Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Drow

HangarFlying's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 3,267 posts (3,273 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 4 Pathfinder Society characters. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I don't see why not.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Cards are an annoying solution. They work well at the table, when you've already pulled out the ones you need.

They're not helpful for looking through spells to choose them in the first place. They're really not helpful for changing your spells mid-session, since you have to search through the whole deck (likely not ordered) to find the ones you want.

If you have multiple spellcasters you can't give each one his own set of spells, unless you have duplicate decks or no overlap between the casters. Which means whenever you play a different caster, you've got to go through the selecting process again.

Probably simpler to just print out the spells you've got prepared/known. Except we don't yet have PDFs. (Are all the spells in Basic?)

And none of that helps picking spells in the first place.

That's fine. I can see the benefits, especially with new players and you can just hand them the first level cards. Less overwhelming. Something about having a physical card for them to handle seems to help.

No duplicate cards? Well what do you really expect? Of course there aren't duplicate cards. This, itself isn't something negative about the cards.

To the best of my knowledge, not all of the spells are in basic. Something like only 100 spells or something like that.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:


What don't you like about them? I think they're a great solution.

I don't think he's referring to the cards.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The bigger question is: is everyone having fun? If yes, then I'd say everything is perfect.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thenovalord wrote:
Yeah those cards just fill the table we find and more importantly they don't list concentration as a spell parameter

Yeah they do, but it's not entirely obvious: those that list the duration as "Up to X rd/min/hr/whatever" are concentration spells.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I cast fireball at the space directly behind the guy I actually want to target. The fact that the bead hits my intended target and then explodes is heretofore irrelevant.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Petty Alchemy wrote:
I just want to be able to look up spells more easily. The spell organization in the PHB is terrible (why doesn't it say under the spell which classes get it and when?)

It's not horrible as it is, you just have to realize that you have to reference the class list and then look up the spell rather than page through the spell descriptions.

There is also this really cool accessory.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If the bead hits an object it explodes.
Right, I know that but if an invisible door still blocks line of effect, can you still target past the door, not realizing that the door is going to prematurely detonate the Fireball, or do you have to tell the player You cannot target that orc, but I cannot say why. You just can't. is what I am asking
No!! you let him target that orc! that's what illusion spells are for! for foooooolin' fools!

I am soooooo going to troll my players with this.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm not familiar with Ebberon. Can you elaborate or describe what these are?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:

the gang up faq doesn't apply because we're not arguing you flank with a ranged attack.

you flank with melee, and then use your flank to trigger sneak attack dice on your ranged attack.

the constant misconstrution that we're saying ranged attacks flank, is really annoying.

they do not flank with ranged attacks, however the rogue can still benefit from flanking while making a ranged attack. you could use that one teamwork feat to get the +2 bonus to AC, and make a range attack that round. THIS is what i am arguing, that flanking doesn't end when you make a ranged attack, but you still flank via melee. NOTHING ELSE.

That's the rub. That you have a melee weapon in hand at the time you make a ranged attack is irrelevant. The discussion isn't about whether you provide flanking for someone else. Nor is it a discussion about whether two or more characters provide flanking for you to trigger an ability. It is a discussion on whether or not you are considered flanking when you make an attack with a ranged weapon.

But no matter. It's apparent by now that you're unwilling to see the argument from my point of view. I've said all that I can say on this subject, and I don't think there is much left to argue.

Go forth and game.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The real question is "was this ever a question before the APG, UC, ACG, etc came out"? Because, to me, people are using things from these sources to muddy perfectly clear waters.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You miss the first part of the paragraph that says "when in doubt..." When in doubt about what? When in doubt about your position to determine flanking per the first paragraph.

You are still making the 2nd paragraph to be more than what it is supposed to be.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cevah wrote:

The bold text is the best argument I have seen yet.

So how do you square that with the text of the second paragraph on flanking? They contradict each other. When a table and the text contradict, precedent has been set that text wins. I don't know if they have precedent for sidebars.

/cevah

They do not contradict each other. Very simply, you are making that second paragraph to be more than it is meant to be.

I discussed this upthread. Click under the spoiler for "Flanking".

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
RumpinRufus wrote:
Byakko wrote:

Wow, what a long thread. I guess this means this topic is FAQ worthy...

Anyway, as many, many people have pointed out, you can only gain the benefits of flanking on melee attacks, although you can sometimes provide a flank via various methods other than wielding a melee weapon.

"Asserting" is different than "pointing out". Because to point something out, you need something to point to. In this case, rules would be the preferable thing to point to. If you feel like bringing up new evidence, please go ahead. If you would like to make baseless assertions, we've had quite enough of that already.

Your response is especially cute considering the same can be said about your "argument".

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You know s#~% is about to get real when people start to do sentence diagrams.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MadMage wrote:

Where does the rulebook say that the attack I make must threaten?

The only stated criteria is that the target is threatened (which requires a melee weapon), not that the attack itself be 'threatening'.

