Flanking and Ranged Attacks: True or False?

I just realized this, and I think it does, although I'm not sure what I think of that, or if it's intended. The attacker must threaten it with melee weapon/unarmed (along with flank partner) but the AC penalty isn't conditioned to only apply to melee. So if Bow wielder also has Unarmed attack that threatens, that should be enough AFAIK. Or am I overlooking something else?

When you and an ally are flanking a foe, it has a harder time defending against you. A creature is flat-footed (taking a –2 circumstance penalty to AC) to creatures that are flanking it.

To flank a foe, you and your ally must be on opposites sides or corners of the creature. A line drawn between the center of your space and the center of your ally’s space must pass through opposite sides or opposite corners of the foe’s space. Additionally, both you and the ally have to be able to act, must be wielding melee weapons or able to make an unarmed attack, can’t be under any effects that prevent you from attacking, and must have the enemy within reach. If you are wielding a reach weapon, you use your reach with that weapon for this purpose.

Well everyone is trained in unarmed attacks and "You can Strike with your fist or another body part" so you can have a bow or crossbow and flank [you can kick] and nothing says it's a 'penalty to AC for melee' so it looks good RAW. Most likely not RAI but I don't think it's an issue power wise. It should also work for spells that target AC using a spell roll/attack.

I'm betting they just add the word "lethal" before unarmed attack to fix this, or maybe it's just easier to shoot someone when they're right in front of you and backed into your ally and it's fine.

Well I mean in this age where attacks of opportunity aren't common anymore, I can totally imagine feeling threatened if one person is about to stick a sword in my belly and the other is kicking at my heels to distract me just before he shoots an arrow in the back of my neck.

I'm betting they just add the word "lethal" before unarmed attack to fix this, or maybe it's just easier to shoot someone when they're right in front of you and backed into your ally and it's fine.

Adding lethal won't change anything. You can make your nonlethal Unarmed Strikes lethal by taking a -2 attack penalty.

If you use a two-handed ranged weapon, you are out of luck since you have no free hand/fist to threaten with. Even a bow uses both hands while shooting.

But a sling or javelin or hand-crossbow and one hand free should work.

so the problem here is the wording on unarmed strikes not clearly being limited to fists

If you use a two-handed ranged weapon, you are out of luck since you have no free hand/fist to threaten with. Even a bow uses both hands while shooting.
But a sling or javelin or hand-crossbow and one hand free should work.

I think that there is ambiguity about whether unarmed strike is "only a fist" or not for someone who doesn't have other attacks. While the wording under unarmed attacks states:

Almost all characters start out trained in unarmed

attacks. You can Strike with your fist or another body
part, calculating your attack and damage rolls in the
same way you would with a weapon.

Table 6–6: Unarmed Attacks lists the statistics for an

unarmed attack with a fist, though you’ll usually use the
same statistics for attacks made with any other parts
of your body.

I think it's unclear as to whether the "you can" implies that everyone can, or that only those with the proper unarmed attacks can (though everyone gets fists).

However, beyond that, if you do threaten the enemy as described for flanking, the bonuses would apply on ranged attacks as well. I've got no issue with this in general being true, as it makes sense that you'd have an advantage for both melee and ranged attacks in a realistic sense, and if the ranged attacker is willing to get that close, I don't mind giving them this advantage rules-wise.

masda_gib wrote:

If you use a two-handed ranged weapon, you are out of luck since you have no free hand/fist to threaten with. Even a bow uses both hands while shooting.

But a sling or javelin or hand-crossbow and one hand free should work.

so the problem here is the wording on unarmed strikes not clearly being limited to fists

hunh. You quoted a post that came after yours. Must be a glitch in the matrix.

I think it's unclear as to whether the "you can" implies that everyone can, or that only those with the proper unarmed attacks can (though everyone gets fists).

I don't think it's unclear: to me you are allowed to attack with other parts of your body.

If "can" is an issue, then it brings into question if you're even allowed to use a fist... For the quote on the table, it's about the potential for stats for the attack to be different and not a possibility the attacks aren't available. For instance, a DM might rule a kick deals more damage but lose agile, a headbutt deals less damage but adds forceful or a tail adds trip by giving up finesse.

