one of them) to flanking. With a couple notable exceptions, you always get the bonus when you flank. But no where in the flanking section does it allow for a ranged attack. Only melee.




It's not a good example because it just disproves what you are stating...

I think it is spelled out quite nicely and easy to follow.

When making a melee attack against an opponent who is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border, you get +2 to hit them.  Nothing more, nothing less.

I would personally never allow for flanked ranged attacks, but according to RAW you can flank with a ranged weapon.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 24, 2005)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> It's not a good example because it just disproves what you are stating...
> 
> I think it is spelled out quite nicely and easy to follow.
> 
> ...



 I still don't see how you can say that. Where in the flanking rules does it say you can flank (and get any kind of bonus or sneak attack--or provide said bonus or sneak to an ally) with a ranged weapon?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 24, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> Lasher, whip-dagger.




We are discussing 3.5, not 3.0


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 24, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> I still don't see how you can say that. Where in the flanking rules does it say you can flank (and get any kind of bonus or sneak attack--or provide said bonus or sneak to an ally) with a ranged weapon?




It does not specifically say you can flank with a ranged weapon.  Just as it does not specifically say you CAN'T flank with a ranged weapon.  So we have to dig a little and figure out what conditions must be met in order to be considered flanking.  This is figured out when we look at the line test.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 24, 2005)

atom crash said:
			
		

> It's a good example for exactly that reason. A character can be prone yet not receive any of the mechanical penalites for being prone. A sleeping character is asleep until he wakes up, whether or not he receives any penalties for being asleep. If he isn't forced to make a Listen check, thus receiving a -10 penalty for being alseep, that doesn't mean he is no longer asleep.
> 
> A character is flanking until he moves  -- or others move around him -- in such a way that he no longer satisfies the line test. Even if he doesn't make a melee attack and thus receive the flanking bonus, he's flanking. The fact that he doesn't receive a flanking bonus doesn't mean he's no longer flanking; it just means he's not getting the bonus.



 Yeah, and if a 100 dollar bill is lying in the road and I don't pick it up, I'm still not $100 richer.

Look, two people can stand 30' away from an opponent on either side and be flanking that opponent. But there will be no bonus, no sneak attack, etc. They're just standing on opposite sides.

We're talking about what it takes to be able to sneak, get the +2 bonus, etc. within the game rules.

Let me put it this way, there is NO way within the rules to get a +2 to hit or deal sneak attack damage with a range weapon by using the flanking rules. The only way you're going to sneak with a ranged weapon is if the enemy is denied his dex. Can't happen through flanking. Anything else is kind of moot to this discussion. At least the part of this discussion that I'm trying to argue.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 24, 2005)

Since we are continuing to split semantics here.. one word that people are skipping in the glossary entry for flanking:

"To be *directly * on the other side of a character.."

Which Mirriam Webster Online defines as:

"b : in immediate physical contact"

AKA   1B2
not    1   B2

Remember, you can be flanking in the English sense without Flanking in the D20 sense.
You gain the Flanking Bonus and the ability to use Sneak Attack only when making a melee attack from  *directly * on the other side of an opponent who is being threatened by another character.

Hypersmurphs set of conditions make sense, the only twist is the instant State issue with the Formian text.



			
				Ragamortis2 said:
			
		

> but according to RAW you can flank with a ranged weapon.



I fail to see where any of the RAW quotes support this position.
"When making a melee attack..."
"When directly on the other side.."

Where is the "when the line of the attack would strike an ally if the opponent was not present.." or the "when attacking in the manner of your choosing.." in the RAW?

I am also kind of wondering.. does this ever actually come up in play?


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 24, 2005)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> It's not a good example because it just disproves what you are stating...
> 
> I think it is spelled out quite nicely and easy to follow.
> 
> ...




Actually, the only thing that is written explicitly is what melee does.  Nothing whatsoever is said about range, but lets take a look at all the available data with comentary:



			
				From the SRD said:
			
		

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



Nothing much to say here that hasn't already been said, but I will point out that it only explicitly talks about melee attacks in the section.


			
				From the SRD said:
			
		

> Table: Attack Roll Modifiers
> Attacker is . . .	        Melee	Ranged
> Dazzled	                         –1	 –1
> Entangled	           –2(1)	–2(1)
> ...



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.


			
				From the PHB Glossary said:
			
		

> 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.



The glossary indicates first what consititutes a flank, something the combat section should have done as well, in my opinion.  It doesn't say that only melee flankers get a +2, it says flanking attackers, period.  The verbage in first sentence also implies a close proximity to the defender, but that is less clear.

Lastly, all 3 examples given in the diagrams of the PHB show only melee examples.  I would think that if a ranged flank were allowed, they would have given some kind of exmaple of it.

So, in total, all available flanking information talks about melee attacks.  In order to infer that ranged flanking is allowed, you must follow the devilish line of reasoning that anything not expressly forbidden is allowed.  That way maddness lies.


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 24, 2005)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> It does not specifically say you can flank with a ranged weapon.  Just as it does not specifically say you CAN'T flank with a ranged weapon.  So we have to dig a little and figure out what conditions must be met in order to be considered flanking.  This is figured out when we look at the line test.



But it does specifically say you can't flank with a ranged weapon.  By including the word melee they are excluding the word range, thus eliminating ranged attacks from being able to flank.  

