Are they possible w/o stealth or complete concealment? I am pretty sure the answer is "no" but wanted to ask in case I missed something. I thought improved feint may be a way to get you there but, apparently it can only be used for melee attacks.
My understanding is that so long as the target is denied it's dex modifier to AC, you can sneak attack. So ranged sneak attack should work, for example, if the target has not acted yet in the 1st round, or if they are climbing (and don't have a climb speed). So long as they are within 30'
Are they possible w/o stealth or complete concealment? I am pretty sure the answer is "no" but wanted to ask in case I missed something. I thought improved feint may be a way to get you there but, apparently it can only be used for melee attacks.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are they possible w/o stealth or complete concealment? I am pretty sure the answer is "no" but wanted to ask in case I missed something. I thought improved feint may be a way to get you there but, apparently it can only be used for melee attacks.
The feat Shatter Defenses allows to treat any shakened enemy hit by you as flatfooted, so if you manage to hit them once while they are shakened, you should be able to treat them as flat-footed till they lose that condition.
This works especially good if you have a bard in your party who performs the dirge of doom since that song doesn't even allow a save.
|
Are they possible w/o stealth or complete concealment? I am pretty sure the answer is "no" but wanted to ask in case I missed something. I thought improved feint may be a way to get you there but, apparently it can only be used for melee attacks.
Yes. If you win initiative and can act before your opponent, then they are treated as flat-footed until they take their turn. While flat-footed, they may be sneak attacked by your ranged attack if within 30 feet.
There are numerous other ways to make an opponent Flat-Footed, but the main answer is, yes, you can do it w/o stealth or total concealment.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
At NO point do the rules state that you have to be making a melee attack to be considered "Flanking". "Flanking" is merely a term to describe positioned on opposite sides of an enemy, which is useless except for determining the use of abilities that "require flanking". As the Sneak Attack's requires that "the rogue flanks her target", and not that you have a "+2 Flanking Bonus", you may use your Sneak Attack for all of your attacks providing that you are still able to draw a line through the enemy to an ally.
However, this draws a pretty serious distinction. You must be flanking, and not getting the flanking bonus. You don't have to be flanking to get the flanking bonus, so long as the enemy is flanked. However, if you are not flanking, you can't sneak attack. As far as I can tell, this means that the enemy cannot be actively fighting the rogue if the rogue is going to get his sneak attack. I see it in the way that DDO has done it: if the enemy is attacking the rogue, the rogue doens't get a sneak attack. If the enemy is not attacking the rogue, the rogue gets the sneak attack.
On an asside, I don't think you can grant a flanking bonus unless you are actually in a threatened square to the enemy, since the enemy is only actually actively fighting the pweson right next to him, no matter how many arrows are flying at him, unless he disengages and goes after someone else.
Contrary to popular belief, you do not have to be using a melee weapon for your attacks to be considered "Flanking"
I believe D&D 3.5 disagrees with you.
All About Sneak Attacks (Part Three)
You can flank with any melee weapon, including a reach weapon, but you cannot flank with a ranged weapon.
Let's see if Paizo changed the rules on Flanking...
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.
When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ 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.
And...
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.
Therefore I would conclude that it is not rules-legal to flank, be considered flanking, get a +2 flanking bonus, or execute a ranged sneak attack under the conditions you have described.
Personally I agree with YamadaJisho, and the other person, and that is the way DDO did it. You could tumble past the enemy than attack from the back. To keep getting sneak attack you only needed to change your target a lot to make sure you never got focus.
Personally I agree with YamadaJisho, and the other person, and that is the way DDO did it. You could tumble past the enemy than attack from the back. To keep getting sneak attack you only needed to change your target a lot to make sure you never got focus.
D&D / Pathfinder doesn't have the concept of "Facing" so there is no "Back" to attack from. There's certainly alternate rulesets which have included it (I think Unearthed Arcana had a set), but facing does not matter to the core rules, and thus who is being attacked and what direction the monster is facing has no relevance to flanking or sneak attack.