When the CRB was written, were any of these extra feats and class abilities that have been discussed in this thread available? No.

So, as far as the CRB is concerned, the only time flanking comes in to play is when you are making a melee attack and you have an ally on the opposite side that threatens your target. The CRB is written from the point of view of someone making an attack, and what requirements need to be fulfilled to be considered flanking your target. For a rogue, these requirements need to be met in order to be considered flanking.

Now we have all these class features and feats in which the attacker doesn't have to be the one actually flanking the target. Well, how do we determine if our target is considered flanked?

Since, according to the CRB the attacker needs an ally that threatens the target and stands opposite, it stands to reason that as long as your target has two (or more) allies which threaten it and stand opposite of each other, the target can be considered flanked.

We also have some feats and/or class abilities that allow allies to be standing in different positions other than directly opposite one another, and the target can still be considered flanked.

Does any of this change how an attack works if the attacker is trying to flank his target? No. At least not in the fact that the attack needs to be made with a melee weapon, and the ally needs to be in a legal position and threaten your target.

This isn't circular logic, it's deductive reasoning.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cevah wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:

Underfoot Assault

This ability is unique in that it only requires an ally to be adjacent to the foe, not actually threaten it, in order for either of the characters to be considered flanking the foe. Though, they could still only make melee attacks.

Um...., where is the restriction to melee weapons?

Makes sense to avoid AoOs, but I don't see any text referring to how they can attack.

/cevah

I'm going to chalk that one up to fatigue. I don't see anything that prevents them from using ranged weapons, per se, though they definately wouldn't get the +2 flanking bonus.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:


buuuut, we're not saying it's allowed normally, we're saying by flanking normally at the same time you count as flanking separate from your ranged attack.

or your character is flanking, your ranged does not, but sneak attack does not check if your attack counts as flanking or not.

Me thinks you didn't actually read my mega-post. If you had, you would have realized that I addressed this issue quite clearly.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:

the point of most of those feats, as the opposition seems to not realize is that they're worded to insinuate flanking is a condition.

which is the crux of our argument, that you can flank legally while doing other things. like if you could do sneak attack damage if you were flanking a target and drank from a potion, it would apply sneak attack since your flanking...

I really only posted this because i'm annoyed that EVERY post from the opposition on the feats did not actually talk on the point of contention.

The point of contention is whether or not you can be considered flanking while wielding a ranged weapon. I think I've pretty much put that argument to bed.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There have been a number of posts since I was last on here, and I don't have much time, so hopefully I'll be able to address all points with this one post.

CRB, page 197: Flanking:

"Flanking, 1st Paragraph wrote:
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by [an ally] on its opposite border or opposite corner.

Flanking, 1st Paragraph

In this picture, we see both Valeros and Kyra flanking a goblin. If Valeros were to attack, he would get a +2 to his attack. Conversely, Kyra would also get a +2 to her attack. They are both equipped with weapons which threaten the target, and are both in the proper position in relation to one another. Additionally, when each attacks, they would be attacking with a melee weapon.

"Flanking, 4th Paragraph wrote:
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

Flanking, 4th Paragraph

Consider if Valeros were equipped with a longbow instead. In this case, the goblin is not flanked. Although the goblin does have two enemies directly across from one another, one is equipped with a weapon which does not threaten it.

Valeros does not provide flanking for Kyra's attack because Valeros isn't equipped with a weapon which threatens the goblin.

Conversely, while Kyra is equipped with a weapon that threatens the goblin and is in a location which would normally provide flanking, she does not because Valeros is not attacking with a melee weapon.

Which leads us to:

Flanking, 2nd Paragraph wrote:
When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attacker's centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

Flanking, 2nd Paragraph, Example 1

Flanking, 2nd Paragraph, Example 2

A number of people have quoted this paragraph as proof that just because two characters are on opposite sides of a target from one another, this means that they are "flanking". This is not true.

The purpose of this paragraph is so that in those cases in which the position of the two characters isn't precisely opposite from one another, they would still be considered flanking the target for their respective attacks (or providing flanking for the other character's attack).

In the first example, Valeros and Kyra are attacking an ogre. The two are considered to be flanking the ogre because although they are not directly opposite from one another, the 2nd paragraph tells us to draw a line from the center of both squares. Since this line passes through opposite borders, they are flanking.

In the second example, Valeros is equipped with a longspear. Although offset from Kyra, they are still flanking because the line drawn between the center of their squares passes through the opposite borders (including the corner of that border).

In any case, there is no relief from the requirement that a) the attacker must make a melee attack, and b) the ally must threaten the target and be in a legal position in relation to the attacker. As stated previously regarding the 4th Paragraph, just because they are opposite each other (or crossing opposite borders), doesn't mean that they are flanking.

And for the sake of completion:

Flanking, 3rd Paragraph wrote:
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.

