archer flanking bonus


Rules Questions

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

Cevah wrote:


I think the FAQ does not apply since it does not clarify things and only applies a specific rule which actually implies the opposite of what you think.

I really have no idea how you think the opposite is implied from the FAQ.

I can understand your position and reading of the flanking rules from just the CRB (I don't agree with it, but I can see the view point). But I absolutely cannot see anything in the wording of the FAQ that implies ranged flanking is possible under normal flanking rules but not for the gang-up feat.


"Clearly you're wrong because you agree with the development team, because they're clearly wrong."


Sneak attack itself says you have to flank the target, doesn't say anything about being in a "flanking position."

Liberty's Edge

Cevah wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Cevah wrote:

If you think the +2 flanking bonus is the exact same thing as the flanking condition you get the result that ranged flanking does not work.

If you think these are two distinct things, then you get ranged flanking does work.

Yep that is the same summary we had 200 posts ago.

Only 1 to 3 believe they are distinct like you.

Developers agree with me (you don't agree they do.)
The FAQ agrees with me (you don't agree it does.)
45 people clicked FAQ / approximately 42 think your theory is incorrect but would like them to tell you no

I agree that you and the developers agree. I don't however think you are correct. What they want and what they wrote are not in agreement.

You think the FAQ agrees with you. I think the FAQ does not apply since it does not clarify things and only applies a specific rule which actually implies the opposite of what you think.
45 clicks means 45 people want an answer. The only clue I have as to their opinion is if they posted the fact that they clicked the FAQ button. Since there have not been 45 posts with such information, I cannot determine how many agree or disagree.

/cevah

So you admit that the developers likely side with his position, and yet you still argue that he is wrong. That makes absolutely no sense. I honestly think that at this point you're arguing purely for the sake of arguing.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Cevah wrote:

I agree that you and the developers agree.

the FAQ ... actually implies the opposite of what you think.

45 clicks means 45 people want an answer ...I cannot determine how many agree or disagree.

No one cares what you think the rule says, if they know what the developers think the rule says. RAW is interpreted, and if you know the correct interpretation you can't use an incorrect one.

The FAQ doesn't imply the opposite, it implies you can't ranged flank. Well, actually, it explicitly says you can't.

Count how many people in this thread agree with you, I believe that number is you plus 2. If more agreed with you they would post their position.


I definitely agree that this is a frequently asked question, and I know I've explained things like this a dozen plus times in the past.

People just really want their extremely easy +Xd6 for a mechanic that is meant to be a bit tricky to get but possessing a high payoff.


I can see how one can read the CRB entry on flanking and deduce that it is possible to ranged flank. I think it requires reading in a vacuum and removing context, but I understand where it comes from.

I legitimately cannot fathom how the Gang Up FAQ implies the opposite of what James and many others are claiming.

Cevah wrote:
It refers to melee in the flanking rules. Does it tell you how melee things work with flanking? No it does not. It assumes how it works. An assumption is not a valid proof.

If ultimately supported, an assumption is absolutely a valid portion of a proof. More importantly, are you saying that the FAQ on Gang Up assumes how flanking works? If the Developers make a clarifying statement about how a specific subset of the rules works, and that statement necessarily makes assumptions about how the overall set of rules works, doesn't that pretty clearly indicate how the overall set of rules works? If the Gang Up FAQ is written assuming ranged flanking is not a thing, doesn't that mean the people who wrote the FAQ understood that ranged flanking is not a thing? In answering the question re: Gang Up, the first order of business is determining whether Ranged Flanking is a permissible thing in the first place. If you determine that it is, then you determine how Gang Up interacts with it. The language of the FAQ clearly demonstrates that they didn't even get beyond that first question. This is what you appear to be ignoring when you say we can derive no solid answer from the FAQ. They absolutely have to consider the overarching question when resolving the specific question.

