archer flanking bonus


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 297 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

More fun.... :-)

Flanking wrote:
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

This is something often forgot about the +2 bonus. Your threatening ally must be adjacent. A melee reach specialist with a 10' reach is not adjacent (i.e. on its border/corner), and thus fails to meet this part of the requirement for the melee bonus.

Improved Whip Mastery only works if you are adjacent, but it does allow the threaten.

/cevah

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

AwesomenessDog wrote:
nothing to counter the written rules and claim the written rules are "a joke"

Um nothing?

So a FAQ explicitly saying you can't flank with a ranged weapon so Gang Up can't flank with a ranged because ranged can't flank is nothing?

A developer saying they were going to make a silly reply, but figured out people with your view were not joking and made a reply. The rules are not a joke, threads saying the rules allow for ranged flanking is the joke.

Cevah wrote:

More fun

Your threatening ally must be adjacent.

You have be threatening, that blurb is clarified in the second sentence. You don't have to be adjacent.

----

I'm actually starting to think this is all a joke, and I'm not in on it. it is almost like everyone in here know the rules, how they work, and are playing a game of feinted confusion and pretending to misunderstand the rules. I'm dead serious. This must be what is going on? Poke fun at Paizo and PF rules?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No Ranged Flanking

No Ranged Flanking

You already have the answer.

If you're just looking to twist the rules into your position, no amount of clarity will satisfy any of you.

Again, the CRB says melee only, the Gang Up FAQ confirms melee only, a Dev commented in the above link, and yet people still argue.

I've had my fill of dealing with trolls.


Kidding aside, I was looking at the gang up's FAQ and it says that ranged attacks dont benefit from that feat, but it might be because ranged attacks dont normally threaten, so gang up might benefit snap shot and, by extension, snap shot would benefit ranged attacks.

I was certain about the current No Ranged Flanking rule existance and I was only giving opinions about the core rulebook, but now I'm also unsure about the first case. A desgner's intervention would be appreciated.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Xuchilbara wrote:
A desgner's intervention would be appreciated.

I don't understand why we need it again, as we already have it.

But, fine. Let's try. Please click on the FAQ of mine below.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

51 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please click FAQ on this post.

Can a Rogue gain Sneak Attack damage dice using a Ranged Longbow attack while in flanking position with an ally?

Quote:

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

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


I didnt know that was possible O.o . We should have done that since the beggining.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xuchilbara wrote:
I didnt know that was possible O.o . We should have done that since the beggining.

I'd give it a 1 in 500 chance of being answered. But it seems this problem can't be solved until we get an official answer a second time.

Grand Lodge

I FAQed it, but only because some otherwise intelligent posters have gone off the deep end in attempting to be obfuscating, and not understanding what a rules clarification means, in it is clarifying an unclear part of the rules, not changing the rules.

Flanking wrote:


When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

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

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

Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank an opponent.

The first sentence defines when you can flank an opponent, and that is only when making a melee attack.

The second sentence is, and only is, a clarification on how to determine if you are flanking when making a melee attack.

Heck, a lot of people ignore the "threatened" text, and give flanking when your ally on the opposite side, for one reason or another, is not able to threaten, whether it is because they are unarmed without IUS, using a ranged weapon without Snap Shot, blind, etc.


For the record, I'm not saying that the examples listed by the OP would allow ranged flanking benefits.

I am only arguing that the rules as written do not disallow ranged flanking in theory, otherwise the Gang-Up FAQ would not have had to be made.

Originally, you could only threaten with melee, so there was never a question. Now that you can threaten with ranged weapons, you have to see exactly what each feat does or doesn't include to see if the door is open.

Gang-Up opened the door, the dev says it wasn't intended and promptly closed it.

Snap Shot opens the door to provide bonuses, just not to receive them.

If another feat also changes the qualifiers for flanking, and doesn't call out melee only, then it will open the door again.

And all of this because they are terrified of what 5th Ed rogues can do just fine right now, and hasn't broken a single game yet.


AwesomenessDog wrote:
Your the only one still arguing it so you have no consensus supporting you, those others are gone. The FAQ does not saying "ranged flanking doesn't exist", it says "ranged flanking does not exist in these circumstances". And again, numbers mean nothing for who is correct.