Flanking, 3rd Paragraph

This paragraph merely tells us that as long as any one of the squares that a large or larger creature occupies is in a legal position, then they are flanking (i.e. large creatures don't have to precisely line up with one another opposite their targets to flank).

Ultimate Combat, page 130: Improved Back to Back:

"UC, page 130: Improved Back to Back wrote:
While you are adjacent to an ally who is flanked and also has this feat, you can spend a swift action to gain a +2 bonus to AC against all flankers until the start of your next turn.

Improved Back to Back Example

In this example, Kyra is being flanked by two goblins. Both Kyra and Valeros have the feat. Because both have the feat, Valeros can expend a swift action to gain a +2 bonus to AC against the goblins if they decide to attack him.

Note that if either of the goblins were wielding a ranged weapon, then the feat would not apply because Kyra would not be flanked.

APG, page 130: Assault Leader:

APG, page 130: Assault Leader wrote:
Once per day, when the rogue misses with an attack on a flanked opponent, she can designate a single ally who is also flanking the target that her attack missed. That ally can make a single melee attack against the opponent as an immediate action.

Assault Leader Example

In this example Valeros and Kyra are legally flanking a goblin. It is currently Merisiel's turn, and her attack misses. She then directs Valeros to attack as an immediate action.

Merisiel would be able to take advantage of this talent if she was using a ranged weapon as long as her target was flanked by two other allies.

She would also be able to use this talent if she were standing in Valeros' place (and direct Kyra to attack), though only if she were wielding a melee weapon. If she were only wielding a ranged weapon, then she would not because in that situation the target would not be flanked.

Ultimate Combat, page 100: Enfilading Fire:

Ultimate Combat, page 100: Enfilading Fire wrote:
You receive a +2 bonus on ranged attacks made against a foe flanked by 1 or more allies with this feat.

Enfilading Fire Example

Because the goblin is legally flanked by Valeros and Kyra (and we can assume that at least one of them also has this feat), Merisiel can make use of this feat.

Though, in this case, she could not replace either of her allies because the goblin would not be flanked due to her wielding a ranged weapon.

d20PFSRD.com: Topple Foe:

d20PFSRD.com: Topple Foe wrote:
If you attempt to trip a foe that is larger than you, you gain a +1 bonus on your CMB check to trip the foe as long as an ally with Topple Foe is flanking the foe with you. If multiple allies with Topple Foe are flanking the foe with you, you gain an additional +2 bonus on your CMD check for each additional ally that’s flanking the target.

Topple Foe Example

Assuming that all three allies have the feat, during Merisiel's turn, she would get a +3 to her CMB. Though, if she were wielding a ranged weapon, this feat could not be used because the target would not be flanked.

d20PFSRD.com: Amplified Rage:

d20PFSRD.com: Amplified Rage wrote:
Whenever you are raging and adjacent to a raging ally who has this feat or flanking the same opponent as a raging ally with this feat, your morale bonuses to Strength and Constitution increase by +4.

Amplified Rage Example

Assuming both characters are orcs or half-orcs, are raging, and have this feat, both get the bonus to STR and CON. If one were wielding a ranged weapon, then the feat would not apply (though they could still gain the benefits if they moved adjacent to one another).

Advanced Class Guide, PRD: Underfoot Assault:

ACG, PRD: Underfoot Assault wrote:

At 1st level, if a foe whose size is larger than the mouser's is adjacent to her and misses her with a melee attack, the mouser can as an immediate action spend 1 panache point to move 5 feet into an area of the attacker's space. This movement does not count against the mouser's movement the next round, and it doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. While the mouser is within a foe's space, she is considered to occupy her square within that foe's space.

While the mouser is within her foe's space, the foe takes a –4 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks not made against the mouser, and all of the mouser's allies that are adjacent to both the foe and the mouser are considered to be flanking the foe. The mouser is considered to be flanking the foe whose space she is within if she is adjacent to an ally who is also adjacent to the foe. The mouser can move within her foe's space and leave the foe's space unhindered and without provoking attacks of opportunity, but if the foe attempts to move to a position where the mouser is no longer in its space, the movement provokes an attack of opportunity from the mouser. This deed replaces opportune parry and riposte.

Underfoot Assault Example

This ability is unique in that it only requires an ally to be adjacent to the foe, not actually threaten it, in order for either of the characters to be considered flanking the foe. Though, they could still only make melee attacks.

CRB, PRD: Sneak Attack:

"CRB, PRD: Sneak Attack wrote:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

It's important to point out that just because there is a clause that ranged attacks must be within 30 feet of the target to gain sneak attacks in the same paragraph that says that rogues gain extra damage any time the target is denied Dex or is flanked does not automatically mean that a rogue can sneak attack a target with a ranged weapon just because there is an ally standing opposite of the target. In that situation, as previously stated, the target is not flanked, even though there are two allies standing opposite of one another.