If you use a two-handed ranged weapon, you are out of luck since you have no free hand/fist to threaten with. Even a bow uses both hands while shooting.

Even if someone rules you had to use a fist, bows are 1+ hands, not 2 and that means while not attacking, the hands free. This means you can use a buckler, cast a spell or threaten with a fist. If it was like you thought, bows would require 2 hands.

tivadar27 wrote:

I think it's unclear as to whether the "you can" implies that everyone can, or that only those with the proper unarmed attacks can (though everyone gets fists).

I don't think it's unclear: to me you are allowed to attack with other parts of your body.

If "can" is an issue, then it brings into question if you're even allowed to use a fist... For the quote on the table, it's about the potential for stats for the attack to be different and not a possibility the attacks aren't available. For instance, a DM might rule a kick deals more damage but lose agile, a headbutt deals less damage but adds forceful or a tail adds trip by giving up finesse.

You think it reads one way, I think it reads another, I'd argue that's pretty much the definition of "unclear" :). You can use a fist because it's listed as a common simple unarmed attack in the weapon section. EDIT: I can totally see your reading, as I said, but that's not how I interpret that, shrug.

masda_gib wrote:

If you use a two-handed ranged weapon, you are out of luck since you have no free hand/fist to threaten with. Even a bow uses both hands while shooting.

Even if someone rules you had to use a fist, bows are 1+ hands, not 2 and that means while not attacking, the hands free. This means you can use a buckler, cast a spell or threaten with a fist. If it was like you thought, bows would require 2 hands.

Yeah, you can use those things in your other hand, but when you went to attack, the hand wouldn't be free, so no flank for you... You'd still provide flank for your ally on the other side however.

You think it reads one way, I think it reads another, I'd argue that's pretty much the definition of "unclear" :).

I'm struggling to see your point of view on this. "You can Strike with your fist or another body part" If can makes the "other body part" questionable, why doesn't it also make fist questionable? Why does "can" only apply to the other attacks and not the fist? I'm not seeing a way to parse it to make read the way you suggest.

Even if someone rules you had to use a fist, bows are 1+ hands, not 2 and that means while not attacking, the hands free. This means you can use a buckler, cast a spell or threaten with a fist. If it was like you thought, bows would require 2 hands.

Unarmed Trait: "It also doesn’t take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon."

Free Hand trait: "You can use the hand covered by your free-hand weapon to wield other items, perform manipulate actions, and so on. You can’t attack with a free-hand weapon if you’re wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand. When you’re not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand."

Hands: "You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow. This means you can do things with your free hand while holding the bow without changing your grip, but the other hand must be free when you shoot. To properly wield a 1+ weapon, you must hold it in one hand and also have a hand free."

At no time is your second hand not free by the rules when using a bow: it's always free. The bow requires a free hand to shoot but never says it ever stops being a free hand to do so. As you can see by looking at the weapon traits, you never wield the bow in your free hand: as such, that free hand that has the free hand trait allows you to use abilities "require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand", like flank.

The only thing to quibble about would be the "and not otherwise using the hand" but with a reload 0, it's all one action and the wielding itself leaves a free hand. It much like how raising a buckler doesn't prevent a bow shot either even though the arm is already in use.

graystone wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

I think it's unclear as to whether the "you can" implies that everyone can, or that only those with the proper unarmed attacks can (though everyone gets fists).

I don't think it's unclear: to me you are allowed to attack with other parts of your body.

If "can" is an issue, then it brings into question if you're even allowed to use a fist... For the quote on the table, it's about the potential for stats for the attack to be different and not a possibility the attacks aren't available. For instance, a DM might rule a kick deals more damage but lose agile, a headbutt deals less damage but adds forceful or a tail adds trip by giving up finesse.

You think it reads one way, I think it reads another, I'd argue that's pretty much the definition of "unclear" :). You can use a fist because it's listed as a common simple unarmed attack in the weapon section.

I am confused by this interpretation. The monk ability Flurry of Blows states 'You can attack rapidly with fists, feet, elbows, knees, and other unarmed attacks" yet only fists are listed in the weapon tables. How do you determine the weapon properties and damage for these other attacks if you don't believe they are included in the rules that graystone quoted?

Free Hand trait: "You can use the hand covered by your free-hand weapon to wield other items, perform manipulate actions, and so on. You can’t attack with a free-hand weapon if you’re wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand. When you’re not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand."