I think this is a common thing where we confuse the english language with in game terminology.   Always a bad combination.  There are probably a dozen instances, such as this, that if you input english definations with game terminology you'll be quite confused.


----------



## Aaron L (Sep 24, 2005)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I would personally never allow for flanked ranged attacks, but according to RAW you can flank with a ranged weapon.





Ok, I agree with everything else you just said, but how did you get that out of the rules?  In order to be in "flanking position" you need to threaten your opponent, which you do not do with a ranged weapon.

And just for my benefit, because I think I actually sorta understand the debate this time, let me set up this situation.  Two people are standing on either side of a 3rd person, being in "flanking position."  One of the people in flanking position is armed with a longsword (A), the other is unarmed (B) (and doesnt have Improved Unarmed Strike).  Person A attacks, but doesnt recieve the flanking bonus because person B is not threatening thier opponent.  Person  B attacks, and DOES recieve the flanking bonus because person B IS threatening thier opponent.  But I would consider both to be Flanking (rules term) thier opponent.   After all, you cant Flank all by yourself, so both of you must be Flanking or no one is.      

But in an case you cant Flank with a ranged weapon.  You can stand in flanking position with a ranged weapon, but you cant Flank without either threatening or attacking.

Thats all assuming no special Feats or class abilities or magic or whatever that allows you to threaten with a ranged weapon.
I hope that made sense.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 24, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> But it does specifically say you can't flank with a ranged weapon.  By including the word melee they are excluding the word range, thus eliminating ranged attacks from being able to flank.




But of course, they'll point to the line test in the next paragraph and say it allows ranged flanking. What they won't see is that the line test is simply a way to determine if two players (one threatening and the other making a melee attack) are in fact flanking or not. It is not meant for any other purpose. So you are right that ranged is excluded.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 24, 2005)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> And just for my benefit, because I think I actually sorta understand the debate this time, let me set up this situation.  Two people are standing on either side of a 3rd person, being in "flanking position."  One of the people in flanking position is armed with a longsword (A), the other is unarmed (B) (and doesnt have Improved Unarmed Strike).  Person A attacks, but doesnt recieve the flanking bonus because person B is not threatening thier opponent.  Person  B attacks, and DOES recieve the flanking bonus because person B IS threatening thier opponent.  But I would consider both to be Flanking (rules term) thier opponent.   After all, you cant Flank all by yourself, so both of you must be Flanking or no one is.




Actually, Person B doesn't get the bonus either. The flanker needs to make a melee attack in order to get the bonus. Unarmed attacks without the IUS feat is considered an Unarmed Melee Attack, which is a different attack action than the standard Melee Attack. With the IUS feat, however, both players would get the bonus.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 24, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> But it does specifically say you can't flank with a ranged weapon.  By including the word melee they are excluding the word range, thus eliminating ranged attacks from being able to flank.
> 
> I think this is a common thing where we confuse the english language with in game terminology.   Always a bad combination.  There are probably a dozen instances, such as this, that if you input english definations with game terminology you'll be quite confused.




Some modifiers only apply to melee, some only to range, some to both.  Point-Blank Shot only applies to ranged for example.  What is the problem with this?  A flanking bonus is only added to melee attacks.  But flanking occurs when you can draw a line from one creature to another (friendly) creature and that line passes through an enemy.


----------



## Aaron L (Sep 24, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Unarmed attacks without the IUS feat is considered an Unarmed Melee Attack, which is a different attack action than the standard Melee Attack.



Are you serious??  Attacking unarmed is considered a seperate action?  Where does it spell that out?  Ive never read it; I wont doubt you, Id just like to see it.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 24, 2005)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Some modifiers only apply to melee, some only to range, some to both.  Point-Blank Shot only applies to ranged for example.  What is the problem with this?  A flanking bonus is only added to melee attacks.  But flanking occurs when you can draw a line from one creature to another (friendly) creature and that line passes through an enemy.



 What we're saying is that the Flanking action (to call it an action, which it really isn't) is only applicable with melee. Sure, you can draw the line and tell that you're on the exact opposite side, but you don't get a flank bonus, sneak attack, etc. (nor do you provide it to others). If there is no benefit, you're not 'Flanking,' you're just standing directly on the other side.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 24, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> What they won't see is that the line test is simply a way to determine if two players (one threatening and the other making a melee attack) are in fact flanking or not.




If those conditions were added to that sentance "(one threatening and the other making a melee attack)" then yes, you would be correct.

Are we arguing RAW or intent?  Because by RAW, the rules are quite clear. Intent on the other hand, you can probably go by the FAQ or RotG.  I personally play by intent, no matter what the RAW is saying.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 24, 2005)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Are you serious??  Attacking unarmed is considered a seperate action?  Where does it spell that out?  Ive never read it; I wont doubt you, Id just like to see it.




Totally serious.  Took me a while to realize it, too.

Basically, there is no such thing as an 'unarmed melee attack.' Unarmed attacks are not melee attacks. The are unarmed attacks. Two different combat actions.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Attack
> 
> Making an attack is a standard action.
> 
> ...





The Actions in Combat table lists them like this:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Standard Action  -  AoO
> Attack (melee)	 -   No
> Attack (ranged)	 -   Yes
> Attack (unarmed) -  Yes




This shows that an unarmed attack is a different attack action than a melee attack action and the ranged attack action.