Contrary to popular belief, you do not have to be using a melee weapon for your attacks to be considered "Flanking", although you do not get a +2 bonus to those attacks. I shall break down the rules to quell the uproar that is about to occur.
While there's no rule that specifically says that you have to threaten to flank, you have to really stretch to try and separate the flanking bonus from flanking in general.
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.
You have a section called "Flanking." It starts by defining a flanking bonus under certain circumstances, then continues on to explain how to check whether two characters flank (and thus provide the bonus). Nowhere does it imply that flanking is a separate thing from the flanking bonus it provides.
Now, if it flipped it around and said "Here's how to tell if two creatures are flanking. Here's a bonus for when they are", then it would be an entirely different scenario. In that case, it would be defining flanking, and then a flanking bonus as it relates to flanking. But in the actual text, it defines the flanking bonus, and then defines flanking as it relates to that bonus.
Will it break anything if you make a house rule that you can flank with a ranged weapon? Probably not. But don't push it as RAW or RAI. Because it's certainly neither.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@another_mage: What's the point of quoting a game that is not Pathfinder when posting in a Rules Question thread about Pathfinder? You showed that DnD specifically prohibits flanking with a ranged weapon ("you cannot flank with a ranged weapon"), but the quote from *Pathfinder* included no such line. Given that this is a Pathfinder message board, I think rulings should probably be made based on Pathfinder rules, not the rules of DnD or any other game that is not Pathfinder. Therefore, I think the most reasonable conclusion is that made by glyph87.
@another_mage: What's the point of quoting a game that is not Pathfinder when posting in a Rules Question thread about Pathfinder? You showed that DnD specifically prohibits flanking with a ranged weapon ("you cannot flank with a ranged weapon"), but the quote from *Pathfinder* included no such line. Given that this is a Pathfinder message board, I think rulings should probably be made based on Pathfinder rules, not the rules of DnD or any other game that is not Pathfinder. Therefore, I think the most reasonable conclusion is that made by glyph87.
His point was that the rules text was exactly the same between 3.5 and pathfinder. Since Pathfinder was "take the 3.5 rules, and build on them", anything rules-based from 3.5 that was not specifically modified (like grapple) is likely to apply to Pathfinder too.
The idea is that if the Pathfinder developers wanted to change how something worked, they modified the text. If they didn't modify the text, they liked how it worked (or just didn't have time to change it), so anything that explains how it worked in 3.5 also explains how it works in Pathfinder.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
His point was that the rules text was exactly the same between 3.5 and pathfinder.
Except the text *wasn't* exactly the same (at least, according to the quotes he gave). He quoted one thing from 3.5, and then something else with different verbiage (and, as I already pointed out, a distinct *lack* of the "no ranged weapons" clause) from Pathfinder.
So if your stance is "the same unless Pathfinder changed the wording" and Pathfinder changed the wording, then...?
|
|
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
You don't threaten with ranged weapons. If you don't threaten with ranged weapons, you cannot provide flanking bonus to an ally while wielding a ranged weapon.
If the attacker is not making a melee attack, they are not considered to be flanking, therefore no sneak attack.
Cheers
His point was that the rules text was exactly the same between 3.5 and pathfinder.Except the text *wasn't* exactly the same (at least, according to the quotes he gave). He quoted one thing from 3.5, and then something else with different verbiage (and, as I already pointed out, a distinct *lack* of the "no ranged weapons" clause) from Pathfinder.
You misread what he quoted and why, and so you misunderstand the argument.
As the argument goes, we have three things:A) PF rules language on a subject
B) 3.5 rules language on the same subject
C) FAQ or other explanation clarifying the 3.5 rules language
The argument is that if A=B, then it is reasonable to apply C to A, because if Paizo decided not to change the text of a given rule, they probably intended that rule to be understood the same as in 3.5.
If you look again, you will see that he quoted C first, then a substantially identical A and B. Hence, it is appropriate to apply an explicit clarification from 3.5 to an identical rule in PF. Hence, you can't flank with ranged weapons.
