|
Does the Gang Up feat from the APG let you flank with ranged weapons? As written it seems like it does. That would really make it a must-have for archery rogues.
Yes, from the way it is written it does not seem that it has a limit on whether it is melee or ranged. Gang up states:
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.
That being said, I would like some clarification on this anyway from someone with more experience with the rules and insight than myself. One of my players (an archery rogue) was ecstatic when he found this feat, because he felt one of his largest limitations is not being able to sneak attack as much as melee rogues (who only need to tumble behind an enemy and attack it). He, on the other hand, can only sneak attack a maximum twice in a combat and that assumes he has a surprise round and gets a good initiative roll.
More specifically, I want to know this: Does Gang Up allow Archery Rogues to use Sneak attack using a ranged weapon (provided the conditions of Gang Up are met... the creature in question is being threatened by two allies)?
I hope not. They should have made a feat similar to the PHB2 feat that allows you to be considered flanking from any square that is adjacent to your opponent as long as you are adjacent to the opponent, and you have an ally adjacent also. Sneak attack should be earned, IMHO, not automatic.
Example below:
y=you
o=opponent
v=virtual position for purpose of flanking
a=ally
voa
y
|
|
Flanking has two conditions. Melee, and Positioning. This feat only drops one of those Conditioning. It doesn't say flanking is now extended to Ranged weps.
Flanking
"
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."Flanking with Gang Up
"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature."
It doesn't say that this new flanking bonus isn't extended to Ranged weapons, either..
"You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning."
In the case of feats, they override the actual rules. As written, I must disagree with you. When the feat says 'You are considered to be flanking', I interpret it as 'You receive a flanking bonus'. This feat says absolutely nothing about ranged or melee. Until we can get some clarification or rules errata, there is no reason to not give ranged Rogues a sneak attack using Gang Up.
And just a note, it still isn't a "free sneak attack". Gang up does NOTHING for the ranged rogue unless there are two melee characters in the group in addition to the ranged rogue. And even then, in an actual combat, it can still be tricky to set up.
|
|
It doesn't say that this new flanking bonus isn't extended to Ranged weapons, either..
Honestly it shouldn't have to...Flanking is for Melee...The Rule is talking about positioning and positioning alone. Its clear the rule was written to remove the positioning requirements for flanking.
In the case of feats, they override the actual rules.Yes, if they explicitly state so.
As written, I must disagree with you. When the feat says 'You are considered to be flanking', I interpret it as 'You receive a flanking bonus'.That makes no sense, the feat changes your positioning, it doesn't suddenly turn your ranged weapon into a melee weapon.
This feat says absolutely nothing about ranged or melee.Yes it does actually. It says flanking. Flanking is done with melee. The Feat implies melee.
I agree an Errata is needed, but there is plenty of reason to not allow the feat to grant bonuses to ranged weapon. Flanking can only be done with melee. That's reason enough for me. That's how i'll keep ruling it until I see an Errata or something similar.
Actually, except for the words "regardless of your actual positioning" which is a mere clarification, the rule doesn't say ANYTHING about positioning. It doesn't say anything about ranged or melee, either. All it says is that you are flanking if two allies are threatening an enemy. That is all.
Keep in mind as written the feat states "You are considered to be flanking", not that "You are flanking". "Considered to be flanking" sounds like the benefits of flanking, the flanking bonus. Flanking is what is referred to in the Core Rulebook, with requirements of melee and positioning.
The feat is:
Condition: Two allies are threatening an opponent.
Effect: You get a flanking bonus against that opponent.
That is exactly what this feat says. I don't get you reasoning for believing that "the rule is talking about positioning and positioning alone". What evidence do you have that supports this conclusion?
Flanking has nothing to do with melee, and everything to do with threatened squares. Even if melee is the easiest way to threaten anything.
Anywho, I'd think the requirement of the feat would be that you and two allies were threatening the target, if that was the intent. Unless you think this feat is specifically designed to help unarmed combatants without Improved Unarmed Strike. :p
But I don't think we'll be able to convince eachother of anything, so.
Even with the modifier "Considered", it still doesn't really change anything because it says you are flanking; which requires a melee attack.
Actually, by being considered flanking, you're bypassing the requirement to be making a melee attack.