If ranged flanking were a thing, but Gang Up wouldn't work, the answer would be entirely different. They would necessarily have to say that ranged flanking works, but Gang Up is different because [explicit reason]. As they note, Gang Up never once mentions ranged flanking. So if Gang Up treats ranged flanking differently than ordinary flanking, we would need to be told that. The lack of a clarifying statement is illuminating, particularly considering they utilized that same tactic in providing the answer they did give us: Gang Up does not allow ranged flanking because it does not specifically tell us it does. Rules exceptions (which feats generally are) tell us what they change about the rules. This FAQ says Gang Up doesn't allow ranged flanking because it doesn't tell us about any such change. The inference to be drawn from that is that you therefore cannot ordinarily flank from range, with or without Gang Up. Deductions to the contrary are illogical. Saying the lack of explicit mention of ranged attacks in Gang Up means not only can you not ranged flank with Gang Up but that you can ranged flank ordinarily defies reason.


Cevah wrote:
I think these are two distinct things, thus, RAW ranged flanking works. And Gang-Up only added positions to the list of possible flanks usable for sneak attack, then the FAQ took them away.

I legitimately cannot see how you conclude that the FAQ created new restrictions on Gang Up. They've actually done what you suggest: limit options given by a rules entry after the fact or said they would clean it up in errata. When they do that, they seem to make it pretty clear that they're doing something other than clarifying how the ability always worked.

The FAQ didn't add any new limitations to the Gang Up feat; it clarified how it worked the entire time.


Mmh... I don't think the majority of all players think it isnt possible to ranged weapon sneak attack when flanking, but the majority of expierenced ones. Those are the players who know how to best interpretate ambiguities in roleplaying I suppose, or know the developers better. As far as I've seen (wich isnt much) the majority of newcomers, unexpierenced players or people who dont even play but know how to read a manual get the same conclussion: The rulebook implies flanking (and flanked) as both a condition applied to the attacker and a condition applied to the defender (similar to grapple, but not the same), thus some of them (like me xD) fall in the dilema of ''the rulebook allows sneak attack with a ranged weapon on an enemy flanked by the rogue, but forbids the flanking bonus to the rogue for using a ranged weapon''.

I dont know if the Developers are the sort o people who write an official rules papper to be intentionally ambiguous and watch people throw repetitive and potentially annoying questions to them, but I think they are not. What would be the point of writing the rulebook then, if people go and ask how they should play the game anyway?.

In conclussion:

a) Ranged sneak attack on a flanked enemy by the rogue isnt forbiden.

b) Ranged sneak attack on a flanked enemy by the rogue is forbiden, and the developers made just a little oversight when they wrote the rulebook (its normal when redacting official pappers).

c) Developers enjoy being asked by the players how they should play.

d) All of the above (kidding xD).

No offenses meant.


@bbangerter: An exception implies something to take exception from. By saying "this feat" they are making an exception to the general. Thus the general exists that is not the exception's rule. What is the general rule when the specific exception is "no ranged flanking"? It would be "ranged flanking".

@CampinCarl9127: I did not say they were wrong. I said what they wrote (RAW) does not match what they say (RAI).

@HangarFlying: I am arguing that RAW =/= RAI.

@James Risner: I think some care. :-)
If you want to play RAW, then you cannot use RAI to change RAW. If RAW is not clear, then RAI can be used to see a way out. I assert RAW is clear and not what everyone sais is RAI. As to posting, considering how little acceptance is given, some may not care to post and invite adverse comments. The silent majority, if you will. This is why the FAQ system is great. No one knows you clicked it, nor what your opinion is.

@fretgod99: see comment for bbangerter for FAQ implications. Until an assumption is supported, it is not valid. What the FAQ states, is what they think they wrote. But since what they wrote and when they thought they wrote are not the same, the FAQ does not say what they think they said. For example, there was a time when nearly everyone believed the world was flat. Did that make it so? No. Did they publish works with the assumption of a flat earth and claim it truth? Yes. Now we know better. Believing ranged flanking does not exist, they would not consider the possibility when they created the feat. Likewise, when ruling the FAQ, they wrote from that same viewpoint. Are they correct? It depends on if ranged flanking exists. Based solely on the CRB, my understanding is that it does exist, RAW. Will it stay that way? Not if they actually answer the FAQ we are trying to get answered. Until then, we are left with the rules of language and the body of game rules that exist.