How does Snap Shot fit in?:

Ultimate Combat, page 119: Snap Shot wrote:
While wielding a ranged weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you threaten squares within 5 feet of you. You can make attacks of opportunity with that ranged weapon. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity when making a ranged attack as an attack of opportunity.

Because this feat allows you to threaten with a ranged weapon, it certainly can change some of the dynamics of the previously mentioned stuff. Though, this is only within the context of if we assume in all of the above examples that Valeros is equipped with a longbow and has the Snap Shot feat, that Kyra, and/or Merisiel could consider the target flanked because Valeros threatened the target.

The feat speaks nothing to whether or not Valeros can consider the target flanked when he is the one attacking with a ranged weapon. Though the argument can be made that the target is legally flanked and could be subject to sneak attack.

OP's question:

OP in OP wrote:
So, a rogue is holding a dagger (threatening) and across from an ally (flanking.) He activates his Cloak of the Hedge Wizard (conjuration) to use Acid Splash against the flanked opponent. He receives no flanking bonus since it's not a melee attack, but he is still flanking and so the Acid Splash does sneak damage, correct?

Does the rogue have Snap Shot? If no, then it's an easy no. If yes, a very soft maybe leaning towards a no to be on the conservative/safe side.

The fact that the rogue is holding a dagger and threatening the target at the time the ranged touch attack is made is irrelevant to this scenario.

TL;DR:

No.

Note, the last bit was made while it was late for me, so things were rushed and probably could be worded a bit better if I was more awake.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Crash_00 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

I think you are misinterpreting the written rules. You cannot threaten with a ranged weapon, therefore you cannot flank with a ranged weapon.

Saying "lol I'm holding a dagger so I gets flanking with my crossbow" is not the same thing as the game needing to define flank and flanking as separate conditions.

When you change the circumstances in which you are flanking (like changing which weapon you are using) then it chances the entire circumstances of flanking in the first place.

You can only threaten with those melee weapons, when you qualify as flanking, it's because of the melee weapons. Just because you can hold a ranged and melee weapon at the same time doesn't mean the rules aren't clear about this.

Nothing requires you to threaten, by the rules, to make a flanking attack. Nothing in the rules forces your other weapons to stop threatening when you make an attack. You can wield a weapon in each hand, threatening with both, by the rules.

Can you make a flanking attack with a whip?
Can you make a flanking attack with an unarmed strike (assuming no IUS)?

Can someone make an AoO with his left-hand weapon if he used his right-hand weapon as part of a standard action attack?

Where are the rules that force a weapon to quit threatening when you make an attack with another weapon?

There are ways to threaten with ranged attacks, but before we even get there, your position only works if you add rules to negate all these points. Whips and unarmed strike don't threaten, but they can get a flanking bonus even. If you were to use one of those to apply sneak attack, few would even bother to argue. So the rogue having to make an attack that threatens isn't really a point.

You can wield multiple weapons even without two-weapon fighting and still be free to threaten and choose your attacks with them, so that point is a failure also. The person flanks, not the attack or weapon. So it's never a case of my crossbow flanks because my dagger does. It's a case of I...

Sure, you can attack with an UAS and gain the benefits of flanking because a) you are making a melee attack, and b) we are assuming that you have an ally that is in a legal position and threatens your target.

Conversely, if it was your ally's turn to attack, they would not receive the benefits of flanking because while you are in a legal position, you do not threaten the target due to you only being armed with UAS.

That in no way means that you can gain the benefits of flanking if you attack with a ranged weapon even though you have an ally threatening your target from a legal position because you are making a ranged attack, not a melee attack. No, you do not get sneak attack damage, because you are not using a legal method of attack to gain the benefits of flanking your target.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

Are you smoking something?

You absolutely can provide a flank by threatening an opponent on the opposite side.
You have to have a melee weapon drawn to do that.
No melee weapon? No flanking.
Ranged weapons do not threaten, therefore they do not flank. If you happen to find a way to threaten while coincidentally holding a ranged weapon, you haven't found some loophole, you are just being obstinate.

Well, Snap Shot, but that is obviously an exception to the rule.

EDIT: and to be clear, Snap Shot allows you to provide flanking for someone else, not that you'd be able to receive the benefits of flanking by attacking with a ranged weapon.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Crash_00 wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:


Finally, how can one be attacking a target, be flanking it, yet not get the flanking bonus?

The same way one can be flanking a target and not get the flanking bonus. Do you get the flanking bonus while standing there during your flanking buddies turn? No. You only get the flanking bonus when making a melee attack. However, by the rules, you're flanking the whole time. The second paragraph makes that crystal clear. Both people involved are flanking.

Nothing in the rules says you have to get the bonus to keep flanking.

I stated in my first post that this isn't what the author's want. However, it is what ended up putting in the book. RAI and RAW aren't always the same thing, and this is a clear case.

The designers can say its being read wrong all they want. I had one say the same thing to me back in the two-handed weapons and off-hand debate. The reality is that they wrote it wrong or, at the very least, failed to edit it.