It is kind of a weird rule, but it's there.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 24, 2005)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> If those conditions were added to that sentance "(one threatening and the other making a melee attack)" then yes, you would be correct.
> 
> Are we arguing RAW or intent?  Because by RAW, the rules are quite clear. Intent on the other hand, you can probably go by the FAQ or RotG.  I personally play by intent, no matter what the RAW is saying.




It's paragraph structure. The second paragraph modifies (i.e. further details and explains) the first paragraph.


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 24, 2005)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Ok, I agree with everything else you just said, but how did you get that out of the rules?  In order to be in "flanking position" you need to threaten your opponent, which you do not do with a ranged weapon.
> 
> And just for my benefit, because I think I actually sorta understand the debate this time, let me set up this situation.  Two people are standing on either side of a 3rd person, being in "flanking position."  One of the people in flanking position is armed with a longsword (A), the other is unarmed (B) (and doesnt have Improved Unarmed Strike).  Person A attacks, but doesnt recieve the flanking bonus because person B is not threatening thier opponent.  Person  B attacks, and DOES recieve the flanking bonus because person B IS threatening thier opponent.  But I would consider both to be Flanking (rules term) thier opponent.   After all, you cant Flank all by yourself, so both of you must be Flanking or no one is.
> 
> ...




Not quite true, as you don't need appear to need to threaten yourself to flank.  I don't consider that an unreasonable interpretation, but given the hair-spliting nature of this debate, I would avoid making the claim as it only serves to add more posts refuting it.


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 24, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> But of course, they'll point to the line test in the next paragraph and say it allows ranged flanking. What they won't see is that the line test is simply a way to determine if two players (one threatening and the other making a melee attack) are in fact flanking or not. It is not meant for any other purpose. So you are right that ranged is excluded.



Which is funny because they can not line item veto pieces of a definition.  

"ooh i don't like that part.. but we'll keep this viola... i can now flank ranged". 

The whole entry for flanking is the definition of flanking by d and d rules.  This matter is further proven in several WOTC splat books that have prestige classes and feats that offer the ability to flank while ranged.  If ranged flanking was already allowed, why would they create extra feats and prcs.


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 24, 2005)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Some modifiers only apply to melee, some only to range, some to both.  Point-Blank Shot only applies to ranged for example.  What is the problem with this?  A flanking bonus is only added to melee attacks.  But flanking occurs when you can draw a line from one creature to another (friendly) creature and that line passes through an enemy.




I'll just reprint what I wrote earlier here as counter arguement.


			
				From SRD said:
			
		

> Table: Attack Roll Modifiers
> Attacker is . . .               Melee   Ranged
> Dazzled                            –1        –1
> Entangled                       –2(1)    –2(1)
> ...




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.

*added point*
Also, the glossary specifically states a flanking attacker as gaining the +2 bonus, it makes not mention of ranged or melee.


----------



## Aaron L (Sep 24, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Totally serious.  Took me a while to realize it, too.





Holeeeeeeey bananas.  Thats just... kooky?  Im glad they didnt differentiate between Attack with a Sword and Attack with an Axe, while they were at it


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 24, 2005)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Holeeeeeeey bananas.  Thats just... kooky?  Im glad they didnt differentiate between Attack with a Sword and Attack with an Axe, while they were at it


----------



## Falkus (Sep 24, 2005)

> We are discussing 3.5, not 3.0




The lasher is one of the few 3.0 prestige classes that  translates perfectly into 3.5 without the slightest need for adjustment. And all it takes is a bit of common sense to update the whip dagger to 3.5 whip standards.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 24, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> But don't forget the actual Flank section, which requires the attacker to be making a melee attack...




...in order to receive a flanking bonus, yes.  But not necessarily to flank.  The glossary and the Flank section both show that you can flank without receiving the flanking bonus.  This does absolutely nothing beneficial for you unless you have some ability that depends on your flanking an opponent, like sneak attack.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 24, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> ...in order to receive a flanking bonus, yes.  But not necessarily to flank.  The glossary and the Flank section both show that you can flank without receiving the flanking bonus.  This does absolutely nothing beneficial for you unless you have some ability that depends on your flanking an opponent, like sneak attack.



 But there are almost no instances where you get a benefit of flanking (like sneak attack) when you don't also get that +2. A couple, maybe. Ranged attacks are not one of those times. That's all i'm saying.


----------



## Wurm1234 (Sep 24, 2005)

From Rules of the Game (WoTC DnD website, 'All about Sneak Attacks', 3/2/2004):

"To flank an opponent, two allies must be on opposite sides of that opponent, and they both must threaten the opponent (Chapter 8 in the Player's Handbook has some handy diagrams that explain flanking). You threaten an opponent when you can make an armed melee attack against that opponent. You're "armed" when you use a manufactured weapon, natural weapon, the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, or the monk's unarmed strike ability. You don't actually have to have a weapon that can hurt an opponent to threaten that opponent. If you and your buddy have no silver weapons but find yourselves on opposites sides of a werewolf, you still flank the werewolf (but see the final section of this article series).

*You can flank with any melee weapon, including a reach weapon, but you cannot flank with a ranged weapon.*"  (Emphasis added)

I'm not sure why there's much question about this.  The rules are pretty explicit.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 24, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> But it does specifically say you can't flank with a ranged weapon.  By including the word melee they are excluding the word range, thus eliminating ranged attacks from being able to flank.