Hands: "You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow. This means you can do things with your free hand while holding the bow without changing your grip, but the other hand must be free when you shoot. To properly wield a 1+ weapon, you must hold it in one hand and also have a hand free."

At no time is your second hand not free by the rules when using a bow: it's always free. The bow requires a free hand to shoot but never says it ever stops being a free hand to do so. As you can see by looking at the weapon traits, you never wield the bow in your free hand: as such, that free hand that has the...

So pretty sure this is definitely not a correct interpretation. As per the rules: "but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow." In other words, while shooting, the other hand is "in use" and used to loose the arrow/make an attack. You can't be "using" that hand at the time, which doesn't have a lot of in-game effect, but it would ruin stances that require you to have a free hand, for example, and you'd fall off a wall using combat climber with a bow.

@Gisher, @graystone: You could very well be correct in this, and the monk's wording makes me think you are. My point was more so that it's unclear, and at least one other person on quick scan of the thread thought it worked this way as well.

For the record, the way I think it could be read to support a tighter interpretation is effectively "You can Strike with your fist or another body part, calculating your attack and damage rolls in the
same way you would with a weapon" reading as "you can use your unarmed attacks, calculating your attack and damage as you would regularly for a weapon", and the fist/other just meant to provide examples. Everyone gets access to fist because it's on the list of simple weapons, but "other body parts" you'd need to be granted specific access.

As I said, upon looking a bit closer at this, I'm inclined to agree with your interpretation of things. That *doesn't* mean it can't be read the other way potentially though :).

So pretty sure this is definitely not a correct interpretation. As per the rules: "but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow." In other words, while shooting, the other hand is "in use" and used to loose the arrow/make an attack. You can't be "using" that hand at the time, which doesn't have a lot of in-game effect, but it would ruin stances that require you to have a free hand, for example, and you'd fall off a wall using combat climber with a bow.

The difference for me is climbing is a continuous action/activity and it doesn't say the hand stays free unlike reloading arrow. Without "To properly wield a 1+ weapon, you must hold it in one hand and also have a hand free", I'd agree with you: the way it presented is they the action on the arrow don't last long enough to even be a free action but is rolled into the attack/strike. When you're hand is "in use" for less than a free action, I'm not seeing it having any appreciable affect on flanking. And this also hinges on fist being the only unarmed attack.

My point was more so that it's unclear, and at least one other person on quick scan of the thread thought it worked this way as well.

I think I'd blame it on the quick scan as it doesn't seem unclear. I'm honestly not seeing a viable second read: I'm not sure what could be changed to make it even clearer.

You can Strike with your fist or another body part, calculating your attack and damage rolls in the same way you would with a weapon.

It doesn't say "only some people can also use different parts of the body" or "with special training you can use other parts of the body". Everyone can use other parts of the body to strike.

But, if the table only lists fists, what are the stats for strikes with other body parts? That's answered in the next paragraph:

Table 6–6: Unarmed Attacks lists the statistics for an unarmed attack with a fist, though you’ll usually use the same statistics for attacks made with any other parts of your body. Certain ancestry feats, class features, and spells give access to special, more powerful unarmed attacks. Details for those unarmed attacks are provided in the abilities that grant them.

So unless you have a special ability that says differently, your kick or headbutt uses the same stats as your fist.

p. 278 wrote:

You can Strike with your fist or another body part, calculating your attack and damage rolls in the same way you would with a weapon.

It doesn't say "only some people can also use different parts of the body" or "with special training you can use other parts of the body". Everyone can use other parts of the body to strike.

But, if the table only lists fists, what are the stats for strikes with other body parts? That's answered in the next paragraph:

p. 278 wrote:

Table 6–6: Unarmed Attacks lists the statistics for an unarmed attack with a fist, though you’ll usually use the same statistics for attacks made with any other parts of your body. Certain ancestry feats, class features, and spells give access to special, more powerful unarmed attacks. Details for those unarmed attacks are provided in the abilities that grant them.

So unless you have a special ability that says differently, your kick or headbutt uses the same stats as your fist.

That's the way I read it, but I agree with tivadar27 that the different types could be more clearly listed the way that they were in PF1.