The normal flow chart for flanking is as follows:
IF I am making a melee attack
AND IF I am threatening the target of the attack
AND IF I am positioned correctly
THEN I am flanking
The feat specifically shortcuts that flowchart and says you're flanking anything that two of your allies are flanking. Period, end of story.
|
|
Even with the modifier "Considered", it still doesn't really change anything because it says you are flanking; which requires a melee attack. So it grants you explicitly the correct positioning but it does not even imply that you are making the correct attack.
The Rule it self speaks only about your position.It makes no modification explicitly or Implicitly in regards to the type of attack made. It modifies only ONE of the flanking conditions.
If it only modifies ONE of the conditions, then it is safe to assume that it Does NOT modify the other condition.
You are 100% correct. It does not say anything in regards to ranged or melee. This isn't an allowance to assume that it changed....with the absence of a modifier...nothing is modified. Ergo the Default remains. The Default in this case is "Flanking is Melee and Position". The rule has one modifier (your right, it's a clarification...of what exactly is happening in the rule. Which is your position is considered "Flanking" even though it would not normally be considered normally) That modifier states that your position is considered flanking, even if you are not actually flanking.
If you wana rule it that way, go right ahead. That's your prerogative. But in my view, ruling it that way is not only a misinterpretation but broken.
From that Ruling, anyone who can make an attack at all get's flanking. So Ranged, melee, Ranged Touch attack spells...all of it.
You still don't understand what I'm trying to say, but Zurai seems to. We can argue all we want about intent, but as written, it should be allowing ranged attacks. To be "considered flanking" bypasses the normal flanking procedure, as Zurai noted.
But I'm curious anyway since I'm hesitant to add anything "broken" in my games. How do you consider the ability broken? For anything but rogues, a +2 bonus on even touch and ranged touch attacks really doesn't change TOO much (and taking two feats for Spellcasters, including the feat that is required for Gang Up seems not worth the cost). The only thing this severely helps is Rogues. I don't see how giving ranged rogues sneak attacks with the help of TWO OTHER allies can be considered "broken". Good, yes, but only in groups where there are at least two melee characters in the group (and you need three to be truly effective). In fact, I think this feat is actually more broken for who you think it was "intended" for, the melee rogue. Since you count as your own ally, now the melee rogue only needs to attack the same monster as his friend is attacking, without tumbling to the back of the monster which may be hard or impossible and where she may be prone to attacks from other creatures, to get her sneak attack. This way only requires one other character, and it is a WHOLE LOT easier for the rogue to pull off.
And even from a "fluff" point of view, the feat still makes sense. Why wouldn't you be able to hit a soft spot of an enemy who has his hands full with two of your buddies? And keep in mind that this feat still requires Precise Shot to be truly effective.
Add my voice to those agreeing with Zurai's succinct method. Also note that the feat does not negate the max range of 30' on the ranged Sneak Attack. Seems to me that it's conditional enough that allowing ranged attackers to "flank" with this feat is not a huge deal.
I'll throw my hat in the ring and say that the flanking condition and the bonus to attack while flanking are two different things.
Flanking
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.
Then...
Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
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.
Thus, I would read it as allowing a person to flank with a ranged weapon without gaining a +2 bonus to attack.
|
|
I'll throw my hat in the ring and say that the flanking condition and the bonus to attack while flanking are two different things.
Flanking
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.
Then...
Thus, I would read it as allowing a person to flank with a ranged weapon without gaining a +2 bonus to attack.Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
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.
I didn't think about it that way before... but I'm 75% sure that's not the way it was intended to work.
This is ugly. I demand clarification and errata. =/
This is a bit bungled up.
I'd say that because of the wording of Flanking being so specific with melee attack (so Sneak Attack while flanking still uses the rules presented in flanking, ie melee attack), that I'd rule that it's only bypassing the positioning rules.
Taking a look at Combat Expertise, it's meant to be listed as melee attacks as well, so the feat requirement and this feat itself might have been written by the developer with only melee in mind.
Then again, Combat Expertise says "when making a melee attack or combat maneuver", and there's options for making combat maneuvers with ranged attacks now... so who knows.
I'm FAQ'ing this thread as well.
Zurai, could you reference the source of your flowchart? As far as I am aware, this would be a situation in which _all_ conditions must be be met, not a specific order for those conditions, which can be leapfrogged via this feat.