There seems to be some difficulty with this point.  It says that you may only gain the +2 flanking bonus when making melee attacks.  But there is not a definite indication that "receiving the +2 flanking bonus" is identical to "flanking".  This is a subtle distinction, but one that the rules seem to support.  The rules say that you are flanking if and only if you are on the opposite side of an opponent that is being threatened by an ally.  Since you can satisfy this condition without receiving the +2 flanking bonus, you can flank without receiving that bonus.  For this reason, you can flank with a ranged weapon, which will only do you any good if you have sneak attack or something like it.  Your ranged attack will not receive a +2 bonus (neither will your ally, because he is not flanking since you do not threaten the opponent), but you will be flanking nevertheless.

Again, I'm not happy that this is the way they wrote the rules, but it's the way the rules currently are.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 24, 2005)

> There seems to be some difficulty with this point.  It says that you may only gain the +2 flanking bonus when making melee attacks.  But there is not a definite indication that "receiving the +2 flanking bonus" is identical to "flanking".




How do you come to this conclusion? Where in the flanking section does is say you can 'flank' and not get the +2 bonus?


----------



## beepeearr (Sep 24, 2005)

They differentiate between melee and unarmed attacks (not natural attacks) because unarmed attacks provoke attacks of opportunity.  In addition an unarmed opponent does not threaten the squares adjacent to him.  A character with improved unarmed strike makes a melee attack instead of an unarmed strike since he now counts as armed.


----------



## beepeearr (Sep 24, 2005)

> There seems to be some difficulty with this point. It says that you may only gain the +2 flanking bonus when making melee attacks. But there is not a definite indication that "receiving the +2 flanking bonus" is identical to "flanking".




Actually, as much as I disagree with it (hey, that's what house rules are for) the rules for "flanking" indicate that you must be threatening a creature to flank it, based on the fact that creatures with 0 reach cannot flank period.  If creatures with 0 reach can't count as flanking when in the adjacent square then why would a ranged opponent 20 feet away count as flanking.  

Personally we'll keep playing the same we've always played, but I think we'll need to go ahead and clear up the wording, in that an opponent has to be a visible threat (ie carrying a readied ranged weapon, or have already made ranged attacks) and be within 30' of the flanked creature to count as flanking.


----------



## Peter Gibbons (Sep 24, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> DonTadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well, the PHB glossary doesn't think so: "*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."

You can certainly argue that glossary entries are not final authority for rules interpretations, but given that the case for "ranged flanking" is founded on a strained interpretation of the RAW to begin with, I'd say it's worth something.


----------



## atom crash (Sep 25, 2005)

Imagine a hypothetical rule I just made up:

"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 Saturday bonus if your attack occurs during the 24-hour period that falls between Friday and Sunday.

When in doubt about whether it is Saturday, check your calendar."

Does this mean that it’s only Saturday when I get the +2 bonus on a melee attack? Or could it conceivably be Saturday even when I don't get the bonus?

If a line test is sufficient to determine whether or not a target has cover or concealment, then why is it difficult to imagine that a line test can be sufficient to determine whether two allies are flanking an opponent?

They are all from the same section of the SRD after all.


----------



## Starglim (Sep 25, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> But don't forget the actual Flank section, which requires the attacker to be making a melee attack. Combine that with your post above, and the rogue with the bow doesn't get the sneak attack.




The actual Flank section says that someone making a melee attack gets a +2 bonus in the circumstance described. It is unclear there what the requirement is actually to flank an opponent, which is why it's necessary to go to the Glossary. (I agree that the Flank section should prevail to apply the +2 bonus only to melee attacks).

The rogue's sneak attack does not require her to qualify for a flanking bonus, only to flank her opponent. Flanking is defined as being directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another character. The person flanking need not threaten the target nor make a melee attack, since these are not part of the definition of flanking.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 25, 2005)

beepeearr said:
			
		

> Actually, as much as I disagree with it (hey, that's what house rules are for) the rules for "flanking" indicate that you must be threatening a creature to flank it, based on the fact that creatures with 0 reach cannot flank period.




This is a bit like saying "An invisible creature can't provide a flanking bonus for an ally, based on the fact that creatures with eyes in the back of their head cannot be flanked".

The fact that creatures with 0 reach cannot flank tells us that creatures with 0 reach cannot flank; it doesn't tell us that creatures who don't threaten cannot flank.

Someone making a melee attack with a whip, who has an all that threatens opposite, satisfies all the conditions required for flanking, even though he doesn't threaten.

-Hyp.


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 25, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> DonTadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 25, 2005)

Peter Gibbons said:
			
		

> Well, the PHB glossary doesn't think so: "*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."
> 
> You can certainly argue that glossary entries are not final authority for rules interpretations, but given that the case for "ranged flanking" is founded on a strained interpretation of the RAW to begin with, I'd say it's worth something.




The italicised text actually contradicts the primary entry, which says that in order to gain the +2 flanking bonus, you must be making a melee attack.  The primary entry takes precedence, but the remainder of the glossary entry agrees with the primary entry.  You will note that the definition given here of flanking is precisely, to be on the other side of a character who is threatened by another character.  It does not indicate that *you* must threaten in order to flank, only that your flanking partner must threaten.

Also, if we go only by the glossary entry, not only are ranged flanks possible, but you would also gain the +2 flanking bonus when making them.