To say Gang-Up to not mention ranged, is only to show their reason for claiming it is melee only. They could have said it does not mention melee, so it is ranged only, with the exact same logic and be equally valid. In neither case does that affect the ranged flanking concept. It is the FAQ that tells us that the feat differentiates ranged flanking from melee flanking.

You want the feat to be a rules exception? Sure. Gang-up changes what counts as flanking. Period. What did the FAQ do? It added a differentiator between melee and ranged, making one work and the other not work. The FAQ did not say ranged flanking does not exist.

To use the logic of negatives (i.e. what the feat did not say proves something), you have a much harder proof to make, and that proof has not happened. You cannot argue it both ways: "it does not mention ranged so ranged don't work" is semantically the same as "it does not mention melee so melee don't work". You cannot use only half of that pair.

If ranged flanking works, then the FAQ does change the feat. If it does not work, why did they make the explanation so complex? A simple "You cannot flank at range." would have been easy to understand and to the point. Since we are told they like to keep thinks simple, the fact that they did not say this makes me wonder why? Is it because it actually does work?

/cevah

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Cevah wrote:
If you want to play RAW, then you cannot use RAI to change RAW.

There is no "one true RAW" and you are not the dictator of it.

So it is grossly inappropriate for you to say that your interpretation is the only valid one.

Especially when we know for a fact that your interpretation is false.


Cevah wrote:


@bbangerter: An exception implies something to take exception from. By saying "this feat" they are making an exception to the general. Thus the general exists that is not the exception's rule. What is the general rule when the specific exception is "no ranged flanking"? It would be "ranged flanking".

They aren't making an exception here. They are stating that the general rules continue to apply BECAUSE the feat did not call out an exception. And that the general rules are no ranged flanking.

The original feat makes no mention of what type of attack needs to be used to benefit from the feat. An exception for the feat would have to be called out explicitly. The FAQ isn't an errata of the feat. It is an explanation of the feat. The FAQ is not adding an exception that did not exist before.

Cevah wrote:


To use the logic of negatives (i.e. what the feat did not say proves something), you have a much harder proof to make, and that proof has not happened. You cannot argue it both ways: "it does not mention ranged so ranged don't work" is semantically the same as "it does not mention melee so melee don't work". You cannot use only half of that pair.
Quote:


The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat.

Lets reword that sentence from the FAQ.

The feat makes no mention of [melee] attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, [melee] attacks do not benefit from this feat.

This sentence makes no sense what-so-ever under that pretense. Even more so in light of the fact that the CRB flanking rules call out the melee flanking bonus.

However, I assume what you intended was this version instead.

The feat makes no mention of [melee] attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to [ranged] attacks, [melee] attacks do not benefit from this feat.

Ignoring the fact that that isn't what they wrote, to suggest that this notion carries equal weight as the no ranged flanking argument is provably false.

The idea of ranged flanking is an inferred reading of the flanking rules. The idea of melee flanking is explicitly called out in the flanking rules (there is a flanking bonus when attacking with melee). The developers have plainly told us that the inferred idea of ranged flanking is an incorrect inference.


James Risner wrote:
Cevah wrote:
If you want to play RAW, then you cannot use RAI to change RAW.

There is no "one true RAW" and you are not the dictator of it.

So it is grossly inappropriate for you to say that your interpretation is the only valid one.

Especially when we know for a fact that your interpretation is false.

Previously:

I wrote:
There is a difference between wanting it settled and wanting it ruled one way or the other. *I* would be happy either way it comes down.

Is this the attitude of a dictator?

