Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Eothain 03-28-07, 12:33 AM	From 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. Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking. Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus. Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent. Ok... lets say... I wielding a Dagger... im flankin a goblin with a Fighter... Fighter attacks with a +2 flankin bonus because hes making a melee attack. I attack with my dagger, but instead of making a melee attack I do a Ranged attack, throwing my dagger... goblin gets his attack of opportunity. You people can argue that i dont flank beacause im doing a ranged attack, but reading I'd say that I do not get the +2 bonus on attack, but Im still flankin because theres a fighter threatining the goblin... What do you say? FROM RULES OF THE GAME You threaten an opponent when you can make an armed melee attack against that opponent. You can flank with any melee weapon, including a reach weapon, but you cannot flank with a ranged weapon. Its possible... heres say... you threaten when you CAN make a melee attack! It does not say that you have to make a melee attack... and as far as I kwow a dagger its a melee weapon with a 10' reach... Please correct me ifim wrong
Someone 03-28-07, 12:53 AM	Couple of points: I assume you're throwing rather than melee because you want Dex to hit and don't have weapon finesse? You don't threaten when making ranged attacks. That you draw an AoO is proof in this. You cannot make a melee attack when making a ranged attack, no more than you can cast a spell when making a melee attack, or make a melee attack while drinking a potion, etc. Ranged attacks never receive the benefits of flanking. Ranged "flanking" follows the military term for it, getting around so that the target doesn't have cover. But the enemy not getting a +4 to AC is not the same thing as you getting a +2 to hit. Daggers don't have a 10 ft. reach, they have a 10 ft. range increment. i.e. every 10 ft. away the target is, you take a -1 to hit, to a limit of 50 ft. at a -5.
Eothain 03-28-07, 01:20 AM	My point is... that I dont need to threaten my foe, my friends needs to! According to raw if I dont attack with a melee weapon I do not get the +2 flanking bonus on attacks but Im still flanking! If I end the turn with a dagger in my hand Ill be threatening because I CAN (on my turn) make a melee attack, so my friend would get a +2 flanking bonus... Flanking is about the other character threatening my foe and therefore distracting him while I make an attack
DarkRhystar 03-28-07, 01:26 AM	Sneak attack occurs "when the rogue flanks her target." Direct PhB quote. You can't flank with a ranged weapon. The end.
Nom 03-28-07, 01:46 AM	Let's assume you are adjacent, and you throw the dagger and draw another. You don't gain flanking, because you made a ranged attack, and flanking applies when you make a melee attack. Your ally does get flanking, because his target is threatened by you on the opposite side and he is making a melee attack. Yes, flanking can be asymmetrical. For example, a character attacking with a whip can benefit from a flanking bonus but can never grant one (because whips don't threaten).
Eothain 03-28-07, 02:01 AM	Creatures become susceptible to sneak attacks when flanked because they must divide their attention between two or more opponents whose relative positions make it difficult to block or dodge their attacks. To flank an opponent, two allies must be on opposite sides of that opponent, and they both must threaten the opponent You threaten an opponent when you can make an armed melee attack against that opponent. 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). My point is that you threaten if you CAN attack, this does not mean yo have to strike your foe with a melee attack. Flankin is about opponent paying attention to other characters in the scene. And... a dagger IT IS a melee weapon... Ok... lets argue now.... its will be a ranged weapon and a melee weapon, it'd accomplish both roles. You can flank with any melee weapon, including a reach weapon, but you cannot flank with a ranged weapon. This part specified that you need a melee weapon to flank a target, but if you read, flanking is about distracting opponent... my friend warrior is distracting opponent, so i get a SA... besides, text says that I flank if a threaten, condition that I do accomplish. Flanking is a passive action that you do not on your turn but on your's friends which are you granting the flanking.
Eothain 03-28-07, 09:11 AM	Anyone?
