RAW Debate: Distracting attack does/doesn't grant a flanking bonus to ranged attacks.

[UserClone]

This started on page 44 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196174&page=44) of the current RAW Q&A thread, question number 524. It continues back and forth for several posts onto the next page, until Curmudgeon gently reminds all involved that debate doesn't belong in Simple Q&A, hence this thread.

My argument is as follows:


Flanking never grants a bonus of any kind to ranged attacks, regardless of the source, unless a specific exception is made, because specific trumps general.
The online glossary entry provided in the link (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_flank&alpha=F) on the original thread by Curmudgeon, though it claims the PHB as its source of information, according to the PHB Errata should be considered a secondary source. The PHB, the primary source, explicity states that flanking provides a +2 bonus to melee attacks only. A primary source of rules trumps any other source. The esplicit reference to melee attacks was also included on the Flanking entry of the Rules Compendium.
The PHB Errata itself does not alter the text of the Flanking section of the Combat chapter.
Distracting Attack does not provide any caveat allowing ranged attacks to benefit from the flanking that the Ranger provides through use of that class feature.
In fact, the example Distracting Attack in PHB II states that "For example, if your rogue ally attacked that enemy, not only would she gain a +2 bonus on her melee attack roll, but she could also add her sneak attack damage to a successful melee attack." Note that this specifies melee twice, informing the reader that the rogue could NOT gain a flanking bonus, or the attendant sneak attack damage, with a ranged attack of any kind.
Ranged attacks by the ranger himself, however, are specifically allowed as Distracting Attacks to activate the flanking bonus for his allies' attacks.


Therefore, my conclusion is that two Rangers explicitly could not give each other flanking bonuses on one another's bow and arrow attacks by making distracting attacks with their bows, barring any further spells/feats/rules exceptions which either allow bow attacks to be considered melee attacks or allow ranged attacks to receive benefits from flanking.

[kharmakazy]

Looks right to me.

[Taelas]

The Distracting Attack ACF does not specify whether the bonus counts for ranged or melee attacks. The fact that the Rogue is mentioned as getting a flanking bonus on their melee attack is irrelevant; it simply means the Rogue is using a melee attack at the time of the attack, and it does not preclude the Rogue gaining the same bonus on a ranged attack.

Flanking is defined under very strict circumstances; namely, you must have two characters on opposing sides threaten the character to be flanked. This necessitates a melee attack, as ranged attacks do not threaten. Distracting Attack supersedes this by making the target flanked directly for the Ranger's allies.

As for the Player's Handbook, here is its definitions:


Page 153:
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.

Page 308:
flank: To be directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another character. A flanking attacker gains a +2 flanking bonus on attack rolls against the defender. A rogue can sneak attack a defender that is flanking.
Two definitions, one of which supports your position and one of which does not.

The latter is from the glossary, which is the primary source (being the definition of each word) for game terms.

[UserClone]

Now I wonder if you're deliberately being obtuse, which makes this a pointless argument. If you aren't, I apologize.

The example's text still specifies that, should the rogue make an attack (any attack), she would get a flanking bonus on her melee attack roll (and implicitly not on a ranged one), and she would get sneak attack damage on her melee attack (but not a ranged one, because the rogue would not flank her target, only the ranger would, and even with Distracting Attack, it takes two to flank).

You still can GRANT a flanking bonus to allies' attacks via a ranged Distracting Attack, but because there is no contrary text anywhere in any book, you must us a melee attack to BENEFIT FROM flanking.

Also, the Glossary definition may not include the word melee, but the Combat section does. Because the Glossary entry does not also include the word ranged, it still does not contradict the Combat section's restriction that only melee attacks may gain the bonus. Essentially, the Glossary is the table, Combat is the text. However, even if you don't see it that way, they don't contradict one another, so the more specific applies.

EDIT: I'm not saying I don't agree with or prefer your version, because I do. It simply isn't supported by RAW, so your version is a (superior) house rule.

[Xtomjames]

Here's my take on this, a ranged weapon that is used within ten feet can technically be swung as a melee weapon, further it should be treated as a melee weapon with reach (that is to say, a crossbow could be swung and used as a bludgeoning weapon within 5 feet, but because it can shoot it has "reach"). Outside of ten feet you'd no longer threaten in the sense of melee ranges.