I argue for what I think RAW is. I agree others see it differently. I publicly state I will go with whatever way a FAQ winds up.

This is grossly inappropriate?

Please, calm down.

/cevah


Back to point out FAQ is not common knowledge to anyone while anyone who goes to their local bookstore knows when a new errata book is out. You can't force people to rely on an online source for their gaming experience (especially after we have people taking their books and donating them to other countries where average citizens don't have access to the internet).


bbangerter wrote:
Cevah wrote:

@bbangerter: An exception implies something to take exception from. By saying "this feat" they are making an exception to the general. Thus the general exists that is not the exception's rule. What is the general rule when the specific exception is "no ranged flanking"? It would be "ranged flanking".

They aren't making an exception here. They are stating that the general rules continue to apply BECAUSE the feat did not call out an exception. And that the general rules are no ranged flanking.

The original feat makes no mention of what type of attack needs to be used to benefit from the feat. An exception for the feat would have to be called out explicitly. The FAQ isn't an errata of the feat. It is an explanation of the feat. The FAQ is not adding an exception that did not exist before.

True if there is no general ranged flanking.

False if there is general ranged flanking.

bbangerter wrote:
Cevah wrote:
To use the logic of negatives (i.e. what the feat did not say proves something), you have a much harder proof to make, and that proof has not happened. You cannot argue it both ways: "it does not mention ranged so ranged don't work" is semantically the same as "it does not mention melee so melee don't work". You cannot use only half of that pair.
Quote:
The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat.

Lets reword that sentence from the FAQ.

The feat makes no mention of [melee] attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, [melee] attacks do not benefit from this feat.

This sentence makes no sense what-so-ever under that pretense. Even more so in light of the fact that the CRB flanking rules call out the melee flanking bonus.

However, I assume what you intended was this version instead.

The feat makes no mention of [melee] attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to [ranged] attacks, [melee] attacks do not benefit from this feat.

Ignoring the fact that that isn't what they wrote, to suggest that this notion carries equal weight as the no ranged flanking argument is provably false.

The idea of ranged flanking is an inferred reading of the flanking rules. The idea of melee flanking is explicitly called out in the flanking rules (there is a flanking bonus when attacking with melee). The developers have plainly told us that the inferred idea of ranged flanking is an incorrect inference.

You assert that merely mentioning melee means flanking is melee only? I don't.

Telling me that another rule somewhere else exists does not tell me how it affects anything here. You need more that just existence, you need effect as well.

Look at the sentences again:
Part 1 The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included,
Part 2 and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks,
Part 3 ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat.

Part 1 The feat makes no mention of [melee] attacks being included,
Part 2 and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks,
Part 3 [melee] attacks do not benefit from this feat.
Part 1 & 2 are true.
Part 3: If this is true in the FAQ, why would this be false in the reversed form? Part 2 does not say flanking is melee only. It states melee is mentioned elsewhere. It requires you to determine ranged flanking independent of this FAQ.

/cevah


AwesomenessDog wrote:
Back to point out FAQ is not common knowledge to anyone while anyone who goes to their local bookstore knows when a new errata book is out. You can't force people to rely on an online source for their gaming experience (especially after we have people taking their books and donating them to other countries where average citizens don't have access to the internet).

This has zero bearing on the discussion. That's like saying because poor college students cannot afford to buy all the books then the rules are not what they are. They may not be aware of all the rules as a result, but that doesn't change what the rules are.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Cevah wrote:
This is grossly inappropriate?

The way you say "My interpretation is the only valid RAW', is grossly inappropriate when the correct interpretation is known.


bbangerter wrote:
AwesomenessDog wrote:
Back to point out FAQ is not common knowledge to anyone while anyone who goes to their local bookstore knows when a new errata book is out. You can't force people to rely on an online source for their gaming experience (especially after we have people taking their books and donating them to other countries where average citizens don't have access to the internet).
This has zero bearing on the discussion. That's like saying because poor college students cannot afford to buy all the books then the rules are not what they are. They may not be aware of all the rules as a result, but that doesn't change what the rules are.