The designer told us the intent, which I agree is the intent, but then, instead of admitting the technical aspects of RAW are screwed, he tried to claim that the intent is RAW by introducing a new state called providing the flank. The rules do not support his providing the flank concept at all. They refer to this "providing the flank" scenario as being one of the two characters that flank. By the rules, the person that provides the flank flanks just as much as the person making the attack.

If a ranged weapon can provide the flank, like the designer admitted, then he must be able to flank by the RAW.

This whole conversation is about whether or not you can apply sneak attack damage to a ranged attack while flanking, right? Then who the f~@% cares about stuff that doesnt deal with attacking.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MadMage wrote:

Hrm... well, this is a huge number of posts. I think many people are either misunderstanding RumpinRufus' position or being a bit obstinate about it...

As I read it, the 'flanking' section's first paragraph states that melee attacks get a bonus to hit when attacking an opponent qualifies as flanked, referred to as a 'flanking bonus'.

The assumption many people are making is that this bonus is what defines flanking, which I believe to be incorrect; it is merely the relevant immediate bonus applicable to flanking.

The second paragraph of the 'flanking' section goes on to describe how you determine whether or not you are flanking an opponent; the criteria itself is only the positional basis.

Thus, I would conclude that ranged attacks can be made from a flanking position, but confer no to-hit benefits as a melee attack from that position would - such an attack would not receive a 'flanking bonus', despite the target being 'flanked'. In my opinion, this is a case of splitting hairs; the sneak attack ability in question again states merely that the rogue must be flanking the target, and does not state the she must be qualifying for the 'flanking bonus' implicitly.

Well, that's fine that you think that, but it flies against what the developers have indicated.

Furthermore, I really find it difficult to understand how one can come to the conclusion that the second paragraph is to be completely divorced from the first paragraph and treated as a wholly separate idea, rather than the notion that the second paragraph is an explanation supporting the first paragraph.

Finally, how can one be attacking a target, be flanking it, yet not get the flanking bonus?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:


The second paragraph describes when you "flank an opponent" and when the opponent is "flanked".

In the CRB and the PRD that I am reading, the second paragraph is an explanation of the first paragraph if there were any confusion on how the first paragraph is derived. This is even noted by the first three words "[w]hen in doubt...".

That still doesn't change the fact that in order to add sneak attack damage, you must ATTACK. Which paragraph discusses making an attack, the first, or the second? And what does that paragraph say?

Suffice it to say, no where in the paragraph that talks about attacking—which we must invariably do if we want to add our sneak attack damage—does it mention anything about ranged attacks.

I really don't understand how the second paragraph should be completely distinct from the first when the first ends with the thought on an allies' positions on opposite sides, and then the second paragraph simply continues and more thoroughly explains that same point. It's sort of hard to argues those as distinct things when they are so seemingly related.

Cuz internetz?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
RumpinRufus wrote:


The second paragraph describes when you "flank an opponent" and when the opponent is "flanked".

In the CRB and the PRD that I am reading, the second paragraph is an explanation of the first paragraph if there were any confusion on how the first paragraph is derived. This is even noted by the first three words "[w]hen in doubt...".

That still doesn't change the fact that in order to add sneak attack damage, you must ATTACK. Which paragraph discusses making an attack, the first, or the second? And what does that paragraph say?

Suffice it to say, no where in the paragraph that talks about attacking—which we must invariably do if we want to add our sneak attack damage—does it mention anything about ranged attacks.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:


and that is the portion about the bonus, sneak attack doesn't care if your qualify for the bonus or if the attack qualifies for the flank, just that the ROGUE, WHOM THE CLASS FEATURE IS TIED TO, is flanking or not and if the attack hit. Then add damage to it, it makes no reference to flanking other than the character "flanks" a target, not that the attack be melee or receive the bonus.

Well there is the catch, because when you are making an attack, flanking IS the bonus. You only get to add the sneak attack damage when you are making an attack, so all of this argument about "qualifying for flanking when not attacking" is a bit of a straw man argument—not "whether or not your target is flanked by two other allies", not "you're in a position to flank, but are not attacking", and certainly not "you're adjacent to an ally who is being flanked by enemies". No, it's "are YOU flanking your target when YOU attack".

So, when you are attacking, and you are flanking someone, you get a +2 to your attack. If something prevents you from getting a +2 to your attack (either an ally is not positioned properly, your ally is not threatening your target, and/or you are not making a melee attack), then YOU ARE NOT FLANKING YOUR TARGET. If you are a rogue and you are not flanking, you do not get to add your sneak attack damage.

EDIT: stupid iPad spacing issues.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Avenka Thalma wrote:
Sorry for being late on this, but I'm new to pathfinder and I was wondering this : if the party splits, and half the party fights and half just do stuff elsewhere, do they also gain xp, or do I split xp just to those present to fight?

