1

This is something one of my players asked me recently and I'm not 100% sure how to handle it. I'm leaning towards "no, this does not work" but I am not certain and don't want to be unfair to the player if it does indeed work RAW. And if the RAW answer is indeed "no", would it unbalance things badly to allow it anyway?

If a creature has reach (not necessarily with a reach weapon, might be inherent to the creature itself), can it flank from where its reach allows it to still attack but is not right next to the enemy?

I know the rules on flanking require the creatures to be adjacent to the enemy but I couldn't find a clarification if that means they must be right next to each other. The reasoning here is that to a long-limbed creature with e.g. 10ft. reach, anywhere from where it can reach the enemy in melee would count as being "adjacent" to it.

We play on a grid with 5ft. squares if that is relevant.

I do realise this is technically two questions in one and I'm happy to separate them if people think they should be, just wanted to avoid creating a mess by making two questions with 90% of the text the same.

AnnaAG
  • 9,005
  • 1
  • 22
  • 74
  • I’ve closed this as a duplicate, I don’t think this is asking something substantially different from the linked question, and its accepted answer definitely addresses your question here. – Thomas Markov Nov 07 '23 at 10:58
  • I don't think it's a duplicate as I also want to know whether it would break anything substantial to allow this anyway AND there's no reach weapon involved, it's the creature itself that has reach – AnnaAG Nov 07 '23 at 11:09
  • 2
    Asking about balance is fine as a separate question, but reach weapon vs. reach as a racial trait is definitely the same question. Id recommend focusing this on the balance of a house rule. Otherwise, this seems like a very straightforward duplicate to me. – Thomas Markov Nov 07 '23 at 11:11

0 Answers0