Seriously. It says "You are considered to be flanking". Period, end of story. How anyone can take a feat that plainly says you're considered flanking and say it means you aren't flanking is utterly beyond me.
|
|
Zurai, could you reference the source of your flowchart? As far as I am aware, this would be a situation in which _all_ conditions must be be met, not a specific order for those conditions, which can be leapfrogged via this feat.Seriously. It says "You are considered to be flanking". Period, end of story. How anyone can take a feat that plainly says you're considered flanking and say it means you aren't flanking is utterly beyond me.
I think they are speculating upon author's intent. Which is bad since that is anyone's guess. Still, the RAW do not clarify exactly what this feat is intended to do, so I also hit the FAQ button on the first post.
Until we get an official word out though, I will be ruling it in my games that it does indeed grant you a flanking bonus with ranged weapons. No one seemed to have a response to how this would be "broken".
Zurai, could you reference the source of your flowchart? As far as I am aware, this would be a situation in which _all_ conditions must be be met, not a specific order for those conditions, which can be leapfrogged via this feat.
Personally, I would rule that this feat as worded, would only bypass the positioning requirement of flanking, not the limit that flanking only applies to melee attacks.
Thankfully, it looks like a few folks have already marked this as a FAQ candidate, so hopefully we'll get some clarification. I hope that the wording of this feat is better clarified when it is added to the PRD.
I'm not seeing where, under Flanking in the Combat section, it says it applies only to melee attacks. I see where it says only melee attacks get a bonus, but not anything disallowing ranged attacks.
Take this scenario: Beastie moves past FighterMan to get to ArcherDude with a bow. Then, FighterMan moves adjacent to Beastie, but on its opposite side from ArcherDude. In this situation, ArcherDude is flanking Beastie, but does not get a +2 flanking bonus on attacks because he is using a ranged weapon; FighterMan is NOT considered flanking because ArcherDude does not threaten with his bow.
F = FighterMan
B = Beastie
A = ArcherDude
- = blank squares
-----
--F--
--B--
--A--
-----
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. ... Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
There is nothing there that says the flankers must be using melee weapons to flank, only to get the flanking bonus. You could replace FighterDude and ArcherMan with two rogues with bows, Sneakers and Stabbers, and while neither of them would get a +2 flanking bonus to attack, both of them would be considered flanking and get sneak attack.
This is a most interesting discussion. Hope a dev gets here soon (but not TOO soon). ;P
|
|
Take a look at example #2 in the Flanking section of the combat chapter. It explains that the rogue in the diagram is not flanking the ogre with the sorcerer. This is not due to the lack of an appropriate imaginary line, but because the sorcerer does not threaten the ogre.
Threatening is defined in the section on Attacks of Opportunity
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.The archer in the above example is not threatening the beastie, because you do not threaten with ranged weapons(barring a special ability or feat which would bypass this requirement). Because of this, he is not participating in a flank.
This is a case where the rules are not clear. Technically, as it is written, I tend to agree with Randall that the archer *could* be considered to be flanking the Beastie. This is because the rules state absolutely nothing about THE ATTACKER having to threaten. All the rule states is "Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus" 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."
However, the second paragraph does not say anything about a flanking bonus, only that "If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space, then the opponent is flanked."
So, you CAN interpret the ArcherDude as FLANKING the beast, without getting a FLANKING BONUS. And since Sneak Attack only states that the rogue needs to "flank her target", not receive a "flanking bonus", as written, someone could come up with this interpretation.
Now, we all know here that this is 99.9% likely NOT how the rules are meant to be interpreted. For the sake of my sanity, I'm going to rule (in my games) that receiving a "flanking bonus" and "flanking" is one in the same thing. You do not "flank" without receiving a "flanking bonus", and if you receive a "flanking bonus" you are "flanking". This is the most reasonable way to interpret these rules. The alternative is to interpret the rules as Randall does, which IS a legitimate interpretation, but is also obviously incorrect.
However, this does bring me back to the Gang up ability.
I will remind everyone that AS WRITTEN, it stats "You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning."
Earlier in my post, you saw that I have defined "flanking" as "receiving a flanking bonus", to avoid Randall's conclusion. So if we interchange the two in this case, we get "You are considered to have a flanking bonus on an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning."
No mention of ranged weapons. No mention of melee weapons. The feat COMPLETELY disregards any rules to "Flanking" that exist in the core rules. The feat is giving you an ALTERNATE METHOD to "flank", to receive a "flanking bonus". This alternate method does not seem to be limited to melee.