And anyway, you can't flank with ranged weapons because you don't flank when you don't threaten.
His point was that the rules text was exactly the same between 3.5 and pathfinder.Except the text *wasn't* exactly the same (at least, according to the quotes he gave). He quoted one thing from 3.5, and then something else with different verbiage (and, as I already pointed out, a distinct *lack* of the "no ranged weapons" clause) from Pathfinder.You misread what he quoted and why, and so you misunderstand the argument.
As the argument goes, we have three things:
A) PF rules language on a subject
B) 3.5 rules language on the same subject
C) FAQ or other explanation clarifying the 3.5 rules language
The argument is that if A=B, then it is reasonable to apply C to A, because if Paizo decided not to change the text of a given rule, they probably intended that rule to be understood the same as in 3.5.
If you look again, you will see that he quoted C first, then a substantially identical A and B. Hence, it is appropriate to apply an explicit clarification from 3.5 to an identical rule in PF. Hence, you can't flank with ranged weapons.
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Thanks for clarifying!
And anyway, you can't flank with ranged weapons because you don't flank when you don't threaten.
Glyph's point is that there's no actual rule text that says that - it just says that you don't help other people flank if you don't threaten yourself. I think that's entirely an oversight, but he draws rules from it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Oh! I see it now! I misread "SRD" as "PRD" and thought the two identical quotes were both from Pathfinder (one from paper and one online, for thoroughness' sake) and that only the one-liner was from 3.5. Okay, I see it now. Position changed: I now disagree with glyph and agree with Bobson and Avalon. Thanks, guy(s) and/or girl(s)!
And anyway, you can't flank with ranged weapons because you don't flank when you don't threaten.Glyph's point is that there's no actual rule text that says that - it just says that you don't help other people flank if you don't threaten yourself. I think that's entirely an oversight, but he draws rules from it.
Sure there is. The absence of the rule IS the statement. Nowhere in the Core Rules will you find a statement that ranged attacks have a threat area. If you did, then you would also get repeated AoO's from movement within your ranged weapon's range. You don't, and you never will.
Therefore, if you're not threatening, you're not flanking, regardless of whether you receive the +2 bonus or not.
And anyway, you can't flank with ranged weapons because you don't flank when you don't threaten.Glyph's point is that there's no actual rule text that says that - it just says that you don't help other people flank if you don't threaten yourself. I think that's entirely an oversight, but he draws rules from it.Sure there is. The absence of the rule IS the statement. Nowhere in the Core Rules will you find a statement that ranged attacks have a threat area. If you did, then you would also get repeated AoO's from movement within your ranged weapon's range. You don't, and you never will.
Therefore, if you're not threatening, you're not flanking, regardless of whether you receive the +2 bonus or not.
I'm really not sure why I'm arguing Glyph's side, since I disagree with him.
But the line he's relying on is "Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus." There's nothing in that single line that requires the attacker to threaten in order to claim that they're flanking - only to help someone else flank. Therefore (he claims) the person with a bow can benefit from an ally in melee with the target, but the ally in melee can't benefit from the person with a bow.
To flank a target, you need two allies on opposite sides of a target who both threaten the target.This is not actually an explicitly stated rule - which is the issue that causes all of this consternation.
Moreover, consider a [R]ogue in classical flanking position on a [M]onster with his [F]ighter buddy.
[R][M][F]
The [R]ogue is wielding a short bow and spiked armor. On the monster's turn, if it were to, say, drink a potion, the [R]ogue would get an AoO - and if he hit, he'd do sneak attack damage. So, by all lights, he's flanking the [M]onster, right?
So what happens if the [R]ogue attacks the monster with his shortbow during the [R]ogue's turn? Does he do sneak attack damage? What if he full attacks, takes TWF penalties, and attacks with both the spiked armor and his bow?