Edit: this technically falls within the confines of the rules. Since your character is physically threatening a person in a melee combat rather than at range (as the rule doesn't specify that the weapon you use has to be explicitly a melee weapon, you just have to be in the actual melee combat or within your usual melee threat range) a ranged weapon could gain the +2.

[UserClone]

Here's my take on this, a ranged weapon that is used within ten feet can technically be swung as a melee weapon, further it should be treated as a melee weapon with reach (that is to say, a crossbow could be swung and used as a bludgeoning weapon within 5 feet, but because it can shoot it has "reach"). Outside of ten feet you'd no longer threaten in the sense of melee ranges.

Edit: this technically falls within the confines of the rules. Since your character is physically threatening a person in a melee combat rather than at range (as the rule doesn't specify that the weapon you use has to be explicitly a melee weapon, you just have to be in the actual melee combat or within your usual melee threat range) a ranged weapon could gain the +2.

Unfortunately, Xtom, that falls outside the confines of the rules. All of it. Because a ranged weapon doesn't threaten and can't make a melee attack (okay, you could make a melee attack with a javelin at a -4 to hit, or a dagger or handaxe or light hammer, but that's not what you're talking about). If you are holding a non-melee weapon in your hands, you do not threaten unless you have Improved Unarmed Attack or a Natural Weapon, and even then, you don't threaten with the ranged weapon. Since the bare fact is that you get a flanking bonus except on a melee attack, your argument makes no sense to me. It doesn't follow RAW (Rules As Written) at all. The rule specifies a melee attack, not melee range though, so if you were a Bloodstorm Blade and your buddy was a ranger, he could hit the enemy with a distracting attack and you could get a flanking bonus on a thrown weapon attack, by virtue of your class ability to make thrown weapon attacks count as melee attacks. This is kind of a neat loophole, come to think of it.

[Runestar]

Flanking is defined under very strict circumstances; namely, you must have two characters on opposing sides threaten the character to be flanked. This necessitates a melee attack, as ranged attacks do not threaten. Distracting Attack supersedes this by making the target flanked directly for the Ranger's allies.

I interpreted this to mean that the foe hit by distracting shot is treated as being threatened/flanked directly by the ranger from any direction.

For all intents and purposes, picture a rogue adjacent to say, a hill giant. Normally, he doesn't benefit from flanking, because there is no other ally.

Then the ranger hits the giant with distracting attack. Picture an imaginary PC that you can place beside the giant anywhere you wish and who is treated as flanking the giant from whichever position is required to activate flanking for the rogue.

That's all it does. It won't grant the ranger a flanking bonus because he still isn't flanking. He is merely treated as such for purposes of affecting his allies.

[Xtomjames]

Unfortunately, Xtom, that falls outside the confines of the rules. All of it. Because a ranged weapon doesn't threaten and can't make a melee attack (okay, you could make a melee attack with a javelin at a -4 to hit, or a dagger or handaxe or light hammer, but that's not what you're talking about). If you are holding a non-melee weapon in your hands, you do not threaten unless you have Improved Unarmed Attack or a Natural Weapon, and even then, you don't threaten with the ranged weapon. Since the bare fact is that you get a flanking bonus except on a melee attack, your argument makes no sense to me. It doesn't follow RAW (Rules As Written) at all. The rule specifies a melee attack, not melee range though, so if you were a Bloodstorm Blade and your buddy was a ranger, he could hit the enemy with a distracting attack and you could get a flanking bonus on a thrown weapon attack, by virtue of your class ability to make thrown weapon attacks count as melee attacks. This is kind of a neat loophole, come to think of it.


That's not true at all, any weapon in game can be used in a melee attack. A bow or crossbow can be used as a bludgeoning weapon. However, the weapon is considered improvised and takes negatives to the attack and only does 1d4 points of damage.

Thus, my take, as a DM is to interpret it as I did. I never said it was in the confines of literal reading, but it was "my take" (my interpretation) of the rule as supplied. Since the rule doesn't specify that you have to have a melee weapon, and only threaten as per a melee attack any weapon that can be wielded sufficiently to cause damage (including unarmed attacks) count.

Further more, on a more substantial note, it is seriously ridiculous to presume that a ranged weapon doesn't threaten. This is design flaw in the capacity of the game, rather than a realistic point of battle.

[UserClone]

Oh, ok. Well in that case, I appreciate your opinion and even agree with some of your points, but they are outside the scope of RAW (Rules As Written) and therefore outside the scope of this discussion.