This is a most interesting discussion. Hope a dev gets here soon (but not TOO soon). ;P
+1
Also, the Dev's have shown a propensity towards RAI. They believe many rules need no clarification, because they trust us to be smart enough to figure it out on our own.
Obviously we have some Magic players in the audience. As one myself I can completely see the validity of the ranged flanking claim, but unless a Dev states that this is what they intended (they didn't that much should be obvious) I won't allow such a thing in my games.
Now, if the feat made the target flat-footed instead, then that would be different.
My interpretation is that it would allow for the flanking bonus for a ranged attack.
Here's how I see the scenario: the ranged attacker has 2 buddies attacking the baddie. The baddie is so intent on defending himself from said buddies that the ranged attacker can find an opening in his defenses, gaining him the +2 flanked bonus to his attack roll. A nice bonus for the price of a feat; to restrict it to melee only would relegate it to fairly useless, as a 5' step in most melee situations would gain you the same bonus for free.
|
|
This is a most interesting discussion. Hope a dev gets here soon (but not TOO soon). ;P+1
Also, the Dev's have shown a propensity towards RAI. They believe many rules need no clarification, because they trust us to be smart enough to figure it out on our own.
Obviously we have some Magic players in the audience. As one myself I can completely see the validity of the ranged flanking claim, but unless a Dev states that this is what they intended (they didn't that much should be obvious) I won't allow such a thing in my games.
Now, if the feat made the target flat-footed instead, then that would be different.
Excuse me, but I do not see the RAI being "obvious" in the case of Gang Up. Yes, the flanking rules are "obvious" in regards to RAI, but not Gang Up.
Think about it. If a baddie had its hands full with two of your buddies, why WOULDN'T you be able to get a bonus while its distracted? Isn't that what "ganging up" on something is all about? It's exactly the same concept as a melee attack with Gang Up... In fact, in some ways, its worse than melee Gang Up since melee Gang Up only requires two participants, ranged Gang Up requires three.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I'm inclined to disagree that RAI for Gang Up is to allow you to count as your own ally for the purposes of the feat, allowing you to flank from anywhere in melee as long as you and one other ally both threaten the same creature. I think that clearly the intent is that it requires two OTHER allies, not you, to be threatening the creature for you to be considered flanking it. Otherwise it would be much too overpowered for the low entry requirements. Of course, even though that may be the common sense reading, it sure isn't specific about that, either.
I think the intent is much more ambiguous about the potential for setting up ranged flanking.
|
I'm inclined to disagree that RAI for Gang Up is to allow you to count as your own ally for the purposes of the feat, allowing you to flank from anywhere in melee as long as you and one other ally both threaten the same creature. I think that clearly the intent is that it requires two OTHER allies, not you, to be threatening the creature for you to be considered flanking it.
I agree with you. The summary of the feat says "you are adept at using greater numbers against foes", and this doesn't make sense to me if it applies when you only have one other person flanking.
Also, I generally think that "you"=/="ally", considering that for many effects and spells such as Bardic Performance,Bless, Prayer, Wind Walk, and Telepathic Bond specifically call out "you" or "yourself" as a target in addition to "allies".
As for if the feat applies to ranged attacks, well, I don't see why not, as written.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm inclined to disagree that RAI for Gang Up is to allow you to count as your own ally for the purposes of the feat, allowing you to flank from anywhere in melee as long as you and one other ally both threaten the same creature. I think that clearly the intent is that it requires two OTHER allies, not you, to be threatening the creature for you to be considered flanking it.I agree with you. The summary of the feat says "you are adept at using greater numbers against foes", and this doesn't make sense to me if it applies when you only have one other person flanking.
Also, I generally think that "you"=/="ally", considering that for many effects and spells such as Bardic Performance,Bless, Prayer, Wind Walk, and Telepathic Bond specifically call out "you" or "yourself" as a target in addition to "allies".
As for if the feat applies to ranged attacks, well, I don't see why not, as written.
Hmm, that is funny, since I always thought that you were your own ally. I just checked... it is quite an annoying fact, but the term "ally" is not defined anywhere in the book. I checked the appendix and index.