The bow does not threaten though. At the point the bow becomes the weapon to be used your are not threatening. The RAI is what is important. It is nigh impossible to cover every possible interpretation or loophole without writing the book in legalese. That Rules of the Game argument from 3.5 was showing intent. Just because one weapon threatens that does not carry the benefit over to the other weapon.
If you are just referring to using armor then the spiked armor should get sneak attack damage. Almost any rule can be twisted if you want to change the meaning bad enough. The intent was for melee weapons to get the flanking bonus, not ranged ones.
Simple answer -- you don't threaten with ranged weapons -- you can only flank with a weapon you threaten with. If you don't threaten with the weapon then you aren't flanking.
To flank a target, you need two allies on opposite sides of a target who both threaten the target.This is not actually an explicitly stated rule - which is the issue that causes all of this consternation.
Moreover, consider a [R]ogue in classical flanking position on a [M]onster with his [F]ighter buddy.
[R][M][F]
The [R]ogue is wielding a short bow and spiked armor. On the monster's turn, if it were to, say, drink a potion, the [R]ogue would get an AoO - and if he hit, he'd do sneak attack damage. So, by all lights, he's flanking the [M]onster, right?
So what happens if the [R]ogue attacks the monster with his shortbow during the [R]ogue's turn? Does he do sneak attack damage? What if he full attacks, takes TWF penalties, and attacks with both the spiked armor and his bow?
I don't believe the rogue can attack with the armor spikes if he already used both hands for another attack.
Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor,
which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked
armor” on Table 6–4) on a successful grapple attack. The
spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient
with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when
you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee
attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count
as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an
attack with armor spikes if you have already made an
attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An
enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve
the spikes’ effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into
magic weapons in their own right.
Emphasis mine. I would say the rogue can't attack with the armor spikes because he's using a 2-handed weapon, his off-hand is being used already.
|
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.You don't threaten with ranged weapons. If you don't threaten with ranged weapons, you cannot provide flanking bonus to an ally while wielding a ranged weapon.
If the attacker is not making a melee attack, they are not considered to be flanking, therefore no sneak attack.
Cheers
And that does NOT answer as a no, by the way.
You cannot flank with a ranged weapon (barring certain non-OGL feats). But your ally, on the opposite side of your opponent, [b]does[/b[ threaten, so can PROVIDE a flank.
You, on the other hand, are attacking an enemy who is being thratened from the other side. I don't know about you, but I would consider an attack, no matter what kind of weapon it uses, to be threatening.
So, therefore, does your ally who is threatening the opponent youare firing at, from the opposite side, provide you with flanking?
Also, just to throw a log into the fire, consider the Gang Up feat, which does not have any sort of limitation to where the feat user is, just that the one with the feat gains flanking, no matter his position, as long as two of his allies threaten the opponent.
To flank a target, you need two allies on opposite sides of a target who both threaten the target.
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.
Oddly enough, I see nothing in the rules text saying that you have to threaten your opponent, just that you have to have an ally on the opposite side who threatens.
And, on that note, another log for the fire:
Does your ally still threaten someone if they do NOT have the Combat Reflexes feat, and have already taken their AoO this turn?
Oddly enough, I see nothing in the rules text saying that you have to threaten your opponent, just that you have to have an ally on the opposite side who threatens.
And, on that note, another log for the fire:
Does your ally still threaten someone if they do NOT have the Combat Reflexes feat, and have already taken their AoO this turn?
You threaten anyway. Combat is turn based for us, but it is really a simulation. The characters are assumed to be moving and fighting the entire time. There is just no way to play that out in real time.
The gangup feat was explained in another thread. It is badly written.
The ranged attacker still does not benefit. There is nothing in the writing saying it breaks the general rule.
I will now go back to the rules of the game article:
Defender Flanked
Creatures become susceptible to sneak attacks when flanked because they must divide their attention between two or more opponents whose relative positions make it difficult to block or dodge their attacks. The situation is something like dealing with an unseen foe, but isn't quite as severe.