Aminvelos 03-28-07, 09:14 AM	Nope, when making a melee attack you can get a flanking bonus. Key here is melee attack, reach weapons are still melee weapons. Not only do you need to meet the flanking conditions of two threats, but you must also be using a melee weapon. LoL you quoted from the SRD but didn't really use it check out the sentence line. "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." This is not only an example of a situation but part of the requirements. The whole having two threatened by a character or friendly to you on the opponent's opposite border or opposite corner" is just an additional requirement to making a melee attack not the sole requirement. Although as a side note don't forget you always have a chance of hitting your own engaged characters, if the opponent isn't large or bigger.
tarkin 03-28-07, 10:51 AM	In order to be flanking someone, you MUST POSITIVELY make a melee attack. A dagger is not a reach weapon, it is a melee weapon that can be thrown. When you throw it, you are not making a melee attack. Note, there is the strange situation where if I have a whip and my ally has a sword, and we are on opposite sides of the bad guy: 1. I am flanking, because I am using a melee weapon and the guy on the other side threatens him. 2. My ally is not flanking because while he has a melee weapon, my whip does not threaten.
Hsien 03-28-07, 01:36 PM	There may be be few exceptions as well; but these will be exceptions and any special ability that allows for Ranged Flanking will specify it. i.e. Alternate Ranger from PH2 can lose the lvl 4 ability (?) in order to gain the ability to treat one enemy the ranger hits with a ranged weapon as being flanked by him. ( I'm sure thats not the exact description as I may be thinking of something else but I think thats it, don't have books with me ) This would provide your allys flank, they would not provide flanking for you.
Someone 03-28-07, 01:46 PM	Just as instantly you go from "able to make a melee attack" to "making a ranged attack", your opponent goes from flanked to not flanked (and back again). That's the way D&Ds combat system goes. If you want your foe "distracted" when you make a ranged attack, put points into bluff and take the improved feint feat.
ClementWillowbreaker 03-28-07, 04:46 PM	Feinting doesn't work on ranged attacks, either, without a special ability. It gets more of a mess when you are TWFing daggers, and decide to throw one of them. In which case, you are still threatening, and therefore flanking, with one of them. You obviously don't get a flanking bonus on your thrown dagger (since you only get those on melee attacks). Instinct says you still shouldn't get SA with the thrown dagger, but I'm having hard time finding a rule that says that ranged attacks can't be SAs when you are otherwise flanking. No comment yet on which way it should be. Silly PHB- it forgets that you can threaten with a weapon to flank and attack with a different one in many situations. Flanking is not specific enough. Or SA isn't. One or the other.
Tach13 03-28-07, 08:02 PM	I think this raises a good point. After all, what if the fighter is on one side and the rogue on the other, and the rogue melee attacks a different target (who may be flanking the rogue if low enough level). Is the target between the two flanked in this situation? If so, I'd say that you can flank if you use a ranged attack on someone else.
Nom 03-28-07, 08:26 PM	For the most part, "flanking" need only be evaluated at the point a melee attack is made. It's not really a "state" for the defender, it's a conditional bonus for the attacker. If there is an ally on the other side of the defender who is threatening the defender (see "threatened area" rules), then you get a "flanking bonus" when you make your melee attack. Otherwise you don't. Trying to generalise the rule beyond its (crystal clear*) specifics is what ties people up in knots. * Admittedly, the glossary summary is slightly shoddy, since it neglects to include the word "melee". While this causes no confusion for the attack bonus (the main rules clearly specify that you only get +2 for flanking when making a melee attack), it could allow the interpretation that a rogue can make a sneak attack with a ranged weapon (without the +2) if an ally is directly opposite.
ClementWillowbreaker 03-28-07, 11:01 PM	The primary rules (the glossary blows as always) never really say that flanking is a condition (as in status effect, what Nom said is right) the defender is in, either. They just talk about an attack getting a flanking bonus (and I'm pretty sure that is the only place it is ever a named bonus lol), then mention targets getting flanked. I guess it is one of those weird assumptions that you can get when you don't read in the proper tone, like forgetting which abilities make you flat-footed or take away your Dex to AC. So I guess that is the best way to handle it. Flanking is a benefit applied to melee attacks that threaten an opponent when the attacker is a specific position, as opposed "being flanked" or "flanker" as a status applied to the defender or attacker in general.