----------



## Peter Gibbons (Sep 25, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> The italicised text actually contradicts the primary entry, which says that in order to gain the +2 flanking bonus, you must be making a melee attack.



No, it doesn't.  To _contradict_ the primary entry, the glossary entry would have to explicitly allow ranged flanking...which it does not.  You're assuming your conclusion, here.

Remember your own argument.  You acknowledged that the rules clearly limit the flanking bonus to attackers making melee attacks.  Then you suggested that because you can flank without receiving that bonus, you must be able to flank with a ranged weapon.  There is no definite indication, you argued, that receiving the flanking bonus is equivalent to flanking.

Then someone (me) points out to you that there is, in fact, such an indication--in the glossary.  And suddenly, your argument mutates and becomes: "Ah, yes...but because the glossary doesn't reproduce _all_ of the rules for flanking, it actually supports _my_ position!"



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> The primary entry takes precedence, but the remainder of the glossary entry agrees with the primary entry.  You will note that the definition given here of flanking is precisely, to be on the other side of a character who is threatened by another character.




_Directly_ on the other side of him, actually.  That undermines your argument (though it is technically incorrect, since you can threaten with a reach weapon).



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> It does not indicate that *you* must threaten in order to flank, only that your flanking partner must threaten.
> 
> Also, if we go only by the glossary entry, not only are ranged flanks possible, but you would also gain the +2 flanking bonus when making them.



Why in the world would we go _only_ by the glossary entry?

Listen, if you're going to insist on misinterpreting the rules, there's really no point having this debate.  All available evidence points to ranged flanking being against the rules, for all that a strained reading of a single sentence, taken out of context, might permit the possibility.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 25, 2005)

Yeah, I really haven't seen any argument correctly citing anything in the RAW that allows for ranged flanks. I think this has been resolved. Unless someone can pull out a direct quote from anywhere in the RAW that states or even implies that it's possible.


----------



## DamionW (Sep 25, 2005)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Actually, the only thing that is written explicitly is what melee does.  Nothing whatsoever is said about range, but lets take a look at all the available data with comentary:
> 
> 
> Nothing much to say here that hasn't already been said, but I will point out that it only explicitly talks about melee attacks in the section.
> ...




That's a good argument TheEvil.  I agree with your reasoning.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 26, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> The lasher is one of the few 3.0 prestige classes that  translates perfectly into 3.5 without the slightest need for adjustment. And all it takes is a bit of common sense to update the whip dagger to 3.5 whip standards.




Those would be house rules, which have no bearing on this debate.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 26, 2005)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Actually, 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.




Ooh, nice.

And there isn't even a text vs table precedence issue.

The line test would indicate that someone attacking with a bow is flanking, assuming their ally is in the right place... but the line test only applies _when in doubt_, and the Attack Modifiers table removes the doubt - ranged attack, no flanking.

The glossary entry also removes the other problem - a melee attack made where the ally does not threaten.  It satisfies the line test (potentially allowing flanking, though without the bonus), but not the glossary note than flanking (rather than simply the flanking bonus) requires the ally to threaten.  When in doubt, the line test would indicate that a melee attacker with a non-threatening ally can be flanking (with no bonus)... but the glossary entry removes doubt, and the line test is never applied.

-Hyp.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 26, 2005)

Nice job, TheEvil.  Someone give him a gold star. 

Now if we could only get him to solve the human monk & INA dilemma.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 26, 2005)

So, is that a wrap on this one?  It seems that way to me.  No ranged flank attacks, period.


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 26, 2005)

*TheEvil feels the love*  

Thanks everyone!  Proper credit, my wife (ConspiracyAngel in these parts) pointed out the table entry to me.

Now to rest on my laurels...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 26, 2005)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Proper credit, my wife (ConspiracyAngel in these parts) pointed out the table entry to me.




Ah - I remember ConspiracyAngel from her composite bow thread.

Married to a Rules Lawyer - I'm jealous!

-Hyp.


----------



## unleashed (Sep 26, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> When Skip wrote the RotG article that says both must threaten, he got it wrong.  Nowhere in the rules is it required that you threaten when you make your melee attack to gain a flanking bonus.
> 
> -Hyp.




I don't want to start this up again, but just want to point something out. Skip's interpretation is correct if you look at flanking in 3.5 as follows.

If you assume that the diagrams on pages 152-153 of the PHB cover _all_ situations in which it is possible to flank in the RAW (which only makes sense...why leave out a situation and make the rule difficult) instead of assuming that they only cover a limited group of situations (and ignoring the missing +2 under the orc name in the diagram--as it says they are both flanking in the associated text). It pretty much leads to the conclusion that you must threaten the target to flank it.

It is there if you take the diagrams (as the primary example of flanking itself) and text (which explains how to work out if two characters are actually in a position to flank, and what bonus they receive when they attack a target they flank) as a whole and don't try to read between the lines of the text alone looking for exceptions. Although I do agree the text could have been written better (as it was in the RotG articles).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 26, 2005)

unleashed said:
			
		

> If you assume that the diagrams on pages 152-153 of the PHB cover _all_ situations in which it is possible to flank in the RAW (which only makes sense...why leave out a situation and make the rule difficult) instead of assuming that they only cover a limited group of situations...




Huh?  So I can't flank unless I'm a hobgoblin with 10 foot reach, an orc, an ogre, or a troll?

-Hyp.


