Wizards produced a series of excellent articles providing detailed rule interpretation for Sneak Attacks and Attacks of Opportunity; but I feel they didn't quite cover some areas in clear enough detail, and I hope to clarify the rules here.
When I began writing this article I believed there were some cases under which a rogue with a crossbow could earn the +2 flanking bonus and also apply his sneak attack damage earned by flanking; but by the time I finished my research my position has changed. Even though I don't like my conclusion. But I am pretty sure now that a rogue with a crossbow will never be able to apply sneak attack damage that can be earned just by flanking an opponent.
The article that follows was mostly written while I believed there would be a case for the rogue to be able to flank with a crossbow, so if it reads a little awkwardly, that partially explains why.
Flanking simply means that two characters are on opposite sides of enemy and within melee striking distance of that enemy. But that definition of flanking is not sufficient for the characters to obtain the bonuses that may be supplied by flanking. For the bonuses (+2 To Hit, and applying sneak attack damage), the enemy must be flanked AND threatened.
For purposes of a +2 flanking bonus, threatening requires being in position to make a melee attack with a weapon that causes lethal damage, and the opponent being aware of this.
For purposes of attacks of opportunity, threatening means being in position to make a melee attack with a weapon that causes lethal damage. The opponent's awareness is irrelevant.
Typically when two fighters are on opposite sides of an opponent they each get a +2 flanking bonus to their attack roles; but we occasionally read about scenarios where the flanking bonus does not apply. What exactly is going on?
I think the rule makers believe it should work as follows:
- When a creature has to pay attention to a potential attacker, allies of the potential attacker on the opposite side of that attacker get a +2 on their attack roles.
- That means that when a rogue with a rapier and a fighter with a long sword flank an orc, each gets a +2 attack bonus.
- But, if the rogue is unarmed, the orc does not feel threatened by the rogue and thus does not pay much attention to the rogue and thus the fighter does not get a +2 attack bonus.
- My guess at the 3.5 intended rule: The rogue also does not get the +2 attack bonus. Both characters must be threatening for the +2 attack bonus to apply to either.
- My preference, but I don't think it is what 3.5 intended: The rogue still gets a +2 attack bonus in this scenario because the fighter is both flanking and threatening. So if that rogue attempts to punch the orc the rogue does so with a +2 flanking bonus.
- Characters holding ranged weapons also do not threaten! Now, I can understand that a person standing right next to me with a long bow is not as threatening as a guy with a sword because it seems I could easily disrupt or deflect his long bow attack if he tried to shoot me. But if the guy next to me had a crossbow instead of a long bow I would feel very threatened. However, to abide by the rules, no ranged weapon causes a threat.
- Therefore, if a rogue armed with a crossbow and a fighter armed with a long sword are flanking an orc, the orc is still not threatened by the rogue and the fighter does not get a +2 attack bonus.
- The rogue also does not get a +2 attack bonus.
- I prefer this interpretation: But the rogue does get the +2 attack bonus because the fighter is threatening to the orc. Thus the rogue fires at +2 with his crossbow.
- If the unarmed character happens to be a monk, or any character with Improved Unarmed Strike, the opponent somehow "knows" the danger and the flanking bonus still applies. So a monk and a fighter with a long sword on opposite sides of an orc each get a +2 flanking bonus.
- If the rogue with the rapier is invisible, and he flanks the orc with the visible fighter with the long sword, neither gets the +2 flanking bonus because the orc is not aware of the rogue and thus is not threatened. But the rogue does get other bonuses to hit by virtue of being invisible.
- If the invisible rogue with a rapier and the visible fighter with the long sword flank a dragon instead of an orc, the dragon might be aware of the rogue with its blindsense and thus both characters would get the +2 flanking bonus.
- If a rogue with a crossbow and a fighter with a longsword flank an orc, neither gets a flanking bonus. But if the rogue has a hand crossbow and also draws a dagger, then the fighter does get a flanking bonus because the rogue has a melee weapon and thus both characters threaten. The rogue also gets the +2 flanking bonus, and can apply sneak attack damage to damage; but only on attacks made with the dagger, not on attacks made with the crossbow.
From a few sources:
- PH page 137: "If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity"
- http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040302a: "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 can only make an Attack of Opportunity with a melee weapon, not with a ranged weapon such as a crossbow.
- You can also make an Attack of Opportunity with an unarmed strike if you are a monk or have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. You must be capable of doing non-lethal damage.
- A rogue with a crossbow and dagger in hand can make an Attack of Opportunity with the dagger, but not the crossbow.
- A rogue with a crossbow in hand and a sheathed dagger and the Quick Draw feat cannot draw the dagger as a free action and take an Attack of Opportunity with it because the free action that comes with the Quick Draw can only be performed on your own turn.
- When a rogue with a rapier and a fighter with a long sword flank an orc, each is perceived as threatening by the orc and the rogue is able to apply his sneak attack damage because the orc is flanked and threatened.
- If the same rogue is using a crossbow instead of a rapier:
- The rogue cannot apply sneak attack damage because the orc is not threatened and is thus not "flanked".
- I prefer this interpretation: the rogue can still apply his sneak attack damage to the crossbow because he is flanking and because the orc is still threatened, by the fighter. It is the fighter's threat to the orc that allows the sneak attack damage to apply to the rogue.
- I also prefer this, but it is not what the 3.5 rules intend: If one rogue is using a crossbow and another rogue is using a rapier and these two are flanking the orc, the rogue using the crossbow can apply sneak attack damage to his attack because the orc is more wary and concerned about the rogue with the rapier. The rogue with the rapier cannot apply sneak attack damage because the orc does not feel threatened by the rogue with the crossbow and is not paying much attention to him.
- But I'm pretty sure the actual intent of the 3.5 rules is that benefits only apply if you are flanking and threatening:
|
Attacks of Opportunity (Part Two): http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a
All About Sneak Attacks (Part One): http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040217a
All About Sneak Attacks (Part Two): http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040224a
All About Sneak Attacks (Part Three): http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040302a
All About Sneak Attacks (Part Four): http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a
All articles: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/rg
|
No comments:
Post a Comment