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. 3,282 posts (3,288 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 4 Pathfinder Society characters. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well they're just really big zombies and skeletons, so meh.

Liberty's Edge

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

So even though Paizo has said they will be steering clear of kickstarter in the future, here is your substitute...

Buy out one (or more) physical copy of existing APs you want to see re-issued. You'll still have to buy the re-issue of course, and there's no guarantee it will even happen, but it's the next best thing (to direct feedback) to try and help along the chances of a particular re-issue happening.

In fact, the blog has a convenient list of potential purchase targets. ;)

Fortunately, I've already done my part and own both APs. Have you done your part? ;-)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The beauty of this discussion is a) that Paizo hedged their answer to this question a few years ago in such a way that there is a possibility that they would do another hardcover (however improbable that possibility may be), and b) if we fans raise up enough stink, Paizo will put out another AP hardcover.

So, really, the tone of this discussion needs to steer away from fantasy to reality.

Crimson Throne is the most logical choice (almost universally praised, 3.5, many volumes out of print).

Second Darkness is a good choice as well, though I think less as likely due to there being more available stock.

I don't know much about Legacy of Fire.

While there would be some good PFRPG AP candidates, they likely wouldn't even think about those until the 3.5 ones have been updated.

My 2 CP.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Played on 03/21 & 22/2015

Spoiler:

30 Lamashan 4707

Late last night, Jakardros spoke with our party regarding a desire to reestablish communication with Turtleback Ferry. We agreed to stay on for a while to help with the Black Arrows' diplomatic affairs with the community. Additionally, Mudder, in what can only be described as a post-poison euphoria, became enraptured by battle-strategy discussions with Vale and beseeched the party to allow him to stay a bit to train on learning how to furiously focus, as the Black Arrows do.

I do not understand this concept at all. Just, you know, focus. Concentrate. Why fury belongs in this equation is unbeknownst to me. In fact, I would think that would impair one's ability to focus.

Ah, well. Perhaps dwarves have some sort of attention deficiency of which I am unaware.

Anyway, today has been a rather uneventful day. Aside from watching Mudder glower and swing about his lucern hammer, it has been fairly peaceful.

Oh yes, and so far, it does not appear Mudder has noticed his braid.

31 Lamashan 4707

Jakardros mentioned, almost in passing, that they were unable to find their commander's remains. We recalled coming across Lamatar Bayden's personal effects, and in them, some love poetry.

Because of the drizzly weather, I chose to remain indoors and study these poems for clues.

They're lovely, but unfortunately, they don't offer much other than a general location of where the lovely Miriana may be. She might be in the White Willow in the Shimmer Glens. Perhaps the maiden knows of his whereabouts.

When the weather is less dismal, we may set out.

1 Neth 4707

It still rains. Incessantly.

2 Neth 4704

This weather is atypical for this time of year. Why hasn't it cleared up yet? Yes, we often get rain, but goodness, this is nigh on a deluge.

Perhaps it is just this region of the country to which I am unaccustomed.

3 Neth 4707

Tordag is writing spells, and I find myself curious about his magic. Mine is inherent, just part of me. He explained once that his came from his deity when he prays.

But still, doesn't he just know them after having "learned" them once? It seems duplicitous to me that his Abadar takes away this knowledge that he allegedly gives.

I don't understand religion.

Mudder appears to have mastered the art of being furiously focused. Vale is apparently pleased with him anyhow. There was much hand-shaking and back-slapping. He still has not noticed his braid. I am enjoying this.

In other news, I believe this rain is magical mischief. It feels unnatural.

4 Neth 4704

Since the rain wouldn't let up, we decided to set out this morning.

Immediately upon our arrival to the ferry, there was a blinding downpour, followed by a resounding crack from up river. The dam had broken, and suddenly the town was flooding with water and terrible creatures were floating downriver.

We had managed to fight off a giant constrictor and save a group of school children from being crushed by their shabby old building when suddenly, a gargantuan alien creature shambled, slithered, and swam its way down river, attempting to destroy everything it its path. It essentially crushed the church of Erastil and seemed hell-bent on unleashing its fury upon the town until we made the decision to distract it.

That was a very poor choice.

Furtunately, the creature became weary of us, and the townsfolk mistakenly believed we had chased her off. We learned later that she was the Black Magga, a creature of mostly forgotten legend here in this region. She was speaking Thassilonian.