----------



## unleashed (Sep 26, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Huh?  So I can't flank unless I'm a hobgoblin with 10 foot reach, an orc, an ogre, or a troll?
> 
> -Hyp.




That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, I said situations depicted...not specific creatures. Apparently then you also can't flank unless your Lidda, Redgar, or Tordek if you're going to be that way about it...so we can't use the flanking rules at all in 99.9% of situations. 

All creatures in the examples that gain or provide a flanking bonus are also threatening the creature, therefore it's not too much of a stretch to assume that must apply to _all_ flanking situations...thus both creatures must threaten.

Edit: So just to lay it out so it's clear from the diagrams.

1) You can flank if you threaten with a melee weapon and a friendly creature threatens on the opposite border or corner.

2) You can flank if you threaten with a reach weapon and a friendly creature threatens on the opposite border or corner.

3) You can flank if you threaten with natural reach and a friendly creature threatens on the opposite border or corner.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 26, 2005)

unleashed said:
			
		

> All creatures in the examples that gain or provide a flanking bonus are also threatening the creature...




All the creatures that provide a flanking bonus threaten the creature.

All the creatures that gain a flanking bonus happen to threaten the creature, but this is not required by the rules.  The rules require a melee attack, but do not require threatening.  It's just that in most cases, someone who can make a melee attack _is_ threatening.

-Hyp.


----------



## unleashed (Sep 26, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> All the creatures that provide a flanking bonus threaten the creature.
> 
> All the creatures that gain a flanking bonus happen to threaten the creature, but this is not required by the rules.  The rules require a melee attack, but do not require threatening.  It's just that in most cases, someone who can make a melee attack _is_ threatening.
> 
> -Hyp.




Not exactly right...you are correct the _text_ doesn't require threatening, but the _diagrams_ do require threatening. To me you're still looking at the text in isolation from the diagrams and with the rewite from 3.0 to 3.5 the diagrams seem to be the primary source with the text helping to clarify if there are any doubts about whether you're lined up exactly right and lists any exceptions that apply, along with what bonus you receive if you attack a creature that you are flanking.

Hmm, guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 26, 2005)

unleashed said:
			
		

> To me you're still looking at the text in isolation from the diagrams and with the rewite from 3.0 to 3.5 the diagrams seem to be the primary source with the text helping to clarify if there are any doubts about whether you're lined up exactly right and lists any exceptions that apply, along with what bonus you receive if you attack a creature that you are flanking.




Are you including the wording on the diagrams as part of the diagram?  Or not?

If you're not, then there isn't enough information there to tell you how flanking works.

If you are including the wording on the diagram, it clearly says "If you're making a melee attack", not "If you threaten".

Diagrams provide visual aids and examples, but to know what the rules are, you still need to read the text.

-Hyp.


----------



## unleashed (Sep 26, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Are you including the wording on the diagrams as part of the diagram?  Or not?
> 
> If you're not, then there isn't enough information there to tell you how flanking works.
> 
> ...




Yes I'm including the text. Of course the text apart from that which describes why creatures are flanking specifically in the examples is just a reprint of the separate text so that shows very little.

If they provide visual aids and examples, why then isn't there an example of a character flanking while not threatening if it is at all possible? It seems only prudent to show how that works too...my theory is because it isn't possible, as it would have been very easy to include said example in one of the three diagrams provided. After all these diagrams weren't in the 3.0 rulebook they were specifically added to the 3.5 rulebook _along with the change in the text_.


----------



## glass (Sep 26, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> So, is that a wrap on this one?  It seems that way to me.  No ranged flank attacks, period.



Seems that way. Well done TheEvil and ConspiracyAngel!

BTW, the new argument doesn't rely on the 'when making a melee attack...' bit, does it? So the Formian problem disappears too, right?

_EDIT: I've just realised, I voted 'Yes' and there's no way to change it to 'No', AFAIK. Maybe we need a new poll._ 


glass.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 26, 2005)

glass said:
			
		

> _EDIT: I've just realised, I voted 'Yes' and there's no way to change it to 'No', AFAIK. Maybe we need a new poll._



 Nah.  Stick a fork in it, Jerry, it's done.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 26, 2005)

unleashed said:
			
		

> If they provide visual aids and examples, why then isn't there an example of a character flanking while not threatening if it is at all possible? It seems only prudent to show how that works too...my theory is because it isn't possible, as it would have been very easy to include said example in one of the three diagrams provided.




They show an example of a hobgoblin attacking with 10 foot reach.  They don't show an example of a hobgoblin attacking with 5 foot reach, or an orc attacking with 10 foot reach.  The examples are not _exhaustive_.

But what we do have is an example of a creature flanking by making a melee attack with a reach weapon when his ally threatens (hobgoblin gets a +2 bonus).  This example does just fine for illustrating how the hobgoblin can gain a bonus by attacking with a whip when the orc threatens.

We also have an example of someone not getting a flanking bonus because their ally (Tordek) is stunned and does not threaten.  This example does just fine for illustrating how the orc would _not_ get a flanking bonus if the hobgoblin is armed with a whip, since the hobgoblin does not threaten.

The fact that the attackers _do_ threaten in all the examples is incidental.  There's no example showing someone flanking with a whip, and there's no example showing a bugbear flanking; nevertheless, someone with a whip _can_ flank, and a bugbear _can_ flank.  The diagrams are illustrative, not exhaustive.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 26, 2005)

glass said:
			
		

> BTW, the new argument doesn't rely on the 'when making a melee attack...' bit, does it? So the Formian problem disappears too, right?