The rest of us see no value in arguing this in yet another thread. There are clearly two ways to read what the RAW of flanking is. The developers have stated which version is the correct way. Arguing it further is pointless.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

It also might help to get everyone's home game to FAQ the link:

ttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t5cj&page=4?#161


I'm with bbangerter. I still agree with James as do many others, it's just that we only have so much tolerance for arguing while James is a glutton for punishment :P

Scarab Sages

Yep. There is no ranged flanking, period. I just have no wish to keep beating the dead horse. FAQ it and move on.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Done a little research. There are a LOT of threads on this subject.

Only about ranged flanking
Can do in 4e how in pf?
Sneak Attack ranged flank
Ranged Sneak Attack
Snap Shot Ranged Flank
Gang Up Ranged Flank - now in FAQ
Ranged flanking
How to ranged flank
Gang Up flanking - now in FAQ
Sneak Attack ranged flanking
Ranged Sneak Attack
ranged flank
Ranged Sneak Attack
Ranged Sneak Attack
Ranged Sneak Attack

These were on the first page.
Showing 1 to 25 of 9,984 items for: ranged flank in messageboards

10 thousand threads on ranged sneak attack, with 15 of 25 related to ranged attacking with flanking. That means there is an estimated 5,990 threads related to this subject.

I'm not entirely sure how I managed to live this long and play or GM 300 games and I've never seen a face to face human suggest this strategy.


Brain in a Jar wrote:

This section of the sentence:

"and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks"
Is called a "Non-essential appositive". You'll note it's encased by a set of commas in the sentence.

"By "non-essential" appositive we mean an appositive that is not completely necessary. The sentence will be understood without it.

In such cases, use commas before and after the appositive."

Which would leave:

"The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat."

Which is true. That is a perfectly understandable sentence.

I have to throw a grammar flag on this. Your parsing of this sentence is wrong.

"and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks" is not an appositive, essential or otherwise: appositives are nouns or noun phrases. Here's an easy clue: if the group of words contains either a conjunction ("and") or a verb ("refers"), it can't be an appositive.

What we have here is a compound-complex sentence with one independent clause in the first section and one independent clause and one dependent clause in the second. When you parse the sentence correctly, you get:

Section 1: "The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included" (independent clause)

Section 2: "and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks," (dependent clause) "ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat" (independent clause)

The dependent clause is not "set off by commas": you need a comma plus a coordinating conjunction between two independent clauses, and you need a comma after any introductory words (including dependent clauses) that come before the subject of a clause. Those two commas have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.

==================

So what does this sentence actually mean, then?

By definition, independent clauses can always stand alone (i.e., they can be punctuated as complete sentences), so let's start by ignoring the first section of this compound sentence and focusing on the second section:

"since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat"

More grammar:

Fun fact: you can change the position of a dependent clause without changing the meaning, so grammatically, this is equivalent to:
"ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks"

This is another way to tell this is not a non-essential apposition. Dependent clauses are never "non-essential" grammatically, but editors can argue over whether the clause is "necessary."

Also note that you do not put a comma in front of a dependent clause that comes at the end of the sentence. This fact is irrelevant to this discussion: it just happens to be one of my pet peeves as an editor.

The meaning of since:

Now, as a conjunction, "since" has three basic meanings:
A) in the period following the time when: "He has written once since he left."
B) continuously from or counting from the time when: "He has been busy since he came."
C) because; inasmuch as: "Since you're already here, you might as well stay."

Clearly, only C makes sense in this case. So our second section means "because flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat"

I'm only including this because several people on the boards in the past have insisted that "since" does not mean "because". In this usage, it absolutely does.

The main point of the entire sentence is "ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat". The other two clauses explain the reasons behind that point.

Reason 1: "The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included": This is clear by itself, but it does bring up the question of why the feat needs to specifically say that ranged attacks are included.

Reason 2: "since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks": The first reason brought up a question, and this reason seems to answer that question: this dependent clause cites the general rule about flanking, which is not superseded by the feat in question.

So the reasons that ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat are 1) because flanking refers to melee attacks and 2) nothing in the feat allows flanking to apply to ranged attacks.

Feel free to argue about whether that's the writer's intent or whether you think it should be different, but that is what the sentence actually says.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh this issue. Fun!

FAQ'd because it keeps coming up. But throw one more vote in the "You can't flank with a ranged weapon unless a specific ability tells you you can" camp.

Little cheat sheet I drew up for figuring out if you flank/can sneak attack in a prior version of this thread.

Haven't been around in six months. I was worried a lot would have changed. Thankfully not! :D

Dark Archive

In pathfinder and 3.5? No. In 5e? Yes.