All About Sneak Attacks (Part Three)
Defender Flanked
Creatures become susceptible to sneak attacks when flanked because they must divide their attention between two or more opponents whose relative positions make it difficult to block or dodge their attacks. The situation is something like dealing with an unseen foe, but isn't quite as severe.
To flank an opponent, two allies must be on opposite sides of that opponent, and they both must threaten the opponent...
Note that 3.5 and Pathfinder use the same rules. They have too in order for the game to be backwards compatible, unless a specific change is made to the text or a developer says they are making a change to how a rule works. So far no changes to text have been made, and no developer has changed anything.
As pointed by "another_mage" upthread the words are identical.
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.[/b]
1. You aren't making a melee attack.
2. Your reach with a ranged weapon is 0 feet.
Assuming you are a rogue with a crossbow (or anything ranged) in an adjacent square of an enemy, why don't you use Improved Feint (as a move action) and shoot? Feint denies dexterity bonuses, target is considered flat-footed... You can even make a 5 ft step as a free action if you wish...
Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff skill check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent's base attack bonus + your opponent's Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent's Sense Motive bonus, if higher. If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn.
Answered.
You would need a few fight levels (Archer).
Trick Shot (Ex): At 3rd level, an archer can choose one of the following combat maneuvers or actions: disarm, feint, or sunder. He can perform this action with a bow against any target within 30 feet, with a –4 penalty to his CMB. Every four levels beyond 3rd, he may choose an additional trick shot to learn. These maneuvers use up arrows as normal.
I do not see Trick Shot working that way. I see it more like you shot at their foot making them lose their balance for a few seconds, move their shield, move their army, or something that could momentary expose a soft spot. Crap it could even mean you drop the arrow on the ground and yell about it.
Feint is a French term that entered English from the discipline of fencing. Feints are maneuvers designed to distract or mislead, done by giving the impression that a certain maneuver will take place, while in fact another, or even none, will.
|
Well if you want to do ranged sneak attack, just make sure to get Gang Up! and have two melee characters in your group!
Gang Up (Combat)
You are adept at using greater numbers against foes.Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise.
Benefit: You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning.
Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.
Well if you want to do ranged sneak attack, just make sure to get Gang Up! and have to melee characters in your group!
Gang Up (Combat)
You are adept at using greater numbers against foes.Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise.
Benefit: You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning.
Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.
Nothing in this says you get to ignore the melee requirement. It only allows you to ignore the positioning requirement.
Example: In the below example the two A's are allies. That is not normally a flank but due to Gang Up it is. The E is the enemy
A
A E
|
|
Yeah, you're right, I forgot the Core Ruebook at home while I was working... I had a quick idea and forgot that there's no ranged combat maneuvers. Ranged combat has too few options... The rules are the rules, but if you were fighting with a sword against another guy and someone shot you backwards from 30 ft... Would you be aware of it? That would not deny your dex bonuses? Sometimes the system wants to be realistic and semi-historical, but sometimes is pretty illogical trying to balance. Anyways, law is law.
There are rules in place to cover that scenario. If the target is unaware of the bowman 30' behind him (failed perception vs stealth), then he would be denied his dex bonus vs the bowman and be susceptible to a sneak attack. The flanking would be irrelevant as is the distance. The rules clearly state when you receive the +2 bonus from flanking (melee attacks).
I think that in general, people are focusing too much on one aspect regarding flanking as part of the sneak attack equation. The advantage of flanking isn't just the result of the target just being distracted, or everyone who was flanking should deal additional damage (which they don't, the +2 is to hit only). Sneak attack damage is meant to reflect precise strikes against vital anatomy or weak spots in the targets defenses. As such, a high degree of accuracy is required, something not usually afforded ranged weapons against otherwise engaged targets. This is why sneak damage is usually restricted to melee attacks, or ranged attacks where the target is denied his Dex (ie flat footed and/or unaware).