The table evidence only tells us that when you are making a ranged attack, you are not flanking.  It tells us that when you are making a melee attack, it's possible to be flanking.

It doesn't give us any information about when you aren't attacking, so the table evidence doesn't actually help with the formian problem.

-Hyp.


----------



## unleashed (Sep 26, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> They show an example of a hobgoblin attacking with 10 foot reach.  They don't show an example of a hobgoblin attacking with 5 foot reach, or an orc attacking with 10 foot reach.  The examples are not _exhaustive_.
> 
> But what we do have is an example of a creature flanking by making a melee attack with a reach weapon when his ally threatens (hobgoblin gets a +2 bonus).  This example does just fine for illustrating how the hobgoblin can gain a bonus by attacking with a whip when the orc threatens.
> 
> ...




The examples are not exhaustive for every creature ever imagined, but they are exhaustive of the _situations_ that are allowed to take place during flanking. It doesn't matter what creature is weilding what weapon...if we swap the orc with the hobgoblin does it change the _situation_ shown in the example, no of course it doesn't. There is still a creature with a 10 ft reach weapon which is threatening, and a creature with a 5 ft weapon which is threatening...the name of each creature is irrelevant...for all I care swap orc with a bugbear or goblin, it doesn't matter unless the new creature has a 0 reach and therefore can't flank.

The example with Tordek shows nothing of the kind, it just clearly shows that Mialee cannot flank because the creature opposite does not threaten.

And I say it's not incidental that all of the examples showing flanking show both creatures threatening if they are flanking, and there are no situations shown with one creature receiving a flanking bonus, while the creature opposite doesn't. The diagrams are exhaustive if you don't suppose there are nonspecific _situations_ missing, and the creatures supplied in the example don't matter and could easily be exchanged with a similar creature.


----------



## unleashed (Sep 27, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The table evidence only tells us that when you are making a ranged attack, you are not flanking.  It tells us that when you are making a melee attack, it's possible to be flanking.
> 
> It doesn't give us any information about when you aren't attacking, so the table evidence doesn't actually help with the formian problem.
> 
> -Hyp.




Well the diagrams actually tell us when you are threatening with a melee weapon and the creature opposite does the same you are flanking. What it doesn't tell us is that if you don't threaten with a weapon, but the creature opposite does that you are flanking.

Well the table actually does provide information about when you aren't attacking, as in all of the situations shown all creatures receive the +2 flanking bonus even though they all can't possibly be attacking at the same moment. The Flanking, Large Creatures diagrams doesn't even mention the flanking bonus, it just says Tordek and Redgar are flanking, as are Tordek and Lidda. The +2 flanking bonus is only relevant at the moment of attack, thus they point it out in specifically that way in the text...this doesn't mean though that you are only flanking at that precise moment.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 27, 2005)

unleashed said:
			
		

> And I say it's not incidental that all of the examples showing flanking show both creatures threatening if they are flanking, and there are no situations shown with one creature receiving a flanking bonus, while the creature opposite doesn't.




But you're still making up a rule that doesn't exist, based on the diagrams.

Your "None of the diagrams show someone using a whip" is just as incidental as my "None of the diagrams show a bugbear".

If someone is making a melee attack and his ally is threatening from the correct position, all of the requirements are satisfied.

All of the diagrams happen to have an attack who threatens, just as all of the diagrams happen to have an attacker who isn't a bugbear, but neither of those things (attacker threatening, attacker not-a-bugbear) are required by the flanking rules, so changing them doesn't change the result.

It will change the result when their ally goes to attack if they're using a whip, but I'm not looking at the "Ally has a whip" situation, I'm looking at the "Attacker has a whip" situation, which is perfectly valid by the flanking rules.

-Hyp.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 27, 2005)

Are you guys arguing over whether you can flank with a whip? Just curious. If so, my vote is that you can. I agree, personally, that you need both characters involved to be threatening and/or making a melee attack. However, I think the text of the whip description clearly outlines it as on exception to the norm, that being you can make a melee attack with the whip and thereby gain benefits from flanking. Now whether the guy with the whip can give that benefit to his ally on the other side--I'm not so sure. I would thing not, since while whips are melee weapons, I still don't think they threaten.

I'm not sure my post made any sense...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 27, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> I agree, personally, that you need both characters involved to be threatening and/or making a melee attack.




Almost.  One needs to be making a melee attack, the other needs to be threatening.



> Now whether the guy with the whip can give that benefit to his ally on the other side--I'm not so sure. I would thing not, since while whips are melee weapons, I still don't think they threaten.




They don't, and it's unambiguous - for you to gain a bonus, your ally _must_ threaten.  Since whips don't, if your ally only has a whip (and doesn't threaten with anything else), you don't get a bonus.

-Hyp.


----------



## unleashed (Sep 27, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But you're still making up a rule that doesn't exist, based on the diagrams.
> 
> Your "None of the diagrams show someone using a whip" is just as incidental as my "None of the diagrams show a bugbear".
> 
> ...




