I always got the impression that ''full round action'' was only a name given to express that it takes a full round for it to be completed, but not restricting you from attempting other plausible actions during the same round. Also, there's no such thing as ''my full round'' or ''your full round'', since a full round is a conglomerate of all the characters and creatures's turns involved in a situation (commonly a fight). Maybe you guys are talking about a ''full turn action''? (which I personally don't think exists). As long as he/she fulfills the requirements (feats, class features, racial features, etc as mentioned by some people in this thread) I don't see a reason why a character couldn't take more actions beyond a full round one. It might take you 6 seconds to solve a rubix cube (a full round action), but you might be capable enough to speak, degrab or regrab it (free actions) as you do it.
I talked to my GM about this options and he's alright with them too. It's great to have different nonlethal improvised weapons to choose from to match them with different disguises. Thank you guys, I was worried that this situation would be more problematic.
xD The bag of coins of course! the main purpose of the character is to carry around small, conventional objects that doesn't look like weapons at all while being disguised, and wait for the best moment to strike in a surprise round (dealing nonlethal sneak attack damage). A bag full of coins should do and I don't think my GM would object. Thank you! =)
Yes, I think that would work, but I was trying to find something that could be used as a nonlethal improvised weapon, as if it were the ''sap'' of the improvised universe, without taking any penalty on attack rolls nor needing the bludgeoner feat. I just checked the weapons section at d20:
''To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match''.
Could it be possible to use something fully improvised that deal nonlethal damage as it is? It isn't necessary to be 1d6 like the sap. Would it be allowed by the rules? I liked the idea of the sock with coins by the way.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
It is'nt. Is listed under light martial weapons at d20pfrsd.com. I know that usually a rogue is proficient with some other weapons aside of simple weapons, such as the Sap, Hand Crossbow and Rapier but the Makeshift Scrapper Archetype Excludes all but simple weapons.
The Makeshift Scrapper Rogue is only proficient with simple weapons and gets the Catch Off Guard and Throw Anything Feats at 1st level, and since I also have the Surprise Weapon Combat Trait which gives me a +2 trait bonus on attack rolls with improvised weapons, it would be very convenient for it to be one of those.
I dont know. The Bastard Sword is listed in one handed exotic weapons but the FAQ says it is a two handed martial wich can be used in one hand with the proper training, namely EWP. As far as I know, Bastard Sword is a finessable weapon for swashbucklers, isnt it? Would'nt be the same here for the lance?
Can you Vital Strike with a double-barreled musket that uses the attack action to fire both barrels?
I say #2, as double musket's description stronlgy suggests that firing both barrels at the same time count as two attacks at the use of the attack action (#3 out). It does'nt seem to restrain using vital strike though, as the only requisite specified in the feat's description states 'when using the attack action' (#1 out).
=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)
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.
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.
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?.
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.
Boys, you do really get carried away sometimes xD
1. Yes, I think you MUST be making a melee attack to get a flanking bonus.
2. Snap shot allows you to threaten squares around you, giving you the possibility to make enemies being flanked.
3. Sneak attack applies 'when the rogue flanks her target'.
4. Yes, I'm almost certain the developers will resolve 'you cant sneak attack with ranged weapones while flanking' and it's ok. I would take that answer as official rule, and any other rule stating otherwise as a houserule.
I dont think that the interpretation of the rules is the main trouble here, but the interpretation of the developers. The rules as they are stated do not restrain the act of 'sneak attack with a ranged weapon when the rogue flanks her target' at all.
Looks like somebody fixed the bold thing in my previous post O.o Thanks!
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
If SLAs aren't Spells, then providing flanking (read: counting as flanking) isn't really flanking, which means that effects like Gang Up would not apply Sneak Attack (since you have to actually be flanking, not count as flanking).
So I suspected. As I said before, by the logic I'm suggesting, Back to Back won't protect you from Gang Up, and Gang Up probably won't allow you to sneak attack =s
Let's imagine Lydia. She is a rogue. Gang up allows her (the attacker) to count as being flanking in a situation where she DOES NOT flank her target (the defender). The target is not flanked.
1) Since the 'flanking bonus' applies when making a melee attack (fair enough) AND counting as flanking, Gang Up won't benefit ranged attacks.
2) Sneak attack rules apply when the rogue flanks her target. THIS could be when counting as flanking OR when the target is flanked by the rogue.
The entire rulebook suggest that flanking is a far more complex and beautiful construct than 'when making a melee attack'. It will be sad if or when they (the developers) announce it is'nt.
P.D. I'm not trying to convince anyone, just explaining my point as it seemed to be unclear so far.
James Risner wrote:
I think that's the most likely possibility. The rules as they are stated today however, do not technically or semantically restrain the action of 'sneakattackwhileflankingwithrangedweapon' to be valid or legal.
I would'nt suggest a change to the rules themselves, but a change to how they are stated, and only if they (the developers) truly meant that flank and flanking bonus are the same thing* and reffer to melee only (if they meant that 'flanking bonus' and 'flanking' are, in fact, different things, the rules are perfectly stated as they are now).
*I find that scennario to be not very practical if we take the whole set of rules (feats, class abilities, traits, etc), and not the flanking section alone, as there are a lot of cites about flanked creatures, flanking creatures, other bonuses if flanked or flanking or if you-she-he-it-they flank, etc, and not only about 'attack rolls'.