This is unsettling.

We have decided that the damage to this ancient dam, the disturbing reappearance of a mythic creature, and the unnatural rain are signs of a greater puzzle that must be investigated.

Unfortunately, the missing, lovelorn captain must wait.

On a positive note, while Mudder was incapacitated from his royal beating at the hands (tentacles?) of the Black Magga, I was able to braid the other side of Mudder's beard. He looks a bit like a walrus.

5 Neth 4707

What an interesting day.

We began by heading up to the dam, and we discovered the trail leading up to the stairs marked by skulls and skull runes. With a little help from a comprehend languages spell, I was able to read that the territory belonged to the Skull Taker clan of trolls. I was loathe to bring the news back to my party; despite his new dapper appearance due to walrus braids, Mudder (and Tordag, too, while we're at it) really, really dislikes giant kind.

I fear the blood will never fully wash from those braids. Ah, well. Perhaps blood has some conditioning properties.

Those dwarves just cannot be reasoned with regarding giant kind. When we arrived at the top of the dam and discovered ogres chipping away at the walls, they were both completely careless with their own personal safety. Fortunately, no one slipped and fell to his death.

Unreasonable dwarves.

I suppose, though, their fervor prevented further damage to the severely compromised dam.

After the ogre slaughter, we went to check out the tower located on one side of the dam. Inside, we discovered a nest of those SkullTaker trolls, and I earned myself some dwarven respect when I cast confusion on one of the trolls and caused two of them to fight each other. The dwarves just thought that was fantastic.

On an unrelated note, Mudder finally noticed his braids whilst we were in the troll room. He seems to like them, oddly enough. I overheard him muttering to Tordag and one of the two of them mentioned the word "stylized" which, quite frankly, I didn't even know was a part of their vocabulary.

Well, if it's style they want, I can absolutely give them that. If I could actually convince either of them to regularly bathe, I may be able to dress and style them fashionably and feel comfortable taking the two fo them out in public.

That is probably unfair. Tordag, I believe, bathes a bit more frequently. Mudder, though...Mudder seems to revel in wearing blood splatter. I think he views it as a badge of honor, especially when it's giant blood.

In fact, Mudder and Tordag both laughed at me later when we found the cesspit in which we located a water troll called Papa Grazuul. They allowed me to deliver the coup de grace since I had prepared a shocking grasp spell I hadn't been able to use during battle. Tordag called me giant killer, and Mudder teased me for wiping off my hand after having touched the noxious beast. In disgust, I asked him if he planned to bathe tonight. He laughed and asked "why"?

He was not laughing later when he was nearly beheaded by some sort of construct called a Skull Ripper. That thing was brutal. I am ashamed to say I ran away from it.

Twice.

At least this was deadlier and scarier than the Yeth Hounds we encountered back in Rova. It feels as though years have passed in these last couple of months.

The construct appeared to be guarding a control room of sorts. Unfortunately, none of us could figure out how to get the flood gates to open. It seemed as though the dam was missing its power source. When we traveled to yet another room in the interior of the dam, we discovered why.

The dam had been operating for decades—probably centuries—by drawing from the life force of two summoned creatures. One of those creatures had been reduced to dust. According to the other withered, frail creature, the first had expired more than fifty years ago. The devil (or demon—I can't keep the evil little things straight) pled with us for his release. We didn't want to do that and cause the dam's critical failure. Without two power sources, though, we weren't going to be able to power the dam.

Well, Tordag was all prepared to do the noble thing and jump right into the summoning circle, but none of us were comfortable with that given that he is our healer. Mudder had already taken a prodigious beating, so he wasn't going to volunteer, and Melda, well, Melda's not the volunteering type. I jokingly suggested we put Ascarthia in the circle as we could just call her back tomorrow. Of course, I was only partially kidding.

Because if nobody else was going to get into the circle, it was going to have to be me.

Now, I would not normally use the word "heroic" to describe myself. But truly, my actions earlier today were truly noble, selfless, and honorable.

Somebody should give me a medal or something.

Obviously, I didn't die. I did, however, feel noticibly weaker than I had earlier in the day.

+--------------------------+

5 Neth 4707 (continued)

Nearly immediately upon having drained some of my life force, we heard the dam rumble to life and the spillways open, releasing the pent up pressure from millions of gallons of water.