It depends, when doing other stuff, are they still contributing to the group or advancing the story in a reasonable manner? If so, I still split it between the whole group.

For example, if they split the party while exploring a dungeon, if group A triggers a fight with some orcs, while group B is discovering new parts of the dungeon, I'll award the orc XP to the whole group as group B is still positively advancing the story for the whole group—and it's likely they'll trigger their own fight anyways.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
If you can't flank without making a melee attack, you can't apply sneak attack via flanking if you're not making a melee attack.

How do you explain the following abilities

Improved Back to Back

Assault Leader

Enfilading Fire

Topple Foe

Amplified Rage

Underfoot Assault

The claim "you can't flank without making a melee attack" is simply not supported by the rules.

(My advice - go back to arguing on the basis of the Gang Up FAQ. At least there, you have a leg to stand on.)

edit: hahah, ninja'ed

i'm just going to quote this every time anyone claims you can only flank during a melee attack.

I mean, you do realize that the whole point of the thread is from the point of view of someone making the attack? Specifically, the question had to do with whether or not sneak attack from flanking is applied to ranged attacks.

I completely agree that someone can be considered to be in a flanked position when it is not their turn: the opponents are in a legal position and are wielding weapons that threaten them—in 99.9% of the cases, this means that they will be equipped with melee weapons and are opposite from one another.

This point in no way invalidates the fact that when you make an attack, it must be with a melee weapon to receive the benefits of flanking. Because the rules tell you what kind of attacks receive the benefit of flanking, and I don't see the word "ranged" anywhere within the flanking rules...but I do see the word "melee".

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cevah wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

But you aren't flanking if you make a ranged attack, only a melee attack.

You can provide flanking, but the rules clearly state that you have to be making a melee attack to be considered flanking and get the +2.
If you cannot get the +2, then you must not be flanking.
If you are not flanking then you cannot add your sneak attack dice.

This assumes flanking requires melee, despite being described in a separate paragraph. The +2 is tied to melee. I don't agree that, by RAW, flanking is.

/cevah

Separate paragraph? As far as I can read, and I'm sure you read as well, it's all contained in the same sentance. The very first one to be exact.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Please point me to the rules that allow someone armed with a ranged weapon to be able to provide flanking.

I'll give you a hint: there isn't any. You don't "lose" flanking when you have a ranged weapon because you never had it in the first place.

EDIT: I mean, really, this isn't rocket science. I provided a checklist that is literally taken directly from the rules. Where in the rules for flanking does it say that you get it if you attack with a ranged weapon? It. Doesn't.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
RumpinRufus wrote:
Besides the Gang Up FAQ, nothing in RAW supports it, either.

Except for the actual words printed in the book, but hey, who needs to use the actual rules in a rules debate.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Risner wrote:


Edit: This subject has came up at least once before regarding Ranged Flanking and Sneak Attack. But now we have Developer comments to give us hints on which way is the correct interpretation of RAW. Unfortunately, those that read it as Ranged Flanking is possible don't accept this. So the only way I see this subject put to bed is via a FAQ answer. I wouldn't even know a way to fix it via Errata? Maybe an exception "You can't gain Flanking with a non-melee weapon" but even then someone would say "But I'm flanking because I'm holding this dagger and attacking with this ranged weapon".

Holding a dagger while making a ranged attack is ultimately a moot point, because it is all predicated upon whether or not you are making a melee attack.

More importantly, this argument is even more irrelevant because determining flanking is based upon whether or not your ally threatens your target, not whether or not you threaten your target—in which you're attacking with a melee weapon anyways, so the point is doubly moot.

If you're weilding a dagger, and you have a buddy flanking your opponent, and you decide to throw the dagger at your target instead of stabbing it, you do not receive the benefits of flanking your target...because the target is not flanked at that point...because you are not making a melee attack. No flank, no +2 to attack, no sneak attack bonus.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

When you make an attack, do you receive the benefits of flanking (of which, a rogue's sneak attack is certainly a benefit of flanking. As is the +2 to your attack)?

First, are you attacking with a melee weapon?
Second, do you have an ally that threatens your target (or, more precisely, does your target have another enemy which threatens it)?
Third, is your ally standing directly opposite of you from your target*?

If you answered "no" to any of the above questions, you do not receive the benefits of flanking.

* There are feats and/or class abilities which might alter the square you or your ally can be in to satisfy this requirement.

Certainly, there may be exceptions, but I can garuntee with absolute certainty that every "scenario" that has been mentioned so far in this thread can be properly adjudicated by applying these three questions.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Are Bluff and Diplomacy considered mind-effecting effects?

My hunch would be no considering there aren't any conditions associated with those skills that I'm aware of. Nor do I see any reason why you couldn't bluff undead or be diplomatic with intelligent undead. My $0.02.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:

Pretty much. Although in most goblin-themed adventures, you'll be throwing LOTS of goblins at the PCs. And that can end up giving out too much treasure overall. You'll want to keep an eye on the total value you hand out over the course of a level to make sure the PCs wealth stays in the band you're comfy with.