It has plenty of bearing, if FAQ does not trump Core rules, then ranged flank is undeniably an option. Since FAQ only serves as a clarification of rules, not rules/errata alone, we have nothing to change/disallow ranged flanking: if FAQ says something not consistent with rules as written, the intended rules themselves or the wording of the rules must be changed.

To go back to the reference to the SLA FAQ functioning as RAW change, it's not errata till its made errata; put it in a book where anyone who owns the material reference it as something other than a "conflicting clarification".


James Risner wrote:
Cevah wrote:
This is grossly inappropriate?
The way you say "My interpretation is the only valid RAW', is grossly inappropriate when the correct interpretation is known.

Previously:

I wrote:
I know people read it and come to different conclusions. I see the rules of English makes it parse out one way. Others think otherwise. I may disagree with them, but I don't deny they come by their opinion honestly.

This is me saying I have the only correct understanding? Because I disagree? I don't say they are idiots. I don't say they are stupid. I do say they come by their opinion honestly. Respect is grossly inappropriate?

Chill.

When the spell Hex Vulnerability was published, it allowed using friendly hexes multiple times. Later, the developer came out saying that it was not meant to do this. This did not change the spell's use for friendly hexes. It took a FAQ from the PDT to change that.

How is this different than having ranged flanking by the flanking rules, the developers later saying that is not how it works, and then a FAQ being written that actually makes the change?

I see no difference, save that such a FAQ has yet to appear. The PDT is silent on this matter. We ARE trying to get one, but until it happens, the ranged flanking is still possible, RAW, in my opinion.

As I am not alone (albeit not too many are with me), it is clear that what is correct is under dispute. Saying something that is under dispute is actually not under dispute because it is already settled, is inappropriate.

/cevah

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

AwesomenessDog wrote:
FAQ only serves as a clarification of rules, not rules/errata alone ... if FAQ says something not consistent with rules as written, the intended rules themselves or the wording of the rules must be changed.

That might have been the policy of WotC, but Paizo policy is FAQ is the same as errata. If they say some interpretation of RAW isn't correct, then it isn't correct.

Cevah wrote:

ranged flanking by the flanking rules

a FAQ has yet to appear.
The PDT is silent on this matter. We ARE trying to get one,

Actually, they have ruled on ranged flanking and developers have spoken on the subject.

All we are doing in this thread is trying to get them to answer the same question again.

Liberty's Edge

Fortunately, in this instance, RAW and RAI agree that one cannot get the sneak attack bonus to ranged attacks.


Cevah wrote:
To use the logic of negatives (i.e. what the feat did not say proves something), you have a much harder proof to make, and that proof has not happened. You cannot argue it both ways: "it does not mention ranged so ranged don't work" is semantically the same as "it does not mention melee so melee don't work". You cannot use only half of that pair.

The base rule mentions melee, specifically. So no, the shoe doesn't work on the other foot. It's also a big part of the reason why the negative proof works for ranged attacks. We already know that it is specifically allowed for melee attacks; the only question is about ranged. They said no, because the base rule contemplates melee.

Now we go circular. I recognize that your argument is that the melee and flanking bit are separate. However, we know what the developers intend. And they doubled down on that by reinforcing it when discussing Gang Up. So despite your claims on the two being separate, that only works in a vacuum. We are not in a vacuum.


HangarFlying wrote:
Fortunately, in this instance, RAW and RAI agree that one cannot get the sneak attack bonus to ranged attacks.

Wrong on both accounts, not only is it harder to dodge ranged flanking than melee, but there is no wording to differentiate the two.

James Risner wrote:
Paizo policy is FAQ is the same as errata

Mind giving me something to prove this, I don't see anything under the FAQ page but I'll admit I haven't scoured it.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

AwesomenessDog wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Paizo policy is FAQ is the same as errata
Mind giving me something to prove this, I don't see anything under the FAQ page but I'll admit I haven't scoured it.