Shadowhowler 03-30-07, 10:59 AM	ClementWillowbreaker: I was just about to bring up that TWF situation you mentioned. It DOSE seem to complicate the situation dosn't it? :)
Someone 03-30-07, 01:15 PM	Feinting doesn't work on ranged attacks, either, without a special ability.I thought it did. *looks up in SRD*. Uh, whoops.
Tichondrus 03-30-07, 01:31 PM	Eothain, let's be cruel and simple: The rules clearly say, and they reafirm later on, that the [i]only[/] way to flank, is with a melee atack, and for this one time, I'm 100% on favour of what Tarkin says, no matter how much the rules suck, they are like that. Flaking is only for HtH, and, unless you houserule (what I'd do as a DM), there's no other way to flank. Let's face it, ok? 3E es made specificaly and specially for fighting hand to hand, weapon to weapon in close combat. Ranged combat is left for mages and the such. Bows do miserable damage, have dimal bonus and a really limited ammount of useful feats for them, so do every single other ranged weapon. Now, it'd be ore productive to ask your DM to let you flank like that as a houserule, get yourself a nice and pretty invisibility ring, or find a way to blind your oponent.
Vaelan 03-30-07, 01:42 PM	The Sneak Attack rules do not put any limitation upon what kind of attack one can apply Sneak Attack to on the basis of flanking. The flanking rules do not require you to make a melee attack or threaten your opponent to be considered flanking. Why some people on this forum can't wrap their heads around the simple logic of the matter is beyond me. Just as instantly you go from "able to make a melee attack" to "making a ranged attack", your opponent goes from flanked to not flanked (and back again). That's the way D&Ds combat system goes. Please read the flanking rules before coming onto the forums and attempting to advise people on matters of the flanking rules. According to the PHB, to flank one must be on the opposite side of an opponent as an ally who threatens the opponent. There is nothing in the rules that requires you to be able to make a melee attack to be considered flanking. Your other ally won't be flanking because you aren't threatening the opponent, but you will.
ClementWillowbreaker 03-30-07, 02:15 PM	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. While there is a certain logic to saying that flanking is a condition applied to the defender, and gives all your attacks the ability to SA, and only your melee ones the bonus, there is also the possibility that ranged attacks aren't supposed to get the benefits of flanking at all. Hence the thread. Ranged attacks don't get the +2. No conflict. You don't have to threaten with your attack to gain flanking for yourself. No conflict. Ranged weapons aren't disqualified for not threatening. No conflict. What remains is the conflict that ranged weapons may not be intended to get the other benefit of flanking, either. Personally, while I don't see a balance problem with rogues flinging daggers from 5ft, allowing ranged attacks to get flanking SA also brings up situations where the rogue is 30ft away, and just happens to opposite to an ally. In which case, he would get SAs if you ruled that way. Deadeye Shot denies Dex on a readied action when your ally hits an enemy. Is the real benefit of the feat allowing you to get SA from any angle for a readied action? When you start granting abilities as default combat benefits that are worth feats, you run into issues.
mugguod 03-30-07, 03:58 PM	From Eothain's original post, I got: situation: Fighter(with Sword) : BadGuy : Eothain(with Dagger) step1: Fighter melee attacks, (+2 for flanking), DEFINITELY TRUE step2: Eothain throws Dagger (BadGuy get AoO, Eothain gets no flanking bonus: ranged attack) DEFINITELY TRUE step2A: Eothain draws another dagger from his belt. (Another AoO?) Q1: Will the BadGuy still be flanked on the Fighter next turn? Ans: Yes. Q2: Was Eothain flanking when he threw the Dagger? Ans: Yes. If he's not a Rogue, it's a moot point because the thrown dagger doesn't get the flanking bonus. If he is a Rogue; I think he gets the Sneak Attack Bonus. However, unless the diference between Eotain's DEX modifier and and his STR modifier is more than 3; it's a strange tactic. Was the point to use-up the BadGuy's AoO(s) to protect somebody else?