And that said... it seems like lots of folks tend to not bother looting goblins, if things on other threads on these boards are to be believed... so maybe go ahead and give them nice things! :-P

Truth.

I'm formulating a player-driven exploration/sandbox type game. So while goblins won't be the main theme, they'll be involved. I've just been using them as an example, though I plan on including the other standard evil humanoids, so the horde concept could apply to them as well.

I'll be including non-intelligent and other low treasure creatures on the tables, so that should, in theory help balance it all out.

I'm just trying to figure out that sweet spot between maintaining an organic and natural feel, quick GM prep, and keeping within reasonable WBL boundaries.

Thanks again!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Awesome NPC Stuff

Thanks for the response, it's really helpful!

So when creating a random encounter table, and one of the encounters is 1d6+3 goblins, each goblin would have approximately 260 gp of stuff (perhaps having 3 or 4 different packages of stuff to add some variety between goblins)?

Thanks again!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Question(s) about how you do NPC treasure for either AP development or your home game.

1) Assuming standard fantasy and Medium XP advancement, chart 14-9 on page 454 of the CRB indicates that the standard goblin from the bestiary (1st level warrior) should have a total gp value of 260 gp. Am I interpreting this correctly?

2) Assuming that is correct, and considering that is a lot more value that equipment listed in the bestiary, do you like to adjust the NPC's equipment to reflect the value, or do you take that extra gp and place it with some kind of treasure hoard? This question is primarily in reference to nonrecurring NPCs (random mooks, etc.).

3) What gp value would you recommend for a 1st level NPC in a game that uses the Slow XP advancement track? (The CRB recommends that Slow XP games should use a value as though the NPC were one level lower. Unfortunately, the table doesn't go any lower for 1st level NPCs on the Slow track).

4) For settlements, does the Base Value and Purchase limit reflect a standard fantasy campaign? Would it be reasonable to half these values in a low fantasy game (conversely, double in a high fantasy game)? What about the availability of Minor, Medium, or Major magic items: would these amounts be adjusted accordingly, as well?

Thanks.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Snorter wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
In my RotRL game, I declared that for the summoner in my group the symbol was the same symbol that keeps popping up in the adventure, and everyone is like WTF.
For added fun, if you're tracking Sin points, having the summoner's rune transform over the course of the campaign would freak them out even more.

Darn, Darn, Darnity, Darn! This is a great idea, and I wish I had been paying closer attention to "sin" from the beginning.

Unfortunately, our group only gets together to play maybe twice a year, so it's a bit difficult to go back and remember stuff like that. :-(

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This chart might help you visualize inappropriate size as well as the penalties associated.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Komoda wrote:
Then what is (and technically before the action) referring to?

If I understand what you are referencing, it has to do with the order of operations for resolving actions and any AoO that results from said actions. It's a game-ism that makes allowances for the fact that while "in reality" things are occuring simultaneously, in order for the game to run smoothly—an ironic statement considering the nature of the discussion, I do agree—things have to happen in a specified order so that we all don't go crazy trying to keep track of stuff.

In the case of casting a spell, "in reality" the AoO occurs while the caster is casting the spell; for the game, the player declares that a spell is being cast, the AoO happens, then the player casts the spell (after passing a possible concentration check).

In the case of a prone character, the player declares that they are going to stand up. The AoO happens, then the player stands up and removes the prone condition (this is why trip-locks arent possible—the prone condition isn't removed when the stand up is declared, it's removed after the character stands up.

In the case of moving, the player declares that they are moving. The AoO happens, then the player moves if able to do so. If tripped, no more movement is allowed if they've already moved any distance. If they haven't moved any distance, I personally would allow them to crawl 5 feet (which costs their entire movement rate, and would provoke its own AoO), otherwise they're stuck where they're at.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Imaria wrote:
So I suppose my question is, why are you so sure that reach is not considered part of a Tentacle, when it would be an inherent part of a Spear or Whip?

Chapter 8, Page 195 of the Core Rulebook talks about Large and larger creatures and reach. It notes how exceptions exist, as does Table 8-4 on that same page. That section basically states that reach and natural attacks aren't the same, even when a creature uses a different reach value for a specific kind of attack.

As written, your reach is not impacted so you use the default reach. An FAQ that allows polymorph spells to grant you the reach of whatever creature you're transforming into would make sense, and might not even be all that broken. (Its really the druid / monk multiclassers that this affects, after all.) But as written, the spell doesn't talk about what it does to your reach, so you have to assume that those conditional modifiers don't apply. You use the standard, unmodified reach listed in the creature's listing.