FAQ doesn't always change the books (when it does they say "in future errata"). But that doesn't stop those things from being RAW. It doesn't stop those FAQ answers from being how you are intended to rule in game in any RAW game, like say a PFS game.

PFS must be ran by the rules, but they don't say "rules and FAQ" they say rules. If you didn't follow a FAQ in a PFS game, you wouldn't be following the rules.

Liberty's Edge

AwesomenessDog wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Fortunately, in this instance, RAW and RAI agree that one cannot get the sneak attack bonus to ranged attacks.
Wrong on both accounts, not only is it harder to dodge ranged flanking than melee, but there is no wording to differentiate the two.

I mean, you keep on keepin' on with your house rule. It's not my place to tell you how you should run your home games.


AwesomenessDog wrote:
... is it harder to dodge ranged flanking than melee...

Rules citation needed. Nevermind the whole debate about whether ranged flanking is even a thing, a +2 melee bonus suggests quite the opposite.


Mmh.. I still dont see any valid argument here against the 'flanking =/= flanked' implication in the flanking section other than ''the developers will agree with me/us'' thing.

1. 'Flanking specifically refers to melee attacks' (I totally agree). Gang up allows you to count as flanking, thus ranged attacks won't benefit from this feat (fair enough).

2. 'Flanked' is not tied to any specific form of attack, since the target only needs to be thretened from a single direction but from opposite senses (not quite sure if senses or sides is the correct idiom here, but I'm referring to vectorial logic) for it to be flanked.

3. ''The rogue's attack [not specifying type of 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.

Again, following the rulebook, it seems quite clear to me that sneak attack with ranged weapons on a flanked target is valid. The flanking section says:

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.

The bold words in the previous statement are escencially synonim of 'flanked'. The statement would have exactly the same meaning if we rewrite it as:

''When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is flanked''.

The following paragraph in the flanking section confirms this.

I have seen a lot of cites in the rulebook that imply 'flanked' as a creature's state, others than just the flanking section.

Conclussion (again): It will be funny if/when developers agree with ''no sneak attack with ranged weapons while flanking'', wich I'm almost sure will occur xD.

(No offense)


I've lost a bit of interest in this topic since my rogue died fighting valiantly to the bitter end =( (yes, it's sad when your first character die). Now I'm thinking on a cavalier.


Xuchilbara 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.

You ignored the first part. Again.

You can't just cherry-pick portions of the Flanking rules.

Read and use the entire section. Not just select phrases that "support" your flawed conclusion.


Is there a term for a strawman argument in reverse?


Quintain wrote:
Is there a term for a strawman argument in reverse?

I think this would serve for that purpose.

Red Herring


Oh but I'm not ignoring it. Like I said, when making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is flanked (threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner), but your opponent needs to be flanked by you first for you to get that bonus.

Simplified: You flank your target first, then get a +2 flanking bonus when making a melee attack. You won't get the +2 flanking bonus if using a ranged weapon, but still you flank your target.


This would be otherwise meaningless because normally there's no other effect assosiated to flanking than the +2 bonus, with the exception of the sneak attack class feature.


=P Just accept it guys, if the rulebook were the main coding of a program or videogame, this would be a quite exploitable 'glitch' or 'bug'. Yes, it might not have been the developer's intention, but still xD .

You can defend to the death the developer's intentions about what they wrote and it is OK. In that regard I'm with you. I'm almost certain that the intention is 'no sneak attack' here, but it is ambiguously encoded =)

Everyhing I have said is with love and good will and I'm not trying to mislead anyone.

(sorry for all the postings =s)


Xuchilbara wrote:
Oh but I'm not ignoring it. Like I said, when making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is flanked (threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner), but your opponent needs to be flanked by you first for you to get that bonus.

You are selectively ignoring portions of the Flanking rules.