The only reason I can see for the basis of the ruling that you are your own ally is the descriptions of some of the Bardic performances. For example, Inspire Courage states "... in his allies (including himself)". The parenthesis seem to suggest that allies includes oneself. Also, in Inspire Competence, the ability has to specifically state that the Bard himself cannot be effected, "A bard can't inspire competence in himself."
I now want some clarification on the definition of ally, too.
Really? You need a definition for Ally?
And also, if it isn't obvious by their usage of the word "positioning" that they intended Gang Up for melée only then you are over analyzing the rules so they can be taken advantage of.
It's called Gang Up. As in a gang of you are attacking someone in unison. Not Distracted Attacks. Just look at the impact this would have on the game. Imagine NPC's using this on your characters.
Would a Dev please chime in already. I at least want to know if I'm on the correct side of this.
|
|
Really? You need a definition for Ally?
And also, if it isn't obvious by their usage of the word "positioning" that they intended Gang Up for melée only then you are over analyzing the rules so they can be taken advantage of.
It's called Gang Up. As in a gang of you are attacking someone in unison. Not Distracted Attacks. Just look at the impact this would have on the game. Imagine NPC's using this on your characters.
Would a Dev please chime in already. I at least want to know if I'm on the correct side of this.
Just a clarification, I'm primarily a GM, not a player. My interest in the rules are solely to "get it right", because a primary duty of a GM is to be a judge in-game. I have no interest in "breaking" the game or "taking advantage of the rules". Please check your assumptions and do not insult me like that.
Further, ganging up is ganging up and attacking in unison (like you said). I can gang up on someone with swords or bows, it makes no difference. Ganging up is ganging up, why do the type of weapons you are ganging up with matter?
Also think about it for a bit. If the feat really were two OTHER allies and melee only, it would be almost useless. If you have two other allies threatening the creature, chances are, you can flank it easily anyway by the normal flanking rules.
And honestly, I don't see what is so "broken" by this feat at all, in general. It's good. That is all.
So consider this.
The feat is called "Gang Up". You gang up on someone when you and some buddies gather around him and close in on him, surrounding him and overwhelming him.
If you do that from far away with ranged weapons, it's not called "ganging up." In fact, it's called "crossfire".
Just the name alone strongly suggeests melee.
However, it's clear that the RAW requires you to flank with melee weapons. It also requires you to threaten an enemy with that melee weapon from a space opposite one ally. This feat removes that second requirement with no mention at all of the first. Since it doesn't explictly offer an exception to the first requirement, there is no exception to the first requirement, so that requirement stands: you need to use a melee weapon to use this feat.
If the author intended anything else, then he should have explicitly said so.
So without an official errata for this feat, the rules-lawyers have RAW on their side that a melee weapon is required.
So consider this.
The feat is called "Gang Up". You gang up on someone when you and some buddies gather around him and close in on him, surrounding him and overwhelming him.
Really? So when me and my friends all call another friend's phone and nag him about not showing up to a game, we aren't ganging up on him?
According to Dictionary.com, "gang up" means to "combine into a group" or "join in opposition or attack against". Both of which are perfectly valid in all kinds of situations, not just being surrounded by melee attackers. In fact, being surrounded would completely negate the feat, because all attackers would already be flanking.
So without an official errata for this feat, the rules-lawyers have RAW on their side that a melee weapon is required.
Sweet! It's official; I'm not a rules lawyer!
So consider this.
The feat is called "Gang Up". You gang up on someone when you and some buddies gather around him and close in on him, surrounding him and overwhelming him.
Really? So when me and my friends all call another friend's phone and nag him about not showing up to a game, we aren't ganging up on him?
Nah, I'd simply call that a collaboration, or maybe a concerted effort.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So consider this.
The feat is called "Gang Up". You gang up on someone when you and some buddies gather around him and close in on him, surrounding him and overwhelming him.
If you do that from far away with ranged weapons, it's not called "ganging up." In fact, it's called "crossfire".
Just the name alone strongly suggeests melee.
However, it's clear that the RAW requires you to flank with melee weapons. It also requires you to threaten an enemy with that melee weapon from a space opposite one ally. This feat removes that second requirement with no mention at all of the first. Since it doesn't explictly offer an exception to the first requirement, there is no exception to the first requirement, so that requirement stands: you need to use a melee weapon to use this feat.
If the author intended anything else, then he should have explicitly said so.