After reactivating the dam, we finished checking over nooks and crannies we had missed previously. We also went back along the original cave pathway we had seen at the start and discovered a guardian ettin. After having fought that dreadful creature, I can honestly say that this ettin was not a very good guardian.

Eventually, we made our way back here to the fort, a little tired but no worse for wear.

Tordag assures me he can restore me to my usual self tomorrow after he has rested and prayed.

Perhaps it is a good thing that Abadar gives even as he takes.

+--------------------------+

Players Notes: We will have rested and leveled up prior to the next day. Tordag is down one spell: restoration. We plan to go look for the captain.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Personally, I treat gauntlets as unarmed strikes that do lethal damage.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Played 11-08-2014

Spoiler:

28 Lamashan 4707 (continued)

Upon our approach to the barn, we discovered a grim scene. Three of the ogrekin were toying with a deceased human male who'd had a post-hole digger driven through his groin. He was pinned in place, the poor man. One hopes the post-hole digger was used postmortem.

Also inside the barn, we discovered a spider. I can't do justice in words to the sheer immensity of this creature. It quite literally filled the hayloft/prison. I also cannot do justice in words to the sheer immensity of my hatred of spiders. Hatred is inadequate. I detest spiders. Loathe. Abhor. Despise. Abominate.

Consequently, I set it on fire—unfortunately, not before The Abomination did serious damage to our friend Mudder. Poor Mudder looked quite drunk. In fact, I don't even think I've seen ale have this effect on him. Not even the Hagfish water.

Perhaps the only way to intoxicate a dwarf is through poison. But I digress.

In the spider's hovel, we found Vale Temros, Kaven Windstrike, and Jakardros Sovark, imprisoned. Shalelu was quite pleased to find Jakardros, her step father. These three gentlemen were the last of the Black Arrows.

The Black Arrows laid to rest their fallen comrade by building a pyre for him. Then we set the barn and the house of fire.

It has been a good day for fire.

The gentlemen told us the fort had been completely overrun by ogres, so we decided to return to Turtleback Ferry to get the story of what happened to the fort and the Black Arrows. What we got, however, was rather unexpected. Apparently, Kaven was an instrument in Lady Lucretia's plot to overthrow the fort. He told us (under the influence of an elixir of truth) that he had become Lady Lucretia's lover, that she had asked him to get the tattoo, and that she had asked him to delay Jakardros's party in their attempts to get back to the fort. Consequently, it is probable that through his efforts, Kaven made it possible for the ogres to overtake the Black Arrows. Additionally, Kaven told us he had two accomplices who had been travelling to the Paradise Lost with him, but they weren't true conspirators. They hadn't been sucked into Lucretia's plot as Kaven had.

Jakardros, as you can imagine, was quite incensed. He told us that Kaven must be put to death according to the Black Arrow's laws.

Keven's execution will take place tomorrow morning.

It has been a long day. Before we rest Tordag must restore Mudder to his regular strength. I want to see whether or not Mudder realizes I have braided the right portion of his beard while he was poisoned.

29 Lamashan 4707

This morning, Tordag went to witness Kaven's execution while the rest of us went to find out if Lady Lucretia ever came in to Turtleback Ferry (as she told Kaven she would), but everyone in town seems to believe that she perished in the Paradise Lost fire. We believe she staged her own death and is continuing her nefarious recruitment of the greedy elsewhere.

On an unrelated note, but while I am thinking of it—Jakardros and Shalelu seem to be getting along better. I noticed yesterday that they were, for lack of a better word, chilly with each other. Perhaps they've had a chance to talk of some family friction? I am intensely curious to know what is happening, but social protocol does not allow me to ask. Hmmm.

Shortly after the return of the execution party, we set out for the fort. Mudder, Shalelu, and Jakardros went ahead as a scouting party. When we met up at the fort, we devised a plan. We made Vale invisible and cast fly upon him. Then we sent him into the camp with a campfire bead. He flew under a wooden barracks building whereupon he lit the campfire and subsequently set the barracks with a dozen ogres inside on fire. They all died. It would be sad if they weren't all planning to kill us anyway. Also, Tordag and Mudder seem to believe the outright murder of giantkind is something to be celebrated.

I think they're a little bit racist.

After today's encounter, I suppose I can understand why. These ogres are truly awful.