James Risner wrote:
I'm not entirely sure how I managed to live this long and play or GM 300 games and I've never seen a face to face human suggest this strategy.

I have only played one game and it's as a rogue, and someone already suggested that situation (not me, but to benefit me) then I stumbled with this thread the same day. It's as if the planets were aligned.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Xuchilbara wrote:
someone already suggested that situation

I think if you are in proximity to one of the 10 or so people on the planet that believe in this concept, they tell everyone in ear shot and don't take no for an answer.


Xuchilbara wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

Oh this issue. Fun!

FAQ'd because it keeps coming up. But throw one more vote in the "You can't flank with a ranged weapon unless a specific ability tells you you can" camp.

Little cheat sheet I drew up for figuring out if you flank/can sneak attack in a prior version of this thread.

Haven't been around in six months. I was worried a lot would have changed. Thankfully not! :D

I imagined you coming out of shadows from a corner in the tavern as you said that. Are'nt you the guy who was in the thread where a designer poped up saying you were wrong? May I have your authograph? =)

Irrelevant and rude.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Xuchilbara wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

Oh this issue. Fun!

FAQ'd because it keeps coming up. But throw one more vote in the "You can't flank with a ranged weapon unless a specific ability tells you you can" camp.

Little cheat sheet I drew up for figuring out if you flank/can sneak attack in a prior version of this thread.

Haven't been around in six months. I was worried a lot would have changed. Thankfully not! :D

I imagined you coming out of shadows from a corner in the tavern as you said that. Are'nt you the guy who was in the thread where a designer poped up saying you were wrong? May I have your authograph? =)
Irrelevant and rude.

Sorry, it wasnt meant that way =s


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Actually i don´t think there is any way of getting real ranged flanking.
"Enfilading fire" teamwork combat feat awards a +2 attack bonus, but nothing else, so no sneak attack etc. Not even sure if that feat would interact with outflank.

Flanking is for melee attacks only.

I want to point out that many of those ideas work with a reach weapon though. Especially the elven branched spear and the phalanx formation feat are a very good combination there.

I think a feat that allows for a ranged flank for classes using sneak attack could be a nice thing in a player companion though.

So to the OP:
-yes, with snap shot you enable flanking bonuses for others, because you threaten.
-no, with a ranged attack you actually never get a flanking bonus*.

*Exceptions are some feats like enfilading fire, that give you a bonus in certain situations. You are still not flanking with a ranged weapon though.


Yet more FAQ requests:
FAQ Request

Quote:

CRB p197, under "Flanking", first paragraph defines a "flanking bonus". The second paragraph defines a test for "flanking". Is "flanking", not the "flanking bonus", solely dependent on position per this paragraph? This affects ranged sneak attacks.

Does this change for ranged weapon(s) that also threaten?

FAQ Request

Quote:
CRB p197, under "Flanking", first paragraph defines a "flanking bonus" and the requirements to get it. Can a character with Snap Shot feat and wielding a ranged weapon meet the qualifications of "opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner"? If he can qualify, is he "flanking" while in position to threaten opposite his ally? (Not get a "bonus", but be "flanking")

I also FAQ'd James' request.

/cevah


Until you point to some place in a rule book that actually says the first sentence is the only rule for flanking and everything else is fluff/explanation or that ranged flanking is not allowed even if every other prerequisite it met (melee isn't a prereq, and neither is the attacker even required to threaten by RAW), it's allowed. It's that simple.

(And to claim that "ranged flanking is stupid" only serves to show you've never been in a real fight where stuff is thrown around, like say a bar fight (or been asked to dodge something thrown from behind your back).)


AwesomenessDog wrote:
(And to claim that "ranged flanking is stupid" only serves to show you've never been in a real fight where stuff is thrown around, like say a bar fight (or been asked to dodge something thrown from behind your back).)

I've been in enough water balloon fights to know you could sneak attack while flanking (event get +2 attack bonus).

--------------------------------------------------------------------
To de point:

I was reading the cavalier description today (yes, this is another opinion and shall not be taken as a defy to official decisions) and the challenge class feature catched my attention. It says:

''The cavalier's melee attacks deal extra damage whenever the attacks are made against the target of his challenge''.

You only get the damage bonus with melee attacks, but even though you attack your target with a ranged weapon, it still would be considered challanged, so other benefits (or drawbacks) that require you to be challenging or your target being challenged apply.