So without an official errata for this feat, the rules-lawyers have RAW on their side that a melee weapon is required.
Err.. sorry, but "ganging up" on someone is simply multiple people targeting one person. You form a "gang" (a group of multiple people) and target one person. You can "gang up" with ranged weapons.
The feat, as worded, gives you an alternate method to flank. It gives you a condition and an effect. I would go into the specifics, but I as well as others have already explained this position multiple times in this thread. I believe the RAW is on our side. It is the RAI that may not be (as you said, your point that "if the author intended anything else, then he should have explicitly said so"). Even then, I'm not completely convinced that it was not intended. That's why I want a ruling one way or the other.
Well, the prerequisite for this feat is that you have Combat Expertise. That is a feat for melee combat. Why would a melee combat feat be a prerequisite for a ranged attack feat?
Also, in each example I see here, the allies are in melee configurations. If then: if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponenet; couldnt they also be threatening with melee weapons as well, and ranged? Why cant three archers threaten an opponent, each from 30 feet, and be able to use this feat? It was not intended to be used this way.
Last of all, the nexdt step up the feat tree is "Team Up"....clearly a melee feat again.
I understand how it is written but looking at the prequisites and then the next intended feat in this tree, it seems clear that this is not intended for use with ranged attacks. The true intent shows up when you folow the feat tree prior to and after having this feat.
Why cant three archers threaten an opponent, each from 30 feet, and be able to use this feat?
Because you can't threaten with (most) ranged weapons, and unless you're at least Huge sized with extended reach, you can't threaten at 30'.
Poor choice of words. Shouldhave lft off "threatened". Point is, the feat says regardless of positioning. I just dont see this as a ranged weapon feat. Again, I harken back to the prereq's and the next feat in the tree.
Poor choice of words. Shouldhave lft off "threatened". Point is, the feat says regardless of positioning.
Still doesn't work. There has to be a pre-existing flank for this feat to function. Since you normally cannot flank with ranged weapons, and cannot flank from 30 feet away (again, unless you're Huge or larger with a reach weapon), you cannot have three archers use this feat and get the benefit all by themselves.
And "look at the prereq feat and the next feat in the chain" really doesn't mean much. No one is saying that Gang Up is a ranged only feat, so pointing out that related feats are melee doesn't change anything.
|
I'm joining the discussion a little late. I'm going to say that the way the feat is worded, it works for ranged attacks. It says "regardless of actual position," not "regardless of actual position if you threaten the target."
That being said, as a DM, I would probably Rule Zero this to only work in melee, but by RAW, it works for ranged attacks.
|
|
I'm joining the discussion a little late. I'm going to say that the way the feat is worded, it works for ranged attacks. It says "regardless of actual position," not "regardless of actual position if you threaten the target."
That being said, as a DM, I would probably Rule Zero this to only work in melee, but by RAW, it works for ranged attacks.
My thoughts exactly. My first thought on reading this feat was, "This makes ranged Rogues really strong". I mean, that was my first thought. I was so certain of the designer's intent on my very first read that I didn't even (until recently) stop to even consider if this could possibly only apply to melee. If this wasn't intended to mean what it says, I'd have to think it would have been worded completely differently.
That said, it's sort of a silly feat if it applies to ranged Rogues, at least I think it is, without playtesting. Has anyone actually playtested this both ways? Any insights or observations, if so?
|
|
I believe there was a similar feat to this in 3.5, where if you made a ranged attack on a foe that was being flanked by two allies, you gained the bonus as well. Don't remember the source.
It wasn't very game-changing for my old group - it just meant our rogues could SA within 30 feet without having to worry about consistent stealth checks and whatnot. I like the flavor of this feat, but taking the term 'Gang Up' literally is not the best way to explain how it works( after all, we 'gang up' on the sorceror, even if it's with spells and charging barbarians).
If you assume the rogue was just going to go into melee without this feat, all this does is give the rogue the benefit he was going to have before anyways. All it does is open up the spot on the map he was going to take and leave it open for someone else (who has to go there or he doesn't get the benefit).
Looking at it that way, the feat is about on par with other feats. It costs 2 feats and gives one person a +2 bonus to attack, but the bonus is conditional.