If the developer team really meant that flanking is restricted to 'when making a melee attack' only, I think that their current redaction of the rules would have been more than a mere oversight.
P.D. I Heartly mean no offense to anyone by what I have said.
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
(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.
Sorry, it wasnt meant that way =s
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.
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.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
You'll notice the threatened part is in the first paragraph. The same part all of you have been neglecting.
The reason why I jumped into this thread was that one in the first place: You need a melee weapon to get a flanking bonus, but you only need to be threatening to flank; the same way you only need a 12+ dexterity score to get a dexterity bonus to AC, but you don't need an actual dexterity bonus to AC to avoid being sneak attacked, you just need to not be surprised or feinted.
Oh, I have'nt mentioned this before because I thought we all gave it for grounded. It's just below the picture of flanking in d20pfrsd.com (My actual source of information):
#1: The fighter and the cleric are flanking the ogre because they can draw a line to each other that passes through opposite sides of the ogre. Both the fighter and the cleric receive a +2 bonus on attack rolls made against the ogre.
#2: The rogue is not flanking the ogre because she cannot draw a line to the fighter or the cleric that passes through opposite sides of the ogre. The rogue cannot draw a line to the sorcerer because the sorcerer is not adjacent to the ogre and does not threaten it.
#3: The goblin and the ogre flank the sorcerer, as they can draw a line between them that passes through opposite sides of the sorcerer's square. If the ogre didn't have reach to the sorcerer, though, he and the goblin would not be flanking her.
In the picture, one can see two characters 'flanking' the ogre the way you are suggesting, but here says you must be threatening to flank.
P.D. I had a phyisical Core Rulebook but I had to return it because it was'nt mine =(
Hush no, please dont change the rulebook! Speaking by me only, I'm not confused about what the designer implied in the link you provided before, but it's lovely the way the rulebook is with all its ambiguities, and surely they would change it to be directly like ''There's no way in universe you could deal sneak attack damage when flanking with a ranged weapon'' or something.
I'm ok with the developers saying that you can't sneak attack the way I and many others have suggested and, as I have mentioned before, I will always abide by that (unless my GM says otherwise), but in case of ambiguities in an official paper, the non-redactory part is always the benefited part and ambiguities themselves are enough benefit for me as I have always found them enchanting =) .
Guys I think this is just going in circles. This is just a Schoedinger's Cat's situation where the core rulebook can be considered to both allow and forbid sneak attack damage on flanking ranged attacks. Only an arbiter part should take the final decision for eaach campaign and even then, that decision could be considered both an official and homegrown rule at the same time (wich I find ammusing xD).
James Risner wrote:
In your view. In the developers view, flanking is only a status of a given attack and that attack must be a MeLee attack
Back to Back requires you to be Flanked:
Back to Back (Teamwork)
Prerequisite: Perception 3 ranks.
Benefit: While you are flanked and adjacent to an ally with this feat, you receive a +2 circumstance bonus to AC against attacks from opponents flanking you.
It's intriguing for me that this feat actualy says 'opponents flanking you' and nothing about flanking attacks (Tentatively, Back to Back would not protect you from Gang Up xD).
James Risner wrote:
Whether or not it is ambiguous, it is unlikely to be changed now.
James Risner wrote:
Especially since the number of people confused is looking muted to a handful and we have published FAQ to clarify you can't flank with ranged attacks.
I dont agree.
P.D. Posts are getting quite long, are they not? xD
Thank you for the clarification about the outrage, I was beggining to feel like a troublemaker (seriously).
''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.
I think the first paragraph explains an specific effect of flanking (thus not nessesarily the only possible effect: many feats and class abilities imply more of such effects).
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Notice that the "-" in the chart is for when it doesn't apply at all.
What about prone slinger?
Prone Slinger (Combat)
Benefit: While prone, you can use a sling to make ranged attacks.
Normal: Crossbows and firearms are the only ranged weapons that can be used while prone.
The "-" seems not to be almighty.
The main essence of my argument is ''or when the rogue flanks her target''. It doesnt even say the rogue must be benefiting from flanking or that she must attack with a melee weapon. The target is flanked because of the rogue, it's an aritmetical fact that the rogue is flanking her target (unless the rogue targets a different foe than the one she's actually flanking, of course xD).
I heartly hope my next comment won't trigger any further outrage here...
Though I will always abide by the decision of an arbiter part (the developer in this case, or the GM in many others) my opinion about the topic at hand (and yes, I know this isnt an oppinion topic, but a quiestions and answers one) is based on the following...
-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.
Here says 'flanks', not 'getting a flanking bonus from flanking'. Then...
-If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
Since the opponent in question is effectively being flanked by the rogue, it's perfectly concievably that the rogue is flanking (making it to be flanked) her target. Then...
-Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.
And thats it. Again, I'm perfectly good with the decision and/or interpretation of mr. developer here. Thank you all for your time and good will =)
James Risner wrote:
You picked the kidding part of my post :-)
The link you provided has been quite helpful though, thank you!
to CampaignCarl9127: I'd like to have a word with that design team xD
to Brain in a Jar: Oh thank you =) , but I'm not a Game Master. Pathfinder is the very first rpg I've played and 4th level is as far as I've go =( but I've read the core rulebook and the gamemaster's guide, if I ever am a GM, I might be at that ;)
James Risner wrote:
Quite clear, but Im sorry I dont agree =(