But I implore you to hit the FAQ button. With Mark Seifter at the helm, we just might get an official answer! :D

When you polymorph into another creature, you assume that creature's physical characteristics. A creature's extra reach for its natural weapons is generally due to the fact that it's physical characteristics grant it the extra reach, not because there is an extraordinary ability that grants it. If you polymorph into a dragon, your bite attack has extra reach because the dragon has a long neck. If you polymorph into a lamia matriarch, you only have a 5' reach, not a 10' reach for large creatures.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In my RotRL game, I declared that for the summoner in my group the symbol was the same symbol that keeps popping up in the adventure, and everyone is like WTF.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So instead of a bonus to perception, they get a bonus to initiative, and instead of a +1 to damage, they get an extra 1d6 to sneak attack, and the CHA damage is changed into sickened for non-worshippers. I like it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Its a trap. You design the trap to force you to stab yourself with a vicious dagger with the intent of it applying 3d6. Set the CR appropriately.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:

Hey, an avowed WBL heretic is doing the spreadsheet.

Just had an hour, got to the end of the Catacombs, so the PCs should be level 3, WBL = 3000, 4 PCs = 12,000 in total wealth.

Selling *everything* was rather interesting:
- Things every GM would allow to be sold (things like potions of CLW, medium-sized masterwork weapons, etc.) was just 2670.5
- Things owned by goblins and demons that some GMs might balk at buying (including said dagger) was 7274.5

So we're at 9945 instead of 12k, but I happen to know of a certain trove in Thistletop that's going to skyrocket that number.

So far, right about WBL if the GM allows the players to sell goblin gear.

But yeah, those masks in Book 2 are the "big huge cash influx" that changes the nature of the game. I know my PCs suddenly had plate mail and magical weapons once those sold...

EDIT: And I do know that my PCs felt the AP was very cash-poor until Thistletop, so I'm not surprised the number's low at this point...

Just to make sure of your methodology, things like tiaras, fine gowns, and weapons with an "artistic" value get 100%.

My cleric had full plate before the end of book 1—or was it between book 1 and 2...regardless, he didnt have to wait long.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
rknop wrote:

The difference between this and Duke Nukem' Forever is that this book is actually written. It's just not printed. Duke Nukem'... kept changing. Forever.

Hopefully the other difference is that when we finally get the Strategy Guide in our hands, it won't suck out loud the way DNF did. (Or, well, so I'm told by many sources. Never played it myself. Never will. So I can't judge for myself.)

Actually, the book was printed, shipped to the US, discovered to be of poor quality, sent back, reprinted, reshipped to the US, and is currently held up in shipping containers.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Chemlak wrote:

Love the chart, HF. Does the job nicely, but (and I really am being super-picky, here), it doesn't quite address the young Tarrasque enlarged problem.

Scenario: I'm a GM, I'm busy running an adventure, and I preprinted all my monster statblocks. During the encounter, my cunning BBEG who has managed to acquire a young Tarrasque (everybody needs a pet, right?) casts his (custom spell) enlarge magical beast on Fluffy (even baby Tarrasques deserve cute pet names), as well as strong jaw.

The problem: I now need to recalculate all of Fluffy's damage, including his 1d8 gore.

The solution: I open the Bestiary, I look up the Tarrasque, I go to the chart, 1d10, down one step, up two steps, and I get 3d8.

My pipe dream: Get the same answer without having to look in the Bestiary.

It's an extra step to the solution that I could do without, especially since I have a handy-dandy chart that's meant to give me all the answers.

Like I said, pipe dream. I think your chart is probably the best we're going to get.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the issue, but the chart provides the answer you seek:

You have a creature with the young template that gives you a damage die of 1d8. You know that the young template is one size smaller than the base creature. Find the -1 column and scroll down until you get to 1d8. Enlarge once to 1d10, and apply strong jaw to get 3d8.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
RumpinRufus wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
He has nowhere to look to. He knows absolutely nothing about where I am. He still takes full sneak attack damage from me, but this level damage suddenly goes away?
He has a freakin' arrow protruding from his chest that literally points directly at you. I'm pretty sure he has some idea where you are.

Nah. All you have to do is stay hidden for a little while longer until the eye icon is closed, then you're good.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Kchaka wrote:

Oh, look! Yet another bastard sword thread . . . Oh well.

Funny, a human can't use a medium bastard sword (1d10) in one hand with -4 penalty without the exotic weapon proficiency feat, but he can use a small greatsword (1d10) in one hand with a -2 penalty with martial weapon proficiency.

Funny, a human can't use a medium greatsword in one hand with -4 penalty.

Greatswords are not One-handed Exotic Weapons.

Bastard Swords are.

The Falcata is an One-handed Exotic Weapons, that even a Commoner can wield in one hand, with penalties.

Bastard Sword is just an exception, within an exception.

You know, for reasons.

You can keep whining all you want, but it doesnt change the fact that you're being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative. You know exactly what I meant when I said what I did: if you don't have the EWP, the bastard sword is treated no different than a greatsword.

1 to 50 of 3,267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.