The guy with a bow 30' behind you is no more a threat than anyone else behind you who might do you harm. A wizard casting a spell receives no bonus when targeting you while you are "flanked" or "distracted" in the way some propose. An interpretation that many of you have already agreed with (the notion that "flanking" is somehow separate from the flanking bonus) just doesn't make logical sense IMO. If you do not qualify for the +2 bonus to hit for flanking an opponent with your ranged weapon, it follows that you should not be able to strike with a high degree of precision and do extra damage. If you have no advantage to hit (by your own admission) then what about the flanking is providing this opportunity for extra damage? The guys isn't easy to hit, but if I do hit I am going to do extra damage because... ?
In fact, not only are you not afforded a +2 to hit, you are also penalized for firing into melee (-4). This does not sound like conditions congruent to dealing extra damage based on precision or accuracy.
YMMV
Cheers
Yes, so that means if you have two melee fighters engaging (notice how it doesn't say you have to be one of them) an enemy, you are considered to be flanking regardless of your own position. That means either right next to or 30 ft. away, you are flanking the target.
If you can threaten your opponent with a melee weapon at 30 feet away, then Gang Up will let you flank him.
The feat doesn't do anything for ranged weapons. This has been clarified several times before.|
|
Let me try this without the wall of text...
The position of some is that even though you do not threaten a target (ranged weapons do not threaten) and you are not making a melee attack and even though you are admittedly not eligible for a bonus to hit a target who is "flanked" as per your interpretation of flanking, you should be able to do extra damage via a precision/accuracy based attack even when you are in fact suffering a penalty to hit due to the target being in melee? Does that sum it up?
Again, I ask, does that make logical sense?
Replaced wall of text with long run on sentence. :P
Yes, so that means if you have two melee fighters engaging (notice how it doesn't say you have to be one of them) an enemy, you are considered to be flanking regardless of your own position. That means either right next to or 30 ft. away, you are flanking the target.
It still does not get rid of the rule that says you much use a melee weapon. Now if you have a melee weapon that can reach them from 30 feet away......
Yes, so that means if you have two melee fighters engaging (notice how it doesn't say you have to be one of them) an enemy, you are considered to be flanking regardless of your own position. That means either right next to or 30 ft. away, you are flanking the target.If you can threaten your opponent with a melee weapon at 30 feet away, then Gang Up will let you flank him.
The feat doesn't do anything for ranged weapons. This has been clarified several times before.
Stop ninja'ing me. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Game ender
Does the Gang Up feat from the Advanced Player's Guide (page 161) allow you to flank a foe with ranged weapons?The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent. 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. (JMB, 8/13/10)
—Jason Bulmahn, 08/13/10
You underestimate their persistence wraithstrike... :)
They will concede Gang Up but not the claim of sneak attack in general methinks. ;)
They are committed to the cause... the flat-earth society still has members to this day. :P
I shall smite them with a terrible fury backed by the power of the RAW for it is all powerful and none can truly stand against it.
I am the Wraithstrike and I will not be denied my victory this day.Maybe I got a little carried away. :)
You underestimate their persistence wraithstrike... :)
They will concede Gang Up but not the claim of sneak attack in general methinks. ;)
They are committed to the cause... the flat-earth society still has members to this day. :P
I shall smite them with a terrible fury backed by the power of the RAW for it is all powerful and none can truly stand against it.
I am the Wraithstrike and I will not be denied my victory this day.Maybe I got a little carried away. :)
Wow you completely passed up several great puns too:
I shall beat them with my RAW strength! The RAW fury of my righteousness shall win the day! I will leave them RAW with my victory!
So many possible puns and you missed them all!
And I forgot to say... nice job with the FAQ find!
(Sometimes the easy answer is right where you should look for it. I should try and remember that. :)
And if they still feel RAW about it... ;)
I found the quote in another thread yesterday, but the poster did not have the source listed. I searched, but it would not turn up. I checked errata and still no luck. I finally got the idea to check the FAQ.
edit:not the entire quote. It was only the part about the ranged attacks.