Do ranged attackers threaten?
Typically not. But I'm not sure that this is actually detailed anywhere.
If I am not mistaken, the term "threaten" carries a lot less weight than it used to. Since most combatants are no longer able to take attacks of opportunity, does "threaten" have general relevance to anything besides flanking?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't find anything that stipulates that "threaten" requires a melee weapon.
Fortunately, the AoO description requires melee weapons (or else a fighter with a bow might "threaten" enemies hundreds of feet away and could shoot any of them as an AoO).
Since it doesn't seem to be defined, and "threatened" isn't a term, then each GM gets to decide who is threatening and who is not.
It might make Sneak Attack more powerful for rogues if all they need to do is get opposite an ally to sneak attack with a ranged weapon (as opposed to having to find some other way to make that enemy flat footed). This doesn't seem to be a problem. Rogues need some love.
As for me, I would say the idea of being flat footed when you're flanked (you can't easily keep simultaneous track of two threatening enemies on opposite sides of you) seems to logically apply whether they're adjacent to you or farther away, so I'd allow it.
It won't make fighters' AoOs OP (since it doesn't apply), it will help rogues (good!), and it also gives a little love to archers (they definitely need it).
Especially for ranged rangers who might be able to use their animal companion for flanking and then get to shoot the enemy with ranged attacks.