Nom 03-30-07, 06:34 PM	Warning: rules minutae follows: According to the PHB, to flank one must be on the opposite side of an opponent as an ally who threatens the opponent. There is nothing in the rules that requires you to be able to make a melee attack to be considered flanking. Your other ally won't be flanking because you aren't threatening the opponent, but you will."According to the PHB"? It depends on which section of the rules you are looking at. PH pg 153, "Flanking" begins: "When making a melee attack, ..." and everything following clarifies the mechanics. There's not even a vague hint that any of the flanking rules belong to anything other than melee. The glossary, meanwhile, defines flank as "to be directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another character", and goes on to state that this grants a +2 to-hit bonus and allows Sneak Attack. The glossary makes no mention of any effects applying only in melee. However, since PH pg 153 is clearly and explicitly melee-only (and implicitly - there's neither example nor hint that any of these rules apply to a ranged attack), it is more consistent to assume that the glossary assumes that the text applies to melee than to limit the implicit declaration of melee to one half of the glossary text and not the other. It's also worth noting that PH pg 153 uses "gets the flanking bonus", "flanks the opponent" and "is flanked" interchangeably. "If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking". If you're not "getting the flanking bonus" then you're obviously not flanking.
Eothain 03-30-07, 09:45 PM	I do understand that... but for me it'd not be that crazy to get a SA if you are "flanking" with an ally a foe...I mean... Im on a melee situation (Im adjacent to the enemy's square) and if we considerer that when a sorrounded character gets distracted even if I make a ranged attack I'd still get the SA... its more a roleplaying thing I think that would only apply on adjacent square's cases... but even reading PHB you will notice that is no that clear has it should be. Thank you anyway, hope I make myself clear defining my point of view!
Someone 03-31-07, 01:43 AM	Please read the flanking rules before coming onto the forums and attempting to advise people on matters of the flanking rules.Sigh, why me? You do not determine flanking before making an attack. It is during the process of resolving an attack you determine if you are flanking, just as you would determine if the target has cover. And as soon as you go to make a ranged attack, flanking leaves the equation, because you cannot be flanking with a ranged weapon. Which leads back to my earlier question- why aren't you just taking the melee (sneak) attack? Instead of the +2 for flanking you now have the -4 for shooting into melee. Is Dex to hit really that vital?
Necromas 03-31-07, 08:46 AM	Sneak attack occurs "when the rogue flanks her target." Direct PhB quote. You can't flank with a ranged weapon. The end. Rangers can, with a variant, think it's in PHBII, however they don't count as flanked for the ranger, but only allies attacking the enemy.
DarkRhystar 03-31-07, 12:58 PM	Rangers can, with a variant, think it's in PHBII, however they don't count as flanked for the ranger, but only allies attacking the enemy. An obscure variant in one of a great many source books contradicts a core rule. Wowzers, who'd have thunk it. :P
Hsien 04-02-07, 09:12 AM	An obscure variant in one of a great many source books contradicts a core rule. Wowzers, who'd have thunk it. :P I'd already referenced that from the PH2, hardly "obscure" imo, and the ranger must give up a specific ability to obtain this alternate ability. The PH2 alternate class abilities are clearly defined as options, and up to the DM's descretion, not abilities that supercede the core books. Therefore they do not contradict core books, but simply provide alternatives. Note that alternative "ranged flank" ability only provides flank to the next ally to make a melee attack on the enemy.