What I'm saying is that it is crystal clear that you need a melee weapon to get a +2 flanking bonus, but still you might not need that bonus to flank your target, or for your target to be considered flanked by you. The sentence ''or when the rogue flanks her target'' technically apply for both mentioned situations, and since the first condition (anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC) is directly dependant of the rogue's target and not of the rogue herself, it is conceivable that the second condition would be dependant of the target too or apply to it at least.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

AwesomenessDog wrote:
melee isn't a prereq it's allowed. It's that simple.

It clearly isn't that simple, we have a lot of people that disagree with your interpretation. Your GM will give you their version of RAW.

So please click FAQ and help us all make it that simple, by recruiting people we know in real life to also click that FAQ.


Xuchilbara wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

Oh this issue. Fun!

FAQ'd because it keeps coming up. But throw one more vote in the "You can't flank with a ranged weapon unless a specific ability tells you you can" camp.

Little cheat sheet I drew up for figuring out if you flank/can sneak attack in a prior version of this thread.

Haven't been around in six months. I was worried a lot would have changed. Thankfully not! :D

I imagined you coming out of shadows from a corner in the tavern as you said that. Are'nt you the guy who was in the thread where a designer poped up saying you were wrong? May I have your authograph? =)

... That doesn't sound familiar. I mean, it's entirely possible, just not ringing any bells. Any idea what the thread was about?


Archers don't need feats. They just need Peter Jackson as GM.


fretgod99 wrote:
Xuchilbara wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

Oh this issue. Fun!

FAQ'd because it keeps coming up. But throw one more vote in the "You can't flank with a ranged weapon unless a specific ability tells you you can" camp.

Little cheat sheet I drew up for figuring out if you flank/can sneak attack in a prior version of this thread.

Haven't been around in six months. I was worried a lot would have changed. Thankfully not! :D

I imagined you coming out of shadows from a corner in the tavern as you said that. Are'nt you the guy who was in the thread where a designer poped up saying you were wrong? May I have your authograph? =)
... That doesn't sound familiar. I mean, it's entirely possible, just not ringing any bells. Any idea what the thread was about?

Yes, actually =) . By the way, I was'nt kidding about the autograph: if a developer pops up now, it would surely be to say that I'm wrong too (me and all the pro sneak attack folk in this thread). I saw you in the thread wich has been used as main evidence against us and thought 'oh its him!' =D


I truly apologize if I have been offensive.


Xuchilbara wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Xuchilbara wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

Oh this issue. Fun!

FAQ'd because it keeps coming up. But throw one more vote in the "You can't flank with a ranged weapon unless a specific ability tells you you can" camp.

Little cheat sheet I drew up for figuring out if you flank/can sneak attack in a prior version of this thread.

Haven't been around in six months. I was worried a lot would have changed. Thankfully not! :D

I imagined you coming out of shadows from a corner in the tavern as you said that. Are'nt you the guy who was in the thread where a designer poped up saying you were wrong? May I have your authograph? =)
... That doesn't sound familiar. I mean, it's entirely possible, just not ringing any bells. Any idea what the thread was about?
Yes, actually =) . By the way, I was'nt kidding about the autograph: if a developer pops up now, it would surely be to say that I'm wrong too (me and all the pro sneak attack folk in this thread). I saw you in the thread wich has been used as main evidence against us and thought 'oh its him!' =D

Are you talking about this thread? I'm not sure where I was told I was wrong by a developer. First, we likely should view Mark's post as his opinion, since it wasn't made by an "official" account (e.g., the PDT account) or in any other way stated to be an official clarification or something similar. Second, the implication of Mark's post is that his opinion aligns with mine - flanking does not apply to ranged attacks (unless you have a specific ability which states otherwise).

Is there another thread or post I'm missing? Links appreciated.

Lantern Lodge

Personally, I think ranged flanking should be allowed, it's a true enough concept and creates more variety in builds.

Now, is it in the rules? It comes down to whether or not you think that flanking and flanking bonus are the same IMO.


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

Personally, I think ranged flanking should be allowed, it's a true enough concept and creates more variety in builds.

Now, is it in the rules? It comes down to whether or not you think that flanking and flanking bonus are the same IMO.

The opinion that they are the same thing is not same as the fact that it's not how it's written.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

AwesomenessDog wrote:
The opinion that they are the same thing is not same as the fact that it's not how it's written.

That is the whole reason we need a FAQ. How it is written and the resulting interpretation of those words meaning isn't a fact. There are two opinions on what those words mean.