The entire section is used not just the parts you want. I'll break it down further.

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.

So how does a Rogue flank her target?

Lets look at 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.

It tells you what flanking is in the first sentence.

It then details exactly how you flank a target.

Finally it lists exceptions to the rules presented.

All of it is used. Not parts of it.

In your mind what portions of Flanking are used if not all of it?

Xuchilbara wrote:

=P Just accept it guys, if the rulebook were the main coding of a program or videogame, this would be a quite exploitable 'glitch' or 'bug'. Yes, it might not have been the developer's intention, but still xD .

Thankfully Pathfinder isn't written like a coded program. Maybe you should just accept that you are wrong.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Xuchilbara wrote:

Oh but I'm not ignoring it.

Simplified: You flank your target first, then get a +2 flanking bonus when making a melee attack. You won't get the +2 flanking bonus if using a ranged weapon, but still you flank your target.

Actually the simplified version is:

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if you trace an imaginary line between the you and another ally and that line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders) and this melee attack is a flanking attack.

That is a longer and more difficult to parse sentence, but it eliminates the second half of the first sentence and the whole second:

Quote:

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.


Xuchilbara wrote:

flanking section says:

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.

The bold words in the previous statement are escencially synonim of 'flanked'. The statement would have exactly the same meaning if we rewrite it as:

''When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is flanked''.

No, this is not correct. Attacking a flanked opponent can happen from any side as long as two are opposite. The words you want to rewrite do not define a flanked opponent, but an opponent flanked by you, the melee attacker. It also includes language about threatening. You rewrite drops that.

Example:
F
BM
F

F=FlankingAlly, M=MeleeAttacker, B=BadGuy
Your definition allows a +2 to "M" when he attacks, even if your "F" allies are unarmed.

/cevah

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

21 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

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.

No FAQ Required: As per the Gang Up FAQ "flanking specifically refers to melee attacks," so no, the rogue can't do so. As an aside, though it isn't the question asked here, someone threatening with a ranged weapon can provide a flank to an ally who is using a melee weapon.


That "aside" seems to be fully FAQ-worthy all by itself.

I've always played it that way but it's raised many debates.


Huzzah!

So flanking requires melee. If you have an ability that lets you threaten with a ranged weapon, you can be a flank buddy (even though you do not get any benefits from flanking yourself).

Glad to have a definitive answer to this one.


I was tired of seeing this one come up, and its like getting two FAQ's at once. Well done. :)


Yeah its nice to have this cleared up finally.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Thank you!


So if you have 2 allies with ranged weapons in the party they threaten EVERY FOE that they can see and give the melee rogue flanking against ALL foes threatened...?
Seems a bit OP (Over Powered) to me. Why don't you just add Godzilla to the party!
Do 2 sorcerers with Magic Missiles qualify too, they are ranged attacks that can threaten?


WinterwolfNW wrote:
So if you have 2 allies with ranged weapons in the party they threaten EVERY FOE that they can see and give the melee rogue flanking against ALL foes threatened...?

No, that isn't how it works. Normally you can't threaten at all with ranged weapons. The Snap Shot feat lets you threaten at 5' and Improved Snap Shot extends that to 10'. Neither of those is "every foe that they can see."

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Gisher wrote:
Neither of those is "every foe that they can see."

+1


WinterwolfNW wrote:

So if you have 2 allies with ranged weapons in the party they threaten EVERY FOE that they can see and give the melee rogue flanking against ALL foes threatened...?

Seems a bit OP (Over Powered) to me. Why don't you just add Godzilla to the party!
Do 2 sorcerers with Magic Missiles qualify too, they are ranged attacks that can threaten?

Threaten has a very specific meaning in the game, as opposed to the general definition of making threats against people, or posing a threat to them by holding a gun, bomb, other weapon, etc.

PRD wrote:


You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.

In order to threaten with a ranged weapon it takes a specific feat.

251 to 297 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.