I'm not making up a rule at all, I'm assuming the diagrams cover _all_ rule interpretations related to flanking, the first diagram is called Flanking after all, not 'Some Examples of Flanking', with the other two diagrams showing how the exceptions work and the first and third show how to apply the line test. If that is so then why isn't there an example of a non-threatening character receiving a flanking bonus...because it can't happen. You on the other hand are assuming from the text alone that you can use a non-threatening weapon to gain a flanking bonus, unsupported by any other data.

I've never specifically mentioned a whip. All of my suppositions rest on the fact that there are no generic examples of any use of a non-threatening weapon. So please stop falling back to specifics to defend your position when they're not relevant. Like I said it wouldn't matter if the hobgoblin was a bugbear, the situation is still the same, it's still weilding a 10 ft. reach weapon that is threatening. Note that all of the examples in the PHB are generic, not one mentions a specific reach weapon, or any other specific melee weapon...so why isn't there an example of a non-threatening attack receiving a flanking bonus if it is possible?

Just to push my point a little further, the 3.5 update document mentions nothing about a change in how flanking works...the 3.5 diagrams, supported by the text shows exactly that, so why assume that a change was made when it wasn't mentioned.

As for the Formians there is a simple test as to whether they are all flanked or not...when a character makes an attack, if all other friendly creatures which are in a position to flank at that exact moment were also to attack would they all be flanking...yes, then the formians are flanked...no, then they're not flanked. It's the only way it could work as the D&D combat system is a sequential system trying to simulate a concurrent set of actions.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 27, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Almost.  One needs to be making a melee attack, the other needs to be threatening.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 i'm actually with you on this one.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 27, 2005)

unleashed said:
			
		

> I'm not making up a rule at all, I'm assuming the diagrams cover _all_ rule interpretations related to flanking, the first diagram is called Flanking after all, not 'Some Examples of Flanking', with the other two diagrams showing how the exceptions work and the first and third show how to apply the line test. If that is so then why isn't there an example of a non-threatening character receiving a flanking bonus...because it can't happen.




So on p147, the diagram called 'Moving Around Corners' (not 'Some Examples of Moving Around Corners') shows how Medium creatures require one square of movement to move around a corner, but Large creatures require 2.  I presume that the reason there is not example of a Huge creature moving around a corner is because it can't happen, right?

-Hyp.


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 27, 2005)

To the newest Yes vote:  Care to explain your reasoning?


----------



## unleashed (Sep 27, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So on p147, the diagram called 'Moving Around Corners' (not 'Some Examples of Moving Around Corners') shows how Medium creatures require one square of movement to move around a corner, but Large creatures require 2.  I presume that the reason there is not example of a Huge creature moving around a corner is because it can't happen, right?
> 
> -Hyp.




Not at all, in that diagram they've shown a progression which you can expand upon to allow larger creatures to move around a corner (that they must move their base width past the corner completely before they change direction), so it's not the same type of example at all. Also that would have taken a lot of extra room to show, unlike putting two creatures into any of three flanking diagrams to show one gaining a flanking bonus while the other doesn't.

You still haven't answered why that particular example is missing from all the flanking diagrams even though I've asked it several times...likely because it fails to support your position...but I no longer care as it seems we're going to have to agree to disagree...that's it from me.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 27, 2005)

unleashed said:
			
		

> You still haven't answered why that particular example is missing from all the flanking diagrams even though I've asked it several times...




It isn't missing!

All the diagrams show a creature making a melee attack, and gaining a +2 flanking bonus from an ally opposite who threatens.  Which is exactly what happens when someone attacks with a whip and their ally threatens.

-Hyp.


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 27, 2005)

I love the conspiricacy theory suggested that WOTC intentionally doesnt want anyone to know about ranged flank attacks.  The wording excludes ranged, the examples excludes ranged, the errata excludes ranged, they even make future prestige classes to allow something that already exists.  Its no wonder how a bunch of idiots managed to make a billion dollar company. 

Viva the truth is out there.


----------



## glass (Sep 27, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I love the conspiricacy theory suggested that WOTC intentionally doesnt want anyone to know about ranged flank attacks.  The wording excludes ranged, the examples excludes ranged, the errata excludes ranged, they even make future prestige classes to allow something that already exists.  Its no wonder how a bunch of idiots managed to make a billion dollar company.
> 
> Viva the truth is out there.



You're a little bit late. Pretty much everyone now agrees that flanking at range is impossible.

It's just that all the people arguing against it were getting the right answer from the wrong argument, until TheEvil and family finally produced the right argument..


glass.


----------



## muthsera (Jun 4, 2013)

Woah, so many issues. I know I'm literally years late, but this came up in MY google search so for future generations:
Firstly, you CANNOT make an attack of opportunity unless you are considered "armed." Without the Improved Unarmed Combat feat, your unarmed strike is not considered "armed," and without some improv feat I don't remember by name (I don't use improvised weapons enough to feat them) your improvisational weapons are also not valid for attacks of opportunity. 

Secondly, the question of flanking with ranged weapons has only covered half of the argument - whether the ranged character can attack. Here is the definition of flanking: When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is *threatened* by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner. 
That one word changes everything. For instance, your archer takes Snap Shot, Improved Snap Shot, Combat Reflexes, Combat Patrol, and Point Blank Master. You can have potentially 25-30 feet IN ALL DIRECTIONS from your character that you threaten. The ranged character *CANNOT* actually get the flanking bonus, but in that burst around them, *ALL MELEE CHARACTERS DO*, because the ranged character *threatens *the enemy on it's opposite border.


----------