The ogres were everywhere. They had infiltrated the keep and were patrolling the outer boundaries as well. Fortunately, we had taken out their leader quite early, so he was unable to muster the troops against us. That made dispatching the rest of them fairly easy. I say fairly because there were some unusual ogre-folk amongst our combatants: barbarian, fighter, sorcerer. Usually ogres aren't so well trained.

One particularly difficult battle was in the hidden tunnels in the mountain behind the keep. We fought some sort of undead creature that absolutely resisted my attempts to halt him, which is unacceptable. Fortunately, Tordag was able to call upon his deity to smite the creature. There may be something to this whole religion thing.

Particularly troubling, though, was the Lamia Matriarch who disappeared on us. We suspect that she was, in fact, Lucretia from the Paradise Lost, but we have no way of knowing for sure. We were fairly close to slaying her, but she used her dimension door spell to teleport away from us at the close of the battle. We searched all about the fort for her, but she was nowhere to be found.

Jakardros and Vale decided to accompany us back to Turtleback Ferry. Perhaps they can recruit more Black Arrows there.

End of Session Notes

Tordag made his will saves against the negative levels from the thing we fought in the tunnels. We are leveled up and rested. Vale made one of his will saves, but not the other. Consequently, he has one negative level.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oops. O.o

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
claudekennilol wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
And the other important point being that you couldn't make that attack the same turn you cast the spell.
You can't make that natural attack or the unarmed attack that turn (in general, there are obviously ways around it). You still get the free touch attack from casting a touch spell.

Yes, I should have clarified what "that" meant.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
barry lyndon wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:

Quick question about the Skull Ripper and the order of operation with grapples and the behead ability.

So:

Round 1) Hit with claw, do claw damage, make grapple check, success, do constrict damage.

Round 2) Maintain grapple as a standard action, success, apply pinned condition, do constrict damage and claw damage.

Round 3) Maintain grapple as a standard action, success, continue pin, do constrict and claw damage, do behead special ability.

Does this sound right?

Does the attacker get to do constrict damage straight away on a successful grapple?

From this link, it seems like the attacker's turn is over after the grapple until next round

Linkified

Yes, because the constrict special ability states that a creature does constrict damage on a successful grapple check.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

And the other important point being that you couldn't make that attack the same turn you cast the spell.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Quick question about the Skull Ripper and the order of operation with grapples and the behead ability.

So:

Round 1) Hit with claw, do claw damage, make grapple check, success, do constrict damage.

Round 2) Maintain grapple as a standard action, success, apply pinned condition, do constrict damage and claw damage.

Round 3) Maintain grapple as a standard action, success, continue pin, do constrict and claw damage, do behead special ability.

Does this sound right?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Other than the explicit instructions to make attacks in descending BAB order, I'm not really sure why this is being made into an issue.

The reality is that it doesn't matter. Attack with your primary hand first. Attack with your off hand first. Interchange between primary and off hand attacks. Who cares. It doesn't matter.

But, if you insist on being sticklers about it, since off hand attacks are "extra" attacks, a natural reading of the rules would imply that all of the off hand attacks would be made once the primary attacks have been completed.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'll leave this one up to GM discretion and call it good.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Liz Courts wrote:
Tryn wrote:

Wouldn't it be more customer and company friendly to simply release the errata as .pdf once is ready? (Similar to patches/hotfixes for computer games)

Local game stores are also our customers, and invalidating their inventory on a just-released title is not good for them.

So...you're operating under the logic that:

A.) Nobody who shops at a game store has access to the internet.

and

B.) Releasing a document saying "These are the changes that will be made to the book" invalidates the inventory...which also benefits from the errata document regardless.

Not to be rude but I don't think you thought this statement out very well.

Releasing an errata PDF is a win for the customers. They can buy the first print, and still have all the necessary updates.

It is a win for you, because more people will be willing to buy a broken product with a fix than a broken product with no fix.

Nothing changes for the game store. People either buy the books or they don't.

I would rather have a book that didn't have to have a few extra pages of errata sticking out. If I knew that a new printing was pending, I would wait to buy it until I knew for sure I was getting was the most recent printing.

So, in this case, your desire to have this errata document before the next printing comes out means that I won't buy the product.

Liberty's Edge

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

Sweet! This works! Though, I do say that I think my chart looks cooler. ;-)

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.

1 to 50 of 3,282 << 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.