DarkRhystar 04-02-07, 11:57 AM	I'd already referenced that from the PH2, hardly "obscure" imo, Did you know that there are over 50+ books for the 3.5 version of D&D and that's not even including published adventures. You pick most any core rule and it's almost a given that there's something that modifies it in at least one of those books. Until such time as I can claim an encyclopedic knowledge of all D&D books (I honestly hope that doesn't happen... ever), obscure is a fair qualifier. :)
Grizzled Gryphon 04-02-07, 12:20 PM	This is a bending of the rules to the breaking point. If you decide to allow a ranged attack to gain the flanking bonus becuase of your reasoning, then I can safely say that if I am flanked by two creatures, then they only gain the flanking bonus when they BOTH can attack, which is only on their turn. so, if they don't go at the same time, they don't gain flanking on me, as only one can attack at any given time. I call shenanigans!!!:P
Hsien 04-02-07, 02:11 PM	Until such time as I can claim an encyclopedic knowledge of all D&D books (I honestly hope that doesn't happen... ever), obscure is a fair qualifier. :) Whether or not a something is obscure is completely subjective to the individual, that's why I included the "imo" in my post. I did not mean to offend, and apolgize if it seemed that way. I'm positive there are plenty rules/feats etc... that I am not aware of, but for me to label them all "obscure" seems to do them and all other non-core books a disservice. In fact, the only reason I knew of this one is because I was researching a ranger character a few weeks ago, I have no idea what the other class variants do/are, I simply know there are available. Core books do not provide for Ranged Flanking ability/feats, no question or doubt from me on that. But for the players trying to obtain some variant abilities/feats, forums can simply provide that reference to locate possibilities, it's the players DM who must decide if it is usable in their game.
Rowangar 04-09-07, 04:59 PM	I've read most of what people have to say but none of it matters... it basically comes down to what the DM says. If one of my players suggested it I would say flingin a dagger at melee range would get you a flanking bonus but you'd get the -4 for throwing into melee and could potenially hit your ally. Perhaps you could make up a skill trick for it based on slight of hand.
Longarms 04-09-07, 10:41 PM	"Just as instantly you go from "able to make a melee attack" to "making a ranged attack", your opponent goes from flanked to not flanked (and back again). That's the way D&Ds combat system goes." Does it matter if the example is changed so that the thrower keeps one dagger in one hand the entire turn while he throws daggers with the other hand? Or for that matter, whether the dagger thrower is wearing armor spikes during his entire turn?
Nom 04-09-07, 11:15 PM	It depends on whether you regard the glossary's complete omission of the word "melee" as signficant. PH Chapter 8 is crystal clear - flanking applies when making a melee attack. If you're not actually making a melee attack then you're not considered flanking for the purpose of that attack, regardless of what might be the case if you used a different attack.
Someone 04-10-07, 12:50 AM	Woo-hoo! Zombie thread from beyond the grave! Flanking only comes into play when resolving a melee attack. Rogues are special in that not only do they get a +2 to hit with flanking melee attacks, they get some extra dice to damage as well. But both the hit and the damage are part of resolving the melee attack. You can't start resolving an attack like a ranged attack to hit, just to switch over to resolving it like a melee attack for damage, and vice versa.
Grizzled Gryphon 04-10-07, 08:38 PM	Simply put, no, you don't get the sneak attack damage or the +2 to hit, even if you were an instant ago, threatening them. At least, that is how the rules have it. However, if you like to add a little realism into it, then go ahead and allow the thrown weapon attack while adjecent to the target to get flanking and sneak attack. Regardless of what you are doing, all the creature you have flanked knows is you have a dagger, and are standing right behind it. Doesn't matter if you even attack that creature, it still is flanked, because you are there. So, add a little realism into the game. If the thing being flanked knows that you don't have the right stuff to even hurt him, then day it arrogantly ignores you, and thus no flanking for the other guy. Of course, this can back-fire if you DO have something that can hurt it, and it doesn't know. Thus, it would be a surprise attack, and you would have the opponent not only flanked, but you would also have him flat-footed. Just use some common sense, and there you go. For example, a wizard in an anti-magic field and a fighter are flanking an enemy fighter. Now, the fighter knows that the guy behind him is a wizard, and knows he is in an antimagic field. As this fighter has DR 10/magic, he isn't worried about the wizard in the least, so isn't considered flanking, as he is paying him no mind. Now, should the wizard actually be the rogue pulling a surprise on this fighter, then when he attacks, the fighter is flatfooted and flanked.