So please, if not done already, click on the FAQ. Also have every friend/gamer you can find come to also click. We need your help.


FAQ'd, but it seems irrelevant to what the real question would be.

The text refers to making a Melee Attack. If you make a Melee Attack with the proper conditions met (i.e. 2 creatures are on "opposite ends" and can make attacks against said foe), then you receive a Flanking bonus.

Keep in mind that it uses the term "Threaten," which means that a PC cannot threaten with say, his Unarmed Strike unless he possesses the Improved Unarmed Strike or similar ability, which means that it is not grounds for providing flanking. This would apply to other stuff, such as a Whip, or using a Longbow.

Now, with the Snap Shot feat chain, Archers can threaten enemies, and can then theoretically provide a flanking bonus, but would not be eligible for receiving one, because flanking bonuses only apply to melee attacks.

So, there's no question that the Archer provides a flank, presuming Snap Shot feat chain. Theoretically speaking, a highly trained ranged enemy at one side and a melee enemy at another side is probably just as threatening/distracting as two melee enemies. Also, reviewing the Sneak Attack entry for Rogues:

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.

It states that Sneak Attack triggers when the Rogue is flanking their target. The real question is, do you have to receive a flanking bonus in order to be considered flanking, even though you're actually providing flanking bonuses for an ally (or 2), or do you just have to fulfill the tactical requirements for it (i.e. the threatening and opposite borders/corners)? Personally, I don't see why it couldn't be the latter in addition to the former. It doesn't really mention that if you don't receive a bonus, you don't count as flanking, especially when there are options that allow you to provide flanking for an enemy (and yet not receive a Flanking Bonus to attacks yourself).

**EDIT** The grammar and approach is real.

Lantern Lodge

AwesomenessDog wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

Personally, I think ranged flanking should be allowed, it's a true enough concept and creates more variety in builds.

Now, is it in the rules? It comes down to whether or not you think that flanking and flanking bonus are the same IMO.

The opinion that they are the same thing is not same as the fact that it's not how it's written.

?

Why so stern? In my opinion, it comes down whether flanking and flanking bonus are the same or not. My opinion is NOT that flanking and flanking bonus are the same, and my opinion is NOT that flanking and the flanking bonus are different. My opinion IS that the argument boils down that point. I have NO opinion on what you seem to have responded to.

I believe you misinterpreted my point, and that you got stern over a point that I never made. Please learn to read AND understand before you type.

Again, I think in real life, flanking applies to ranged attacks. I don't have an opinion on whether it's in the rules. I do have an opinion on what the argument's focal point is. That is all.

As a side note: If you say I should have an opinion, and it should be yours, then thou art a bigot! :P (Bigotry = "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.")


As far as the English language is concerned, "Flanking" and "Flanking bonuses" are definitely different terms.

However that may or may not be the intent of the actual flanking rules. It's a hard question.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

33 FAQ clicks. We could use a few more!

Get everyone you can to click FAQ on
post here


I feel the need to remind you, James, that the number of FAQ requests is irrelevant to how likely a question is going to be answered. This is detailed out in the sticky thread at the top of the rules forum.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

One can hope, right?


One can always hope!

I'm still hoping my magic missile/smite thread will get an answer, and I have about 25 requests or so on that one.


@Frodo, I knew you point, I was using you post to piggyback my point. (I agree with your opinion)

While I may agree with your opinion, your opinion is irrelevant when the current fact remains that "flanking" is not determined by receiving a "flanking bonus". As I said earlier, if the designers want to change the rules to reflect what their actual intended rule was (be it more confirming support or disqualifying ranged from flanking), then they can do so, but some form of official rules change mush be present. Until they do so, ranged flanking is legal (and so is an unarmed gaining a +2 when an ally is opposite and threatening).


Cevah wrote:

More fun.... :-)

Flanking wrote:
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

This is something often forgot about the +2 bonus. Your threatening ally must be adjacent. A melee reach specialist with a 10' reach is not adjacent (i.e. on its border/corner), and thus fails to meet this part of the requirement for the melee bonus.

Improved Whip Mastery only works if you are adjacent, but it does allow the threaten.

/cevah

Interesting. This would preclude an archer with snap shot/improved snap shot from providing the bonus to their ally if they were more than 5' from the enemy in between them.

This would make improved snap shot only useful for AoOs.

151 to 200 of 297 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / archer flanking bonus All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.