Poor choice of words. Shouldhave lft off "threatened". Point is, the feat says regardless of positioning.Still doesn't work. There has to be a pre-existing flank for this feat to function. Since you normally cannot flank with ranged weapons, and cannot flank from 30 feet away (again, unless you're Huge or larger with a reach weapon), you cannot have three archers use this feat and get the benefit all by themselves.
And "look at the prereq feat and the next feat in the chain" really doesn't mean much. No one is saying that Gang Up is a ranged only feat, so pointing out that related feats are melee doesn't change anything.
Awwww, dont dismiss me out of hand here, it is not appreciated. Drop the ranged example of mine; it sucked.
The feat tree does in fact matter. I dont see any feat trees focused on magic for instance, suddenly having a combat related feat thrown in the middle. The feat may be inadequately worded, so a few players will take it and use it to their liking, but the point remains that it is surrounded by melee type feats and therefore makes no sense to be thrown in at random. I am not saying it was for ranged ONLY. It is arranged with melee feats, in the middle of a melee feat progession. It stands to reason that it was intended as a melee feat. I think it was just poorly worded. Upon further review, I would expect to see a clarification in the errata.
the point remains that it is surrounded by melee type feats and therefore makes no sense to be thrown in at random.
And the point remains that there are quite a few examples in 3.5 of feats in the middle of chains that switch purposes or have multiple uses. For example, in PHB2, there's a feat called Combat Tactician that requires Dodge and, rather than giving any kind of defensive boost, it gives you extra +2 to hit in melee if you weren't adjacent to the target at the start of your turn. Dodge is a defensive feat without bias towards ranged or melee (or even magical) attacks; Combat Tactician is a melee-exclusive feat.
Another example is Ki Blast, also from PHB2. It requires three melee-only feats, but gives the PC a special ranged attack.
There's a feat in Complete Arcane that requires ranks in Spellcraft, but actually hinders your spellcasting.
Etc.
Just because a feat requires or leads to melee-only feats doesn't mean the feat has to be melee-only.
True, it does not have to follow a pattern, but let me make two observations. One, this is no longer 3.5 which became bloated with broken feats and other broken rules. Siting a string of mistakes in 3.5 wont cary any weight with me, at least for sake of argument. Different author; different game at this point. Pathfinder, so much as I can tell, has remained true to keeping that balance.
Second, part of this discussion, since the feat did not specify, was trying to determine the intent. My basic logic here, following the "gang-up" on one opponent approach, is that it follows a logical path to a conclusion. In this case it is a matter of perception and interpretation. I will play and call it the way I see it in my game. You will do so in yours. For the sake of this discussion, again, it was deciphering the intent of the author. Using the lead-up to the feat and the next step, to me, seems like a reasonable path to finding the original intent. I dont think the intent was for the application of ranged combat, but for melee only.
Taking it as worded, by itself, ranged weapons seem ok as it is written. Taking it as a whole, in proper context, it was not meant for ranged weapons. But I suppose we will find out eventually. Sooner or later the author will chime in....I hope.
Siting [sic] a string of mistakes in 3.5 wont cary any weight with me
And spouting baseless rhetoric doesn't carry any weight with me. None of the feats I referenced from 3.5 were "mistakes" in any sense of the word.
Spouting? Well, I guess this ends this civil and insightfully intelligent discussion. I am convinced now that it is indeed a ranged weapon feat, no doubt about it now.
This is the first time I've felt moved to interject my opinion regarding a rules discussion.
I think that Gang Up does in fact apply to individuals with ranged weapons, regardless of whether the developers intended it or not. That's how I'll be ruling it in my games.
At first blush, it sounds fantastic for Rogues. However, I'm surprised no one has pointed out that there's a -4 penalty to firing into melee (unless that's been removed from Pathfinder? I'm unsure -- I don't have the books in front of me and I don't recall it coming up recently). Also, there's the very likely chance that one of the allies will be providing soft cover to the target -- another +4 to the target's AC.
Even if you give the +2 flanking bonus to the ranged attacker (and some very good points have been made that it doesn't apply), there's still a net +6 AC increase to the target. To overcome that, the Rogue needs two or three more feats (Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, and Coordinated Shot, if I'm remembering them right -- and Coordinated Shot might not be from Pathfinder). That's a pretty hefty allocation of character resources. Powerful, yes, but clearly reasonable considering how many feats it takes.
EDIT: And then, of course, I see that I've chimed in on a rules question that has been answered. I'll go back to lurking, now.